Coffee House

Three things you need to know about Pope Francis and the cardinal disgraced in a sex abuse scandal

8 October 2015

4:40 PM

8 October 2015

4:40 PM

This picture of Pope Francis apparently talking to retired Belgian cardinal Godfried Danneels at the Synod on the Family, which began this week, is circulating on Twitter and disturbing many Catholics. This is what you need to know:

1. Five years ago, Cardinal Danneels tried to cover up a revolting case of family sex abuse.

As the National Catholic Reporter revealed on August 30, 2010:

Audio recordings leaked to the Belgian media this weekend reveal Belgium’s Cardinal Godfried Danneels urging a sex abuse victim not to make public that his abuser was his uncle Bishop Roger Vangheluwe of Bruges, Belgium. The recordings show Danneels pressuring the young man not to force Vangheluwe to resign.

The transcript quoted by the newspaper is chilling:

Cardinal Danneels asks if the nephew wants Vangheluwe to resign and adds: ‘But that is his decision. I can mention it but that’s all. You expect me to do something that I cannot do. I don’t know what more to do. Or perhaps I have to find some other way to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion.’

When the nephew stresses that the cardinal must speak to pope and that Vangeluwe must be sanctioned by the church, Cardinal Danneels responds ‘Yes but… You can also ask forgiveness and, well, you can also acknowledge your own guilt.’

Nephew: ‘Whose forgiveness do I have to seek? I am not the one to ask for forgiveness.’

Danneels: ‘He can do that. That’s correct.’

Later, Cardinal Danneels asks that the conversation not be made public and suggests to the nephew: ‘You can figure that he will resign next year and that he agrees to make no more appearances on television, that sort of thing, and before you know it a year has gone by.’

Nephew: ‘No! I am putting this in your hands and the two of you have to make a decision.’

[Danneels replies] ‘So you can grab us and try to blackmail us, huh, and say: ‘you have to do something!’

Confronted by the tape-recording, Danneels – who had recently stepped down as archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels – waffled unconvincingly about wanting to resolve a dispute in the bishop’s family. He had been ‘improvising’, he said. Vangheluwe, inevitably, had to resign immediately in disgrace. But Danneels was also disgraced by the revelations, first carried by the Belgian newspaper De Standaard. Not only did he try to arrange a temporary cover-up of the bishop’s molestation of his nephew, but he also suggested that the victim should seek forgiveness – and accused the man of attempted blackmail when he demanded that Danneels should tell Pope Benedict XVI about the abuse.

[Alt-Text]


2. Knowing about the sex abuse scandal, Pope Francis has given Danneels a place of honour at the Synod on the Family

The 279 ‘Synod Fathers’ debating the most sensitive issues of family and sexuality include 45 personally chosen by Francis. They are dominated by senior clergy whose voices he wanted heard at the synod but who did not automatically qualify for membership. Here is a screenshot of the top of the list on the Vatican website:

Screen Shot 2015-10-08 at 15.34.20

The placing of Danneels’ name second on the list suggests the strong approval of the Pope, despite the Belgian’s ultra-radical views, which include support for a church-recognised ‘sort of marriage’ for gay couples. This dismays senior cardinals – but they are far more worried by the sex-abuse matter. Francis knew before he made the appointment that Danneels had tried to engage in a cover-up. Yet he went ahead.

3. Cardinal Danneels has been boasting that he helped elect Francis as pope

At the launch of his authorised biography in Brussels last month, Danneels claimed to have been part of a ‘mafia club’ of senior cardinals opposed to Benedict XVI who wanted to ensure that a liberal pope succeeded Benedict XVI. Jorge Bergoglio was their favourite candidate. Perhaps we shouldn’t read too much in to this – the papacy was hardly in the club’s gift. But when I asked a senior Vatican source this week why Francis had invited Danneels to the synod – on the face of it, a grotesquely inappropriate move – he replied: ‘As a thank-you for the votes he helped deliver.’ That is guesswork, and assumes a degree of cynical calculation that we don’t associate with Francis. I mention it because this explanation is taken seriously at such a high level within conservative circles in the Vatican.

I’ve touched on the Danneels scandal briefly in my article on the synod for this week’s magazine. Now the matter needs to be properly investigated. Pope Francis must explain why a man who tried to conceal 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.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • Tanyi Tanyi

    I think the response from the Vatican official was right on target: Francis is thanking Danneels for delivering the votes. It is no longer any secret. It’s such a shame. Faithful Catholics must pray hard for the Church.

  • Louis E.

    The Cardinals are probably listed by precedence among the College…Danneels is one of the longest-serving Cardinals.I agree he’s a very unfortunate choice to appoint.

  • scotty09

    what about Mahony of Los Angeles, is he at the synod? after his obstruction of justice by moving pedophile priests around to avoid being caught, why isn’t he in jail, instead of being allowed to retire, with title, to his own house, and I think even a basilica in Rome?

    • TX Ken

      Mahony lives in the LA area. You are thinking of Card. Law. Neither is at the synod, although Mahony showed up for the conclave.

  • John

    Belgian catholic Church always cover sexy scandals. Few(3 or 4)years ago,one chinese sister was raped by a affrican brother who was belonged congragetion of brother of charity in so-called cannon triest institute of belgium. The verbiest foundation which fr. Jeroom Heyndrickx gang up with br. Stockman Rene and this cardinal Deneels disgraced has kept strictly confidential for years never mentioned. They are flaunting the banner of helping chinese church,defraud money,status and reputation.

  • John

    Belgian catholic Church always cover sexy scandals. Few(3 or 4)years ago,one chinese sister was raped by a affrican brother who was belonged congragetion of brother of charity in so-called cannon triest institute of belgium. The verbiest foundation which fr. Jeroom Heyndrickx gang up with br. Stockman Rene and this cardinal disgraced has kept strictly confidential for years never mentioned.

  • barryobarma

    The Pope is a Marxist anti-Christian, in alliance with Marxist Islamist Obama.
    It occurs to me the Mohammed is the Devil, and Obama his vicar on earth.
    The End – is it nigh?

  • Cobbett

    In the past the Catholic Church inspires the Crusades, Reconquista, Lepanto and the resistance against the Ottomans…now it welcomes the invasion of Europe and protects the vile. The sooner it’s buried the better.

  • alfredo

    Why are we not told the age of the nephew? If he was well over the age of puberty, the following applies: we must rid our minds of the cultural Marxist notion that the world consists simply of abusers and victims, black and white. There is a strong possibility that he was an accomplice rather than simply a victim. Injuria non fit volenti. So it seems reasonable that he too should be urged to confess and repent.

    • Woman In White

      You’re just inventing things out of thin air.

      The abuse took place over a fifteen year period, starting when the nephew was 5 years old.

      Still think he was an “accomplice”, not a victim ?

      • alfredo

        No I don’t, obviously. I did say ‘IF’. But this information isn’t available to the reader of this article, and needs to be if he/she is to form any view of the seriousness of the matter. Clearly, it’s very serious.

        • Woman In White

          But the victim and his abuser are clearly unimportant in the grand scheme of instrumentalising that horrid crime in order to attack Danneels — even in some ways regardless of Danneels’ own actual failures.

          Danneels has admitted his mistakes, and issued an apology.

          Vangeluwe has been sent into a fairly solitary exile out of Belgium, and suspended a divinis — he cannot be charged criminally due to the Belgian statute of limitations, despite his public admission of guilt, and cannot therefore be laicised for the crimes, because it would require that he be found guilty by a Court of Law beforehand, which is not possible.

          It’s clearly unfortunate that Cardinal Danneels is participating in the Synod for the Family, but let’s not exaggerate and bay for his blood as well.

  • Fritz123

    The problem is that you measure the church with the states reaction in such a case. The most important thing is not a certain sanction but that such things dont repeat. The church can do that, it is not the state.

  • abystander

    If true, scandalous.

    But should the Pope never speak to him or what?

  • Velo

    Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri is secretary of the Synod of Bishops. Earlier this year, he said that there is no point in holding a Synod this month unless it reaches new conclusions. This sounds ominous for anyone who believes in the sanctity of marriage and the family. Baldisseri has also said that the decision-making for the Synod goes through him because it is not a Congregation of the Roman Curia and it does not answer to a Prefect. This raises serious questions about Baldisseri’s motives and leadership. God willing, though, the Synod on the Family will not be hijacked like it was last year.

  • Huw Mack

    The more we find out about the ruling psychologically disordered liberal regime, the more we can expect that which will shock, scandalise and blacken even further this disgraceful modernist ecclesiastical epoch. The sheer humbug and spell-binding hypocrisy from the so-called church of love inspired allegedly by The Holy Ghost, appears more like a seedy, disorganised and degenerating group of recidivists who are neither Holy, nor Roman, nor Catholic, nor Apostolic. “Instaurare in Omnia Christo” as Pope St Pius X admonished and remove those he warned us about in Pascendi Dominici Gregis..the liberal modernists………….yes, all of them and their corrupted ecumenical and pantheistic papacies. restore the True Roman catholic Church and a real Roman Catholic Pope who defends Christ’s honour and His Social Kingship.

  • http://biblicalfalseprophet.com Remnant Clergy

    Francis is given a pass since he is on the side of sin, like Danneels.

  • Aaron Baugher

    The most obvious reason for Francis to choose him: he approves of his views, perhaps agrees with them, and wants them to influence the Synod.

    Is there any evidence, any at all, that Francis doesn’t support the idea of “gay marriage” and want to find a way to change Church doctrine on the matter to allow some form of it?

  • Llámame Jorge

    It is just necessary to show some patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion.

  • Charles Lewis

    I almost wish I hadn’t read this story. Something is terribly wrong here. I would love to hear Pope Francis answer this directly. If all this is true, I can’t believe this man hasn’t been kicked out of his position. I can’t imagine what his autobiography will say. I’m not saying this isn’t true but I’m praying it’s not. I’m also surprised this is coming out now. I need to know more.

    • Woman In White

      If everyone were to be kicked out of the Church for screwing up once, we’d none of us be Catholics.

      • Two2trees

        Once?

    • Velo

      Danneels must know where the skeletons in the cupboard are kept.

    • Jude

      I’m thinking he pretty much answered any questions by his appointment in Chile, as well as calling the people protesting it “dumb.”

  • winslow

    “That wouldn’t be the case if Benedict XVI were still pope.” That combined with the Pope’s appointment of Card. Danneels tell us all we need to know about the integrity of our flower-child Pope and the Synod itself. God have mercy on us!!

  • LaDolceVipera

    I take it that every commenter has read the 592 pages biography written by the Cardinal’s biographers?

    • Two2trees

      Obviously. Twice even. And once more for good luck!

      • LaDolceVipera

        And you read it in Dutch of course.

        • Dominic Stockford

          No, Heaven forfend. In Latin of course.

          • LaDolceVipera

            Admirandum, non imitandum.

          • Two2trees

            Et repeticio est mater studiorum.

