Bishop Williamson tells his side of story on threatened "expulsion" from SSPX

A close acquaintance of mine received an email recently addressed to "Mr. Q." Obviously, "Mr. Q." is a pseudonym, selected by +W himself. The true identity of this person can not be revealed at the present time.
Before reading +W's email reprinted verbatim below, you might want to quickly review the two reports, which Bp. Williamson's email addresses. These reports had been emailed to His Excellency earlier for his perusal and comment:

1) The short update from Prof. Arthur Butz:
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/ Monday, (Scroll down a bit)
2)The article entitled Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6405

Following is a copy of that email, word for word,untouched and unexpurgated from His Excellency. I warrant, as a traditional Catholic and SSPX chapel member, that it is not a forgery:

Dear Mr. Q,
The reports, (i.e. referenced above) you send are essentially accurate, give or take a few details. (ed. note: So from Bp. Williamson's perspective, these two reports can be taken to the bank)
As for the confusing events, here is my version:--

I employ Nahrath. BpF sends Fr Angles to tell me (Friday mid-day) that unless I give up Nahrath he will expel me from the SSPX. It seems to me that my appeal can only go ahead with either a non-defending lawyer approved by Menzingen, or a truly defending lawyer that will not be approved by Menzingen. On my behalf Fr A e-mails (about 13h00 GMT Friday) to BpF that I give up appealing in front of the German courts, and ironically I add that it would be a kindness if Menzingen would pay the fine. BpF soon e-mails back, "Deo Gratias. No problem for paying the fine" (Friday, about 15h00 GMT).

On Saturday at a time I do not know, BpF has the SSPX Secretary make the Press Declaration that unless I renounce the "neo-Nazi", I shall be expelled. But also that afternoon, I learn that I could for instance make a Declaration in front of the Regensburg court, hardly needing any lawyer except to be there physically present (German law requires somebody to be there to stand for the accused). The dilemma above mentioned is solved. I decide to continue with the appeal, because Lawyer Nahrath is not after all the only pebble on the beach, but I do not go back on the decision to renounce Nahrath himself. He perfectly understands the whole shemozzle.

BpF does recognize my right to defend myself. He only does not want the SSPX in any way to be associated with "neo-Nazis". That is why I acted the willow on Lawyer Nahrath, but the oak on the appeal.

I hope that makes things more clear. By all means share these details with anyone else who may be confused.

All good wishes, +Richard Williamson.

Michael Hoffman on the Pope's visit to Scotland and England

Journalist, author and lecturer, Michael Hoffman hit the bull's eye in a September 20th article on his blog site. See here . Hoffman asserts, and I believe quite correctly, that Benedict's visit to Scotland and England has been a sell out of the great 16th Century English martyrs, priests and Catholic lay faithful alike, who, rather than follow the British Crown into Protestant heresy and Church apostasy, willingly forfeited their lives. As Mr. Hoffman writes: "If the (English) martyrs were correct, then the pope is a traitor to 450 years of Catholic recusant heroism and sainthood." We believe, like Hoffman, the English martyrs were right.

As seems to be his wont, Benedict once again trotted out the 'Nazi' theme. He heaped inordinate praise upon the "British establishment" for its heroic struggle against the "Nazis." Hoffman offers a refreshing and countervailing perspective on the "Nazis."

You're not going to find this kind of commentary on any of the highly sanitized and politically correct Catholic websites and journals. Furthermore, I doubt that even one "traditional" Catholic publication, (e.g. The Remnant, CFN), will touch the topic with a ten foot pole. Not even the SSPX will go near this one, I'm sure- Oh no, not while SSPX leaders are presently playing such intense 'footsie' with the Romans.

Hoffman's entire article is reprinted below below:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Monday, September 20, 2010
The Pope in Scotland and England: Conscience in Crisis
by Michael Hoffman September 20, 2010

Pope Benedict XVI has pulled off quite a coup over the past few days. He has charmed the Scots and the English and been embraced by the masonic British establishment, beginning with "Her Majesty" the Queen. The promised massive opposition from atheists fizzled. The British Secret Service did an efficient job of mounting a fake Algerian "terror threat" that was key to shifting sympathy toward the pope, causing him to be seen, almost from the beginning of his state visit, as an embattled target of extremists.

Catholics can wax enthusiastic over his "triumph" only if they are willing to adopt the double mind. I was saddened watching on EWTN, Joe Pearce, the English Catholic historian who knows better, praising the pope for his outreach, which included praying with Anglicans. Hundreds of Catholics were tortured and killed in the reigns of Edward VI, Elizabeth I and James I for refusing to do what Pope Benedict did. If the Pope's actions were correct, then those martyrs died for nothing. If the martyrs were correct, then the pope is a traitor to 450 years of Catholic recusant heroism and sainthood. The failure of informed Catholics like Pearce to even confront the contradiction, shows the extent to which "obedience" and subservience to hierarchical order continues to take precedence over Truth in the modern Roman Catholic Church.

This failing is at the root of the child molestation scandal, as well. That cover up depended upon the bureaucratic belief that one does not expose priests and bishops to negative publicity or prosecution. Under Pope Benedict XVI, notorious molestation facilitators such as Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane and Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles are being allowed to serve their full term and then retire with all the prestige and riches of their office, instead of being sent to prison, where they belong.

The pope offered unqualified praise for the British establishment for its fight against the "Nazis." Benedict spoke of the horrors of the Nazi bombing of Coventry without saying a word about the British fire-bombing of Dresden. "His Holiness” did not mention the fact that it was the British who initiated the bombing of cities. The Germans had not bombed any city in the British Isles until Churchill ordered attacks on German ones. To their everlasting credit, during World War II certain Anglican churchmen stood in the House of Lords to condemn Britain's merciless collective punishment of the German people for the crimes of their leaders, a monstrous and wholly unchristian Allied doctrine which remains in force in places like Gaza.

Most intriguing of all the developments in the pontiff's sojourn in Britain, is the remarkable public emergence of what was for centuries a great secret: the symbiotic relationship between the Neoplatonic imperium that gained purchase inside the Vatican beginning with the Renaissance, and the masonic cryptocracy of Britain -- two seeming opposing forces -- now shown to be in alliance.

Lastly, the pope beatified (raised to near-saint status) the Victorian savant and Anglican convert to Catholicism, John Henry Newman. When asked, in the 19th century, to toast the pope, Cardinal Newman is reported to have said, "To the pope, yes, -- but to conscience first." Cardinal Newman's standard should be our own in this time of crisis, as we observe the shenanigans of the wily Benedict XVI and his apparatchiks, inside the Vatican and beyond.

Why I Left Judaism

Brother Nathanael Kapner is a Jewish convert to Christianity. In this short video presentation he identifies the religion of Judaism for what it reallyis. But why should I, a Christian, tell you what Judaism really is? A converted Jew can do it much better, not to mention, more convincingly than I or any other non-Jew. Were I to express my Catholic views, (pre-Vatican II, of course), about Judaism, I would of course be accused of being an 'antisemite.' But accusing a person born and raised a Jew of being an 'anti-Semite' is a bit oxymoronic. By allowing an outspoken convert from Judaism to express his own views on the subject, we avoid a host of unnecessary unpleasantries. (Well, maybe not)

I think, by the way, that even Snopes will concede that Brother Kapner is a living, breathing Jewish convert to the Orthodox Christian faith. He is not perpetrating a hoax. Many more of his videos and writings may be found on Real Zionist News

The Motu Proprio and "lifting" of the excommunications in hindsight

So, after several months have passed, what about the Pope’s Motu Proprio and the lifting of the excommunications?

In a May 1 “Letter to Friends and Benefactors, #76,” His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay informs us about a “new wave” of reform which apparently flows counter to the old, and much larger, wave of post-Conciliar error. Pope Benedict, His Excellency affirms, must be credited with helping to generate this new wave, which he further characterizes as a “new movement of reform.” It is “quite real,” says the Superior General of SSPX. What is more, says Fellay, the present pope is one of the most “vigorous causes of this incipient renewal.”

Well now, those are strong and confident assertions! Included, of course, in this new wave of reform, small though it may be presently, is the restoration of the Mass of All Ages to its “rightful place.” So affirms His Grace.

But this is wishful thinking, I’m afraid, for at least a couple of reasons:

1) The so-called “rightful place,” as we all well know by now, and as carefully defined by our pope in his 2007 Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, is found to be a position distinctly subsidiary to that now occupied by the Novus Ordo Missae.

2) As that “new wave” approaches the shores of most dioceses of the world its force is quickly dissipated by barriers deliberately erected by modernist bishops. Benedict’s MP contains no serious effort to remove those barriers that I can see. The bishops may still set up all kinds of obstacles to the celebration of the Tridentine rite in their dioceses, and suffer little or no papal censure for thus behaving.

Let’s be frank: What Bp. Fellay describes as the “restoration of the Mass of All Ages in 2007” is merely a triumph on paper, as it were, a pleasant illusion, a Chimera. The de facto reality is quite different.

Example: We live in the Diocese of Boise, right next door to the Diocese of Spokane. To my knowledge, there have been no significant signs of Tridentine “restoration” in either of these two Catholic dioceses, the Society’s several Rosary Crusades notwithstanding. The same goes for the Archdiocese of Seattle a few hundred miles west. Three years after the pope’s issuance of his 2007 MP, there is little to show for it, in terms of any robust traditional breakthroughs. If I’m not mistaken, even the Fraternal Society of St. Peter (FSSP), a Latin Mass apostolate fully in communion with Rome, has not exactly had the doors thrown open to them in the Catholic dioceses mentioned above.

In summary: In the four dioceses in our region of America’s Northwest, viz. The Archdiocese of Seattle, the Dioceses of Spokane, of Yakima, and of Boise, there is a collective total of between 410 and 415 parish churches and diocesan missions. Of those 400- plus parish churches, only 10 of them offer a Latin Mass alternative. And of that meager sprinkling of parishes, all do not regularly schedule Sunday Masses using the Tridentine rite.

So really, as far as making the Old Latin Mass available to Catholic worshippers, Pope Benedict has done little more than his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, on behalf of Tridentine restoration.

The latter, in 1998, issued his own motu proprio entitled Ecclesia Dei. Therein, John Paul declared: “Respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago, (i.e. the Papal Indult of 1984, Quattour Abhinc Annos) Well, what about it? Have we seen anything approaching “a wide and generous application” of the ancient rite in all the ensuing years? Hardly! Yet again, Bp. Fellay insists that this latest alleged Benedict-generated “reform” is “quite real.” The bishop, apparently, is trying to convince Traditional Catholics that the present pope is finally beginning to turn the corner and come back to Catholic Tradition.

