Cardinal Danneels Admits to Being Part of ‘Mafia’ Club Opposed to Benedict XVI

New authorised biography also reveals papal delegate at upcoming synod wrote letter to Belgium government supporting same-sex “marriage” legislation because it ended discrimination against LGBT groups

by Edward Pentin on NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER Screen_Shot_2015-09-24_at_13.39.13-1-255x386

Further serious concerns are being raised about Cardinal Godfried Danneels, one of the papal delegates chosen to attend the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the Family, after the archbishop emeritus of Brussels confessed this week to being part of a radical “mafia” reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI.

It was also revealed this week that he once wrote a letter to the Belgium government favoring same-sex “marriage” legislation because it ended discrimination against LGBT groups.

The cardinal is already known for having once advised the king of Belgium to sign an abortion law in 1990, for telling a victim of clerical sex abuse to keep quiet, and for refusing to forbid pornographic, “educational” materials being used in Belgian Catholic schools.

He also once said same-sex “marriage” was a “positive development,” although he has sought to distinguish such a union from the Church’s understanding of marriage.

According to a forthcoming authorized biography on the cardinal co-written by Jürgen Mettepenningen, a former spokesman for Cardinal Danneels’ successor, Archbishop Andre Joseph Leonard, and Karim Schelkens, a Church historian and theologian, the cardinal expressed satisfaction over the disappearance of “discrimination” against LGBT couples after legislation was passed approving same-sex “marriage” in 2003.

The authors of the biography, to be published Sept. 29, reveal that the cardinal wrote a letter on May 28, 2003, to then-Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, who at that time was putting together his second government.
In the letter, the cardinal wrote favorably about “one of the last achievements of Verhofstadt’s first governments, the approval of a legal statute for a stable relationship between partners of the same sex.” Verhofstadt’s government introduced same sex-‘marriage’ into Belgium in 2003.

“He wanted to stop discrimination between married heterosexuals and homosexuals who had a long-term relationship,” write the two authors of the biography. “But there should be no confusion between the use of the term ‘marriage’.”

Asked about the letter, Verhofstadt said he did not recall it, but added: “I never had any problem with the cardinal. Our relationship was good.”

Under Verhofstadt’s leadership, from 1999 to 2007, the Belgian government not only introduced same sex “marriage”, but also laws on euthanasia, experiments on human embryos, and IVF.

Despite the poor record of the Belgian Church in resisting these laws, and the country being far smaller than many African countries that have one delegate representing them, Cardinal Danneels, 82, will be one of three Belgian prelates to attend the synod in October.

The Vatican listed him second in importance out of 45 delegates personally chosen by Pope Francis to participate in the upcoming meeting. He also took part in last year’s Extraordinary Synod as a papal delegate.

At the launch of the book in Brussels this week, the cardinal said he was part of a secret club of cardinals opposed to Pope Benedict XVI.

He called it a “mafia” club that bore the name of St. Gallen. The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, to make it “much more modern”, and for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to head it. The group, which also comprised Cardinal Walter Kasper and the late Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, has been documented in Austen Ivereigh’s biography of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer.

(Source)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Cardinal Danneels Admits to Being Part of ‘Mafia’ Club Opposed to Benedict XVI

  1. These revelations about Cardinal Daneels – and others – are horrifying and disgusting. May God have mercy on these cardinals for what they have done and are doing, for wanting “a drastic reform of the Church, to make it ‘much more modern,’ and for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to head it.” May God also have mercy on the Pope: Cardinal Daneels is one of “45 delegates personally chosen by Pope Francis to participate in the upcoming meeting.”

    What, really, do they think they are doing? After fifty years of the “spirit of the Council,” the Church in Belgium, Holland, France, Germany, and in other countries has been decimated. So they think that MORE of the “spirit of the Council” is the answer?

    Mother of God, please beg your Son to have mercy on us all.

  2. johnhenrycn says:

    I’m glad this biography is being published on September 29th – although the holy archangels won’t be none pleased with the ‘coincidence’. Very auspicious that it’s only a few days before the opening of the synod. Better the devil you know, etc. Actually, we’ve known for quite some time that ‘Godfried’ (who prefers to go by his diminutive) is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Still, it can only help that he’s come out of the closet and exposed himself.

    My goodness, look at that. A trifecta of mixed metaphors!

  3. Jude says:

    Cardinal Danneels is a priest in good standing. He has a doctorate in theology from the Gregorian, a great deal more than his critics have, including those on this blog. He was created a cardinal by Pope St John Paul II who presumably knew what he was doing. What the Church needs is modernizing ; a good shake up from the old ways, a new aggiornamento first proposed in 1959 by Pope St John XXIII who also presumably knew what he was doing.

  4. GC says:

    JH, in my uncharity, I do wonder whether characters like Eminentissimus Fred Danneels, so well advanced in years and wisdom, are just remnants of the 70s. Wally Kasper is another such. Fossils, really – they are sort of 70s fundamentalists. A bit like Toad in that respect, although Toad seems more sixties-ish.

