Ecumenical Working Group on Paedophilia was promoted by official church magazine. Cardinal Danneels ignored complaints
This is an article that originally appeared in 2010 in Brussels. It is a clear indication of the origins of the sexual abuse crisis in the ecclesiastical world fostered by the Council. It is always difficult to judge the degree of abuse before the Council as the culprits would be long dead. However, the penitential and disciplinary rigours of pre-conciliar manuals on seminary training indicate that the culprits would have had diminished chances of making it through seminary before the Council.
The Devil in the Church
From the desk of Alexandra Colen 2010.
Were you surprised when it turned out that there was a child rapist among the bishops? We were indignant, but not really surprised. The paedophile mentality among the mitred gentlemen has been known since the controversy surrounding the religion book Ruach in 1997. This book, edited by Professor Dr Jef Bulckens (KULeuven) and Professor Dr. Frans Lefevre (Grand Seminary Bruges), showed a comic strip – details not translated involving sexual awareness and activity in school children.
That “religion book” was used in Catholic schools in the catechetical class at the time until I discovered it among the textbooks of my eldest, then 13-year-old daughter and sent a letter to Cardinal Danneels on September 3, 1997 in which I wrote:
“When I look at this drawing and its message, I can't shake the impression that this religion book very consciously wants to make children aged 13 and 14 believe that pre-schoolers enjoy sexual awareness (original is more graphic). In this way, people breed paedophiles who honestly think that the children actually like what they do to them, while the opposite is true.”
I wrote to Danneels that as a Catholic parent “who wants to be faithful to the Papal Magisterium and who wants to bring up her children in the same way” I demanded that he prohibit the use of this book in religion classes:
"Therefore I demand of you - yes, the time for asking good questions is over - that you forbid the use of this 'religion book' in our children's classes."
Today, more than 12 years ago, this case takes on a different, bitter tension. Especially now that I know that Mgr. Roger Vangheluwe, the child rapist Bishop of Bruges, was the supervising bishop of the two institutions – KULeuven and Grootseminarie Bruges – from which came the editors-in-chief of this perverse “religion book”.
Vangheluwe not only flirted with the paedophile ideas, but also applied them to his 11-year-old nephew, a boy who, as Ruach had already been used in Flemish Catholic religious education since 1991, probably still has used this manual on religion at the age of 13.
Hundreds of children who were not physically raped were mentally assaulted in religion class.
After I started my action against Ruach, it turned out that this had hit a nerve with many parents. Stories about other practices in Catholic education poured in. For example, it turned out that in a number of schools children were taught the use of condoms and were shown graphic videos (words changed to avoid explicit language)
Because Danneels did not want to comply with the demands to put an end to these practices, I organized a demonstration of parents and children on 15 October 1997 under the motto “Respect for parents and children” at the Archbishop's Palace in Mechelen. Danneels refused to receive a delegation from the demonstrators. “I will not be obliged,” he declared in Humo on 21 October. The Archiepiscopal door also remained closed during a new demonstration on December 10.
A demonstration in front of the bishop's palace in Antwerp on November 19, 1997 did lead to the reception of a delegation of mothers, including a CVP municipal councillor and myself, by the then Bishop of Antwerp, Monsignor. Paul Van den Berghe. That good man, the person responsible for education on behalf of the Flemish episcopate, listened to the mothers, broke down in tears and promised an investigation into the practices in the religion and sex education classes. He also announced this in a statement to the press.
This probably earned him a reprimand from his colleagues, so that on November 24, after a meeting of the bishops' conference, he announced via Belga that, despite the promise, there would be no investigation. Today we know that one of those colleagues was the child rapist Vangheluwe, which also makes that affair very bitter.
On 18 February 1998 I stood for the third time with a group of parents at the door of Danneels in Mechelen. Again the door remained firmly closed. However, the Papal Nuncio in Brussels, a friend of Danneels, wrote to me on February 19 to say that it was my Christian duty in relation to the Church to “avoid anything that could give rise to misunderstanding , division and ridicule. We must respect our bishops.” He consequently informed me that my demonstrations were “inappropriate and offensive.”
That is why we went with about 200 parents on 19 March 1998 to the papal nunciature, the embassy of the Vatican, in Brussels, to present our grievances to him, but the Nuncio was not there either. The Nuncio had even summoned the police with water cannons. On March 12, he had written to me again to reiterate that my action is "offensive -- I underline offensive -- to the institution of which the Nuncio is the representative."
Meanwhile, Danneels' friends in the press campaigned against me. “Colen continues to bully bishops,” Gazet van Antwerpen wrote in block letters. Danneels suggested in Humo that I was “taking care of my electoral campaign”.
When it finally became clear that the Flemish Church did not want to listen to us, I decided to break with Catholic education. I took my five children out of Catholic education and, with a few other families, set up a home school in order to raise our children according to Catholic teaching.
I did, however, send a letter to all Cardinals in the world informing them of the contents of Ruach. “Be assured that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will pay due attention to this matter,” answered Mgr. Clemens, Cardinal Ratzinger's Private secretary of Rome; “You are fighting the right fight,” wrote Cardinal Gagnon of Rome; “The matter you raise is very serious,” Cardinal Arinze of Rome wrote.
Letters came from all over the world. “I share your opinion. It is important that you do not leave this undisputed,” wrote Cardinal Meisner of Cologne; “I fully understand your concern,” Cardinal Wamala of Uganda wrote; “I have written to Cardinal Danneels. I hope he can explain it to me,” Cardinal Vidal of the Philippines wrote; “I will discuss this with Cardinal Danneels,” New Zealand Cardinal Williams wrote; “I will try to do something to help you,” Cardinal Lopez Rodriguez of Santo Domingo wrote; “I have noticed in Rome that Cardinal Laghi of the Congregation for Education is aware of your concerns,” wrote Cardinal O’Connor of New York.
Cathcon: This may go a long way to explain why Ratzinger became Pope and not Danneels and Danneels subsequent vengeful organisation of the Saint Gallen Mafia.
De Standaard wrote on 27 February 2010 that those letters “strengthened the perception in Rome about the weak church leadership in our country.” Rome sees in Léonard the man who can save the Belgian church. I share that opinion. It's just a shame we had to wait so many years for that. The mess left behind is bigger than anyone could have ever imagined.
And Godfried?
Godfried remembers nothing. Godfrey never noticed anything.
In October 1984, Danneels received a letter from a concerned mother about the so-called Ecumenical Working Group on Paedophilia. The activities of this working group were announced in the Bishop's magazine Kerk en Leven of 9 August 1984. The working group, the article stated, "wants to sensitize the churches to the phenomenon of paedophilia, to pass on information and to remove prejudices." It was also intended to be a meeting point for paedophiles “to exchange ideas and encourage each other. All are welcome who want to get to know paedophilia and paedophiles better, provided that this is done in openness, respect and reliability.”
The mother, who turned to Danneels, had requested the "further documentation" mentioned in the message and was shocked.
Some quotes:
If your son(s) or daughter(s) feel comfortable with the paedophile, don't destroy that bond;
The reaction of the environment is often more damaging than the events themselves;
Many convinced Christians can learn something from paedophiles;
It is preferable that a relationship of trust is established between the paedophile and the parents.
But the Cardinal did not consider himself responsible and allowed further action. Today, 26 years later, Danneels discovers that one of his own bishops, his best friend Roger Vangheluwe, at the time of the publication of the relevant article in Kerk en Leven - and unfortunately many years later - assaulted his eleven-year-old nephew.
Angry Father
The appointment of the “conservative” André-Joseph Léonard as archbishop of Mechelen has gone down the wrong way with some. One of them is Father Johan Leman, professor of anthropology in Leuven and for years chief inquisitor of the so-called Centre for Equal Opportunities and Combating Racism, a government agency that prosecutes opposition members. Leman is angry that the new archbishop was not democratically elected. On his weblog on February 27, he wrote a vinegar-soaked piece entitled: “How is religious leadership chosen? A review may be desirable in a democratic sense...”
Leman had read in De Standaard that Alexandra Colen's actions influenced the appointment of Léonard as successor to Cardinal Danneels instead of a successor suggested by Danneels. Leman learns, he writes, “that in Vatican circles, when preparing the choice of the Belgian archbishop, the letters they received from, for example, Mrs. Alexandra Colen or from Mr. Paul Belien were eagerly taken note of. [...] As far as I know, the writings of people who have devoted themselves at least as much to the Church have had no influence whatsoever, which would have played with the writings of Mrs Colen in devoting the Belgian episcopate and the candidates who bishops themselves would have nominated… and I have a problem with that.”
He continues: “I think it is normal that the bishops are consulted and, for example, also the pastoral workers and, for example, also the inter-diocesan pastoral council. But let themselves be influenced by the Belien-Colen couple, because of their views on the Church and sexuality? Excuse me?"
If it is "normal" that child rapist Roger Vangheluwe is consulted, why not a religious mother?
From Wikipedia
The Working Group wanted to "sensitize the churches to the phenomenon of paedophilia, pass on information and remove prejudices." It also wanted to be a meeting point for paedophiles "to exchange ideas and encourage each other". On August 9, 1984, Kerk & Leven published the following advertisement from the working group: "All are welcome who want to get to know paedophilia and paedophiles better, provided that this is done in openness, respect and reliability." Those who responded to the personal ads received a brochure about paedophile relationships, in which, among other things, parents who shuddered at the thought of their child having sex with an adult were asked whether they viewed their child too much as their property.
The working group often met in the chapel De Olijfboom in Brasschaat. The driving force was the Dutch evangelistic preacher and poet Thijs Weerstra. Other prominent (former) members were Reverend Frank Marivoet and Pastor Jef Barzin. According to Barzin himself, he mainly did aid work.
.jpeg)
Comments