Author Topic: Danneels approved pedophilic catechism?  (Read 1245 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Telesphorus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12714
  • Reputation: +7/-12
  • Gender: Male
Danneels approved pedophilic catechism?
« on: March 25, 2011, 11:28:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am still trying to figure out, why did the SSPX and the Angelus write a series of articles trying to say that the media was out to get the Catholic Church over this issue?  Even if it's true - shouldn't the SSPX try to take a balanced approach?

    Compare and contrast this with the "Letter of a Jewish businessman" that the Angelus published.  I sat through a catechism class after mass where the "Letter of a Jewish Businessman" was read to us.

    BTF News: Jewish Sam Miller Defends the Catholic Church

    Shouldn't there be some balance in approaching this topic?  Is it really right to make an unqualified defense of the NO clergy in the matter of the abuse crisis?  

    Or are we supposed to never say anything bad about priests, no matter how bad it is?

    That is the shocking allegation by Alexandra Colen, an orthodox Belgian Catholic, who details her long fight with Cardinal Danneels and the Belgian Catholic hierarchy (including the pedophile recently retired bishop Vangheluwe) over a pedophilic sex-ed book approved for Belgium’s Catholic schools. Excerpt:
    His predecessor, the liberal Cardinal Danneels, who was very popular with the press in Belgium and abroad, was Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels and Primate of Belgium from 1979 until 2010. The sympathy for pedophile attitudes and arguments among the Belgian bishops during this period was no secret, especially since 1997 when the fierce controversy about the catechism textbook Roeach made the headlines. The editors of Roeach were Prof. Jef Bulckens of the Catholic University of Leuven and Prof. Frans Lefevre of the Seminary of Bruges. The textbook contained a drawing which showed a naked baby girl saying: “Stroking my p**sy makes me feel groovy,” “I like to take my knickers off with friends,” “I want to be in the room when mum and dad have sex.” The drawing also shows a naked little boy and girl that are “playing doctor” and the little boy says: “Look, my willy is big.”
    The drawing also showed three pairs of parents. Those with the “correct” attitude reply: “Yes, feeling and stroking those little places is good fun.” This “catechism textbook” was used in the catechism lessons in the catholic schools, until one day I discovered it among the schoolbooks of my eldest daughter, then 13 years old. On 3 September 1997 I wrote a letter to Cardinal Danneels, saying:
    “When I see this drawing and its message, I get the distinct impression that this catechism textbook is designed intentionally to make 13 and 14 year olds believe that toddlers enjoy genital stimulation. In this way one breeds pedophiles that sincerely believe that children actually think that what they are doing to them is ‘groovy’, while the opposite is the case.”
    I told Cardinal Danneels that, although I was a member of Parliament for the Flemish-secessionist party Vlaams Blok, I was addressing him as a Catholic parent “who wishes to remain faithful to the papal authority and also wishes to educate her children this way.” I insisted that he forbid the use of this book in the catechism lessons: “This is why I insist – yes, the days of meekly asking are over – that you forbid the use of this ‘catechism book’ in our children’s classrooms.”
    Today this case, that dates from 12 years ago, assumes a new and ominous significance. Especially now that I know that Mgr Roger Vangheluwe, the pedophile child molesting Bishop of Bruges, was the supervising bishop of both institutions – the Catholic University of Leuven and the Seminary of Bruges – whence came the editors in chief of this perverted “catechism” textbook.
    After I started my campaign against the Roeach textbook, many parents contacted me to voice their concerns. Stories of other practices in the Catholic education system poured in. There were schools where children were taught to put condoms over artificial penises and where they had to watch videos showing techniques of masturbation and copulation.
    Because Cardinal Danneels refused to respond to requests to put an end to these practices, I and hundreds of concerned parents gathered in front of his palace on 15 October 1997. We carried placards with the text “Respect for parents and children,” and we said the rosary. Cardinal Danneels refused to receive a delegation of the demonstrators. “I shall not be pressured,” he said in the libertine magazine Humo on 21 October 1997. The Archbishop’s door remained closed when we demonstrated again on 10 December 1997.
    … On 18 February 1998 we were at Cardinal Danneels’s door again, myself and a group of parents. Again the door remained closed. So on 18 March 1998 a group of two hundred parents went to the Papal Nuncio, the ambassador of the Vatican, in Brussels. But the Nuncio, who was a friend of Danneels, also refused to meet us. He had, however, alerted the police, who had several water cannons at the ready just around the corner.
    Meanwhile Danneels’s friends in the press started a campaign against me. “Colen continues to pester the bishops,” was the headline in Gazet van Antwerpen. One evening Toon Osaer, Danneels’s spokesman at the time, phoned me to tell me that as a Catholic I had to “be obedient” to the bishops.
    If this is true, then it certainly puts the Belgian police raid into context, does it not? And it also puts Benedict’s response into context — one that is not flattering to the Holy Father.
    I am reminded of a Dutch Catholic mother I met eight years ago after mass in suburban Amsterdam. She told me about having volunteered to teach catechism to Catholic schoolchildren, and being sent to a diocesan training seminar for lay teachers. What she and the others got was just bizarrely heretical. She protested to the bishop, and got absolutely nowhere. In some parts of this world, lay Catholics who wish to be faithful to the Church’s teachings really are on their own.

    Read more:

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Danneels approved pedophilic catechism?
    « Reply #1 on: March 25, 2011, 11:44:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree with Tele here that Daneels is scum and in a saner day he probably would have been not only criticized but lynched by Catholics.

    Faithful in Mexico were driving modernist priests out of their parishes by force and chasing them out of town in the late 70's and early 80's when ABL made his visit at their request.

    As long as priests are faithful we should be respectful and give them the benefit of the doubt. When they act in a morally outrageous fashion we should not stand for it.

    Daneels and the rest of the lib Bishops' crimes, heresies, and behavior are public so they should be condemned publicly by the faithful. Daneels, if he is still alive, should be run out of town on a rail and tried for distribution of child pornography if this story is true.

    Also, if JPII or BXVI knew about this and did not take action to stop it they are just as guilty.

    Offline Exilenomore

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 720
    • Reputation: +583/-36
    Danneels approved pedophilic catechism?
    « Reply #2 on: March 26, 2011, 04:18:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I remember a man on a Dutch/Belgian forum who said that many years ago, there was a man dealing out pamphlets at schools to support erasing pedophilia as a penible offense from the law. Utterly disgusting of course. They wanted to have pedophilia accepted as legitimate on a social scale.

    Thankfully the man got his pamphlets ripped out of his hands and thrown on the ground, and was then chased away by the guy who shared the story on the forum.

    Alexandra Colen is as far as I know in favour of the tridentine rite and defends traditional catholic values. She's a politician of the Vlaams Belang, a nationalist flemish party which is against the islamisation of Europe and has a branch which identifies itself as traditionally catholic. Unfortunately they are smitten with 'cordon sanitair' by the masonic government every time they receive enough votes to lead the state.


    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16