Rorate Caeli

The Church of the Council, 50 years on
Interview with Dutch Salesian Superior


[SALESIAN SUPERIOR IN THE NETHERLANDS: interview] 


Summary of recent Interview with Herman Spronck, Dutch superior of the Salesians. Spronck in a response says he does "not agree with the text" and refers to his official response.

Were you aware that Father Van B. was a member of Martijn, an Association of pedophiles?

Yes, I can remember that he told [me]. When, I did not ask. I do not know exactly when that was.

He was a member since 1994, did you know it?

That I cannot remember exactly, but it could be. I have been the superior only since 1995.

Were you aware that that Father Van B. was in the board (2008-2010) of the Pedophile Association Martijn?

I cannot remember. But he told me that he was to become director of an association. Was he not secretary or something? I did not ask him exactly what kind of society that was. He also told me at one point that he wanted to give up. That seemed sensible. But I did not ask for details.

Was it compatible with the ideas of the church that Father Van B. was a member of a pedophiles' association?

I was not sure what kind of association it was. But if you look at the association, it is not [legally] forbidden for Martijn to do what they do. I think that Father Van B. sought help for his feelings. I've always told him that he had to obey the law.

What do you think of Father Van B., who was twice convicted [for indecent exposure], did he obey the law?

I repeatedly told him what he should do. He was warned several times for flashing, which is, of course, not a serious offense.

You never found the membership of Martijn and convictions for sexual offenses a reason for Father Van B. to leave the order?

No. I have to give him a dignified life. Somebody is placed out of the order only if there is a serious sexual offense, such as rape. And that's never been the case.

But to a pedophile priest to work in churches where he comes into contact with children, without their knowing it, is that really a good idea?

I have always told Father Van B. that he had to obey the law and nothing has ever really happened. So I saw no reason to doubt Father Van B..

Father Van B. says himself that it is necessary to watch him near children. If not, then the pressure increases and he is afraid that things go wrong. What do you say?

I have never seen a reason why he could not work with children. Only in 2007 - after the incident when he worked in the parish of St Luke in Amsterdam - I decided it was sensible that he no longer work with children. I got him sent to Nijmegen. He takes care to older brothers.

...

How do you feel about sexual relations between adults and children?
Of course there are certain social norms that everyone has to comply with. But one wonders if that is not going too far. Formally, I always say that everyone must obey the law strictly. But these relationships are not necessarily harmful.

You believe that relationships between adults and children are not necessarily harmful?

I have an example. I was once approached by a 14-year-old boy who had a relationship with an older priest. He was sent away, and this boy suffered immensely, he suffered because [the priest] had been sent away. He told me, "Father Herman, why did you send him away?" And, now, what should I say to a boy like this?

So, then, relationships between adults and children are fine?

Personally, I believe that relationships between adults and children are not necessarily wrong [Persoonlijk wijs ik relaties tussen volwassenen en kinderen niet per definitie af.] Do you know Foucault? The philosopher. Do you know his writings? No, you should read that once again, especially the introduction to Part 4. It does depend on the child. You should not look so inflexibly at age. You should never enter into the personal space of a child if the child does not want it, but that depends on the child himself. There are children who themselves indicate that it is admissible. Then, sexual contact is possible.

...

At what age do you think that sexual relationships are possible?
Saying the age of 18 years is, I think, too inflexible.

Do you think that from the age of 12 years then is fine for sexual relationships with adults?

If it were up to me, they should be.

Will there be in the Salesian Order any more relationships between older people and children?

Just imagine that in the 50s/60s all lived together in 's Heerenberg. We were all away from our family and had only each other. Adults and boys - there was no woman to see - then lived together and some things bloom.

If you look back now, did you act properly when it came to Father Van B.?

I could not do anything else. I've always stood up for him.

The board membership was no reason to place him out of the order?

No, that seems going too far.
______________________
[Note: The prophets of doom and gloom were right.]
______________________

23/5/2011 - RMG – Paedophilia: Incompatible with the principles and values of Salesian tradition

(ANS – Rome) – In a Press Statement issued this morning by ANS, the Salesian Congregation rejects any possible relativisation of paedophilia. The issuing of this statement was made necessary following the positions expressed by Dutch Salesians Fr B. and Fr Herman Spronck. This morning the North Belgium Holland Province officially announced that Fr B. no longer has permission to carry out any pastoral activity and that Fr Spronck has been relieved of his office as Delegate.

The following is the Official Statement of the Salesian Congregation communicated this morning to press agencies in the wake of what appeared in some of the Dutch media.

