This image, apparently showing Pope Francis and Cardinal Godfried Danneels at the Synod, has been doing the rounds on the internet.
And why wouldn’t it be them; given that Danneels is the second name on the list of 45 prelates that Pope Francis personally chose to attend the Synod in Rome?
We have consistently pointed out that:-
1. Danneels has been recorded attempting to silence a victim of child sexual abuse at the hands of one of his friends in the episcopate.
2. Danneels attempted to get King Baudouin of Belgium to vote for abortion.
3. Danneels enforced a horrifically paedophile ”catechism” on the children of his diocese, refused to listen to the complaints and protests of concerned parents, was able to influence the papal nuncio to ignore these parents too; and that this nuncio had sufficient influence to get the local police-force to threaten the parents with a water cannon.
4. Danneels has spoken out in favour of sodomitical relationships.
5. Danneels recently boasted, on a video interview and in his written biography, about being part of a ”mafia” that was opposed to Pope Benedict XVI; and which wanted to ”modernize” the Catholic Church. When this story first broke, Danneels was quoted as saying that this ”mafia” wanted Jorge Bergoglio to head the Church. Another key player, who Danneels identified as part of this ”mafia,” was none other than Cardinal Walter Kasper.
6. And on Wednesday, we drew attention to the fact that Danneels had attended the Belgian Masonic Lodge, given a talk there dressed in Masonic ritual garb, taken part in a public ”dialogue” with the Grand Master of the Grand Orient in Belgium, received from him a Masonic handshake, publicly agreed to concepts at odds with Catholic Truth and purchased books on how to join the Grand Orient of Belgium.
Can no-one see the elephant in the room?
How the heck can it be possible that this is not the central discussion taking place at the Synod. Or even in the mainstream media? Where are even the Catholic media on this?
We don’t read much of Damian Thompson’s stuff, but he has just made some good points in his column at The Spectator.
Calling for a thorough investigation, Thompson notes: ”Pope Francis must explain why a man who concealed sex abuse within a family is a leading participant in a synod discussing the pastoral care of families… So far the media have shown no interest in this story. That wouldn’t be the case if Benedict XVI were still pope.”
It is beyond us, how the Synod Fathers can go along with all of this. Even the more orthodox amongst them, who are defending the Faith from the blasphemous attempts to invert Jesus for Moses and so forth, seem to be fighting a rearguard action, if this is not addressed first of all.
Ask youself this question: Would you take part in a meeting about families with a known paedophile-protector? If you would not do it in your own locality, why should we not be standing up and shouting from the rooftops when this is happening right in the very House of God – right before the Throne of St. Peter?
Both divine and natural justice demand an investigation into all that has being going on. And yet, all the media will talk about is the fact that Pope Francis is on the shortlist for the Nobel Peace Prize, because of his work for the environment.
What the Synod Fathers could learn from Blessed Alan of Tewkesbury
Two years ago, we visited the ancient Abbey of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Tewkesbury. We were travelling to many of the English sites of Catholic Christendom, to pray for the reconversion of England back to the Catholic Faith.
Formerly a major Catholic abbey, this wonderful construction only survived the revolution of Protestantism, because King Henry VIII allowed the locals to purchase the building back, to be their parish church.
Even then, the Lady Chapel was demolished, the Sedilia was mutilated and, two centuries later, the original High-Altar – which the last monks had buried for safety – was cut-up to make benches for the porch.
Long before any of that, Blessed Alan of Tewkesbury was abbot of the Benedictine community between 1188 – 1202 A.D.
Blessed Alan is perhaps most famous for his painstaking work on restoring into some chronological order, the 600 pieces of correspondence, between the great St. Thomas Becket and King Henry II.
He was also a strong defender of Catholic orthodoxy and the rights of Jesus Christ. Although he was very compassionate towards those who fell into sin, Alan of Tewkesbury was also strong against the obstinate.
One day, the infamous and licentious Abbot Roger Norreys, of Evesham, came to take part in the Sacred Liturgy in the presence of Archbishop Richard of Dover and Blessed Alan of Tewkesbury.
As Norreys was under interdict, Blessed Alan reminded the archbishop that he could not be permitted to take part in the liturgy with the rest of the monks. Archbishop Richard temporized and failed to take any action.
When the Sacred Liturgy began with Norreys illicitly present, Blessed Alan stood up, closed his liturgical books and processed out of the church with all of his monks. They would not offend God or abuse the offices of the Church in this sinful and scandalous manner.
Where are the men today?
We must ask: are there any men taking part in the Synod, of the spiritual stature of Blessed Alan of Tewkesbury? Every day that Danneels takes part in the Synod, with no protest from anyone else: God is offended, the Church is besmirched and scandal is given to the little ones.
This goes too, for every day that blasphemy, heresy and error are tolerated without someone standing up and asking why Pope Francis is tolerating and even encouraging this. Whilst so many of the world’s bishops are gathered together, someone needs to have the courage – the ”bottle,” as we say around here – to get up and ask how far the men leading the Church today believe in the Deposit of Faith; and whether or not they believe it in the way it has always been believed, everywhere. In short, are they really Catholics?
If Pope Francis were to deal with Danneels and all of this sinful scandal, then more Catholics at the grassroots level might start to believe that he actually cared about Catholicism and the Family.
It would be nice to know that more of the bishops did too.