Edward Pentin has been doing a lot of heavy lifting these days, in advance of the Synod coming up in October. It is going to be a war. Check out Pentin’s ebook The Rigging of a Vatican Synod: An Investigation into Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family
Also check out this piece about one of the members of the Synod, appointed by Pope Francis: Card. Daneels. HERE
Cardinal Danneels Admits to Being Part of ‘Mafia’ Club Opposed to Benedict XVI
New authorised biography also reveals papal delegate at upcoming synod wrote letter to Belgium government supporting same-sex “marriage” legislation because it ended discrimination against LGBT groupsFurther serious concerns are being raised about Cardinal Godfried Danneels, one of the papal delegates chosen to attend the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the Family, after the archbishop emeritus of Brussels confessed this week to being part of a radical “mafia” reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI.
It was also revealed this week that he once wrote a letter to the Belgium government favoring same-sex “marriage” legislation because it ended discrimination against LGBT groups.
The cardinal is already known for having once advised the king of Belgium to sign an abortion law in 1990, for telling a victim of clerical sex abuse to keep quiet, and for refusing to forbid pornographic, “educational” materials being used in Belgian Catholic schools.
He also once said same-sex “marriage” was a “positive development,” although he has sought to distinguish such a union from the Church’s understanding of marriage.
According to a forthcoming authorized biography on the cardinal co-written by Jürgen Mettepenningen, a former spokesman for Cardinal Danneels’ successor, Archbishop Andre Joseph Leonard, and Karim Schelkens, a Church historian and theologian, the cardinal expressed satisfaction over the disappearance of “discrimination” against LGBT couples after legislation was passed approving same-sex “marriage” in 2003.[…]
At the launch of the book in Brussels this week, the cardinal said he was part of a secret club of cardinals opposed to Pope Benedict XVI.
He called it a “mafia” club that bore the name of St. Gallen. The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, to make it “much more modern”, and for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to head it. The group, which also comprised Cardinal Walter Kasper and the late Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, has been documented in Austen Ivereigh’s biography of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer.
***
Italian Vaticanista Marco Tosatti has a bit more on this in La Stampa (in Italian).
There’s more of interest. Check it out.
Loading ...
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur: tuque, Princeps militiae caelestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, divina virtute, in infernum detrude. Amen.
My disgust for these wolves in shepherd’s clothing is beyond words.
Also I cannot accept the Pope such evil men to the Synod while ignore true and great Shepherds like Cardinal Burke. The church is in a very dark place since Benedict was ousted by this “mafia”.
Did I read that right? Bergoglio was part of this group? And they wanted him to be the leader?!?
If Bergolio played any part in ousting Benedict XVI and subsequently engineering his own election to the papacy then…wouldn’t both he and some of those cardinal electors have been excommunicated under Canon Law (JPIIs revisions for papal elections) through their actions and been not only ineligible to vote in the conclave but also to serve as pope?
The Church is in a time of great chaos and peril. However, we must never forget that the Church belongs to the Lord Jesus. He is its head. The gates of hell will never prevail against it. That said, I have grave doubts about the current leadership. All I can do is fast, pray, and try and keep the commandments.
Oh, my Lord. I think I’m going to be sick.
MWindsor – Yes you read that correctly. Austin Ivereigh describes how Cdl. Bergoglio met frequently with the group including Daneels, Kasper, and Martini.
Don’t despair. They learned that you don’t pull on Superman’s cape, you don’t spit into the wind, you don’t pull the mask off the Lone Ranger and you don’t mess around with the Holy Spirit. Their guy is pope but he isn’t changing doctrine because he can’t. He’s bringing other issues to the forefront and people are listening to the Church and maybe can hear because the presentation of Truth has changed. Pope Francis is perceived to be more approachable than Benedict. And he talks about crazy things like sin, evil and the devil. Maybe that’s good for the Church.
I looked up St. Gallen who may not have been the best choice for patron of their little cabal; refused bishoprics twice and was an exorcist.