        • Two2trees

          Ja , en natuurlijk in het Latijn ook!

  • Carolyn C

    Those with eyes to see, will see. Pray for the ones who don’t see the designs of the men in Rome.

  • Dominic Stockford

    Excellent article.

    The Church of Rome, as with all human institutions, contains some terrible people, doing some terrible things – and as with many other institutions (Volkswagen, British Government, you name it) it is those at the top covering up and pretending that there is nothing wrong.

    Why is the media giving the gay-friendly, unfriendly-to-Bible-teaching, invasion encouraging (Falklands) Francis such a free ride?

    • outlawState

      Isn’t it obvious? Francis is a jesuit and jesuits prefer to pander to the media rather than to God. Jesuits are renowned for humanism, not saintliness.

      • Two2trees

        Anti-Catholic nonsense. There are a LOT of lousy jesuits. But look at the likes of Robert Spitzer or Mitch Paqua. There are among the best thinkers and theologians in the Jesuits. Obviously, the most dangerous is also among their number.

        • LaDolceVipera

          Did you know that Jesuits and elephants are very much alike? When you meet a group of them they are quiet charming; when you meet one wandering on his own: run for your life!
          (PS: that was a bit mean. Although I am a non-believer I like pope Francis a lot!)

          • Two2trees

            Never heard that.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Yes. Thanks for the answer.

      • LaDolceVipera

        At least there still are some intelligent catholics left.

        • Two2trees

          There are also some good jesuits. I almost was one. But i can name a few.

          Of course there are many really lousy ones. One in particular comes to mind.

          • LaDolceVipera

            You didn’t become one so there is no need to be so hard on yourself

    • PaleoAtlantid

      Because the ‘argentine apostate’ promotes the new world order agenda. That has been Vatican policy since the the Vatican conferences of the early 1960s. Has any institutional church, whether Protestant or Catholic, much to do with Christianity? It would appear not, politics take precedence.

  • whatever name

    Pope Francis denounced Chileans, who opposed his appointment of a pedophile cover-up merchant as a bishop, as “stupid” and “leftists” in a secret recording released to the press. That is what he really thinks about child abuse cover ups.
    http://news.yahoo.com/video-shows-pope-defending-chile-bishop-accused-cover-172730153.html

    • Dominic Stockford

      Great link.

  • Velo

    This article offers clear evidence of the need for free-speech in society. Thank you, Damian. According to Edward Pentin, an English journalist based at the Vatican, the Synod on the Family has more to do with the homosexual movement than with divorce and remarriage. In all likelihood, as an ultra-radical, Danneels supports the new agenda. Therefore, contrary to some of the reader comments here, we need more news like this from the Damian Thompsons of this world.

  • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

    “Three things you need to know about Pope Francis and the cardinal disgraced in a sex abuse scandal”

    As usual, The [Marxist] Spectator spews the latest Marxist talking points on this subject of Marxist co-option of the Vatican (if the Vatican were controlled by believers in Christ, naturally there wouldn’t be a pedophile sabotage policy). The following are the real things you need to know about the Vatican, Pope Francis and the cardinal disgraced in a sex abuse scandal…

    The Vatican was co-opted by Marxists at the top position in 1846 (with the election of Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti as Pope, taking the name Pope Pius IX), hence the embarrassing edicts on the (1) Immaculate Conception (1854); and (2) Papal Infallibility (1870), both edicts placing their respective subjects on an even level with God’s omniscience! In fact in 1858, just four-years after Pope Pius IX declared Mary to be without sin, Mary took time out from her busy schedule and came down to Earth, informing Bernadette Soubirous that she, Mary, was indeed the Immaculate Conception, born without sin! What marvelous timing, huh!

    Then in 1917 the Marxist government in Portugal, in co-operation with the Vatican, gave us the next fake Marian apparition where Mary tells ten-year-old Lúcia Santos that if everyone prays to her, Mary, then there won’t be an even more terrible war in the future…

    “The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI.”

    Anyone catch it? God isn’t omniscient in this Marxist drama, because Mary says there might be another war! That’s what happens when you leave it up to Marxists to write these scripts, they naturally get it all wrong due to their ignorance of theology, and in this instance God’s omniscience!*

    Mary continues, “To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”

    See where Mary says, “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted…”

    In other words, Mary is telling us there’s no need to wage war against the USSR because the Marxists who control the USSR will magically convert to Russian Orthodoxy! Cleaver, huh? And what happened on December 26, 1991? Marxist Mary was right! Bolshevism collapsed, and Marxists magically became Christians!

    The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848 thought Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly, so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions. The Vatican’s co-option took place two years earlier. That’s why not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    The fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the “collapse” was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

    It gets worse–the “freed” Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of “Perestroika” (1986-1991)!

    There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

    Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

    The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

    The above means that the so-called “War on Terror” is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending “War on Terror”; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union “From the Atlantic to Vladivostok”; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

    Schism…

    Marxists have planned schism for the Catholic Church. When schism does arrive for the Catholic Church, Marxists will naturally control both opposing entities. Marxists call this tactic of using false opposites the “scissors strategy”, in which the blades represent the two falsely opposed sides that converge on the confused victims, neutralizing true opposition. Now you also know what the pedophilia scandal within the Catholic Church is all about–a Marxist operation to weaken the moral foundation of the Catholic Church, thereby lessening its numbers and inevitably its influence.

    By the way, when did the Vatican alert the world that the “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc nations) is a fraud?! And when did the “liberated” Russians throw out the KGB agent Quislings placed within the Russian Orthodox Church before the “collapse” of the USSR! In fact, all religious denominations behind the Iron Curtain were so co-opted by Marxists, but those Marxist agents still control those religious denominations…

    http://sofiaecho.com/2012/01/17/1747052_eleven-out-of-15-members-of-bulgarian-orthodox-churchs-holy-synod-worked-for-communist-state-security

    http://www.novinite.com/articles/135799/Bulgaria%27s+High+Clergy+Infected+with+Ex-Communist+Spies

    For more on the general subject of Marxist co-option, see my blog…

    https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home

    ————————————

    * Since 1981 there’s been an ongoing Marxist Marian apparition taking place in Međugorje, Yugoslavia (yes, I meant Yugoslavia). The scam is quite a money-maker for the Communists, it being estimated that 30 million pilgrims have come to Medjugorje since the reputed apparitions began in 1981…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252122/Virgin-Mary-sightings-Are-Bosnians-hoaxers-living-saints.html

    I love the fake photo of the six “visionaries” posing as thought they’re looking up at Mary(!)

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/22/article-2252122-169F56BF000005DC-511_634x423.jpg

    The small boy, however, doesn’t seem to be interested with what Mary is telling them!

    • Velo

      You need to read what Thompson has written. He refers to Danneels as an “ultra-radical”. Thompson is not attempting to defend Danneels.

      • Woman In White

        I think he needs to replace his paranoid delusions with rational sanity.

        • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

          “I think he needs to replace his paranoid delusions with rational sanity.”

          Here’s your insanity (insanity being incapable of clearly discerning reality)…

          ‘When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the ‘collapse’ of the USSR is a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists,* otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ruse.

          ZERO celebrations, as the The Atlantic article inadvertently informs us…

          http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/12/20-years-since-the-fall-of-the-soviet-union/100214/

          Notice, however, the Kremlin staged anti-government demonstrations that took place in Russia (and other Soviet republics) in the years immediately preceding the ‘collapse’, yet ZERO celebrations after the ‘collapse’!’

          …and…

          ‘…the ‘freed’ Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of ‘Perestroika’ (1986-1991)!

          …and…

          ‘There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

          Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.’

          …and…

          ‘The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.’

          If you don’t comprehend what the above easy to understand proofs tell us about the Marxist co-option of the globe, then you’re clinically insane, unless, of course, you’re a Marxist operative performing the usual abysmal attempt at damage control.

          • Woman In White

            When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR

            That’s a LIE, except in the most pedantic manner that the USSR did not exist on that particular date.

            Meanwhile, you continue to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist, mistaking your exciting fantasy for reality.

            • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

              “That’s a LIE, except in the most pedantic manner that the USSR did not exist on that particular date.”

              Once more for those slow of wit…

              The following is a discovery I made in April regarding the fake collapse of the USSR, and what that fraudulent collapse proves about the institutions of the West…

              When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the ‘collapse’ of the USSR is a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists,* otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ruse.

              ZERO celebrations, as the The Atlantic article inadvertently informs us…

              http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/12/20-years-since-the-fall-of-the-soviet-union/100214/

              Notice, however, the Kremlin staged anti-government demonstrations that took place in Russia (and other Soviet republics) in the years immediately preceding the ‘collapse’, yet ZERO celebrations after the ‘collapse’!

              For more on this discovery see my blog…

              https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/

              Conclusion:

              The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.

              “Meanwhile, you continue to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist, mistaking your exciting fantasy for reality.”

              What schools did you attend that taught a ‘fact’ is a ‘conspiracy’? The following are FACTS…

              • Two2trees

                Just because the politically connected were good at politics and wrested back some power does not mean that they never lost control. If they hadn’t, surely no concessions would have been necessary. And if only the appearance of change were the goal, they could have done much better than putting Yeltzin in charge.

                Your argument gets weaker as you define it more.

              • Woman In White

                Repeating your mad conspiracy theories multiple times does not magically turn your lies into truths.

                • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

                  “Repeating your mad conspiracy theories multiple times does not magically turn your lies into truths.”

                  Come back with a better script, Comrade! You tire me.

            • Two2trees

              Plus they did celebrate. Remember the pulling down of statues?

          • Two2trees

            They celebrated plenty! Your argument is flawed.

      • https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home Dean Jackson

        “You need to read what Thompson has written. He refers to Danneels as an “ultra-radical”. Thompson is not attempting to defend Danneels.”

        You need to re-read my comment, because it has no bearing on your observation. Obviously, you replied to me by mistake!

  • jeremy Morfey

    It is a reasonable presumption that whatever Bishop Vangheluwe did to his nephew was a sin and subject to the Confessional. Putting aside any civil legal sanctions as something separate, the normal procedure is to extract a penance from the offender before absolution is granted. Without absolution, he would hardly be in a position to enjoy the Sacraments, let alone officiate in them. The nephew can expect no more from the Church.

    So what is a fair penance? I somehow think three Hail Marys is inadequate in this case, and it should involve some satisfaction for the nephew. The nephew should never have to be put in a position where he threatens to blow the whistle. Clearly, the uncle’s resignation from his position as Bishop and possibly some time in a closed Order is a reasonable penance. The other demand, that the Pope be made aware of what is going on, is reasonable too, considering the damage that could be done to the Church by the Pope’s ignorance and the nephew’s undoubted affection for the Church. If there is a grievance against a Cardinal, then it does need to go to the next higher authority, which is the Pope.

    As for the nephew’s own transgressions, notably that of uncharitable feelings towards his uncle and towards the Cardinal, that is easily met by a couple of Hail Marys and an Our Father. Also a trip round the Stations of the Cross, which in this case is that standard technique for enduring injustice against oneself. This is an appeal to the one authority which is higher than the Pope.

