One of our informed readers—and our readers are thankfully not only informed but also forthright—corrected me yesterday. It’s not the case that the Belgian police went around pulling bones out of crypts. No, they drilled a hole to insert a fiber optic cable.
Point taken.
But this does not change what seems to me to be an interesting story about the strangely aggressive actions of Belgian officialdom. Further thoughts . . .
At the center of this story is retired Archbishop Godfried Danneels. He is a classic post-Vatican II liberal, someone who had the relative sympathy of the secular elites. Is it possible that Belgian officials were relatively reluctant to investigate claims of sex abuse, precisely because they wanted to buttress rather than undermine Archbishop Danneels and the liberal wing of the Church? And as pressure built across Europe, did the tide shift, with Belgian officialdom suddenly eager to cover its rear end, so to speak? That would explain the oddly urgent and aggressive nature of recent police interventions.
In any event, we seem to be seeing the latest stage in the cultural disestablishment of the Catholic Church in Europe. When police raid church offices rather than having bishops visit to talk behind closed doors, then we know that the cozy old relationships are kaput and a new mode of ecclesial existence lies ahead.
June 29th, 2010 | 6:14 pm
In addition, Cardinal Danneels also approved of pedophilia-promoting catechism books and rebuked those few faithful Catholics that were offended by Danneels-approved catechism.
http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/06/27/the-disgrace-of-cardinal-danneels-and-the-belgian-catholic-church/
It certainly is the end of the “silly season” as then Cardinal Ratzinger said.
June 29th, 2010 | 11:15 pm
It’s more likely that unlike bloggers, government officials must wait until they have evidence to warrant searches.
As for comparative morality of the left and right, let’s remind ourselves not all “JPII men” turned out squeaky-clean: Emmanuel Milingo, Thomas O’Brien, Hans Groer, and Bernard Law, to name a few of the more notorious personalities.
Clearly, the “silly season” is still with us if the Right is trolling such an unoriginal idea that they possess the moral high road, either in the Church or out of it. The hermeneutic of narcissism at work.
June 30th, 2010 | 8:07 am
“Clearly, the “silly season” is still with us if the Right is trolling such an unoriginal idea that they possess the moral high road, either in the Church or out of it. The hermeneutic of narcissism at work.”
If by “Right” you mean the theologically orthodox, then you couldn’t be more wrong. What is being trumped as having the “moral high ground” is not the people who possess orthodox views, but theological orthodoxy instead. That is not narcissism.
June 30th, 2010 | 8:45 am
Jonathan, you seem to be flirting with the notion of a certain moral pelagianism, that people can, by associating with one end of the ideological spectrum, advance themselves in virtue.
Heck, I can say I align myself with God’s moral ideals and those who oppose me, either politically, ideologically, theologically, or in their choice of sports teams, must therefore be immoral, or less moral.
My real point is that sin bites every well-intentioned believer in the butt. Including conservative who style themselves as orthodox. People who believe they are beyond sin, or at least moved to a safe distance, are in fact a lot closer to the hermeneutic of narcissism than people who do sin, but acknowledge it.
June 30th, 2010 | 10:06 am
“My real point is that sin bites every well-intentioned believer in the butt.”
Ok then. Everyone agrees. So? How is that relevant to the actions of the police in Belgium? We should be ‘ok’ with it because we’re all sinners? We should ‘understand’ Danneels because we’re all sinners?
June 30th, 2010 | 11:07 am
“It’s not the case that the Belgian police went around pulling bones out of crypts. No, they drilled a hole to insert a fiber optic cable.”
Regardless…has _anyone_ any idea _why_?? Do they suspect that someone had someone else buried with them? I simply don’t understand what the purpose of this part of the investigation is. Can anyone help me out here?
June 30th, 2010 | 1:47 pm
I recall reading somewhere that there was an informant. That could mean a person within the chancery who was frustrated with not getting anywhere with the hierarchy, perhaps a well-placed priest or bishop who had a crisis of conscience. It could also be a well-placed person just seeking revenge.
Clearly, the Belgian police had what they thought was enough to get a warrant in spite of a very predictable backlash against them. And enough to circumvent any danger of ill-gotten evidence torpedoing the prosecution.
Undoubtedly more will come of all this, especially if substantial evidence is revealed in the legal process. I’m not inclined to pass judgment on the police at this time. Few to none of us have any idea about the quality of the informant or the evidence uncovered.
June 30th, 2010 | 3:22 pm
“I recall reading somewhere that there was an informant.”
The informant in this case is credible but her information is second hand and comes from an anonymous source unknown to her. Godelieve Halsberghe, former head of the Church’s independent commission on sexual abuse in Belgium, received an anonymous phone call informing her that she was in danger and that the Belgian hierarchy was keeping information on abuse cases from the current commission. Being threatened, she naturally went to the police for protection and disclosed the details of this anonymous call.
June 30th, 2010 | 3:52 pm
The caller must of course have had privileged information concerning Ms. Halsberghe, the Belgian Church and the workings of the independent commission to establish his own credibility, but nothing can be known of him and his agenda. Further, his charges can never be completely disproven, because if no incriminating documents are found it can always be said that the police failed to find the secret hiding place.
June 30th, 2010 | 7:00 pm
Sadly I have to correct myself. When I said that:
“The caller must of course have had privileged information concerning Ms. Halsberghe, the Belgian Church and the workings of the independent commission to establish his own credibility”
I was assuming much to much, because further research led me to this:
“Godelieve Halsberghe, president of an internal Church commission on sex abuse cases from 2000 to 2008, told the Flemish newspaper Het Nieuwesblad on Monday that ‘I recently received an unpleasant phone call about these files (dossiers on sexual abuse cases).’
[...]
“She told the Het Nieuwesblad that the caller was a man who spoke to her in French and did not identify himself.
“’He asked if I have dealt with these files. I answered affirmatively. He then told me that I had better watch out; not only in the interest of the files, but also for myself,’ Halsberghe added.
“The paper also asked if Halsberghe influenced the police’s decision to drill into the tombs of the deceased cardinals in the crypt at the Mechelen Cathedral. ‘Did they (the police) ever hear about secret places in the crypt where sensitive files were hidden?’ it asked.
“’I have heard about something in the past, but don’t ask where exactly. I do not know if the crypt was specifically mentioned,’ she answered.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/police-raids-on-belgian-archdiocese-triggered-by-former-abuse-commissioner/
Having now committed the grievous internet crime of triple (!) posting, I will exit the conversation.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact