by Thomas A. Droleskey
One never knows what is going to hit a sensitive nerve ending among the upper echelon conciliar revolutionaries who have occupied the offices of the Vatican for for the better part of the past five decades.
There are, however, several "hot button" issues that seem to produce instantaneous reactions from the same men who are soporific when one of their "bishops"--I will just happen to select a name that comes to my mind and I ask you to wait until I think of a good name to use. . . .I'm still thinking. . . .bear with me for yet another moment or two. . . .I've got a name!, say someone along the likes of "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch of Freiburg-Breisgau, Germany, denies an article of the Holy Faith. Such a man as Robert Zollitsch, the president of the conciliar conference of "bishops" in the Federal Republic of Germany, goes without any kind of public rebuke in any form, whether written or oral, and continues in his capacity to represent an entire "episcopal" conference as he goes about his business of seeking to undergird the conciliar revolution at home and abroad.
One of those "hot button" issues, perhaps the singularly hottest of those hot buttons that one can push in the conciliar structures, is any whiff of what is considered to be "anti-Semitism."
Those who teach the immutable Catholic truth that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant when Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died on the wood of the Holy Cross and the curtain in the Temple in Jerusalem was torn in two from top to bottom are deemed to "anti-Semitic" when they are simply being faithful disciples of Our Divine Redeemer.
Those who teach that God permitted the Jews a time of mercy so that they could listen to the preaching of the Gospel prior to His using the Romans to destroy Jerusalem in 70 A.D. as a just punishment for their perfidy and obstinacy as He made manifest to the nations the fact that Judaism was a dead religion that had the power to save no one are excoriated for doing so.
And, of course, those who put into question the specific nature and extent of the crimes committed against adherents of the Talmud by agents of the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler, no less those who point out that those crimes, hideous and deplorable as they are, have been used by Talmudic apologists to press what they believe is the Catholic Church for "changes" that they desire to maintain "good relations" with the Talmudic community, must be condemned summarily.
The late Giovanni Montini/Paul VI had his own particular "hot button" issues. He came close to slapping the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, when the two discussed the "Second" Vatican Council and the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service in the Apostolic Palace on September 11, 1976, following the Archbishop's "suspension" following his ordination of men to the Holy Priesthood in Econe, Switzerland, on June 29, 1976:
Montini: "Why do yo not accept the Council? You signed the decrees."
Lefebvre: "There were two that I did not sign."
Montini: "Yes, two, religious liberty and Gaudium et Spes."
(Archbishop Lefebvre's mental note: "I thought at the time: 'I signed he others out of respect for the Holy Father. He [Montini] went on.")
Montini: "And why not religious liberty?"
Lefebvre: "It contains passages that are word for word contrary to what was taught by Gregory XVI and Pius IX."
Montini: "Let's leave that aside! We are not here to discuss theology."
(Archbishop Lefebvre's mental note: "I thought to myself: 'This is unbelievable.'") (Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Kansas City, Missouri, Angelus Press, pp. 491-492.)
Each and every living acolyte of the late "Archbishop" Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, including the longtime (1991-2002) archpriest of the Basilica of Saint Peter, Virgilio "Cardinal" Noe, and "Monsignor" Piero Marini, Noe's successor as "master of papal ceremonies" (1987-2007), and "Archbishop" Rembert G. Weakland, O.S.B., utter nothing other than words of complete contempt for any version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as they continue to extol the "glories" of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.
Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict himself is insisting that the bishops and priests of the Society of Saint Pius X accept the doctrinal integrity and liturgical fitness of that Novus Ordo service, which was denounced in the most exacting terms by Archbishop Lefebvre, who saw fit to identify himself with BISHOP ANTONIO DE CASTRO MAYER'S LETTER TO POPE PAUL VI REGARDING THE PROMULGATION OF THE NOVUS ORDO service (which is still listed on the Society of Saint Pius X American website), further insisting that another "hot button" issue for conciliarists, ecumenism, which is one of the chief foundations of the Novus Ordo, be accepted:
Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light – this is interreligious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love "to the end" has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity – this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009)
This is what I wrote about that passage at the time the false "pope's" letter was issued nearly sixteen months ago:
There is yet another conciliar nugget in the passage cited from Ratzinger/Benedict's "explanatory letter" quoted just above: "Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time." Notice that Ratzinger/Benedict did not say that his supreme and fundamental priority is to lead men and women to the true Church, wherein alone it possible to know the true God, Who speaks to us in Sacred Scripture and in Sacred (or Apostolic) Tradition. God speaks us in Divine Revelation, both Scripture and Tradition, solely through the Catholic Church, something that Ratzinger/Benedict does not believe.
