Cardinal Danneels, pro-choice, named "expert" for the Synod on the Family
#1
The hidden thoughts and deeds of the wolves in sheep's clothing once more are revealed:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04...hosen.html
This cardinal who, logically, would be excommunicated "latae senstentiae" for condoning the abortion, tried unsuccessfully (thanks God!) to convince the holy catholic king Baudouin of Belgium to sign the infamous law legalizing obortions in that country.
How is it possible that this man was appointed by the Pope as an "expert" for the next Synod on the Family?
Reply
#2
Thank goodness there are no public, manifest heretics in the Vatican; that might put the Holy Catholic Church in a crisis or something...
Reply
#3
Wait, was he chosen again for the 2015 Synod or is this just a news on how he was lobbying for abortion?
Reply
#4
(04-11-2015, 06:00 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Wait, was he chosen again for the 2015 Synod or is this just a news on how he was lobbying for abortion?

Yes he was personally chosen again by Pope Francis, and why not? Cdl Danneels is in favour of abortions and same-sex unions...he's perfect for the synod!

:eyeroll:


Deus libra nos a malo  :crucifix:
Reply
#5
(04-11-2015, 09:12 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(04-11-2015, 06:00 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Wait, was he chosen again for the 2015 Synod or is this just a news on how he was lobbying for abortion?

Yes he was personally chosen again by Pope Francis, and why not? Cdl Danneels is in favour of abortions and same-sex unions...he's perfect for the synod!

:eyeroll:


Deus libra nos a malo  :crucifix:

Well, no wonder this:

[Image: 13117_758427320944814_2512531146184135245_n.jpg]

is happening.
Reply
#6
They really need to re-evaluate how they select bishops and cardinals.  It's like they're rolling dice.  Pope St. John Paul II was good about censuring the really bad theologians of the 70's, and I don't believe for a minute that he would have endorsed the crazy things people like Daneels and Kasper have said, but he made them both cardinals.  I don't blame him for it- he only had the information that others gave to him, and information didn't travel nearly as fast or as freely back then as it does now.  Also, I'm sure there were plenty of people who knew just what to say to impress him, and how to hide their wrongdoings from him.  In many ways, Benedict XVI was similar.  I don't think he ever would have endorsed some of the stuff Cardinals Dolan or O'Malley have said or done, but he made them cardinals.  I can't help but ask, though:  Why can't they make someone like Bp. Athanasius Schneider a cardinal?  Why not someone like Bp. Paprocki, Bp. Conley, Bp. Folda, or Bp. Morlino?  Better yet, why not all of them?  It seems that the best out there are the ones who spend their time simply leading their flock rather than the academics, the publishing, the appearances, or anything else that gets them noticed enough that it occurs to the pope to name them a cardinal.  These men are content that God has given them a small part of the world full of souls in need of saving.  They know that they will not outlive that need, so they are content to do what they can where they are until they are asked by the Church to do something else.  It would be a very heavy cross to be such good cardinals as I'm sure they would be, so on one hand I hate to wish that upon them.  Even so, I wish we had more cardinals like that.
Reply
#7
(04-11-2015, 09:12 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Cdl Danneels is in favour of abortions and same-sex unions...he's perfect for the synod!

That is not entirely accurate. He is not in favour of abortion (nor euthanasia, which has been a much hotter topic in Belgium in the last few decades), but recognizes that there is a separation between Church and State. He has frequently spoken out against both abortion and euthanasia in his sermons. He is similarly not in favour of gay marriage (since marriage implies the union of a man and woman), though he is not against the State (not the Church) recognizing civil unions of gay people.
Reply
#8
He seems to have a problem with Vatican II's teaching on freedom of conscience.

At least as far as the conscience of the Belgian King is concerned.
Reply
#9
(04-11-2015, 04:28 PM)maso Wrote: The hidden thoughts and deeds of the wolves in sheep's clothing once more are revealed:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04...hosen.html
This cardinal who, logically, would be excommunicated "latae senstentiae" for condoning the abortion, tried unsuccessfully (thanks God!) to convince the holy catholic king Baudouin of Belgium to sign the infamous law legalizing obortions in that country.
How is it possible that this man was appointed by the Pope as an "expert" for the next Synod on the Family?

If true, I'm really not sure what this means or what God wants by allowing this.  Perhaps He wants to precipitate an awakening in His Church by making people choose, if and when a crisis were to present itself to the flock?  I'm really afraid that what comes out of the synod will create a schism in the Catholic Church.  I'm really not sure what Pope Francis' intentions are.  Maybe Cardinal Danneels has changed for the better since then?  I may be overly optimistic.  However, I don't want to judge the man or predict what may happen, as it must happen for a reason, though I do not know what that reason may be.  These are troubling times, indeed, even within the Church itself.

What I really want to know is: What does Pope Francis himself really believe?
Reply
#10
(04-12-2015, 07:42 AM)ecclesiastes Wrote:
(04-11-2015, 09:12 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Cdl Danneels is in favour of abortions and same-sex unions...he's perfect for the synod!

That is not entirely accurate. He is not in favour of abortion (nor euthanasia, which has been a much hotter topic in Belgium in the last few decades), but recognizes that there is a separation between Church and State. He has frequently spoken out against both abortion and euthanasia in his sermons. He is similarly not in favour of gay marriage (since marriage implies the union of a man and woman), though he is not against the State (not the Church) recognizing civil unions of gay people.

That's not what it says on the news (which Danneels refused to comment on): he was lobbying for the king to actually sign the law for abortion.

But anyway, to simply says “to hell with the society” is not an excuse. It really don't make things better that he is just taking this rather liberal view (and I would say, a false view, as no society can be legitimately secular), especially as the issues in question are, arguably, matter of natural law. Really, at best you're just saying he's a coward.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)