Edit: apparently, Chesterton is no longer the sole province of low-t EWTN and Catholic Answers expositors like cucky, failed Baptist minister, Dale Alquist, or the enthusiast for the abortion industry and sodomy party, with his effeminate squeaky voice, Marcy Shea.
Making Italy Great! Listen to her speech:
Edit: game design and live-streaming are the future.
(Rome) Does Pope Francis have an ideologized knee which dislikes certain journeys? This ironically meant question is being discussed among Vaticanists and bloggers. What is meant by this is whether Francis' knee problems increase before certain trips in order to prevent them.
Francis' knee problems worsened when, for example, he was supposed to go to Florence last spring, meaning that he would only have had to travel a relatively short distance within Italy. An exact program was coordinated with the Holy See and organized down to the last detail. The knee problems disappeared when he had to embark on a transatlantic journey to complete a "penitential pilgrimage" to Canada.
It later became known that the visit to Florence was due less to knee problems than to an ideological problem. In truth, the cancellation was based on misinformation: Francis wrongly believed that he had to meet someone in Florence whom he did not want to meet. The result was the aforementioned knee problems, which justified the cancellation of the entire visit.
This "ideological" knee problem has already prevented other appointments and trips. It was Francis himself who recently confessed this to the nuncios who gathered at the Vatican on September 8 for their triennial meeting. Vatican scholar Franca Giansoldati wrote yesterday in Messaggero:
“It was the Pope himself who confirmed to his 200 apostolic nuncios, who had been called to the Vatican ten days ago, that he would not travel to Kyiv for the time being in order to advance the dialogue with Moscow and would rather wait for better times. During the meeting he added that fortunately the knee problems he has been suffering from for some time help him to find plausible excuses to postpone the trip to Ukraine. This leak about the closed talks that took place in the Vatican with diplomatic representatives of the Holy See, and confirmed by various sources, began to circulate after he announced on his return flight from Kazakhstan that his next trip abroad would be to Bahrain in November and that a project for a return to Africa, Congo and South Sudan, will be examined in the early months of next year.”
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Vatican.va (Screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.Com
AMSD
By Ferdinand Boischot
On May 19, 1966, the Belgian bishops, led by Cardinal Suenens and Bishop De Smedt, blew up the Catholic Church in Flanders
From the beginning of the 1960s there was a huge crisis in Belgium: the Dutch-speaking Flemings, who had been neglected and discriminated against since the founding of Belgium (1830), fought harder than ever for their self-determination and equality, the coal and steel region in the Borinage collapsed, the state groaned beneath enormous financial burdens, the Belgian establishment was frustrated by the rapid and unsuccessful decolonization of the Congo, the liberals and socialists on the one hand and the Christian Democrats on the other, eyed each other suspiciously after the "school fight" (1954), in the university town of Leuven things were seething among the students, and a military coup threatened. As part of a local laissez-aller under the cloak of Vatican II, all Christian leadership evaporated. During strikes in the Limburg coal mines in 1966, the gendarmerie shot two young men (Zwartberg crisis) and the more neutral army had to be deployed.
The Belgian bishops were well informed. They were closely associated with the Christian Democrat leadership and ruled over a wide range of Catholic schools, hospitals, unions and charities and senior citizens' associations.
Bishop De Smedt was the main protagonist here. Vice-rector of the Catholic University of Leuven since 1959 was the “very young” Guido Maertens (then 29 years old) from Bruges, who was ordained a priest by Bishop De Smedt and, at the age of 30, had been appointed monsignor and “prelate of His Holiness” like a meteor.
The heated situation in Louvain was well known, as was the dislike of Flemish students towards the aloof Brussels Cardinal Suenens.
Despite this, or probably precisely because of this, the Belgian bishops' conference published its notorious mandate on May 19, 1966, which immediately triggered civil war-like conditions in Leuven. The gendarmerie reacted exaggeratedly. Great destruction ensued, and centralized Belgium fell apart. The university and its institutions were split head over heels to the point of criminality (an impossible division of books in the library). The government fell. And suddenly a quarter of all believers disappeared from the churches.
The bishops immediately went into hiding.