It is furthermore the case that Ratzinger/Benedict does not understand "the God Who spoke on Sinai; to that God Whose face we recognise in a love which presses 'to the end' - in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen" does not countenance a true Successor of Saint Peter committing, objectively speaking, Mortal Sins against the First Commandment by going to mosques and synagogues and esteeming the symbols of false religions and make space available in a major patriarchic al basilica, Saint Paul Outside the Walls in Rome, for "ecumenical prayer" (see The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion). The "God Who spoke on Sinai; to that God Whose face we recognise in a love which presses 'to the end' - in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen" does not countenance a true Successor of Saint Peter placing into question the dogmatic pronouncements of the past by asserting that they were expressed in contingent terms based upon the historical circumstances in which they were proclaimed. The"God Who spoke on Sinai; to that God Whose face we recognise in a love which presses 'to the end' - in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen" will not be mocked by one who dares to assert things as true that have been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church.
A lot of Catholics across the whole vast spectrum of the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide, well-meaning people who are filled with emotionalism and illogic as thy seek to do what I had done for so long with Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, that is, to project Catholicism in the skull of a "pope" who is a Modernist to the core of his being, refuse to see that Ratzinger/Benedict's commitment to "ecumenism" is a mark of his apostasy. They do not understand that God the Holy Ghost did not wait until 2005 for us to "learn" of the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" that is a pure expression of Modernism.
The conciliarists also get pretty touchy when one criticizes the "suffering 'pope'" for his committing, in the objective order of things, Mortal Sins against the First and Second Commandments by esteeming the symbols of false religions with his own priestly hands and when he terms their places of false worship as "sacred" to the true God of Divine Revelation. And this is to say nothing of how touchy officials in the Vatican become when anyone should question whether "Pope" John Paul II fulfilled Our Lady's Fatima request for the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart with all of the world's bishops or when anyone should question whether Our Lady's actual Third Secret has been released. Would anyone care to deny this for the public record? Can we say the word "suspension" of any priest, whether truly ordained or not, who has questioned these matters?
The conciliar revolutionaries have also gotten very touchy over criticism directed at the president of the "Pontifical Academy for Life," "Archbishop" Rino Fisichella (whose first name is Salvatore but is referred to most commonly in the media by his middle name, Rino) who had said last year that the conciliar "bishop" of Recife, Brazil, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, who had excommunicated the physicians who killed the twin preborn babies of a nine year-old girl was incorrect, making it appear to all the world, especially those who understand the plain use of language, that he condoned those killings. Here is just a reminder of a story that I carried earlier this year:
ROME, February 16, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Archbishop Rino Fisichella, the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV), has told the Associated Press that he has no intention of stepping down after five senior members of the Academy issued a statement last week expressing their loss of confidence in his leadership.
“I won’t respond to these people. Too much space already has been given to them,” Fisichella told AP.
Fisichella’s response follows comments late last week from Fr. Frederico Lombardi, the head of the Holy See Press Office and a subordinate of the cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone, who told media that the statement has not been received by either the pope or Bertone. Lombardi, who has gone on record supporting Fisichella, told the Catholic News Agency that issuing the statement to the press was an “astonishing” move.
The author of the statement, Luke Gormally, an Ordinary Member of the Academy and the former director of the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics in London, told LSN that he did not intend to pursue the matter any further.
Gormally told LSN, “Certainly, for the immediate future I have no further action in mind.”
The five signatories to the statement say they believe that Archbishop Fisichella’s speech at the Academy’s plenary meeting made it clear that he does not grasp the meaning of the Catholic Church’s absolute prohibition on the killing of unborn children.
His speech, they said, “had the effect of confirming in the minds of many academicians the impression that we are being led by an ecclesiastic who does not understand what absolute respect for innocent human lives entails.” They called this an “absurd” situation.
Fisichella, they said, maintained that the article he wrote last year, which appeared to condone the abortion of the twin children of a nine-year-old rape victim in Brazil, had been “vindicated” by a clarification issued in July 2009 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
Fisichella wrote in his article, published in the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, that the doctors who aborted the twins did not deserve excommunication and accused the pro-life local bishop of Recife, Brazil, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, of acting hastily and failing to meet the pastoral needs of the girl.
“There are others who merit excommunication and our pardon, not those who have allowed you to live and have helped you to regain hope and trust,” he wrote.
These assertions were roundly refuted at the time by a statement from the Brazilian diocese detailing the assistance that the girl and her family had been receiving from the local priest and the diocese before she was spirited away by a pro-abortion group for the abortion. This response was never given space in either the secular press or in L’Osservatore Romano and no official response to it was ever publicly made by any office of the Vatican, although Bishop Cardoso was later honoured for his actions by the pro-life group Human Life International.
Gormally told LSN today that his statement had originally been meant only as his own response to LSN’s request for information on the outcome of the PAV plenary meeting, but that later other members expressed an interest in signing. The group later released it to other news outlets.
He said he is “content” with the situation as it is and said that the statement has achieved what it set out to do by clarifying for the public what he believes the true situation is with the Academy. The statement said that within the Vatican Curia, it is “widely perceived” that Fisichella is an “inappropriate” president of the Academy.
Gormally told AP that an article by Catholic News Service, in which Fisichella had declared that there was “harmony” at the PAV plenary meeting, had been a work of deliberate “disinformation.” The statement, he said, had corrected this situation.
On Friday, February 19, Vatican Spokesman Fr. Frederico Lombardi said the statement by the five PAV members “was received neither by the Holy Father, nor by the cardinal Secretary of State, who would seem to be the natural recipients,” nor, he said, had it been presented at the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, “which would have been the natural place to address the matter.”
“It’s a bit strange that persons who are members of an academy address a request of this kind without addressing it to the competent authorities. It’s astounding and seems incorrect that such a document should be given public circulation,” Lombardi said.
However, Fr. Lombardi himself has had a hand in the growth of the controversy surrounding the PAV and Archbishop Fisichella’s article.
On March 21 2009, just days after Fisichella’s article was published, Fr. Lombardi, while accompanying the pope on a visit to Africa, told media that in his speech to Angolan dignitaries Benedict XVI had in no way intended to condemn “therapeutic abortion.” In his speech, Pope Benedict had observed, “How bitter the irony of those who promote abortion as a form of maternal healthcare!”
Lombardi, aware of the growing scandal surrounding Fisichella’s statements, hastened to assure journalists that the comments had nothing to do with the Brazilian case, and openly endorsed Fisichella’s assertions.
He said, “In this regard the considerations of Archbishop Rino Fisichella apply, when he lamented in L’Osservatore Romano the hasty declaration of excommunication by the archbishop of Recife. No extreme case should obscure the true meaning of the remarks by the Holy Father, who was referring to something quite different … The Pope absolutely was not talking about therapeutic abortion, and did not say that this must always be rejected.”
Fr. Lombardi later declined LSN’s direct request for a clarification of his remarks. (Vatican Archbishop, Spokesman Come Out Swinging against Pro-Life Critics; see also
So Long to the Fifth Commandment, the
Statement of those "Pontifical Academy for Life" members who criticized Fisichella, Dr. Marian Therese Horvat's The Holy See Abandons its Pro-Life Position, and Rotten To The Very Roots.)
See Vatican officials criticized. See Vatican officials circle the wagons and shoot at the critics. See defections from the Holy Faith up close and personal. And is Benedict/Ratzinger who has indeed appointed Fisichella to oversee his "new evangelization" effort? (See
Benedict Creates Office to Evangelize the West.) It is impossible to make any of this up. It's just not possible to do so.
Above all else, though, the "suffering 'pope'" himself, however, gets really touchy when he is criticized for his role in protecting conciliar clergymen who have been proved guilty of the most heinous of moral crimes imaginable. The last article on this site, Live By Separation of Church and State? Die By Separation of Church and State, dealt with the "outrage" expressed by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on the raid conducted by Belgian police on a meeting of that country's conciliar "bishops" in Mechelen, Belgium, on Thursday, June 24, 2010. The false "pontiff" has also seen to it his fellow Modernist and arch-conciliar revolutionary, Christoph Schonborn, the "archbishop" of Vienna, Austria, was dressed down publicly for criticizing the nefarious destroyer of Our Lady's Fatima Message, Angelo "Cardinal" Sodano, the Vatican's secretary of state emeritus, for having used the exact phrase that Ratzinger/Benedict had used to describe press reports about the self-made crisis of scandals involving perverted conciliar clergymen: "petty gossip." Schonborn also criticized Sodano for blocking an investigation into his predecessor, Hans Groer, in the 1990s that even the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger desired the Vatican to pursue:
Ratzinger/Benedict saw to it that Schonborn, whose Modernism has been explored in several articles on this site over the years, got dressed down but good on Monday, June 29, 2010:
VATICAN CITY, 28 JUN 2010 (VIS) - The Holy See Press Office released the following communique early this afternoon:
"(1) The Holy Father today received in audience Cardinal Christoph Schonborn O.P., archbishop of Vienna and president of the Austrian Episcopal Conference. The cardinal had asked to meet the Supreme Pontiff personally in order to report on the current situation of the Church in Austria. In particular, Cardinal Schonborn wished to clarify the exact meaning of his recent declarations concerning some aspects of current ecclesiastical discipline, and certain of his judgements regarding positions adopted by the Secretariat of State - and in particular by the then Secretary of State of Pope John Paul II - concerning the late Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer, archbishop of Vienna from 1986 to 1995.
