Rorate Caeli

A(nother) Vatican II moment in Louvain
Father De Cock and Homosexual love

"The sexual characteristics of man and the human faculty of reproduction wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life. Hence the acts themselves which are proper to conjugal love and which are exercised in accord with genuine human dignity must be honored with great reverence. Hence when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced." (Gaudium et Spes, 51)

___________________


A Flemish reader reports:

At the Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium) Fr. Bernard De Cock, O.P. (Dominican) has received (9th of December) his doctor's degree with a work "Touched to Love. An Attempt at a Theological Anthropology of the Body and Homosexuality."

The promotor is prof. dr. Roger Burggraeve S.D.B. (Salesian), well known for his 'subversive' opinions on sexuality and the Church. In his work, Fr. De Cock OP states "homosexual love can be God's love".

In the third part he makes use of Xavier Lacroix' method to describe the sexual gestures between homosexual men in function of the love of God for men.

In the past, De Cock has written other articles on this subject. He was also a speaker at a colloquium on 'Homosexualty and the Church', 2005 organised by the 'holebi-pastores' ['HOmosexual-LEsbian-BIsexual-friendly priests] in the Theological and Pastoral Centre in Antwerp.

69 comments:

Anonymous said...

His eyes remind me of Anton LaVey in "Rosemary's baby".

His surname... no kidding about that?

Timothy Mulligan said...

He serves another master. Pray for him.

Jordanes said...

Looking at the Vatican II G&S quote, the toleration/promotion of Father De Cock's heresy isn't really "Another Vatican II moment."

Steve said...

I wish you would stop blaming Vatican II for this nonsense. Could it be that society as a whole (the world) and screwed up human nature (the flesh) and the Devil is to blame? I don't see any garbage like what he's promoting in the documents of Vatican II.

New Catholic said...

True; the purpose of the series is (in most cases) to pinpoint these contradictions.

Hugo Mendez said...

What do you mean, "a Vatican II moment?"

Anonymous said...

I just finished Leon Podle's book, "Sacrilege"; this Dominican (St. Dominic, pray for your sons!) should be locked up in an insane asylum with the rest of his ilk and the key thrown away.

Enough of these evil men!

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Steve

Go tell it to the Catholic Answers' crowd!

Anonymous said...

Steve...If you have not listened to this interview of a Priest who has recently left the Church, please do... especially from question # 10 and on.
True Restoration.blogspot.com
interview posted October 17, 2009

Anonymous said...

What an unfortunate surname!

Anonymous said...

Another Vatican II Moment is 100% the most accurate to describe this corruption and garbage.

Let's begin a count to see how many days it will take the Vatican to crack down/suppress/excommunicate both the professors, as well as aged students such as this Dominican "priest".

The traditionalist Catholics will have the last laugh on these lunatics. Because both the Dominicans, Salesians, and other Orders are down to so few in Holland, Belgium, and other neighboring areas, and are so aged (like this Fr. De Cock), that in 10 years they will all be gone. And he will be just another bad memory....like the late, un-great Edward Schillibeecx, OP, who died on Christmas Eve last week at 95. He and his confreres 40 years ago began this mess.
Fortunatly, there's nothing but elderly who still support them!

But they ruined the Faith for everyone else. How will God judge that?

John said...

"What an unfortunate surname!"

True, but however unfortunate it may be, it couldn't be more appropriate. (Forgive my Shakespearean sense of ribaldry, but I just have to laugh!) Might this be the first "Catholic" university to be stripped of the right to use the name Catholic? What better excuse!

God Save Pope Benedict XVI. Our Lady of Victories intercede for him.

Anonymous said...

Another Vatican II Moment is 100% the most accurate to describe this corruption and garbage.

Of course, since, as all men know, sin and theological heterodoxy entered the world not with Adam and Eve, but Vatican Council II.

Anonymous said...

Looking at the Vatican II G&S quote, the toleration/promotion of Father De Cock's heresy isn't really "Another Vatican II moment."

