Belgium: Cardinal Danneels Home Raided In Sexual Abuse Investigation
Godfried Cardinal Danneels home was raided in Belgium by police searching for evidence in the sexual abuse of children. Belgium police also raided the offices of the Archbishop of Brussels, Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard. This came on the heels of Bishop Roger Vangheluwe’s abrupt resignation after admitting to homosexual relations with a boy this past April.
Cardinal Danneels is well known as creative in his interpretations on Church teachings. Cardinal Danneels participated in writing Sacrosanctum Concilium, a document which influenced the complete rewriting of the liturgy of the Second Vatican Council. Which in turned fueled the liturgical abuse that most Catholic in the West are still being exposed to.
Under his watch as prelate of Belgium, a once devout and vibrant Catholic country, Belgium’s Catholic faith has been all but eliminated. Abortion, euthanasia, and homosexual unions have been legalized under his watch. In addition church attendance and religious/secular vocations are at their lowest not seen since that part of Europe was pagan.
25 Responses to Belgium: Cardinal Danneels Home Raided In Sexual Abuse Investigation
![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YqM_zH1K7Uw/TOK1hLlt3BI/AAAAAAAAA1o/HCzoksN1-ME/s1600/email+icon+32x32.png")
- Cris Kramschuster commented on Why it is Worth Worrying: On the Brink of a New Pontificate
(2 hours ago) - philip commented on On the Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI
(4 hours ago) - c matt commented on Fools to Judge his Papacy
(4 hours ago) - Mandy P. commented on We Must Not Forget
(4 hours ago) - Another Mom commented on We Must Not Forget
(4 hours ago) - Phillip commented on At Last Night's Emergency SCHISM Meeting...
(5 hours ago) - southernsue commented on Lincoln and the Will of God
(5 hours ago) - Greg Mockeridge commented on Fools to Judge his Papacy
(7 hours ago) - Elizabeth commented on Fools to Judge his Papacy
(8 hours ago) - Phillip commented on Fools to Judge his Papacy
(9 hours ago) - philip commented on What Wondrous Love Is This?
(12 hours ago) - Mary@42 commented on On the Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI
(1 days ago) - ivan commented on Fools to Judge his Papacy
(1 days ago) - Jerry commented on Fools to Judge his Papacy
(1 days ago)
Sacrosanctum Concilium is one of the four Constitutions of the Second Vatican Council, a magisterial document which we as Catholics believe reflects the guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Church. You mention it here as if the cardinal’s involvement in writing it were a sure sign of his satanic bent. Sorry, but that’s not how a REAL Catholic would see it.
Ron,
It was not intended to misguide.
I completely am in agreement with Sacrosanctum Concilium. It is those that “interpreted” it in their own misguided ideas of a worldly church that I am chastising.
Ron,
You accuse me of not being a REAL Catholic by putting words in my mouth about satanic bent.
You should be more careful of carelessly accusing others of this when it is you who are doing it.
A self-examination of conscious is in order for you and a visit to a priest.
FWIW, Tito, when I read the post I, too, thought you were being critical of SC.
The big story here isn’t the raiding of the homes. Apparently, the Belgin police pried open the tombs of the last two archbishops in their search for “documents.” Needless to say, the Vatican is outraged at that.
Vatican calls in Belgian ambassador
Chris B.,
Ron C. accused me of words I did not say and then slandered the depth of my faith.
You on the other hand read my article and came to the conclusion that I was critical of Cardinal Danneels.
If pointing out facts about Cardinal Danneels is being critical, then I agree with your statement.
You were being charitable in your analysis, Ron C. was slandering me. Big difference.
Christopher Ferrara offered some time ago that a lawyer looks at a document with an idea of what it allows the adversary to do to your client. His assessment of Sacrosanctum Concilium: it allows a great deal, and that has been the problem.
Art Deco,
Sacrosanctum Concilium is a great document, when properly read.
The language in this document, and so many other documents of the Second Vatican Council is very ambiguous. Which allows for a wide interpretation which they weren’t meant to be read as. Pope Benedict has time and time again hammered this point.
The writers, such as Cardinal Danneels, did not envision the wreckage it would wrought. Though why did Cardinal Danneels and many of his colleagues endeavor to write in such ambiguous language?
All councils up until the Second Vatican Council have written in strict and defining language.