    • whatever name

      “As for the nephew’s own transgressions, notably that of uncharitable feelings towards his uncle and towards the Cardinal, that is easily met by a couple of Hail Marys and an Our Father.”

      LOL

      The cardinal should be locked up along with the other cardinal and anyone else who failed to report him to the police, end of story.

      • jeremy Morfey

        In this case I would agree with you. What the nephew said to the cardinal was a formal complaint about a priest, not part of the Confessional. It is therefore a civil matter, and if the suspicions were reasonable (i.e. there was no false witness), then the Cardinal should have reported his concerns to the police and told the priest of his intentions.

      • Woman In White

        Well, the Belgian Police questioned the Cardinal at length, but they pressed no charges against him.

        Clearly then, they disagree with your sententious view that he should be “locked up”.

        • jeremy Morfey

          In which case the issue seems to be as much with the Belgian Police as it is with the Catholic Church. Why aren’t they in the frame? If the Police were correct in their analysis, then the Cardinal (and thus the Pope) have no case to answer.

          • Woman In White

            Unlike neighbouring Holland, where the scandal was utterly atrocious, the scandal in the Flemish-speaking areas of Belgium was limited in scope.

            The Church in Belgium was in the midst of devising its own response and strategies against the child molesters and creating a bureau for the protection of victims when this whole Danneels thing erupted — and whilst the Cardinal quite clearly screwed up, in a very blameworthy manner, the Belgian Police went after the Church hierarchy with knives drawn and blood in their eyes, not “complacently” or however their attitudes could be invented out of thin air. They raided the Episcopal See, seized documents, and etc etc.

            Not every blameworthy deed is criminal. If that were so, we’d likely all of us be in prison.

    • Dominic Stockford

      It is not merely ‘a sin’ – it was a crime, and should have been immediately reported to the state police, and he should have been handed over to the immediately for the civil authorities to deal with according to law. What is more, to attack the nephew as a ‘transgressor’ is, in these circumstances, utterly shabby on your part.

      • Woman In White

        and he should have been handed over to the immediately for the civil authorities to deal with according to law

        The French have excellent procedures, Police and Ecclesial, for dealing with such accusations — bearing in mind that the majority of accusations are false ones.

        Throwing every accused cleric to the dogs does not form any part of the procedures, but instead great care is taken to presume innocence unless proven guilty ; and to provide the proper legal and social and ecclesial support to both accuser and accused.

      • jeremy Morfey

        I really don’t know where you are from and what religion you profess, but you seem to have little knowledge of Belgium’s geography, nor any appreciation of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Belgium is a Kingdom, not a State.

        If the nephew wished to press charges, then yes he should have gone to the police. This is quite separate from any sanction the Church may consider.

        However, you do not understand that the Confessional is not to be disclosed under any circumstances, and certainly not in response to a fishing exercise from the civil authorities. What is said in the Confessional is said to God, and only to God, and what transpires from the Priest hearing Confession is merely his interpretation for what God is asking the sinner to do to make amends. The moment it is used as a snitch service for the authorities is the moment Catholics lose all confidence in the Confessional, and things will simply not get confessed and won’t be addressed by anyone. It is often wise for a truly bad confession to be heard anonymously, to protect the priest from official threats as much as anything.

        Since the Second Vatican Council, the Confessional has been broadened to include anything al all that may be an obstacle to a relationship with God, and anxiety about a wrong done to oneself which leads to a breakdown of peace with one’s neighbour is most certainly something that needs to be addressed at this Sacrament. The prayer to St Mary to intercede with her comfort and concern, the Lord’s Prayer as a general blessing, and the Stations of the Cross to share with Jesus Christ his sufferings and injustice, seems quite appropriate to give the nephew the strength to do what he then has to do to resolve the situation.

        As for transgressions, all Catholics confess their sins at the start of Mass. It is presumed that nobody is perfect and must cope with difficult situations with courage and humility rather than the self-assured self-righteousness of the Protestants, which I personally find quite dangerous. Shopping a cardinal and a close relative is not a very nice thing to have to do, and it’s a mercy for the nephew to think that this bit of disloyalty will be understood and forgiven by God.

        • Dominic Stockford

          That is one of the most unpleasant apologies for sexual abuse of a minor that I have ever had the misfortune to read.

          • jeremy Morfey

            And one of the most unthinking unfeeling responses I have had the misfortune to encounter. I make no apologies for either.

          • Woman In White

            Apology for sexual abuse ?????

            It’s quite clearly **nothing** of the sort !!!

    • Woman In White

      The normal procedure is for a victim of crime to present his complaint to the Police — this is NOT a “separate” matter. I utterly disagree with your presentation of what’s “normal”.

      • jeremy Morfey

        Quite. Can you explain why the victim did not go to the police first?

        Since the Kingdom of Belgium is a secular nation, canon law and civil law must be kept separate. Render unto Caesar… If both civil law and canon law are infringed, then each respective authority should get involved, but each may handle it differently. Incest, violation of children, abuse of power, and possibly homosexuality are all considered contrary to canon law, and carry their own sanctions on top of anything civil society may impose.

        Do you deny that under the Sacrament of Reconciliation, an appropriate penance is normally defined by the Priest hearing Confession before absolution is granted? It has been for as long as I’ve been a Catholic.

  • James B

    Pope Francis is a nightmare.

    • standtall909

      DITTO!!!!!!!

      • Dominic Stockford

        ” ”

        (double ditto)

        • Kim Bo

          Triple ditto

    • Louise

      Yep

    • Fritz123

      Maybe there are times in which the Church needs some Donald Trump as well.

  • James

    Is this not entirely typical of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and those of his stripe? Both sides of the mouth, lip service, reptilian.

  • Tim

    What did Pope Francis know and when did he know it?

  • JimGB

    “Bishop Robert Finn was unavailable for comment.”

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Did you hear the one about the kid hit by a car and seriously injured: A passer-by, who waited with him while the ambulance arrived, asked, “Shall I call a priest?”
    “No thanks, said the boy. “Sex is the last thing on my mind right now.”
    The sicker the better.

    • andyyyp

      Jack the smiling obsessed bigot – you’d know a lot about sickness.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        Catholic, huh?

    • GaryLockhart

      Jack is likely employed in a public school and gravitates towards the epidemic of sexual abuse taking place there.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        A non-Labour Mole response. Or has Mad Jock McNutter been compelled to get a new user name.
        That’s a Brit for you: Making negative assumptions about someone they know nothing about on zero evidence.
        Did, “Jack the Japan Alps Brit” slip by you.

        • Labour-Mole Catcher

          The kind of British which is neither English, Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, Irish or Ulster-Scots … where did Mum get off the Plane at Heathrow?!

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            You are cordially invited to participate in WWII.
            RSVP

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            Spoke too soon. Rochdale’s answer to Jack the Ripper is on the prowl.

            • Labour-Mole Catcher

              What is it with your obsession with Rochdale … did your own father originally come from Rochdale before he left your mother in Billingham, N Teesside?!

  • Helena

    Thank you for bringing this grave matter to public attention, Damian. Sometimes I’ve internally accused you of just kissing up to whoever is in power… but this makes me stand up and applaud the true vocation of journalism. Please keep on, and make people pay attention. There is no room for Danneels or that cover-up mentality (I hope) in the Church these days.

  • Adriaan van Ginkel

    It was cardinal Daneels’ club, the St. Gallen society, that propelled Bergoglio to the papacy in 2013. Not only this pope isn’t doing anything against pedofiles – undoing what has been started by Benedict XVI who started a witch hunt against them – but thanks to THEM and the gay club within the Vatican, this man is now pope!

    • Woman In White

      Not only this pope isn’t doing anything against pedofiles

      Slander does not convince :

      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33082764

      Pope Francis has approved the creation of a tribunal to hear cases of bishops accused of covering up child abuse by paedophile priests.

      The unprecedented move followed a recommendation from the Pope’s newly created panel on clerical sex abuse.

      The tribunal will have the power to punish bishops who failed to protect young victims.

      http://www.mondayvatican.com/vatican/pope-francis-an-iron-hand-against-priestly-pedophilia-how-will-the-international-community-react

      • Barbara

        That makes Daneels appointment doubly bad. As he’s retired he’s probably safe from much punishment, but holy cow! what was Francis thinking…oh, wait, I know what he was thinking: let’s push this as far as we can, and use all the influential people we can – Daneels included – and the hell with the rest.

        • Woman In White

          If the Church were a secular organisation, the best course would be to fire most of its Flemish personnel, and start again from scratch — but it isn’t, so the Flemish-speaking Church needs to go through a process of penitence, healing, and prayer.

          The best one can hope for is that Daneels’ presence is a part of that process, though I’m personally quite dismayed at his nomination as most people are.

      • Dominic Stockford

        No, no, no. This is utterly wrong. There should be no ‘roman church tribunal’ – such rapists, sodomisers and abusers of children should IMMEDIATELY be handed to the civil authorities to be dealt with. Those who have covered it up should also be handed over to the civil authorities for due punishment. There should be no chance for the church of rome to continue claiming power over these situations – you have seen what Daneels says, and his view is pretty typical of many. The abused, they think, is as guilty as the abuser.

        • Woman In White

          I’m starting to doubt your claim to be an ex-Catholic priest — if you were, you would know that the canonical procedures are not only a separate matter to the secular, but that they also require the systematic reporting of allegations to the competent secular Authority, AKA the Police.

        • Dominic Stockford

          You see what she does below? Clever, but distractingly wrong – she disses my life in order to avoid addressing the real issue, which is the comment to which I replied. The comment to which I replied mentions none of the ‘reporting of allegations’ she speaks of. Had it done so, and said that this is the FIRST thing that should be done, then I wouldn’t have written the comment at all.

          Note also, elsehwere in this thread, the woman in white says somethig rather different about the need to bring in the authorities, namely “Throwing every accused cleric to the dogs does not form any part of the procedures, but instead great care is taken to presume innocence unless proven guilty ; and to provide the proper legal and social and ecclesial support to both accuser and accused.” So in fact, despite the claim to approve of civil action, she thinks they should only be a last resort. ‘Sweep it under the carpet unless we can’t’ – seems to be the rationale.

          As to her first question, the date was ’13/9/1996′, and the place was Sacred Heart Church, Paignton. But then she didn’t really want to know that!

          • Woman In White

            So in fact, despite the claim to approve of civil action, she thinks they should only be a last resort

            That’s a straightforward lie ; parallel Ecclesial and Police procedures are what I have stated my very clear support for.

            As for date and place — I can then only mourn your Apostasy, and pray to your Guardian Angel to and all Saints and Angels to help you return to the Faith. Please do not imagine that I am obdurately insensitive to your situation.