Actually, Fr. Cock could use that quote from Gaudium et Spes with great effectiveness in a paper on the licit nature of homosexual acts. All he's got to do is define several terms in the GS quote a certain way, and one of the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council effectively supports his thesis. It's rather easy to do since none of the terms in that quote are defined, nor do they seem attached to Tradition. Thanks to the Council's own inability (or unwillingness) to define its own terms (or stick with terms already clearly defined by Thomism), men like Fr. Cock can indeed use its texts to support their monstrous arguments.

Zakhur

Jordanes said...

I'm sorry, Zakhur, but you're talking damned nonsense. There is absolutely no way that approval of sodomy and homosexual inversion of human sexuality can be read into a Catholic document that speaks of "The sexual characteristics of man and the human faculty of reproduction," "the acts themselves which are proper to conjugal love and which are exercised in accord with genuine human dignity," "harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life," "the nature of the human person and his acts," "the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love," and "the virtue of conjugal chastity." Sodomy is the definitive rejection of human procreation and thus cannot be harmonised with the responsible transmission of life, is not proper to conjugal love, and is incapable of being exercised in accord with genuine human dignity.

None of those terms seem attached to Tradition?? Which "Tradition" did you have in mind? It can't have been the Church's Tradition, the deposit of faith received from Jesus and the Apostles, for anyone familiar with what Tradition teaches us about moral virtue, human dignity, marriage, procreation, conjugal acts, and conjugal chastity, will immediately recognise and understand what the Church said in G&S 51.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

I've been reading the Annuario Pontificio 2008 and it mentions that in 2008, Belgium had 6 priestly ordinations and the Netherlands had 12. By their fruits thou shalt know them

B. said...

Yes, "Vatican II moment" is an accurate description.
Before V II, this would never have happened, because Father De Cock and the other Dutch Dominicans would have been censured or excommunitcated long ago.
Let's not forget that the entire Durch province of the Dominicans signed the text that said that Laymen/-women can and should celebrate the Eucharistic (or whatever the NO word for mass is). They are still distributing that booklet.

Steve said...

"Actually, Fr. Cock could use that quote from Gaudium et Spes with great effectiveness in a paper on the licit nature of homosexual acts."

Zakhur,
One can do the same with the Bible if that's his intention. The question is, what herminutic is one going to use? A herminutic of rupture or continuity with Sacred Tradition?

Anonymous said...

Tell me Jordanes, where exactly did Jesus talk about homosexuality?

Anonymous said...

"I've been reading the Annuario Pontificio 2008 and it mentions that in 2008, Belgium had 6 priestly ordinations and the Netherlands had 12. By their fruits thou shalt know them"

This comment is totally accurate, and paints a sad and disasterous picture of both the Belgian and Dutch Church, not to mention France, Switzerland and Austria, G. Britian and Ireland....and to a lesser degree (but not much), that of the rest of Europe.

Right up until Vatican II (what a surprise...Vatican II again), the Dutch and Belgian Church had filled seminaries and convents, monasteries and religious houses. Several thousand (3,000+) Belgian and Dutch missionary priests and nuns went out to service the Church and save souls every year! In the USA, before Vatican II there were 50,000+ USA missionary priests and nuns in the field! Not to mention the 1,000+ every year that left from Ireland! ALL GONE TODAY. iN A SINGLE GENERATION, OVER 200 YEARS OF MISSIONARY ENDEAVOURS WIPED OUT.Remarkable, and tragic.

It's remarkable and tragic, that considering that all this began to crumble and disappear AFTER Vatican II and it's reforms came in, thay anyone could still rally to the defense of Vatican II (be they a Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, priests, nuns, or just a bunch of misguided pro-Vatican II faithful with blinders on their eyes!

Just look at the stats alone, from say...1957 to 2009. Look country by country, Order by Order, etc. I defy anyone to defend Vatican II after that!! LOL!!!

Anonymous said...

