Das ist geschehen: Responding to Herr Krah

Somewhere, despite my inability to fluently speak the language, a vestigial hatred of seeing a phrase like “die darstellung von Heiner ist falsch” is insulting to the Bavarian blood that flows in my veins.  This insult was part of the sad epitaph to the Der Spiegel story of last week, written by its librettist, Maximilian Krah, on Kreuz.net.
In this piece, Krah engaged in various nitpicking points – like saying he wasn’t in London in August – fine, then it was July or some other summer month; or saying that Bishop Williamson did not definitely refuse the interview, when he definitely did; or referring to the fact that Bp Williamson emailed one of the Spiegel reporters, when it was only to respond to something that Krah had leaked to them, that he had told them that the Bishop thought they were “rats” and the reporter wrote back saying, “We may be rats, but we are nice rats.”  The bishop, embarrassed at his confidence being broken, apologized and was gracious.  But, this is all an unimportant sideshow, and necessary fodder for the most important paragraph that Mr. Krah penned.  Point 4 of Krah’s article is translated as well as our staff can manage:
If the SSPX does not here make clear that it has nothing to do with that (Bishop Williamson's failure to fulfill his duty to abstain from historical-political activities), it must reckon with being once more attacked.
 
I point out that supervision by the Constitution Protection Agency was called for last year, and I point out that if the SSPX gets actually reported on by the same Agency, its apostolate in Germany will become next to impossible.
 
If anyone does not want that to happen, they must make clear that they distance themselves from Bishop Williamson and his activities. That has happened.
(emphasis mine)
This pithy group of sentences requires some commentary.
First, we should point out the utter absurdity, repeated at the highest levels of the SSPX, that the Society does not concern itself with “historical matters.”  As a graduate of an SSPX college, St. Mary’s College in Kansas, I can testify to the fact that, contrary to what any cleric might pronounce, there is indeed a Catholic point of view to any number of historical events, like, for example, the imprisonment of Galileo or the Battle of Lepanto, which is often in direct contradiction to popular notions.  Catholicism is not confined to the sanctuary.  It encompasses the whole of our lives.  Jesus Christ is yesterday, today, and forever.  So too the story of His Church, interwoven among the threads of millennia, is indeed a matter of “history.”  His very birth and death are history.  So, it ist falsch to say that Catholicism, and that bishops, who are guardians of the Faith, are to say nothing about history, and are instead to cow like dogs before politicians who foam at the mouth like the devil himself.
Secondly, if it is said that I am the Bishop’s secretary, so be it.  It is therefore understood that anything I write or say about him has at least his tacit approval.  If this be admitted, it must also be admitted that Maximilian Krah, who has been counsel to the SSPX longer than I have been “secretary” to Bishop Williamson, also enjoys the same tacit approval for what he says, and from the highest levels of the SSPX.
Therefore, when he says that it was necessary to create distance between the SSPX and Bishop Williamson so that the Society may continue its apostolate in Germany, I believe him.  It is a practical measure, but it is one that is pretended to be carried off as noble.  The last line of Krah’s response was “this has happened.”  Meaning, he set up the Spiegel piece as a way to show Bishop Williamson as unbalanced, ill, and outcast by what might be humorously called his “brothers” in the priesthood.  A face-to-face interview would have provided more logs for the burning of the excommunicate, but what kindling Krah could gather, through his various sources, served enough for the necessary “distance” Krah dictated, which any thinking person can gather, was not solely at his own initiative, though it may have been through his own advice.  Gut.  Es wird getan.
And now we know whose side Krah is actually on.

Stephen Heiner

Stephen lives in Paris, France. He founded True Restoration in 2006.

You may also like...

23 Responses

  1. Enoch says:

    I appreciate that you've provided a bit more info here as to the strange situation of this latest interview. It seems obvious that Bp. Williamson was the victim here.

    Regarding the views of the SSPX and the study of history, you are right that history is important, but the details of secular history (relating to the Holocaust) are not necessary to what one needs to know in order for salvation through the Church.

    Indeed, the SSPX leadership is correct in distancing itself from revisionism, though the tactics of Mr. Krah are obviously wrong.

