Edit: they haven't gone after him yet for kreuznet of 2012.
Four months for "degrading humiliation of homosexual men" on private website - judgment not legally binding
Vienna (kath.net/KAP) The responsible person of the Internet portal "kreuz-net.at" was convicted on Tuesday of the Viennese regional court for criminal cases for incitement to a four months of imprisonment. The Austria Press Agency (APA) reports this after the end of the trial, which should have taken place already in July and had to be postponed due to the lack of the defendant. The punishment was conditionally reviewed by the operator of the website, with a probationary period of three years. The judgment is not final.
The subject of the proceedings was a contribution to homosexuals published in December 2015. Among other things, it was said that syphilis is "God's punishment" for "homo-unbreeders". The accused pled "not guilty". At the hearing, according to APA, his defender Kurt Kadavy stated that the term "homo-fornicator," was "not a term of pleasantry", but "in the Catholic context, fornication is a theological concept which means a serious sinful behavior, namely, sexual intercourse outside the sacrament Marriage". "Homo" was preceded by the term "only to specify", added the defendant.
"God's punishment", according to Catholic morality, is the consequence of serious sins. Whoever does not do penance for this in his lifetime can not find an entrance into Eternal Life, said the accused. He conceded that the contribution was "pointed, no question". But he is not punishable. Whether the defendant had written the article himself, the operator of the website did not want to answer several questions asked by the judge.
"If you do not see that is detrimental, and if you do not understand that the state needs to protect this group from doing so, then there is nothing left but to condemn it," according to APA, said Gerald Wagner, the negotiating judge. There was undoubtedly a "degrading humiliation of homosexual men." The judge said that in his understanding this is a broad condemnation such as wishing syphilis upon them.
The Internet portal "kreuz-net.at", which can also be accessed under "kreuz-net.info", claims to spread "Catholic news". It is a private website. [It's a lot better than the internet commerce site kathnet.]
Previously, another website with the similar name "kreuz.net" had already been targeted in 2012 for anti-Semitic and homophobic contributions to the Austrian and German constitutional protection. [If you recall, the German Bishops made common cause with Green Volker Beck to destroy anyone associated with it.] The public prosecutor's office in Vienna undertook an investigation against the anonymous site operators. The head of the Media of the Austrian Bishops' Conference, Paul Wuthe, called for the blocking of the page in November 2012. The judiciary is engaged and has an active interest. A few weeks later, at the beginning of December, the site went surprisingly off the net and is still no longer accessible.
Shortly afterwards, a new website called "kreuz-net.info" went online at the beginning of 2013 under the Internet address "kreuz-net.at". As a media owner, editor and site manager, the now convicted person before the Viennese regional court does not appear to be legally convicted.
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG
.jpg)
Limburg (kath.net) Regarding contradiction to statements of DBK-test report that were made in statements by the Bishop Emeritus (since March 27th) of Limburg, Franz-Peter Tebartz van Elst, which were reported on Wednesday evening by a variety of media. With remarks on five subject areas as well as the St. Georg work he refers unexpected counter-position to the report of the German Bishops' Conference.
Opinion of Bishop Franz-Peter van Elst Tebartz the report of the examination of the German Bishops Conference in text
1 Complex: Regarding the imputed discrepancy between the understanding of the bishop and the data compared from His Eminence Cardinal Lajolo (. NG. p. 46; p. 51 para 25 and 29; p.103) is as follows:
Already in October 2013, I had responded to the questions asked me, submitted under No. l | 6. that I was truthfully informed during a conversation with His Eminence Cardinal Lajolo, on 10 September 2013, that the differentiated total sum calculation was not available. In the previous meetings of the Financial Board of Directors of the Episcopal chair it was of the necessity and the effort to discuss again and again, possible depreciation be taken into account, which would then lead to reductions in terms of the construction cost total.
In the report referred to by the meeting of the Board of Directors of assets on 28 August 2013, after I had a discussion about which informed regarding expansion of the scope of credit, I wasn't present for the report because I was at a meeting with the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, His Eminence Marc Cardinal Ouellet in Rome.