  • Fiona Muldoon
  • Fiona Muldoon

    Don’t forget about this guy:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-21563919

  • Louise

    I was appalled many days ago, to hear of Danneels attending the synod. It does nothing to increase my opinion of the Pope, currently, and certainly does not help the reputation of the Church regarding the sex abuse scandals.

    • Two2trees

      Reputation is secondary to abetting evil.

      • Louise

        They are related, if you think about it. As I did.

        • Two2trees

          Christ’s reputation was particularly bad in many worldly circles — sometimes by association others inferred regarding insurrection sometimes by simply being Truth.

          I dont think it’s positive in terms of evangelization to have a bad reputation, but intrinsically, it’s not problematic.

    • telemachus

      As a boy in Lancashire we were taught that Catholics were responsible for the decline of the standards in our society
      This was based on the migrations after the potato famines
      The stole our houses and our jobs and led to moral decline
      Well that moral decline is now fully exposed

      • RuariJM

        Not even bothering to conceal anti-Irish bigotry now, it seems.

        If you genuinely followed this issue, you would be aware that the State care sector has been the most dangerous place for youngsters, for several decades. Even recent incidents put Church abusers into a cocked hat. The State has been rampant.

      • Ned Costello

        Well if that is what you were taught then you were taught a load of rubbish, weren’t you?

      • Juniper Chase

        Wow. And how long ago was this? Your rhetoric is as familiar as what we are hearing these days from the immigrant rage going on now. the only reason there was a potato famine is because the potatoes were taken away from the Irish and given to the English. Fact. Not all Catholics are bad.

        • Benjamin Warren

          I’m an American Catholic. It is unnatural and unhealthy to deny that some stereotypes have a basis in fact. In America, the Irish immigrants definitely went whole hog towards getting into government jobs. Italy was a cesspool of big government even in the 19th century, and a high proportion of them brought that view to America. The only Catholics whom old-line protestants could possibly bring themselves to respect would be the German Catholics (not Austrian, probably Swiss) before Germany became a by-word for big government, leftism, and ultra-heresy. We Catholics have a long way to go before winning the respect of the great majority of strict Protestants. We may forever be a joke to most of them, and without their respect, we will not convert them.

          • TX Ken

            Perhaps the Irish in the US took government jobs because of the number of “No Irish Need Apply” signs. The No-Nothing crowd did what they could to push the Irish away, as we are rejecting Hispanics today.

            • Two2trees

              Rubbish. That is a slander and based in nothing but propaganda. Saying that there are limits to the ability to absorb immigrants is not bigoted nor irrational. Tollerance is not the same as being suicidal.

              • TX Ken

                I didn’t say there weren’t limits. I said those here have always resisted immigrants. And I was responding to a particular comment about the Irish.

                • Two2trees

                  This is a very interesting board. I appreciate a visible effect of what I assume must be British schooling on the ability of these guys to think sequentially.

          • Woman In White

            Sadly, there’s truth in your analysis, though of course all true conversion is a Gift and a Grace of God.

            But still, respect should be their gift in Christianity, not something that we should need to work for — hard-heartedness against the Truth of the Catholicity is not caused by our Faith.

            • Louise

              Another way of looking at it is that the bad example of Catholics won’t stop heretics and apostates etc going to Hell.

          • peter the painter

            Don’t let Protestants make you feel you owe them an apology. The U.S. has oodles of awful protestant goings on, just that there is no central authority to lay down any acountabilty on. Same with Germany’s protestants – Who again is leader of the Lutheran church ? I’ve never heard of a catholic converting to protestantism (not since they had to as in centuries of Northern domination by Protestants, or was a requirement, like in kulturkampf 19thC Bismarck’s Prussia) ‘if given a choice’, they convert to Rome.

            • Fritz123

              Merkels father was a protestant priest, but she is not the head of any church. She is the head of the traditionally very catholic Christan Democatic Union..

          • JTLiuzza

            “We Catholics have a long way to go before winning the respect of the great majority of strict Protestants.”

            Why would Catholics ever bother with such a pointless endeavor? I would rather be considered a “joke” than a heretic, which is what they are. Pray for them and their conversion. And seek the approval of the Lord, not of protestant heretics.

            • Vicky Hernandez

              Thank you.
              On the practical side, what Catholics need is an episcopate that teaches the faith and helps “ignite” the faithful with moral justice first and foremost. A la Archbishop “Dagger” John Hughes, who challenged New York’s Irish immigrants to be their best in the late 1800s. And in almost one generation, the Irish went from being outcasts in society to the mainstream as police, teachers, and politicians. No social program brought bout about what the Archbishop had done with his moral revolution.

          • Two2trees

            As a Texan, I’ll note that Americanism is a heresy (maybe formally defined). Catholicism will NEVER be accepted in the USA, precisely because God’s Kingdom is not a Republic and there is no individual “right” to discern the truth on matters of faith and morals. That latter piece is EXTREMELY un-American and extremely offensuve to the Protestant who chooses to discern Good and Evil anew for each generation and in light of transient fashion.

            • Jackthesmilingblack

              So looks like separation of Church and State is dead in the water.
              And that m’lord is the case for “Hate it and leave it”.
              Jack, the Japan Alpsa Brit

              • Two2trees

                Separation of church and state is a phrase in one of Jefferson’s letters – the only time the left has read, much less claimed anything like the federalist papers in history.

                After that, I don’t follow your comment.

          • abystander

            There was no government in Italy in the 19C.

            Italy came into being in 1870. Thereafter the government was freemasonic.

          • Fritz123

            Protestants dont usually dig catholics and most catholics dont dig themselves, maybe. As I was raised in a more or less protestant family I had never to suffer a catholic education by stupid catholic parents.

            To me the big difference is that for catholics it is not necessary to believe in anything. The only thing that is really forbidden is to destroy the church as an institution. Rome.

            The protestants dont have a centralised church that is very, very old and still the same entity, but they care about what you have in your head. This is less freedom than a funny loving catholic family.

        • patmallory

          But anti-Catholicism has been part of the culture for centuries where the “Spectator” is published.

      • Louise

        There is enough real evil among Catholics without such rubbish as this being spouted. Anti-Catholicism is also wrong, since it is based on lies. Go read Cobbett on English history and get a proper education.

        • Two2trees

          And my goodness is it virulent in some corners. Protestants need to define themselves in contrast to the Church, but they mus also guard against certain truths — hence calumniation is effective.

        • Cobbett

          Christianity is nonsense – There you have it.

          • Louise

            “This is not the Cobbett you are looking for.”

      • Cobbett

        What utter tosh.

  • Factus Est Jason

    Liberals are mental. I thought it was bad in the US of A but wow, this is unreal. The article is chilling at the least and all anyone can talk about is the author? Really? How is no one disgusted by this? Oh I know, it’s because Francis labeled as a liberal as well so we must not address his short comings or recognize that he smiles and talks from one side of his mouth but frowns and colludes from the other. The article hits this in one sentence. If this was BXVI this would be a sensation in every avenue of international news outlets.

    Defending child molesters is OK if your liberal but burn anyone else that isn’t on your team. Your moral compasses are completely dysfunctional. You don’t actually know what “good” and “evil” is. I’m completely flummoxed at what I’m reading. The world has cornered everyone into a team, Liberal or Conservative and they both must destroy each other at all costs, it’s mental.

    • samton909

      Ah, the world is beginning to see that the media could not care less about the children; they will only use that particular hammer against conservative people in the church. Then, they will use it again and again and again. But it never gets used against anyone who is one of their liberal pets. Therefore, Pope Francis need not fear.

      • RuariJM

        I reluctantly find myself forced to the conclusion that you have a point, samton.

        I simply do not understand why Daneels was invited. the sex education material he permitted to be used in Catholic primary schools is obscene. He is a dirty (as in soiled, besmirched) old man.

  • balance_and_reason

    Nothing new…what of these papist dogs anyway?

  • kag1982

    Interesting that the same outrage is not felt toward Cardinal Pell, who was likely complicit in the institutional cover up. There should be even more outrage because he is still a high ranking official.

    • Woman In White

      The allegation that I’m aware of against Cardinal Pell is not supported by any real evidence — but only by some very shaky guilt-by-association speculations.

      • kag1982

        He was certainly hauled before the Royal Commission over them.. Wasn’t he?

        • leadingedge

          Everyone was – the Royal Commission was a massive and wide-ranging inquiry that covered a whole host of different people and incidents. Appearing before one is not even prima facie evidence of a crime, it simply means that they are doing their job properly by investigating all avenues.

        • Woman In White

          No — he was invited to give evidence.

          I hope you understand the difference, though based on your past performance, that hope is slim.

        • samton909

          Kag, you know they found nothing. You are the very worst kind of human being, the groundless slanderer, based solely on a persons politics. If you believed in confession, you should spend a very long time in the confessional.

          • kag1982

            Oh. Like there is not ideological based hypocrisy going on here.

            • FranklinWasRight

              You lying in order to try and point out hypocrisy is the height of irony. You need to get your mind in order.

              • kag1982

                If there were pictures of Cardinal Burke fondling little children, you would not care.

                • Woman In White

                  That’s a good candidate for the most moronic statement you’ve ever typed out and sent into the interweb.

                • TX Ken

                  Not moronic. It’s evil.

                • Woman In White

                  The word “evil” suggests some form of intelligence, of which I believe that poster to be deprived of.

                • TX Ken

                  Not a lack of intelligence, an excess of rage. Hate warps the mind.

                • TX Ken

                  I should say that I’m surprised to see that one on a board where she is not enabled and protected.

                • Woman In White

                  Ah yeah, the good old “catholic” herald has a way of protecting and encouraging modernist dissenters, but banning the Faithful.

                • TX Ken

                  Crux

                • FranklinWasRight

                  False slander, you need to stop beating false witness, it is deadly for your soul.

    • CR89

      Still butt hurt over getting kicked off of Dreher’s blog, I see. You just have to harass faithful Catholics all over the web, right? Pay no attention to this ultra-feminist, anti-Catholic twit.

      • kag1982

        Wow. You guys are so into personal attacks aren’t you. How about you answer my question about Cardinal Pell? Are do you not care about the children?

        • samton909

          As pointed out, your ilk only pretends to care about children when you can go after a conservative. You could not care less if liberals were abusing children left and right, hence your intense desire to change the subject.

          • kag1982

            And you are doing what exactly? It seems to me that Daneels’ main crime is his moderate position on remarriage and gays and the fact that he lobbies for the evil Pope Francis who has not continued Benedict ‘ s great work of dismantling Vatican II.

            • GaryLockhart

              Daneels crime of attempting to cover up sexual abuse doesn’t bother you because he’s a flaming leftie.

              Behind every double standard lies an unconfessed single standard.

              • kag1982

                I frankly think all bishops should probably be fired for the scandal. But I just think it is hypocritical that conservative Catholics are now for the “children”, when they were throwing the children under JPII We Love You bus. No you are against the gheys, the remarried people, women, and the children. The children are just a useful pawn now.