"(2) Cardinal Angelo Sodano, dean of the College of Cardinals, and Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone S.D.B. were subsequently invited to join the meeting.
"In the second part of the audience certain widespread misunderstandings were clarified and resolved, misunderstandings deriving partly from certain statements of Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, who expressed his displeasure at the interpretations given to his words.
"(a) It must be reiterated that, in the Church, when accusations are made against a cardinal, competency falls exclusively to the Pope; other parties may have a consultative function, while always maintaining due respect for persons.
"(b) The word 'chiacchiericcio' (gossip) was erroneously interpreted as disrespectful to the victims of sexual abuse, towards whom Cardinal Angelo Sodano nourishes the same feelings of compassion, and of condemnation of evil, as expressed on various occasions by the Holy Father. That word, pronounced during his Easter address to Pope Benedict XVI, was taken literally from the pontifical homily of Palm Sunday and referred to the "courage that does not let itself be intimidated by the gossip of prevalent opinions".
"(3) The Holy Father, recalling with great affection his own pastoral trip to Austria, via Cardinal Christoph Schonborn sends his greetings and encouragement to the Church in Austria, and to her pastors, entrusting the journey to renewed ecclesial communion to the celestial protection of the Blessed Virgin, so venerated at Mariazell". (Communique concerning Audience with Cardinal Schonborn (VIS)
VATICAN CITY — The Vatican on Monday admonished a leading cardinal for having publicly criticized the former Vatican No. 2 for his handling of clerical abuse cases.
In a remarkable statement, the Vatican said only the pope can make such accusations against a cardinal, not another so-called prince of the church.
In April, Vienna's archbishop, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, accused the former Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, of blocking a probe into a sex abuse scandal that rocked Austria's church 15 years ago.
Schoenborn also accused Sodano of causing "massive harm" to victims when he dismissed claims of clerical abuse as "petty gossip" on Easter Sunday.
The Vatican sought to clarify Sodano's comments, noting Monday that the pope himself had used the "petty gossip" phrase a week earlier, referring to the need to have "courage to not be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinions."
The phrase, and Sodano's repetition of it, sparked widespread criticism that the Vatican simply didn't appreciate the significance of the clerical abuse scandal. It also suggested the Vatican thought the hundreds of reports of abuse flooding in, and the questions that were being asked about the Vatican's handling of abuse for decades, was mere gossip.
The Vatican said that interpretation was "erroneous," although it didn't explain what the pontiff or Sodano meant by the phrase. The Vatican said both men felt compassion for victims and condemnation for those behind the abuse.
The Holy See issued the statement after Schoenborn met with the pontiff in a private audience. The audience was then broadened to include Sodano and the current Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone.
Schoenborn, a former student of the pope's and a papal confidante, has been a leading figure in the abuse crisis, forcefully denouncing abuse, presiding over service of reparations for victims and openly calling for an honest examination of issues like celibacy.
His comments about Sodano were remarkable in that they were directed at Pope John Paul II's No. 2, who has already come under fire for his alleged stonewalling of a Vatican investigation into the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, who was found to have abused seminarians and fathered at least three children.
Schoenborn made the comments April 28 to a select group of Austrian journalists. The comments were later summarized by the Catholic news agency Kathpress and picked up by media around the world.
In the discussion, Schoenborn blamed Sodano for having blocked an investigation of sex abuse allegations against the late Austrian Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer.
The scandal surrounding the former Vienna archbishop broke in 1995, when a former student at a boy's seminary in the town of Hollabrunn alleged that he abused him repeatedly in the early 1970s. Other accusations followed. Groer stepped down shortly after the first allegations surfaced — officially due to old age. He died in 2003 but never admitted any guilt.
Schoenborn, who succeeded Groer as Vienna archbishop, said the pope — known then as Josef Ratzinger and head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — had immediately pushed for an investigative commission when abuse allegations against Groer arose.
However, he said, others in the Vatican did not let this happen.
His comments in defense of the pontiff came at a time when Benedict himself was coming under fire for his handling of abuse cases both during his time as archbishop of Munich and as the head of the Vatican's doctrine office.
The Vatican statement Monday recalled that "in the church, only the pope has the competence to deal with accusations against a cardinal; other instances can have a consultation function, but always with the necessary respect for the people involved."
