Judaic Inquisition, 2007
EDITOR’S NOTE: Failure to assent one’s will to the holy dogmas handed down by the High Priests of Holocaustolatry in Europe brings harsh penalties which one can be assured will grow much harsher unless people wake up and protest this madness.
Zundel jailed five years for Holocaust denial
Canadian PressPublished: Thursday, February 15, 2007
MANNHEIM, Germany – … Ernst Zundel was convicted of 14 counts of incitement Thursday for Holocaust denial and sentenced to the maximum five years in prison.
The 67-year-old, who was deported from Canada in 2005, was accused of years of anti-Semitic activities, including denying the Holocaust a crime in Germany in documents and on the Internet. Zundel and his supporters have argued that he is a peaceful campaigner denied his right to free speech.
… Zundel was born in Germany in 1939. He came to Canada in 1958 and lived in Toronto and Montreal until 2001. Canadian officials rejected his attempts to obtain citizenship in 1966 and 1994.
He then moved to Tennessee, where he married … Ingrid Rimland, but was deported to Canada in 2003 for alleged immigration violations.
Upon arrival in Toronto, Zundel was arrested and held in detention until a judge ruled in March 2005 that his activities posed a threat to national and international security, and he was deported to Germany.
That decision was welcomed by Jewish … groups in Canada and elsewhere.
Zundel has been standing trial in Germany since November of last year …
… “You might as well argue that the sun rises in the west,” [prosecutor, Andreas] Grossmann said when asking that Zundel be given the maximum sentence. “But you cannot change that the Holocaust has been proven.”
Full Article:
Arguing that the sun rises in the west isn’t punishable by long prison terms, however. And neither is the denial of any matter of historical record or any dogma of any religion aside from Judaism and it’s “Jewish race” apotheosis dogmas in their Holocaust guise, in which case, such dogmas are held to be as undeniable as the laws of physics and enforced by state law.
Who is behind this holocaust denial legislation madness? The alchemist, Pat Buchanan would have you believe that it’s “the Germans” who are behind Germany’s holocaust denial laws. But that doesn’t coincide with reality.
Who has the audacity to lobby the Vatican to declare their own non-Catholic dogmas to Catholics? “The Germans”?
Pope hears Holocaust denial plea
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert asked Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday to urge Christians to protest Holocaust denials, Israeli government officials said. During their meeting at the Vatican, Benedict told Olmert he would consider the request, which followed an Iranian conference questioning the Nazi genocide against the Jews. Benedict met with Olmert alone for 35 minutes and praised Israel’s restraint in Gaza, Israeli spokesman Jacob Galanti said. Olmert’s request that the pope denounce Holocaust denials in his next homily came one day after the Vatican issued a statement calling on people to remember the Nazi campaign of extermination.
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/12/14/Worldandnation/Pope_hears_Holocaust_.shtml
Maurice Pinay 
February 16, 2007 at 12:10 am |
Priest convicted for genocide role
A Catholic priest, the Rev. Athanase Seromba, was convicted Wednesday of participating in Rwanda’s 1994 genocide by ordering militiamen to set fire to a church and then bulldoze it while 2,000 people were huddled inside. Seromba was sentenced by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to 15 years in prison, although he will get credit for four years already served. The tribunal is based in Arusha, Tanzania. Seromba was charged with directing a militia that “attacked with traditional arms and poured fuel through the roof of the church, while gendarmes and communal police launched grenades and killed the refugees.” After failing to kill all the people inside, Seromba ordered the demolition of the church. Last month, the tribunal sentenced a Catholic nun to 30 years in jail for helping militias kill hundreds of people in a hospital. In 2001, two nuns were convicted by a Belgian court for aiding and abetting the murders.
February 16, 2007 at 8:20 am |
During the second half of the 20th century accusations of the sexual abuse of children by figures in the Roman Catholic church started to be reported, mostly in America and Ireland. The John Jay Report[1] into claims of abuse found accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA only. Some of the priests who would be implicated, such as Paul Shanley, had been openly promoting adult-child sex and other forms of sex since the 1960s and 1970s.[2] Conservative and traditionalist Catholics had long claimed in fact that a significant minority of the clergy had been practicing such behavior for decades, alleging that a “homosexual collective” within the priesthood viewed it as a “religious rite” and “rite of passage” for altar boys and young priests.[3]
February 16, 2007 at 1:22 pm |
Four percent of priests serving over last 50 years accused of abuse
By Agostino Bono
Catholic News Service
WASHINGTON (CNS) — About 4 percent of U.S. priests ministering from 1950 to 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor, according to the first comprehensive national study of the issue.
The study said that 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984.
During the same time frame there were 109,694 priests, it said.
Sex-abuse related costs totaled $573 million, with $219 million covered by insurance companies, said the study done by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
It noted, however, that the overall dollar figure is much higher than reported; 14 percent of the dioceses and religious communities did not provide financial data and the total did not include settlements made after 2002, such as the $85 million agreed to by the Boston Archdiocese.
The study, released in Washington Feb. 27, was commissioned by the U.S. bishops’ National Review Board, which also released its own report at the same news conference on the causes of the clergy sex abuse crisis that has rocked the church for the past two years.
The review board, named by the bishops and composed of prominent lay people, is monitoring compliance with the U.S. bishops’ policies to prevent clergy sex abuse.
The John Jay study concentrated on providing statistics about the nature and scope of the crisis.
The study said the sharp decline in abuse incidents since 1984 coupled with the declining percentage of accusations against priests ordained in recent years “presents a more positive picture” than the overall statistics.
It said that 68 percent of the allegations were made against priests ordained between 1950 and 1979, while priests ordained after 1979 accounted for 10.7 percent of the allegations.
For the entire 52-year period “the problem was indeed widespread and affected more than 95 percent of the dioceses and approximately 60 percent of religious communities,” said the study.
The study was based on detailed questionnaires returned by 195 of the 202 dioceses, Eastern eparchies and other ecclesial territories tied to the United States. This 97 percent compliance was “an extraordinarily high response rate,” said the study.
The study also contains data from 60 percent of the religious communities in the United States representing 80 percent of the religious priests.
At the news conference, Gerald Lynch, president of John Jay College, said the study was “accurate and comprehensive” regarding child sex abuse in the church.
“This was not a sampling. We had an entire population,” said Lynch.
Karen Terry, John Jay principal investigator for the study, said that “it is possible the bishops are not giving us everything.”
But based on the data and church requests for help in getting information to researchers, “this was a good faith effort to provide information,” she said.
The number of permanent deacons accused was 41, about one-quarter of 1 percent of the permanent deacons ordained during the period. The number is so small that the survey includes the figure in the overall total for priests.
Child sex abuse was more prevalent among diocesan clergy. Allegations were made against 4.3 percent of the diocesan priests and 2.5 percent of the religious priests, said the study. Of the total clergy accused, 929 were religious priests, it said.
Regarding substantiated allegations against priests in ministry at the time, the most common action by church authorities was to send the priest for medical evaluation or treatment, said the study.
No action was taken against a priest in 10 percent of the allegations, and in 6 percent of the allegations the priests were reprimanded and returned to ministry, reported the study. Other actions included suspending priests involved in 29 percent of the allegations and placing priests involved in 24 percent of the allegations on administrative leave, it said.
The study listed the main characteristics of the sex abuse incidents reported. These included:
— An overwhelming majority of the victims, 81 percent, were males. The most vulnerable were boys aged 11 to 14, representing more than 40 percent of the victims. This goes against the trend in the general U.S. society where the main problem is men abusing girls.
— A majority of the victims were post-pubescent adolescents with a small percentage of the priests accused of abusing children who had not reached puberty.
— Most of the accused committed a variety of sex acts involving serious sexual offenses.
— The most frequent context for abuse was a social event and many priests socialized with the families of victims.
— Abuses occurred in a variety of places with the most common being the residence of the priest.
“Like in the general population, child sex abuse in the Catholic Church appears to be committed by men close to the children they allegedly abuse, many appear to use grooming tactics to entice children into complying with the abuse, and the abuse occurs in the home of the alleged abuser or victim,” said the study.
Enticements included buying the minor gifts, letting the victim drive a car and taking youths to sporting events, said the study.
The concentration of abuse was among a small percentage of the accused priests while most of the priests accused, 56 percent, had only one victim, said the study. A further 27 percent had two or three victims, it added.
Slightly more than 3 percent of the accused priests had 10 or more victims and these 149 priests accounted for abuse of 2,960 victims, representing almost 28 percent of the allegations.
Although most of the incidents occurred before 1985, two-thirds of the allegations have been reported since 1993.
Regarding the drop-off in reported incidents after 1985, Robert Bennett, National Review Board member, said at the news conference that it was in part due to bishops becoming alarmed about the situation in the 1980s and ’90s and starting to take preventive measures.
John Jay’s Terry, however, was cautious about the statistical drop-off. She noted that there is generally a lapse of several years between a sex abuse incident and the making of a public allegation. She said many allegations about events in the 1990s may not have been reported yet.
The John Jay study said that pedophilia, an attraction to pre-pubescent children diagnosed as a psychiatric disease, was a smaller part of the sex abuse problem. It said that 22 percent of the victims were under 10. It added that 51 percent were 11 to 14 years old and 27 percent were 15 to 17 years old.
Regarding offenses, the study catalogued more than 20 ranging from verbal harassment to penile penetration. It said that most of the abusers engaged in multiple types of abuses.
Only 9 percent of the accused performed acts limited to improper touching over the victim’s clothes, said the study.
Slightly more than 27 percent of the allegations involved a cleric performing oral sex and 25 percent involved penile penetration or attempted penile penetration, reported the study.
Most of the allegations involved touching over or under clothing.
The study said sexual abuse “includes contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used as an object of sexual gratification for the adult.” It added that the abuse does not have to involve force or genital or physical contact.
Almost one-third of the accused “showed a history of substance abuse, questions about his ‘fitness for ministry’ or behavioral problems,” said the study.
Almost 7 percent of the accused were reported to have been abused as children, it added.
Regarding action by civil authorities, the study said that “3 percent of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2 percent received prison sentences.”
The study said that the data gathered will be used for more detailed future reports and analysis on aspects of the clergy sex abuse situation.
February 16, 2007 at 6:08 pm |
Hmmmm…. I wonder who is in the Dark Age….
February 16, 2007 at 6:18 pm |
The conviction of Ernst Zundel a complete miscarriage of justice! Anybody that supports free speech should be outraged by this.
February 16, 2007 at 10:33 pm |
Itzchak,
What is the solution? What is the remedy?
February 16, 2007 at 10:55 pm |
Well a beginning point would be to allow clergy to marry and have sexual relations. Enforced abstinence does not seem to have healthy results, the Tibetan monks seem to be able to pull it off but obviously it has been disastrous as a requirement for RC clergy.
February 17, 2007 at 4:30 am |
Itzchak,
Once again, thank you for your perspicacious insight. Now that we have the answer to this question and you are our resident ambassador of the chosen, what else should the goyim understand?
February 17, 2007 at 4:43 am |
You’re welcome…
Well the main thing, I suppose, is that it’s really silly to believe in some Jewish guy dying for your sins as a way of redemption.
That was/is really a tragic mistake.
February 17, 2007 at 8:22 am |
What’s tragic is your continued attacks against the Catholic Church, caricaturing Her, refusing to look at Her with an open mind, etc. Your continued willful ignorance will only ultimately harm you in the end, despite what you think.
February 17, 2007 at 4:30 pm |
Itzchak,
De fide arguments or a fallacy that is an appeal to authority (that being your innumerable assertions relying on your knowledge or your perceptions derived from a set of beliefs i.e. Judaism)are the weakest forms of certitude. Anon 3:22 buttresses my opionion that you are heavily immersed in invincible ignorance. I think another once implied that about your kind and I am sure that He casts a long shadow upon your thinking and conscience, so I cannot fault you for coming to this site or to mull these issues over for I think we can agree that these issues are of primal importance.
February 17, 2007 at 6:17 pm |
And your certitude is based on?
February 17, 2007 at 6:38 pm |
Mr. Anon:
“refusing to look at Her with an open mind, etc. Your continued willful ignorance will only ultimately harm you in the end, despite what you think.”
Please explain to me what I am missing about her…and how it will harm me…? Do you mean that I’ll be going to hell?
February 20, 2007 at 5:30 pm |
Why do Jews who hate Jesus Christ
always use an ‘apologetic’ where they describe Him as a ‘jewish man’?…1) the word ‘jew’ did not exist until the 17th cenury…as far as I know, the letter ‘j’ does
not exist in Hebrew, Aramaic or An-
cient Greek…Christ was know as
‘Iesus’ in Greek & ‘Yehoshua’ in
Hebrew/Aramaic…he was a descendent of the tribe of Judah,
who later became identified by some
as ‘Jews’…as a descendent of this
particular Israelite tribe, he fulfilled the scripture, whereby the ‘…sceptre shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh cometh…’
as Chroist was ‘Shiloh’, the sceptre has departed from Judah, and any of those who call themselves ‘Jews’ who masquerade as
descendents of Judah…Jesus Christ
was not a Jew…….Michael Mantra
February 21, 2007 at 2:08 am |
This is almost too ridiculous to respond to but…
the Hebrew for Judah is Yehuda..the word for Jew in Hebrew is Yehudi which has been around for a very long time…
It doesn’t matter what the English word is or isn’t…
February 21, 2007 at 2:11 am |
The Hebrew name for Jew “Yehudi” (plural Yehudim) came into being when the Kingdom of Israel was split between the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah. The term originally referred to the people of the southern kingdom, although the term B’nei Yisrael (Israelites) was still used for both groups. After the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom leaving the southern kingdom as the only Israelite state, the word Yehudim gradually came to refer to people of the Jewish faith as a whole, rather than those specifically from Judah. The English word Jew is ultimately derived from Yehudi . Its first use in the Bible to refer to the Jewish people as a whole is in the Book of Esther
February 21, 2007 at 2:35 am |
Once again, the contradiction raises itself:
To be part of the tribe of Judah, your father has to be from the tribe of Judah..You can’t say jesus had a divine father and that he was from the tribe of Judah.
February 23, 2007 at 6:28 am |
Yawn. Inane objections again and again. Mary was from the tribe of Judah. That clearly is shown in the Gospels.
February 25, 2007 at 8:52 am |
The tribal identification does not go through the mother.