    Boys, if you were thinking that you were going to be terribly relevant then I hope your empty churches prove that to you. Nice to think that you’ve done the Church so great a service that nobody thinks they need the Church any more and every one can just be “spiritual” from now on.

    Thanks, we suppose, but we younger ones would like to move on, if that’s ok?

  5. johnhenrycn says:

    RJB and GC:

    (y) …< this is apparently a keyboard shortcut for our recently departed "thumbs up"😦

    Why do these pissants, these pastoral pygmies think that another 50 years of 'modernising' is the way forward? Much as we rejoice in the conversions of “six million” [where have I heard that gravid number before?] Muslims annually, the fact also is – according to The Economist, in turn citing a recent Pew Research Centre paper – “that for every American who converts to Catholicism, six abandon it…Around 13% of adult Americans are former Catholics: if that were a denomination, it would be America’s third biggest.”

    When did the rot start? Hmm: does the number 10/11/62 ring a bell?

  6. johnhenrycn says:

    😦
    Hey, Jude: “Cardinal Danneels is a priest in good standing”…but that’s not the same as being a good priest. I can think of not just a few priests in – or formerly in – “good standing” who were anything but. Can you? Danneels is a travesty, an ugly blot on the Catholic landscape, and I won’t be surprised to eventually learn about other secrets and skeletons in his closet.

  7. Jude says:

    Hello Johnhenrycn,Saying that Cardinal Danneels is a ‘travesty’, an ‘ugly blot’ on the Catholic landscape and anticipating the possible discovery of ‘other secrets and skeletons in his closet’ does not square with the decision and judgment of Pope Francis to appoint him to the Synod, unless you think Pope Francis was wrong and that your opinion of Cardinal Danneels is right.
    Like you, of course I can think of and, in my case if not yours also, actually know priests, formerly in good standing, who went completely off the rails; but we are here speaking of a priest, Cardinal Danneels, who is still very much on the rails and moreover an appointee to the Synod chosen by Pope Francis himself.

  8. johnhenrycn says:

    …but apropos Americans leaving the Church, there’s at least one American hero (Superman) who would sooner renounce his citizenship than his Catholic faith:

  9. johnhenrycn says:

    Hey, Jude: you ask if I “think Pope Francis was wrong and that your opinion of Cardinal Danneels is right.”

    Indeed I do think that I’m right and His Holiness is wrong. Just like my (second) most favourite pope in this century – and a sainted one to boot – was wrong 11 years ago when he blessed the founder of the Legion of Christ – then also a priest “in good standing” – even though it was then manifestly clear that he (Maciel) was also a travesty and a blot on the Catholic landscape.

  10. Jude says:

    Hi Johnhenrycn, Touché, at least in regard to your comment about Father Maciel whom Pope St John Paul II once declared ,if I remember correctly,to be ‘a model for youth’. Just as well Popes are not always infallible. The same could be said about Pope St John Paul’s attitude to the late Cardinal Hermann Groer of Vienna, another abuser of seminarians, against whom Pope St John Paul II was so reluctant to act.
    I think however that we should not include poor old Cardinal Danneels in the Maciel category.

  11. johnhenrycn says:

    “I think however that we should not include poor old Cardinal Danneels in the Maciel category.”

    Hey, Jude, I did not include Danneels in that same category, although time will tell. In the meantime, I stand by my negative estimation of His Flatulence. What I was comparing is the myopic weakness evident in Pope Francis’s admiration for Daneels with the blind spot in JP2’s for Maciel.

  12. Plain old Toad says:

    Schism is clearly inevitable.
    Well, it gas happened several hundred times before. Evolution at work, really. There are, I’m told, over 2,000 varieties of Christianity already in the US alone. Another couple (ModCaths and TradCaths) won’t hurt.
    And then they can both settle down to comfortably hating one another in peace.

    I must say I miss the “thumbs down” thing. Always spiritually and morally encouraging to get dozens of them.

    Toad a “Sixties” figure? Very likely. We are fashioned by our times.

    Sexual intercourse began
    In nineteen sixty-three
    (which was rather late for me) –
    Between the end of the “Chatterley” ban
    And the Beatles’ first LP.

    (…rather late for Larkin, of course. But not for Toad, who was 22.)

  13. kathleen says:

    Jude, I cannot understand your determination to defend this heterodox Cardinal Daneels, who is anything but “a cardinal in good standing” among true faithful Catholics! He, and unfortunately a few other unmentionables parading as Princes of the Church, are one of the main causes of people leaving the Church (at least in Europe, not sure about the USA). These former Catholics see the hypocrisy between the clear, moral goodness of Christ and the Church’s teachings, and the appalling things these appropriately-named “wolves in sheep’s clothing” do and say in Her Name, without receiving any apparent disciplinary action.

    Presumably you have read the article, but have you also read the other reports linked to in the text? Click into the words, “refusing to forbid” (pornographic, “educational” materials being used in Belgian Catholic schools); this linked report is literally quite hair-raising!
    Cardinal Danneels has not only blatantly protected clergy accused of child abuse, but he has also allowed the most shocking, and yes, pornographic material to be used in catechism classes to warp the minds of innocent little children!! No wonder a multitude of concerned Catholic parents took to the streets in Belgium to protest such filth, but Daneels did not even have the decency to meet them… nor did he have the scandalous books removed!

    It is also clear Daneels also favours sodomitical relationships and even the killing of babies in abortion, so all in all, what type of Cardinal is this man? Should he really be allowed to even be a priest, acting in Persona Christi? I cannot imagine some of the great, firm and courageous Popes of former times allowing such a damaging cleric such a free rein to “lead souls to Hell” rather than to Heaven.

    And to top it all, this enemy of orthodoxy has been appointed onto the panel of the coming Synod of the Family. It simply beggars belief!

    St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in this day of battle….

  14. I would like to add this article mentioning Danneels which was written by a canon lawyer:
    https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/automatic-censures-should-be-eliminated-from-church-law/

  15. Tom Fisher says:

    Click into the words, “refusing to forbid” (pornographic, “educational” materials being used in Belgian Catholic schools); this linked report is literally quite hair-raising!.

    I followed the link, and then, not quite believing it, researched the book in question. — Pornographic doesn’t quite cover it. I found a screenshot of the “drawing” referred to in the link. (It’s too disgusting to link to directly) What the hell is wrong with Europe these days?

  16. Jude says:

    Kathleen,Is not Pope Francis, as Vicar of Christ, the proper authority to say who is in good standing in the Church and who is not ? It is hardly our function.I am aware of Cardinal Danneels background. Some of your comment such as ‘other unmentionables parading as Princes of the Church’ is well over the top.Your reference to ‘firm and courageous Popes of former times’ suggests that you think the present Pope Francis is not, or is perhaps some kind of a fool

    If every bishop in the Synod agreed in advance, pastorally and theologically, on everything what would be the point of having a Synod ? Every Council of the Church has had debates among its participants before reaching a consensus. Better to hear every point of view, You may not like some views but neither your view nor mine counts. We have not been asked to attend the Synod. Better leave it to the Pope to say who should be heard. It is not up to us to say that only hardliners should be heard and that different views should be stifled in limene.

  17. GC says:

    If the figures are accurate it is interesting to note that a country like Belgium, a land of fantastically empty churches, has more representatives at the synod than the lands of full, even overflowing churches.

  18. Michael says:

    Jude,

    Looking at your comments here so far, I am wondering what it is that your problem is – is it that you think Pope Francis’ decision to include Danneels* is something that Catholics are not allowed to question, let alone criticise; or is it that you actually think Danneels’ views are something to be welcomed?

    I agree that there is something to be said to have a plurality of views aired at the Synod (one benefit of the last Synod is that now Kasper can’t pretend that his views are anything other than an attempt to change orthodox teaching on marriage), but is it really necessary to have Danneels’ views there? His record is there for everyone to see, and it shows him to have grossly neglected his responsibilities as a shepherd of souls. What possible benefit could there be in having him there?

    *Edward Pentin (a very fair-minded man, and not one given to exaggeration) has said that roughly 80% of the Holy Father’s personal appointments to this year’s Synod are of, or are sympathetic to, ‘progressive’ views, not least on marriage and the family. This is surely worth some discussion is it not?

  19. Michael says:

    P.S. Here is the relevant interview with Pentin:

  20. Michael says:

    Dear Moderator,

    Could you please remove the first instance of the word ‘questioning’ from my first sentence above? Also, on my computer, my comments have come up in a smaller font, and are spread wider across the screen – is this just me, or is there a wordpress ‘issue’ at the moment?

  21. Jude says:

    Michael, I have played the Edward Pentin video. He makes the point,inter alia, that the Synod is only a consultative body not binding in any way. It is a matter for the Pope whom he listens to. He can, if he wishes, ignore the deliberations of the Synod. I don’t know why people are getting so upset about it. The Pope can go it alone if he wishes as he has recently done in reforming the annulment procedures. The Church is not a democracy.
    In any juridical, or quasi judicial proceedings, a basic procedural condition is audi alteram partem or hear the other side. This is what the Pope is choosing to do. Contributors to this blog appear to suggest that the Pope should stop his ears against all but the most conservative voices.

  22. Plain old Toad says:

    ” Contributors to this blog appear to suggest that the Pope should stop his ears against all but the most conservative voices.”
    You catch on fast, Jude.

  23. Michael says:

    Jude @ 17:20, September 27th:

    Yes, of course the conclusions of the Synod will, in and of themselves, have no binding quality, and of course it is completely up to the Pope to decide who he invites and who he wants to listen to – that is not the point at issue here. The thing that has people worried is that he would invite someone like Cardinal Danneels to a consultative body of any kind, given that cardinal’s track record, and that such a large proportion of those he has personally invited are supporters of heterodox positions. Furthermore, given these points, there is also concern that, if the findings of the Synod do lean in a direction that contravenes or undermines Church teaching in some way, the Holy Father might himself officially endorse these findings in a way that isbinding.

    Now, I don’t actually think that he will do this, but can you not see that the decisions he has made so far might give rise to fears that he favours the position of people like Walter Kasper?