In other comments on April 28, Schoenborn was quoted as saying the quality of a gay relationship should be taken into greater consideration, the church needed a new perspective on the remarriage of divorcees, and it was no secret the Vatican government was "in urgent need of reform." (Vatican admonishes Austrian cardinal for comments (AP))
Isn't it great to see almost every conciliar official who gets into trouble say that their words were "misinterpreted."
Got a true pope? Obey the true pope. Respect the true pope. Respect his cardinals and bishops. It's that simple. The revolutionary spirit of conciliarism has bred a unprecedented "free-for-all" in which we have seen the spectacle of "ultra-progressive" revolutionary "bishops" criticizing the merely "progressive" revolutionary "bishops" in public over matters of liturgy, doctrine, worship and pastoral praxis. Some of the bolder among those "ultra-progressives" have even seen fit to publicly criticize the conciliar "popes" from time to time. This is without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church.
There are times, my good and few readers, that the conciliar "popes" know how to act as Catholics. Unfortunately, however, it is usually to suit their own self-serving purposes.
Even all of the "outrage" about the Belgian police raid last week is sound and fury signifying self-protection.
Ah, let me explain.
Some have wondered why the Belgian police investigators were at all interested in raiding the offices of Godfried Danneels, the conciliar "archbishop" of Mechelen-Brussels from December 19, 1979, to January 18, 2010. Wonder no more and you will realize that the ladies in the Vatican doth protest a bit too much, noting that the first link in the article below by Rod Dreher takes you to a site when the original article by Alexandra Colen is no longer available (interesting; parts of the hideous, graphic descriptions have been edited for publication on this site):
That is the shocking allegation by Alexandra Colen, an orthodox Belgian Catholic, who details her long fight with Cardinal Danneels and the Belgian Catholic hierarchy (including the pedophile recently retired bishop Vangheluwe) over a pedophilic sex-ed book approved for Belgium's Catholic schools. Excerpt:
His predecessor, the liberal Cardinal Danneels, who was very popular with the press in Belgium and abroad, was Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels and Primate of Belgium from 1979 until 2010. The sympathy for pedophile attitudes and arguments among the Belgian bishops during this period was no secret, especially since 1997 when the fierce controversy about the catechism textbook Roeach made the headlines. The editors of Roeach were Prof. Jef Bulckens of the Catholic University of Leuven and Prof. Frans Lefevre of the Seminary of Bruges. The textbook contained a drawing which showed a naked baby girl saying: "[Unspeakable act} makes me feel groovy," "I like to take my knickers off with friends," "I want to be in the room when mum and dad have sex." The drawing also shows a naked little boy and girl that are "playing doctor". . . .
The drawing also showed three pairs of parents. Those with the "correct" attitude reply: "Yes, feeling and stroking those little places is good fun." This "catechism textbook" was used in the catechism lessons in the catholic schools, until one day I discovered it among the schoolbooks of my eldest daughter, then 13 years old. On 3 September 1997 I wrote a letter to Cardinal Danneels, saying:
"When I see this drawing and its message, I get the distinct impression that this catechism textbook is designed intentionally to make 13 and 14 year olds believe that toddlers enjoy [forbidden acts]. In this way one breeds pedophiles that sincerely believe that children actually think that what they are doing to them is 'groovy', while the opposite is the case."
I told Cardinal Danneels that, although I was a member of Parliament for the Flemish-secessionist party Vlaams Blok, I was addressing him as a Catholic parent "who wishes to remain faithful to the papal authority and also wishes to educate her children this way." I insisted that he forbid the use of this book in the catechism lessons: "This is why I insist - yes, the days of meekly asking are over - that you forbid the use of this 'catechism book' in our children's classrooms."
Today this case, that dates from 12 years ago, assumes a new and ominous significance. Especially now that I know that Mgr Roger Vangheluwe, the pedophile child molesting Bishop of Bruges, was the supervising bishop of both institutions - the Catholic University of Leuven and the Seminary of Bruges - whence came the editors in chief of this perverted "catechism" textbook.
After I started my campaign against the Roeach textbook, many parents contacted me to voice their concerns. Stories of other practices in the Catholic education system poured in. There were schools where children were taught to put [certain contraceptive devices]. . . .and where they had to watch videos showing techniques of [acts omitted].
Because Cardinal Danneels refused to respond to requests to put an end to these practices, I and hundreds of concerned parents gathered in front of his palace on 15 October 1997. We carried placards with the text "Respect for parents and children," and we said the rosary.
Cardinal Danneels refused to receive a delegation of the demonstrators. "I shall not be pressured," he said in the libertine magazine Humo on 21 October 1997. The Archbishop's door remained closed when we demonstrated again on 10 December 1997.