Already in October 2013, I had responded to the questions asked me, submitted under No. l | 6. that I was truthfully informed during a conversation with His Eminence Cardinal Lajolo, on 10 September 2013, that the differentiated total sum calculation was not available. In the previous meetings of the Financial Board of Directors of the Episcopal chair it was of the necessity and the effort to discuss again and again, possible depreciation be taken into account, which would then lead to reductions in terms of the construction cost total.
In the report referred to by the meeting of the Board of Directors of assets on 28 August 2013, after I had a discussion about which informed regarding expansion of the scope of credit, I wasn't present for the report because I was at a meeting with the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, His Eminence Marc Cardinal Ouellet in Rome.
Also the assertion of the report, according to the signing of the minutes of the meeting of the Finance Board of 28 August 2013 was made by me on 11 September 2013, can not be cited as proof of my knowledge of the differentiated sum of total construction costs. The conversation with His Eminence Cardinal Lajolo took place the day before and on the day the minutes of the meeting of 28 August 2013 were delivered to me Vicar General Dr. Kaspar, so that only at that time that an assessment on my part in any detail was possible.
Rome's approval was shown to be a unnecessary precaution, however, by the representative of the Holy See in Germany, who was Archbishop Jean-Claude Périsset, since the start of construction in 2010/2011, who was informed several times by Vicar General Dr. Kaspar (see the attached in the appendix letter of attorney Professor ignor forward November 5 2013, and my answer to the specific questions that were put to me in October 2013 by the Congregation for Bishops, see here: Nr. | .5, 6).
2 Complex:
As far as canonical concerns are expressed, they are based on compliance with the written form (see test report p 15 and p 37) and related to the respect of the business meeting.Both objects formal nature fell under the responsibility of the Vicar General. As a non-expert in the field of church administration since my expertise is in pastoral theology, I had to leave the responsibility for this to the Vicar General, Dr. Kaspar, the "as the only (besides the Managing Director of the Diocese) was found to have a comprehensive insight into the asset structure the Episcopal chair."(cf., audit report p. 50 para. 21).
Incidentally, the path taken represents a continuation of the preceding exercise of the cathedral chapter in this field.
3 Complex:
On the alleged ultimate responsibility of the bishop in the report, I understand this has always been so that they themselves as the successors of the apostles are to head the Church by the Lord (witness to the truth), not just as an expression of administrative detail and total competence. A differing understanding would invest the dignity of the Episcopate with criteria where it is seen primarily as an administrative professional, engineering and accounting profession, instead of focusing on its doctrinal, pastoral, spiritual and charitable mission.
4 Complex:
The responsibilities of the Vicar General (see p 35, p 39 and p 101): At the beginning of my episcopal ministry in the diocese of Limburg in January 2008, I arrived in a situation that was in many ways unordered, primarily of a personal aspect of administration. This prompted me not least on the explicit advice of my predecessor in the episcopate, Bishop Emeritus Dr. Franz Kamphaus, back in September 2009, recommending Vicar General Dr. Franz Kaspar for the social and public recognition of his management experience and his standing in the office of vicar general.
He urged for greater administrative efficiency that directly allocated the building department and care for art in the Diocese which had become detached from integration to the financial department.
He also stressed the role of the diocesan economist in the diocese, contrary to the previous practice of the appointment of the head of the finance department with this responsibility.
He has taken in its jurisdiction and the banking business. Based on the construction of the Bishop's house, he has operated the change from the second design (architect Hamm) to the design of Professor Schattner as essential.
Regarding the art assigned in the bishop's house, he took the initiative to engage the artists Professor Johannes Schreiter (glass window), Karl-Matthew Winter ( Features of the chapel) and Professor Thomas Duttenhofer (gate), with which he had complete personally awareness.
Among the existing historic furniture from storage, he had acquired furniture on his own initiative and without my knowledge.
As to the supposition of the requirement of secrecy it is known, that the relevant provisions in the service contracts between the Diocese and the Episcopal chair are identical (see the attached in the annex two service contracts). Also, in practice, there was no divergent handling by me.
Specific issues in the diocese of Limburg, which was characterized before my arrival by indiscretions (see letter from Professor Christoph Mackler of 20 August 2008 on the construction of the cathedral chapter, see also audit report S . 100), it nevertheless suggested to repeatedly refer to a self-evident confidentiality obligation. Because also the previous history of the construction of the the Bishop's House demonstrates how difficult transparency was to come by, which came out later only with difficulty.
Deciding to undertake the settlement with KPMG (see p 69 and p 88 ), struck me as a forward-looking measure (outsourcing) as well as to counter the allegation of a mere internal self-control.
Moreover, the administrative capacity of the Episcopal Ordinariate was not enough to accomplish this task.
5 Complex:
On listing the drivers of cost and cost-increasing issues (pp. 79-82) is noted:
In the audit report a representation of the total cost, which is exaggerated in a methodological error, that names the absolute amounts as constituting additional costs, while they are proven to be the total cost of individual positions. The impression thus is created that leads to orders of magnitude, which must irritate.
For each of the points mentioned in the report, a position could be taken by the responsible employees. As for the responsibility as a bishop, while the constraint has to be seen that I, as bishop, am neither a financial nor a construction expert. In so far as the specific information with the individual items mentioned in the report for which I was personally responsible, I have this spoken on this in the discussions 4 and 5 March 2014 at the Congregation for Bishops. On the background of my predicament with experiences of other construction projects in the Diocese, I was involved with from the beginning in terms of the quality and sustainability to be considered in the overall project.
Digression to the St. Georg work (p. 32f.):
True, the report notes that "the judgment, that the statutory purpose of the work in 2011 can not be met, which falls to the bishop. (Cf. 5:32). The report's authors consider a need to clarify whether the Episcopal See’s funds were used for the specific purpose of the founding. You see in the abolition decree of the bishop there is a restriction of the original purpose.
For this purpose, however, it is different from the external repeal Decree of 27 September 2011, the minutes of the Board of Directors of the assets Episcopal chair of 2 November 2011 shows that even after the dissolution of the St. Georg Work, that the assets devolving to the Episcopal See will and must be used furthermore for "religious, charitable or benevolent purposes".
This shows that there is nothing in the foundation's intention of the St. Georg work that has changed, regardless of the question whether the work's foundation in the immediate postwar period foresaw the construction of a diocesan meeting center. The open question of law in this context, the demand by the authors of the report to clarify, considers the fact that there can be no accusations of an intentional violation of the purpose (See minutes of the VVR November 2, 2011).
The person responsible for the decision, Vicar General and Diocesan Economist Dr. Franz Kaspar, was in fact obviously aware that the founding intention of the work is still covered by the assets of the Episcopal See and is guaranteed. I was sure of this certainty.
The opinion in its text as a PDF file: http://www.kathtube.com/player.php?id=34231
Link to Kath.net...
Edit: the good Bishop has since apologized of course. We haven't seen the apology, but are certain that all of this is sensible and unnecessarily complicated by the media's nastiness.
AMGD
Rome's approval was shown to be a unnecessary precaution, however, by the representative of the Holy See in Germany, who was Archbishop Jean-Claude Périsset, since the start of construction in 2010/2011, who was informed several times by Vicar General Dr. Kaspar (see the attached in the appendix letter of attorney Professor ignor forward November 5 2013, and my answer to the specific questions that were put to me in October 2013 by the Congregation for Bishops, see here: Nr. | .5, 6).
2 Complex:
As far as canonical concerns are expressed, they are based on compliance with the written form (see test report p 15 and p 37) and related to the respect of the business meeting.Both objects formal nature fell under the responsibility of the Vicar General. As a non-expert in the field of church administration since my expertise is in pastoral theology, I had to leave the responsibility for this to the Vicar General, Dr. Kaspar, the "as the only (besides the Managing Director of the Diocese) was found to have a comprehensive insight into the asset structure the Episcopal chair."(cf., audit report p. 50 para. 21).
Incidentally, the path taken represents a continuation of the preceding exercise of the cathedral chapter in this field.
3 Complex:
On the alleged ultimate responsibility of the bishop in the report, I understand this has always been so that they themselves as the successors of the apostles are to head the Church by the Lord (witness to the truth), not just as an expression of administrative detail and total competence. A differing understanding would invest the dignity of the Episcopate with criteria where it is seen primarily as an administrative professional, engineering and accounting profession, instead of focusing on its doctrinal, pastoral, spiritual and charitable mission.
4 Complex:
The responsibilities of the Vicar General (see p 35, p 39 and p 101): At the beginning of my episcopal ministry in the diocese of Limburg in January 2008, I arrived in a situation that was in many ways unordered, primarily of a personal aspect of administration. This prompted me not least on the explicit advice of my predecessor in the episcopate, Bishop Emeritus Dr. Franz Kamphaus, back in September 2009, recommending Vicar General Dr. Franz Kaspar for the social and public recognition of his management experience and his standing in the office of vicar general.
He urged for greater administrative efficiency that directly allocated the building department and care for art in the Diocese which had become detached from integration to the financial department.
He also stressed the role of the diocesan economist in the diocese, contrary to the previous practice of the appointment of the head of the finance department with this responsibility.
He has taken in its jurisdiction and the banking business. Based on the construction of the Bishop's house, he has operated the change from the second design (architect Hamm) to the design of Professor Schattner as essential.
Regarding the art assigned in the bishop's house, he took the initiative to engage the artists Professor Johannes Schreiter (glass window), Karl-Matthew Winter ( Features of the chapel) and Professor Thomas Duttenhofer (gate), with which he had complete personally awareness.
Among the existing historic furniture from storage, he had acquired furniture on his own initiative and without my knowledge.
As to the supposition of the requirement of secrecy it is known, that the relevant provisions in the service contracts between the Diocese and the Episcopal chair are identical (see the attached in the annex two service contracts). Also, in practice, there was no divergent handling by me.
Specific issues in the diocese of Limburg, which was characterized before my arrival by indiscretions (see letter from Professor Christoph Mackler of 20 August 2008 on the construction of the cathedral chapter, see also audit report S . 100), it nevertheless suggested to repeatedly refer to a self-evident confidentiality obligation. Because also the previous history of the construction of the the Bishop's House demonstrates how difficult transparency was to come by, which came out later only with difficulty.
Deciding to undertake the settlement with KPMG (see p 69 and p 88 ), struck me as a forward-looking measure (outsourcing) as well as to counter the allegation of a mere internal self-control.
Moreover, the administrative capacity of the Episcopal Ordinariate was not enough to accomplish this task.
5 Complex:
On listing the drivers of cost and cost-increasing issues (pp. 79-82) is noted:
In the audit report a representation of the total cost, which is exaggerated in a methodological error, that names the absolute amounts as constituting additional costs, while they are proven to be the total cost of individual positions. The impression thus is created that leads to orders of magnitude, which must irritate.
For each of the points mentioned in the report, a position could be taken by the responsible employees. As for the responsibility as a bishop, while the constraint has to be seen that I, as bishop, am neither a financial nor a construction expert. In so far as the specific information with the individual items mentioned in the report for which I was personally responsible, I have this spoken on this in the discussions 4 and 5 March 2014 at the Congregation for Bishops. On the background of my predicament with experiences of other construction projects in the Diocese, I was involved with from the beginning in terms of the quality and sustainability to be considered in the overall project.
Digression to the St. Georg work (p. 32f.):
True, the report notes that "the judgment, that the statutory purpose of the work in 2011 can not be met, which falls to the bishop. (Cf. 5:32). The report's authors consider a need to clarify whether the Episcopal See’s funds were used for the specific purpose of the founding. You see in the abolition decree of the bishop there is a restriction of the original purpose.
For this purpose, however, it is different from the external repeal Decree of 27 September 2011, the minutes of the Board of Directors of the assets Episcopal chair of 2 November 2011 shows that even after the dissolution of the St. Georg Work, that the assets devolving to the Episcopal See will and must be used furthermore for "religious, charitable or benevolent purposes".
This shows that there is nothing in the foundation's intention of the St. Georg work that has changed, regardless of the question whether the work's foundation in the immediate postwar period foresaw the construction of a diocesan meeting center. The open question of law in this context, the demand by the authors of the report to clarify, considers the fact that there can be no accusations of an intentional violation of the purpose (See minutes of the VVR November 2, 2011).
The person responsible for the decision, Vicar General and Diocesan Economist Dr. Franz Kaspar, was in fact obviously aware that the founding intention of the work is still covered by the assets of the Episcopal See and is guaranteed. I was sure of this certainty.
The opinion in its text as a PDF file: http://www.kathtube.com/player.php?id=34231
Link to Kath.net...
Edit: the good Bishop has since apologized of course. We haven't seen the apology, but are certain that all of this is sensible and unnecessarily complicated by the media's nastiness.
AMGD
