Godfried Danneels's Wretched Career of Suborning Sin Has Come to an End

One of the most egregious little men to have dotted the darkened corners of the counterfeit church of conciliarism was the late Godfried Danneels, who was the conciliar "archbishop" of Malines-Brussels, Belgium, from December 19, 1979, to January 18, 2010.

Danneels has been called to his Particular Judgment after a career of suborning, sin, including surgical baby-killing itself and the sin of Sodom. While one can hope that Danneels had final penitence for his crimes against God and man, it is hard to imagine that a man who was boldly unrepentant about his promoting the most vile kinds of sins imaginable could have approached death with anything other than the sort of arrogant assurance with which he conducted himself through his life of enabling adulterers, fornicators, sodomites, baby-killers and of undermining the proper formation of the young in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments by means of the most vulgar incentives to sins of impurity that have ever been dressed up and sold to ordinary Catholics as “sex education.” Oh, by the way, this is not even to mention—at least not for now—that Danneels was a liar who protected clerical abusers and then sought to bully their victims.

To refresh your memories about this horrible little pest of a human being who, though a true priest, was not a true bishop, it is good to remember that Godfried Danneels was on the cutting edge of the ultra-progressive wing of the counterfeit church of conciliarism for well over fifty years, especially in the aftermath of the "Second" Vatican Council.

Godfried Danneels was quoted in a New York Times Magazine article in December of 1994 as agreeing with another "cardinal" that he could not refuse what purported to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo worship service to those he knew to be divorced and remarried without a [worthless] conciliar decree of nullity, and he has left behind quite a legacy of conciliar revolutionary activity. Oh, by the way, the other "cardinal" with whom Danneels agreed about offering what he believed to be Holy Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics was a fellow named Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin. This prompted me, in all of my "conservative"/indulterer enthusiasm at the age of forty-three, to write an article for The Wanderer, "Make That Two Red Hats to Go."

Moral corruption is a way of life in the conciliar structures. This moral corruption has been suborned by the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" because they have lost the sense of the horror of personal sin, thinking, despite all of their public words of protest to the contrary when they are forced to make statements as a result of "petty gossip" in the secular news media (note that they do not respond to the earnest pleading of the sheep to help them but respond only to the secular media!), that whatever policies and programs they adopt, no matter how much God is offended or how many souls are wounded and scandalized to the point of losing the Faith entirely in some instances, are almost beyond criticism or review. This loss of the sense of the horror of personal sin is just a manifestation of conciliarism's incessant warfare upon the Faith that demands the total assent of the faithful yet attached to the structures of their false church.

Godfried Danneels was in the forefront of conciliar "bishops" calling for the use of a certain type of prophylactic to prevent the transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus. This is a report written by Dr. Marian Therese Horvat in 2004: 

BRUSSELS - Belgium's leading Catholic clergyman has declared that he is not opposed to the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS, in a declaration which was likely to anger Pope John Paul II.

During an interview on Dutch television, Cardinal Godfried Daneels, who is Primate of the Catholic Church in Belgium, said he believed wearing a condom was acceptable in certain circumstances.

"When an HIV positive man says to his partner, 'I want to have sexual relations', then he should wear a condom," the Cardinal said.

The Cardinal qualified his comments by saying that ideally such sexual relations should not take place and that HIV positive people should try to remain celibate.

"But if relations do take place," he insisted "a person must respect the commandment that condemns murder in preference to the one that forbids adultery," he added.

The Cardinal argued that using a condom to prevent illness or death could not be judged morally in the same way as using one as a method of birth control.

His comments are likely to bring him into direct confrontation with the Roman Catholic hierarchy however.

Pope John Paul II has made it clear on numerous occasions that he is opposed to contraception in any circumstances, a stance that has earned him widespread criticism among those campaigning against the spread of AIDS.

But the current Pope is seriously ill and some analysts say Daneels' comments may suggest that more progressive Catholics are already starting to consider what direction the Church will take when a new pontiff is appointed. (Top Catholic backs prophylactics.)

It is never permissible to commit one sin deliberately in order to avoid suffering from the consequences of that sin. There are no "protective" measures authorized by God to prevent one from contracting certain infectious diseases other than a chaste life, and that is made possible by the graces He won for us on the wood of the Holy Cross. It is that simple.

"Cardinal" Danneels was not reprimanded by the largely incapacitated Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. "Cardinal" Danneels was left to retire summa cum gloria by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on January 18, 2010, a full nineteen months, fourteen days after he had reached the mandatory retirement age in the conciliar structures of seventy-five. 

Why should he have been?

Consider the fact that His Apostateness, Antipope Emeritus Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, himself caused great confusion in 2010 when his book length interview with German journalist Peter Seewald, The Light of the World: the Pope, The Church and Signs of The Times. The now retired universal public face of apostasy became in controversy as his Hegelian thought process, full of so many contradictions and paradoxes, led him to speak in such a way as to endorse the use of a certain type of prophylactic, used to prevent the conception of children, by those engaged in the selling of their bodies for immoral purposes in order to prevent the spread of the HIV/AIDS virus. Officials in the conciliar Vatican had to issue all manner of clarifications of the "pope's" views as eager defenders of all things "papal" in the "conservative" circles of the counterfeit church of conciliarism rushed to rationalize his views as perfectly compatible with Catholic moral theology. Finally, the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had to issue a Note to attempt to make his "unofficial" comments made in an "unofficial" book seem "officially" Catholic. ( If Them, Why Not Others?Let the Olympic Games of Absurdity Begin!Razing The Last BastionsNothing New Under Benedict's SunTalk About Clothing the Emperor!Words and Actions Without ConsequencesMaking a Mockery of Catholicism). How could Ratzinger/Benedict have corrected Danneels even if he had wanted to do so, which he did not, as he held more or less the same position on this matter?

