Godfried Danneels

[dUSt]

Cardinal Godfried Danneels

[img]http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/img/collegio-cardinalizio/danneels_g_gga.jpg[/img]

Age: 71
Country: Belgium

[url="http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_biografie/cardinali_bio_danneels_g_en.html"]BIOGRAPHY[/url]

[b]Pros:[/b]

[b]Cons:[/b]
- Looks way too much like Johnsonville brat Cheney
- favors decentralization of church power

[argent_paladin]

Has a reputation as a liberal. Was very outspoken in criticism of the centralization in power in the Vatican. Pushed for greater collegiality among bishops. Not an Italian. From a country where Catholicism has basically ceased to exist. Not likely.

As Archbishop, the number of Catholics has declined by 30%, the number of priests has declined by 33%, even though the population as a whole has increased slightly. These are not good numbers.

Edited April 8, 2005 by argent_paladin

[dUSt]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Apr 8 2005, 06:05 PM'] Has a reputation as a liberal. Was very outspoken in criticism of the centralization in power in the Vatican. Pushed for greater collegiality among bishops. Not an Italian. From a country where Catholicism has basically ceased to exist. Not likely. [/quote]
Well, the American press seems to like liberals, so he's on all the "possible next pope" lists.

[Ash Wednesday]

He does look suspiciously like Johnsonville brat Cheney.

[quote]
Cardinal Godfried Danneels, the Archbishop of Brussels: “If a person infected with HIV has decided not to respect abstinence, then he has to protect his partner and he can do that – in this case – by using a condom.” To do otherwise, he said, would be “to break the Fifth Commandment”, that you shall not murder.

The Linacre Centre in London this week accused Cardinal Danneels of taking an “unusual” and “incoherent” position. “What Danneels is saying is that sex with a condom is not as grave as endangering life. But he appears to be suggesting the violation of one commandment rather than another,” Hugh Henry, its education officer, said, adding: “This is odd advice from a bishop whose primary responsibility is the spiritual welfare of his flock.”
[/quote]

My vote: a Happy Gilmore fashion *ppppppppbbbbbt* and thumbs down.

[argent_paladin]

By the same logic:

If you are going to spray bullets indiscriminately in a crowded schoolyard, first hand out bulletproof vests. Otherwise you would be committing murder. And if you hit a head or a bullet penetrates a vest? Well, too bad. We can't control our need to shoot AK-47s at schoolyards, so its a chance we have to take.


Of course the flaw in the logic is that we are NOT compelled to have sex any more than we are compelled to shoot in schoolyards.

[argent_paladin]

Decline of Catholicism in Belgium "troubling," Pope says

Vatican, Nov. 24, 2003 (CWNews.com) - During a meeting with the bishops of Belgium, who were making their ad limina visit, Pope John Paul II said that the decline of religious practice in that country is "particularly troubling."

"Real and serious concern cannot be hidden," the Pope said, as Mass attendance and vocations to the priesthood and religious life continue to decline. In his November 22 meeting with the Belgian bishops, he also pointed to an unsettling decline in use of the sacraments of penance and even matrimony.

In his report to the Holy Father, on behalf of the visiting bishops, Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Brussels said that there are "lights and shadows" in the picture confronting the Belgian Church. "There is scarcely any area in the ecclesial life of our country in which positive and negative factors are not mingled, marking out the nature of our task as pastors," he said.

Pope John Paul, however, took a more direct approach, citing the problems of "a society that loses track of its traditional points of reference, promoting relativism in the name of pluralism." In those circumstances, he said, the most important task of the Church is "to introduce Christ" to the people and the society.

The Pope praised the Belgian hierarchy for their success in promoting the involvement of lay people in the life of the Church. But he emphasized that the Church must be careful to preserve a clear understanding of the different roles assigned to laymen and to priests.

[follow_the_pelican]

[quote]the different roles assigned to laymen and to priests.

[/quote]


As a very wise Texan once said...."you got it"

[Socrates]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Apr 8 2005, 06:00 PM'] [b]Cons:[/b] Looks way too much like Johnsonville brat Cheney [/quote]

[jrndveritatis]

Cons: Liberal

[quote]Godfried Danneels, Archbishop of Brussels, is not too old to become Pope, at 71; but he may be too controversial. (A history of heart disease also weighs against his selection.) Long a favorite of "progressive" Catholics in Europe, he has become increasingly outspoken in his statements in favor of decentralizing the Church hierarchy, and promoting the role of women in Catholic leadership. A bishop since 1977, he replaced another liberal leader, Cardinal Leo Suenens, as Archbishop of Brussels in 1979.[/quote]

Sounds way too liberal for the Church.

"Progressive" is often a codeword for those who want to "change" doctrine.

[God Conquers]

[quote]. But he emphasized that the Church must be careful to preserve a clear understanding of the different roles assigned to laymen and to priests.[/quote]

hmmmmmm..... I wonder where that problem came from?

from the Vatican's biography:

[quote] He was consecrated on 18 December 1977 and in the two years that he headed the diocese, he dedicated much of his time to the spiritual direction of the priests and to pastoral leadership, working assiduously toward increased collaboration between priests and laity.[/quote]

[toledo_jesus]

let's hope he stays in Belgium.

[photosynthesis]

According to CBS News,

"The multilingual moderate is popular among other cardinals. He is the highest-ranking churchman to go public with calls for a discussion on possible term limits for the papacy. In 1998, a court held Danneels and a local assistant bishop partially responsible for sexually abuse of several young boys by a Brussels parish priest."

This is a little unsettling. With all of these abuse scandals going on, we definitely need a Pope who will confront the issue in a way that is consistent with Catholic moral teaching, not someone who's going to ignore it. But I think the Cardinals know better than to elect this guy.

I think it's really funny that CBS calls him "moderate." Gotta love American news media.

[JP2Iloveyou]

I just read through a few of the posts about Cardinal Daneels and I must say I am disturbed. I can see why many of you are opposed to him, but, and I'm going to say this again, IT IS UP TO THE HOLY SPIRIT TO DECIDE, NOT US! I have to wonder if someone like Cardinal Daneels is elected, would so called "conservatie" Catholics submit to his authority? I am what you could call a "conservative" Catholic I suppose. I hate liturgical innovation and I am in full support of all Church teachings. By today's standards, that makes me a conservative, I suppose. In essence, what it means is that I am Catholic and I support the Church. It also means I submit my mind and my will to the Church, including the Pope, whomever he may be. We can disagree with stances of certain people in the hierarchy, but, we must always remember that whoever is the Pope has been called to that duty by God and we MUST be obedient.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Apr 13 2005, 09:58 AM'] I just read through a few of the posts about Cardinal Daneels and I must say I am disturbed.  I can see why many of you are opposed to him, but, and I'm going to say this again, IT IS UP TO THE HOLY SPIRIT TO DECIDE, NOT US!  I have to wonder if someone like Cardinal Daneels is elected, would so called "conservatie" Catholics submit to his authority?  I am what you could call a "conservative" Catholic I suppose.  I hate liturgical innovation and I am in full support of all Church teachings.  By today's standards, that makes me a conservative, I suppose.  In essence, what it means is that I am Catholic and I support the Church.  It also means I submit my mind and my will to the Church, including the Pope, whomever he may be.  We can disagree with stances of certain people in the hierarchy, but, we must always remember that whoever is the Pope has been called to that duty by God and we MUST be obedient. [/quote]
the example of certain popes, from the Renaissance particularly, has made it abundantly clear that the Holy Spirit does not circumvent the pope's free will to make bad decisions. He merely prevents the pope from teaching error in faith and morals.
So, if Cardinal Danneels were elected, it would not be good given his track record. Further, true Catholics would submit to his authority, but I personally would be embarassed for the Church. Don't be blind to the fact that popes are human. That's what made JPII great, not the fact that he was pope. He was human, and in his capacity as pope he performed heroically. There are many popes who have done less.

here:

There have been no more than about ten corrupt popes, giving a percentage of about 4 percent. The most infamous pope in history was probably pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) who had seven illegitimate children as a cardinal, which he openly acknowledged. As the newly-elected 61 year-old pontiff, he had an affair with the 19-year -old Giulia Farnese, who was herself a married woman.

It might be worth while mentioning the "Renaissance Papacy" in general. This period, which extended from the papacy of Paul II (1464-71) up to Pius IV (1559-65), has the reputation for producing popes who were alll either immoral, corrup , or both. This is not in fact the case. With the exception of Pope Alexanded VI already mentioned, many of these popes were in fact neither corrupt nor immoral. It must be admitted, though, that they may not have given the Church the leadership She needed during this time, especially with regard to reform and he calling of the needed Council (namely, Trent). Pope Sixtus IV (1471-84), for example, was a holy man. Julius II (1503-13) certainly loved the Church, and was the pope responsible for commissioning the new St. Peter's. But he wasn't as comitted to reform as perhaps he should have been. Even Pope Leo X (1513-21) was not a corrupt man, though his lifestyle was self-indulgent. Pope Adrian VI (1522-3) was a holy man. With the exception of Julius III (1550-5) the later popes of this period (Paul III (1534-49), Marcellus II (1555), Paul IV (1555-9) and Pius IV (1559-65)) all were committed to reform.
[url="http://www.saint-mike.org/Apologetics/QA/Answers/Church_History/h010803Foley.html"]http://www.saint-mike.org/Apologetics/QA/A...10803Foley.html[/url]

Edited April 13, 2005 by toledo_jesus

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Apr 13 2005, 09:26 AM'] the example of certain popes, from the Renaissance particularly, has made it abundantly clear that the Holy Spirit does not circumvent the pope's free will to make bad decisions. He merely prevents the pope from teaching error in faith and morals.
So, if Cardinal Danneels were elected, it would not be good given his track record. Further, true Catholics would submit to his authority, but I personally would be embarassed for the Church. Don't be blind to the fact that popes are human. That's what made JPII great, not the fact that he was pope. He was human, and in his capacity as pope he performed heroically. There are many popes who have done less.

here:

There have been no more than about ten corrupt popes, giving a percentage of about 4 percent. The most infamous pope in history was probably pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) who had seven illegitimate children as a cardinal, which he openly acknowledged. As the newly-elected 61 year-old pontiff, he had an affair with the 19-year -old Giulia Farnese, who was herself a married woman.

It might be worth while mentioning the "Renaissance Papacy" in general. This period, which extended from the papacy of Paul II (1464-71) up to Pius IV (1559-65), has the reputation for producing popes who were alll either immoral, corrup , or both. This is not in fact the case. With the exception of Pope Alexanded VI already mentioned, many of these popes were in fact neither corrupt nor immoral. It must be admitted, though, that they may not have given the Church the leadership She needed during this time, especially with regard to reform and he calling of the needed Council (namely, Trent). Pope Sixtus IV (1471-84), for example, was a holy man. Julius II (1503-13) certainly loved the Church, and was the pope responsible for commissioning the new St. Peter's. But he wasn't as comitted to reform as perhaps he should have been. Even Pope Leo X (1513-21) was not a corrupt man, though his lifestyle was self-indulgent. Pope Adrian VI (1522-3) was a holy man. With the exception of Julius III (1550-5) the later popes of this period (Paul III (1534-49), Marcellus II (1555), Paul IV (1555-9) and Pius IV (1559-65)) all were committed to reform.
[url="http://www.saint-mike.org/Apologetics/QA/Answers/Church_History/h010803Foley.html"]http://www.saint-mike.org/Apologetics/QA/A...10803Foley.html[/url] [/quote]
Toledo_Jesus, that's all well and good, but the fact of the matter is, a lot of Catholics who like to go around bragging about how orthodox they are (as if everyone who doesn't agree in lockstep with their every view, even if not doctrinal matters, is a full fledged theological liberal) have not submitted their mind and their will to the authority of the Church. I'm by no means a supporter of Cardinal Daneels. I think he has said some inappropriate and imprudent things in the past. However, for us, a bunch of laity, start kicking around names saying, "Cardinal so-and-so would be great. He's conservative." or "Cardinal so-and-so would be aweful. He's a liberal." It shows a lack of willingness to submit our will to the Church, arrogance on our part, and a level of intelligience that really isn't there. If we are going to criticize Cardinal Daneels, or Cardinal Mahoney, or Cardinal McCarrick, or Cardinal O'Brien, or whomever, why end there? Should we not also criticize the Pope who made them cardinals in the first place? If these men are so bad and would do such harm to the Church if elected, why would JPII elevate them to Cardinals in the first place? Realize, I am being facitious. I love and adore JPII (hence, my name) but I refuse to be a part of any talk whatsoever criticizing a Prince of the Church. Usually, all of the facts are not present, quotes are taken out of context, and we simply don't have all the relevant information. Furthermore, I have to take a bishop at his word that he will be faithful to the Church.

Sorry for my rant, but this desire among Phatmassers to see who is the most "conservative" among us sickens me sometimes. In the Catholic faith, one is neither liberal or conservative. To be Catholic means to support the Church and all that she teaches. To dissent is simply to remove oneself from being in union with the Church.