    Also, a Catholic cannot support the revisionist views of Bp. Williamson, and, at the same time, support the SSPX. Bp. Williamson is against the doctrinal discussions now taking place between the SSPX and Rome. I think that if he could stop the discussions, he would do so.

    Still, in all fairness, what was done to him regarding this interview was just plain wrong, and I'd like to know what Bp. Fellay could have been thinking when he granted permission for it.

  2. Enoch

    I do not claim in any way that it is incumbent for a Catholic to be a revisionist! All I am saying is that it is not true that Catholics do not have historical viewpoints.

  3. 1. Auschwitz has replaced Calvary as the central ontological event in history. The Vatican under Pope John Paul II and the current pontiff have aided this diabolic process with their importation of the rabbinic "Shoah" theology into the Church.

    2. Why should Bishop Williamson lose his right to exercize his episcopal office because he doubts some claim of secular history, such as execution gas chambers in Auschwitz? Since when is one side of a debate in establishment secular history somehow canonized and rendered sacred and the other demonized?

    The SSPX has not merely "distanced" itself from revisionism. It has stripped Bishop Williamson of his seminary post, placed a gag order on him and made disparaging remarks about him in public. All because he dissents from the idolatrous new religion of Holocaustianity, which appears to be somehow now synonymous with modern Catholicism.

  4. ambrosio says:

    Enoch said:

    Also, a Catholic cannot support the revisionist views of Bp. Williamson, and, at the same time, support the SSPX.

    Enoch, on grounds of religion or political correctness?

    Anyway, to a layman like myself it seems that the hand of Bp Fellay can be seen in this matter. Perhaps Fellay in turn is under pressure from his friends in Rome.

  5. The Viking says:

    As a former seminarian cleric of the Society of St. Pius X, I can and must readily agree with your assertion Stephen, that the Society does not concern itself with 'historical matters'. Throughout my 18 year association with the Society of St. Pius X, I have heard numerous clerics of varying rank say things about current events or past historical events which were not politically ‘correct.’ The Faith is not lived in a vacuum! It is unfortunate that I have also heard in my 18 years amongst varying ranks of the Society of St. Pius X, negative comments made about ‘that old man who gets so worked up.’ I have always, when I was a cleric, and now as a layman regarded the acceptance of the Faith and the entire economy of ‘Tradition’ as a kind of war. And in war, things are not pleasant. Sometimes you have to dodge bullets and sometimes you have to shoot! The crisis today is as much about pulling the veil off the intellectual 'eyes' of human beings whose minds have been turned into mush concerning religious truth, but also concerning R E A L I T Y. The problem that appears to be growing and morphing at this point in time is that the manner and style by which H.E. Bishop Williamson expresses his take on R E A L I T Y is not currently politically expedient. Unfortunately, the Shoah, as it has come to be known is tantamount in the 20th and 21st centuries, to the ‘libelli’ of Decius' time. H.E. Bishop Williamson is the leader of the ‘lapsi’ for refusing to admit in the public forum that such and such and this and that are as they are presented by those holding the reigns of power. Those who refuse are a political threat now as were the early Christians in that awful epoch of history.
    What is an historical fact is that Popes have written quite strongly and clearly in the past about a race; "…the best color has been changed…" (A Quo Primum–Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on June 14, 1751…Concerning ‘On Jews and Christians living in the same place)http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14aquo.htm
    Now to anyone that takes the time to read this encyclical, they should realize that in 1751, it was probably less explosive a thing to publish than in 2009 to say that details as have been presented about events before, during and after WWII are not as they seem. Does this make either of them less true and worthy of being said?
    It is important to remember that the Queen of Heaven warned the human race via her Fatima message that Russia would spread her errors. We were not warned by heaven of the Third Reich. It is absolutely expedient that ‘someone’ keep the wheels of Communism rolling and divert attention to some other enemy of humanity—that regime that enacted the ‘Shoah’. It is very possible this is a sort of diabolically enabled propaganda campaign to allow the ‘organized forces of naturalism’ to pull a flanking maneuver. G.K. Chesterton once wisely stated that, "Evil thrives in ambiguity." I pray daily that the ambiguity that has apparently arisen in the current political process of which the SSPX has found itself ceases. Let us thank Providence for all men whose words though at times are caustic, are nonetheless very clear.

  6. Oliver says:

    One must remember German lawyers get into trouble if they are seen to be too keen when defending critics of the official Holocaust line. For the sake of their careers they can only rely on using mitigating circumstances in a deferential way when responding to prosecutors. The courts have to act in a way which respects the heavy hand of official history.

  7. R. Neuville says:

    Thank you Michael Hoffman for your excellent comment.
    Auschwitz is not a purely historical-political question (as it has been reproached to Mgr. Williamson), but it purports to be the new "immanent religion" of Judaism "collective messiah", lord and master of this world. All this is unacceptable for the Catholic faith. Moreover, history is made with the evidence of documents, archives, war relics and not with the threats of imprisonment and secular and ecclesiastical excommunications. It is also a matter of "truth", i.e. in accordance with our intellect and opinion of reality. One cannot be asked to adhere to error (discrepancy between opinion and reality) because of the true respect for the dignity of human nature, created to adhere to truth and goodness.

  8. antonio says:

    There could be more, Mr Hoffman.

    Rumor is that Bishop Williamson has been banned from communicating with people. How far this is true, who can say?

    On the one hand FSSPX priests say that Rome and Econe are as far apart as ever, while on the other they want compliance with Rome's view on this matter of secular history.

  9. Dear "Friend" (this is addressed to someone who is using the comments section as an email)

    I published your response if only to click on your profile so that I could respond to you by email. You put me in a very difficult position by not communicating with me by email as I had no way to communicate with you. When I found you had no profile, and hence no email, I deleted your comment, as you had noted "private and confidential" at the top of your comments…not exactly something I thought publishable. I did not "censor" you.

    If you do truly wish to communicate with me, you may email me, at the address given in my profile. I can answer your questions and concerns there, rather than out in the comments section.

  10. Enoch says:

    Ambosio asked, "Enoch, on grounds of religion or political correctness?"

    I presume that it would be on religion. The current leadership of the Society of St. Pius X, as well as the majority of its members (priests) do not hold Bp. Williamson's revisionist viewpoint. Also, as I mentioned, Bp. Williamson is against the doctrinal discussions currently underway between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X.

  11. friend says:

    Private: Did you remove my post, Stephen? It doesn't matter and was sort of a test to see what was motivating you, and who you censor.

    I no longer am sure you have Bishop Williamson's best interests at heart (you carelessly expose him to his enemies after be warned) though you profit from your relationship. More on this to come.

  12. R. Neuville says:

    As an afterthought and general comment:
    If history has nothing to do with Religion, why does the Vatican insist on the mandatory belief in the Holocaust for a Catholic to remain Catholic?

  13. R. Neuville says:

    About Oliver's comment:
    There is a world of difference between being careful "when defending critics of the official Holocaust line" and leaking private e-mails to journalists – which is precisely what happened!
    Is it acceptable practice(in Germany) for lawyers to break a client's confidence?

  14. Enoch says:

    R. Neuville asked: "If history has nothing to do with religion, why does the Vatican insist on the mandatory belief in the Holocaust for a Catholic to remain a Catholic?"

    Well, I don't recall that the Vatican has said that a Catholic must believe in the Holocaust in order to remain a Catholic. Perhaps someone in the Vatican has said that it is an excommunicable offense to not believe in the Holocaust, but in order for that to be the case, there would have to be a canon law which cites that this is an excommunicable offense, and I'm not aware that there is such a thing, though I could be wrong.

    Nor am I aware that maintaining a belief in the Holocaust is a part of the official teachings of the Church, which a Catholic must believe in and profess in order to remain Catholic.

  15. Dan Hunter says:

    "Also, a Catholic cannot support the revisionist views of Bp. Williamson, and, at the same time, support the SSPX.

    Enoch, on grounds of religion or political correctness?"

    If I may answer along with Enoch,

    On the grounds of truth.

    It is a historical fact that millions, yes millions, of Jews were killed in the Shoah.
    And it is a historical fact that over one million Jews were killed by gas,
    It is also true that millions of Christians were slaughtered by the Krauts, but we offer this up, so we keep our piehole closed for the most part.
    Most if not all Jews do not offer up suffering.