                • FranklinWasRight

                  Projection. Liberals are the ones who feign outrage to further their political agendas. The fact is that when this recording came to light, Francis should have distanced himself from Daneels. Unlike Pell, there is a smoking gun here, not just innuendo.

                • kag1982

                  So. Why is this connected to the Synod of Bishops again? It certainly seems like this is about the gheys, remarried people, women, etc.

                • FranklinWasRight

                  The scandal is having someone who without a doubt, as in irrefutable evidence shows it is true, tried to cover up sex abuse participate in a high profile synod and receive positive attention of the Pope. This should be a scandal, regardless of who the Pope is or who the cardinal is, the evidence of wrongdoing is there. If you had principles like traditional Catholics do, you would simply condemn this scandal instead of playing politics.

                • kag1982

                  Uhuh.. That does not seem the thing that outrages you guys about Daneels.

                • FranklinWasRight

                  Why not? I don’t think you know what you are talking about, and unsubstantiated accusations about other people’s thoughts (something you can’t possibly know) are slanderous and sinful.

                • TX Ken

                  You are dealing to a very hate-filled trll. Anything you say just feeds her hate and gives her more room to slander decent people.

                • Two2trees

                  That is sound advice. But its obscuring the point points to what matters.

                • FranklinWasRight

                  I like to call a spade a spade for the benefit of others who read the threads.

                • TX Ken

                  Fair point. Just so you know. 😉

                • FranklinWasRight

                  I know a troll when I see one ;). But sometimes they present an opportunity to make our case to others who read the comments. I myself am a former liberal, in part because of the truth and common sense I saw in comboxes like this one :).

                • Two2trees

                  There is a far greater issue here that kag is obscuring.

                • Two2trees

                  Not everyone is dishonest. Not everyone views ends as justification of means.

              • Two2trees

                I sense profundity there.

            • Woman In White

              It seems to me that Daneels’ main crime is his moderate position on remarriage and gays

              What a load of ludicrous cod’s wallop.

              • kag1982

                Do you have anything useful to share?

          • Two2trees

            But what if they were vivisecting babies and selling their bodies? Would that matter?

        • Two2trees

          There you have it! Hate. Thanks for the clarification.

        • CR89

          Not “fundie”, just faithful.

          • TX Ken

            “Fundamentalist” is an historical reference to a movement within protestantism, with specific beliefs – the “Five Fundamentals”. Outside of that context, the word is most often just a pejorative for someone who believes something you don’t like.

            • CR89

              I realize that she meant it in the way you describe. That particular commenter is nothing but trouble; she claims to be Catholic but spends her time on several Catholic sites bashing the Church and men in general.

              • TX Ken

                My comment was supportive of you. Or intended to be so.

                • CR89

                  I know. I just wanted to elaborate on my comments a little better. God Bless.

        • Jackthesmilingblack

          “You guys are so into personal attacks aren’t you.”
          In fact it’s Brits that are into personal attack.

    • Athelstane

      If Pell really did cover up abuse, then he has got to go. The problem is that there’s no credible evidence that he did.

      Whereas with Daneels – well, we have him on tape.

      • kag1982

        Somehow I suspect if Daneels paraded around in a longer Cappa Magna than Ray Burke and regularly denounced gay people using the f word conservatives would not care about the kids. I think the word for this is hypocrite.

        • Athelstane

          Can’t speak for anyone else, but I would care. I have zero tolerance for that kind of behavior. Laicize and pack them off to prison (if convictions can be obtained) or a remote monastery til they die, far away from any children, to work out their penance.

          But certainly progressives have an opportunity with Daneels to prove that they are not hypocrites, whatever conservatives might be. The man is on tape. The case is open and shut – and that’s just the stuff we know about so far.

          • samton909

            And kag comes to his defense by trying to change the subject to take the heat off of Daneels.

            • Two2trees

              There is at least one prince above daneels who is at least as connected.

          • http://suscipesanctepater.blogspot.com/ Matthew Roth

            Always the remote monastery: if you laicize a cleric, the former cleric no longer can be put under obedience.

            • Athelstane

              Well, that’s a fair point – you can’t force the ex-cleric to do so. You *could* strip him of episcopal rank (there’s a rarely used canonical procedure for that) and suspend him a divinis so that he cannot celebrate the sacraments, but even so he might decide not to be obedient. It’s not like you can have the Swiss Guards round him up under force, not anymore.

              But the point is to remove such men from circulation, so that they can do no further harm (and maybe even salvage their souls). Perhaps what you have to do is to find a way to convince them that it’s better than the alternative.

        • Woman In White

          ooooh look, it’s yet another lump of gratuitously hateful slander from kag1982.

          • Barbara

            Stop feeding the troll!

        • samton909

          Hypocrites are people such as yourself, who pretend to worry about children, but only when you can lay false allegations at the foot of someone who is not liberal enough for you.

          • kag1982

            Agreed. We should not let anyone with such a poor record be appointed the a Church position. So you will agree that both Pell and Daneels should resign their positions.

        • FranklinWasRight

          Look at you making false accusations and creating straw men to defend Daneels, a man who covered up a molestation. Look in the mirror, you should be better than this. Your hatred has made you blind.

          • kag1982

            Uhuh.. Am I not right? Is this not about the Synod?

          • Two2trees

            There’s something in Isiah 6 like that, and 2 thesalonians 2, and a not few others. It is a sign of a certain type of fruit.

        • Two2trees

          You are grasping.

      • Barbara

        And there is very credible evidence that Pell DIDN’T – one of the dates he was alleged to have been involved in a cover-up he was out of the country. It’s so easy to accuse especially in sexual matters, but this is just silly.

    • samton909

      Because you are one of those who admits to hating the Catholic church, and because you have said you will do anything you can do destroy it, your words are usually considered less than worthless. You are the queen of calumny, a Democratic party hack who knows they have nothing on Cardinal Pell, but continue to try to slander the guy. Just because your slimy crowd at the National Catholic Reporter keeps hurling false charges at every conservative you can think of does not mean anyone listens to your constant, nonsensical ravings.

      • kag1982

        Catholic Church has done a wonderful job imploding on its own.

        • FranklinWasRight

          And yet it still exists, no matter how many prelates, Popes, etc. do their best to destroy her. Must be divine intervention.

          • kag1982

            Uhuh. Such a credible institution.

            • FranklinWasRight

              Name one that has survived longer, or that has not had scandals.

              You can’t, because there isn’t an organization involving human beings that is perfect.

  • UrsulaT

    Danneels comes second on the list of those appointed to the synod by Francis, not because it’s an indication of his importance in that group but because they are all listed by their seniority of appointment as cardinals — which is the way the Vatican does lists of prelates.

    • Athelstane

      That’s true. But it doesn’t make his appearance on that list any less risible, because his appointment was made by Pope Francis even while knowing that his name would appear automatically near the top. And yet he was given this important honor anyway.

      Either way, it is really indefensible regardless of where his name appears on the list. It’s as clearcut a case as we have in Europe of a prelate attempting to coverup sexual abuse, and appalling treatment of a victim and his family in the process.

      • Two2trees

        Isn’t the real question what the hell (and I use that advisedly) is he doing to a synod and why is he there?

        Perhaps we ought to be grateful that his “gift” as an expert on abetting of episcopal incestual rape as it gives a voice to scandalizing bishops who we ought to be embracing. Plus he voted for bergoglio, so who is Francis to judge?

        • Athelstane

          Some have suggested it’s a payoff. But we could posit that it’s more than that. The past is the past.

          Francis believes that many Catholic marriages really are invalid and wants to find a way to make it possible for at least some divorced-and-remarried to receive communion, to be “mainstreamed” as completely as possible, at least among bishops willing to do, and he needs the perception that the Synod supports this in some way. Daneels is useful to that end. Daneels has a farther reaching agenda which he can pursue on top of that. In this sense, some might theorize, they’re using each other. But there might be more wheels turning in this machine. Daneels has many friends and allies in Rome and elsewhere.

          None of which lessens the scandal of his presence. But obviously he wagered that the outcry would be manageable. So far, it looks like his wager was a fair one.

          • Two2trees

            I do not buy the mainstream explanation. Annulment took less than a year previously, bishops depending. But yes the past is past. I think the simplest explanation is feasible: this monster is an ally that Francis knows he can count on to deliver what other bishops would not.

            • Athelstane

              Well, that’s a variation on what I was musing on above. They’re allies of convenience, albeit with some theological overlap. Daneels is far from the only pro-Kasperite prelate (Dew, Schonborn, Cupich, Murry, et al) he’s packed the Synod with.

              Daneels also has friends, however, and those friends might desire this favor, too, as a condition for their support for this pontificate. Rome can be a murky place.

              • Two2trees

                I read ccc 675 last week. Last time I read it, 10 years ago, it seemed abstract.

            • RuariJM

              You have to go a long way back into the past to find annulments taking less than a year, Two2trees – back to the 1970s. When ‘automatic appeal’ was introduced (in order to combat lax behaviour in North America) the process became interminable. 10 years is not unknown.

              This particular measure is welcome, in my opinion. It merely returns us to the status quo ante – the situation before V2, as it happens!

              • Two2trees

                In north America, in particular Archbishop Chaput’s archdiocese, as few as 7 years ago, it was done in months.

                • RuariJM

                  Some can be done very quickly because they are absolutely straightforward, as in my own case (wedding not in a Catholic Church, no dispensation) but many more are not and automatically go to appeal (appeal against, that is).

                  In those circumstances, I cannot see how an annulment could be completed “in months” – unless you’re talking about 60 months or so!

                • Two2trees

                  Ok. I think you nailed it. The case was permit marriage with no church whatsoever.

        • Dominic Stockford

          episcopal incestual sodomising rape

          • Two2trees

            Not a “soaring height” perhaps.

    • Damian Thompson

      My careless mistake. I apologise. Now corrected.

  • robert

    This is not about abuse but about Thompson and his Jansenist gang trying to traduce a cleric they don’t like as he might have a part in the synod. Real traditionalists would like to see Thompson excommunicated.

    • Hamish Redux

      Damian Thompson is a sinful person, but nowhere near as sinful as Cardinal Danneels.

      I should send him this as a signed testimonial.

      • douglas redmayne

        Damien Thompson is a Tory turd. Anyone who implicitly supports benefits cuts should be excommunicated.

        • 2fishypoliticians

          Nowhere in Christianity or Catholicism is feckless spending justified…either by individuals or governments. The deficit created by Labour has still not been reduced.

          • douglas redmayne

            I am not talking about feckless spending, I am talking about compassion for the poor.

            • 2fishypoliticians

              You have failed to think through the implications of your argument.

              • Woman In White

                The final 6 words of your sentence are unnecessary.

            • Two2trees

              That can not come from bureaucracy. Government can not love.

        • Fulgentian

          On what doctrinal basis?

          • douglas redmayne

            Actually there probably isn’t a doctrinal basis or Canon of text on which it could be justified. This just illustrates the limits of the Catholic Church.

            • GaryLockhart

              To the contrary, this illustrates the shallowness of your screed.