With regard to what has been reported in recent days in the Dutch Press and now in the Press of Italy and other countries, in reference to the Salesian Fr B., we confirm the contents of the press statement of the Salesian Provincial of Belgium-Holland, Fr. Jos Claes, in which is clearly expressed his consternation at learning from the press that Fr B. has been a member of the “Martijn” Association.

Being a member of such an association is absolutely incompatible with the principles and values of Salesian tradition. Therefore we strongly disapprove of this fact and we distance ourselves from this kind of personal behaviour by an individual confrere. We can understand that this news has undoubtedly once again seriously wounded the justified sensitivities of many persons. We can understand their pain and we offer our excuses in the name of the Salesians of Don Bosco.

With regard to the confrere concerned, the Congregation will take the necessary disciplinary steps, in conformity with the protocol in place since 2002 and with the norms given by the Church in this matter.

In addition, in this statement we intend to dis-associate ourselves from the first declarations of Fr Herman Spronck, expressed in an interview with the Dutch press (at least as far as we can le learn from the interview reported), which seem to relativise the seriousness of the fact.

The Salesian Congregation re-affirms its commitment to fidelity to Don Bosco, to its great educational tradition and in the footsteps of Don Bosco, to total fidelity to the teaching of the Church. Full and total respect for children, youths and young people remain for us a fundamental and indispensable option.

Published 23/05/2011

66 comments:

New Catholic said...

We are glad that Kreuz.net (Die altliberalen Pädophilen konnten sich alles erlauben) and Messa in Latino (Per il Superiore dei salesiani olandesi, i rapporti sessuali coi dodicenni sono OK ) had the exact same reaction as our own: this mess, this repulsive puddle of indiscipline, heresy, and immorality, while interminable committees, and synods, and conferences are filled with many non-believing careerists who travel ceaselessly and gather in useless talkfests around the world - this is the Church and the Hierarchy the Council left us. Yes, there was immorality before the Council, this is human nature: there was no public declaration that immorality (heresy, liturgical upheaval...) was acceptable. With Messa in Latino, we say: Blame the Council, the prophets of doom and gloom were right.
---
Personal recess.

Isaac S said...

I think that the "Blame the Council" reaction is an overly simplistic one. The Church was in a growing state of crisis for most of the 20th century (and in some ways, since the Reformation). Many priests and religious had lost any real sense of faith and were infected with deep modernist tendencies long before Vatican II. This crisis was largely hidden by the strict legalistic and authoritarian culture of the Church at that time as well as by the reverence and beauty of the Tridentine Mass. Certainly Vatican II was the catalyst for many bad things happening but the roots of the crisis go far deeper than the Council.

Anonymous said...

This is a recent interview? With the Salesian "Superior" in the Netherlands?

If Spronck is not immediately and summarily dismissed from his post and defrocked, we know all we need to know about the "diabolical disorientation" of the post-Vatican II hierarchy.

This interview is an outrage, and reaction must be swift.

Anonymous said...

This is insane.

Anonymous said...

I could not believe what I was reading. This man must be removed from his post with immediate effect. Puddle of filth indeed.

VirgoPotens said...

But we have to give this puddle of filth a dignified life! And think of the children whose hearts might be broken if he's sent away!

I'm going to go vomit now.

jack p said...

If you can read Dutch, please, look at http://www.catholica.nl/archief/5591/een-korte-bloemlezing-over-pedofilie. So, when will the governement and politics follow with their excuses?

I am not Spartacus said...

We had Pope Blessed John Paul II issue many apologies for the putative sinful actions of long-dead Christian Catholics but no apologies for the decision taken by Pope Blessed John XXII (Beatified by Pope Blessed John Paul II) and revealed in his opening speech to the Bestest Council of All Time.

First, Pope Blessed John XXIIi wildly misread the signs of the times;

"The opportuneness of holding the Council is, moreover, venerable brothers, another subject which it is useful to propose for your consideration. Namely, in order to render our Joy more complete, we wish to narrate before this great assembly our assessment of the happy circumstances under which the Ecumenical Council commences...

We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.

In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men's own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfilment of God's superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church..."

Second, Pope Blessed John XXIII took a wrong decision in the matter of Ecclesiastical Discipline:

"At the outset of the Second Vatican Council, it is evident, as always, that the truth of the Lord will remain forever. We see, in fact, as one age succeeds another, that the opinions of men follow one another and exclude each other. And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun. The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations. Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against an dissipated. But these are so
obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them, particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a well-being based exclusively on the comforts of life."

Is it too much to expect an apology for this misreading of the signs of the times and is it too much to expect an apology for taking the decision to repudiate Ecclesiastical Discipline, without which all is chaos?

