Maybe I'm too jaded by American political discourse, but I don't understand what the purported crime is here. There may be discussions about whether Fr. Garmeier's remarks were prudent or appropriate for a homily, but "slander and incitement" seems like a rather spurious accusation, at least from an American perspective. What's different about German law in this instance?
From what little I know of European law, it generally is more restrictive on speech. Here, hate speech falls under free speech. In Germany it does not. And that always raises the question of "whose definition of hate speech?"
But also, criminal complaints, in Germany as here, may be filed by any citizen and do not always result in criminal charges.
I'm not at all an expert on the differences between German and U.S. law, but I suspect a major difference is the lack of a First Amendment in Germany. Freedom of expression is, of course, protected in Germany but seemingly with more constraints than in the U.S.
Instead of shilling for a socialist government, maybe he should stay in his lane and write a homily about why Catholic Germans have to pay a sizable church tax every year. The only way that can be avoided is to leave the church by making an official declaration that he or she is leaving the faith. German Catholics are leaving in droves. Pay or get out. Not a good way to save souls.
The German state took a huge amount of property and assests from the Catholic Church and compensates this taking by the church tax. The Church is due this revenue.
That's a government issue, not a faith issue. The government could still (through general tax revenue) compensate the Church without the Church penalizing Catholics.
Yes, there are plenty of examples from around the world that try to address historical wrongs and don't target groups if they don't pay. Not sure why Church membership is a requirement for this.
Yeah, that's stupid. And just because the German state decided to, it doesn't mean they are/were right. Just like the time the German state (in its varied forms) took Church property.
This has nothing to do with American sensibilities. This has everything to do with penalizing existing believers specifically for past wrongs they had nothing to do with. It sounds like the indulgence issue that Martin Luther complained about. Pay money or your chance (or loved one's chance) of salvation is taken away from you. If the German state wants to amend what has been done in the past they should come up with an agreement with the Church (institution with institution) and settle it.
In a republic, the people ARE the State. An agreement has been come up with. It is not simply a matter of a past wrong, but an admitted, on- going obligation.
Thanks for the political lesson. I didn't realized the people ARE the State. Who knew?
This is a moral issue. Holding back salvation because a person forced to pay a bill that was not his/her's is absolutely ridiculous. Why does the Church in Germany hold back salvation for this? That's God's perview. Look at a country like Canada. The federal gov't of Canada has settled with indigenous groups for past wrongs on behalf of Canadians. They don't defer it to individual citizens to pay and threaten to withhold their citizenship if they don't.
This German tax is inadvertently making Bismarck's (the first guy who used the state to harass, persecute and confiscate Church property in Germany...the other guy was you know who and the communists in Eastern Germany) Kulturkampf a reality, no?
I have no idea the standard of rigor used when determining what constitutes Criminal Libel and/or Slander in German jurisprudence. In the US, it's notoriously difficult to sue over libel/slander and win. Again: the AfD is a coalition party that's rather mildly conservative, and this yahoo is blanket-labelling AfD members as "criminals against society" - which is, uh, pretty strong wording, no matter how you try and slice it. At least in America, calling Democrat-aligned activists such terms is arguably more fitting solely from their stances on baby murder, child sexual exploitation, and genital mutilation. The German people have only one supremacy in mind nowadays: people using the designated recycling recepticles.
This priest seems to be exactly what I imagine a modern "German priest" would be like. This retired cop seems to be a Karen. This report seems to be a big nothing-burger (keine-schnitzel?) and ought to be considered as little more than a local tabloid. Ach, ist doch egal!
I love your assumption that only knowing he is not a racist bigot, he must not of ever preached on protecting the unborn. As if only bigots defend the unborn.
Kevin said "prioritize", he never said the priest never preached on behalf of the unborn. AFAIK the AfD is the only significant political party in Germany which opposes abortion, so if you want to tear it down (as many German bishops and clergy have chosen to do) presumably you either don't think abortion matters, or you think some greater evil matters more. The "racism" aspersions cast on the AfD are generally due to their opposition to Islamic immigration, so it seems fair to say that those casting the AfD as the successors to Hitler are "prioritizing" in the way Kevin said.
Irme Stetter-Karp who is co-president of "der Synodale Weg" (synodal way) has said that "nationwide provision of the medical intervention of abortion must be ensured." The Synodale Weg is a collaboration between many (though not all) of the German bishops and the ZdK, an organization led by Stetter-Karp. So in that context, questioning the commitment of the clergy to protecting the unborn seems pretty justified.
He has no information on this priest's other sermons, so assumes without evidence his opposition to racism means his silence on abortion. While in fact, the German social system has significantly less destruction of the unborn than post Hobbs America. They have created a safer society for the unborn than the US right wing and its adulterous, porn star dating leader (elect) has.
I recently read that Alice Weidel is in a lesbian relationship (with a woman born in Sri Lanka, which is its own irony). It strikes me as very unlikely, but all the same, I'm curious whether any Christian or Catholic figures have commented publicly on this? It would be fascinating to see Christians coming at AfD "from the right" (excuse the crudely binary political terms, but you know what I mean). Cardinal Meissner criticized Angela Merkel for cohabitating in the early 2000s, but even at that point I think it was considered rather gauche for him to be doing so. Weidel, Meloni, Trump... lots of these right-wing populist figures have rather irregular personal lives from the Catholic point of view. A sign of the secularization of the political right.
QFE: "The statement was notable because the Catholic Church is one of Germany’s biggest employers, with almost 700,000 people alone employed by Caritas. Germany also has a sprawling network of Catholic associations, encompassing thousands of paid staff and volunteers."
... all of which funds come from the German State, making this priest a state functionary. The situation is not the same as that if the US. It's bad enough when clergy take partisan political stances in this country from the pulpit. A priest in Germany should be doubly careful. A good pastor would have spoken into all sides of the issue rather than taking a one-sided stance, because there are definitely many sides to the issues Germany is dealing with surrounding immigration. I don't think this congregant should have reported him, but the situation being what it is in Germany, maybe it was the right thing to do.
Maybe I'm too jaded by American political discourse, but I don't understand what the purported crime is here. There may be discussions about whether Fr. Garmeier's remarks were prudent or appropriate for a homily, but "slander and incitement" seems like a rather spurious accusation, at least from an American perspective. What's different about German law in this instance?
From what little I know of European law, it generally is more restrictive on speech. Here, hate speech falls under free speech. In Germany it does not. And that always raises the question of "whose definition of hate speech?"
But also, criminal complaints, in Germany as here, may be filed by any citizen and do not always result in criminal charges.
I'm not at all an expert on the differences between German and U.S. law, but I suspect a major difference is the lack of a First Amendment in Germany. Freedom of expression is, of course, protected in Germany but seemingly with more constraints than in the U.S.
I feel like I read something once in a dusty tome from long ago about when Germans weren’t allowed to criticize a popular political movement. Wow.
What's the German word for Karen? (probably Karen)
Instead of shilling for a socialist government, maybe he should stay in his lane and write a homily about why Catholic Germans have to pay a sizable church tax every year. The only way that can be avoided is to leave the church by making an official declaration that he or she is leaving the faith. German Catholics are leaving in droves. Pay or get out. Not a good way to save souls.
The German state took a huge amount of property and assests from the Catholic Church and compensates this taking by the church tax. The Church is due this revenue.
That's a government issue, not a faith issue. The government could still (through general tax revenue) compensate the Church without the Church penalizing Catholics.
So the same people would be paying through a slightly different system.
Yes, there are plenty of examples from around the world that try to address historical wrongs and don't target groups if they don't pay. Not sure why Church membership is a requirement for this.
Because the German state decided so. There is a tax to pay the state's obligations to the churches, apportioned by the denomination of the payers.
Yeah, that's stupid. And just because the German state decided to, it doesn't mean they are/were right. Just like the time the German state (in its varied forms) took Church property.
It seems like an internal matter for Germany. Not everything need to conform to American sensibilities.
This has nothing to do with American sensibilities. This has everything to do with penalizing existing believers specifically for past wrongs they had nothing to do with. It sounds like the indulgence issue that Martin Luther complained about. Pay money or your chance (or loved one's chance) of salvation is taken away from you. If the German state wants to amend what has been done in the past they should come up with an agreement with the Church (institution with institution) and settle it.
In a republic, the people ARE the State. An agreement has been come up with. It is not simply a matter of a past wrong, but an admitted, on- going obligation.