The more information disclosed about Cardinal Danneels the more he should be discredited, so I don’t fear his influence at the Synod. Of course, it’s disturbing that Pope Francis holds him in any respect at all. The Holy Father should observe the wreck of the Church in Belgium and connect the dots with the leadership of that church.
And Nan, very nice work quoting the great Jim Croce !!!
Besides the offensive misuse of the word “mafia”,this Itala American actress wonders why anyone is surprised that gay men rose through the ranks of our Church and their cabal continues to circle the wagons to protect their own and their agenda.
CatholicMD and MWindsor, it doesn’t say anywhere on this article that Cardinal Bergoglio met with this group (please provide the quote otherwise), but simply that they wanted him to be elected pope. Those are two very different things.
Just by way of addendum to my earlier comment:
John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution of 1996 makes canvassing before or during a papal conclave a high-crime, punishable by automatic excommunication.
“The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.
I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void.
With the same insistence shown by my Predecessors, I earnestly exhort the Cardinal electors not to allow themselves to be guided, in choosing the Pope, by friendship or aversion, or to be influenced by favour or personal relationships towards anyone, or to be constrained by the interference of persons in authority or by pressure groups, by the suggestions of the mass media, or by force, fear or the pursuit of popularity. Rather, having before their eyes solely the glory of God and the good of the Church, and having prayed for divine assistance, they shall give their vote to the person, even outside the College of Cardinals, who in their judgment is most suited to govern the universal Church in a fruitful and beneficial way.”
Don’t these people fear hell? Or maybe they don’t believe in it.
Mark de Vries has a post about the biography also worth reading:
https://incaelo.wordpress.com/2015/09/25/don-danneels-the-power-struggles-of-the-belgian-cardinal/
And posts about other Synod Fathers equally worthy of attention:
https://incaelo.wordpress.com/2015/09/15/bishop-surprise-ghents-van-looy-to-join-belgian-delegation-to-the-synod/
https://incaelo.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/real-life-and-teaching-bishop-bode-on-the-synod/
The second of these is notable for what Bishop Bode says about “a blessing of a second relationship” as “a future possibility” rather than “a second marriage according to the Orthodox model.”
This is an analogue to Cardinal Danneels saying “same-sex ‘marriage’ was a ‘positive development,’ although he has sought to distinguish such a union from the Church’s understanding of marriage.”
And, indeed, it is the same Bishop Bode who the other day “proposed that the Catholic Church might offer ‘private blessings’ to same-sex couples” though he “said that the Catholic Church could not accept gay marriage because it understood marriage as a union between a husband and a wife that was open to the procreation of children”:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/09/18/german-synod-father-says-church-could-give-private-blessings-to-same-sex-unions/
This (to quote an earlier comment) is a version of the ‘line’ which Joris Vercammen and the Dutch Old Catholic Church institutionalized nearly nine years ago, now – with nary an objection from the “Roman Catholic” side I can discover anywhere – nothing, for example, here, nearly two-and-a-half years after Vercammen proclaimed same-sex unions ‘a contribution to the mission of the Church’ the ‘recognition’ of which motivated their ‘blessing’:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/vetero-cattolici/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20090512_report-church-ecclesial-communion_en.html
Maybe the St. Gallen group members have been helping behind the scenes to keep this off agenda.
Presumably the ‘line’ will be presented as ‘of course no change in doctrine, merely a change in practice’.
Mark de Vries also has two interesting articles about one of the Danneels biography co-authors:
https://incaelo.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/some-personal-thoughts-about-a-resignation/
https://incaelo.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/mettepenningen-speaks-again-and-still-understands-nothing/
and another on the background to those:
https://incaelo.wordpress.com/tag/archbishop-andre-joseph-leonard/page/9/
Finally, I had forgotten this very usefully thorough post about who attended the 2014 Synod:
https://incaelo.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/enter-the-synod-members/
Here’s hoping he prepares one to complement it, this year!
I seem to be having comment-submission problems in trying to draw attention to interesting posts on this book and related matters by Mark de Vries at his incaelo.wordpress blog: do have a look and scroll down for other Synod news!
Well, that one worked: let me try again:
Mark de Vries has a post about the biography also worth reading:
https://incaelo.wordpress.com/2015/09/25/don-danneels-the-power-struggles-of-the-belgian-cardinal/
I pray that the numbness brought on by this news is the protection of my Guardian Angel rather than something far more insidious. Never has our Church been more in need of faithful shepherds.
@Robert_Caritas: It doesn’t say that he was a member of it. It does say that they wanted him to lead it. It doesn’t really indicate whether he was a member or not. But it doesn’t say anything about wanting him to be elected pope. At least, that’s what I’m getting from the little clip Fr. Z put here. Is there more somewhere else?
Excuse me while I lose my breakfast… X_X
Ultimately the unabashed self-absorption that allows Danneels this “transparency” is what captures my attention. It has an element of exhibitionism. Hubris, to be sure. Ivereigh’s work was revelatory (the first shipment was unexpectedly honest before it was withdrawn and forgotten), but much of this has been known by increment and inference before, and the reportage has been there over the years. Apparently the Low-countries are fertile ground for all manner of shameless aberrance. Now we see that this breed of the hierarchy is so brazen and confirmed in its self-ascribed superiority that they don’t mind broadcasting the truth loud and clear. That Jorge Mario Bergoglio would associate with this element of the ecclesiastical class says more about him than anything else. The pitiful disrespect accorded Pope Benedict, an individual superior in every way for the office, who was deliberately undermined and replaced with this gentleman is confounding, and requires canonical correction. This drama of narcissism is scandalous when not absurd, stupid when not comical.
Sand box, play pen, trash bin, den of thieves, inhabited by well compensated disappointments addicted to their own image. Those who participate actively and passively in this vipers tangle will endure its fruit, ultimately.
God reward our faithful priests, religious, laity and ecclesiastics who must endure this sacrilege until our Lord brings His Will to bear.
MWindsor,
For what it’s worth, whoever does the narration in the Belgian news-film-clip Edward Pentin links in his second-last paragraph clearly says “the group shoved the present Pope forward as his successor” when Pope St. John Paul II died (in Flemish: ‘schuifde’, at around 55 seconds), and embroiders upon this respecting the clip of Cardinal Danneels that follows, and one of the co-authors takes the matter up later as well in a clip.
You know, there’s an incredibly interesting story here if this mafia group got Bergoglio elected as Pope and then he is the one to decisively put to rest all question of the alterations of doctrine that they schemed for. It’s like that Pope who was chosen because he was a Monophysite or something like that and then after he was Pope he said the Pope cannot deviate from Christian doctrine.
this could be tragic…….but the Lord is in charge and the Holy Father is at HIS Helm. hang on tight faithful children.
“…He called it a “mafia” club that bore the name of St. Gallen. The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, to make it “much more modern”…
Sounds like a secret society.
Sorry… meant to post the first part:
…”At the launch of the book in Brussels this week, the cardinal said he was part of a secret club of cardinals opposed to Pope Benedict XVI. He called it a “mafia” club that bore the name of St. Gallen. The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, to make it “much more modern”…
Sounds like a secret society.
First, I, too, pray what orlandocruz posted in the first comment in this thread. Next, the fact that the “mafia” wanted him to lead their group would seem to indicate that he agreed with their views/positions. Would it be logical for them to support a person who…let’s say…envisioned a traditionally conservative Church?
Isn’t Bishop Markus Büchel the bishop of St. Gallen, Switzerland?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishops-plot-revolution-on-church-teaching-at-secret-rome-meeting
Vox Cantoris has an English translation of the La Stampa piece referenced at the end of Fr. Z’s post:
Francis: election prepared years beforehand
La Stampa: The election of Jorge Bergoglio was the result of secret meetings that cardinals and bishops, organized by Carlo Maria Martini, held for years in St. Gallen in Switzerland. This is what Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens are claiming. They are the authors of a newly published biography of the Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who calls the group of cardinals and bishops a “Mafia-club”.
Danneels, according to the authors, worked for years to prepare for the election of Pope Francis, which took place in 2013.
He himself, moreover, in a video recorded during the presentation of the book in Brussels admits to having been part of a secret club of cardinals who opposed Joseph Ratzinger. Laughing, he called it “a Mafia-club and bore the name of St. Gallen”.
The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church: for it to be much more modern and current, with Jorge Bergoglio – Pope Francis as its head: which, in fact, is what has occurred
According to the book, besides Danneels and Martini, the members of this group were: the Dutch bishop Adriaan Van Luyn, the German cardinals Walter Kasper and Karl Lehman, the Italian Cardinal Achille Silvestrini and the British Cardinal Basil Hume, among others.
Belgian newspaper “Le Vif” reports that: “On March 13, 2013 an old acquaintance was alongside the new Pope Francis: Godfried Danneels. Officially, he was there as dean of the Cardinal-Priests, but in reality he had worked discreetly for years as a creator of kings “.
Danneels has again been invited by Pope Francis to the Synod on the Family to be held in October in Rome, but he has been criticized very much. He tried to dissuade a victim of sexual abuse from reporting the perpetrator, a bishop (the uncle of the victim). For this reason, at the time of the 2013 Conclave, in Belgium there were those who demanded that he not be allowed to participate in the papal election.
Furthermore, Daneels’ positions on gay marriage and abortion – according to the revelation of two parliamentarians he wrote the king of Belgium exhorting him to sign the law to allow abortion – does not seem in agreement with the Magisterium of the Church; and with what Pope Francis has said on these issues.
http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2015/09/did-pervert-protecting-cardinal.html
Here is what I have gathered, and I tend to think there is a lot of truth to it, although I could be wrong. It isn’t anything novel that Francis was pushed into the papacy by progressive electors. But that is only half of the story. Those progressives were joined by American conservatives, who viewed Bergoglio as a likely reformer of the Vatican’s sluggish and corrupt bureaucracy. Furthermore, the irony of the election of Bergoglio is that, although he was put forward by progressives to further their “reforms,” the truth is that Francis was never likely to go along with those reforms, anyway. Francis was, as it were, a last-ditch half-court shot by octogenarian progressives hoping beyond reason that maybe Bergoglio could be massaged into supporting liberalization. If anything, the fact that Bergoglio is the “liberal” selection shows how utterly hopeless and diminished the liberal Catholic project is today.
I have not seen much comment about this other than on the Polish powerhouse Fronda.pl, but watch at 25:00 this video, in Spanish, of the Pope talking to CELAM at WYD in Rio:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX7eYMRVpGQ
Here the Pope discusses the absurd expectations of his pontificate, explicitly mentioning ordaining nuns (to dismissive laughter of the Latin American bishops) and Communion for the divorced and remarried. The point of electing Francis was never to elect a liberal–he isn’t. The point was electing Bergoglio and then manipulating and using him and go around the back of the Vatican and through the media to initiate changes without ever making anything official. EXACTLY like the post-conciliar madness. The only question is whether and how much Francis will push back against this sort of proxy-pontificate that is trying to hijack his pontificate and even the Magisterium.
That is why orthodox Catholics are foolish to aim their fire at Francis, who is an enormous ally in Rome, and of course the POPE. The real problem is the gross manipulation of his papacy by a systemic movement throughout the episcopacy, using the media and liberal lobbies and money, to affect changes it can only get through manipulations and winks and nods.
Thanks for the shout-out, Venerator Sti Lot! Here’s the link to my blog post about Cardinal Danneels: https://incaelo.wordpress.com/2015/09/25/don-danneels-the-power-struggles-of-the-belgian-cardinal/
I can’t help but think that is exactly the sort of secret backroom politics that Pope Francis is keen on stamping out. Their favourite candidate may turn out to be their downfall. If only Cardinal Danneels would stay home from the Synod…
My ‘Pastoral Practice’ is to remain faithful.
If I was an EMHC my ‘Pastoral Practice’ would be to DENY these people Holy Communion provided I was accuratly knowlegable about thier situation. This would not be difficult as they and thier supporters are usually outragiously vocal and candid about thier particular situation. No rash judgment in these cases – its usually all out in the open.
The Church in Holland and Belgium has been protestantized for years, openly. Alice Thomas Ellis records an episode from the 1990s or even earlier (I don’t have the book to hand) where a request for Benediction was refused with the words “We don’t worship bread here!”
Makeup of the Synod: Card. Burke excluded. Card. Kasper appointed by the Pope himself. That’s a plain enough statement of aims, I would have thought.
I mentioned some interesting posts at Mark de Vries’s incaelo.wordpress blog about 8 hours ago. Here are some more details and suggestions.
A 30 July post on Bishop Bode is notable for what he says about “a blessing of a second relationship” as “a future possibility” rather than “a second marriage according to the Orthodox model.”
This is an analogue to Cardinal Danneels saying “same-sex ‘marriage’ was a ‘positive development,’ although he has sought to distinguish such a union from the Church’s understanding of marriage.”
And, indeed, it is the same Bishop Bode who the other day (as the Catholic Herald reported on 18 Sept.) “proposed that the Catholic Church might offer ‘private blessings’ to same-sex couples” though he “said that the Catholic Church could not accept gay marriage because it understood marriage as a union between a husband and a wife that was open to the procreation of children.”
This (to quote an earlier comment of my own) is a version of the ‘line’ which Joris Vercammen and the Dutch Old Catholic Church institutionalized nearly nine years ago, now – with nary an objection from the “Roman Catholic” side I can discover anywhere – nothing, for example, here, nearly two-and-a-half years after Vercammen proclaimed same-sex unions ‘a contribution to the mission of the Church’ the ‘recognition’ of which motivated their ‘blessing’:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/vetero-cattolici/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20090512_report-church-ecclesial-communion_en.html
Maybe the St. Gallen group members have been helping behind the scenes to keep this off agenda?
Presumably the ‘line’ will be presented as ‘of course no change in doctrine, merely a change in practice’.
Presumably the ‘line’ will be presented as ‘of course no change in doctrine, merely a change in practice’.
Here, indeed, is a sort of formalistic ‘technical’ alternative to what the Holy Father noted to Congress, “Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family.” ‘O, no, not at all’, they will probably say, ‘the good, old fundamental relationships are clearly affirmed, there are just a couple new blessings added to the many already available in The Book of Blessings (etc.).’
Mark de Vries also has two interesting articles about one of the Danneels biography co-authors, from back on 3 November 2010 and 31 January 2011, with another background article to these on 15 October 2010.
And, of more general Synod interest, an article of 15 September 2015 about Bishop Van Looy and still other Belgian participants. Also, on 10 September 2014, he had a very usefully thorough post about all those who attended the 2014 Synod: here’s hoping he prepares one to complement it, this year!
MWindsor, here’s the sentence that I think is troubling us: “The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, to make it “much more modern”, and for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to head it.”
Admittedly, this could mean that they wanted Cardinal Bergoglio to head their group, but rather I think it’s saying that the group wanted 1) to make the Church modern, and 2) Cardinal Bergoglio to head it (in other words to be Pope).
It never made sense why Cardinal Daneels was personally appointed to the Synod on the Family.
It does now!
More and more I grow to think the Carthusians have it right.
acmeaviator says:
More and more I grow to think the Carthusians have it right.
Stat crux dum volvitur orbis.
Well, well! There certainly is a great deal of information here and much to make us all very wary during October. Time will tell of course and we will not have long to wait now.
Incaelo,
Thank you, Mark de Vries , for all the good, thorough, interesting work (on the German- as well as Dutch-speaking side of things)!
I thought too many links in my 7:12 AM comment might have blown it out into cyberspace, so my 3:52 PM comment is largely a sort of digest of it, but with some expansion: my apologies, Fr. Z, and thank you for now letting them stand!
ChrisRawlings,
A very interesting analysis (and evidence)! – some of which Incaelo also develops: “Their favourite candidate may turn out to be their downfall.” (And Elizabeth D, and others.)