Jack said...

While I find what is written here repulsive, I wonder if what was actually said in Dutch is what it sounds like in English.

For example, "relationship" need not mean "sexual relationship."

In any case, homosexuality is not the same thing as pedophilia, though people frequently confuse them.

Anonymous said...

DISGUSTING! More from that fantastic Council called Vatican!!!

Brian said...

Isaac S,
What do you mean by strict legalistic and authoritarian culture?

Brian said...

Jack,
I trust that you agree that homosexuality and pedophilia are both sinful perversions. I trust that you also agree that most cases of priestly sexual abuse were homosexual acts which targetted adoslescent males.

M. A. said...

Anyone who knows anything of human nature understands that there are ONLY two ways by which man's evil tendencies are restrained: Love of God, or fear of punishment.

The reason some of us put the blame on VII for the diabolical filth and apostasy about which we read is precisely because VII did away with condemnations.

Please ponder that for awhile.

Anonymous said...

Vatican II is as much a "New Springtime" for the Faith as the "Arab Spring" is for the hope of peace in the Middle East. It seems that any social unrest, lawlessness, and confusion, any chaos that tends to the overthrow and demise of a stable established order is worthy of the epithet to these Bolsheviks, so long as it can be justified by reference to empty socialist platitudes like freedom, democracy, and the aspirations of the common people over the forces of oppression.

Those who refuse to see Vatican II as the seminal instrument giving licence to this revolution are either willfully blind, obfuscating, or simply naive. Yes, Vatican II didn't occasion the idea for revolution or itself create heterodoxy and moral confusion, but it absolutely did give it the (at least apparent) sanction of official Church policy. That it did not do so positively is no defense--the fruits are for all to see.

Count me irreversibly as one of them who find no redeeming value to this Council and who wish to see it tossed into the outer darkness with the unrepentant deviants and revolutionaries in our midst who cower behind it for their defense.

I say: Yes, it is the Council!

--George

Hieronymus said...

Isaac S,

The roots of the crisis are to be found in the garden of Eden. After the fall it is a question of effectively regulating evil and promoting virtue. Clearly different ethical systems and modes of governance have yielded different results. Some have been more effective than others.

Vatican II effected a radical change in the way the Church taught and governed herself, and the results have been devastatingly negative.

Did Vatican II bear evil into the world? Of course not. It just detonated the admittedly leaky dam that held back oceans of vice from the people of God. Countless souls have been swept away, and the rest of us are forced to wade in the muck and fight against the current nearly on our own.

This news report is emblematic of a GRAVE crisis of governance in the Church.

Sean said...

Jack,

While it's remotely possible that "relationships" is being miscronstrued by us paranoid, this question and answer would seem to eliminate all doubt as to Spronck's meaning:

Q. Do you think that from the age of 12 years then is fine for sexual relationships with adults?

A.If it were up to me, they should be.

Anonymous said...

Enough is enough, perverted priests, dancing "nuns" communion in the hand, rock music, altar-girls, hand holding, giant puppet Masses, empty convents and seminaries, airplane hanger churches, weak bishops, Koran kissing, Assisi, all stemming from VATICAN 2 stop the denials!!!!

Fr. Frank said...

A pitiful reference to Foucauld, but not ONE reference to Divine Law, Natural Law, or the Evangelical Counsel of chastity?? Not a single indication that the living God even exists?? The casual, offhanded tone of this superior's remarks makes my blood run cold. It is nothing less than demonic.

Jack said...

\\DISGUSTING! More from that fantastic Council called Vatican!!!\\

Did you know that most priestly pedophiles were ordained BEFORE or only shortly after V2?

Waiting for Pope Pius XIII said...

So is it the Council [no need to say which one, right?] that has caused our problems?

While I agree in general spirit with those who proclaim 'yes!!!', please allow me a slight nuance on the matter that I think can modestly exonerate the Council itself, for what little to nothing that's worth.

I submit the following: even if there had been no Second Vatican Council called and held, the irregular and non-traditional modes of thinking had so pervaded the episcopate giving us a Pope John XXIII, that laxity, ambiguity, excessive pastoral tones, and quasi-heterdoxy would have happened anyway, even without a council.

Let us remember that Pope John XIII issued Pacem in Terris with the council barely underway, an encyclical that by standard read, jettisons traditional Catholic thinking on religious toleration/religious liberty. Safe to say we would have gotten this encyclical from a John XXIII no matter what.

