False Expert Reports - Catholic church against Vatican 2 - Complaint

- The "legal opinion" of "canonist" Thomas Schüller on trial -
(Kirche zum Mitreden, 14th Aug. 2014)
[Deutsche Version]

"Mistakes of expert witnesses disturb law and order considerably"
(Prof. Dr. med. Peter W. Gaidzik of the University of Witten / Herdecke, 05th Aug. 2014)

The focus here is on the case of Thomas Schüller, "professor of canon law at the Institute of Canon Law at the University of Münster", i.e. a representative of the group of the so-called. "Second Vatican Council" (V2). A representative of the Catholic church has filed a lawsuit against Schüller for his false expert report in the criminal case at District Court Dorsten, reference number 7 Ls-29 Js 74/08-43/11.
A detailed commentary on Schüller's report with over 15,000 words was released six weeks ago (23th June 2014) on several websites and remained unobjected.
Whatever one may think concerning the topic (religion, Catholic church, sedevacantism, Father Lingen etc.): It is an undeniable fact that Schüller's report is filled with absurd misstatements. So everyone without exception who wants justice, he may be a declared atheist and even a declared V2 believer, must condemn this report completely.

The Justice of the FRG is known for permanent blatant perversion of justice. Search queries such as "false reports", "justice victims", "justice scandals", "lawbreaker mafia" etc. lead to a huge amount of documents. On one hand, a judge may just be driven purely by his desire to do injustice. That means whatever you may do: In this case, the judge breaks the law deliberately and purposefully, thus justice has absolutely no chance. Proof is of no importance, quite the contrary: absurd fantasies are declared as "evidence", real evidence, however, is ignored / suppressed / destroyed. And whoever can prove this perversion of justice is simply criminalized as "offender" and thus eliminated. This may be the normal situation.
On the other hand, it remains theoretically possible that the judge simply lacks the interest to do justice, e.g. because of laziness, incompetence etc. In that case, the judge would be more or less indifferent towards the truth. He possibly would even be carried away to do justice, if he is not deterred / overwhelmed by the necessary amount of time and intelligence. In such a case, of course, it is important to get the foot in the door using a very concise and pointed application. Thus with a lot of painstaking work, the following text was created. For more detailed information see the [German] detailed commentary and many other publications.

Up to now, i.e. solely to the mere creation of the application and without any other proceedings costs, the costs have already clearly exceeded 13,000 (thirteen thousand) Euro.

To all supporters a heartfelt "God bless you"!


The plaintiff, born in 1967, is a Father, i.e. a validly ordained priest, since 1996.
In 1986, he passed the high school exam in a "convent school" (Haus Overbach, Jülich) of the group of the so-called "Second Vatican Council" (V2) with a grade average of 1.6 [best possible: 1.0; worst poss. (pass) 4.0; absolutely worst poss. (w/o pass): 6.0]. His advanced courses in German and English testify his abilities to understand texts. His courses in "Catholic religious education" testify his knowledge of religion. His courses in mathematics and philosophy testify his abilities in logical reasoning.
High school diploma, annex 1

After military service (airman third class) he became a "priest candidate" for the V2-diocese of Essen and studied "Catholic theology for the priesthood" in Bochum. Finally he was "priest candidate" in the V2-diocese of Chur, where he received the "ministry of lector" in a public V2-rite (preliminary step to V2-"ordination").
Lector certificate, annex 2

After 13 semesters (5 of them only teacher training) in 1995, he received the "diploma in Catholic theology" with the degree "very good".
Diploma, annex 3

On 19th Sept. 1995 the applicant formally left the V2 group, and on 02.03.1996 he was ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church.
Confirmation of the V2-withdrawal by the local city office of Dorsten 12/2001
Ordination certificate, annex 4

The defendant is a representative of the group of the Second Vatican Council (V2), with which the plaintiff is in dispute. According to the research by the plaintiff, that group operates unlawfully as the Catholic Church. Numerous websites offer information about the regarding contradictions between the Catholic church and the V2 group. The plaintiff himself has started a website already in 1997: "Dialogue for the church", www.kirchenlehre.com. Another well-known website is the English publication "Novus Ordo Watch", www.novusordowatch.org.
Printouts of both websites from 28th July 2014, annex 5

In the above mentioned criminal trial the defendant was engaged by the court to answer the question whether the plaintiff has "effectively been consecrated by an appointed and qualified cleric so that he must be recognized as a priest even by the Catholic institutional church." That is: Whether the V2 group must recognize that the plaintiff has received a valid ordination or not. Since the plaintiff already - v.s. the local city office of Dorsten - had declared his withdrawal from the V2-group at the district court Dorsten itself and since he always insists to be no member of the V2 group, it is not the question whether the plaintiff is a "recognised V2-priest" or a - according to the V2 group - "allowed" priest resp. an employed priest of the V2 group. This is supported by the fact that the plaintiff in the Internet (v.s.) clearly distances himself from the V2 group and explains that he does not belong to it.
Legal opinion, annex 6

Therefore, the defendant was only obliged to validate the various documents regarding the consecrator (to the applicant) Father Georg Schmitz which were published by the plaintiff on the Internet and which remained unobjected for years. cf. www.kirchenlehre.com/schmitz.htm
Article "Diocese Freiburg" against Bishop Schmitz, annex 7

In addition, the defendant had to consider the document V2-"Archdiocese of Freiburg" from 19th Sept. 1985 which is part of the court documents. This documents clearly confirms that the priestly and episcopal ordination of Father Georg Schmitz is recognized as valid. Father Schmitz is recognized by the V2-group and thus the "official Catholic Church" as a validly consecrated bishop. Thus, the question of the district court from Dorsten is definitely answered: The plaintiff must be recognized as a priest even by the "official Catholic Church".
Letter dated 19th Sept. 1985
Press release "Documents as a source of evidence in the public process", openpr.de, 23th July 2014, annex 8