For his part, Danneels made news of his own in 2010 when Belgian police conducted a raid, recently termed illegal by a Belgian judge, upon the headquarters of the conciliar "bishops" in Brussels. A great deal of his sordid past was dredged out for public view once again, including the following unpleasant facts that columnist Rod Dreher, who converted to Russian Orthodoxy from Catholicism several years ago now, published nearly nine years ago: 

That is the shocking allegation by Alexandra Colen, an orthodox Belgian Catholic, who details her long fight with Cardinal Danneels and the Belgian Catholic hierarchy (including the pedophile recently retired bishop Vangheluwe) over a pedophilic sex-ed book approved for Belgium's Catholic schools. Excerpt: 

His predecessor, the liberal Cardinal Danneels, who was very popular with the press in Belgium and abroad, was Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels and Primate of Belgium from 1979 until 2010. The sympathy for pedophile attitudes and arguments among the Belgian bishops during this period was no secret, especially since 1997 when the fierce controversy about the catechism textbook Roeach made the headlines. The editors of Roeach were Prof. Jef Bulckens of the Catholic University of Leuven and Prof. Frans Lefevre of the Seminary of Bruges. The textbook contained a drawing which showed a naked baby girl saying: "[Unspeakable act} makes me feel groovy," "I like to take my knickers off with friends," "I want to be in the room when mum and dad have sex." The drawing also shows a naked little boy and girl that are "playing doctor". . . .

The drawing also showed three pairs of parents. Those with the "correct" attitude reply: "Yes, feeling and stroking those little places is good fun." This "catechism textbook" was used in the catechism lessons in the catholic schools, until one day I discovered it among the schoolbooks of my eldest daughter, then 13 years old. On 3 September 1997 I wrote a letter to Cardinal Danneels, saying:

"When I see this drawing and its message, I get the distinct impression that this catechism textbook is designed intentionally to make 13 and 14 year olds believe that toddlers enjoy [forbidden acts]. In this way one breeds pedophiles that sincerely believe that children actually think that what they are doing to them is 'groovy', while the opposite is the case."

I told Cardinal Danneels that, although I was a member of Parliament for the Flemish-secessionist party Vlaams Blok, I was addressing him as a Catholic parent "who wishes to remain faithful to the papal authority and also wishes to educate her children this way." I insisted that he forbid the use of this book in the catechism lessons: "This is why I insist - yes, the days of meekly asking are over - that you forbid the use of this 'catechism book' in our children's classrooms."

Today this case, that dates from 12 years ago, assumes a new and ominous significance. Especially now that I know that Mgr Roger Vangheluwe, the pedophile child molesting Bishop of Bruges, was the supervising bishop of both institutions - the Catholic University of Leuven and the Seminary of Bruges - whence came the editors in chief of this perverted "catechism" textbook.


After I started my campaign against the Roeach textbook, many parents contacted me to voice their concerns. Stories of other practices in the Catholic education system poured in. There were schools where children were taught to put [certain contraceptive devices]. . . .and where they had to watch videos showing techniques of [acts omitted].

Because Cardinal Danneels refused to respond to requests to put an end to these practices, I and hundreds of concerned parents gathered in front of his palace on 15 October 1997. We carried placards with the text "Respect for parents and children," and we said the rosary.

Cardinal Danneels refused to receive a delegation of the demonstrators. "I shall not be pressured," he said in the libertine magazine Humo on 21 October 1997. The Archbishop's door remained closed when we demonstrated again on 10 December 1997.

... On 18 February 1998 we were at Cardinal Danneels's door again, myself and a group of parents. Again the door remained closed. So on 18 March 1998 a group of two hundred parents went to the Papal Nuncio, the ambassador of the Vatican, in Brussels. But the Nuncio, who was a friend of Danneels, also refused to meet us. He had, however, alerted the police, who had several water cannons at the ready just around the corner.

Meanwhile Danneels's friends in the press started a campaign against me. "Colen continues to pester the bishops," was the headline in Gazet van Antwerpen. One evening Toon Osaer, Danneels's spokesman at the time, phoned me to tell me that as a Catholic I had to "be obedient" to the bishops.

I am reminded of a Dutch Catholic mother I met eight years ago after mass in suburban Amsterdam. She told me about having volunteered to teach catechism to Catholic schoolchildren, and being sent to a diocesan training seminar for lay teachers. What she and the others got was just bizarrely heretical. She protested to the bishop, and got absolutely nowhere. In some parts of this world, lay Catholics who wish to be faithful to the Church's teachings really are on their own. (Read more: Danneels Approved Pedophile Catechism)

Catholics in the conciliar structures who want to be faithful to the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church have got to come to realize that they belong to a false religious sect that is but the counterfeit ape of the true Church founded by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope/

Godfried Danneels, it should be remembered also, led the effort on the part of the theologically, liturgically, morally and pastorally corrupt conciliar "bishops" of Belgium to protect clergy abusers, including a man he had "consecrated," Roger Vangheluwe:

PARIS — The former leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium urged a victim of serial sexual abuse by a bishop to keep silent for a year, until the bishop — the victim’s own uncle — could retire, according to tapes made by the victim last April and published over the weekend in two Belgian newspapers.