In his letter to benefactors, Bp. Fellay mentions what he perceives to be another “positive development” coming out of this new “wave of opposition.” He points to new, Benedict-appointed bishops who are “distinctly more conservative,” some of whom he claims, “were already celebrating the Tridentine Mass before.” I am personally not acquainted with any of these “conservative” bishops, and would love to have some facts and figures concerning them. However, as it stands now, one is forced to wonder suspiciously whether it would take even the fingers of one hand to count them.

The Society’s Superior General, I think, wants to let us down easily. Months after the “glorious bouquet” of 19 million Rosaries was laid at the feet of Our Lady, not the faintest rosy tint of a true papal Consecration of Russia glows on the horizon. We are assured that our rosary prayers will be answered, but in God’s own time. We can’t expect a quick fix is the bishop’s message. Our prayer expectations must be “proportioned to the magnitude of what we are asking.” Well, has it not always been so? In the 81 intervening years, since Our Lady directed that the Consecration be made, the prayers and Rosaries of the faithful have ever been proportioned to that magnitude.

“(T)he Fatima message is not just the consecration of Russia.” It is, “above all,” devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, His Excellency reminds us. District Superior of the U.S., Fr. Arnaud Rostand , gives us essentially the same spiel, i.e. that the Rosary Crusade was not conducted primarily for the Consecration of Russia. “The first and main goal” of the Rosary Crusade, he asserts in his own May 2010 letter to friends and benefactors, was "our own conversion.”

Oh really? That will come as news to many, I’m sure. I know for certain that that was not my understanding, nor my wife’s. We said our three Rosaries daily, dutifully recorded and turned them in to the parish office, for the express purpose of Russia’s consecration to Mary’s Immaculate Heart.

Bishop Fellay, asked during a May 11 interview with the The Remnant’s Brian Mershon, if he anticipated a “dramatic response” to the third Rosary Crusade, gave this startling answer: “I would be very surprised if the Pope consecrated Russia. It would be a great, great surprise….” But then the SG concedes that the event might occur “quickly,” and that he would not be amazed if it did. Bp. Fellay, paradoxically, seems to occupy two positions simultaneously. He would be surprised, on the one hand, if the Consecration actually happened quickly. On the other hand, he would not be amazed if it did. Since there are only two possible outcomes, viz. either quickly, or not so quickly, respecting the Rosary Crusade’s specifically targeted objective, we may fairly conclude that the bishop never anticipated a “dramatic response” to begin with.

When asked whether in the recent history of the Church “such a large bouquets of Rosaries” had ever been offered to the Holy Father, His Excellency answered in the negative. “(It) is obvious that such a crusade is something unique.” What is not so unique, however, is the continuing refusal, on the part of yet another pope, to do the actual and full Consecration. The fragrance of that “bouquet” will soon fade away as time drags on and no Consecration is made. I think the Society leadership realizes this, and it makes them a little nervous. Thus, they are forced to take a position which, alas, reeks of wavering ambiguity.

Earlier in the year at Jesus and Mary Chapel in El Paso, February 21, Bishop Fellay granted another interview, wherein the subject of the lifting of the excommunications came up. Asked if this meant that communion with Rome was “partially complete,” His Excellency reacted irritably. There is, he rightly claimed, no such thing as “partial communion.” Where, he affirmed, there is no excommunication, there is full commune with Rome, meaning, apparently, that the Society bishops, in their own minds, are now in just such communion with the Holy See. But that does not mean, he added, that the Society is yet in “perfect standing” because of unresolved matters over “certain dispositions of Canon law.”

The pope has a funny way of recognizing the Society’s newly established full communion with Rome, if, indeed, that’s what he meant to have accomplished. In a letter fired off to the world’s bishops just after the excommunications were lifted, Benedict writes: "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the society has no canonical status in the church, and its ministers -- even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty -- do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the church." I think a parallel may be drawn between a man and his estranged wife who manage finally to achieve a full reconciliation, only to be told that they must continue to live in separation.

At the close of that interview given at Jesus and Mary Chapel, Bp. Fellay was asked to comment concerning a terse summary by Bp. Richard Williamson about the “discussions” in Rome, “Could we,” inquired the interviewer, “consider (these discussions) a "dialogue of the deaf "(as Bp. Williamson described them earlier)?”. His Excellency Bp Fellay did not think so. Why? Because those Vatican clerics participating on the other side are well able to understand the Society’s positions and the doctrinal points their representatives are trying to establish. These men, as HE characterizes them anyway, are not corrupted by “modern philosophy,” nor are they possessed of “totally different modern concepts.”

Well let’s take a brief look at the clerical “esxperts” whom the Holy See has furnished to represent the Vatican’s position, who, in His Excellency’s opinion, are not “corrupted” by modernism:

Msgr. Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei., and closely associated with Benedict/Ratzinger since 1987. Pozzo was ordained in 1977, well after the close of the Council, and is obviously a Novus Ordo Vatican insider in good standing. Speaking to the issue of implementing the motu proprio for lay groups experiencing difficulties in obtaining a weekly Mass in the ‘extraordinary form,’ Msgr. Pozzo has this advice: First, “ask the parish priest.” Failing in that, “turn to your bishop.” Still no luck? Well, “write to the Commission Ecclesia Dei,” and the Commission, together with the bishop(s), will try to determine “what the actual difficulties are and how to find a remedy.” Does this sound like a Vatican prelate committed to the vigorous promotion of the Old Mass?

Another Vatican participant in the discussions is H.E. Archbishop Luis F. Ladaria Ferrer: Ferrer entered the Society of Jesus in 1966. He was ordained to the Novus Ordo priesthood in 1973. And just who was appointed to carry out his recent Episcopal ordination in 2008? None other than the wily Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone. I think we can say without fear of contradiction that Card. Bertone is no friend of Traditional Catholicism. One of Abp. Ferrer’s co-consecrators was the infamous William Joseph Levada, another Vatican lulu whose dubious Episcopal record follows him.

Still another member of the Vatican’s discussion team is the Dominican, Fr. Charles Morerod, Secretary of the International Theological Commission, and consultant for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith The I.T.C. was originally founded by Paul VI. There is not too much information available about him. Safe to say, probably, that this Dominican is not passionately wedded to the idea of restoring Catholic Tradition.

A fourth member of the Vatican’s team is Rev. Msgr. Fernando Ocariz, Vicar General of the very controversial Opus Dei apostolate. A lengthy article about the Opus Dei work, entitled A Strange Pastoral Phenomenon, appears on the SSPX website here. Its author makes the following observation: “The Opus Dei is a contemporary modernist manifestation, and, as such, falls exactly under the sentence pronounced against modernism and reiterated by the magisterium, particularly by St. Pius X’s Encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, promulgated on September 8, 1907.”

Jesuit Father Karl Josef Becker rounds out this quorum of Vatican “experts.” He is the oldest prelate on the Vatican’s discussion team, (in his eighties). He seems to be preoccupied with some idea of Christian ecumenism, in which Christ , through the Holy Spirit, is “operative in the (various) Christian communities,” .. “reinforcing the elements that impel towards the unity of Christians in the one Church.” I don’t look for a meeting of the minds here.

I myself think “dialogue of the deaf” is an excellent characterization of the situation’s reality. SSPX leadership openly admits that it will take a “miracle” for these discussions in Rome to produce a successful outcome. Why then, one wonders, do Society leaders endeavor to distance themselves from HE Bp. Williamson’s “position” in this regard, when, for all intents and purposes, their “position” is really no different, nor their expectations any higher than His Excellency’s? Will any member of the SSPX negotiating team step forward confidently and affirm that the discussions thus far have been anything essentially other than a “dialogue of the deaf?” I doubt it seriously.

In his most recent Eleison Comment (#CLIX July 31, 2010), Bp Williamson makes use of an even more poignant illustration. He writes: "If you shake furiously a bottle containing both (oil and water), the oil and water will mingle for as long as the shaking goes on, but as soon as it stops, the oil and water separate again. It is in their nature. Being lighter, oil is bound to float on top of water.”

I don’t think I misrepresent His Excellency by interpreting him in plain language, i.e. Post-V2 error and Catholic truth can not commingle. As the bishop writes: “the religion of God and the religion of man will .. not mix. They still fly apart.”

Bp. Williamson's own final sentence from the Eleison Comment cited above: “God forbid that the SSPX should ever join that Rome which is mingling the oil of God with the water of man !”






.

SUPPRESSED INTERVIEW WITH ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE

The following interview with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1978 can be found on the website of the Asian District of the Society of St. Pius X (here). It may be found elsewhere online, as well. At least one site (Angelqueen) reports that the interview was suppressed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. According to this report, anyone who published the interview at the time was threatened by the UCCB with "excommunication and virtual extinction." "In fact" says the preface to the interview reprinted at Angelqueen, "the bishops ordered that no Catholic publication could run this interview with Archbishop Lefebvre."

Editor's notes in black were supplied by another party. My own ed. notes are in red. Specific remarks by the Archbishop, which I find particularly noteworthy, are highlighted in blue.
=============================================================

You have debated and taken part in the deliberations of the second council of the Vatican, have you not?

Yes.

Did you not sign and agree to the resolutions of this council?

No. First of all, I have not signed all the documents of Vatican II because of the last two acts. (ed. Don't some sources claim that the Archbishop signed all the documents?) The first, concerned with "Religion and Freedom," I have not signed. The other one, that of "The Church in the Modern World," I also have not signed. This latter is in my opinion the most oriented toward modernism and liberalism.

Are you on record for not only not signing the documents but also on record to publicly oppose them?

Yes. In a book which I have published in France, I accuse the council of error on these resolutions, and I have given all the documents by which I attack the position of the council, principally the two resolutions concerning the issues of religion and freedom, and "The Church in the Modern World".

Why were you against these decrees?

Because these two resolutions are inspired by liberal ideology which former popes described to us, that is to say, a religious licence as understood and promoted by the Freemasons, the humanists, the modernists and the liberals.

Why do you object to them?

This ideology says that all the cultures are equal, all the religions are equal, that there is not a one and only true faith. All this leads to the abuse and perversion of freedom of thought. All these perversions of freedom that were condemned throughout the centuries by all the popes have now been accepted by the council of Vatican II.