... On 18 February 1998 we were at Cardinal Danneels's door again, myself and a group of parents. Again the door remained closed. So on 18 March 1998 a group of two hundred parents went to the Papal Nuncio, the ambassador of the Vatican, in Brussels. But the Nuncio, who was a friend of Danneels, also refused to meet us. He had, however, alerted the police, who had several water cannons at the ready just around the corner.
Meanwhile Danneels's friends in the press started a campaign against me. "Colen continues to pester the bishops," was the headline in Gazet van Antwerpen. One evening Toon Osaer, Danneels's spokesman at the time, phoned me to tell me that as a Catholic I had to "be obedient" to the bishops.
If this is true, then it certainly puts the Belgian police raid into context, does it not? And it also puts Benedict's response into context -- one that is not flattering to the Holy Father.
I am reminded of a Dutch Catholic mother I met eight years ago after mass in suburban Amsterdam. She told me about having volunteered to teach catechism to Catholic schoolchildren, and being sent to a diocesan training seminar for lay teachers. What she and the others got was just bizarrely heretical. She protested to the bishop, and got absolutely nowhere. In some parts of this world, lay Catholics who wish to be faithful to the Church's teachings really are on their own. (Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/06/danneels-approved-pedophilic-catechism.html#ixzz0sMls5dLR)
Boy, if only the "pope" knew, huh?
This is what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has protected by his inaction. This is what Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II protected by his inaction. Programs only a little less graphic that are, as Pope Pius XI explained in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929, are use use in the classrooms of conciliar schools and "religious education" programs throughout the world. Wojtyla/John Paul II turned a blind eye to these horrors. So has Ratzinger/Benedict.
Do I have direct, first-hand evidence that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI knew of the Danneels "catechism"? No.
It is known, however, that complaints about such programs were registered in many offices in the conciliar curia in the Vatican. I have done so personally myself in the 1980s and 1990s, Letters about this "catechism" doubtlessly were sent to the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. There is no doubt that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict was apprised of the Danneels "catechism" in his days as the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, although I am willing to concede that his mind in the latter part of the 1990s and the early part of this decade was certainly occupied with many other weighty matters (brining the negotiations between conciliarists and Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification to a successful close so as to imply that the Fathers of the Council of Trent, who were guided infallibly by God the Holy Ghost, were conditioned by the historical circumstances in which they worked; holding press conferences to explain Dominus Iesus, August 6, 2000, during which he which implied that adherents of the Talmud had their own path of salvation, that they did not have to acknowledge Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as their Redeemer to be saved; working on the overturning of Pope Leo XIII's condmenation of forty of the propositions of the late Father Antonio Rosmini).
I can understand that "Cardinal" Ratzinger might have been too busy to spend much time on the Danneels "catechism" if it had been brought to his attention. Time will tell if letter were indeed written to him at the time and if he or anyone in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responded in his behalf. One way or the other, however, the fact that no office in the conciliar Vatican, including Ratzinger's, stopped the Danneels "catechism" proves there was inaction in the face of a grave, grave evil. Defenders of Benedict/Ratzinger can just continue to dream on in their self-made world of delusion.
Criticize Godfried Danneels for this in a public forum? Criticize Godfried Daniels for his other multiple defections from the Faith? Out of the question.
What if it turns out that there was a basis last Thursday for the investigation of this "conciliar" cardinal's offices?
What if it turns out that he was a serial patron of perverted clergymen?
What if it turns out that "bishops" in Mechelen, Belgium, last Thursday, June 24, 2010, have been such patrons themselves?
How many current and retired "bishops" of Belgium have been "consecrated"or "co-consecrated" by Godfried Danneels? I am so glad that you asked:
- Principal Consecrator of:
- Principal Co-Consecrator of:
Could it be, just possibly, you understand, that a few of those men who are "active ordinaries" in the conciliar church in Belgium are using the perverse "cathecism" of their "consecrator" or co-consecrator"? One of those men listed above, "Bishop" Roger Joseph Vangheluwe, has now admitted to being an abuser himself. This was unknown to Danneels or any other of those "bishops"? Dream on. Dream on. Has even one of these men condemned the Danneels "catechism"?
In addition to the disgraced, "Bishop" Roger Joseph Vangheluwe, of the above listed conciliar "bishops' in Belgium who were "consecrated" or "co-consecrated" by Godfried Danneels three (Paul Van den Berghe, Paul Lanneau, Albert Jean Charles Ghislain Houssiau) are retired, two have resigned (Jan De Brie and Arthur Luysterman), and four (Andre-Joseph Leonard, Josef De Kesel, Johan Jozef Bonny, Rémy Victor Vancottem) have been appointed to their current positions by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself, who, despite Danneels' own deep personal dislike of Ratzinger/Benedict as a "conservative," seems to accepted the recommendations made to him without any word of protest whatsoever.