The tapes, which church authorities have verified as accurate, are among the more revealing documents in the continuing scandal of sexual abuse by clerics and subsequent cover-ups by the church. And having a record of a cardinal entreating an abuse victim to keep his silence is another embarrassment for the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Godfried Danneels, 77, who retired as the archbishop of Brussels in January after 30 years, met with the victim, now 42, and his uncle, Bishop Roger Vangheluwe, 73, on April 8 to press the victim either to accept a private apology or to wait until the bishop retired, according to the tapes.

“The bishop will resign next year, so actually it would be better for you to wait,” the cardinal told the victim. “I don’t think you’d do yourself or him a favor by shouting this from the rooftops.” The cardinal warned the victim against trying to blackmail the church and suggested that he accept a private apology from the bishop and not drag “his name through the mud.”

The victim responded, “He has dragged my whole life through the mud, from 5 until 18 years old,” and asked, “Why do you feel sorry for him and not for me?”

The fact of the April meeting was reported by The International Herald Tribune and The New York Times in July after an interview with the victim, who said he had sought for many years to alert the church about the molesting by his uncle. He did not mention then that he had made a tape of that meeting and another one of another meeting.

The tapes, which were published Saturday in the Flemish daily newspapers De Standaard and Het Nieuwsblad, display the tactics the church used to try to hush up the scandal and placate the victim by appealing to his feelings for his family and the larger church.

De Standaard said in an editorial that the cardinal’s “only aim is to avoid having the case made public so many years after the facts,” adding, “It is containment, nothing more.”

The Belgian cases are special in part because of an extensive police inquiry, not just an investigation by the church, into allegations of sexual abuse by the clergy and subsequent cover-ups.

Cardinal Danneels has been subject to at least 10 hours of police questioning in the matter, and the police raided church headquarters to seize documents, a raid criticized by the Vatican.

In the end, Bishop Vangheluwe retired within two weeks of the April meeting, on April 23, admitting he sexually abused “a boy in my entourage” 20 years earlier. He quit after a friend of the nephew e-mailed Belgian bishops threatening to expose the bishop and demanding his resignation.

In a second tape, of the other meeting, the bishop apologizes to his nephew and says he has tried for years to make up for his sin. “This is unsolvable,” the victim said. “You’ve torn our family completely apart.”

The victim told the newspapers he released the tapes, apparently made secretly, to prove that he had not demanded hush money.

A spokesman for the cardinal, Toon Osaer, said no attempt had been made to cover up the meeting itself. Tribune reporters were told in July that the family was angry because Cardinal Danneels accompanied the bishop to the April meeting, and not the new head of the Belgian church, Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard.

A retired priest, the Rev. Rik Devillé, said he tried to warn Cardinal Danneels about the bishop’s abuse of his nephew 14 years ago, but was berated by the cardinal for doing so.

It is not known whether Cardinal Danneels or others informed the Vatican when they learned of the abuse by Bishop Vangheluwe. The Vatican accepted the bishop’s resignation in June, but said nothing about the case until the Belgian police raided church properties on June 24, seizing evidence and files that the church had assembled in its own belated investigation of sexual abuse. Pope Benedict XVI at the time called the police actions “deplorable.”

Bishop Vangheluwe has retreated to a Trappist monastery where he has kept his silence. The Belgian police are investigating him in this case and others, as well as looking into charges that he concealed similar complaints of abuse made against other clerics. (Belgian Church Leader Urged Victim to Be Silent.)

Leaving aside any knowledge that Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI had about Godfried Danneels' moral criminality, it is the purpose of this retrospective about on Danneels to note he went to his death completely unbent by the disgrace he had brought upon himself. Danneels even saw fit to have stated his belief that "gay marriage" laws represented "positive developments" about which what he thinks is the Catholic Church has nothing to say: 

BRUSSELS, June 5, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Cardinal Godfried Danneels, the former archbishop of Brussels and known as a leading “liberal” figure in the Catholic Church, has told media that “gay marriage” laws are a “positive development.”

“I think it’s a positive development that states are free to open up civil marriage for gays if they want,” the cardinal told the Dutch language newspaper De Tijd, even as he said he thinks such unions should be given a different name than marriage.

In the eyes of the Church, he said, this is not “real marriage,” which is only that between a husband and wife. “But it’s legal," he added, saying that "the church has nothing to say” about such laws.

According to Danneels the Church today has developed a more “nuanced,” position without being “fixated” on moral principles. “How can a man not identify with his orientation? I think there is a clear evolution in the thinking of the Church."

He compared the situation to the treatment of suicides, who at one time were denied burial in a Catholic cemetery, saying the Church now looks at the "totality" of the person.

The French language paper L’Echo, also quoted the cardinal saying that the French people should “obey the law” and not oppose “gay marriage.” France just recently passed a gay "marriage" law after a heated debate that saw hundreds of thousands of people take to the street in protest.

We need to understand: The Church has never objected to the fact that there is a sort of 'marriage' between homosexuals – however we're talking about a sort of marriage,” the cardinal said. “This is not the same as the true marriage between a man and a woman, so we need to find another word for the dictionary.

However, insofar as it is legal - that it has been rendered legitimate by law - the Church has nothing to say about it."

Also quoted in the De Tijd piece was Brussels archdiocesan media spokesman Jeroen Moens, who said that the current archbishop, Andre Joseph Leonard, known widely as a “conservative” supporter of orthodox Catholic teaching, agreed with his predecessor’s statements. De Tijd quoted Moens saying, “Monsignor Leonard has no problem with a legal commitment between gay men. But he would not call it marriage. Let us say that a gay commitment Monsignor Leonard endorses.”

However, Moens told LifeSiteNews.com this week that his comments had been “misrepresented” by De Tijd. Leonard, he said, had only meant that any two persons should be able to create a legally binding agreement on the disposition of their property.

Neither the cardinal nor the archbishop are in favour of homosexual civil unions,” Moens told LSN.

With Cardinals Carlo Maria Martini of Milan and Basil Hume of Westminster, Danneels was long known as one of the three European principals of the “liberal” bloc of the Catholic Church leadership. During his tenure as archbishop of Brussels and as chairman of the Belgian episcopal conference from 1979 to 2010, he many times publicly opposed Catholic teaching on sexuality and the use of condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS. He approved and protected from criticism a sexually explicit school curriculum that taught children how to [engage in sins against Holy Purity] and try out [perverse acts against nature]. His alleged role in covering up hundreds of cases of homosexual abuse of young people by his “progressive” clergy has come under investigation by Belgian police.  ('Marriage' a 'positive development': retired Belgian Apostate Danneels.)

Perhaps Our Divine Judge, Christ the King, had something to say to Godfried Danneels at the moment of his Particular Judgment about such heresy.

Holy Mother Church has had plenty to say about the depraved nature of perverse acts committed in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments as she is faithful to the true God of Divine Revelation who rained down fire and brimstone on the cities of Sodom and Gommorha as a result of this detestable sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance: 

And when the men rose up from thence, they turned their eyes towards Sodom: and Abraham walked with them, bringing them on the way. And the Lord said: Can I hide from Abraham what I am about to do: Seeing he shall become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed? For I know that he will command his children, and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord, and do judgment and justice: that for Abraham's sake the Lord may bring to effect all the things he hath spoken unto him. And the Lord said: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous.

I will go down and see whether they have done according to the cry that is come to me: or whether it be not so, that I may know. And they turned themselves from thence, and went their way to Sodom: but Abraham as yet stood before the Lord. And drawing nigh he said: Wilt thou destroy the just with the wicked? If there be fifty just men in the city, shall they perish withal? and wilt thou not spare that place for the sake of the fifty just, if they be therein? Far be it from thee to do this thing, and to slay the just with the wicked, and for the just to be in like case as the wicked, this is not beseeming thee: thou who judgest all the earth, wilt not make this judgment.

And the Lord said to him: If I find in Sodom fifty just within the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake. And Abraham answered, and said: Seeing I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes. What if there be five less than fifty just persons? wilt thou for five and forty destroy the whole city? And he said: I will not destroy it, if I find five and forty. And again he said to him: But if forty be found there, what wilt thou do? He said: I will not destroy it for the sake of forty. Lord, saith he, be not angry, I beseech thee, if I speak: What if thirty shall be found there? He answered: I will not do it, if I find thirty there.

Seeing, saith he, I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord. What if twenty be found there? He said: I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty. I beseech thee, saith he, be not angry, Lord, if I speak yet once more: What if ten should be found there? And he said: I will not destroy it for the sake of ten. And the Lord departed, after he had left speaking to Abraham: and Abraham returned to his place. (Genesis 16: 16-33)

And he said to him: Behold also in this, I have heard thy prayers, not to destroy the city for which thou hast spoken. Make haste and be saved there, because I cannot do any thing till thou go in thither. Therefore the name of that city was called Segor. The sun was risen upon the earth, and Lot entered into Segor. And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he destroyed these cities, and all the country about, all the inhabitants of the cities, and all things that spring from the earth.

And his wife looking behind her, was turned into a statue of salt. And Abraham got up early in the morning and in the place where he had stood before with the Lord, He looked towards Sodom and Gomorrha, and the whole land of that country: and he saw the ashes rise up from the earth as the smoke of a furnace. (Genesis 19: 21-28.) 

Perhaps the late Godfried Danneels ignored these passages from Holy Writ, composed as they were under the direct inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, because he, like so many other Modernists, considered them to be merely allegorical, a contention that would be heretical. To do this, however, Father Danneels would have had to dismiss the following words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ when he referred to the fate that had been visited on the cities of Sodom and Gommorha for their detestable sins against nature:

[11] And into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go thence. [12] And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house. [13] And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you. [14] And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. [15] Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. [Matthew 11:15

It is sin that caused the God-Man to suffer and die on the wood of the Cross to redeem us sinful men and to make it possible for us to cooperate with the graces He won for us as He shed every single drop of His Most Blessed Mother to quit our sins and to reform our lives once and for all. Accepting sin, the very thing that rupture man's relationship with God in the Garden of Eden and introduced disorder even into the elements of the natural world, as the foundation of human self-identity and protecting its exercise under cover of the civil law is itself sinful and thus injurious to the common temporal good, which must be pursued in light of man's Last End, the possession of the glory of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.

How do Catholics speak to sinners? How did Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ speak to sinners whilst He walk the face of the earth?

Our Lord did not reaffirm Saint Mary Magdalene in her sin of adultery. He did not applaud her. He did not excuse the gravity of violating the Sixth Commandment. He did not explain away her sin by saying that she was genetically-predisposed to commit it or that it was "impossible" for her to keep from committing it. Our Lord, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, said the following to her: 

Go, and now sin no more. (John 8: 11.)

Our Lord told His friend from Bethany to reform her life, to quit her sins once and for all. He tells us, each of whom is a sinner (and I am one of the worst and most miserable, truth be told) the same thing in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance as we resolve to amend our lives as we pray the Act of Contrition as a true priest administers Absolution upon our immortal souls, thereby applying the merits His own Most Precious Blood upon them.

Godfried Danneels believed none of this. He was an egregious, obese, little apostate and blasphemer.

Godfried Danneels exhibited his contempt for the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law throughout his career-long embrace and promotion of heresy. This contempt was on display shortly after the “election” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as “Pope Francis” on March 13, 2013, when he  that the Catholic Church, from whose maternal bosom he expelled himself long, long ago, has "nothing to say" of the matter of "civil marriage," which she has condemned repeatedly, especially after the events wrought by the French Revolution spread throughout Europe and the world in the Nineteenth Century.

The concept of "civil marriage" was condemned by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864: 

73. In force of a merely civil contract there may exist between Christians a real marriage, and it is false to say either that the marriage contract between Christians is always a sacrament, or that there is no contract if the sacrament be excluded. -- Ibid.; Letter to the King of Sardinia, Sept. 9, 1852; Allocutions "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852, "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860.

74. Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their nature to civil tribunals. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9 1846; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851, "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. (Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)

Pope Leo XIII amplified these truths, Godfried Danneels, in Arcanum, February 10, 1880:

Nevertheless, the naturalists, as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature. Innocent III. therefore. and Honorius III, our predecessors, affirmed not falsely nor rashly that a sacrament of marriage existed ever amongst the faithful and unbelievers. We call to witness the monuments of antiquity, as also the manners and customs of those people who, being the most civilized, had the greatest knowledge of law and equity. In the minds of all of them it was a fixed and foregone conclusion that, when marriage was thought of, it was thought of as conjoined with religion and holiness. Hence, among those, marriages were commonly celebrated with religious ceremonies, under the authority of pontiffs, and with the ministry of priests. So mighty, even in the souls ignorant of heavenly doctrine, was the force of nature, of the remembrance of their origin, and of the conscience of the human race. As, then, marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone in sacred matters professes the office of teaching.

Next, the dignity of the sacrament must be considered, for through addition of the sacrament the marriages of Christians have become far the noblest of all matrimonial unions. But to decree and ordain concerning the sacrament is, by the will of Christ Himself, so much a part of the power and duty of the Church that it is plainly absurd to maintain that even the very smallest fraction of such power has been transferred to the civil ruler.

Lastly should be borne in mind the great weight and crucial test of history, by which it is plainly proved that the legislative and judicial authority of which We are speaking has been freely and constantly used by the Church, even in times when some foolishly suppose the head of the State either to have consented to it or connived at it. It would, for instance, be incredible and altogether absurd to assume that Christ our Lord condemned the long-standing practice of polygamy and divorce by authority delegated to Him by the procurator of the province, or the principal ruler of the Jews. And it would be equally extravagant to think that, when the Apostle Paul taught that divorces and incestuous marriages were not lawful, it was because Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero agreed with him or secretly commanded him so to teach. No man in his senses could ever be persuaded that the Church made so many laws about the holiness and indissolubility of marriage, and the marriages of slaves with the free-born, by power received from Roman emperors, most hostile to the Christian name, whose strongest desire was to destroy by violence and murder the rising Church of Christ. Still less could anyone believe this to be the case, when the law of the Church was sometimes so divergent from the civil law that Ignatius the Martyr, Justin, Athenagoras, and Tertullian publicly denounced as unjust and adulterous certain marriages which had been sanctioned by imperial law.

Furthermore, after all power had devolved upon the Christian emperors, the supreme pontiffs and bishops assembled in council persisted with the same independence and consciousness of their right in commanding or forbidding in regard to marriage whatever they judged to be profitable or expedient for the time being, however much it might seem to be at variance with the laws of the State. It is well known that, with respect to the impediments arising from the marriage bond, through vow, disparity of worship, blood relationship, certain forms of crime, and from previously plighted troth, many decrees were issued by the rulers of the Church at the Councils of Granada, Arles, Chalcedon, the second of Milevum, and others, which were often widely different from the decrees sanctioned by the laws of the empire. Furthermore, so far were Christian princes from arrogating any power in the matter of Christian marriage that they on the contrary acknowledged and declared that it belonged exclusively in all its fullness to the Church. In fact, Honorius, the younger Theodosius, and Justinian, also, hesitated not to confess that the only power belonging to them in relation to marriage was that of acting as guardians and defenders of the holy canons. If at any time they enacted anything by their edicts concerning impediments of marriage, they voluntarily explained the reason, affirming that they took it upon themselves so to act, by leave and authority of the Church, whose judgment they were wont to appeal to and reverently to accept in all questions that concerned legitimacy and divorce; as also in all those points which in any way have a necessary connection with the marriage bond. The Council of Trent, therefore, had the clearest right to define that it is in the Church's power "to establish diriment impediments of matrimony," and that "matrimonial causes pertain to ecclesiastical judges."

Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon -- the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State, while reserving questions concerning the sacrament of the Church. A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded. . . .

Truly, it is hardly possible to describe how great are the evils that flow from divorce. Matrimonial contracts are by it made variable; mutual kindness is weakened; deplorable inducements to unfaithfulness are supplied; harm is done to the education and training of children; occasion is afforded for the breaking up of homes; the seeds of dissension are sown among families; the dignity of womanhood is lessened and brought low, and women run the risk of being deserted after having ministered to the pleasures of men. Since, then, nothing has such power to lay waste families and destroy the mainstay of kingdoms as the corruption of morals, it is easily seen that divorces are in the highest degree hostile to the prosperity of families and States, springing as they do from the depraved morals of the people, and, as experience shows us, opening out a way to every kind of evil-doing in public and in private life.

Further still, if the matter be duly pondered, we shall clearly see these evils to be the more especially dangerous, because, divorce once being tolerated, there will be no restraint powerful enough to keep it within the bounds marked out or presurmised. Great indeed is the force of example, and even greater still the might of passion. With such incitements it must needs follow that the eagerness for divorce, daily spreading by devious ways, will seize upon the minds of many like a virulent contagious disease, or like a flood of water bursting through every barrier. These are truths that doubtlessly are all clear in themselves, but they will become clearer yet if we call to mind the teachings of experience. So soon as the road to divorce began to be made smooth by law, at once quarrels, jealousies, and judicial separations largely increased: and such shamelessness of life followed that men who had been in favor of these divorces repented of what they had done, and feared that, if they did not carefully seek a remedy by repealing the law, the State itself might come to ruin. The Romans of old are said to have shrunk with horror from the first example of divorce, but ere long all sense of decency was blunted in their soul; the meager restraint of passion died out, and the marriage vow was so often broken that what some writers have affirmed would seem to be true -- namely, women used to reckon years not by the change of consuls, but of their husbands. In like manner, at the beginning, Protestants allowed legalized divorces in certain although but few cases, and yet from the affinity of circumstances of like kind, the number of divorces increased to such extent in Germany, America, and elsewhere that all wise thinkers deplored the boundless corruption of morals, and judged the recklessness of the laws to be simply intolerable.

Even in Catholic States the evil existed. For whenever at any time divorce was introduced, the abundance of misery that followed far exceeded all that the framers of the law could have foreseen. In fact, many lent their minds to contrive all kinds of fraud and device, and by accusations of cruelty, violence, and adultery to feign grounds for the dissolution of the matrimonial bond of which they had grown weary; and all this with so great havoc to morals that an amendment of the laws was deemed to be urgently needed.

Can anyone, therefore, doubt that laws in favor of divorce would have a result equally baneful and calamitous were they to be passed in these our days? There exists not, indeed, in the projects and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore, show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they do not change their views, not only private families, but all public society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of society. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.) 

As is the case with all other conciliar revolutionaries of his diabolically demented ilk, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Godfried Danneels ignored the teaching of the Catholic Church and had nothing but contempt for what he considered to be the “outdated” encyclical letters of our true popes, including these words of Pope Pius XI, contained in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930: 

How grievously all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of honesty is already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony -- hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.

Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Danneels has found out that his statement six years ago that Holy Mother Church has nothing to say about the civil law sanctioning “marriage” got him in some trouble when the adversary stood as his accuser at his Particular Judgment and mocked him for doing his bidding throughout the course of his now-ended life.

Holy Mother Church has had plenty to say on matters pertaining to Holy Purity:

Saint Paul the Apostle and Pope Saint Pius V both wrote of the truly detestable nature of the sin of Sodom that you, who have promoted the lavender agenda throughout the course of your sordid Modernist career, seek to minimize by distorting the history of the Holy Mother Church's teaching:

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. [27] 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[28] 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; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

[31] Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. [32] 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. (Romans 1: 26-32.)

That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal
Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law

Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss. (Pope Saint Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568)

Not content with promoting sins of impurity, Godfried Danneels was, much like Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who chose him to be one of the “bishops” to guide the 2014 “extraordinary” synod of conciliar “bishops” and the subsequent 2015 synod of conciliar “bishops” on the family that helped to produce Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, a friend of one pro-abortion politician after another. This wretched heretic even used his influence as the conciliar “bishop” of Malines-Brussels, Belgium (a position that he had between December 19, 1979, to January 18, 2010) to attempt to persuade the then King of Belgium, King Baudouin, a member of Opus Dei (see Not The Work of God), into signing a baby-killing bill that had been passed in 1990 by the same Belgian legislature that would endorse after-birth child-killing twenty-four years later:

Two Belgian politicians admit for the first time openly that Cardinal Godfried Danneels tried to convince King Baudouin to sign the law on abortion in 1990. Former politicians Philippe Moureau (PS, Parti Socialiste) and Mark Eyskens (CVP, Flemish Christian Democrats) said this in a documentary for the Flemish Broadcasting Corporation VTM on April 6, 2015 (http://nieuws.vtm.be/binnenland/135916-25-jaar-abortuswet-boudewijn-onder-druk, at 2:05). According to VTM, cardinal Danneels did not want to comment. 

In 1990, the 14 members of the Belgian Government - a coalition led by CVP-Prime Minister Wilfried Martens, signed one of the most liberal abortion bills in the world. King Baudouin, a devout Catholic, refused to sign this bill into law, and was temporarily considered fictitiously "incapacitated" so that the government could have the bill turned into law. 

Danneels, rabid liberal and a known pedophile-bishop-protector, was picked by Pope Francis as one of his personal choices for the 2014 Family Synod.  (Danneels Chosen as Famil Expert for 2015 Synod.)

The passage of the Belgian abortion bill in 1990 helped to pave the way for the Belgian parliament to pass a law “regularizing” the de facto practice of so-called doctors killing off babies after birth law in 2014. Danneels said not a word in opposition, and the fact that he was in retirement at the time meant nothing as he sure knew how to open his mouth quite widely to discourse on those things that mattered to him, such as suborning sin. In this regard, of course, he was a perfect mentor to Bergoglio himself as he, the Argentine Apostate, apart from his reaffirmation of the pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, pro-family planning, pro-“climate control,” anti-family, pro-everything statist European Union, also remained completely silent in 2014 as the Belgian Parliament endorsed child kill after birth until the age of eighteen in some cases:

BRUSSELS, February 13, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Belgium has become the first country in the world to approve euthanasia for children of all ages after the country’s parliamentarians passed the controversial bill today in a vote of 86 to 44, with 12 MPs abstaining.

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, called the move a “form of abandonment.”

“Belgium has abandoned the elderly, and now they are saying they will abandon their children,” he told LifeSiteNews.

Schadenberg said the new law is not about ending suffering for children with disabilities, but about expanding the “categories that are eligible for death.”

The bill was first introduced in December 2012.

The law extends to those under the age of 18 who request euthanasia with parental consent. It also applies to younger children requesting euthanasia after a doctor has certified that the child fully understands the implications of the decision.

“This is the horrific logic of euthanasia: Once killing is accepted as an answer to human difficulty and suffering, the power of sheer logic dictates that there is no bottom,” wrote Wesley J. Smith about the law.

The proposed law had been protested by a number of groups that said the existing 2002 euthanasia legislation has been an unmitigated disaster.

Schadenberg said he was not surprised to see the bill pass, since he said the entire euthanasia project in Belgium is being “pushed blindly” by a government that has ignored all the abuses currently taking place within existing euthanasia laws.

“Euthanasia has been really out of control in Belgium for quite some time. We know from studies that about 32 percent of euthanasia deaths go without requests. Over half of euthanasia deaths are not reported,” he said.  

Schadenberg said the new law will only make it easier for doctors to indiscriminately and without repercussion end the lives of the most vulnerable deemed unfit to live. (Belgium Parliament passes law allowing children to be euthanized.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Godfried Danneels remained silent about these and other moral outrages as they went about their destructive business as Modernists so very merrily, denouncing those who adhere to Catholic teaching while enabling those who live lives of unrepentant sin, waxing on and on about “the poor” and the need to “save the environment.” Much like Godfried Danneels, Jorge has got lots to say about those things that concern him—and the past six years have shown us that he is never bashful about speaking out whenever he wants to do so. Men such as Bergoglio and Danneels have had nothing to say about the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance or about the Spiritual Works of Mercy. God will not be merciful to those who lead His little ones astray, worse yet encourage the little ones to lead lives of sin and scandal without remorse, repentance or the amendment of their lives..

We must pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, conscious of the fact that must make reparation for our sins, which are so responsible for the worsening of the state of the Church Militant and of the world-at-large, accept with joy and with gratitude each of the sufferings and calumnies and difficulties that come our way as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The path to Heaven can be trod only by those who are willing to bear the Cross and to lift it high in their daily lives. considering it our privilege to suffer in these perilous times of apostasy and betrayal.

We must beg Our Lady to send us the graces to live in such a way that we will be ready at all times to die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

It's the Faith that matters, the entire Faith without any compromises, now and for all eternity. And we cannot be concerned about what anyone thinks or says about us for our efforts, despite our own sins and failings, to stand fast in behalf of the full integrity of the Holy Faith as we pray for the conversion of the conciliar revolutionaries back to that true Faith before they die.

What more can be said?

Let us turn again to the words of spoken by Our Lady to the Venerable Mary of Agreda as recounted in the latter's The Mystical City of God:

243. And to the greater confusion of the wicked ministers which the holy Church has today, I desire thee to understand that in the eternal decree by which the Most High resolved to communicate his infinite treasures to souls He chiefly and immediately directed these benefits toward the prelates, priests, preachers and dispensers of his divine word,* so as far as the will of the Lord was concerned all of them could be angelic rather than human in their sanctity and perfection, and enjoy many privileges and exemptions of nature and grace among the rest of the living, and by these singular benefits become fit ministers of the Most High, if only they would not pervert the order of his infinite wisdom and live up to the dignity to which they were called and chosen among all others. This infinite kindness of God is just as great now as in the first ages of the Church; the inclination of the highest Good to enrich souls is not changed, nor can it be; his condescending generosity has not diminished; the love of his Church is always at its height; his mercy is just as much concerned about the miseries of men, which in our times have become innumerable; the clamor of the sheep of Christ is louder than ever; the prelates, priests and ministers are more numerous than before. If this is so, to what is to be attributed the loss of so many souls and the ruin of the Christian people? Why is it the infidels not only do not enter the Church but subject it to so much affliction and sorrow? Why do the prelates and ministers not shine before the world, exhibiting the splendors of Christ as in ages gone by and in the primitive Church?

244. O my daughter, I invite thee to let thy tears flow over this loss and ruin. Consider how the stones of the sanctuary are scattered about in the streets of the city (Lam. 4:1). See how the priests of the Lord have assimilated themselves to the people (Is. 24:2), whereas they should make them a holy people and similar to themselves. The sacerdotal dignity and the precious vestments of virtue are soiled by the contagion of the worldly; the anointed of the Lord, consecrated solely to his communication and worship, have degraded themselves from their noble and godlike station; they have lost their beauty in debasing themselves to vile actions, unworthy of their exalted position among men. They affect vanity; they indulge greed and avarice; they serve their own interest; they love money; they place their hopes in treasures of gold and silver; they submit to the flatteries and slavery of the worldly and powerful; and to their still lower degradation, they subject themselves to the petty whims of women, and sometimes make themselves participants in their counsels of malice and wickedness. There is hardly a sheep in the fold of Christ which recognizes in them the voice of its Pastor,* or finds from them the nourishment of that redeeming virtue and holiness which they should show forth. The little ones ask for bread, and there is none to distribute it (Lam. 4:4); and if it is dealt out in self-interest or out of compliance, how can it give wholesome nourishment to the necessitous and infirm from such leprous hands? And how shall the supreme Physician confide to them the medicine in which life consists? If they are guilty of greater sins than those for whom they are to intercede and mediate, how can they obtain mercy for the sins of those less or even similarly guilty?

245. These are the reasons why the prelates and priests of our times do not perform the miracles of the Apostles and disciples, and those in the primitive Church who imitated their lives by an ardent zeal for the honor of the Lord and the conversion of souls. Because of this the treasures of the blood and death of Christ in the Church do not bear the same fruits, neither in his priests and ministers nor in the other mortals; for if priests neglect and forget to make them fruitful in themselves, how can they expect them to overflow onto the other children of this family? For this reason the infidels are not converted upon learning of the true faith, though they live within sight of the princes of the Church, the ministers and preachers of the Gospel. The Church in our times is richer in temporal goods, rents† and possessions; it abounds with learned men, great prelacies, and multiplied dignities. Since all these advantages are due to the blood of Christ they ought all to be used in his honor and service, promoting the conversion of souls, supporting his poor, and enhancing the worship and veneration of his holy Name.

246. If the temporal goods are being put to such good use, ask the captives whether they are ransomed by the incomes of the churches, the infidels whether they are converted, whether the heresies are extirpated, and hence this is how the ecclesiastical treasures are employed. But the public voice will loudly proclaim that from these same treasures palaces were built, entailed estates established, the airy towers raised up; and what is most lamentable, it is known to what profane and vile uses those who succeed in the ecclesiastical offices put the treasures of the Church, how they dishonor Christ the High Priest, and in their lives depart just as far from the imitation of Christ and the Apostles as the most profane men of the world. If the preaching of the divine word by these ministers is so dead and without power for vivifying the hearers it is not the fault of truth or the Holy Scriptures, but rather due to the abuse of their preaching and the distorted intentions of those who preach. They seek to compromise the glory of Christ with their own selfish honor and vain esteem, the spiritual goods with the base acquisition of stipends; and if those two selfish ends are reached, they care not for other fruit from their preaching. Hence they wander away from pure and sincere doctrine (and sometimes even from the truth) which the sacred authors have recorded in the Scriptures and according to which the holy teachers have explained them; they slime it over with their own ingenious subtleties, seeking to cause rather the pleasure and admiration of their hearers than their advancement. Since the divine truths reach the ears of sinners so adulterated they impress upon the mind the ingenious sophistry of the preacher rather than the charity of Christ; they bring with it no force or efficacy for penetrating hearts, although full of ingenious artifice to delight the ears.

247. Let not the chastisement of these vanities and abuses, and of others unknown to the world, astonish thee, my dearest, and be not surprised that divine justice has so much forsaken the prelates, ministers and preachers of his word, or that the Catholic Church is now in such a contemptible state after having been so exalted in its beginnings. And if there are some priests and ministers who are not infected with these lamentable vices the Church owes so much the more to my divine Son in these times when He is so deeply offended and outraged. With those who are zealous He is most generous, but they are few in number as is evident from the ruin of the Christian people and the contempt into which the priests and preachers of the Gospel have fallen; for if there were many perfect and zealous laborers for souls, without a doubt sinners would reform and amend their lives and many infidels would be converted; all would look upon and hear with reverence and fear such preachers, priests and prelates; they would respect them for their dignity and holiness, and not for the authority and ostentation by which they gain this reverence, which is more appropriately called worldly applause and without benefit. Do not be afraid or abashed for having written all of this, for they themselves know it is the truth, and thou dost not write of thy own choice but at my command. Hence bewail such a sad state, and invite heaven and earth to help thee in thy weeping, for there are few who sorrow because of it, and this is the greatest of all the injuries committed against the Lord by the children of the Church. (The New English Edition of The Mystical City of God, Book 7: The Coronation, Chapter XIII.)

It is certainly the case that Godfried Danneels was one a priest who was infected with many lamentable vices and who helped to corrupt Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals as a true son of Antichrist's own "Second" Vatican Council.

Only God alone knows the subjective state of souls during their lives and after their deaths. However, it is important for us to pray to Our Lady to die as Catholics who hate our own sins and who use this season of Lent as a time to weed out the bad habits and vices that have crept into our souls since the last Ember Friday in Lent fifty-five weeks ago. We must perish without penance, and we will perish if we do not beg Our Lady to send us the graces won for us by her Divine Son during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross to have the gift of final perseverance as the Master does indeed come like a thief in the night.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us! 

Saint Joseph, pray for us. 

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us. 

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us. 

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us. 

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us. 

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.