Q: Who are these guys?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SYA86neiR8Q/RuPGvxlYHlI/AAAAAAAAAxg/0Ky2obXrtNM/s1600-h/Jan-Nieuwenhuis.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SYA86neiR8Q/RuPGwBlYHmI/AAAAAAAAAxo/62Xz1mwoqkI/s1600-h/harie-salemans.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SYA86neiR8Q/RuOoMBlYHkI/AAAAAAAAAxY/VK-sJP-9AqE/s1600-h/andrel.jpg

A: They're Dutch Dominicans. Average age above 70. I can only say Kyrie Eleison!

Jordanes said...

Yes, "Vatican II moment" is an accurate description.
Before V II, this would never have happened, because Father De Cock and the other Dutch Dominicans would have been censured or excommunitcated long ago.


Then "Post-Vatican II moment" would seem to be more accurate.

Jordanes said...

Tell me Jordanes, where exactly did Jesus talk about homosexuality?

In Matthew 5:17-20

"Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For Amen, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

In Matthew 19:4-6

"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."

In Romans 1:24-32, speaking through His Apostle St. Paul:

"Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them."

In I Cor. 6:9-11, again speaking through His Apostle St. Paul:

"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God."

The doctrine that the Catholic Church received directly from Jesus Christ on the wickedness of sodomy and the perverted nature of homosexual affection is found exactly in those texts. If you choose not to receive that doctrine, you separate yourself from the Catholic faith and set yourself on the road to hell.

Brian said...

"At the Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium) Fr. Bernard De Cock, O.P. (Dominican) has received (9th of December) his doctor's degree with a work 'Touched to Love.'"

Would a Catholic University have tolerated such a thing prior to Vatican II? If so, then it may be incorrect to label this a Vatican II moment. If not . . .

Anonymous said...

"If you choose not to receive that doctrine, you separate yourself from the Catholic faith and set yourself on the road to hell."

Then why is the Catholic Church so reluctant to acknowledge that Fr De C**k has separated himself? Or just to prohibit him teaching? On the contrary, he is being awarded a doctorate. Something is wrong.

B. said...

I want to apologize for my earlier comment. I don't know how I got the idea that this was about Dutch Dominicans.

Jordanes said...

Then why is the Catholic Church so reluctant to acknowledge that Fr De C**k has separated himself? Or just to prohibit him teaching? On the contrary, he is being awarded a doctorate. Something is wrong.

My own guess:

1) The collapse of sound discipline in the Church following Vatican II and as a consequence of the council's attitude of overemphasising the positive and scrunching one's eyes shut so as to not have to deal with the negative.

2) The Vatican's agonisingly slow, cautious, and patient process of dealing with dissenting, heretical teachers (see also no. 1).

3) Homosexual infiltration/corruption of the priesthood and hierarchy.

Magdalene said...

Louvain has been a corrupted place for a time. I once had a pastor who had been trained there...

A man, unfortuntately a priest, who promotes the mortal sin of active homosexual expression is one himself of course and seeks not only to justify his sinful inclinations but to lead others to accept and participate in them as well. And someone gave him a doctorate in promoting this sin!

But it is not all just VII to blame. St. Peter Damian a millenia ago was combating homosexuality in the priesthood. It did then and does now give a 'respectable' place to hide.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes: Have you read Leon Podle's book? If not, you must. It will answer your questions.


Magdalene: You are right about Louvain. It's been bad since long before Vatican II.

However bad the vice of homosexuality in the Church was before VII, Vatican II and the prevailing psychology of the time gave it license. It peaked in the seventies and eighties. Read "Sacrilege."

And the truth is, if anyone here thinks that the problem has been taken care of since 2002, think again.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Priests, religious and laymen who give us so-called "Vatican II moments" are, of course, far removed from Holy Tradition.

Whenever I hear or read of their nonsense, I recall the following 1988 declaration from Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (His Holiness):

"After the Council there were many priests who deliberately raised ‘desacralization’ to the level of a program...they have despoiled the churches..."

Incredibly, the "many" priests who have shipwrecked the Faith and despoiled one parish after another are in "full communion" with the Church.