Without the disturbing looks of critical believers, the Christian Democrat-led iconoclasm and liturgical killing spree could be carried out smoothly.
Bishop De Smedt followed suit with perfidious intelligence on February 2, 1968: In an interview (of course published immediately and widely) he said that "at that time (1966) he had made a serious mistake by sticking to the unity of two wings (of the Catholic University Louvain).
As a result, no Flemish Catholics went to church, but the relationship with the French-speaking bishops in the Belgian bishops' conference was strained for the next 20 years.
The isolation of the Christian-democratic-modernist, de facto former Catholic Church in northern Belgium, without disturbing observers from outside, was perfect.
The Bruges diocese was here, together with Leuven, the Wagenburg alias laboratory and hotspot for a particularistic North Belgian Christian Democratic morality with exploding homosexuality and pedosexuality.
De Smedt never published much: before the Council and as a prime example of an evangelizing bishop, he published a small booklet on Catholic “Evangelization in the Neighborhood”, which was also translated into French and Spanish.
After the Council, he produced a booklet on “The Priesthood of All Believers”, which was significantly published abroad (France) and remained unknown in Belgium (easily understandable after the events of 1966-1968) because the context was too incoherent and was obviously hypocritical.
Existing biographical notes on the post-1966 period are very sparse, even remarkably sparse. In the diocese of Bruges, the vast majority of priests were ordained and the seminary there was the northern Belgian "cadre factory".
Here Roger Vangheluwe (later pedosexual Bishop) became Dean and Professor at the Major Seminary; here Frans Lefevre, a friend of Danneels and editor of the infamous Roeach series of books on religious education, was ordained and also a professor at the seminary; here Johan Bonny (later homophilic bishop of Antwerp) was ordained a priest. Auxiliary Bishop Paul Lanneau, Danneels' aide and sentenced to prison for covering up pedophilia, was co-consecrated by De Smedt.
The Bruges Major Seminary became a super-social hotspot, although this 'social' does not (of course) refer to the Flemish aspirations.
In 1979, the booklet "As man and woman he created them " with the subtitle "Ethical Orientations in Sex Education" was published by the publishing house Lannoo (Tielt), which is traditionally associated with the diocese, under the authorship of De Smedt.
It's written in a boring way, in the style of the bombast of northern Belgian modernism. Already in the foreword by Bishop De Smedt it is expressly said: "... because many young people have difficulties and questions, and I want to help them..." (sic).
Just four pages with some thoughts on Christian education, then a great many pages to: "It's about the happiness of the people" ("sinful man and the forgiving love" - this topos was literally used by Cardinal Danneels in the Vangheluwe scandal; "Danneels-tapes"), then the jump is made to: "Development of ethical action and feeling" (typical for the University of Louvaine 1970-2020). Finally, the central piece follows: “Love and Sexuality”. This is the full program of the Danneels Epoch 1983-2009.
It is significant that the first part on sexuality in general (5.5 pages) is immediately followed by the part on homosexuality (also 5.5 pages).
Nota bene: Homosexuality had not been criminalized in Belgium until eight years earlier (although this action was led in large part by a “worker priest”).
It is only in the last chapter “Growing in Love” that there are five pages about marriage and parallel to that also about renunciation (the word celibacy is used twice, the word council once, and the word monastery twice).
As stated at the end of the preface, the booklet is composed of papers from a study group set up by Bishop De Smedt.
Linguistically smoothed out by Mark Vandevoorde, later spokesman and speechwriter for senior Christian Democrat politicians, also well acquainted with Vangheluwe and a seminary professor, plus Guido Maertens (former Vice-Rector of Louvaine and "ethicist"), a Christian Democrat sociologist (WD) and four professors from the Major Seminary in Bruges, apart from Maertens (later at KULAK in Kortrijk) and the sociologist, will all continue to work seamlessly under Vangheluwe.
They are all "rewarded" with induction into the Chapter of St. Salvator's Cathedral in Bruges.
The booklet is not very attractive from the outside (in my case "3rd impression").
At the same time, a slimmed-down version was printed for young people as a large, colorful brochure on glossy paper (52 pages, 50,000 copies of the 1st edition). Lots of large format photos of brick walls and a sandy beach, a bicycle handlebar with a bell, door handles, traffic signs and similar nonsense.