    Contributors to this blog appear to suggest that the Pope should stop his ears against all but the most conservative voices.

    No, they are concerned by the fact that his statements and actions surrounding this Synod and the previous one show a disproportionate support for the liberal voices in the Church. Again, it might be that he is allowing these voices to be aired so that they cannot say they haven’t had a chance to speak, and then will make decisions that go against their wishes, but can you not see that fears surrounding the Synod are not the result of a wish to have it dominated by conservative voices, but are the result of decisions the Pope has actually made?

    Also, would it be possible for you to answer my question from above – namely, do you think Catholics should not be allowed to ever question the Pope’s decisions, or do you actually welcome the inclusion of people like Danneels at the Synod (if yes to the latter, then why)?

  24. Michael says:

    P.S. I reiterate the earlier point that Cardinal Danneels position is not one that actually needs to be heard – he has made his views pretty clear in word and deed throughout the course of his career, and in doing so has shown himself to be very away from anything even resembling orthodoxy.

  25. johnhenrycn says:

    Hey, Jude (17:20 and passim) – you sound so much like a Dublin ‘Human Rights’ lawyer, it’s uncanny – frightening actually.

    Listening to other points of view is sometimes reasonable (not always, especially when considering doctrinal issues), but advance stacking of the deck to increase the likelihood your preferred outcome will prevail – and that’s what’s happening – is called ballot stuffing in the political world. Some people think that’s permissible in the ecclesial world, which gets my back up. Yes, the “Pope can go it alone” as you so helpfully remind us rubes from the sticks, but in the case of condoning homosexual contact, same sex marriage and divorce (yes, yes, I know) he dare not. He wants to have a patina of democracy for what he’s got in mind. The recent annulment revision was a tactical move meant to show recalcitrant Synod bishops which way the wind is blowing, and if they know what’s good for them, career wise, they better listen up.
    ___
    Michael (16:43) – I’m loath to suggest it, but I think the recent changes/glitches we’ve been experiencing might mean that CP&S has lost its Techno-Sensei, formerly known around here as Yoda, and that normal programming may not resume momentarily.

  26. johnhenrycn says:

    Maureen Avila (09:09) – Thank you for that informative link.

  27. johnhenrycn says:

    …and thank you for yours too, Michael. Pentin seems to be a very sobre, objective reporter.

  28. Jude says:

    Michael, Questioning the Pope’s workaday decisions raises the issue of disloyalty by Catholics who do so. The practical point however is that it is useless since the Pope necessarily has to make decisions which will not, and can not, suit everybody. I would welcome the inclusion of Cardinal Danneels at the Synod if only to act as a foil to the other voices therein. It would be pretty boring, and hardly convincing, if the Synod were simply to come to a prearranged conclusion. Why then have the Synod ? I do not agree with all of Cardinal Danneels opinions, as he has revealed them so far, nor with some of his track record, if media reports about him are correct. Why the Pope includes him is a matter for the Pope’s prudential judgment and, for what it is worth, out of loyalty to the Pope I would agree with that. I do not place my uninformed opinion against the Pope’s discernment.

    johnhenrycn I am afraid I am not a Dublin human rights lawyer. I was not aware that the Pope was ‘condoning homosexual contact, same sex marriage and divorce’. I do not believe this will happen. I think we all need to cool off.

  29. Michael says:

    Jude @ 20:12, September 27th:

    Questioning the Pope’s workaday decisions raises the issue of disloyalty by Catholics who do so.

    1. These are not ‘workaday’ decisions we’re talking about. 2. Why should questioning papal decision-making raise issues of disloyalty? Questioning for the sake of it yes, but questioning when decisions made seem to be controversial would seem to me to be perfectly legitimate, if we grant that the hypothetical questioner is not actually questioning his right to be pope or his prerogatives as pope, or anything like that.

    I would welcome the inclusion of Cardinal Danneels at the Synod if only to act as a foil to the other voices therein.

    The point, Jude, is that he will not be acting as a foil to the voices therein, but that a.) he is quite an extreme voice in himself, and b.) he represents the majority opinion amongst those selected by Pope Francis – he is not redressing any balance, but part of an arrangement heavily weighted in favour of liberal opinion.

    It would be pretty boring, and hardly convincing, if the Synod were simply to come to a prearranged conclusion.

    I agree, which is why the reports of prearrangement by people like Kasper, Baldiserri, etc is so worrying. If however by this you mean that it would be boring for orthodoxy to be affirmed, and for fundamental teachings of the Church on marriage not to be subverted, then I very much do not agree – the Synods were meant to be to try and consult on how best to help faithful Catholic families cope with the pressures of modern living, not to be a free-for-all where basic tenets of Christian morality are called into question.

    Why the Pope includes him is a matter for the Pope’s prudential judgment and, for what it is worth, out of loyalty to the Pope I would agree with that. I do not place my uninformed opinion against the Pope’s discernment.