In other words, we were headed for some, serious, presumably unprecedented, grave problems and a crisis of some sort, even if somehow Second Vatican never happened. A Church where the Roncallis, Montinis and Wojtylas were ascendant was flirting with disaster no matter what.

Anonymous said...

Fr Spronck has been relieved of his office as Delegate:

http://www.infoans.org/1.asp?Lingua=2&sez=1&sotsez=13&doc=6492

LeonG said...

The fact of immoral liberal behaviour in the pre-conciliar church says nothing new. Pope Leo XIII & Pope St Pius X knew this only too well and did what they could about it. The vatican Councils of the 1960s gave these enemies of Roman Catholicism free license to do as they pleased afterwards since they had a pope who was a liberal modernist par excellence in Pope Paul VI (RIP). After that his greatest fan the "great" successor further advanced the cause exponentially with phenomenological finesse of the athropological genre. The current incumbent has beatified liberal modernism in the church. However this has becomne a movement which is as chaotic as the instituton it has infected. Ultimately it is a house divided against itself and destined to fail. Our Blessed Lady has guaranteed thids.

Archangel said...

Jack are you sure? most pedophiles priests enter into seminaries after VCII, vacant left by good young men that do not think the VCII was a valid council, since many good priests and good seminarian left, it was filled by who ever like to become a priest, please check your fact, Vatican comfirmed that since VCII there was no proper screening of candidate, free for all, most homosexaul see a place to hide behind the priesthood and without proper screening most got in, now came the problem with the bishop and cardinal, to made believe that VCII works, they hide all the dirt and garbage, today after hiding for 40 years the smell finally become unbearable,a recent screening process is now finally in place, Jack please keep your dead fish with VCII, yes there is always Judases around since the early Church, but we also have bold Popes to go along, the last three before Benedict XVI are liberal, they don't not believe in judgement of God but rather love and further more, same goes with confession, why confess if God love, is all we need? the nature law and divine law is all the same, justice first judgement second Mercy come third, no love was mention, love is the Charity of God for man, salvation itself is God's divine love, sorry no love, if one free chose to sin, VCII got confuse, so the liberal took this to Altar of the Church and start their demolition and now we have a hugh problem, but wait let us blame the pervious council, sorry Jack it is not going away, it is just the tip of the Iceberk.

benjoyce said...

Pope John XXIII as above states: "We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand."

Pope John walked right into it. And that's after reading the 3rd Secret of Fatima. Amazing, and you can draw a parallel with the last supper in light of (if I may mention) Garabendal where I was surprised to hear the BM state that "Vatican II will be seen as the Church's greatest council".

I don't think she means all was peachy at Vatican II. I believe she means it was the greatest gathering of the bishops (apostles), as was the greatest gathering of the Apostles was at the Last Supper where there occurred big trouble. Both are followed by crucifixion, one of Jesus the other The Catholic Church.

What happened at VII is similar or parallel with what happened at the Last Supper where the apostles were all warned about betrayal. With VII the popes were warned with the 3rd Secret (apostasy from the top). And like the apostles still "blew it". The 3rd secret by 1960, "it will be more clear" said Sr. Lucy. Where the last supper betrayed Jesus and he was subsequently was tortured and killed, with VII the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ was betrayed by some and the Church now endures its passion and crucifixion. After which will be the new springtime

Tom the Milkman said...

"But I did not ask for details....."

The episcopal mantra of post-VC2. Witness the devastation, the suffering. God help us!

I am not Spartacus said...

There is a new springtime and its odor was all over Basilica di San Giovanni Laterano on The Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Friday, June 11, 2010.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQxWo1CzQTg

We are the revolution we have been waiting for...no, wait, that ain't right....

Anonymous said...

The complete return to Tradition and the return to the Traditional Latin Mass must take place!!!

John McFarland said...

The best that can be said of V2 is that it took a bad state of things and made it much, much worse.

In my own judgment, a more accurate assessment is that V2 took a bad situation, institutionalized some of the evil, explicitly or implicitly permitted most of the rest, and called it reform.

It is rather as if the Council of Trent had struck a doctrinal deal with Luther and Calvin, and adopted their morals and those of Alexander VI for good measure.

I am not Spartacus said...

Vatican Two was the bestest council of all time and it was of utmost importance.

 FIRST RADIO MESSAGE "URBI ET ORBI"
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II

Sistine Chapel
Tuesday, 17 October 1978 

...First of all, we wish to point out the unceasing importance of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and we accept the definite duty of assiduously bringing it into affect. Indeed, is not that universal Council a kind of milestone as it were, an event of the utmost importance in the almost two thousand year history of the Church, and consequently in the religious and cultural history of the world?

However, as the Council is not limited to the documents alone, neither is it completed by the ways applying it which were devised in these post-conciliar years. Therefore we rightly consider that we are bound by the primary duty of most diligently furthering the implementation of the decrees and directive norms of that same Universal Synod. This indeed we shall do in a way that is at once prudent and stimulating. We shall strive, in particular, that first of all an appropriate mentality may flourish. Namely, it is necessary that, above all, outlooks must be at one with the Council so that in practice those things may be done that were ordered by it, and that those things which lie hidden in it or—as is usually said—are "implicit" may become explicit in the light of the experiments made since then and the demands of changing circumstances. Briefly, it is necessary that the fertile seeds which the Fathers of the Ecumenical Synod, nourished by the word of God, sowed in good ground (cf. Mt 13: 8, 23)—that is, the important teachings and pastoral deliberations should be brought to maturity in that way which is characteristic of movement and life."

So, we have had that going for us, which is nice.

Anonymous said...

Isaac

"Certainly Vatican II was the catalyst for many bad things happening but the roots of the crisis go far deeper than the Council."

Yes? And they are?

Delphina

Anonymous said...

I saw this man's work as a psychologist referenced on the Rorate thread concerning his speaking at the St. Benedict's Center and looked up his writings. I came across this which makes perfect sense to me.

Liturgical and Sexual Abuses
Dr. G.C. Dilsaver, PsyD, MTS

Reprinted Homiletic and Pastoral Review; December 2007

Liturgical abuse will forever mar the spiritual image of Catholicism in the late twentieth century. And now it is sexual abuse that will forever mar the moral image of this era. Tragically, both of these phenomenons entail the very sine qua non of Catholicism, the priesthood. It is herein hypothesized that these two phenomenons—both of which broke-out most virulently in the seventies—are etiologically linked: that clerical liturgical abuse facilitated clerical sexual abuse or, more aptly, sexual sin.

For the rest see: http://dilsaver.org/5.html

Anonymous said...

If we blame the council everytime something bad happens in the Church, does it get credit when something good happens?

Knight of Malta said...

Hell is too cool a place for this creep. What's truly amazing is that these pederast-minded devils live in seeming impunity, while the good godly folks at the FSSPX are castigated!

Thank goodness for google-translate! This might be imprecise, but it is a start:

"Did you become a member of Father Van B. Martin Association of pedophiles?
Yes, I can remember anything he ever told. When I have not asked. I do not know exactly when that was.
He was a member since 1994, did you know?
That I can not remember exactly, but it could. I am only ruler since 1995.
Did you board was that Father Van B. (2008-2010) of the Pedophile Association Danny?
I can not remember. But did he ever that he wanted to become director of an association. Was he not secretary or something? I then asked what kind of society not that exactly was. He also told me at one point that he wanted to give up. That seemed sensible. But I have not asked for details.
Was it compatible with the ideas of the church that Father Van B. pedophiles was a member of the association?
I was not sure what kind of club it was. But if you look at the association it is not prohibited Martijn what they do. I think that Father Van B. sought help from his feelings. I've always told him that he had to keep the law.
What do you think of Father B., who was twice convicted, the law has not kept?
I have repeatedly told him that he should do. He has worn several times a flasher, a serious offense is of course not.
You found the membership of Danny and convictions for sexual offenses never a reason to Father Van B. in order to turn?
No. I have to give him a dignified life. Somebody put out the order be done only if there is a serious sex offense such as rape. And that's never been discussed.
But to a pedophile priest to work in churches where he comes into contact with children, without their knowing it, is that really a good idea?
Father Van B. I have always said that he had to keep the law and there's never really happened. So I saw no reason to doubt Father Van B..
..."

Anonymous said...

Holland, what can you expect?

A couple of years back, there were Dutch Dominican priests suggesting that parishes could elect lay members to celebrate the Eucharist in stead of ordained priests.

I suppose all of them are still in their positions and working and teaching and preaching...

Now this with the Salesians. What next?

Gladly, there is a new generation of priests.

Anyway, I must restate: In these cases the Church MUST act, promptly and severely. These things are a scandal that must be stopped immediately. I think it would be proper for the Vatican to make a visitation.

M

Anonymous said...

His Grace, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre saw all of this and more coming from the Council, it is he that should be made a saint not JP 2 the un-great!! The Roman Church weeps, but will triumph!!

Anonymous said...

How many of these radical liberal Salesians are left in the Netherlands, 10-15?

The Franciscans and Dominicans each had well over 500 in the Netherlands before Vatican II, but the Dominicans are down to about 70 aged radicals now....and the Franciscans dipping below 150.

