sabato 3 ottobre 2009


by Francesco Colafemmina

Thank to a really smart german reader we discovered this new point in the incredible affair Williamson Part 2nd.
On September 30th the catholic agency Zenit published only in spanish the "true interview το Cardinal Castrillon on the Williamson affair". According to Zenit this is the original interview released by Cardinal Castrillon to Suddeutsche Zeitung and published on Sept. 25th edition of the german newspaper. However this interview is completely different from that published on the german newspaper on some important points!

Particularly the interview version released by Zenit added this passage:

-There were however some complaints addressed to your collegue in the Commission"Ecclesia Dei", Mons. Camille Perl.

-Cardenal Darío Castrillón: No, I cannot see any responsibility in him. But I don't like in any case to establish in this way, a priori, responsibilities. If I have to speak about Card. Re I make it just for one reason: because organically his departement is charged to know what the bishops say and what the medias say about the bishops.

- What would you say to someone that affirm that Mons. Filoni and Mons. Mamberti have a part of responsibility?

-Cardenal Darío Castrillón: Mons. Dominique Mamberti doesn't have any responsibility since he is in charge of the Section that has relationship with the States and this issue (that of Williamson ndr) doesn't enter in the orbit of his competency. Mons. Filoni, during the most intense period of the dialogues wasn't in the Secretariat of State. He may have been informed about the report on Williamson, but I don't believe it. Since who was Williamson? He was an insignificant figure. A seminarist that trusted in Lefebvre, that, since he was very young, ordered him priest. Who had to be informed about him? No one! No one was interested about him!

Where in the text of Suddeutsche Zeitung Card. Castrillon speaks about Perl or Filoni and Mamberti? Who did cancel this phrase in the interview of Suddeutsche Zeitung? It's a mystery! I can just say that the name of Filoni was only present before in my comment to the full text of the interview published on September the 25th here on Fides et Forma.
But let's go one in the reading: in the interview version presented by Zenit, infact, there is a central missing point: the reference to Bishop Arborelius and his slander! In the spanish text, the "original" text, there's no reference to Arborelius's "slander" i.e. the accusation against Castrillon made by the Bishop of Stockolm Anders Arborelius, during an interview to the SVT (national swedish television). According to Arborelius there was a report on the Williamson Interview made by his diocesis and sent through the Nuncio Tscherrig to the Vatican on november 2008. This report was allegedly sent also to Castrillon, that in order to make a favour to SSPX didn't speaks about it to the Pope. So, according to Arborelius, Castrillon was hidding the report just to avoid the accusation of Williamson as "Holocaust denier", and so to avoid a potential interruption of the process to revocke the excommunications of the SSPX bishops.
In the interview published on Suddeutsche Zeitung on Sept. 25th Castrillon referred to the accusation of Arborelius as a "slander". This phrase however doesn't exsist in the "original spanish version" of the interview reported now by Zenit.
There is instead a new passage, with reference to the director of the german branch of Radio Vaticana:

- And the accusations of Ebberhard van Gremmingen?

-Cardenal Darío Castrillón: I don't know who is he.

- He is the director of Radio Vaticana in Germany. He made some statements that didn't give a good impression about you to the german public opinion.

-Cardenal Darío Castrillón: I don't think is strange that if the so called "speaker" of the Pope, father Lombardi, expressed a wrong opinion on me, his subaltern Gremmingen, could follow him in this mistake.

The true text in german is now available here (first page) and here (second page): make a confrontation to believe! There is no reference to Filoni or Mamberti, but the name of Arborelius is clearly there.

So what the hell happened between the first text in spanish and the final interview published by Suddeutsche Zeitung on nov. 25th?

9 commenti:

Anonimo ha detto...

Here the falsified interview was first detected and commented:

Francesco Colafemmina ha detto...

I don't think so! Is not a war of blog, but Katobs just quoted what I said here. In fact the links to the two pages of Suddeutsche Zeitung are the same of the italian jewish media observer that I linked here.


Anonimo ha detto...

It is very simple. The journalist mutilated the original interview (one wonders at whose request) and added some comments on the more recent events which the good Cardinal made to the same journalist in a telephone call.

Editor/KATOLSK OBSERVATÖR ha detto...
Questo commento è stato eliminato dall'autore.
Editor/KATOLSK OBSERVATÖR ha detto...

I posted about the differences between the two versions at 11.50 pm the 2d of October, that was discovered when I searched for the name of Arborelius in all the versions. Another blog was quoting from our article 9:30 in the morning the 3d. I added the links to the two pages of Süddeutsche Zeitung this morning, the 4th of October, when they turned up in this blog.

So you are both right in a sense...

About the telephone interview: Please confirm!

Ulf Silfverling

4 ottobre 2009 22.09

Francesco Colafemmina ha detto...

Dear Ulf,

thank you for your precisation.
I think that this is just an incredible puzzle of distorsion and confusion.

The more reliable thing is that SZ published the only true interview because:

1. It's absurd that a serious newspaper make cut and additions in this way.

2. They printed the passage regarding Re and Lombardi, but not that regarding Filoni Mamberti Perl and the director of german Vatican Radio. It's incredible that SZ would have made such a crazy mistake.

3. There is no reason for this cut!

4. There is no reason for Castrillon to avoid to speak about Arborelius. The pivot of the interview is exactly the accusation of Arborelius and the answer of Castrillon that in Ecclesia Dei everithing is stored on digital format. Is crazy that he didn't speak about this issue. And is crazy that someone invented it!

5. More reliable interpretation: act of reparation with the following points:

a. Cancellation of the reference to the "Arborelius's slander" because is not so pretty!
b. Addition of the reference on Perl in order to protect him.
c. Addition of the reference on Filoni and Mamberti in order to enigmatically make an accusation of Filoni...
d. Addition of the reference on the german director of Radio Vaticana... I don't know why!

There is still another missing point. In the spanish version there is an implicit attack to the new motu proprio that dissolved Ecclesia Dei...

I don't believe in this story of the phone call...

Editor/KATOLSK OBSERVATÖR ha detto...

Thank you Francesco. I just note that the Arborelius question is put in after the "Was denken Sie? question. But in the Spanish text the next question is a direct follow-up to the answer about a "golpe". This would talk against Zenit as having manipulated the interview.

I think we have to ask the two sources. We have already started with SZ.

Ulf Silfverling

Francesco Colafemmina ha detto...

Mistery solved!

Editor/KATOLSK OBSERVATÖR ha detto...

OK Sometimes it´s hard to know where the hook is...

Anyway we might have showed that the "Big Zeitung" ought to think twice next time they want to spread disinformation.

Pro Fide et Veritate!

Ulf Silfverling