Rorate Caeli

Abomination in Belgium

Father Germain Dufour, a Capuchin priest and former Member of the French-speaking Community Parliament for the Green Party (Écolo), "married [sic] a homosexual couple on February 13 [Saint Valentine's Eve], in the Church of Saint-Servais in Liège".

The spokesman of the Belgian Episcopal Conference, Eric de Beukelaere, has "deplored the event", calling it a "ceremony which leads to confusion".

No word on any punishment for Fr. Dufour, who is a priest in the Diocese of Tournai.

Source: La Libre

20 comments:

  1. Unreal. These are the strongest words and actions that the Diocese can muster? I think we should all say a prayer in reparation, and also pray for Fr. Dufour, who has placed himself at such odds with Christ and His Teachings.

    It is also telling that he was born in 1943. Of course!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous5:09 PM

    Fr. Pio talk to your errant son (if he still be a son of St. Francis).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another abomination by someone who has "canonical status and faculties" brings to mind a subject we had been discussing in a previous thread - whether in fact the 1983 Code makes licit that which was previously illicit in the 1917 Code.

    It has been implied that the 1983 code completely supplanted the 1917 Code, making licit what had previously been illicit. I object to that interpretation because it does not take into account the supreme law of the Church, the salvation of souls, a law which can never be supplanted. Also, there is nothing that I know of in the 1983 Code that makes licit that which had previously been stated as illicit, i.e., praying with heretics and schismatics.

    Now, obviously we know that homosexual "marriages" were never considered licit in the eyes of the Church before but this priest seems intent on making this union of homosexuals seem licit in the eyes of many Catholics. It won't wash because this "marriage" has always been considered illicit and there is nothing in any church law that makes it licit and, please God, never will be. But, more importantly, it is against the natural law which is second only to divine law and which church law may never contravene.

    At the same time there is nothing in church law that I know of that makes praying with heretics and schismatics licit now because it would contravene divine law, the First Commandment: "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before me" and the command of Jesus to his disciples: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you". Are we to assume that Jesus taught his disciples to pray with heretics and schismatics?

    But besides all that, we have common sense which tells us that one pope can never countermand another pope in Faith and Morals. Nor do I believe that this has ever been done in the entire history of the Church because of Christ's promise to Peter: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:23 PM

    What can you except, in the land of Cardinal Daneels?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, maybe we still don't know the rest of the story, but I still don't get why this priest hasn't been canonically deposed yet.
    Sometimes it seems that once the storm passes by, everyone forgets the thing, and they continue in their usual business.
    Or maybe I am wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'Illicit' is an odd term to use when speaking to an entirely 'invalid' modus operandi.

    Michael F Brennan
    St Petersburg, FL

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous9:09 PM

    This is what happens when one monkeys with one sacrament, all come tumbling down. Where there is a defect in form or matter, where is the sacramental reality? But the "church" has tolerated defects in the mass, should we surprised that marriage is also affected? Still, we have the problem in the "church's" teaching on homosexuality. I mean the tacit claim that one can habitually entertain homosexual desires as long as one does not act them out. Whatever happened to "Blessed are the pure in heart"? I know, this is counsel not a precept. There is something wrong here and its not in just the priest and the deluded participants in his charade. It is in the teaching authority of the so-called post-Conciliar church. Expect more of these abominations. The sickness has apparently begun to affect the Russian Orthodox, whose new patriarch sees homosexuality as a private matter. How can it be private, when sin is public and the rite of penance in the Orthodox church readily acknowledge when the penitent bow before the other penitents before s/he approaches for confession. And yet when this happened in Russia the priest involved in the attempted marriage was immediately defrocked and the church wherein the abomination was perpetrated burned to the ground. Fat chance of that happening in Belgium.

    ReplyDelete
  8. John L10:08 PM

    Re worshipping with heretics and schismatics: here is the II Vatican Council's decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum;



    '26. Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law.(32 S. Basilius M., Epistula canonica ad Amphilochium, PG. 32, 669 B.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's odd that none of you folks know (or care?) about the far worse case in Toronto involving the homosexual marriage last November of Father Karl ("I believe I'm walking in the footsteps of Jesus") Clemens. Might it be because that story got reported earlier on the site of nasty ol' Atila Guimarães?

    I haven't heard, or heard of, any reaction to this scandal from the Toronto ordinary. Doubtless he's too busy kicking the FSSP's butt out of town to waste time on trifles. Besides, he must be exhausted from the daily renewed effort involved in pretending that the SSPX and its evil lay adherents simply don't exist in his see.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous11:14 PM

    Another "in full communion" priest.

    SSPX priests are suspended.

    Laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mike B. said...

    'Illicit' is an odd term to use when speaking to an entirely 'invalid' modus operandi.

    Mike is correct but this priest is trying to make people believe it is not only valid but licit as well. How many times has this same tactic been used in the last 40 or so years? Too many IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous11:51 PM

    This Capuchin priest is probably a homosexual too.

    It has been proven, that these aged priests that do this and openly support homosexual ahendas etc.(and they are usually....not always but usually Order priests) as well as their feminist equivalent, the rabidly dissident habitless nuns in their 70's, ARE LIKEWISE, HOMOSEXUALS. Doesn't take a genius to figure that. Duh!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Paul Halley
    Another abomination by someone who has "
    canonical status and faculties" brings to mind a subject we had been discussing in a previous thread - whether in fact the 1983 Code makes licit that which was previously illicit in the 1917 Code.

    Two wrongs don't make a right (an ancient Christian moral value). Just because there's a priest with canonical status and faculties who acted deplorably it doesn't justify willful disobedience.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous4:15 AM

    Another "in full communion" priest.

    SSPX priests are suspended.

    Laughable.

    BINGO! Anonymous. That goes for trads of any flavor who refuse to play the NO charade.

    ReplyDelete
  15. There is a Canadian priest who has "married" his sodomite partner. And there are others of whom we know nothing yet.

    And The Vatican remains silent!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oliver11:05 AM

    These brave 'priests' are pioneers in the modern church, leading the way for others to follow, bearing the wounds of intolerance in the spirit of the Council. Such change is slow and painful and one must feel for our bishops who are required to discipline those they privately support.

    ReplyDelete
  17. beng said:
    Two wrongs don't make a right (an ancient Christian moral value). Just because there's a priest with canonical status and faculties who acted deplorably it doesn't justify willful disobedience.

    Disobedience to whom and to what? Is it disobedience to what Holy Mother Church has always held, taught and professed to be true or disobedience to those prelates who insist we drink the Modernist Kool-Aid of the last 40 years? In the final analysis we must be obedient to what Holy Mother Church has always held, taught and professed to be true IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sasha4:14 AM

    Regardless of whether it's "Cardinal" Daneels who's in charge of Belgium as its Primate, regardless of which Code applies, what this Mr. Servais Dufour (I refuse to accept him as any sort of "minister" or "priest" given this kind of deliberate sin!!) has done positively SCREAMS out for his automatic defrocking as well as not only his prompt excommunication but anathematization.

    All this from a non-denominational Christian who however wishes well to all Christians regardless of which branch: the full force of chapter 5 of 1st-Corinthians MUST apply!!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous6:46 AM

    A comment from Belgium:

    - This is not Fr. Dufour's first dirty trick. He is a well-known ultraleftist figure here. Among other things, he was a candidate for the Communist Party at the latest EU Parliament elections. He is just the Gaillot-type.

    - I doubt that Fr. Dufour is a priest of the Diocese of Tournai. The info card on Tournai Diocese's website dates from 2000. Fr. Dufour has lived in Liège and been a member of Liège City Council since then. He is a "great" local public figure there.
    As Liège Vicar General says http://www.lameuse.be/regions/liege/2010-02-24/liege-polemique-autour-du-mariage-gay-a-l-eglise-763045.shtml "Fr. Dufour reports to his religious superior and to Bishop Jousten of Liège". And since Bishop Jousten and Canon Borras are both Vatican II diehards, no sanction is to be expected. Just "a remark, but nothing more" Borras says.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Paul Halley,


    Obedience to whoever is the current magisterium. But we wouldn't want that, would we?

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!