My two cents worth.
In addition, Cardinal Danneels oversaw Belgium and then allowed liturgical abuse to run rampant.
So yes, he is responsible for the damage done in Belgium due to his leadership.
“All councils up until the Second Vatican Council have written in strict and defining language.”
HAH!
Anyone who knows anything about the councils knows this is far from true. Even the language used at the Council of Nicea had to be corrected at Constantinople, because at Nicea it suggested “one hypostasis” for the Godhead! Then there is the Ephesus-Chalcedon-II Constantinople debacle.
So I say again, HAH.
“All councils up until the Second Vatican Council have written in strict and defining language.”
HAH.
Pingback: Police Raid Tombs of Dead Bishops in Belgium « The American Catholic
So you let through the hah, but deleted the post which explained it. Interesting.
The explanation went to history. Nicea was imprecise, so imprecise it said “one hypostasis” for the Godhead, and only was to be corrected at Constantinople.
Ephesus-Chalcedon-II Constantinople do not do much better. St Cyril, whose doctrine was promoted by Ephesus, was very imprecise — and caused problems by his discussion of “one incarnate nature of the Logos.” Chalcedon, though overcoming Cyril, still is seen as quite the compromise council — indeed, so much so that some thought it went Nestorian and further councils were called to bridge Ephesus and Chalcedon together.
Henry K.,
I do not doubt the historical account of the councils you cite.
Though the vast majority of them were concise, especially since the Council of Trent.
“The vast majority of them were concise, especially since Trent.” How many councils have there been after Trent? Oh, Vatican I and Vatican II. Even then, Vatican I didn’t get to do what it wanted with ecclesiology — which did leave a very imprecise ecclesiological question and led to a misunderstanding in the time before VII because of it. And Trent itself, if you study the theological questions of the time, was purposefully vague to allow different theological traditions to remain.
Henry K.,
I have to admire your tenacity on your straw man argument.
You still haven’t addressed the point that the documents emanating from the Second Vatican Council are ambiguous in their wording.
I am addressing the point “All councils up until the Second Vatican Council have written in strict and defining language.”
Not only is it not true, one must wonder if “strict and defining language” is exactly what we are to be looking for. St Hilary, for example, thought otherwise, and noted putting the truths down into words will always be imprecise.
We can then look to Scripture itself, and note how “imprecise” it is. Does that make Scripture bad? No, it opens us up to many levels of possibilities through one text. This is a strength, not a weakness.
Henry K.,
Thank you for your opinion.
I think the whole debate about conciliar language goes nowhere without being concrete. So, for the sake of discussion… Tito, can you specify where you see ambiguity in SC?
Chris B.,
I’d like to answer you, but it distracts from the main theme of the thread.
If the post was about the ambiguity of Vatican II documents I would have fleshed it out in the column.
One of the defining characteristics of fundamentalists is their inability to catch a joke made at their own expense. In my post at the outset of this thread, I suggested to Tito that a REAL Catholic would not agree with his mischaracterization of one of the fundamental documents of the Vatican Council. He immediately became incensed that I had accused him of being less than a “real” Catholic.
Tito, just FYI, the reference was to your incessant posting of those offensive videos from the self-described “real Catholics” (i.e., more-Catholic-than-God Catholics) at realcatholictv.net.
Ron C.,
It’s been my personal experience that some jokes backfire because they simply don’t translate via comm-boxes.
With that said, then cool, that was a funny joke.
Tito, you’re right… it’s not relevant to this particular post; perhaps we might follow up where it’s more relevant… please accept my apologies for furthering a tangential comment thread.
Chris B.,
No apologies needed.
I greatly respect your opinion and comments.
Returning to the real subject of the post:
The Fall of the Belgian Church, by Alexandra Colen. Brussels Journal June 24, 2010.
At least their OUR perverts…, by Michael Liccione. Sacramentum Vitae June 26, 2010).
Truly sickening.
By now we ALL know there is a perverted sub-culture within the catholic church worldwide. The pope and vatican have apologized to millions of catholics from almost every country on the planet.
The catholic priests are the very men who indoctrinated us into the belief from childhood, teaching us it is SINFUL to LIE, be DECEITFUL and COVER-UP SIN. These very holy men, haven’t got a clue themselves what it means to be holy.