    This all seems rather Ultramontanist to me I’m afraid… And I don’t believe for a second that you really think your opinion is ‘uninformed’ – we lack complete knowledge of what goes on for sure, but we do know enough to be able to make some assessments of the situation, even if it means questioning the judgement of the Pope (which is, I repeat, not an act of disloyalty per se).

  30. Michael says:

    Johnhenry @ 18:56, September 27th:

    It’s at times like this I wish we had the ‘up’ buttons back!

  31. kathleen says:

    JH says:

    Hey, Jude (17:20 and passim) – you sound so much like a Dublin ‘Human Rights’ lawyer, it’s uncanny – frightening actually.

    Exactly! Earlier on I suspected it myself too, especially after *Jude*’s comment at 14;20 to me. The querulous, pouting, accusing manner was just so Mr.Kehoe-ish, though I was too busy at the time to respond to the stupid accusations.

    Michael (16:43) – I’m loath to suggest it, but I think the recent changes/glitches we’ve been experiencing might mean that CP&S has lost its Techno-Sensei, formerly known around here as Yoda

    No JH, we haven’t lost him!😉 Although he is very busy at present, but I asked him, our Techno-Sensei BB, to please fix the glitch on this thread… and at the same time to investigate the new contrary commenter, *Jude*.

    And voilà – *Jude* is indeed Mr. John A. Kehoe, Dublin-based lawyer (but no longer, according to him ^^, a “human rights lawyer”🙄.)

    Welcome back Mr. Kehoe. After the Grand Farewell we never (ahem) expected to see you again.

    Now that we know it is you under a sock-puppet, I shall not waste time trying to untwist your 14:20 to me, fabricating things I never said…. just like in those Good Olde Days (sigh).
    Besides, nothing more needs to be added to Michael and JH’s clear and well-reasoned arguments – that a liberal and a modernist naturally finds so hard to accept.

  32. johnhenrycn says:

    Kathleen (21:17) says: “Welcome back Mr. Kehoe.”

    I don’t know for sure, since I’m not Yoda; but the kicker for me (after my martini this evening) was when I read Hey Jude’s comment at 20:06 yesterday:
    “Like you, of course I can think of and, in my case if not yours also, actually know priests, formerly in good standing, who went completely off the rails…”

    Mr Keyhole used to make a point of his personal connections to priests and to the episcopacy. I still chuckle thinking about when he gave us a link to his only copy (a cheap paperback edition) of the CCC, which he eventually conceded was defective, although we’re still waiting to hear about the inquiries he was going to make of the Irish episcopacy in that regard.

    But now – and let’s be serious – when Hey Jude says at 20:12: “I am afraid I am not a Dublin human rights lawyer.”…is that true? Is he skirting the edge of the truth as lawyers sometimes do without falling over it? Do you live anywhere near Dublin, Hey Jude? Do you practice law anywhere near Dublin, Hey Jude? Are you a lawyer, Hey Jude? Please answer all of these questions to set our minds at ease that Hey Jude is not a smelly sock of a former human rights lawyer/ commenter here who went by the name of John A Kehoe.

    I cannot imagine Mr Kehoe engaging in sockpuppetry. I just can’t. will be very sad to learn, especially tonight – possibly the End Of Days, that my basically respectful estimation of the man was a naive one.

  33. Tom Fisher says:

    All this talk of sock-puppets is making me realise how much fun it would be to set up another account and troll everyone🙂 currently I’m considering this one:

    Madison Aziza Jones 3/4 of a PhD : 22 year old Philosophy major, South Bend, Indiana. Cis-gender female of fluid sexuality. Atheist*, fruitarian, anti-patriarchal deep ecology activist. Graduate Thesis: I no longer call you servants: a Marxist reading of the political ramifications of the High Priestly Prayer in the Gospel of John

    *A spiritual relationship with the Universal Mother Principle does not count as theism, which is simply a projection of male hegemony upon the cosmic womb.

  34. johnhenrycn says:

    Tom Fisher (00:11) – I look forward to placing your monograph on the same library shelf that I’ve reserved for Mr Keyhole’s Human and Robot Rights: Intimate Relationships With Artificial Partners, when his firm publishes it posthumously:

    According to that blogospherically renowned 77 year old Irish human / robot rights lawyer (don’t call him ‘Paddy’ if you know what’s good for you): “Well yes, it may sound a little weird, but it isn’t.”

    Mr Kehole earned an LL. M. from London University (oldest graduate ever) for his thesis which covered law – including Canon law of course – but also including sociology, psychology, artificial intelligence and robotics. He conjectured – building on an earlier classic by the Belgian, Godfried Cardinal Danneels concerning healthy sex activities for 2 year old children – that human/robot love, marriage and even consummation are inevitable by 2050.

    Mr Kehoe’s fellow researcher, the equally renowned roboticist Ronald Arkin [Moderator: Who dat?] from Atlanta’s Georgia Institute of Technology points out: “Humans are very unusual creatures. If you ask me if every human will want to marry a robot? Probably not, but there will be a subset. There are people ready right now to marry sex toys.”

  35. Plain old Toad says:

    JH has reduced the whole Danneels thing to farce. Quite right, too. Where it belongs.