Thanks for the political lesson. I didn't realized the people ARE the State. Who knew?
This is a moral issue. Holding back salvation because a person forced to pay a bill that was not his/her's is absolutely ridiculous. Why does the Church in Germany hold back salvation for this? That's God's perview. Look at a country like Canada. The federal gov't of Canada has settled with indigenous groups for past wrongs on behalf of Canadians. They don't defer it to individual citizens to pay and threaten to withhold their citizenship if they don't.
This German tax is inadvertently making Bismarck's (the first guy who used the state to harass, persecute and confiscate Church property in Germany...the other guy was you know who and the communists in Eastern Germany) Kulturkampf a reality, no?
Perhaps, like me, he doesn't see the church tax as a greater evil that the rise of the far-right AfD.
I have no idea the standard of rigor used when determining what constitutes Criminal Libel and/or Slander in German jurisprudence. In the US, it's notoriously difficult to sue over libel/slander and win. Again: the AfD is a coalition party that's rather mildly conservative, and this yahoo is blanket-labelling AfD members as "criminals against society" - which is, uh, pretty strong wording, no matter how you try and slice it. At least in America, calling Democrat-aligned activists such terms is arguably more fitting solely from their stances on baby murder, child sexual exploitation, and genital mutilation. The German people have only one supremacy in mind nowadays: people using the designated recycling recepticles.
This priest seems to be exactly what I imagine a modern "German priest" would be like. This retired cop seems to be a Karen. This report seems to be a big nothing-burger (keine-schnitzel?) and ought to be considered as little more than a local tabloid. Ach, ist doch egal!
Why is the priest prioritizing the mass importation of Muslim economic migrants over protecting the lives of the unborn? Is this the synodal way?
I love your assumption that only knowing he is not a racist bigot, he must not of ever preached on protecting the unborn. As if only bigots defend the unborn.
Kevin said "prioritize", he never said the priest never preached on behalf of the unborn. AFAIK the AfD is the only significant political party in Germany which opposes abortion, so if you want to tear it down (as many German bishops and clergy have chosen to do) presumably you either don't think abortion matters, or you think some greater evil matters more. The "racism" aspersions cast on the AfD are generally due to their opposition to Islamic immigration, so it seems fair to say that those casting the AfD as the successors to Hitler are "prioritizing" in the way Kevin said.
Irme Stetter-Karp who is co-president of "der Synodale Weg" (synodal way) has said that "nationwide provision of the medical intervention of abortion must be ensured." The Synodale Weg is a collaboration between many (though not all) of the German bishops and the ZdK, an organization led by Stetter-Karp. So in that context, questioning the commitment of the clergy to protecting the unborn seems pretty justified.
He has no information on this priest's other sermons, so assumes without evidence his opposition to racism means his silence on abortion. While in fact, the German social system has significantly less destruction of the unborn than post Hobbs America. They have created a safer society for the unborn than the US right wing and its adulterous, porn star dating leader (elect) has.
I recently read that Alice Weidel is in a lesbian relationship (with a woman born in Sri Lanka, which is its own irony). It strikes me as very unlikely, but all the same, I'm curious whether any Christian or Catholic figures have commented publicly on this? It would be fascinating to see Christians coming at AfD "from the right" (excuse the crudely binary political terms, but you know what I mean). Cardinal Meissner criticized Angela Merkel for cohabitating in the early 2000s, but even at that point I think it was considered rather gauche for him to be doing so. Weidel, Meloni, Trump... lots of these right-wing populist figures have rather irregular personal lives from the Catholic point of view. A sign of the secularization of the political right.
QFE: "The statement was notable because the Catholic Church is one of Germany’s biggest employers, with almost 700,000 people alone employed by Caritas. Germany also has a sprawling network of Catholic associations, encompassing thousands of paid staff and volunteers."
... all of which funds come from the German State, making this priest a state functionary. The situation is not the same as that if the US. It's bad enough when clergy take partisan political stances in this country from the pulpit. A priest in Germany should be doubly careful. A good pastor would have spoken into all sides of the issue rather than taking a one-sided stance, because there are definitely many sides to the issues Germany is dealing with surrounding immigration. I don't think this congregant should have reported him, but the situation being what it is in Germany, maybe it was the right thing to do.