        • Two2trees

          Lol

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        “Damian Thompson is a sinful person, but nowhere near as sinful as Cardinal Danneels.”
        That’s a Brit for you. Unfounded assumption based on zero evidence.
        But the real question should be why do we have to put up with Brother Damian on these pages, when his spiritual home should be the Catholic Daily Telegraph?
        Refugee scribes from the DT give credence to the rumour that the DT is not much longer for this world.

    • Athelstane

      It wasn’t Damian Thompson who attempted to cover up clearcut sexual abuse by another bishop, and has been caught on tape berating the victim and his family.

      And the knife cuts both ways. If we’re really serious about rooting about abusers and their episcopal enablers, we must be committed to doing it no matter how theological or ideologically sympathetic we might find the the clergy in question. If you’re a progressive, you’re doing yourself no favors by giving Daneels a pass, or trying to change the subject.

      P.S. I suspect that you may not understand what “Jansenism” actually is – but that’s a subject for a separate discussion.

      • samton909

        If those like kag actually cared about children they would be howling with rage that Pope Francis would have dared to ask Daneels to come to the synod. But as we have seen, they don;t really care at all because liberal churchmen are allowed to abuse children, and get away with it. When the subject is broached, the only thing they can do is try to slime an innocent cardinal who happens to be conservative, based solely on his conservatism.

        • Athelstane

          I suppose what I was hoping for from kag and like-minded folk was just this: “I think you all are daft fundies, and I suspect that you and Damian are really only after Daneels because he’s an activist lefty, but I have to concede that the evidence that he’s a child rapist enabler and an aggressive one to boot is irrefutable. He’s got to go, no matter how much I like his ideas. But I’m going to hold your feet to the fire the next time one of “your guys” is caught, too.” Because I’d like think there if we can’t agree on anything else, we could agree that there can’t be any tolerance for such clerics, no matter who they are.

          • Woman In White

            Athelstane, these sorts of crimes are indeed intolerable — but there can still be no form of identical punishment, because their severity is variable.

            It should not be ignored that the guilty Bishop did in fact get his deserved punishment.

            I’m not going to defend Daneels — he screwed up completely — but :

            In a recent interview with the Belgian news magazine Knack, Cardinal Danneels acknowledged his shortcomings (“It was my duty to insist on the resignation of Vangheluwe,” and “I should have given the victim the opportunity to tell the whole story”)

    • johnhenry

      “Thompson and his Jansenist gang trying to traduce a cleric they don’t like…”

      Cor! A Jansenist is he? One not so well versed in the history of heresies as your goodself might think that criticising the presence of a sinful cleric like Danneels at the synod is something a Donatist would be more likely to do than a Jansenist. But you know best, I’m sure.

      • Athelstane

        “Jansenist” seems to be the epithet du jour for certain progressives with just enough theological reading to be dangerous. It’s a catchall for “too conservative.” Sort of like how “fascist” used to be freely tossed around.

        • Woman In White

          To be fair, there *were* two types of Jansenism, one of which constituted a certain form of Protestant-inspired puritanical rigorism, so the “jansenist” slur – whilst being as silly as you suggest – could still in some cases be used à propos ; though of course it’s completely ludicrous to accuse DT in this manner !!!

    • Damian Thompson

      Jansenist? Ugh, can’t stand them.

  • Piedade

    There is video of the talk between the Pope and Cd. Danneels.

    See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlA9ygB5XiU (starts around 1:00).

    • Diego Serrano

      Lip readers please?!

  • Rhoda Klapp8

    Not my specialty, but does Damian Thompson have an agenda I ought to know about?

    One thing nearly as sure as death or taxes is that organisations ALWAYS cover up. The only time they don’t is when they know for sure they won’t get away with it. But organisations ALWAYS cover up. The BBC, the Scout, the Church (any church) the government, car companies, non-car companies, NGOs, political parties especially libdems, any body. They cover up because they convince themselves that the harm done to the organisation by the story coming out is a greater harm than justice for the victim would justify. To turn any offender over to the law would drag the organisation’s name through the mud.

    What this makes me wonder is how many times the coverup is successful.

    • Diego Serrano

      An Agenda?! I don’t know anything else he has written, but I only see facts listed in this article. What are you talking about? And the rest of it that you write? Are you making an apologia for sex abuse?! That would be disgusting.

      And in a few words let’s make it clear: what the Cardinal did and was recorded was DISGUSTING and EVIL. So asking why the Pope knowing about it would intervene to make sure C. Daneels is in the Synod is a legitimate question that maaaany people have and is unsettling them.

    • GaryLockhart

      “Not my specialty, but does Damian Thompson have an agenda I ought to know about?” Rhoda Klapp8

      Thompson’s agenda is to report facts and yes you should be aware of how sinister and inconvenient the truth can be, particularly to wolves in sheep’s clothing.

    • I unlock my Browning

      Yes, he does.
      Thompson was carried away with veneration for Ratzinger, and has never got over him resigning the Papacy.

      • 30characters

        Oh righr. So what the current Pope has done is OK then?

      • Two2trees

        What you say does not lead to what you suggest it leads to, so you had better try again. Logic counts.

    • TX Ken

      People cover up. I knew a family where the step father was molesting the daughter, do they shipped her of to her father in another state. The only reason this came out is they ask “got saved”, reconciled, and she moved back. Of course, he molested her again and went to prison.

      Just an example. Psychologists used to think attention to the molestation hurt the child more. Of course, they also thought the perpetrator could be “cured”

      • Woman In White

        Many of them also thought that sexual desire for children was somehow “healthy”, to quote one of yesterday’s more despicable posters to the thread.

  • Wolfgang Amadeus

    What is it about catholicism that produces so much of this abominable behaviour? I’m not saying that only catholicism is to blame – I’m talking about the scale and frequency of the problem. This religion seems to have a unique problem with paedophilia. Why?

    • http://www.beachlaw.org/ Kevin Beach

      It doesn’t. The majority of convicted pedophiles are married men. And the majority of those abused their own children.

      • robert

        and in the teaching profession there have been many. women; perhaps more than men given that some male teenagers will not spill the beans as Miss is a notch on the belt. In a career of 30 years women to men abusers is 50/50!

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        “Look out, there’s a paedophile!”
        Paedo-crazy UK; hate it and leave it. Before a criminal conviction eliminates that option.
        Jack, the Japan Alps Brit

        • Labour Mole Catcher

          Never heard of Spain or Portugal then?! Who gives a rat’s arse about your poxy Country anyway?!

    • Sarnoc

      It’s not so much that the church has a problem with paedophilia, as that it’s prepared to hang out the dirty washing in public. Watch that happen in the BBC or Parliament… I recall seeing an article with a very good set of stats, proving that the incident rate of paedophilia is actually lower in the Church than in the rest of society.

    • robert

      No the C of E also has had problems/. Those in the RC church are vastly exaggerated. The real culprits in Britain are state run childrens home. Ie social workers have a higher incidence of child abuse than any clergy.

    • Athelstane

      But most of what we’re seeing in regards to minors is ephebophilia – sexual attraction to and sexual abuse of adolescent/post-adolescent boys by adult men. It’s rarely pedophilia properly understood. And therein hangs a tale.

    • Woman In White

      What is it about catholicism that produces so much of this abominable behaviour?

      It doesn’t, but you have been led to mistakenly believe this because of propaganda (AKA “lies”) that you have been exposed to.

    • balance_and_reason

      I believe the Islamics of Rotherham, and various other English towns, have been earnestly seeking to redress the balance in recent years.

    • TX Ken

      The question is: what is it about Catholicism that produces such obsessive reporting and focus on relatively few abuses.

      No, the religion has no special problem with pedophilia our any other sexual issue. Try to have an thought independent of the popular media.

  • The Occidental Endgame

    Most likely that Danneels, like Pope Francis himself, is a communist. Those Liberation Theology types stick together like glue.

    • sidor

      This is true. The first in that communist group was Jesus Christ.

      • Hamish Redux

        No, Christ never attempted to rob people of their possessions against their will, nor to murder those who opposed him. I’ve read the Bible, so I can reassure you about that.

        • sidor

          Luke 6:24
          But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

          Have you missed it?

          • Two2trees

            What you’ve done is layer your own passions onto Christ’s message. It doesn’t work that way. If he meant it to advocate confiscation, he’d have said it. But that would violate AT LEAST two commandments – which is a really good hint that you have it very wrong.

      • Two2trees

        A sick and stupid perversion without the least support in scripture. Never, not once, does Christ advocate aggrevated (or any) theft nor covetousness. Confiscation by force of arms is central to communism. You claim he violates three commandments and it is absurd.

        If you need an authority to validate your own coveting, you ought to look to its inventor, satan.

        • sidor

          If you need an authority to validate your own coveting, you ought to look to its inventor, satan.

          ===============

          Do you believe in Satan?

  • Iodine

    I can’t understand why organisations that harbour or protect child rapists such as the Catholic Church and the BBC aren’t closed down.

    • Hamish Redux

      I know you’re trolling, but it is not the “organization” just a few Satanic individuals.

      • Iodine

        Francis himself stated that ”One in 50′ Catholic priests, bishops and cardinals is a paedophile.’ (presumably a conservative estimate). That is more than just a few individuals. The organisation is uniquely attractive to such people.

        • Diego Serrano

          There are very few paedophiles. Boys and girls were attacked at a very different rate. Think about it. Those priest we mostly something else and you know what.

          • CRSM

            The Catholic church is, and appears to have been for centuries, a hotbed of pederasty. Not only do the higher authorities not do anything about it, they seem to glory in it.
            Another one of those ineffable things I suppose.

            • Hamish Redux

              Statistically, kids are more likely to be abused in schools and homes. I suppose we could close down all schools and remove all kids from their parents, but I don’t propose this.

            • balance_and_reason

              ‘a girl for children, a boy for pleasure and for ecstasy….a young goat.’
              I believe is how the the old saying goes…although it may be Greek rather than Roman.

            • Diego Serrano

              The recent times are different and they have a simple-enough explanation which is that homosexuals infiltrated the seminaries decades ago. Then they made their best efforts to increase the rate at which others homosexuals were admitted in the places where they had power and also did their best to reject orthodox candidates.

              There has always been this problem in the Church, but I don’t think there was a network before where they would work together to obtain their goals and undermine the Church.

            • Two2trees

              The absurdity of that is identical to the notion of non-Catholic Christians hiding in the shadows throughout the existence of the Church. It does not bear even cursory logical review.

          • soysauce1

            Court cases brought to light that 82% of the convicted priests are active homosexuals, hence the reason so few girls have come forward.

            • Woman In White

              … whereas in the general population, 2/3rds of child sex abuse victims are teenage girls.

              • RuariJM

                Good point.

            • Diego Serrano

              You got it.

          • FranklinWasRight

            Especially since the vast majority were post pubescent.

            • Diego Serrano

              Right, exactly!

        • soysauce1

          Hilarious! You mean 1 in 50 is a homosexual but not for much longer Pope Benedict issued strict instructions that no homosexuals can be trained for the priesthood. As a percentage 0,81% of priests are abusers which is slightly less than the national average of 0.84% of teachers, COE, doctors, therapists, scouts etc. so no the organisation is not uniquely attractive to them, do try and get some facts before smearing.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            Natually priests a homosexuals and/or paedophiles. What do you expect when the most basic of human instincts is forbidden? One massive guilt trip.

            • soysauce1

              More nonsense, there are hundreds of millions of people who for one reason or another are celibate they aren’t all paedophiles or homosexuals just ordinary people getting on with their lives, sex isn’t everything.

            • Two2trees

              Is speaking from complete uninformed ignorance a hobby?

              • RuariJM

                More an uncontrollable addiction, I think.

            • TX Ken

              And marriage is just the ticket for a man who likes children. Thank you for enlightening us.

          • Dominic Stockford

            You should try meeting them before you defend them with such arrant nonsense.

            • soysauce1

              I have met plenty of priests in my 52 years, not one of them was homosexual, despite living near the homo capital of Europe, Brighton and as for the figures as published in the Times of London…although I am sure that you are by far a bigger expert than them.

              • Dominic Stockford

                I trained and was an RC priest. I do know better.

                • Woman In White

                  Am I to gather that you are an apostate ?

        • Woman In White

          Francis himself stated that ”One in 50′ Catholic priests, bishops and cardinals is a paedophile.’ (presumably a conservative estimate)

          That’s hardly a “conservative estimate”, given that the figure seems to be completely false.

          The Pope was therefore either misquoted, misunderstood by the journalist, or mistaken — and that particular journalist is notorious for “creative quoting” of his interviewees.

          The word “paedophile” refers to the sexual abuse of children under 12 — the figure quoted might be an estimate of the proportion of perpetrators of some form of sexual abuse of minors among the clergy, most of which is statistically known to involve teenagers, most of which will be a single incident, neither of which cases constituting paedophilia as such, which is a durable state of pathological sexual stimulation directed towards pre-pubescent children. It is a rare pathology, certainly nowhere near 2% prevalence in any population. The sexual abuse of teenagers is MUCH more common.

          The organisation is uniquely attractive to such people

          All organisations allowing easy access to victims are attractive to such criminals — there is nothing “unique” about the Church in this respect.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            Quick, another can of whitewash.

          • TX Ken

            Except that the percentages of abusers among clergy are lower – much lower – than in the family, school, or similar setting.

            • Woman In White

              Quite correct.

          • Two2trees

            2% is a really great smear to be sure.

          • RuariJM

            If in doubt, look at children’s homes in England and Wales, particularly Bryn Estyn in Wrexham; Leicester; Islington (one sincerely hopes Mr Corbyn has distanced himself from that part of his political career or there will be a lot of muck being raked) and children’s services in Oxford, Rotherham, Rochdale, etc.

            There have been more cases of sexual abuse in the state care sector in the past 10 years in England – whether facilitating, through moral or other cowardice, or active engagement – than in the entire Catholic Church in the UK since WW2.

            Or you could ask about the American Boy Scouts’ Association. Over 20,000 cases – and that is far from all of them; it’s just in the NW of the USA.

            Wherever there are kids, there will be people trying to gain access to them. the Church is not unique, nor uniquely awful. The state sector is, in fact, far, far worse.

          • jeremy Morfey

            The word “paedophile” is incorrectly defined and grossly misunderstood by popular opinion. Literally it means “lover of children” and in modern English, it refers to a sexual fixation with the pre-pubescent. It is a state of mind, and not an offence or even abusive if one resists one’s predilections or at least substitutes them with something that is legal and honourable.

            It is quite possible, and quite healthy, that most people have some degree of paedophilia in their makeup. The “ahh, how sweet” factor is what protects children from being attacked or overwhelmed by more powerful adults and is quite natural. In most people, this is expressed by an overwhelming desire to protect children and safeguard those very characteristics that make them so attractive.

        • TX Ken

          One in 50 is 2%, a fraction of the 10% or more among men in general. Not to mention that in any population of sex offenders, a minority offend against children, while most are garden variety chicken hawks, going after pubescents nd adolescents.

          Here’s where you say some remarkably stupid comment about moral authority, or deflecting, which will show that you not so concerned about children as a hater of Catholics.

          • Dominic Stockford

            10% Why do you make up such nonsensical figures? It does your case no good to create such unbelievable nonsense.

            • TX Ken
              • Dominic Stockford

                1. Sex offender researchers have a vested interest in the figure being as high as possible. They also have a vested interest in ensuring that the way they come to the number cannot be closely looked at.
                2. Such figures are from the fertile imagination of the feminist marxist troupe that now directs the thinking of so much of the world, not from any ascertainable fact.

                • TX Ken

                  So you prefer hating Catholics to actual facts. Noted. If you have any data not ginned up in your fetid imagination, please present it or be consigned to the pit of bigots and liars.

                  Sex offender researchers have a vested interest in protecting children. My day job is partly monitoring sex offenders, so I have the the same vested interest. What is your vested interest?

                • Woman In White

                  Sex offender researchers have a vested interest in protecting children

                  QFT

                • TX Ken

                  Ok, you got me. QFT?

                • Woman In White

                  “Quoted For Truth” — it’s a purely emphatic, repetitive, & supportive interweb acronym.

                • TX Ken

                  Indeed. Now I know.

                  I’m thinking with a name like Dominic, he’s possibly a bitter ex-Catholic, maybe a sex abuse victim. I should have been nicer.

                • Woman In White

                  Such figures are from the fertile imagination of the feminist marxist troupe that now directs the thinking of so much of the world

                  Incorrect, such figures are derived from Police data and serious academic research.

            • Woman In White

              It’s an accurate figure AFAIK — it relates to the proportion of individuals having engaged in at least one incident of illegal sexual activity towards a minor, *including* cases of minors engaging in sexual activities with other minors, coercive or otherwise.

              The proportion of clergy having at least one such incident in their past is much, much lower — which is not true of Catholic clergy only, but is true generally among all the major religions, at least in the West.

          • Two2trees

            You’re believing tv a bit too much. 2% is a good estimate.

            • TX Ken

              TV?

              I wasn’t questioning the 2% figure. It’s what we used until the John Jay report showed 4.3%. I suspect the actual abuse rate of priests is between those two points. In any case, my point is that the abuse rate for men in general is much higher as shown by the links in my second comment.

              • Two2trees

                Got it. I always assume people are going by some catastrophically inflated propagandized figure. I heard someone say 50% a little while ago. Also, while discredited in large part, kinsey proposed a scale rather than a boolean marker, which I suspect is not only valid but would color any study done unaware of gradations.

                • TX Ken

                  Ok, you’re officially smarter than me. 😉 I don’t do math concepts. Makes me dizzy.

                  If by graduations, you mean various forms of molestation, that’s irrelevant in one sense. Anyone with poor sexual boundaries needs to address that problem. But there is a difference between inappropriate talk, physical contact, sexual contact, and forcible contact (including rape). A priest in my diocese was expelled 20 years after he kissed a 16 year old girl whose parents reported him. A kiss is obviously different than a tape

      • Mc

        The organization has a very long tradition – past and present – of abusing its power and refusing to acknowledge its abuse of power. This articles, if true, is highlighting simply more of the same.

        • balance_and_reason

          yes, remember the inquisition.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            … the Crusades, persecution on the Jews, injustice to women, the African slave trade, forced conversion of indigenous peoples in Central and South America, support of Fascist dictators, teaching on use of condoms (AIDS is bad but birth control is worse), abuse, including the sexual abuse of children in Catholic care homes throughout the world, from Ireland to Australia.
            Rap sheet longer than your arm.

            • FranklinWasRight

              The Crusades were mounted to defend against invaders. Why is it that no one seems to have a problem when Muslims invade, rape, and pillage?

            • TX Ken

              Hospitals, family support services, senior care, food pantries, clothing closets, schools, colleges. List longer than your arm.

              What have your kind done for the poor?

            • Two2trees

              Which of these do you ascribe to the Church?

            • Woman In White

              The Crusades were efforts to defend local populations, much like the current efforts ongoing against ISIS ; what “injustice” to women ? ; the African slave trade was organised principally by African Muslims and UK and US Protestants ; your “forced conversions” pale by comparison with Protestant efforts in Europe or Muslim efforts throughout History, except that South and Central America were dominated by cults of human sacrifice ; your Fascist dictators line is completely hypocritical, if you look at the History of who has supported such men throughout History ; your caricature of the Church’s sexual teachings is utterly ludicrous ; and please can you name even just one organisation that has habitual dealings with children and is free of the presence of child molesters.

              • Katie Scarlett

                Excellent post.

              • jeremy Morfey

                Indeed, does one throw out the bath just because the bathwater is dirty?

            • balance_and_reason

              you have forgotten all the good over the past 2000 years…it is not all one way…lets be balanced….this isn’t New Labour’s spin authority after all.

            • peter the painter

              Crusades…What about the Invasion of Iberia ! Slave Trade – protestants/muslims combined had far more traffic on their books.

            • peter the painter

              Injustice to women…women’s education was curtailed for centuries by the closure of the convents by the Tudors.

          • TX Ken

            Or, where I live,

            Remember the Alamo.

            • Two2trees

              I live 45 minutes from downtown San Antonio. Texas is big but the world is small.

              • TX Ken

                No kidding. My sister lives down there. I hear they are going to redo Alamo plaza.

                • Two2trees

                  I hadn’t heard that but I might easily have missed that sort of local news.

          • Two2trees

            Oh sure. The Spanish inquisition I’m sure you mean.

          • peter the painter

            Spanish Inquisition: 32K dead. That was a hangover from the Saracens. Italian inquisition was peanuts compared to Cecil’s Star chamber, which one never hears about. Less than the peasants revolt put down by Luther. Never mind the ceaseless wars of religion and the 400 million dead in the 20thC due mainly to Nationalist/Democratic/Aetheistic/Progressive creeds.

            • Woman In White

              Cromwell : 200,000 dead in Ireland alone.

            • TX Ken

              More like 3000, maybe less, over 350 years. A slow day in Auschwitz. One article I read noted that the religious unity in Spain probably prevented the religious wars of northern Europe and this saved many lives.

      • 30characters

        No. It’s individuals that commit the offences but the organisation that protects them.

        • TX Ken

          “The organization “? I wonder to what that refers?

          • 30characters

            If you read this short thread you will see that in this case it refers to the Catholic Church and the BBC, as clearly stated in the first comment by Iodine.

            • TX Ken

              Yes, I knew the antecedent, but the Catholic Church I know is the community I worship with, the diocese gathered around our bishop, and the bishops gathered around Peter, the bishop of Rome. Not sure what “organization” is hiding predators. Me? My congregation?

              I’m rather sure Iodine meant “the bishops”, but they aren’t “the organization”.