  16. The Viking says:

    It is clear that given the backlash of last January, it is almost to the level of doctrine that the officialdom of 6 million and it what manner of execution, be accepted by all clerics who seek normal canonical standing. Let no one be confused on this point; in the court of public opinion (which by the way, is the means by which truth is now determined) those who belong to the 'ecclesia' (and this has a much broader and less objective supposition now) must believe in the universal salvation of all and the predilection of a certain race. To say otherwise is to label one a religiously existential outcast. This subject is treated as a dogma and it is not.

  17. James says:

    Stephen's last sentence in his introductory piece ("And now we know whose side Krah is actually on.") is quite disconcerting, even frightening. As a former practicing attorney (who was never subject to any disciplinary measures), I am well aware (as we should all be) of the terrible truth of what can happen when a lawyer compromises the best interests of his client. The results can be utterly disastrous. It can mean an innocent man ends up imprisoned or even executed for a crime he never committed.

    Bp. Williamson needs legal counsel which will fight most vigorously on his behalf, not one which is compromised by pressures brought to bear on him by the Superior General of the SSPX or anyone else.

    An extremely important part of an attorney's criminal defense in a high profile case is his competency to deal with the media especially when there is a negatively predisposed/brainwashed court of public opinion against his client. It is bad enough to be unintentionally incompetent in this regard, but if one acts in a way to set up his own client for extra ridicule and slander he should be taken out behind the barn and horse whipped. And that's just for starters. In all seriousness, an attorney who rolls over to some "higher" interest thereby selling his client down the river should be subject to very serious disciplinary action. The problem is that given the situation we have no realistic expectation can be had of some German legal authority bringing disciplinary action against Herr Krah for any compromised ethical standard in handling the media or conducting conducting Bp. Williamson's legal defense. (cf Oliver's post at February 12, 2010)7:07 AM)

    According to the Der Spiegel hit piece, as of tomorrow there will be just 62 days remaining before the Holocaust Heretic trial is set to begin on April 16th. Just 62 days to try to get this attorney mess straightened out. May the Holy Ghost give true guidance and strength to His Lordship in this deepening morass he finds himself in.

    James B. Phillips

  18. ambrosio says:

    Mr Hunter:
    Other holocausts should not be pushed into the far background.
    This is from the Cultureandlove blogspot:

    ….The Hindus hold the record for the worst genocide ever committed. Against the Dalits, the "untouchables."

    Nothing comes close. Not the Naqba, not the genocide against Iraq, not even Communist genocides combined against Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, Cubans, Angolans, all Africans – Congolese and the rest & more.

    Not even black slavery comes close.

    Not even slavery against the Slavs, which is older than black slavery was, comes close.

    The genocide against the Dalits is 3,500 years old.

    That long, from a false religion that worships statues and holds its priesthood and warriors and businessman as "racially pure" Aryans; "racially pure" Aryans and above the untouchables…..

  19. Oliver says:

    R. Neville …

    I was looking at other cases where German defending lawyers have had to tread very carefully. I have suggested elsewhere that the bishop appoint his own lawyer and not use the Society's because I believe their respective interests are not the same. It appears there is now a tactic to marginalise and belittle the bishop and make the Society politically correct. In this way the spotlight would be taken off the exiled bishop and the Society would shed those political affiliations that cause it trouble in secular life.

  20. Enoch says:

    James, from you post above, it would seem that Bp. Williamson is a client of Mr. Krah, but has Mr. Krah actually been appointed as such? I'm wondering, too, if Mr. Krah has been appointed as the bishop's attorney in the upcoming trial in April. I would think that the bishop might have a problem with that.

    Dan Hunter, I appreciate your comments, and agree that the Jews do not offer up their suffering, since they, and also those of other religions, and even Protestants, do not understand the true nature of suffering, as it is understood in Catholic teaching.

    Stephen, thanks for allowing me to voice my views here, even though you likely do not agree with many of them…it's very charitable of you to do so.

  21. James says:

    Per Enoch's comment at February 13, 2010 10:26 AM. Since I posted the comment you refer to I was quite relieved to find out that it is not strictly Krah who is defending His Lordship's interests in the German Court, but rather a Herr Lossmann who Bp. Williamson apparently trusts.

    James B. Phillips

  22. I don't see the problem with the SSPX's saying that it has no official position on the Holocaust. After all, it DOESN'T have an official position on the Holocaust. Am I missing something here?

    I am not at all happy with the removal of remarks critical of Jews, and even basically theological critiques of the Jews, from the SSPX websites. But this is clearly meant to keep the Society from being run out of Germany. There is, of course, the danger that this is the first step in an accommodationism that could undermine the Society's apostolate; but I would think that if the Society's apostolate in Germany can be saved, that danger is worth risking.

    Given the fact that Bishop Fellay and Father Pfluger believe in the Holocaust (as, it should be remembered, does practically everybody in the First World), and is scared (with good reason) of being run out of Germany and perhaps other countries, and hindered in its apostolate almost everywhere, its treatment of Bishop Williamson hasn't been that all bad. No doubt Bishop Fellay was as mad as a boil at Bishop Williamson for opening his mouth about what Bishop Fellay considers his goofy ideas; but I'm still inclined to think that the harsh remarks to der Spiegel are mostly for the German market.

    I find Mr. Hoffman's Holocaustianity theory more than a little over the top. In it his finely honed sense of Jewish shrewdness, and ability to see their opportunities and take them, deserts him. This is just one more bunco, and nowhere near as sinister a one as Communism. The Vatican's "theology" on the matter can best be described as standard ecumenical kowtowing made more abject by the power and malice of the Jews, and the Vatican's fear of that power and malice. The whole point of Vatican II was to eliminate things that would get the Church hated and persecuted, and to get it as high a place in the New World Order as it can muster. Placating the Jews is obviously a necessary part of that program. I read the current Holy Father as prepared to make maximum nice-nice with the Jews — but not to have them dictate his religion to him. (I pass over in silence the quality of HIS religion.)

    And by the way, what is this business about Bishop Williamson's being against the discussions with the Vatican? He has made clear both that he is in favor of them, and that he's worried about what might happen. Am I missing something here?

  23. Pace Mr. Heiner's interpretation, Herr Krah is making no sense.

    1. He says that unless the SSPX distances itself from Bishop Williamson's views, it will be attacked. True enough.

    2. Then he says that the Constitutional Gestapo is looking into the whole business, and if they write the SSPX up, it will not be able to continue its apostolate in Germany. I don't know if that's true, but if I had to bet, I'd bet that it was true.

    3. Then he returns to the distancing point, now claiming that if "anyone" doesn't distance himself from the Bishop, the apostolate will be sunk. But who is "anyone"? The SSPX? That's the only thing that makes sense, but it's certainly not a model of clarity.

    4. But then he says: "That has happened."

    5. But what in heaven's name is the antecedent? WHAT has happened?

    6. First we heard that if the SSPX doesn't (distance itself further? not clear), it will be attacked.

    7. Then we get an apparent specification of the attack: their apostolate in Germany is in danger. No news here, other than (for me at least) the existence of the Constitutional Gestapo. That was obviously the reason for the year-old distancing in the first place.

    8. Is the idea that there must be more distancing? That would be consistent with the tenor of the piece, but Herr Krah doesn't say that.

    9. Rather, he says that something has happened.

    10. He can't mean the year-old distancing.

    11. Mr. Heiner thinks that he means the latest hatchet job, in which Herr Krah was complicit. But if the final word is Mission Accomplished, then why is he raising the specter of the Society's being banned?

    12. And in what sense does the hatchet job represent Mission Accomplished? Spiegel effectively claims, based on leaked e-mails, that Bishop Williamson has not mended his ways. Bishop Fellay and Father Pfluger say the same thing they've been saying right along for public consumption, and (if I remember correctly) don't address Bishop Williamson's alleged additional sins at all. Is Herr Krah naive enough to think that any of this is going to get the Constitutional Gestapo off the SSPX's trail? If so, his remarks are an exercise in self-delusion.

    13. Herr Krah seems to have been asked, or have volunteered to pull the Society's German chestnut's from the fire. But it seems to me that whatever you make of this whole affair, the Society should find itself another knight in shining armor. I suspect that Herr Krah is so scared (and not without reason) that he's not thinking straight.

    14. Last of all, I would note that the position of the SSPX leadership does not seem to have changed. They are willing to criticize Bishop Williamson, but not to expel him. Maybe this leaked e-mail malarkey will do the trick, but I doubt it. But we shall see; please watch and pray