Instead of answering the question posed by the Court regarding the validity of the consecration truthfully, the defendant uttered a false statement against better knowledge. In particular he deals with the question whether the applicant is a member of the V2-group or not. This, although neither the plaintiff has claimed such membership nor the district court has asked for it, since the court (see above) itself testified the V2-withdrawal of the plaintiff. It seems as if the defendant takes the report as an opportunity to settle a score with the plaintiff who is a declared adversary of the V2-group. The defendant asserts e.g.:

The plaintiff would have to have "proof of required five-year study period. Concerning this matter, nothing is to be seen. Consequently, it must be assumed that the defendant has not done the studies."
It is wrong that regarding the study period nothing is to be seen. The defendant did not ask the applicant about his studies. The applicant has pointed numerous times (e.g. on the above mentioned site "Dialogue for the Church", in numerous press releases, etc.) to his V2-diploma from Chur. Even a simple inquiry in Chur already would have confirmed the correctness of the frequent reference to the diploma. The defendant has not even tried to clarify whether the applicant has completed the corresponding studies and has denied this without dispute. By this false assertion the plaintiff is shown as someone who wrongfully asserts competence of an education that he never received. Between the lines he is designated as a charlatan.

The applicant had also "reduced the deposit of faith (depositum fidei) by the teachings of the II Vatican. Thus, the defendant is a heretic."
This defamation is one of the worst accusations in the church, cf. A. Koch, Moral Theology, Freiburg (2) 1907, 302: "As stubborn rebellion against the teaching authority appointed by God, formal heresy is one of the most serious and pernicious sins, because it destroys the foundation of the work of salvation." Whoever utters the accusation of heresy, he must state very, very good reasons. First, the defendant who was provided by the court with a clear mandate states not a single evidence of heresy uttered by the applicant. In addition, the defendant as a canonist must know exactly that V2 did not proclaim any dogmas. The deposit of faith has been increased by V2 in no way whatsoever. This makes it impossible that the rejection of V2-specific statements can be called heresy.
E.g. Karl Rahner, "Small Council Compendium"
Introductions to V2-texts Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium
Theologisches, December 2005, columns 785 and 786: The later "Pope Benedict XVI". expressly declared: "There is no new dogma by the Council, at any point", annex 9

In summary:
Instead of dealing with the question asked for the report, the defendant labeled the plaintiff as
- heretic,
- criminal in the Church,
- the plaintiff is alleged to have no theological diploma.

The damage of the plaintiff caused by the report is substantial and persists.

1. The plaintiff is defamed in the report as a heretic. Since the defendant refers this to the non-membership in the V2-group, he thus defames all other Catholics. The label as heretic is above all else based especially on the loyalty of the applicant to the Catholic faith.

The criticism of the plaintiff against the V2-group resulted in massive fightback. The V2-group (i.e. the group in which the plaintiff for years learned as a pupil and a student, the group which gave him good and very good grades and which even after graduation has thanked him heartily for his work at the seminary) tried to curb the criticism of the plaintiff by the statement of mental illness.
The district court Dorsten stated in this context that
- it is not possible to ascertain a manifest mental illness of the plaintiff
- the statements of the plaintiff cannot be assigned e.g. to a paranoid mental disorder
- the plaintiff is impaired neither in his legal capacity nor in his process capability.
Resolution of district court Dorsten, 27th Jan. 2005, annex 10

With proper peer review of the plaintiff, the district court would have decided the acquittal. Due to the false report the proceeding was only terminated. This fatal result is only and exclusively due to the fact that the district court followed the opinion of the defendant. Due to this approval the plaintiff must now expect that - based on this report - he may be sentenced consistently. Cf. the local newspaper "Recklinghäuser Zeitung":
"When giving the reasons for the judgement, Judge Timm said that the defendant was unable to distinguish between religious and legal questions and declared: This does not mean that you may use the title Roman-catholic priest. This can still be prohibited to you by the Catholic Church."
Article "Lawsuit against false priest ends with settlement", recklinghaueser-zeitung.de, 27th Sept. 2012
Press release "Corrections to the Dorsten newspaper", openpr.de, 28th Sept. 2012, annex 11

The negative impact on the plaintiff is therefore still highly present. The danger of repetition in its most intense expression of a persistent state therefore must also be assumed. The legitimate interest in legal action must be assumed, as the rehabilitation of the applicant can only be achieved by the withdrawal of the report. Therefore only the removal of the interference has to be achieved - and not a mere satisfaction. The plaintiff is significantly hindered in the practice of his duties as a Catholic priest. This practice is protected by the Basic Law, and that not only according to the professional freedom but also according to the religious freedom.
Due to the repression against the plaintiff, also the faithful who are entrusted to him are inevitably impaired in their practice of religion.
The falsehood of the central statement (i.e. that the plaintiff is not recognized as priest by the V2 group and that he may be called a heretic and criminal in the church) is identifiable on the basis of the above mentioned statements and attachments.
In addition, by the raised allegations in the report, a violation of personal rights which is liable for damages seems to be possible. The defendant has not communicated a mere opinion or allegation of fact, but has deliberately uttered untrue facts. Balancing the competing interests of personal rights and freedom of opinion, the report must be considered as illegal.
Proof: Article "Federal Constitutional Court confirmed: Heresies in theological seminary", annex 12 [www.una-voce.de]

The defendant was asked by the signatory unsuccessfully to revoke / to cease.
Letter, 24th April 2014, annex 13

Therefore complaint is required.

[Zurück zur KzM - Startseite]