Those men, and, for that matter, religious and lay men and women have seized and despoiled parishes for decades.

How is that possible?

How is it possible that men and women, in shocking defiance to Holy Tradition, are permitted to work openly and freely to despoil parishes?

A deliberate program to shipwreck the Faith is at work throughout the Church, according to Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI).

The despoilers work in the open and remain "in full communion" with the Church.

Incredible.

Please, somebody, tell me how the above is possible?

Tim

John said...

"On the contrary, he is being awarded a doctorate. Something is wrong."

Well, if Barak Obama can be given an Doctorate of Laws from Our Lady's University, Fr. Cock's Doctorate just adds fuel to the fire. Something wrong? I rather think so. But then, we've all known it for about forty years now.

Anonymous said...

Don't blame this on Vatican II. To be honest, the roots of the problem stem earlier than that.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,

Which part of what I said is damned nonsense IYO? That Vatican II insufficiently defined its terms, or that priests and "theologians" such as Fr. Cock have been enabled by that most accursed event of the 1960's?

--Zakhur

Jordanes said...

Which part of what I said is damned nonsense IYO?

That parts that I specified in my comment above.

Note at all: The priest's name is Bernard De Cock. Yes, there's an obvious, and crude, play on his name, but let's all try and rein in our Inner Beavis & Butthead. His theology is sick and twisted, but that's no excuse for turning his name into a vulgarity.

Paul Haley said...

IMHO the rise in homosexual activity is the result of relative ethics and the client-centered therapy of psychotherapy proposed by Carl Rogers of I'm OK; You're OK fame. It is not the result of Vatican II but many clerics and other religious in the 60s and later drank of the poison.

For the uninitiated, client-centered therapy means there are no objective standards outside of individual consciences, no such thing as Commandments from God, for example.

Those who do not understand should read up on the admissions made by Dr. William Coulson, an associate of Dr. Rogers, on what they did to the nuns of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and other religious orders. Just google Dr. William Coulson and you'll come upon his admissions. The devastating effects of their theories are still bearing fruit today.

Knight of Malta said...

Anon 12:09:

"Right up until Vatican II (what a surprise...Vatican II again), the Dutch and Belgian Church had filled seminaries and convents, monasteries and religious houses. Several thousand (3,000+) Belgian and Dutch missionary priests and nuns went out to service the Church and save souls every year! In the USA, before Vatican II there were 50,000+ USA missionary priests and nuns in the field! Not to mention the 1,000+ every year that left from Ireland! ALL GONE TODAY. iN A SINGLE GENERATION, OVER 200 YEARS OF MISSIONARY ENDEAVOURS WIPED OUT.Remarkable, and tragic."

This is serious business, and should not be ignored.

Moreover, missionary zeal was obliterated--wiped-out--by Vatican II. It's almost laughable in the Church to talk about missionary activity; not so from out protestant friends--they have taken-over spreading heresy where we have lagged, essentially stopped, spreading Truth.

Anonymous said...

I'm all for Paul Haley's advice. A must read.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/COULSON.TXT

An older nun in the group, 'freeing herself to be more expressive of who she really was internally,' decided that she wanted to make love to Sister Mary Benjamin. Well, Sister Mary Benjamin engaged in this; and then she was stricken with guilt, and wondered, to quote from her book, 'Was I doing something wrong, was I doing something terrible? I talked to a priest--' Unfortunately, we had talked to him first. "I talked to a priest,' she says, 'who refused to pass judgment on my actions. He said it was up to me to decide if they were right or wrong. He opened a door, and I walked through the door, realizing I was on my own.' This is her liberation.
[...]
TLM: And it seemed to be justified by psychology, which is supposed to be
a science. Now, the documents of Vatican II are never read, but they
include beautiful and profound things. One can also find very naive
things, including the statement that theology should profit from the
insights of contemporary social science. I don't know which document that
was, but it gave you people carte blanche.

John said...

"Don't blame this on Vatican II. To be honest, the roots of the problem stem earlier than that."

So I guess the RAPE of the liturgy wasn't ANYTHING to do with Vatican II either. Or the abandonment of monastic discipline and ORDERS to get out of the cloister and engage with the world, that wasn't ANYTHING to do with Vatican II either was it. Do you know that nuns committed suicide at the University of San Diego when they were order to do that, so distraught were they? And yet psychs were brought in to help them do just that. Nothing to do with Vatican II.

You're right in a sense, the Jesuit order was prominent in advancing the acceptance of homosexually outre behaviour within the clergy, but they were given LICENSE to by those who were in charge of implementing and advancing the reformed parameters and dictates of Vatican II. Vatican II, Vatican II, Vatican II. It keeps coming back, doesn't it, like a case of the clap. This Council was infected from the start by the spirit of the world, and should be abandoned. Take off the rose colored glasses, PLEASE, for your good and ours, and stop propping up this nonsense.

Vatican II IS as Vatican II does. I'll say it and say it again, what the Church won't do for itself as a result of this travesty, the courts will do for it. And the church will have earned every departing dollar, vocation, and conversion.

Jay said...

It puzzles me who accepted this kind of thesis on the Catholic Uni, and what on earth is the point, who founded financially these 'studies' in the field of what, sociology, psychology? Disgrace...although the weird surname of the PhD student brings the pinch of black humour to this unfortunate story.

Jay said...

"In Matthew 19:4-6

"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."
Bravo Jordanes and thanks for this and other excellent quotations. Homosexuals love to say Jesus never said anything against homosexuality, they also blaspheme Saints, for example St John of the Cross and his poetry. Total disgrace.

Brian said...

I do not understand what it means to say, "Post-Vatican II moment" would seem to be more accurate.

Of course, events such as these occurred post-Vatican II; but are people here trying to suggest that the moral and spiritual devastation in the Church which occurred immediately after Vatican II had nothing to do with Vatican II?

Jordanes said...

No, that's not what I'm trying to suggest. My point is that if Vatican II itself teaches the contrary of the filth advocated by Father De Cock and tolerated and promoted at Louvain, it can't be accurate to call it a "Vatican II" moment.

Brian said...

No one is saying that Vatican II openly taught in favor of such behavior, but Vatican II set the stage for this "fruit" of Vatican II. That, of course, is what is meant by referring to this as a Vatican II moment.

Jordanes said...

But cf. New Catholic's comment of 30 December, 2009 23:44.

Steve said...

"No one is saying that Vatican II openly taught in favor of such behavior, but Vatican II set the stage for this "fruit" of Vatican II. That, of course, is what is meant by referring to this as a Vatican II moment."

Brian,
I would argue that the stage must have been set prior to Vatican II. Otherwise, how did the "perfect" world of pre Vatican II crumble so quickly? How did the "perfectly" formed clerics throw everything out the window so passionatly to embrace the new fad? It goes to show that they all wern't as well formed as once thought. Once the societal restrictions were gone that kept everyone in check, the whole edifice crumbled. Somthing obviously was wrong prior to the council in pre Vatican II thought.

Anonymous said...

"The call to do penance, the recourse to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the blood of the martyrs, that the angels gathered « and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God », this is what Our Lady came to reveal to the earth for our apocalyptic times, to compensate for the failings of the hierarchy. The fight of the Counter-Reformation continues under her banner. « It is the plan of the Adversary to push out of the Church those who keep the faith so that those who have lost it can maintain themselves within and dominate it. Well then, we will stay!"
-Abbe de Nantes, August 1969.

This is still his/their intention, with the grace of God and the assistance of the Immaculate, counting on them alone for the resurrection of the Church, as the night watchman waits for dawn.

Brian said...

Enough quibbling

Malta said...

ala the American revolution, and the french revolution, the catholic revolution happened at vatican council II.

It was, indeed a 'revolution' the council documents were formed and promulgated by the liberal peritii. They weren't formed by the likes of Cardinal Ottavanni.