              • 30characters

                Hmm. A semantic point I think. In any organisation it will be individuals who take executive action. Do the bishops not represent the Catholic Church? Are they acting simply as individuals? Does the bishop of Rome represent the Catholic Church or is he just expressing his own opinion? The “organisation” is the Catholic Church. The bishops are senior executives in that organisation and one is entitled to assume that they are acting on its behalf. If there were a massive outcry from the Catholic congregation of the world saying that their bishops (including the Pope) do not represent them then you might have a point but I see no sign of that.

                • Woman In White

                  Then maybe you should clean your specs.

                  The Catholic Church is every Catholic, not just whichever group of us that you desire to single out for your own questionable purposes.

                • 30characters

                  Well, Leaving aside your unchristian remark about “cleaning my specs” is it the case that “every Catholic” (which you define as the Catholic Church and which I am happy to accept) has denounced the actions of those individuals within the church that covered up child abuse? Will cleaning my specs enable me to see the millions of outspoken comments by congregants? By the way, I have no “questionable purposes” here but I do think that the unwillingness of some Catholics to denounce the behaviour of both the abusers and the senior bishops who covered up the abuse is telling.

                • Woman In White

                  unchristian remark about “cleaning my specs”

                  ???????

                  the unwillingness of some Catholics to denounce the behaviour of both the abusers and the senior bishops who covered up the abuse

                  Oh PLEASE … the condemnation of those behaviours is universal

                • 30characters
                • Woman In White

                  Only reason I’ve not responded to this, is that it’s so starkly ignorant, prejudiced, and blinkered that one is forced to realise that you prefer to believe lies instead of the truth, so that the truth will likely to be incapable of convincing you to step out of your little bubble of ideological pre-conception.

                • 30characters

                  And Bingo! A stream of invective replaces debate. Of course it couldn’t be because you have no cogent response to the link I sent could it.

                • Woman In White

                  What “cogent response” do you want in answer to an article based on nothing more than spite ?

                • 30characters

                  And you can demonstrate that it is based on spite —- how exactly?

                • Woman In White

                  By reading its contents, and discovering that it is based on slander and spite.

                  After Barros’ appointment, Karadima’s victims revived older accusations against Barros and three other bishops — Andrés Arteaga, Tomislav Koljatic, and Horacio Valenzuela — that they had covered up for Karadima while he sexually abused followers during the 1980s and 1990s.

                  Regarding the accusations against those bishops, Francis said in the video that they were “dismissed by the judicial courts.”

                  “I am the first one to judge and punish someone who’s being accused of these things, but in this case, there’s no proof. On the contrary,” Francis said in the video. “From the heart, I tell you. Let’s see if you help me with this, but don’t be led by the nose by these who’re trying to create a havoc, that are looking for slander,” he said.

                  http://www.cruxnow.com/life/2015/10/04/francis-blasts-critics-of-chilean-bishop-tied-to-abuser-priest/

                • 30characters

                  How does that demonstrate “spite”. There are clearly people who do not agree with the Pope’s opinion, specifically the victims of the abuse in this case. As your quote says “Karadima’s victims revived older accusations against Barros and the three other bishops.” So the victims are just being spiteful eh? And is Marie Collins, a member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, just being spiteful too? I admire your faith, though I think it misguided, but to simply accuse the victims of spite because the Pope’s judgement has been questioned is an example of the dangers of blind faith.

                • Woman In White

                  The spite is blatantly obvious — there is NO EVIDENCE to support the accusations against Barros, the Judges in the case found no case against him, but he continues to be attacked not just as if “guilty unless proven innocent”, but “guilty in spite of being found innocent”.

                  Meanwhile, in reality, Barros overtly supported the actions taken against Karadima.

                • 30characters

                  The court also found “insufficient evidence” to charge Karadima but you don’t seem to be defending him. You are essentially calling the victims liars. Here is an account of the court :-

                  After seven months of conducting the probe, the claims were dismissed by the court ruling that there was not enough evidence to charge him.

                  One of the claimants accused: “We would have liked to appeal, but with defense attorneys like his, who have the Appeals and Supreme Court eating out of their hands, and a number of powerful people who continue to protect Karadima, we knew it would be an uphill battle that we were likely to lose,”[6]

                  The defense attorney of Karadima, Lawyer Juan Pablo Bulnes Cerda, is brother of Juan Luis Bulnes Cerda, sentenced in 1970 for the assassination of General René Schneider in 1970 in order to prevent Salvador Allende’s inauguration. Juan Pablo Bulnes Cerda works for the law office of Ossa, Bulnes & Asociados. Juan Luis Ossa Bulnes was chief of the “Comando Rolando Matus”, a paramilitary organization of the National Party (Chile, 1966–1973). It played a key role in the destabilization of the country during Allende’s government.[7] The lawyers Luis Arévalo and Luis Ortiz Quiroga appeared for Karadima also, were attorneys in the 1970s for Julio Bouchon, another participant in Schneider’s assassination. They worked also for Colonia Dignidad.[7] According to James Hamilton, one of the claimants, Karadima protected and hid Juan Luis Bulnes Cerda, as he was wanted by the Chilean police in 1970.

                  And Barros part in this?

                  “In 1984 a group of parishioners reported to archbishop, Juan Francisco Fresno, later cardinal, about Father Karadima’s “improper conduct.” The letter was “torn up and thrown away,” according to a court statement by the parishioner. In those days, Karadima had managed to install one of his own as the Cardinal’s secretary. This priest was Juan Barros Madrid.”

                  So there is evidence, just not evidence accepted by what appears to be a highly suspect civil court, (given that even the Church’s own investigation found the accusations against Karadima to be true whilst the civil court found “insufficient evidence”.)
                  And here is the nub. As they said of Watergate. It’s always the cover up that is the problem, more than the original crime itself.
                  You believe Barros (and he is but one example) to be innocent. That means that you believe the victims to be liars.
                  Fair enough. You are entitled to that point of view. It is not one that I share.

                • Woman In White

                  Perhaps you might think it “logical”, when a man is found guilty by the Church Courts and the Vatican, but whose case in the civil Courts is dismissed, to accuse the Church rather than the civil Judiciary.

                  And I’ve accused nobody of “lying” in this matter — I described certain attitudes of being motivated by spite.

                • 30characters

                  Oh yes. I forgot. The victims are motivated by spite. Of course.

                • Woman In White

                  The authors of that article are not victims of Karadima, and nor are you either.

                  You cannot hope to pretend that the anti-Catholicism of that article nor of yourself is the production of victimhood.

                  It’s self-righteous spitefulness.

                • 30characters

                  I am not anti Catholic. I am anti hypocrisy. And the original article I cited is in a Catholic magazine talking about the opinions of a Catholic member of a Catholic committee! But they’re anti Catholic are they?

                • Woman In White

                  Have you failed to understand that there’s a clear difference between expressing one’s concerns about something, and instrumentalising such a complaint as an excuse to engage in acts of hostility against the Church as a whole, as you have done, and as the authors of that article did too ?

                  PS false rhetorical trickery won’t work on me

                • 30characters

                  How is supporting the case of victims of child abuse an act of hostility against the Church? All the complainants are Catholics.

                • Woman In White

                  You cannot justify your previous hostile rhetoric as if it were merely “supporting the case of victims of child abuse”.

                  And I fail to see how publishing slanderous rhetoric aimed at the Pope, to the effect (in your own words) of claiming some completely imaginary “unwillingness … to denounce the behaviour of both the abusers and the senior bishops who covered up the abuse“, whereas in reality he has clearly denounced such behaviour multiple times, to the extent of creating a specific Tribunal to judge such Bishops, might constitute “supporting victims”.

                  It’s not, it’s just a means to the end of supporting your own anti-Catholic passions.

                  And to your unspoken question, BTW : yes, there are MANY catholics these days who engage in straightforward anti-Catholic rhetoric, sometimes even on a daily basis.

                  The hermeneutic of hatred and revenge supports victims not in the slightest, and it is as anti-Catholic, and unchristian, as it’s possible to be.

                • 30characters

                  Well, I have to admit it. you’ve convinced me. I wasn’t anti Catholic but if you represent the true nature of the Catholic Church then I am now.

                • Woman In White

                  That’s just some more weaselly false rhetoric, compounded by straightforward false ad hominem logic.

                  Ad hominem being of course at the very heart of your arguments against Catholicism.

                • 30characters

                  As I said, you’ve convinced me already.

                • TX Ken

                  Poor word use reveals and reinforces sloppy thinking, which leads to sloppy acting. Words matter.

                  All Christians, led by the bishops, represent Christ. You may not believe that, but if you are going to talk about someone, it’s silly to not take their POV into account. What you are really talking about is how poorly we have represented Christ, but all of us, at all times, have failed to represent Christ perfectly, either through sin or ignorance.

                  Bottom line: “the organization” can only be known through her doctrine, not the failings of her members. That doctrine is written.

                • 30characters

                  I’m sorry but that argument holds no water. An organisation can only be judged by the actions of its members. A doctrine is just that–a doctrine, whether religious or other. Unless it is made manifest through the actions of its adherents it carries no weight. To use reductio ad absurdam; if an organisation has a doctrine of promoting peace but it’s members spend their time making war then it is entirely reasonable to judge that organisation for what it does, not what it says.

                • Woman In White

                  Well then, the condemnation by the Church of child molesting and its procedures of helping Police investigations and exercising canonical punishments of those discovered to be guilty should speak louder than your erroneous commentary to the contrary.

                • 30characters

                  Unbelievable! The Church covers up these cases for decades in some cases and then, when caught bang to rights. is finally forced to own up, and you have the gall to try to occupy the moral high ground! That’s real faith I suppose.

                • Woman In White

                  You cannot blame the Church for failures that were endemic throughout the Western world until the Dutroux case finally blew the lid off things — furthermore, the scandal has never been endemic to the Church as a whole, but it was confined mostly to certain local churches, particularly in countries where the civil child protection laws were horridly deficient (sometimes to the point where child molesting wasn’t even defined as criminal) and/or where certain ultra-liberal child psychologists had succeeded in convincing their governments that sex between adults and children was somehow “good” for the children.

                  In countries that had sufficient child protection laws in place by the mid-20th century, scandal is also largely absent from their Catholic Churches.

                  Meanwhile, those engaging in anti-Catholic hate speech can never find it in themselves to have any words of blame towards the Police forces who failed to do their job of protecting these victims, towards Ministers and Parliamentarians who failed to provided the necessary legal protections for these innocents, nor the liberal philosophers and psychologists who actively promoted child sexuality and sexualisation as something “positive” to be implemented throughout society.

                  You blame the Church for this or that — but unless the Church had reinstated the Holy Inquisition, there was nothing that could be done, in the face of Police forces systematically ignoring complaints of child molesting nor of families that systematically covered up their own scandals rather than face social embarrassment.

  • Hamish Redux

    Yup, Danneels is a most repulsive character. Having him at the Synod can only be described as yet another blunder by Pope Francis.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here