    Although, I have known people who make a habit of marrying sex toys.

  36. Tom Fisher says:

    Although, I have known people who make a habit of marrying sex toys.

    No need to drag Hillary into this.

    JH, call me sentimental, but I think these two look rather sweet:

    I look forward to placing your monograph on the same library shelf…

    I’m sorry to say that Madison Aziza Jones is unlikely to allow your hetero-normative-Caucasian-judgement-paws on her monograph, much less let you “shelve” it (patriarchy-speak for dismiss)

  37. kathleen says:

    Thank you boys for a good laugh… but now to get back to serious business (seeing as how Cardinal Daneels’ great defender – Mr. Kehoe, alias *Jude* – has slunk away once more.😉 )

    The scandalous and wicked dealings of Card. Daneels and his ‘pals’ (and shamelessly admitted to by Daneels) to oust our Pope Benedict XVI from the Papacy and get Card. Jorge Bergoglio into the Chair of Peter in his place, is reminiscent (to me anyway) of the mafioso, underhand workings of a small group of powerful men infiltrated into the Church in early mediaeval times! I am surprised this bombshell of a book has not had greater and louder repercussions in the secular and Catholic press.

    Take a look at this shocking article by Marco Tosatti posted on Rorate Caeli a few days ago:

    “The election of Jorge Bergoglio was the fruit of secret meetings that cardinals and bishops, organized by Carlo Maria Martini, held for years at St. Gall in Switzerland. This is what is claimed by Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens, the authors of a just published biography of the Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who refer to the group of cardinals and bishops as the “Mafia-club”.”

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/09/tosatti-election-of-jorge-bergoglio-by.html

  38. kathleen says:

    P.S. Just to clarify a few points:
    I am not saying (of course) that Pope Francis is not the legitimate Pope, and I do not believe anyone outside the College of Cardinals would have any authority to ever say such a thing. What does appear to be evident though is that there was a group that was using pressure and forbidden methods to have Pope Benedict XVI removed and Card. Jorge Begoglio elected to the Chair of Peter! There have always been plenty of rumours and claims about this travesty; here with these declarations from Card. Daneels we have one more proof of their veracity.

    However, as has been seen in the history of the Catholic Church since its foundation, “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it”. We have Our Lord’s promise of that. There are cases in the past when even most openly sinful Cardinals, once becoming Pope (through very suspicious means), have become good administrators of the Church, and defenders of Her Doctrines and Dogmas. The Holy Spirit will NEVER allow Christ’s Bride to be sullied by lies and false teachings.

  39. johnhenrycn says:

    Kathleen says: “I am not saying (of course) that Pope Francis is not the legitimate Pope…”

    We (me anyway) understood that, but it remains a matter of reasonable and valid discussion to ask whether Pope Francis’s elevation to the papacy was possibly – albeit only partially – the result of a rigged election. I too consider him to be a rightful heir of St Peter, but the machinations surrounding the last conclave are indeed reminiscent of some mediaeval ones.

  40. GC says:

    To be absolutely honest, kathleen, I had thought at the time of Jorge Mario’s election that it did seem a rather smooth and much orchestrated outcome. I was most surprised when even Cardinal Pell, always previously a Benedict stalwart, began to “qualify” his earlier support by more than suggesting that Pope Ratzinger was a cr*p administrator.

    I personally felt in 2013 (no, it was all but obvious) that it was an outcome heavily manoeuvred by the crowd who sought to install Martini in 2005 after decades of John Paul II, but who were in 2005 so sadly frustrated.

    I am still trying to come to grips with the notion that Freddy Danneels, who in his 30 year autocracy in Belgium presided over even the further emptying of Belgian churches, which one had not thought possible, is still given the opportunity to exert such influence in the Church. We await, apparently, the installation of his protege, Bishop Bonny, as the new primate of Belgium!

  41. johnhenrycn says:

    We live in interesting times don’t we, GC? Sorry (©), – no curse intended and none taken I hope.

  42. GC says:

    None whatever JH, and I’ll tell you when I’ve worked it ^ out. 😎

  43. johnhenrycn says:

    Our worries about the synod leads me to wonder which bishops will be courageous and self-sacrificing enough to bell the cats, which we know Danneels and Kasper and others to be:

    The mice called a council to decide how best to devise a means for announcing the approach of their enemy, the cat. Amongst the many plans tabled, the one most liked was to tie a bell to the neck of the cat so that the mice, being warned by its tinkling, might run away and hide at his approach. But when the mice further debated who should tie the bell to the cat, none were found willing to do so.

    Are there any synod bishops, is there even one synod bishop, willing to protect the Church?

  44. kathleen says:

    GC @ 16:54

    Did Cardinal Pell really say that about Pope Benedict XVI? I wonder why – do you think he was pressurised? I’m disappointed to hear it in any case, always having admired the integrity of this fine traditional bishop.