Well, anyway, it is what it is: a Church inundated with a bunch of boobs.

It's really a sad, struggling Church: complicatory bishops, wishing to hold onto their sad, conciliatory positions, impositioned by John Paul II.

It's easy to criticize, its much harder to implement.

JPII believed in prayer; PBXVI believes in action...

Anonymous said...

John is 100% right about Vatican II.

It should be condemned, abandoned, and suppressed. And any Pope who does not seek to put an end to this garbage and corruption, by his inaction, ignorance, misguided other priorities, or (God Forbid), open approval of this should likewise be condemned.
Any Pope who does not instead try to begin the task of pulling the Catholic Church back to Catholic Tradition and the True Mass (Tridentine Latin Mass) by concrete actions-even against all the bishops- should likewise be condemned.

There was an old pre-Vatican II term not used in the Catholic Church since the 19th century because it was judged too harsh (it has it's roots in the Medieval Church), but it still applies to people like this Fr. De Cock and all the rest. The phrase goes something like this:

"Let he(she) who seperates themselves by word or action from the Precious Body of Christ (the Catholic Church) let them be cast into the outer darkness and they will be judged reprobate and anathema."

Anonymous said...

Pray. That is something you can do. That is probably all that 99% of the readers here can do.

Stefan said...

Jordanes,
Thank you for the selection of Biblical texts.
Liberals, who always have little care about the Bible, become obsessive saying that Our Lord never mentioned the word or addressed homosexuality directly and explicitly. But as you show, we don't need that. The whole teaching of Jesus, the Apostles, and the whole tradition of the Church from its onset teachers the same and interprets those texts and others the same.
Unfortunately, once faith is corrupted, morals are also perverted and the criteria of the world pollutes minds and hearts.

Jordanes said...

It should be condemned, abandoned, and suppressed. And any Pope who does not seek to put an end to this garbage and corruption, by his inaction, ignorance, misguided other priorities, or (God Forbid), open approval of this should likewise be condemned.

As a valid oecumenical council formally confirmed by the Successor of St. Peter, Vatican II can never be condemned and suppressed. The "garbage and corruption" attendant to Vatican II and its aftermath, however, can and must be countered firmly and decisively.

Anonymous said...

I just went into this Dominican website posted at the bottom of this report on the infamous Fr. De Cock.

I wouldn't worry about the Dominicans in the Netherlands...any of you.

I speak afew languages, and though Dutch isn't one of them, from the German I know I can roughly translate that this Dominican Province of the Netherlands has only 80 friars (all over 70), and their "Prior Provincial" by his photo (in lay clothes of course) looks like a man well into his 80's. The "sub-Prior" also looks like someone nearing 80.

They apparently have 10 houses or parishes in the Netherlands....God knows the heresy fostered there!

I do know, however, that they are down by at least several hundreds from what they were in the Netherlands before Vatican II.

The average age of nearly ALL religious (men and women) in the Netherlands is close to or over 80.
In that regard, they are alittle worse off than religious life is in the USA...where for religious priests it's in the late 60's average age, but for nuns, slowly approaching 75-80.

Anonymous said...

--I would argue that the stage must have been set prior to Vatican II.--

A fundamental set is german catholicism, which has been far-reaching corrupt and perverted already in the 19th century. One must only check various diocesan synods around 1848 in german/austrian dioceses and then discourses
of clergymen who called for mass in the vernacular, restriction (de facto abolishment) of marian devotion and veneration of saints,rapprochement with Protestants, abolishing celibacy, installement of conferences of bishops, Pope of Rome at most "primus inter pares" etc etc
Here you find the blueprint and the major influence of german prelates at Vatican II is is beyond debate.

Anonymous said...

"As a valid oecumenical council formally confirmed by the Successor of St. Peter, Vatican II can never be condemned and suppressed. The "garbage and corruption" attendant to Vatican II and its aftermath, however, can and must be countered firmly and decisively."

Since the Council had no intention to provide any new definitions or doctrinal development the documents cleaned of ambiguities will become completely superfluous and we can expect that the Council will be gradually forgotten as the time will pass. Or it will be remembered as a bad dream and a memento for future Popes - think twice before you call a Council.

John said...

"As a valid oecumenical council formally confirmed by the Successor of St. Peter, Vatican II can never be condemned and suppressed."

Actually, as a council whose mandate was merely pastoral, it can be overturned at a the stroke of a papal pen, valid or otherwise. But as Anon. 19:37 says, time will effect that without doubt. This "council" was moulded in terra-cotta, not carved in Tridentine marble.

Ray from MN said...

Male homosexuals live lives 12 years shorter than cigarette smokers who live 8 years shorter than normal.

Why are to praise and celebrate homosexuality?

We spend billions getting people to stop smoking?

Something is very wrong here.

Anonymous said...

Without commenting on the pros and cons of Vatican II, overall, I think the Church and perhaps even the world would have been better off if there had never been a Vatican II.

Gideon Ertner said...

"...they all wern't as well formed as once thought. Once the societal restrictions were gone that kept everyone in check, the whole edifice crumbled. Somthing obviously was wrong prior to the council..."

I think you are absolutely right. And of course we know that Modernism, with its denial of objective truth and of the divine, was a force to be reckoned with inside the Church already at the end of the 19th century. The measures undertaken by Pius X drove it underground for some time, but they did not stop it. Rather I suspect that parts of the Modernist current of thought, metamorphosized, found its way into the nouvelle théologie.

Ever since the 18th century there has been a progressive loss of belief in objective truth and in God. This is the real cause of the great apostasy of recent decades. Of course, Vatican II did not help. In an age of relativism, the ambiguous nature of its texts did not do much towards affirming the existence of objective truth, and may even well have given the impression of endorsing the opinion that everything is up for discussion. In this sense I think we can say that Vatican II served as a catalyst of the breakdown of religion (but the event more than the texts properly read - since no-one actually read them properly).

Anonymous said...

The rise of a homosexual culture in the seminaries is one of the main reasons for the fall in vocations. What straight man would feel at ease in an environment where a large proportion, perhaps even a majority of his colleagues were given to same-sex attraction. No one would ask a self-designated lipstick lesbian to feel at ease in a residence hall full of Football players in their early-twenties, why should a heterosexual male feel happy in an environment that is largely made up of homosexual men.

Knight of Malta said...

"Or it will be remembered as a bad dream and a memento for future Popes - think twice before you call a Council."

Indeed! What was so essential that Vatican Council II be called? Was it called to fight the heretical scourge of Communism? Was it called to warn of the impending sacrilegious liberalism sweeping the globe? Was it called to warn of modernism seeping into the Church?

No! It was called to, essentially, reconcile with all of the above!!

Jordanes said...

Actually, as a council whose mandate was merely pastoral, it can be overturned at a the stroke of a papal pen, valid or otherwise.

Many of its documents can be so superseded or retired, but not all of them. Whatever a "merely pastoral" mandate is or isn't, Vatican II did say some things that weren't "merely pastoral."

Anyway, not even a "merely pastoral" valud oecumenical council can be revoked, condemned, and anathematised. To hope for that is to live on pipe dreams.

Jordanes said...

Actually, as a council whose mandate was merely pastoral, it can be overturned at a the stroke of a papal pen, valid or otherwise.

Many of its documents can be so superseded or retired, but not all of them. Whatever a "merely pastoral" mandate is or isn't, Vatican II did say some things that weren't "merely pastoral."

Anyway, not even a "merely pastoral" valid oecumenical council can be revoked, condemned, and anathematised. To hope for that is to live on pipe dreams.

No! It was called to, essentially, reconcile with all of the above!!

If that's what it was called to do, it is not only a failed council (and wouldn't be the first one) but an invalid one.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone get the feeling that in the Church in various sectors ( and not only the SSPX),there is a rising tide against Vatican II and all it proclaimed and stood for?