Godfried Danneels, who was quoted in a New York Times Magazine article in December of 1994 as agreeing with another "cardinal" that he could not refuse what purported to be Holy Communion in the Novus Ordo service to those he knew to be divorced and remarried without a [worthless] conciliar decree of nullity, has left behind quite a legacy of conciliar revolutionary activity. Oh, by the way, the other "cardinal" with whom Danneels agreed about offering what he believed to be Holy Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics was a fellow named Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin. This prompted me, in all of my "conservative"/indulterer enthusiasm at the age of forty-three, to write an article for The Wanderer, "Make That Two Red Hats to Go."
Moral corruption is a way of life in the conciliar structures. This moral corruption has been suborned by the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" because they have lost the sense of the horror of personal sin, thinking, despite all of their public words of protest to the contrary when they are forced to make statements as a result of "petty gossip" in the secular news media (note that they do not respond to the earnest pleading of the sheep to help them but respond only to the secular media!), that whatever policies and programs they adopt, no matter how much God is offended or how many souls are wounded and scandalized to the point of losing the Faith entirely in some instances, are almost beyond criticism or review. This loss of the sense of the horror of personal sin is just a manifestation of conciliarism's incessant warfare upon the Faith that demands the total assent of the faithful yet attached to the structures of their false church.
What more can be said? Let me turn again to the words of spoken by Our Lady to the Venerable Mary of Agreda as recounted in the latter's The Mystical City of God:
243. And to the greater confusion of the negligent
ministers of the Church in our days, I desire thee to understand, that in his eternal decrees the Most High dispenses his infinite treasures of the souls through the
ministry of the prelates, priests, preachers, and teachers
of his divine word. As far as his will is concerned, they
might all be angelic rather than human in their holiness
and perfection; they might enjoy many privileges and
exemptions of nature and grace, and thus become fit
ministers of the Most High, if only they would not pervert the order of his infinite wisdom and if they lived up
to the dignity to which they are called and chosen before
all others. This infinite kindness of God is just as great
now, as in the first ages of the Church; the inclination of
the highest Goodness to enrich souls is not changed, nor
can it be; his condescending liberality has not diminished;
the love of his Church is always at its height; his mercy
is just as much concerned at the miseries of men, which
in our times are become innumerable; the clamor of the
sheep of Christ is louder than ever; the prelates, priests
and ministers are more numerous than heretofore. If
this is so, to what is to be attributed the loss of so many
souls and the ruin of the Christian people? Why is it,
that the infidels not only do not enter the Church, but
subject it to so much affliction and sorrow? that the prelates and ministers do not shine before the world, exhibiting the splendors of Christ, as in the ages gone
by and in the primitive Church?
244. O my daughter, I invite thee to let thy tears flow
over this loss and ruin. Consider how the stones of the
sanctuary are scattered about in streets of the city (Thren. 4, 1). See how the priests of the Lord have
assimilated themselves to the people (Is. 24, 2), when,
on the contrary, they should raise the people to the holiness, which is due to priesthood. The sacerdotal dignity
and the precious vestments of virtue are soiled by contagion with the worldly ; the anointed of the Lord, consecrated solely to his worship and intercourse, have lapsed
from their noble and godlike station; they have lost their
beauty in debasing themselves to vile actions, unworthy
of their exalted position among men. They affect vanity;
they indulge greed and avarice; they serve their own interest; they love money, they place their hopes in treasures of silver and gold; they submit to the flatteries and
to the slavery of the worldly and powerful; and, to their
still lower degradation, they subject themselves to the petty whims of women, and sometimes make themselves participants in their counsels of malice and wickedness.
There is hardly a sheep in the fold of Christ, which recognizes in them the voice of its Pastor, or finds from
them the nourishment of that redeeming virtue and holiness, which they should show forth. The little ones ask
for bread, and there is none to distribute (Thren. 4, 4).
And if it is dealt out in self-interest or as a compliment, how can it afford wholesome nourishment to the necessitous and infirm from such leprous hands? How shall
the heavenly Physician confide to such administrators the
medicine of life? Or how can the guilty ones intercede
and mediate mercy for those who are less, or even equally, guilty?