It's only a matter of time before these people are all gone....and their Orders gone with them....gone with the "Spirit of Vatican II".

Anonymous said...

"Gladly, there is a new generation of priests." Anon 22:06


There are? In the Netherlands?????

LOL!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Jack writes:

"In any case, homosexuality is not the same thing as pedophilia, though people frequently confuse them."

And Pædophiles and homerasts seem to be especially prominent among those who confuse them.

About 92% of the cases in the U.S.A. involve male children and adolescents. Last time I checked, males were only about 49% of the population. Not all perverts are inverts but all inverts are definitely perverts.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jack writes:

"Did you know that most priestly pedophiles were ordained BEFORE or only shortly after V2?"

And did you know that Vatican II was as much a symptom as a contributing cause of the secularisation and deChristianisation of society? Vatican II did not proceed from a vacuum. It proceeded from the liberal periti scum who got control of the process.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 22.10:

It would be a disgrace to Archbishop Lefebvre to be honoured by those who are not worthy to untie his shoes. Much better that he be canonised by a Pope in the future who is entirely divorced from the sixties revolution and all its errors.

P.K.T.P.

ATW said...

Fr. Frank, I had the same thoughts as I was reading.

Anonymous said...

Archangel is largely right. What happened was that, during the sixties, the good priestly candidates from the old familites left the seminaries when they saw that they were being taken over by nutters and the silly busybody ignoramuses from the laity were taking over the parishes. The good candidates simply got up and left: no point in sacrificing one's life for this circus. Better to go into law or medicine, like my brothers and cousins.

That left the door open and the Church had to take what she could get. What she often got were pansies.

As for the new screening process from Zenon Cardinal Grocholewski, it continues to screen out the right candidates and allows inverts to proceed to ordination if they have been good little boys for three whole years--or if they are not caught for that period. Grocholewski is part of the last pope's Polish mafia, the mafia that protected Marsial Mursupial. He should be sent to a Polish monastery to do penance. He does not belong in the curia. But on he stays as Prefect for 'Catholic' Education.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"If we blame the council everytime something bad happens in the Church, does it get credit when something good happens?"

We'll let you know, when and if something good on account of the Council ever happens.


Delphina

Anonymous said...

If the interview with Rev. Herman Spronck, Dutch Superior of the Selesians, is true, Spronck must be immediately removed as Dutch Superior, severely disciplined, and probably defrocked. Sexual abuse of the young is the worst type of abuse, and can NEVER be sanctioned. Spronek's interview turns my stomach!

Anonymous said...

I'm now reading Iota Unum by Romano Amerio, whom Sandro Magister calls the greatest traditionalist of the 20th century. It's a must read. Do it. Don't delay.

Tom the Milkman said...

Yes, anonymous 22:10, Archbishop Lefebvre was a visionary. He's the bishop who confirmed me and I studied at Econe. I've always believed that even greater than a visionary, Archbishop Lefebvre was a faithful Catholic prelate of extraordinary faith and fortitude. His personal manner always humble and quiet even while his sermons thundered and changed the history of the Roman Church. To look at his life and work compared to that of Spronck says everything that words cannot about the legacy of VC2. Monseigneur Lefebvre will ascend to the altars of the Church one day. He saved the ancient Roman mass. He was truly a giant of the 20th c. and one of the greatest blessings in the history of the Church.

Tom the Milkman said...

"We'll let you know, when and if something good on account of the Council ever happens."

Spot on, Delphina!

Even as I chuckled however, I started thinking how the devastation in the wake of the Council makes our renewed dedication to the ancient Roman mass even sweeter. You think?

Pascendi said...

The problem of Sodomy was growing rapidly prior to the Council (c.f. the Fitzgerald files).

Anonymous said...

Vll in a nutshell

Aa-1025: The Memoirs of a Communist's infiltration in to the Church.

"Memoirs of a Communist injured in an auto accident in France; he died in the hospital a few hours later. The nurse who attended him kept his journals, read them and published them as AA-1025. He had become a Catholic priest to subvert the Church from within. Describes his methods & plans. Says there were many more like him."

http://www.amazon.com/Aa-1025-Memoirs-Communists-infiltration-Church/dp/0895554496


Goodbye! Good Men: How Catholic Seminaries Turned Away Two Generations of Vocations From the Priesthood

http://www.amazon.com/Goodbye-Good-Men-Seminaries-Generations/dp/0967637112/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271169938&sr=1-2

Roman said...

"the Church of the Council"

Rather the Church of history

Think St. Peter Damien, the Church's legislation on solicitation in the confessional, Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald,

Anonymous said...

Just so you all know, this Dutch Salesian superior has already been removed.....by orders from the Salesian headquarters in Rome....and by the Pope.

It was communiicated to the Rome Salesian superior by the Vatican to remove this man immediatly.

The Vatican is working fast now to rid the Church of the garbage....and I hope it continues.

I hope the USA nuns are next,

Anonymous said...

Absolutely incredible.

Anon, 22:06 "the Church MUST act, promptly and severely".

Well, almost - the Church should act, and with fury, but we shouldn't hold our collective breaths.

Now just a question: if I remember my VII correctly - and I really do try not to - isn't it the case that we all now are "Church"? And if this is so, then what are we all doing, as Church, about this situation? What are we doing to help budge the slow hand of the enforcers of doctrine and discipline - of those who are charged with the protection of Christ's Church and the safeguarding of souls (from the evil of the very filth who are, unbelievably, the actual subject of protection)?

What are we doing? Preaching to the choir? Wringing our hands? Writing yet another letter to yet another disinterested bishop?

Where are the torches and pitchforks at the gates? When is it that the faithful Catholic stands up and demands that the Church - our Lord's body - be set to rights? When does he demand of the custodians of the Faith that the long nightmare end here?

Just how bad do things need to get?

MJC

Mary De Voe said...

Civil law states that a person is an "infant" until the age of eighteen. Until emancipation, a child's informed sexual consent is held in trust for him by God, by his parents and by the state. In other words, if any one lusts for an infant child he must get informed sexual consent from God, from the infant's parents and then from the state. The North American Man Boy Love Assn. tried and tries but has not. So, the these people need to get informed sexual consent from almighty God for exercising their lusts for children and legally minor infant children. Where I have written elsewhere everything else is sexual assault and battery, a crime, rape. Any person who claims the love of God as his own must love the other person's soul into heaven, graciously, generously giving and sacrificing himself so that the other person attains heaven, eternal joy with God. Scandalizing a person's soul while indulging one's own lust is hellish.

Jordanes551 said...

Just so you all know, this Dutch Salesian superior has already been removed

. . . as anyone could learn from reading the above weblog post, which was updated with that information well over a day ago.

Anonymous said...

Blame the Council? No, with all due respect we must blame ourselves - that is, those Catholics who succumbed to the Kool-Aid being dispensed by psychologists like Dr. Carl Rogers and others like him who introduced the concept of client-centered therapy into religious orders of the Church in the 1960s.

The therapy championed by Rogers is based upon the theory of listening to the other person, with warmth, empathy, and unconditional regard without reference to any absolute rules of human behavior - like the laws of God and His Church. It decimated religious orders and was the primary reason why many religious left their orders and went totally into the secular world with all its inducements - and they are many.

Now, before anyone says I am using Carl Rogers as a scapegoat for all the problems in the Church since the 60s, allow me to say that it was not all his fault. Indeed, in his later years he realized the damage he had caused and modified his techniques to some degree.

But, the damage was done and we are experiencing its effects even now in the 21st century. But, but it was modernism that inspired him, that synthesis of all heresies so designated by St. Pius X in Pascendi, that gave to man the idea that he was responsible to no one but himself. And, the person responsible for this concept was and is Lucifer himself and he sees in this movement the potential for capturing so many souls. You see, my friends, when it comes to right and wrong, the Hegelian dialectic goes right down the drain - i.e., right is right and wrong is wrong according to the laws of God and His Church and there is no "synthesis" between them.

The following link gives the complete story of the impact of this "therapeutic technique" of the Immaculate Heart of Mary nuns and the Church in general - http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/1999/rogers.html and I recommend it as a basis for understanding what has happened in the Church since the '60s. When you get right down to it, it's the same old line that Satan gave to our first parents in the garden: "you will be like gods, able to determine right and wrong."

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

G. said...

I don't want to be seen as flogging a dead horse, but to all those who point to manifestations of problems before VII as if to exonerate the Council itself: of course, the way had to be paved for it! It is no secret that the "reforms" adopted were the same "reforms" condemned during the century preceding. They had names: Liberalism and Modernism--Communism being intimately associated with both--and had advocated particular causes, such as radical liturgical reform of the character foisted upon us.

Is it not enough to know that Christ promised that the world would hate us? And then to read, hear, and see the manifest vitriol directed at the Church to understand that the Enemy (and Her enemies) would stop at nothing to undermine Her witness and to stifle Her condemnation of their deluded fantasies?