I read comments here, and in many other Catholic blogs and see an enormous ill will towards Vatican II and what it produced. I do know that very many young Catholics hate it and repudiate it, because it has robbed them of their heritage, and traditions which they are ocming into contact with thru Summorum Pontificum of the great Benedict XVI, or by attending SSPX, FSSP, ICRSP, or other smaller, lessser know traditionalist Orders.
Just look to France, where of the paltry number of seminarians for the whole country (less than 900), close to 30% are for the SSPX or other traditionalist Orders.
In the USA, the FSSP seminary in Nebraska is already one of the larger seminaries in the USA, and the ICRSP seminary in Gricigliano, Italy with close to 80 seminarians is probably one of the largest enrollment wise in all Italy.

I think Vatican II has its ardent supporters only in the generations of elderly Catholics (55+). With most being in their 80's, 70's and 60's.
I think that in 10 years, ALL the established religious Orders of men and women which bought into Vatican II and it's garbage the most enthusiastically will be gone, except perhaps for tiny colonies of younger, traditional members who had tried to restore the Order from within. And there will be hundreds of traditionalist Orders as there are already now...but much larger.
Ten years from now, the most enthusiastic Vatican II supporters in the Vatican, bishops in dioceses, priests, nuns and others will be gone.
Then we can rebuild the Roman Catholic Church according to Catholic traditions and the True Mass.

Anonymous said...

One of the best answers to this garbage is Fr. Quay's "Human Sexuality" published by Ignatius Press.
He connects the the symbolic meaning of male homosexual action with Satanic self-love; and lesbian activity with pagan earth idolatry.
[His main focus is on healthy heterosexual marital unions.]

Anonymous said...

Anon 13:39

"Elderly Catholics" - Well, that's the first time I've been called that at the age of 55! And I thank you; maybe this means I'll be checking out from the valley of tears soon.

But what I wanted to say is that I do despise, and have always despised (except for a brief fleeting moment before the novelty quickly wore off), Vatican II and the post-Vatican II Church. It is the primary cause for most of the ills in the Church AND and world.

So I do not fit into your category.

As for the young Catholics of whom you speak, I do not know any, only JPII groupies of the EWTN/Catholic Answers type. They are a quite useful bunch for the cause of the revolution. I am, however, glad to know that some young Catholics use the brain and intelligence that Our Lord gave them to THINK for themselves.

Finally, I think it will be longer than ten years before they will all (Deo gracias) be dead. I estimate another twenty-five years or so.

LeonG said...

Anyone who has read the history of what was said and done at Vatican Councils II knows perfectly well how the liberal modernist agenda was implanted into neo-catholic thinking and post-conciliar paradigmatic pastoralism. The energy and apparent justification for the utter un-catholic nonsense we have had to suffer since the late 1960s is rooted in the Vatican Councils. Take for example the protests that The Councils did not take any other than a Latin Mass into account. This is complete revisionism - if we read the accounts we can see the NO service of Bugnini in the making.
The conservatives were defeated time and again by liberal modernist cardinals aided and abetted by their progressivist periti. The list is a long one. The modus operandi is one of liberalisation of thought with modernist philosophies. The modes are recurrent - an ideology of tolerance, compromise, incessant dialogue and laicisation, among others. The consequences are a new paradigm of religious plurality; collegiality; liturgical inculturation and an obsessive preoccupation with ecumenical and interreligious policies that have more to do with convergence than conversion.

There is no area of the modern church that is not debilitated by the new liberal philosophies that were so potently articulated and mobilised throughout the Councils and thereafter.

Anonymous said...

St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy also makes reference to these times:

“But know this, that in the last days, dangerous times will come....” (2 Tim. 3:1).

“For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their own lusts, and they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables” (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

DeCock bears the fruit (all puns aside) of false ecumenism; a V2 moment indeed. St. Patrick, missionary of God, intercede for us.

John K said...

I think we need a Vatican III to clarify Vatican II (and issue a few condemnations and anathemas).