245. These are the reasons why the prelates and priests
of our times do not perform the miracles of the Apostles
and disciples, and of those who in the primitive Church
imitated their lives by an ardent zeal for the honor of the
Lord and the conversion of souls. On this account the
treasures of the blood and death of Christ in the Church
do not bear the same fruits, either in his priests and
ministers, nor in the other mortals; for if they neglect
and forget to make them fruitful in themselves, how
can they expect them to flow over on the rest of the human family? On this account the infidels are not converted on learning of the true faith, although they live
within sight of the princes of the Church, the ministers
and preachers of the Gospel. The Church in our times
is richer in temporal goods, rents and possessions; it
abounds with learned men, great prelacies, and multiplied
dignities. As all these advantages are due to the blood
of Christ, they ought all to be used in his honor and service, promoting the conversion of souls, supporting his
poor and enhancing the worship and veneration of his
246. Is this the use made of the temporal riches of
the Church? Let the captives answer, whether they are
ransomed by the rents of the Church; let the infidels testify, whether they are converted, whether heresies are extirpated at the expense of the ecclesiastical
treasures. But the public voice will loudly proclaim, that
from these same treasures palaces were built, primogenitures established, the airy nothingness of noble titles
bought; and, what is most deplorable, it is known to
what profane and vile uses those that succeed in the ecclesiastical office put the treasures of the Church, how
they dishonor the High-priest Christ and in their lives
depart just as far from the imitation of Christ and the
Apostles, as the most profane men of the world. If the
preaching of the divine word by these ministers is so dead
and without power of vivifying the hearers, it is not the
fault of truth or of the holy Scriptures; but it is because
of the abuse and of the distorted intentions of those that
preach it. They seek to compromise the glory of Christ
with their own selfish honor and vain esteem, the spiritual goods, with base acquisition of stipends; and if those two selfish ends are reached, they care not for other results of their preaching. Therefore they wander away
from the pure and sincere doctrine, and sometimes even
from the truth, which the sacred authors have recorded
in the Scriptures and according to which the holy teachers have explained them; they slime it over with their
own ingenious subtleties, seeking to cause rather the
pleasure and admiration of their hearers than their advancement. As the divine truths reach the ears of the
sinners so adulterated, they impress upon the mind rather the ingenious sophistry of the preacher, than the
charity of Christ; they bring with it no force or efficacy
for penetrating the hearts, although full of ingenious artifice to delight the ears.
247. Let not the chastisement of these vanities and
abuses, and of others unknown to the world, astonish
thee, my dearest, and be not surprised, that divine justice
has so much forsaken the prelates, ministers and preachers of his word, or that the Catholic Church, having
such an exalted position in its beginnings, should now be
brought to such low estate. And if there are some priests
and ministers, who are not infected with these lamentable
vices, the Church owes so much the more to my divine
Son in these times, when He is so deeply offended and
outraged. With those that are zealous, He is most liberal; but they are few in number, as is evident from the
ruin of the Christian people and from the contempt into
which the priests and preachers of the Gospel have fallen.
For if the number of the perfect and the zealous workers
were great, without a doubt sinners would reform and
amend their lives ; many infidels would be converted; all
would look upon and hear with reverence and fear such
preachers, priests and prelates, they would respect them
for their dignity and holiness, and not for their usurped authority and outward show, which induces a reverence
too much like worldly applause and altogether without
fruit. Do not be afraid or abashed for having written all
this for they themselves know that it is the truth and thou dost not write of thy own choice, but at my command.
Hence bewail such a sad state, and invite heaven and
earth to help thee in thy weeping ; for there are few who
sorrow on account of it, and this is the greatest of all the
injuries committed against the Lord by the children of
the Church. (The Venerable Mary of Agreda, The Mystical City of God: Book IV: The Coronation, pp. 232-236.)
Let those who have the supernatural eyes of the soul to see that these words of Our Lady apply now just as much as they did in the time they were spoken accept that fact. Others will just have move along to some other portal on the internet to find comforting words of false reassurance that "Pope" Benedict XVI is a great "restorer" of the Catholic Faith.
We must pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, conscious of the fact that must make reparation for our sins, which are so responsible for the worsening of the state of the Church Militant and of the world-at-large, accept with joy and with gratitude each of the sufferings and calumnies and difficulties that come our way as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
The path to Heaven can be trod only by those who are willing to bear the Cross and to lift it high in their daily lives. considering it our privilege to hear the Immemorial Mass of Tradition offered at the hands of true bishops and priests who reject conciliarism, seeking only to live in such a way that we will be ready at all times to die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.
It's the Faith that matters, the entire Faith without any compromises, now and for all eternity. And we can't be "touchy, touchy" about what anyone thinks or says about us for our efforts, despite our own sins and failings, to stand fast in behalf of the full integrity of the Holy Faith as we pray for the conversion of the conciliar revolutionaries back to that true Faith before they die.
Aren't we willing to suffer some more for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary?
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints