Should Scandalous Old Liberal Cardinals Vote in the Conclave?

Archbishop Weakland, helping and the like.

Edit: it’s been a frequent lament here that it’s never really the truly Old Liberal Bishops who get rough treatment when abuse claims come around.  Even Archbishop Weakland had been allowed to sort of retain some semblance of dignity in his disgrace by having a hideous bronze statue made of himself in the presence of children.  That’s ironic, but there’s also a pattern developing in recent time which does not fit, exactly.

Now, there have been some interesting revelations over the past weeks in the wake of the Conclave involving very high profile senior clergy who are often darlings of the media barons of the Left.

 First there was Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles who was severely reprimanded by the present Archbishop of Los Angeles, Archbishop Gomes.  Cardinal Mahony has been undermining the Church’s presence in society for most if not all of his tenure during the last decades, and was a frequent target of criticism from the Wanderer, among others for his defense of clerical homosexuals and persecution of conservative clergy.  Indeed, there is a suggestion that he may not participate in the Conclave, here, here, and petition here.

Then there enter Archbishop Mueller of Regensburg Germany, whose heterodox theological perspectives were criticized early on, even before he became the new Doctrine Gardener.  The now highly placed Archbishop, who didn’t receive his Cardinal’s hat, was recently slapped hard and publicly by Cardinal Bertone when he attempted to reinstate the teaching license of a formerly Pontifical university in Peru.

As if that weren’t enough, a soon to be retired, Old Liberal Cardinal O’Brien, has been accused of indecent acts by three priests and one retired priest.   This story seemed to surface with a vengeance in the light of the Cardinal’s revellations  about married priests, he thinks we should have them, and his statements against homosexuality.

The Cardinal even missed Mass this morning.

In addition to this, is a kind of anonymous denunciation on a free website on the internet for Cardinal Daneels.  It’s hard to believe that with all of the skeletons in his closet, well, he had pictures of skeletons in his closet, the exhumation of remains as reported by Cathcon:

Some photos of the exhumation of Julie and Melissa  

Up to 100 photos showing the exhumation of the bodies of the children, but also exchanges of reports between magistrates in the Dutroux affair and large parts of the judicial file were found. The fact is that these documents were only intended for the judicial authorities and, a priori, had nothing to do with the church, explained RTL journalist.

This is not the first leak of elements of the judicial record of Dutroux according to Solimando Antonio. He recalls that Cdrom of the Dutroux investigation was sent to several editors, some who had decided to publish it. According to Het Laatste Nieuws, the presence of those confidential files and reports to the archdiocese will once again support defenders of the theory of a paedophile network ... Even if, as a reminder, the court has ruled that it does not accept this theory.

There’s been nothing in the news since then about why these documents were in the Cardinal’s possession, but there’s much more in his past and present which implicates him.  Here’s the article, link:

Cardinal Danneels must not take part in the conclave! 

Does this man have the moral authority to elect a new pope of the Catholic Church? NO, NO and NO!!! Take a look at a few of his "achievements" and judge for yourself:

Appointment and protection of Roger Vangheluwe, child molestor and bishop of Brugge 

When he learnt about the child abuse he tried to cover it up. These were his words to the victim: "shouldn't you try to ask for forgiveness" (!!). He was actually suggesting that the victim would ask his aggressor for forgiveness! The tapes of the conversation were broadcast in all the Belgian media. 

Approval of sexually explicit text books in Catholic schools 

During his time as archbishop of Mechelen-Brussel, a scandal broke out about sexually explicit school books. Children of 12 years old in Catholic schools were being taught how to masturbate and try out homosexual acts. When confronted with these facts, he simply refused to receive the shocked parents and didn't take any action to stop the use of these books. 

Turning a blind eye against blatant abuses 

Fr. Luc Versteylen sj is a very famous person in Belgium. He's the founder of the extreme-leftwing (communist) political party Agalev and for many years led a sort of christian cultic sect in Viersel. In this house, mostly unmarried adolescents were encouraged to explore their sexuality. Fr. Versteylen himself is known to cohabitate with a woman, thereby publicly ignoring his priestly chastity vows. He recently also admitted to raping one of his female sect-members. Danneels never, ever took action against this man. One can confidently say that most Catholics in Belgium know of first-hand examples of priests ignoring their celibacy vows - these things are publically known. Some of these priests are even so proud of it that they like to be interviewed about it in the national newspapers. Yet bishops, whose duty it should be to maintain order, hardly ever took (take) action. 

Good friends with the freemasonry 

The freemasonry, an extremely powerful secret organisation priding itself with facilitating the legalisation of abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage in Belgium, is the biggest enemy of the Catholic Church. Instead of waging war against these demons, Danneels was good friends with them! He even went to give a lecture in one of their temples in 2008. If that is already out in the open, how much more relations may he have had which we know nothing about. 

Condoms? No problem!

Danneels is clearly one of the most left-wing cardinals in the Church. He wants change, that's for sure. He knows how far he can go, but never formally trespasses the line. One perfect example: preservatives are morally legitimate if they are used by a married couple of which one of the two partners is sero-positive. While this is technically true, one can wonder whether it's up to someone in his position to make this kind of statements. He knows all too well how this will be transmitted in popular media: Danneels opposes the pope on birth control issue. Danneels is not stupid. He does this intentionally; he intentionally creates confusion amongst his faithful, while it's his duty to guard and protect his flock as a good sheperd.