I can imagine that ‘they’ thought that Cardinal Bergoglio (as he then was) thought that he was ‘craftier’ than (in ‘their’ estimation) he really was and that ‘they’ could ‘out-fox’ him and use him. If so, a real (and terrible) question is, in how far were they right? Is he too like Lear sending away Cordelia, and first trusting, then mistakenly thinking he can out-maneuver, Goneril and Regen? Or is he like Prospero, after some dire out-maneuvering, quietly working to do what he can with his “men of sin”?
In the 90s in Brussels priests would offer a service in the church for couples who could not or would not have a registered church wedding, which was exactly like any other wedding except the nuptial blessing was replaced with another blessing made up by the priest or the couple. I was told by Belgian priests that that made it all okay. They said “it is all clearly explained to the couple”.
A lot of things are now making sense. Unfortunately.
I pray for Pope Emeritus Benedict every day and I know he is praying for all of us.
Chris Rawlings, thanks for your thoughtful comment. It seems the most plausible of any I have read.
I have tried to find the posts from when Pope Francis warned the mafiosi that they’re going to Hell or something to that effect, but I’m having some trouble locating them. Would be interesting to revisit…
Might this be called furious back-pedalling?:
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/st.-gallen-group-not-a-lobby-group-say-authors/
I’d like to see the whole of the Cardinal Danneels book-launch interview film!
I have not tried running the linked ‘Le Vif’ article (now with ‘Rectification’) through translating machines – perhaps a Francophone could help the rest of us…?
I recommend reading Andrea Gagliarucci’s weekly Monday Vatican entries. My own reading of things comes in part from the narrative he has been developing.
Chris Rawlings,
It all can be reduced to attempts to empower the national episcopal conferences to the point that the pope would be little else than a figure head. This would be done by episcopal conferences determining praxis (e.g., Communion to those in bad marriages).
There are, however, legitimate efforts to reform the Curia–it has not been responsive to papal desires. The wag is that BXVI, in a meeting in his office with Abp Fellay, pointed to the door and said that his power ended there.
I just read a review of the biography (offline) in which the authors are quoted as saying, in reference to Cardinal Danneels advising the nephew of Bishop Roger Vangheluwe, victim of the bishop’s incestuous same-sex pedophile abuse for 13 years from the age of five, “the cardinal fell back on his trusted attitude: waiting till a conversational partner came to a decision, and thereafter carefully putting forward ways [of proceeding]” and in a later summarizing sketch calling Cardinal Danneels “a man who wrote movingly about human suffering but was himself a but unhandy in his dealings with sufferers.”
Compare Elizabeth Yore’s account for Voice of the Family: “On April 8, 2010, the newly retired Cardinal Danneels received some visitors at his home. They were the relatives of the Bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, Danneels’ close friend. At this meeting, the nephew of Vangheluwe described a long and sordid 13 year molestation by his uncle, the Bishop of Bruges. Cardinal Daneels advised the nephew not to go public with the sexual abuse. During the meeting, Danneels advised the young man not to ‘make a lot of noise’ about the abuse he endured from his uncle bishop because Vangheluwe was scheduled to retire in a year anyway. ‘It would be better that you wait,’ advised Danneels, while also urging the young man to forgive his uncle.
“The conversation was tape recorded by the nephew and subsequently released to the press. Cardinal Danneels, the former head of Belgium’s Roman Catholic Church for 3 decades, could be heard on tape urging this sexual abuse victim to stay quiet and not disclose the abuse until after the bishop who repeatedly molested him over a span of 13 years could retire. After the release of the recording, Danneels did not dispute the authenticity of the conversation. A media firestorm was unleashed in Belgium, a country still reeling over institutional cover ups of child sex abuse.
“Bishop Vangheluwe admitted to the sexual abuse of his nephew and stepped down from his post shortly after the April 8 meeting between his nephew and Danneels.”
“Thereafter carefully putting forward ways”, “a but unhandy”: it sounds as if it were a good thing the victim “came to a decision” to record the proceedings and release the recording!
http://voiceofthefamily.info/wordpress/?p=1454
Pingback: Three things you need to know about Pope Francis and the cardinal disgraced in a sex abuse scandal - Spectator Blogs