The title is "Ontmoeten" "to meet", with small subtitles "a letter to young people and their companions about relationship building, love and sexuality".
The chapter on homosexuality has been removed, and an extra section on masturbation and sinful thoughts have been added, and that too is spoken in flat language...
The whole body of thought of the Danneels and Vangheluwe epoch with their sex fixation and the complete loss of faithful Catholic morality is already there. The professor protagonists of the Danneels and Vangheluwe eras are also already present.
As said, almost all of them can be found in the list of canons of the cathedral chapter of St. Salvatore in Bruges.
Even now (2022) Vangheluwe's "companions" and cronies are sitting there in large numbers.
The biographical notes on Bishop De Smedt then become fewer and fewer.
He wrote another thin, large format pamphlet about Europe aka the EU, on pink and black porous paper and with no Christian content.
In 1984 De Smedt retired; he was succeeded by Roger Vangheluwe.
De Smedt withdrew to a convent in Bruges and no longer appeared in public.
In 1985, during the visit of Pope John Paul II, he stayed in the background. Pretty strange for one of the most crucial figures of Vatican II.
Apparently, Bishop De Smedt's activities were viewed very critically in Rome at the time.
It is said that De Smedt suffered from dementia at a fairly early age (75 years old). He died in 1994 at the age of 85.
Nothing is known of a reaction by bishop emeritus De Smedt to the article about the “establishment of a working group to promote the interests of pedophiles in the church” (sic) in 1985 in the Church newspaper “Kerk en Leven” (notabene printed by the diocesan publisher in Bruges).
Neither De Smedt nor his “ethical study group” are aware of a reaction to the “religious instruction book” Roeach3 with pedophile texts and illustrations (1992).
It would be another 20 years before the authors and staff were either dead or retired.
The mafia-like wagon company of the Bruges diocese held out for a very long time (until 2017).
Under Bishop Emiel Jozef De Smedt, the homo- and pedophile impregnation of the diocese of Bruges was initiated in terms of personnel and content, and this was probably in close connection with the ideas of the Second Vatican Council.
It continued seamlessly under his successors Vangheluwe and De Kesel, and spilled over to the whole of northern Belgium.
Terra devastata - scorched earth.
References:
By Roberto de Mattei*
There is a relationship between grace and nature analogous to that between faith and reason. There is an imbalance when there is faith without reason or grace without nature and vice versa, but the perfect balance is not in putting these realities on an equal footing. On the contrary, it consists in bringing them into their legitimate order, subordinating nature to grace, of which the former is the premise, just as the premise of faith is the reason, but which is subordinate to faith.
This helps us understand what "spirit of faith" or "supernatural spirit" means, depending on whether we are referring to the primacy of faith over reason or grace over nature. It means not renouncing the indispensable role of reason and nature, but seeing everything through the eyes of faith and expecting even the impossible from the work of grace.
Today that spirit of faith has been lost in the Christian people, beginning with their church leaders. The spirit of faith and the supernatural has been replaced by the political spirit with which Christians claim to understand and intervene in reality through reason alone, without resorting to the decisive action of grace.
Pope Francis has repeatedly recalled that the true reformers of the Church are the saints, yet his approach to the world's great issues always appears political and therefore "worldly" rather than "supernatural" and moved by a spirit of faith. This “political” approach dominated the recent consistory, held August 29-30th in the Vatican in the presence of some 180 cardinals, which missed a great opportunity to address the serious problems afflicting the Church today. The focus of the meeting of the cardinals was officially the reform of the Curia, which is contained in the new Apostolic Constitution Praedicate Evangelium being proposed, but the Pope has prevented the cardinals from expressing themselves in joint session on this and other subjects, as it were, he muzzled them.
The consistory is a meeting of the pope with the cardinals, who according to the code of canon law (canons 349-359) are his first advisers. For at least seven years, Pope Francis has not allowed the cardinals to speak and express their opinions at this solemn gathering. Everyone had expected this to happen at the end of the August meeting, but the consistory was fragmented into language groups at the behest of the pope, paralyzing the cardinals and preventing the open and direct dialogue that last took place in February 2014.
We are reminded of this truth by an important cardinal and great historian, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, whose voice, which was not allowed to be heard in the consistory hall, echoes outside the hall. The Vaticanist Sandro Magister has allowed us to get to know them by publishing the speech that the cardinal had prepared but was not allowed to deliver.
Cardinal Brandmüller recalls in his document the function of cardinals anchored in canon law, which in ancient times found its symbolic expression in the rite of the "aperitio oris", the opening of the mouth. A rite, the cardinal explained, which “meant the duty to speak openly one's convictions, one's advice, especially in consistory. This openness – Pope Francis speaks of 'parrhesía' – was particularly important to the Apostle Paul. At the moment, unfortunately, that openness has been replaced by a strange silence. The other ceremony of closing the mouth, which followed the 'aperitio oris', referred not to truths of faith and morals, but to official secrets”.
"Today, however," Cardinal Brandmüller added, "we should emphasize the right, indeed the duty, of cardinals to speak clearly and frankly, especially when dealing with the truths of faith and morals, the 'bonum commune' of the Church. The experiences of the last few years have been very different. In the consistories - which were convened almost exclusively for the canonization processes - cards were distributed to ask for the floor and of course spontaneous interventions followed on any subject, and that was it. There was never a debate, an exchange of arguments on any particular subject. Apparently a completely useless procedure", although the primacy of the Successor of Peter in no way "precludes a fraternal dialogue with the cardinals, who are obliged to cooperate conscientiously with the pope” (can. 356). The more serious and urgent the problems of pastoral leadership, the more necessary is the involvement of the College of Cardinals”.
The cardinal, who is a Church historian, continues:
“When Celestine V wanted to renounce the papacy in 1294, recognizing the special circumstances of his election, he did so after intensive discussions and with the consent of his electors. A completely different view of the relationship between pope and cardinals was represented by Benedict XVI, who - a unique case in history - renounced the papal office for personal reasons without the knowledge of the college of cardinals that elected him. There were only 70 electors until Paul VI, who increased the number of electors to 120. This increase in the size of the electoral college, almost doubling it, was motivated by an intention to conform to the hierarchy of lands far from Rome and to honor those churches with the Roman purple. The inevitable consequence was that cardinals were installed who had no experience with the Roman Curia and thus with the problems of the pastoral leadership of the universal Church. All of this has serious consequences when these cardinals from the periphery are called to elect a new pope.”
Currently, it is like this:
“(...) many, if not the majority, of the voters do not know each other. Yet they are there to elect the Pope, one of them. It is obvious that this situation makes it easier for operations of cardinal groups or classes to favor one of their candidates. In this situation one cannot rule out the danger of simony in its various forms.”
The Cardinal's document concludes with a suggestion:
"Finally, it seems to me that the idea of restricting voting rights in the conclave, for example, to cardinals resident in Rome deserves serious consideration, while the other cardinals could share the 'status' of cardinals above octogenarian."
These are clear, unmistakable words that should make the entire College of Cardinals think.
Pope Francis' refusal to give the floor to the cardinals stems from the political and secular perspective of his pontificate. He fears that free and open discussion will weaken the exercise of his power, unaware that the truth can never harm the Church and the souls subject to Her. The spirit of faith, which is opposed to the spirit of politics, consists precisely in seeking in all things what is highest and most sublime, what is best for the glory of God and the good of souls, always looking to the commandments of the Gospel.
The alternative is between the truth of the Gospel and the power of the world. Proclaiming the truth of the Gospel does not mean talking about immigration or the climate emergency, but about the novissima- Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell - and the divine providence that governs all events of the created universe. Preaching the Gospel means using the voice of the Church to condemn sin, especially public sin, foremostly abortion and LGBT doctrines, which the world considers “civil rights achievements”. It means speaking of holiness and not of synodality, because it is from holiness and not from political mechanisms that the necessary reform (renewal) proceeds within the Church: a renewal of the people who form Her and not of Her divine ones and immutable constitution.
A cloak of silence has now fallen over the consistory. And the silence of those who should speak is the greatest punishment our Lord can inflict on His Church.
* Roberto de Mattei , historian, father of five children, professor of modern history and history of Christianity at the European University of Rome, chairman of the Lepanto Foundation, author of numerous books, most recently in German [Possibly English] translation: Defense of Tradition: The Insurmountable Truth of Christ, with a foreword by Martin Mosebach, Altötting 2017 and The Second Vatican Council. A Hitherto Unwritten Story, 2nd ext. Edition, Bobingen 2011.
Books by Prof. Roberto de Mattei in German translation and books by Martin Mosebach are from our partner bookshop..
Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image : Corrispondenza Romana
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG
By Ferdinand Boischot
Emiel Jozef De Smedt was born in 1909 in Flemish Brabant (Belgium) into a wealthy family of brewers. His father was also mayor for the Christian Democrats there for a very long time.
In 1927 De Smedt entered the major seminary in Mechelen and was ordained a priest in 1933. He was then sent to Rome for two years to study, where he earned a doctorate in philosophy and later also in theology. A rapid career followed: at the age of 26 he became a professor at the Major Seminary in Mechelen, in 1938 Regens and in 1940 (at the age of 32!) President of the Seminary - all under Cardinal Jozef Ernest Van Roey and the then Vicar General, the Brussels Léon-Joseph Suenens.
In 1945 - in Belgium, repression raged after the Second World War with a clearly anti-Flemish and anti-Catholic tendency, while at the same time the episcopate was extremely silent and in great fear - De Smedt, at the age of 36, became consecrated as auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of Mechelen (since 1961 Archdiocese of Mechelen- Brussels).
Bishop Henricus Lamiroy died in West Flanders (diocese of Bruges) in 1951. Lamiroy had been very authoritarian, reactionary, and conservative towards his clergy and the faithful. He had a strong aversion to socialism, communism and Freemasonry and a great enthusiasm for the French language and for the rich Catholic tradition in France. At the same time he was critical and suspicious of the Belgian policy of compromise and Christian trade union activities.
At Lamiroy's death, the clergy in the Diocese of Bruges was split into very different factions. So, without further ado, De Smedt was piloted from the archdiocese of Mechelen to the diocese of Bruges, while at the same time the path for Suenens to the archdiocese of Mechelen was very elegantly cleared.
The province of West Flanders has always had a particularistic orientation: linguistically, economically and politically. Bishop De Smedt was very well received by the clergy and the people: he was more Flemish than Lamiroy, less authoritarian, closer to the people, very closely linked to Christian Democracy and politics, and showed more interest and goodwill in local customs and outward appearances.
Bishop De Smedt distinguished himself in particular in the expansion of Catholic education and in the fight for its state subsidization, which culminated in the so-called "Schoolstrijd" (school struggle). He made West Flanders the Christian Democratic bastion ( Christelijke VolksPartij CVP ) in Belgium, and this for the next six decades.
Under De Smedt, Catholic social life flourished tremendously with episcopal support and benevolence. The Major Seminary of Bruges developed into the largest seminary in Belgium. De Smedt ordained more than 620 priests in 33 years, including future bishops Johan Bonny ( publicly homophilic), Godfried Danneels (covering up pedophilia and known for his lost and found ring ), and Roger Vangheluwe ( pedophile bishop super-plus).
On the one hand, West Flanders and the Bruges diocese as an isolated Catholic wagon complex and the intensive connection axis between the Catholic University of Applied Sciences of Leuven and the Bruges diocese and seminary will dominate Church life in northern Belgium for almost 70 years.
The close ties between the bishop and diocese, Christian democracy and local politics, the flourishing of Catholic social life, and the major seminary of Bruges contrasted sharply with the rest of Belgium: the Catholic milieu had been steadily eroding there since the mid-1950s (from 1955 the number of seminarians decreased inexorably and sometimes rapidly, except in Bruges).
The Belgian Catholic Christian Democratic Eldorado in the bishopric of Bruges (West Flanders province) was noted in both Belgium and Rome and presented as a pastoral example. Bishop De Smedt thus acquired a special political and religious aura in a country undergoing secularization, especially in Flanders.