The enemy is within--and it's no secret that that is what our enemies aimed at--and to admit it does no injury to Christ's promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her. The "Infiltrate and Subvert" thesis is not so preposterous as those enemies would like you to believe--and who cares if it subjects you to their only defense, ridicule.

Jan Baker said...

"No. I have to give him a dignified life. Somebody is placed out of the order only if there is a serious sexual offense, such as rape. And that's never been the case." This, as to why the man was never disciplined.

This is Vatican II code, it was recently repeated ad nauseum (as advice to islam) in the Synod of Middle Eastern bishops last October, it is a subset of freedom of conscience which is a subset of freedom of religion, which Lefebvre and many others name as one of the Council's errors. It signals that everyone has a *right* to the external expression of an internal belief, or one has not been allowed one's 'dignity.' All by itself, it lays the Church open to the claim that She legitimizes the many crises in moral behavior among Catholics and beyond them the world influenced by the Church since the Council. "Religious freedom" was the justification used by pro-choice Catholic like Nancy Pelosi and more recently, Joe Biden, and as I recall he explicitly used the term 'dignity'. And now the Catholic politicians of the Philippines are using the same terminology. It come from Vatican II, as does the abandonment of Christ as King and the enthronement of the secular state necessitated by the false teaching of so-called religious freedom. This is hardly a simplistic explanation of the Council. To *not* blame the Council is simplistic. To *not* see the Church's wobbling on these issues as a million times heavier in the sweep of history than all the modernistic convolutions of non-believers together, is simplistic.

It is always their only goal, to kill Her. I have to think of a song of Dylan's (today's his birthday): "The name of the game's to make the queen disappear/ It's done with a flick of the wrist" [Satan Comes as a Man of Peace]

Anonymous said...

G and Jan Baker, you both get a thumbs up from me.

Delphina

Mary De Voe said...

The ultimate victim bashing, the victim wanted it, the child (Spronk calls the victim a “child” )wanted sex. The batterer says the victim enjoyed being battered. The Catholic Church holds that the age of reason is at seven years for the human being. The age of adulthood in the Catholic Church is twelve years, and the Sacrament of Confirmation is administered for Christian adulthood. If a “child” of twelve years old is prepared for sexual intercourse in the marital act with informed sexual consent, he knows he must find a woman as a proper mate and enter into the Sacrament of Matrimony as a virgin.

LeonG said...

Those who have permitted sexual abuse of minors amongst the clergy and episcopate as well as those who have tried to cover it up, ought to be prosecuted and imprisoned. hey merit no less than this.

Moreover, Fr Fitzgerald referred to above had a viable solution for the rising menace of paedophilia but Pope Paul VI (RIP) wanted a more lenient process & turned it down.

Conte Ristori said...

It is obvious that the false party truce of the weak and irenic successors of S. Pius X with modernism has been fatal in all aspects. The craze of the progressists and the sodomites was downpayed and so more the pestilence could sprawl until this day.

Janet Baker said...

It is obvious that the false party truce of the weak and irenic successors of S. Pius X with modernism has been fatal in all aspects

Conte, I like your English version: false party truce.

Here's another word for it: apostacy.

Oh the company they are in. The false so-called appellant priests during the Restoration who actually sued the Holy Father to stop resisting the reformation. The Japanese who trampled on His image, imagining that a loving Christ had died so they didn't have to. How I pray I am not in that company, come my death.

Louis E. said...

Ages of sexual consent vary by jurisdiction,often being under eighteen,but I am not aware of anywhere the age is 12.To marry under the age of 18 generally requires court permission,and obviously priests swear never to marry and Catholics pledge not to engage in sexual activity outside marriage,and marriage can only be valid between those of opposite sexes..So there are no loopholes for "Father Van B".

Mary De Voe said...

Sodomy is not considered the marital act. The heresy was taught that sodomy was not a crime nor was sodomy considered the sin of fornication or adultery. Sodomy is the poison fruit borne of lust, a capital sin and cowardice. Sodomy is also the sin of sloth, laziness in folling the tuths of the church. While sodomy may not be fornication or adultery, it nevertheless is disordered and unnatural and against a minor child, sodomy is assault and battery.

LeonG said...

Sodomy is an abomination before Almighty God - although he may provoke the sin even Satan cannot tolerate it from all accounts. It has to be very grave indeed then.

Felix said...

Great that the Holy Father told the Salesians to act immediately.

But two questions?

How come this abomination continued for 15 years without anyone taking action?

How come Father Spronck continues to function as a priest after expressing these views?

Anyway, let's pray for our priest, whether they be holy, lukewarm, or living sinful lives.