Who placed these particular resolutions on the agenda?

I believe there were a number of cardinals assisted by theological experts who were in agreement with liberal ideas.

Who, for example?

Cardinal [Joseph] Frings from Germany, Cardinal [Franz] Koenig [from Austria]. These personalities had already gathered and discussed these resolutions before the Council, and it was their precise aim to make a compromise with the secular world, to introduce Illuminist and Modernist ideas into the Church doctrines.

Were there any American Cardinals supporting these ideas and resolutions?

I do not recall their names at present, but there were some. However, a leading force in favour of these resolutions was Father John Courtney Murray.

What part has he played?

He has played a very active part during all the deliberations and drafting of these documents.

Did you let the Pope [Paul VI] know of your concern and disquiet regarding these resolutions?

I have talked to the Pope. I have talked to the Council. I have made three public interventions, two of which I have filed with the secretariat. Therefore, there were five interventions against these resolutions of Vatican II. In fact, the opposition led against these resolutions was such that the Pope attempted to establish a commission with the aim of reconciling the opposing parties within the Council. There were to be three members, of which I was one. When the liberal cardinals learned that my name was on this commission, they went to see the Holy Father and told him bluntly that they would not accept this commission and that they would not accept my presence on this commission. The pressure on the Pope was such that he gave up the idea.
I have done everything I could to stop these resolutions which I judge contrary and destructive to the Catholic Faith. The Council was convened legitimately, but it was for the purpose of putting all these ideas through.

Were there other Cardinals supporting you?

Yes. There was Cardinal [Ernesto] Ruffini [of Palermo], Cardinal [Giuseppe] Siri [of Genoa] and Cardinal [Antonio] Caggiano [of Buenos Aires].

Were there any bishops supporting you?

Yes. Many bishops supported my stand.

How many bishops?

There were in excess of 250 bishops. They had even formed themselves into a group for the purpose of defending the true Catholic Faith.

What happened to all of these supporters?

Some are dead; some are dispersed throughout the world; many still support me in their hearts but are frightened to lose the position which they feel may be useful at a later time.

Is anybody supporting you today [1978]?

Yes. For instance, Bishop Pintonello from Italy, Bishop de Castro Mayer from Brazil. Many other bishops and cardinals often contact me to express their support but wish at this date to remain anonymous.

What about those bishops who are not liberals but still oppose and criticise you?

Their opposition is based on an inaccurate understanding of obedience to the pope. It is, perhaps, a well-meant obedience that could be traced to the ultramontane obedience of the last century which in those days was good because the popes were good. However, today, it is a blind obedience that has little to do with a practice and acceptance of true Catholic Faith. At this stage, it is relevant to remind Catholics all over the world that obedience to the pope is not a primary virtue. The hierarchy of virtues starts with the three theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity, followed by the four cardinal virtues of Justice, Temperance, Prudence and Fortitude. Obedience is a derivative of the cardinal virtue of Justice. Therefore it is far from ranking first in the hierarchy of virtues. Certain bishops do not wish to give the slightest impression that they are opposed to the Holy Father. I understand how they feel. It is evidently very unpleasant, if not very painful.

Do you suggest that the Holy Father accepts these particular ideas?

Yes. He does. But it is not only the Holy Father. It is a whole trend. I have mentioned to you some of the cardinals involved in these ideas. More than a century ago, secret societies, Illuminati, humanist, modernist and others, of which we have now all the texts and proofs, were preparing for a Vatican Council in which they would infiltrate their own ideas for a humanist church.

Do you suggest that some cardinals could have been members of such secret societies?

This is not a very important matter at this stage whether they are or not. What is very important and grave is that for all intents and purposes, they act just as if they were agents or servants of humanist secret societies.

Do you suggest that these cardinals could have taken up such ideas deliberately or were they given the wrong information or were they duped or a combination of all?

I think that humanist and liberal ideas spread throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. These secular ideas were spread everywhere, in government and churches alike. These ideas have penetrated in the seminaries and throughout the Church, and today the Church wakes up finding itself in a liberal straitjacket. This is why one meets liberal influence that has penetrated all strata of secular life during the last two centuries, right inside the Church. Vatican Council II was engineered by liberals; it was a liberal council; the Pope is a liberal and those who surround him are liberals. (ed. I doubt, in the present climate, that you will find SSPX experts using such stark, undiplomatic language in addressing the vatican-appointed participants during the ongoing "discussions")

Are you suggesting that the Pope is a liberal?

The Pope has never denied that he was a liberal.

When did the Pope indicate that he was a liberal?

The Pope stated on many occasions that he was in favour of modernist ideas, in favour of a compromise with the world. In his own words, it was necessary "to throw a bridge between the Church and the secular world." The Pope said that it was necessary to accept humanist ideas, that it was necessary to discuss such ideas; that it was necessary to have dialogues.
At this stage, it is important to state that dialogues are contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic Faith. Dialogues presuppose the coming together of two equal and opposing sides; therefore, in no way could [dialogue] have anything to do with the Catholic Faith. (ed. Why then are Bp. Fellay and the Society conducting a 'dialogue' with representatives of the liberal Vatican? Has anything really changed since the Archbishop gave this interview? Apparently, Bp. thinks there has. He talks about a "new wave" of reform, which, in his estimation, is "quite real." What is more, Bp. F credits the notoriously liberal Benedict as being one of the "most vigorous causes of this incipient renewal.") We believe and accept our faith as the only true Faith in the world. All this confusion ends up in compromises which destroy the Church's doctrines, for the misfortune of mankind and the Church alike.

You have stated that you know the reason for the decline in church attendance and lack of interest in the Church today, which you reportedly attributed to the resolutions of Vatican II. Is that correct?

I would not say that Vatican II would have prevented what is happening in the Church today. Modernist ideas have penetrated everywhere for a long time and that has not been good for the Church. But the fact is that some members of the clergy have professed such ideas, that is to say the ideas of perverted freedom, in this case, licence. (ed. We all know that Ratzinger/Benedict has "professed such ideas," and does so to this day.)The idea that all truths are equal, all religions are the same, consequently, all the moralities are the same, that everybody's conscience is equal, that everybody can judge theologically what he can do, all these are really humanist ideas of total licence with no discipline of thought whatever, which leads to the position that anybody can do whatever he likes. All of this is absolutely contrary to our Catholic Faith.

You have said that most of these theological counsellors and experts only pretend that they are representing the majority of the people, that in fact the people are really not represented by these liberal theologians. Could you explain?

By "majority of the people," I mean all the people who honestly work for a living. I mean the people on the land, people of common sense in contact with the real world, the lasting world. These people are the majority of the people, who prefer traditions and order to chaos. There is a movement of all these people throughout the world, who are slowly coalescing in total opposition to all the changes that were made in their name, of their religion. These people of good will have been so traumatised by these dramatic changes that they are now reluctant to attend church. When they go into a modernist church, they do not meet what is sacred, the mystical character of the Church, all that is really divine. What leads to God is divine and they no longer meet God in these churches. Why should they come to a place where God is absent? People perceive this very well and the liberal cardinals and their advisers have seriously underestimated the loyalty of the majority to their true Faith. How [else] can you explain that as soon as we open a traditional chapel or church, everybody rushes in from everywhere? We have standing room only. The Masses go on all day to accommodate the faithful. Why? Because they find once again what they need: the sacred, the mystical, the respect for the sacred. For instance, you would see at the airport different people who were not there to meet me coming to the priests who were there to meet me, shaking their hands, total strangers. Why? Because where people find a priest, a real priest, a priest that behaves like a priest, who dresses like a priest, they are attracted to him immediately and follow him. This happens here in the United States, it happens in Europe and everywhere in the world. People in the street coming to greet a priest; they come to congratulate him out of the blue and tell him how glad they are to see a real priest, to tell him how glad they are that there are still some priests.

Do you suggest that clothes and habit make a difference in the quality of the priest?

Habits and clothing are, of course, only a symbol, but it is to what this symbol represents that people are attracted, not, of course, the symbol itself.

Why do you appear to attach such importance to the rituals of the Tridentine Mass?

We certainly do not insist on rituals just for the sake of rituals but merely as symbol of our faith. In that context, we do believe they are important. However, it is the substance and not the rituals of the Tridentine Mass that has been removed. (Ed. Pope Paul VI admitted as he put out the New Mass, that the Tridentine Mass goes way back to the fifth Century and beyond, and has nourished the faith of countless saints.)

Could you be more specific?

The new Offertory prayers do not express the Catholic notion of the sacrifice. They simply express the concept of a mere partaking of bread and wine. For instance, this Tridentine Mass addressed to God the prayer: "Accept O Holy Father, heavenly and eternal God, this Immaculate Victim, which your unworthy servant offers to you, my living and true God to atone for my numberless sins, offences and negligences." The New Mass says: "We offer this bread as the bread of life." There is no mention of sacrifice or victim. This text is vague and imprecise, lends itself to ambiguity and was meant to be acceptable to Protestants. It is, however, unacceptable to the true Catholic Faith and doctrine. The substance has been changed in favour of accommodation and compromise.

Why do you appear to attach such importance to the Latin Mass rather than the vernacular Mass approved by Vatican Council II?

First the question of the Latin Mass is a secondary question under certain circumstances. But under another aspect it is a very important question. It is important because it is a way to fix the word of our Faith, the Catholic dogma and doctrines. It is a way of not changing our Faith because in translations affecting these Latin words, one does not render exactly the truth of our Faith as it is expressed and embodied in Latin. It is indeed very dangerous because little by little one can lose the Faith itself. These translations do not reflect the exact words of the Consecration. These words are changed in the vernacular.

Could you give me an example?

Yes. For instance, in the vernacular, it is said that the Precious Blood is shed "for all", when in the Latin text (even the latest, revised Latin text), it says the Precious Blood is "for many" and not "for all". All is certainly different from many. This is only a minor example that illustrates the inaccuracies of current translations. (Ed. Several popes have explained the difference in doctrine: "for all' speaks of the sufficiency of Christ's Blood to save all, but at the Last Supper He chose with good reason to say "for many", to refer to the efficiency of His Precious Blood, which, through the Mass, will actually save many, not all. Cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent.)

Could you quote a translation that would actually contradict Catholic dogma?

Yes. For example, in the Latin text, the Virgin Mary is referred to as "Semper Virgo," "always virgin." In all the modern translations, the word "always" has been deleted. This is very serious because there is a great difference between "virgin" and "always virgin." It is most dangerous to tamper with translations of this kind. Latin is also important to keep the unity of the Church, because when one travels, and people travel more and more into foreign countries these days, it is important for them to find the same echoes that they have heard from a priest at home, whether in the United States, South America, Europe, or any other part of the world. They are at home in any (Catholic) church. It is their Catholic Mass that is being celebrated. They have always heard the Latin words since childhood, their parents before them, and their grandparents before them. It is an identifying mark of their Faith. Now, when they go into a foreign church, they don't understand a word. Foreigners who come here don't understand a word. What is the good of going to a Mass in English, Italian or Spanish when no one can understand a word?

But wouldn't most of these people understand Latin even less? What is the difference?

The difference is that the Latin of the Catholic Mass has always been taught through religious instruction since childhood. There have been numerous books on the matter. It has been taught throughout the ages; it is not that difficult to remember. Latin is an exact expression which has been familiar to generations of Catholics. Whenever Latin is found in a church, it immediately creates the proper atmosphere for the worship of God. It is the distinctive tongue of the Catholic faith which unites all the Catholics throughout the world regardless of their national tongue. They are not disoriented or baffled. They say:,"This is my Mass, it is the Mass of my parents, it is the Mass to follow, it is the Mass of our Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal and unchanging Mass." Therefore from the point of view of unity, it is a very important symbolic link; it is a mark of identity for all Catholics.
But it is far more serious than simply a change of tongue. Under the spirit of Ecumenism, it is an attempt to create a rapprochement (Ed. An unworthy compromising union) with the Protestants.

What proof do you have of this?

It is quite evident because there were five Protestants (Ed. actually six ministers) who assisted in the reform of our Liturgy. The Archbishop of Cincinnati, who was present during these deliberations, said that not only these five Protestants were present, but also they took a very active part in the debates and participated directly in the reform of our Liturgy.

Who were these Protestants?

They were Protestant ministers representing different Protestant denominations who were called by Rome to participate in the reform of our Liturgy which shows clearly that there was a purpose to all this. They were Dr. George, Canon Jasper, Dr. Sheperd, Dr. Smith, Dr. Koneth and Dr. Thurian. Msgr. Bugnini (Ed. the chief author of the New Mass) did not hide this purpose. He spelled it out very clearly. He said, "We are going to make an Ecumenical Mass as we have made an Ecumenical Bible." All this is very dangerous because it is our Faith that is attacked. When a Protestant celebrates the same Mass as we do, he interprets the text in a different way because his faith is different. Therefore, it is an ambiguous Mass. It is an equivocal Mass. It is no longer a Catholic Mass.

What Ecumenical Bible are you referring to?

There is an Ecumenical Bible made two or three years ago which was recognised by many bishops. I do not know whether the Vatican publicly endorsed it, but it certainly did not suppress it because it is used in many dioceses. For instance, two weeks ago, the Bishop of Fribourg in Switzerland had Protestant pastors explaining this Ecumenical Bible to all the children of Catholic schools. These lessons were the same for Catholics and Protestants. What has this Ecumenical Bible to do with the Word of God? Since the Word of God cannot be changed, all this leads to more and more confusion. When I think that the Archbishop of Houston, Texas, will not allow Catholic children to be confirmed unless they go with their parents to follow a 15 day instruction course from the local rabbi and the local Protestant minister. . .If the parents refuse to send their children to such instructions, they [the children] cannot get confirmed. They have to produce a signed certificate from the rabbi and the Protestant minister that both the parents and the children have duly attended the instruction, and only then can they (the children) be confirmed by the bishop. These are the absurdities with which we end up when we follow the liberal road. Not only this, but now we are even reaching the Buddhists and the Moslems. Many bishops were embarrassed when the representative of the pope was received in a shameful manner by the Moslems recently.

What happened?

I do not recall all the specific details, but this incident happened in Tripoli, Libya, where the representative of the pope wanted to pray with the Moslems. These Moslems refused and went about their separate ways and prayed in their fashion, leaving the representative high and dry, not knowing what to do. This illustrates the naivety of these liberal Catholics who feel that it is enough to go and talk to these Moslems, for them to accept immediately a compromise of their own religion. The mere fact of wanting to have a close relationship with the Moslems for the purpose only attracts the contempt of the Moslems toward us. (Imagine the contempt Muslims must feel for Benedict, then. He's gone into their mosques and prayed with them on several occasions.) It is a well-known fact that Moslems will never change anything of their religion; it is absolutely out of the question. If the Catholics come to equate our religion with theirs, it only leads to confusion and contempt which they take as an attempt to discredit their religion and not caring about our religion. They are far more respectful of anyone who says that "I am a Catholic; I cannot pray with you because we do not have the same convictions." This person is more respected by the Moslems than the one who says that all the religions are the same; that we all believe the same things; we all have the same faith. They feel this person is insulting them.

But doesn't the Koran display moving verses of praise toward Mary and Jesus?

Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet and has great respect for Mary, and this certainly places Islam nearer to our religion than say, for instance, Judaism, which is far more distant from us. Islam was born in the 7th century and it has benefited to some degree from the Christian teachings of those days. Judaism, on the other hand, is the heir to the system that crucified our Lord, and the members of this religion, who have not converted to Christ, are those who are radically opposed to our Lord Jesus Christ. (To Fr. Schmidberger's credit, he made similar remarks about Judaism in Feb. 2010. See here). For them, there is no question whatever of recognising our Lord. They are in opposition to the very foundation and existence of the Catholic Faith on this subject.
However, we cannot both be right. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Lord and Saviour or he is not. This is one case where there can not be the slightest compromise without destroying the very foundation of Catholic Faith. This does not only apply to religions that are directly opposed to the divinity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God but also to religions that, without opposing Him, do not recognise Him as such.

Therefore you are very sure and dogmatic on this point?

Completely dogmatic. For example, the Moslems have a very different way to conceive God than we have. Their conception of God is very materialistic. It is not possible to say that their God is the same as our God.

But isn't God the same God for all the people of the world?

Yes. I believe that God is the same God for the whole universe according to the Faith of the Catholic Church. But the conception of God differs greatly from religion to religion. Our Catholic Faith is the one and only true Faith. If one does not believe in it absolutely, one cannot claim to be a Catholic. Our Faith is the one that in the world we cannot compromise in any way. God as conceived by the Moslems says: "When you go to paradise, you will be a hundred times richer than you are now on earth. This also applies to the number of wives that you have here on earth." This conception of God is hardly what our Lord and Saviour is about.

Why do you attach more importance to Pope St. Pius V than to Pope Paul VI? After all, both are equally pope. Do you not accept the doctrine of papal infallibility? Do you feel that this doctrine applies more to one than the other?

I feel on the one hand that Pope St. Pius V wanted to engage his infallibility because he used all the terms that all the popes traditionally and generally used when they want[ed] to manifest their infallibility. On the other hand, Pope Paul VI said, himself, that he didn't want to use his infallibility.

When did he indicate that?

He indicated this by not pronouncing his infallibility on any matter of faith as other popes have done throughout history. None of the decrees of Vatican II were issued with the weight of infallibility. Further, he has never engaged his infallibility on the subject of the Mass. He has never employed terms that have been employed by Pope St. Pius V when he [Paul VI] decided to allow this new Mass to be foisted on the faithful. I cannot compare the two acts of promulgation because they are completely different.

Has Pope Paul VI ever said that he did not believe in papal infallibility?

No. He never actually said this categorically. But Pope Paul VI is a liberal and he does not believe in the fixity of dogmas. He does not believe that a dogma must remain unchanged forever. He is for some evolution according to the wishes of men. He is for changes that have originated in humanist and modernist sources, and this is why he has so much trouble in fixing a truth forever. (ed. I' m waiting for the leaders of the Society to make a similar declaration concerning the present pope.) In fact, he is loath to do so personally and he is very ill at ease whenever such cases have arisen. This attitude reflects the spirit on modernism. The Pope has never employed his infallibility in the matter of Faith and Morals to date. ( Ed. i.e. this regards the solemn and extraordinary infallibity).

Has the Pope stated himself that he was a liberal or modernist?

Yes. The Pope has manifested this in the Council, which is not a dogmatic Council. He has also clearly stated so in his encyclical called "Ecclesiam Suam." He has stated that his encyclicals would not define matters but he wished that they would be accepted as advice and lead to a dialogue. In his Credo, (Ed. ie. the celebrated conservative profession of Faith Credo of the People of God, 1968), he said that he did not wish to employ his infallibility, which clearly shows where his leanings are.

Do you feel that this evolution toward dialogue is what allows you to be in disagreement with the Pope?

Yes. From the liberal standpoint they should allow this dialogue. When the Pope does not use his infallibility on the subject of Faith and Morals, one is very much freer to discuss his words and his acts. From my point of view, I am bound to oppose what has taken place because it subverts the infallible teachings of the popes over 2,000 years. I am, however, not in favour of such dialogues because one cannot seriously dialogue about the truth of the Catholic Faith. So really this is an inverted dialogue that is forced upon me.

What would happen if the Pope suddenly utilised his infallibility to order you to obey him?

What would you do? In the measure where the Pope would employ his infallibility as the successor of St. Peter in a solemn manner, I believe that the Holy Spirit would not allow the Pope to be in error at this very moment. Of course, I would heed the Pope then.

But if the Pope invoked his infallibility to back the changes you so strongly object to now, what would your attitude be then?

The question does not even arise, because, fortunately, the Holy Ghost is always there, and the Holy Ghost would make sure than the Pope would not use his infallibility for something that would be contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is for this very reason that the Pope does not employ his infallibility because the Holy Ghost would not allow such changes to take place under the imprimatur of infallibility.

What if this should happen?

It is inconceivable, but if it did, the Church would cease to exist. That would mean there would be no God, because God would be contradicting Himself, which is impossible.

Isn't the fact that Pope Paul VI occupies the seat of St. Peter enough for you to heed whatever the pontiff as the Vicar of Christ on earth asks you to do, just as other Catholics do?

Unfortunately, this is an error. This is a misconception of papal infallibility, for since the Council of Vatican I, when the dogma of infallibility was proclaimed (1870), the pope was already infallible. This was not a sudden invention. Infallibility was then far better understood than it is now because it was well known then that the pope was not infallible on everything under the sun. He was only infallible in very specific matters of faith and morals.
At that time, many enemies of the Church did all they could to ridicule this dogma and propagate misconceptions. For example, the enemies of the Church said to the unknowing and naive that if the pope said that a dog was a cat, it was the duty of Catholics to blindly accept this position without any question. Of course this was an absurd interpretation and the Catholics knew that. This time the same enemies of the Church, now that it serves their purpose, are working very hard to have whatever the pope says accepted, without question, as infallible, almost as if his words were uttered by our Lord Jesus Christ himself. This impression, although widely promoted, is nevertheless utterly false. Infallibility is extremely limited and only bearing on very specific cases, which Vatican I has very well defined and detailed. It is not possible to say that whenever the pope speaks he is infallible. The fact is that this Pope is a liberal, that all this liberal trend has taken place at the Council of Vatican II, and created a direction for the destruction of the Church; a destruction which one expects to happen any day. After all of these liberal ideas were infiltrated in the seminaries, the catechisms, and all the manifestations of the Church, I am now being asked to align myself with these liberal ideas. Because I have not aligned myself with these liberal ideas that would destroy the Church, there are attempts to suppress my seminaries. And it is for this reason that I am asked to stop ordaining priests. Enormous pressure is being exerted on me to align myself and to accept this orientation of destruction of the Church, a path I cannot follow. I do not accept to be in contradiction with what the popes have asserted for 20 centuries. Either my supporters and I obey all the popes who have preceded us, or we obey the present Pope. If we do [obey the present Pope, i.e. Paul VI], we then disobey all the popes that have preceded us. Finally we end up disobeying the Catholic Faith and God.

But as the bishops [of old] obeyed the popes of their days, shouldn't you obey the pope of your day?

The bishops do not have to obey the humanist orders that contradict Catholic Faith and doctrine as established by Jesus Christ and all the various popes throughout the centuries.

So then are you deliberately choosing to disobey the present Pope?

It has been a soul-searching and painful choice because events have really made it a choice of whom you disobey rather than whom you obey. I am making this choice without doubt or hesitation. I have chosen to disobey the present Pope so that I could be in communion with 262 [former] popes.

Your independence has been attributed by several observers to a tradition of Gallicanism. (Ed. Gallicanism was a French movement of resistance to papal authority. There were two aspects to Gallicanism, royal and ecclesiastical. The first asserted the rights of the French Monarch over the French Catholic Church; the second asserted the rights of general councils over the pope. Both were condemned as heresies at the First Vatican Council in 1870.)

On the contrary, I'm completely Roman and not at all Gallican. I'm for the pope as successor of St. Peter in Rome. All we ask is that the Pope be, in fact, St. Peter's successor, not the successor of J.J. Rousseau, the Freemasons, the humanists, the modernists and [the] liberals.

Since you have said that these ideas have been widely spread and accepted throughout the world, including within the Church, do you not consider you are taking on too much? How do you expect the Society of St Pius X to counteract such a trend against what would appear overwhelming odds?

I trust Our Lord the Saviour. The priests of the Society of St. Pius X trust Our Lord and I have no doubt that God is inspiring us all. All those who fight for the true Faith have God's full support. Of course, compared to the liberal machine, we are very small. I could die tomorrow, but God is allowing me to live a little longer so that I can help others in fighting for the true Faith. It has happened before in the Church. True Catholics had to work for the survival of the Faith under general opprobrium and persecution from those who pretended to be Catholics. It is a small price to pay for being on the side of Jesus Christ.

When did this happen?

It happened with the very first Pope! St. Peter was leading the faithful into error by his bad example of following Mosaic Laws. St. Paul refused to obey this error and led the opposition to it. St. Paul was humbly listened to, and St. Peter rescinded his error (Galations II). In the fourth century, St. Athanasius refused to obey Pope Liberius's orders. At that time, the Church had been infiltrated by the ideas of the Arian heresy and the pope had been pressured to go along with them. St. Athanasius led the opposition against this departure from Church doctrine. He was attacked mercilessly by the hierarchy. He was suspended. When he refused to submit, he was excommunicated. The opposition to the heresy finally built up momentum, and at the death of Pope Liberius, a new pope occupied St. Peter's seat. He recognised the Church's indebtedness to St. Athanasius. The excommunication was lifted, and the saint was recognised as a saviour of the Church and canonised. In the seventh century, Pope Honorius I favoured the Monothelite heresy, with the proposition that Jesus Christ did not possess a human will and hence was not a true man. Many Catholics who knew the Church doctrines refused to accept this and did everything they could to stop the spread of this heresy. The Council of Constantinople condemned Honorius I in 681 and anathematised him. There are many more examples of this nature when true Catholics stood up against apparent great odds, not to destroy or change the Church but to keep the true Faith. I do not consider the odds overwhelming. One of the major aims of our Society is to ordain priests, real priests, so that the Sacrifice of the Mass will continue; so that the Catholic Faith will continue. Of course some bishops attack and critisise us. Some try to thwart our mission. But this is all only temporary because when all their seminaries will be empty, (they are almost empty now), what will the bishops do? Then there will be no more priests.

Why do you think there will be no more priests?

Because the seminaries of today are not teaching anything about the making of a priest; they teach liberal psychology, sociology, humanism, modernism and many other sciences and semi-sciences that are either contrary to Catholic doctrine or have nothing whatever to do with Church teachings or with what a priest should know. As for Catholic teachings, they are hardly being taught in today's seminaries.

What is being taught in the seminaries today?

For instance, in a New York seminary, theology professors are teaching seminarians that, "Jesus did not necessarily see what the result of His death of the Cross would be"; that: "No-one is so thoroughly consistent that he does not say something that disagrees with what he said in the past. This even applies to Jesus"; that, "Joseph may have been the natural father of Christ"; and another professor teaches that: "One psychiatrist recommends extramarital sexual relations as a cure for impotence, I am open in this area and not closed to possibilities."

Are these statements documented and on record?

Yes.

Have they been brought to the attention of the hierarchy?

On numerous occasions.

Has the hierarchy made any attempt to stop such and similar teachings?

Not to my knowledge.

Do you ever feel alone and isolated?

How can I feel alone when I am in communion with 262 popes and the whole of the Catholic Faith? If you mean alone among other bishops, the answer is no. Hardly a day goes by that I [do not] receive some communication from some bishops, some priests, some laymen from different parts of the world expressing support and encouragement.

Why do they not come out publicly and support you?

As I have mentioned previously, many (bishops) feel that they want to keep their positions so they can be in a position to do something about it should the occasion arise.

Does your stand separate you further from other Christian denominations?

Not at all. Only five days ago, some Orthodox heads came to see me to express their support for our stand.

Why should they express support when in fact you say that you are right and they are wrong?

It is precisely because my stand is unequivocal that they support me. Many other Christian denominations have always looked at Rome as something of a stabilising anchor in a tumultuous world. Whatever happened, they felt, Rome was always there, eternal, unchanging. This presence gave them comfort and confidence. Even more surprising are the Islamic leaders who have warmly congratulated me on my stand even though they fully know that I do not accept their religion.

Would not Christian charity try to avoid solidifying differences and divisions that could be healed?

Differences and divisions are part of this world. The unity of the Church can only be gained by example and unswerving commitment to our Catholic Faith. Charity starts with loyalty to one's Faith.

What makes you believe that significant numbers of Orthodox, Protestants or Moslems support you?

Apart from direct, frequent contact these people have made with me, there was, for example, an extensive survey conducted by a reputable newspaper in Paris, and they have surveyed members of these various denominations. The result was that far from finding our faith offensive or threatening to them, they admired the unequivocal stand we are taking. On the other hand, they show utter contempt for all those liberal Catholics who were trying to make a mishmash of our Catholic Faith as well as their religion.

Has not the Pope invited you to be reconciled? Have you accepted this invitation?

I requested to see the Pope last August. The Pope refused unless I signed a statement accepting unconditionally all the resolutions of Vatican II. (Ed., He was even asked to accept all the post-conciliar "orientations"). I would very much like to see the Pope, but I cannot sign resolutions paving the way for the destruction of the Church. (Ed., Later that year, the Archbishop was granted a brief audience with the new Pope, John-Paul II).

How can you be loyal to the Church and disobedient to the Pope?

One must understand the meaning of obedience and must distinguish between blind obedience and the virtue of obedience. Indiscriminate obedience is actually a sin against the virtue of obedience. So we disobey in order to practice the virtue of obedience rather than submit to unlawful commands contrary to Catholic moral teachings; all one has to do is to consult any Catholic theology books to realise we are not sinning against the virtue of obedience.

_________________
A noi la battaglia, a Dio la vittoria!

ISRAEL, JEWS & THE SICKNESS WE FACE

Interview With Kevin MacDonald PhD
By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2009-2010

Articles May Be Reproduced Only With Authorship of Br Nathanael Kapner
& Link To Real Zionist News (SM) http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=511

DR KEVIN MACDONALD, AUTHOR AND HISTORIAN, is a Professor of Psychology at the California State University. As the author of several books, Dr MacDonald outlines Jewry’s quest to destroy White Christian culture through intellectual movements and politics.

Brother Nathanael: The Washington Post just published an article by Jewish columnist and neocon propagandist, Charles Krauthammer, entitled, “Those Troublesome Jews.” In the piece, Krauthammer defends the Israeli raid on the humanitarian Gaza-bound flotilla. What is your assessment of this article?

Kevin MacDonald PhD: First, let’s look at Krauthammer’s underlying premise. For this is what forms the basis for how he and global Jewry defend Israeli crimes. It must also be understood that Krauthammer argues as a Jew, not as an American, seeking primarily the advancement of Jewish interests.

Br Nathanael: What exactly is Krauthammer’s underlying premise?

Kevin MacDonald: Krauthammer’s fundamental premise is outlined in his book, “Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy For a Unipolar World.” Krauthammer insists that America must seize the opportunity created by the fall of the Soviet Union to remake the entire Arab world in the interests of “democratic globalism.”

Br Nathanael: So he begins his rant by first appealing to “democratic” themes?

Kevin MacDonald: Yes. “America,” says Krauthammer, “is a country with no biological identity” and should go to war to promote “democracy” and defend “democratic” nations such as Israel. Ironically, he’s probably had to rethink his rationale for war against the Arab world since Hamas won the largest number of votes and parliamentary seats in democratic elections held in 2006.

ATTACKING WHITE IDENTITY

Br Nathanael: What does Krauthammer mean when he advances the idea that America has no biological identity?

Kevin MacDonald: It’s not a question of what Krauthammer means but what Krauthammer is attacking. A prime component of Jewish propaganda is to assault any form of ethno-nationalism that is not specifically Jewish. Herein lies their hypocrisy. A “Jewish state” in Israel is fine. But any form of “White identity” in America is labeled “racist.”

Br Nathanael: How does Krauthammer move from an assault on white ethnicity to manipulating America to wage war for the sake of democracy?

Kevin MacDonald: By pitching eternal war for democracy as a kind of ‘religious’ crusade for America — an America “not committed to blood, but to principles” — Krauthammer confers an ideological mission upon America. Fighting for democracy and freedom is America’s cause, argues Krauthammer, not bolstering a national identity. Given current demographics, that national identity would be a White Christian one, which Jewry fears and abhors — and does all it can to destroy. Herein lies the Jewish sleight of hand that serves to strengthen Jewish ethnic interests at the expense of American interests, all in the name of championing democracy. This is how Krauthammer argues as an Israel-Firster. And Jews, like Krauthammer, have the upper hand in how our foreign policy is shaped. It’s part of the sickness we face.

SECRETS OF JEWISH SUBTERFUGE

Br Nathanael: How does Krauthammer’s crusade for freedom and democracy apply to the flotilla incident?

Kevin MacDonald: Moral posturing is absolutely central to Krauthammer’s modus operandi. He knows Americans are suckers for arguments framed as moral imperatives. Thus, he casts the Israelis as the good guys and the Arabs as the bad guys in the flotilla raid.

Br Nathanael: How does he pull this off given the murders of civilians by the Israelis?

Kevin MacDonald: While the rest of the world is horrified at the behavior of the Israeli military, Krauthammer presents Israel as the “hapless victim,” condemned for simply “defending” itself. Krauthammer cunningly brings his readers into an alternate universe where aggressors are victims and “defense” means wanton murder of civilians. That’s how he pulls it off.

Br Nathanael: But where is “moral posturing” here?

Kevin MacDonald: That’s the secret of Jewish subterfuge when arguing for an unjustifiable case. Krauthammer relies on the anti-Semitism card — combined with the usual trademarked dose of moral posturing. Krauthammer’s column on the flotilla titled “Those Troublesome Jews” is a perfect example of this method. Why are the Jews “troublesome?” — because Jews insist on defending themselves. Israel’s and all of Jewry’s problems, says Krauthammer, stems from the fact that the entire world wants another Holocaust, including the Europeans, “with a history of centuries of savage persecution of Jews in their Christian lands.” While the rest of the world hates Jews because of Islamic totalitarianism, argues Krauthammer, the Europeans hate Jews because they’re all basically Nazis at heart. Thus, in Krauthammer’s view, the world must bow before Israel with a guilty conscience. For to censure Israel and therefore all of Jewry, is to engage in “savage anti-Semitism.” So far, this tactic has worked.

PSYCHOLOGY OF JEWISH FRAUD

Br Nathanael: Why does this tactic work?

Kevin MacDonald: It works because we are continually subjected to pro-Israel chauvinism and towering Jewish ethnocentrism in the most prestigious and popular media outlets. Americans internalize and accept unconsciously the double standard by which the Jewish-owned media rationalizes Israeli racialism but promotes the idea that America exists to defend abstractions like “freedom” and “democracy.” Any signs
of White identity and sense of White interests are presented by the Jews as morally repugnant. Americans have come to take these ‘Jewish’ ideas for granted — to the point that Jewish apologists, like Krauthammer, are eminently respectable, especially among conservatives. Commentators, like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, seem to have internalized this mindset as well. The tea-partiers have also bought into this Jewish fraud. Israeli racialism is good, American racialism is evil. It’s part of the sickness we face.
Order Kevin MacDonald’s Cultural Insurrections Here
___________________________________

Vatican operative speaks at Fatima Challenge Conference in Rome

Last week John Vennari of Catholic Family News conducted a "Fatima Challenge" conference in Rome, Italy. One of the speakers at that conference was a gentleman named Giuseppe De Carli. Mr. De Carli, a journalist by profession, is in charge of the Vatican's radio/TV facility. He is pretty well connected to Secretary of State Tarciso Bertone, whose interview with the latter provided the material for a book "The Last Seer of Fatima," authored by Card. Bertone.
For those acquainted with the circumstances surrounding the publication of that book, they will recall that it was written in refutation of the major thesis of another book written months earlier by Italian journalist and TV personality, Antonio Socci, entitled "The Forth Secret." In his book, Socci, supported by a myriad of convincing and well researched data, contends that there is another, yet unrevealed part of the Third Secret. Vatican officialdom strenuously affirms, as we all know, that the full text of the Third Secret was released on June 26, 2000 under the auspices of then Pope John Paul II. Many doubt, with plenty of reason now, that Rome has not come clean on the entirety of the Third Secret's contents, including, of course, Mr. Socci, who, though Catholic, did not, and maybe still does not, identify with the traditionalist 'wing' of the Church. So he did not come to his conclusions by way of any pre-conceived traditional Catholic ‘prejudices.’
Mr. De Carli held firm to the party line, never, or rarely, deviating from his prepared script. He did, however, begin to waver a bit at the end under a withering barrage of questions from the likes of Fr. Nichola Gruner, lawyer Chris Ferrara and author John Salza, each of whom speaks fluent Italian. Mr. De Carli made his presentation in Italian, ably translated for the English-speaking audience.
I have no idea why this obviously Vatican-programmed layman consented to enter the enemy's lair, but enter he did. He did the best he could under the circumstances, seeing that he represented the Vatican’s position, which, alas for De Carli, Socci’s arguments blow completely out of the water. Well, the conferees mentioned above were eager to pounce- and pounce they did!

Link to the video below. It's rather long, so you may want to skip through portions of it. But don't miss the question/answer period at the end. It left Mr. De Carli gasping for air and eager to make a quick exit.

Link here

The Accounts of Two Witnesses at the Bishop Williamson Trial

The reader is invited to read two summary accounts of the trial of Bishop Williamson, April 16, in Regensburg, Germany. An independent writer and reporter, Gunter Deckert, (not an SSPX member), provides us with his description and impressions of the event. Deckert sat in the courtroom and witnessed all that happened. His summary can be found on a number of websites. So also, another individual, Marcus Haverkamp, was there. I know little about him. He wrote up another eye witness summary of the Williamson trial, which is posted immediately after Deckert's. His account is also posted on other websites....

Der Ketzer-Prozess gegen Bischof Richard Williamson
The Heresy Trial of Bishop Richard Williamson

By Günter Deckert

Translated by J M Damon

The County Court is in the same courthouse as the District Court, connected to the jail for suspects who are under investigatory arrest.

At the entrance to the courthouse, security is the same as that of the Mannheim Heresy Trials {the trials of Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Sylvia Stolz and others} with magnetic archways and searches of pockets, purses, briefcases, etc., like at the airports.

Only two officials are on duty, a man and woman, and the searches are somewhat lackadaisical.
There is another security check as we enter the main courtroom, again a male-female team.
The representatives of the Establishment media are not searched, however.

There is room in the courtroom for only 19 visitors, in the very back. The rest of the space is reserved for the Establishment media. As the trial gets under way there are several empty seats in the media section and visitors are allowed to take them.

Around 90 persons are present in the courtroom including 35 visitors, interns and trainees.
Present are Lady Michelle Renouf from London, Frau Ursula Haverbeck, Markus Haverkamp, Andreas K. from Berlin and Gerd W. from Zossen / Brandenburg, another a victim of Section 130 {the section of the German Penal Code dealing with “Incitement of the Masses.”} There are no other prominent persons to be seen; if anyone is here from the Munich branch of the NPD (National Party) or NATIONAL-ZEITUNG (its newspaper) I do not see them. There is only one bailiff and he is unarmed.

There is a partition between the section for visitors and media and the Prosecutor’s staff, who are sitting on the right, and the Defense, sitting on the left. The table for the witnesses is between the other two. Two court translators, one English and one for Swedish, are sitting near the partition.

There is only one judge, an attractive blond woman in her thirties who speaks with a Bavarian accent. She is sitting on an elevated podium.

Proceedings begin a little after 9 O’clock. Even though it is known that Bishop Williamson is not coming, media interest is high – even the Südwestrundfunk (Southwestern Broadcasting Corporation) has come from Mainz, both radio and TV. After a few minutes of filming and photographing the media leave, except for a few newspaper reporters.

Judge Karin Frahm (this is not a Bavarian name!) (ed. note: What kind of a name is it, then?) opens the proceedings and invites a bearded, grey haired senior prosecutor to read the rather short indictment. The attorney, who appears to be in his late 50s, informs the Court that three Swedish journalists who were involved in Bishop Williamson’s interview and broadcast were summoned as witnesses but have not responded.

Bishop Williamson’s attorney, Matthias Lossmann of Coburg in Upper Franconia, states that his client would have gladly come but his ecclesiastical order, the Pius Brethren (ed. note: Why SSPX is translated as "Pius Brethren, I haven't a clue), did not give him leave. Judge Frahm declares that the trial can proceed without the accused, and Attorney Lossmann reads a statement of the bishop to the effect that the bishop feels he has been betrayed by Swedish television. Lossmann says his client clearly gave the Swedish reporters to understand that part of their discussion (the part concerning “Holocaust”) should not be broadcast, on account of the proscription expressing such opinions under German law.

The interview, which lasted a little over an hour, had concerned questions of religion, dogma and the Church (1).

FOOTNOTE 1: Bishop Williamson had come to Zaitzhofen, where there is seminar for priests of the Pius Brethren, for the consecration of a Swedish convert from the state church. The leadership of the seminar had allowed Swedish TV to cover the event.

At the very end of the discussion, “out of a clear blue sky,” the interviewer, Ali Fagan (ed. note: definitely not a Swedish name), a BEUTE-SCHWEDE (? “predatory Swede”?) suddenly brought up remarks that Bishop Williamson had made to a Canadian newspaper more than 20 years ago. The reporter had obviously investigated Williamson very closely. Fagan’s questions about Williamson’s past remarks developed into questions and answers, in English, on the subject of “Holocaust,” “Gas Chambers,” “Third Reich,” “Adolf Hitler,” etc.

Attorney Lossmann states that in addition to presenting Williamson’s statement, he intends to call Attorney M. Krah of Dresden as a witness. Krah is the confidential attorney of the Pius Brotherhood in Germany, who recently took over the Williamson case. (ed. note: Krah is no friend of Bp. Williamson, believe me) The judge then asks several questions for the record.

After this, the Court views the broadcasts of Williamson’s statements on Swedish state television as well as re-broadcasts on German television. The complaint against the bishop had been filed by an official in the Criminal Police Department acting on behalf of the Regensburg District Attorney. The visitors are unable to follow all of this because of technical problems – there is no TV screen on the wall. The interpreter translates the English text of the interview word for word.

(As the Jewish media master Michel Friedman cynically remarked in Issue 16 of ZEIT Magazine: “You can say anything you want in Germany, but you must be prepared to pay consequences.”) (ed. note: Apparently a gratuitous parenthetical remark by Deckert)

“Defense Attorney” Lossmann then states his own opinion. He is careful to make perfectly clear that he believes in “the historical actuality of Holocaust” and that he wholeheartedly approves of Section 130 of the Penal Code and believes that it must be retained. His tactic is obviously to cover his derriere while raising doubt as to whether Williamson’s remarks are punishable, due to the unique circumstances surrounding this particular case.

The Swedish reporters have submitted written statements to the effect that they had no agreement with Williamson regarding parts of the interview that should not be broadcast.
Thus it is their word against his.

The fact is significant, and mentioned even in the “Establishment” media’s coverage, that the Swedish government and Swedish TV are refusing to assist the Regensburg prosecutor because this trial violates Swedish concepts of freedom of speech and opinion.

Then there is a prolonged procedural back-and-forth argument between the Defense, the Court and the Prosecution as to whether these written explanations should be included as evidence.
The judge rules that the material is includable.

There have been numerous short breaks; now the judge calls a longer intermission at 11:10.
Afterwards Attorney Maximilian Krah, a witness for the Defense, is called to the stand.
He is a civil rather than criminal attorney from Dresden but not a Saxon.

He describes in detail how he became involved on the evening of 19 Jan. 2009, after reading about the incident in SPIEGEL. He was authorized by Father Franz Schmidtberger, the leader of the German Pious Brethren, as well as the central office in Switzerland. He says he immediately attempted to contact Williamson, who was still in Argentina. Finally, after considerable difficulty, he was able to get in touch. Williamson immediately understood what was happening and remarked, “Well, that’s just the way journalists are.”

Attorney Krah says that it was immediately clear to him that the TV broadcast could not be intercepted and so he concentrated on reaching an understanding with the Swedes to avoid a posting on the Internet site of the Swedish TV station. His attempt was unsuccessful, however.
Then he requested an injunction with the District Court at Nuremberg/Fürth, which was successful.

Basically the key sentence of the ruling stated:
If there is no intent (in this case, no agreement!), then criminal prosecution is not called for, and there is no need for prompt action. That is why he did not seek legal recourse (lodge an appeal.)
Because of his heavy workload he recommended Attorney Lossmann.

Judge Frahm has a great many questions for the witness, such as: How did Bishop Williamson react? Was he surprised? What did he want to have done? Krah says it is very clear that the Bishop did everything he could to avoid the broadcast, which happened in spite of his request at the end of the interview. The judge’s questions become quite specific when she asks about the inner life of the Brethren. She asks how many priests there are worldwide. Krah answers around 600, or 700 including those on the periphery. How many are there in Germany? - About 25. And how many active followers are there? Krah says there are around 600,000, mostly in France, Switzerland (the French part) and the USA. And what was Williamson’s position at the time of the “offense?” Krah answers that he was the head of a seminary in Argentina.

Surprisingly, and in my opinion pointlessly, Krah blurts out that Williamson is considered marginal within the Brethren. (ed. note: I think it is safe to say at this point that lawyer Krah reflected the attitude of Society's main leadership towards Bp. Williamson, and that the remark was not meant in any way to be pointless or gratuitous) He is a genteel and cultivated but eccentric outsider who radiates great personal charm. Krah says the leaders of the order have ambiguous feelings about him.

FOOTNOTE 2: My impression is that it was Krah’s mission to “talk up” the Brethren and “talk down” Bishop Williamson. (ed. note: Exactly!) This became even more clear during the intermission when he repeatedly exclaimed to Lady Renouf: “This is not their case!” meaning that the Brethren are not involved here, or do not want to be involved.

Both the judge and head prosecutor conducted themselves in compliance with the System.
The question of whether the existing law is legitimate is never asked. The question of whether the judge believes in her own verdicts is another matter. If one wants to enjoy a career and live in peace in Germany, one cannot behave any other way. The judge and prosecutor have “done their jobs” and kept up appearances in “saving our democracy.” We have to consider that very few individuals have the courage to resist “the throne” (established authority)!
There are very few heroes in our time.

I personally doubt that Bishop Williamson’s defending attorney has done him any favors, however. I shall try to find out what his political orientation is. It would be pointless to attempt an appeal and change of verdict in Williamson’s favor under the present “BRDDR” regime. If the attorneys favor an appeal, it will be for the sake of their fees. If Bishop Williamson should appeal, it would be for the sake of publicizing Jewish “Holocaust” dogma and “grabbing it by the throat.”

It would be helpful to demonstrate how undemocratic our little present day Germany is, “the freest state that ever existed on German soil” according to the present propaganda. The fine is of course purely symbolic since it cannot be collected in England. Nothing can happen to Williamson as long as he stays in England, even if the “BRDDR” issues an international warrant for his arrest.

Krah goes on to say that there are four bishops among the Brethren (SSPX) whose position is not comparable to that of a bishop in the Catholic Church, and furthermore Williamson is not a member of the General Assembly. He is more like a “traveling representative for the consecration of priests,” a kind of independent agent. (ed. note: Like, he was never really one of us)

The judge then wants to know about Bishop Williamson’s financial situation. Krah replies that when he is traveling, he receives a travel allowance as well as re-imbursement for expenses and spending money of 250 Euros per month. In addition he receives room and board. He says that Williamson is not a wealthy man but neither does he have to beg in the streets. Then Judge Frahm asks whether Williamson has access to the assets of the Pius Brethren and Krah answers with an emphatic “No!” After that, the judge has no more questions.

Additional Observation

Despite the persecution and pervasive judicial terror directed against Revisionist researchers and experts, the Enlightenment insistence on empirical evidence cannot be reversed.
Even Zionist Inquisitor Friedman has to admit: “The older I get, the more I doubt that legalistic measures really help combat Revisionism. At any rate, the number of Holocaust Deniers has not grown smaller, and we must consider that.” Michel Friedman of the Jewish Central Committee as quoted in ZENIT, Issue No. 16, 2010.

Attorney Lossmann then continues questioning his witnesses. He asks whether Williamson is inclined to believe in conspiracy theories as “Wikipedia” suggests. Krah replies that yes, Williamson has peculiar views concerning the “Holocaust” story, and he always says what he believes to be true. He is confident in his opinion, as is shown in his conversation. He is very concerned about the truth. Krah says that Williamson’s problem is with acknowledging official truth; the bishop’s problem is a defective ability to perceive it.

There is a brief intermission, then the proceedings continue. The subject is now a report on Ali Fagan in a leading Swedish newspaper. Lossmann says the report was initiated by Italian newspapers who perceive that the Williamson trial is a plot against the German pope. Lossmann insists on a translation of this report on Fagan, saying the whole affair is comparable to Washington’s “Watergate.” He observes that the proceedings against Bishop Williamson have not only gained Fagan a great deal of publicity, they have made him rich.

After another brief intermission, the head prosecutor begins speaking. Predictably, he has no doubts about the validity of the trial. He has no doubts that the conditions of Section 130 (“Incitement of the Masses”) have been met, and a crime has been committed against the public. He says Germany’s peace has been disturbed and the bishop has acted with BEDINGTEM VORSATZ or intent, since he realized and accepted that the interview would be broadcast. He says it was Williamson’s goal to publicize his proscribed views among the people. He says that people like Williamson have a “pathological compulsion” to spread false and unlawful opinions, therefore he is guilty on all points. On the basis of the bishop’s income of 3000 Euros per month (!?) he calls for a sentence of four months’ incarceration at 120 Euros per day. He says this is appropriate in view of Williamson’s position within the Brethren, even though it is his first offense.

In his summarization, in which he pleads for acquittal, Attorney Lossmann disputes the state attorney’s demand. As for Williamson’s income, he points out that it should be set at a maximum of 1000 Euros and in case of a guilty verdict would call for 30 to 60 days in jail, certainly less than 90. He says that in view of the circumstances, which have become clear in the taking of evidence, acquittal is the proper verdict. He says that Bishop Williamson’s conduct was unbecoming to be sure, but he simply acted in a naive manner. He says that Williamson had been misled and waylaid, but he had made every attempt to limit the damage he caused. He says there can be no question of the bishop’s “accepting the consequences.” He points out that, had it not been for the overall situation concerning the Pius Brethrens’ readmittance into the Catholic Church, the media would not have played up the incident. (ed. note: Lossmann pleas leniency, the kind of defense that would be normally used in trying to mitigate the sentence of a confessed ax murderer.)

Lossmann concludes with the opinion of a professor of law who was quoted in SPIEGEL as saying that if Bishop Williamson did not intend for his views on “Holocaust” to be broadcast, he could not be punished. He emphasizes that Williamson obviously lacked this intent; he was not aware the Swedish journalists would broadcast his remarks until they had done so.
Therefore he should be acquitted.

Shortly after 1 O’clock the judge calls a 30-minute intermission and retires to consider her verdict. She returns after 45 minutes and everyone stands to hear the verdict “in the name of the People.” Which people, one wonders. She finds Williamson guilty and sentences him to 100 days in jail at 100 Euros per day, 20 days less than what was demanded by the state attorney.
She takes a half hour to explain her verdict and agrees with every point of the state’s attorney, emphasizing that “Holocaust is an acknowledged fact” and the number of Jewish victims “established by the highest court.” Needless to say, she does not bother to give her sources for this “acknowledged fact.” Perhaps she will give them in her written verdict.

The courtroom gradually empties. Attorney Lossmann is the only one who is surrounded by the reporters. They ask if there will be an appeal. He replies that Bishop Williamson must make that decision. Presumably the State might appeal the verdict, since it considers the sentence too lenient.

Now read Markus Haverkamp's summary of the same event:

The Trial of the Bishop who wasn’t there

A Tragicomedy in a Few Acts and Many, Many Scenes

On Friday, 16 April 2010, Pope Benedict XVI 83rd birthday, the trial against Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) took place at the Local Court Regensburg, Germany. All in all roughly forty journalists arrived as well as twenty-odd supporters of Williamson, who had to make do being seated in the back row of the absolutely packed court room. Amongst the supporters were Lady Michèle Renouf (ed. note: An historical revisionist advising Bp. Williamson, I believe, whose association with HE aroused sharp vocal criticism from Bp. Fellay ), Günter Deckert (ed. note: whose account appears above and with whom obviously Haverkamp is acquainted at some level. Deckert must be well known.) and Ursula Haverbeck, as well as many other well known faces. Sadly, there were no members, followers or supporters of the SSPX present that could be identified as such.

After the usual security checks, which for a change were handled in a rather civilised manner, the trial started at 09.00 a.m. sharp. The dramatis personæ were: Judge Karin Frahm, a fairly pretty blonde, allegedly twenty-nine years of age (!); Senior State Prosecutor Edgar Zach, a grey-haired gentleman probably in his late fifties; and Defence Counsel Matthias Loßmann, a bloke possibly in his mid-forties whose air and appearance were eerily reminiscent of a gravedigger. The minor parts were played by an all-female cast: a stenographer, an interpreter for English, and another for Swedish. Her Honour was seated in front of a strange yellowish backdrop, the kind familiar from modern Wagner productions. Seating and legroom were satisfactory, the acoustics excellent.

The proceedings began with an explanation by Herr Loßmann that Williamson would not be appearing since the SSPX had forbidden him from doing so. Next it was recorded that not one of the three Swedish witnesses had turned up, and that they had neither excused themselves nor given any reason for their absence. (ed. note: Wouldn't one think that the presence of these three "Swedish TV journalists" should have been an absolute requirement in order for the prosecution to makes it case? That without them, it was nearly impossible, even under German law, for justice to have been done?) Herr Zach then began reading out the indictment. The contents were comprised of the usual stuff familiar to all: Williamson has denied and belittled the Holocaust, has done so aware of the fact that such heresy is a grievous violation of modern dogma, has furthermore committed this heinous act intentionally in a manner suited to disturb the public peace, and must therefore be dealt with accordingly. To his credit it must be said that Herr Zach was calm, collected, read the indictment without any aggressive or hateful undertone, and made a generally polite impression.
In the scene that followed, Herr Loßmann gave a fairly detailed account of what had transpired and how the various events had come about. The judge asked many a probing question, of which a few were simply superfluous. Some questions Herr Loßmann was unable to answer, but a great deal of these gaps were filled in later during an exciting scene in which Loßmann’s witness, and lawyer for the SSPX, Maximilian Krah – a smarmy Nick Griffin effigy – took the stand. All in all Herr Loßmann left a rather dubious impression: his account was repetitive, unstructured, and his idiom sloppy and unbefitting of his role.

Here now a summary of a few lesser scenes, in no particular order: The court ordered a viewing of the infamous final five minutes of an originally hour long interview, the very five minutes that got Bishop Williamson into this mess. Then the matter of the absent witnesses was taken up again: two documents were read out, one by the legal department of the Swedish television station SVT1 which stated that they would not help the court due to lack of trust in the German legal system, and the other by the Swedish Ministry of Justice, who wrote that they would not be rendering the court mutual judicial assistance since freedom of speech is guaranteed in Sweden but not so in Germany. Furthermore, an article from a Swedish magazine, which had no real bearing on the case, was translated off the cuff fluently into high quality German – that was really cool. Plus, a segment of a German television programme showing the interviewer of Williamson (Name: Ali Fagan; Status: absent witness) make the comment that he would gladly stand as a witness in a German court of law, etc., etc. Another delightful scene starred the interpreter for English. Asked by Judge Frahm whether she could translate a letter extemporaneously or whether she needed time to prepare, this lady requested and was granted “five minutes”, whereupon she ambled over to her Swedish speaking colleague, chatted with her for fifteen minutes, went back to her seat and translated the text in one go. It was surreal. – All these and the following scenes were interrupted by “five minute recesses” that were fifteen minutes long each. The trial lacked any real coherence, haphazardly jumping from one matter to the next, not even the many “five minute recesses” being synchronised to the action on stage. The only thing that kept everything together, were the endless, totally superfluous repetitions. It was weird.

A real highlight was the act in which Herr Krah, whom we first encountered two paragraphs ago, was called as a witness for the defence. As lawyer for the SSPX, Herr Krah had a great deal of knowledge as to what had transpired having witnessed the events unfurl himself. Of this he gave an informative account. In answer to the judge’s questions, he drew a detailed picture of Williamson’s standard of living, describing not only his home but also which tube to take in order to get there! He then told of Williamson’s position within the fraternity, that the bishop wields little or no power in the SSPX, and that Richard Williamson is considered and considers himself “an eccentric Englishman”. Herr Krah went on to speak of the Bishop’s personality, characterising him as refined, polite, erudite, well-spoken, and an excellent teacher. He then informed the court that if the bishop questions the Holocaust then only because he is utterly convinced that his opinion represents the truth. The bishop, so he said, is absolutely bound to truthfulness and would never lie. As such Williamson is certainly convinced of what he had stated in that interview. The problem, according to Herr Krah, is that Williamson’s ability to perceive the truth is seriously impaired (“ein nachhaltig gestörtes Erkenntnisvermögen”). As an example of this condition Herr Krah told the court that Bishop Williamson does not believe in the 9/11 story, and on having been asked by the judge continued by explaining to the court all about how some, if not many people doubt the veracity of the official 9/11 account. To summarise, Herr Krah was nothing short of a waffling windbag basking in the cold glow of that yellowy neo-Wagnerian backdrop. He gave a heap of information that nobody really cared about, including details likely to harm the bishop. But he enjoyed himself, and that is probably what mattered most.



Let us now turn to the final act of this tragicomedy. In the first scene Herr Zach gave his closing arguments. He stated that Bishop Williamson had known exactly what he was saying, knew full well that this is against the law in Germany, was counting on the fact that this interview would be made public, and that the bishop had by these means hoped to spread his twisted views on the Holocaust. Considering the fact that Williamson had done this intentionally, a fair sentence would be a fine of 12.000 Euros (i.e. 10.500 GBP or 16.000 USD).

Now it was time for the summation of the defence. Herr Loßmann proceeded to recapitulate the entire story as it had slowly unravelled before our eyes through a profusion of irrelevant repetitions, tedious tangents, and futile five-minute recesses. In short: On occasion of the ordination of a Swedish deacon who had converted from Protestantism not merely to Catholicism, but to one of its most traditional branches (which caused a stir in Sweden), a Swedish camera crew went to Zaitzkofen, near Regensburg, and asked the ordaining bishop, Richard Williamson, for an interview which he granted them. They spoke about religious matters for over fifty minutes, and then, once they had gained the bishop’s trust, suddenly asked him about a comment he had made about the Holocaust twenty years ago in Canada. The interviewer, Ali Fagan, described this question as “a shot from the hip”, and the evidence clearly showed that the interviewer had deliberately set a trap for the bishop. After Williamson had answered the question in depth, he pointed out to the interviewer that such comments are illegal in Germany and asked him not to publicise them. The Swedish television station STV1 then approached the leading German news magazine Der Spiegel with this story, which the Spiegel proceeded to publish three days before the interview was to be aired on Swedish television. As soon as the SSPX had gotten wind of this they had their lawyer, Herr Krah, get in touch with Williamson, the latter asking that the interview not be broadcast, something that was realistically not going to happen, and insisting that this interview not be made available over the internet. When Matthias Krah contacted Bishop Williamson, he was immediately aware of the gravity of the situation saying something along the lines of “typical journalists, you can’t trust them.” STV1 nonetheless made the final five minutes of the interview available on their website, from where it was downloaded onto YouTube and went viral. By itself this was all fairly inconsequential, for who had ever heard of the SSPX, or Bishop Richard Williamson for that matter? Unfortunately, however, this was exactly the moment the Vatican welcomed the SSPX back into the fold of the Church, and to the viciously anti-ecclesiastical, i.e. Jewish, press, the idea of a Holocaust heretic having his excommunication revoked must have been like curry to a pisshead. As such the matter was blown out of all proportion, causing desired damage to the Church. All this, Loßmann argued, was not the bishop’s fault. In fact Williamson is simply a victim of foul play, and must therefore be acquitted.

The court took a thirty minute recess, during which Her Honour decided on the verdict, the grounds for which were eight pages long. The court reconvened at 03.00 p.m. for the final scene, and Judge Frahm read out the verdict: guilty, fine: 10.000 Euros, i.e. 9.000 GBP or 13.500 USD. She gave the following reasons for the verdict: Williamson had denied the Holocaust, and though he may be convinced that it had not taken place, this is irrelevant since history has shown the Holocaust to have taken place, and furthermore even the highest courts have knowledge of this subject. Richard Williamson was also aware of the fact that his opinion would reach the public, but had nonetheless continued to express it. His crime was therefore a deliberate action. The fact that the interview had gone viral on YouTube was ignored since this was certainly not the bishop’s fault and went against his express wish. However, §130 Penal Code stipulates that incitement of the People (Volksverhetzung) is only given if the crime is perpetrated publicly and is suited to disturb the public peace. But: nowhere does it say that the public must be a German public! By having the interview broadcast in Sweden, millions of Swedes could see it. These then could feasibly contact their friends and relatives in Germany and thus endanger the German public peace. Therefore, the bishop is to be found guilty and fined 10.000 Euros. – And that’s the end of that.

Finally, it must be said that this trial was of no value to the struggle for freedom whatsoever, since the defence counsel defended neither his client nor truth but merely the SSPX. (ed. note: Both Deckert and Haverkamp made essentially the same observations) Then, the idea of having an allegedly twenty-nine year old female judge is, considering that judges ought to be male and at least forty years of age, a total joke, a joke topped only by the ridiculous (if talmudically exquisite) argumentation of the lady. At the end of the day, this trial showed us what happens when the System is left to itself, without anybody struggling against it. And as Michèle Renouf pointed out: “by reducing the fine they reduced the bishop.”

Markus Haverkamp