    Re your last paragraph GC, and the “emptying of Belgian churches” over 30 years, one can’t help wondering if that is exactly what Card. Daneels wanted!! Otherwise, seeing the disastrous downward trend his policies were leading to, you would have thought he’d have prayed (“what’s that?” he’d ask) about the situation, and then backtrack towards orthodoxy, wouldn’t you? He must have grown up in the days of a flourishing Catholic Church.

    In her youth my mother spent a whole year at a school in Brussels (to learn French) and was just overawed by the beauty of the strong Catholic Faith in that country in those times… pre-V2, needless to say!😉

  45. kathleen says:

    JH @ 20:09

    Hahaha – brilliant!🙂

    I’d take a strong bet on some of those wonderful African cardinals taking the plunge to “bell the cats”. Up to now they are the ones to have shown the most guts – meaning faithfulness and courage – to Christ and the unchangeable teachings of the Church on Faith and Morals.

    Cardinal Sarah says: “I have absolute confidence in the African culture. I have absolute confidence in the African faith and I am certain that Africa will save the family, that Africa will save the Church. Africa saved the Holy Family (cf. the flight into Egypt, ed.). In this modern age, it will also save the human family.”

    http://aleteia.org/2015/09/10/cardinal-sarah-i-am-certain-that-africa-will-save-the-family-that-africa-will-save-the-church/

  46. GC says:

    kathleen, those were not Pell’s precise words concerning Pope Benedict, but I do remember the Cardinal using words to that general effect in an interview after Benedict had resigned and in the run-up to the new election.

    http://www.bangkokpost.com/lite/news/338090/australian-cardinal-criticises-departing-pope

  47. GC says:

    La Belgique est un pays de couvents. Dans chaque ville, dans la plupart des villages, des soeurs tenaient jadis un ou plusieurs etablissements. Elles etaient pres de cinquante mille au lendemain de la seconde guerre mondiale, un peu moins de vingt mille un demi-siecle plus tard. En 1956, on pointait dans la Royaume la presence de 371 congregations feminines, belges et etrangeres. S’y ajoutaient 117 monasteres autonomes relevant de 12 ordres differents. Outre l’oraison,les communautes religieuses feminines onto pris en charge, a grande echelle, l’education de la jeunesse, le secteur de la sante, le soin des orphelins, des vieillards et des handicapes, la surveillance des detenues dans les prisons, la protection de la jeune fille, l’apostolat missionaire et bien d’autres domaines encore.

    Belgium is a country of convents. In every city, in most towns, the sisters once had one or more establishments. There were nearly fifty thousand just after the Second World War, a little less than twenty thousand half a century later. In 1956, 371 female congregations, Belgian and foreign, had a presence. Additionally there 117 autonomous monasteries of 12 different orders. Besides prayer, the female religious communities supported on a grand scale the education of youth, the health sector, the care of orphans, of the elderly and the disabled, watching over those detained in prison, the protection of girls, missionary apostolates and many other areas.

    https://books.google.com.my/books?id=-KAGs-ySFDAC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=Belgian+religious+congregations&source=bl&ots=sjV6ccAWAO&sig=6PtEbZ_riCbuR5Yod6TIntQsMuc&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Belgian%20religious%20congregations&f=false

  48. Plain old Toad says:

    “The Holy Spirit will NEVER allow Christ’s Bride to be sullied by lies and false teachings..”
    Then what’s all the fuss about?.

  49. Tom Fisher says:

    Cardinal Sarah says: “I have absolute confidence in the African culture. I have absolute confidence in the African faith and I am certain that Africa will save the family, that Africa will save the Church…

    Yes all very hopeful, and sorry to be a grinch — but this is exactly how we talked about Latin America back in the nineties — before the Church started the hemorrhaging there too. Africa is no more immune to secularism than Latin America was – and the situation is complicated by the rapid rise of Islam in Africa.

  50. Plain old Toad says:

    In view of my comment at 5.49 a.m., and “Mr” Fisher’s subseqent one – it seems the Holy Spirit “allows” a remarkable amount of unpleasant things to happen to Catholics all the time these days, particularly in Africa.
    Why not this caper in Rome?

    Oh, for the Good Old Days – when Europe was as economically and legally and homophobically backward as Africa today – when Kings and Queens (and kindly old anti-Semitic Archdukes) ruled – and the peasants knew exactly where they were. and where they were going to remain – up to their knees in the mire … eh?

  51. Plain old Toad says:

    …’but with their eyes glued optimistically to Heaven, of course.

  52. Plain old Toad says:

    It’s also worth bearing in mind that The Church, whatever its humble and distant origins – is now a

    [Moderator – Six words deleted. Watch your step, Toad, or you’ll be sent back to the doghouse.]

  53. Michael says:

    Toad @ 06:38, September 29th:

    Are you sure you’re not a ‘sock-puppet’ of Cardinal Kasper? You two seem to share similar views regarding Africans. At any rate, both of you need to get some new material.

  54. Michael says:

    Tom @ 06:08, September 29th:

    I sympathise with your caution here. However, do you not think that perhaps Africa might turn out to be more steadfast in the Faith precisely because of the threat of Islam on its doorstep, and also because it has witnessed the withering effects of Marxism, both on Latin American theology and politics, and on many of its own states, already?

    I suppose a follow-up question here is, if not Africa, where do you see the Church as forming a stronghold in the forthcoming decades? Personally I think we might see significant changes in Christianity’s effect on Chinese society and culture in time.

    P.S. Your hypothetical sock-puppet above was hilarious!

  55. Plain old Toad says:

    “Are you sure you’re not a ‘sock-puppet’ of Cardinal Kasper (Toad)?”
    Just as sure as I am that you are not a “sock puppet” of Kathleen, Michael.
    I have no idea what Card Kaspar thinks of Africans. Ripping chaps, I reckon myself. Wonderful sense of rhythm. Lovely teeth,

    But, Mr and Mrs Moderators – what in God’s name is censorable in the suggestion that The Church is a giant, multi-national, corporation? What else can it be?

    [Moderator replies – Comparing the Mystical Body of Christ to a company of cars on a Catholic blog is most definitely censorable.]

  56. Plain old Toad says:

    All these awful, boring, things Toad says – and no way of letting him feel the lash of our displeasure with the old “thumbs down.”
    It’s a stench in the nostrils of civilisation.
    I reckon.

    “At any rate, both of you (Kasper/Toad) need to get some new material.”
    I suggest you mean some “old” material here, Michael – as the “new” stuff (post Vat 2) seems somewhat problematical round here.
    “New” and “Old” being relative terms though, we both agree.

  57. Tom Fisher says:

    Michael @ 08:59

    do you not think that perhaps Africa might turn out to be more steadfast in the Faith precisely because of the threat of Islam on its doorstep

    Yes, that’s a good point. And it will be especially interesting if the growing strength of Islam in Europe instigates a resurgence of Christianity even there. — there’s more to be said, but it’s rather late here.

  58. Michael says:

    Tom,

    A good point re Europe as well. All speculative of course, but it is interesting to consider whether the pressure from an increasingly self-confident Islamic community in Europe, and its inevitable clash with European ‘values’ (such as they are) might force us to finally reassess where those values come from and why our sense of identity has become increasingly thin.

    Certainly more people already seem to be recognising the inadequacy of secular humanism as a foundation for a culture (because it is not itself a cultus in any recognisable sense), but where they go from there – if anywhere – is hard to predict.

  59. Plain old Toad says:

    Michael, Kasper can think what he likes about Africans, So can I, and so can you. Nor do his views on sock puppets interest me much – still less his views on God. Not my problem.

  60. Plain old Toad says:

    “..it will be especially interesting if the growing strength of Islam in Europe instigates a resurgence of Christianity even there.”
    Fighting fire with fire? Tom might well be onto something there. Maybe fanaticism demands, and engenders, a fanatical response. I rather hope not – I’d like to see religious fanaticism eliminated reasonably – but that might not be a reasonable expectation.

  61. kathleen says:

    I’d like to see religious fanaticism eliminated…

    There are many types of “religious fanaticism”, Toad, as you well know. If we are talking about the religious fanaticism of Man worship (Communism), the ancient pagan religions, or militant Islam we could agree with you, for this would mostly imply greater and further killings, persecution and extortion.
    To abide by our Judeo-Christian heritage and the One True Church founded on Jesus Christ, on the other hand – which brought Mankind out of darkness and into the light of his true destiny – would usher us into a much saner and happier world.

    It is, however, the current secular fanaticism we are living in today in Europe that has brought us so much self-indulgence or hopelessness on one side, and a bowing in of all sorts of sin and evil, leading to the passing of unjust laws to cement them on the other. The secularists scream tolerance and my rights at all those who resist these evils, whilst they themselves show a remarkable intolerance to the rights of Christians and their beliefs, or to anyone who opposes them.

    Mind you, it is often the “enemy within”, princes of the Church like Cardinal Daneels, who support so much that flies in the face of Catholic (and even ethical) ways and teaching, that often causes the greatest spiritual harm and confusion among the faithful and/or genuine seekers of Truth.

  62. Michael says:

    Kasper can think what he likes about Africans, So can I, and so can you.

    Of course he/you/I can. That wasn’t really my point. I was only drawing attention to the fact that the views you hold about Africans (particularly their being ‘backward’) were startlingly similar to those Cardinal Kasper accidentally let slip to the world (and then furiously denied, realising it might make him sound bad, despite being caught on tape).

  63. Michael says:

    Maybe fanaticism demands, and engenders, a fanatical response. I rather hope not

    Maybe we should try fanatical indifference? It’s a bit paradoxical I know, but I’m sure it will catch on very quickly, and the results will be…oh, wait a minute…

  64. Plain old Toad says:

    I would diffidently suggest fanatical agnosticism.
    Although I’m agnostic about what that might entail.

    “The secularists scream “tolerance” and “my rights” at all those who resist these evils, whilst they themselves show a remarkable intolerance to the rights of Christians and their beliefs, or to anyone who opposes them.” Kathleen is right here. Tolerance is a double-edged sword. Why anyone should assume they, and their group alone, possess the solutions to the world’s insane problems is a total mystery to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s