De Smedt allied himself primarily with the Christian Democratic Party. In 1958 he had the pulpit proclaimed that "it would be a sin to elect the Christelijke Vlaamse Volksunie ", a rival party.
In 1961 Cardinal Van Roey died and Suenens became Archbishop of Mechelen and Cardinal.
In the same year, 1958 Pope Pius XII died. Cardinal Roncalli became elected as Pope John XXIII. and proclaimed the Second Vatican Council.
Bishop De Smedt was appointed to the preparatory commission called the Secretariat for Christian Unity, although there were few other denominations or religions in West Flanders.
The 1960s were a very turbulent and truculent time for Belgium, both in general and in religious terms.
The Second Vatican Council opened with many expectations, hopes, fears, scruples, forebodings and many dreams and visions - and evidently with no small amount of evil intentions on the part of some participants.
Father Sebastian Tromp SJ, was tasked by Pope John XXIII. with preparing the content of the Council, had carefully worked out a Working plan to keep the whole thing on track.
At the first plenary session of the Council on November 19, 1962, Bishop De Smedt, spokesman for the Secretariat for Christian Unity, took the floor and made an eloquent, fiery speech on the proposed text. He pleaded for the initiative of the Council Fathers and for freedom of thought and speech. The plenary then erupted.
John XIII decided to withdraw the text prepared by Father Tromp SJ.
The Council rapidly became more rebellious.
On December 3, 1962, Bishop De Smedt delivered a fiery criticism to the world public against what he believed to be the "clericalism" and "juridism" that prevailed in the Church. He also very sharply lamented their "triumphalism" (sic). His omissions were widely published in Le Monde, November 4, 1962.
The council went into a torrent: fierce discussions ensued, four "moderators" were elected to calm things down and steer the discussions. Of course, Cardinal Suenens immediately became the moderator and the council went on its bumpy, unfortunate course.
The "squadra belga" (Belgian team) had a very strong influence on the Council in the years that followed.
Not much is known about De Smedt - in contrast to other Belgians (e.g. Bishop André-Marie Charrue of Namur). He was mainly concerned with freedom of belief and pastoral renewal ( "Gaudium et spes"
It is striking that Bishop De Smedt hardly published anything substantial about the Council afterward.
The Council became more and more deadlocked with disputes between two major factions. The papal office was damaged, with the weak Pope Paul VI in particular, painted a pitiful picture. The Council was finally broken off rather abruptly at the end of 1965 and its end was decreed.
At the same time, the political situation in Belgium had become extremely unsettled in these years: a long-lasting economic crisis, high unemployment, the trials and tribulations and deep frustrations of the decolonization of the Congo, the burgeoning struggle of the Flemish for equality and fierce party fighting. The country suffered from high levels of political instability. In addition, in 1965 there was the sudden liturgical chaos, the confusion of the faithful, the escalation of the Vietnam War, the rebellion of the youth and the demand for the grand, noble Council ideals such as the wandering people of God, love, participation, freedom, joy, etc...
Since the 1960s, the Belgian bishops had kept anxious and neutral entirely out of politics.
From 1965, there was turmoil in the university town of Leuven. A Dutch-French language conflict that affected a kindergarten for professors' toddlers triggered nationwide riots and brought Belgium to the brink of a revolution.
The Belgian bishops, led by Suenens and De Smedt, fully associated themselves with the Belgian unitarian political leadership, which wanted to keep the Belgian unitary state.
On Friday, May 13, 1966, forgetting and negating the whole "spirit of the Council" with its noble ideals and bombastic words, they published the armored "Mandement of the Belgian bishops". In military command language they demanded hierarchical obedience of the faithful to the episcopal ordinances.
Flanders was immediately in turmoil.
The government fell twice, in 1966 and 1968. The Christian Democrats suffered huge losses. The first of an as yet unending series of state reforms was initiated.
Church attendance fell by 25% in one fell swoop, and by 75% in the decade that followed.
The Belgian bishops had blasted away the Catholic Church in Flanders in an attempt to save Belgium's unity (incidentally with strong free-spirited Masonic colouring).
Only small scraps remained there after the Second Vatican Council.
(Sequel follows.)
Image: MiL
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG
