Pope Francis has boarded his plane in Philadelphia and is en route to the Vatican, though he is likely back home by the time you read this. I wanted to bring up a story that came out on Thursday. With all of the Papal news that came out during Pope Francis’ trip to the United States, I wanted to make sure we start the week out with this story, as it is of utmost importance, especially with the Synod of the Family only a week away. Edward Pentin writes over at the National Catholic Register:

Further serious concerns are being raised about Cardinal Godfried Danneels, one of the papal delegates chosen to attend the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the Family, after the archbishop emeritus of Brussels confessed this week to being part of a radical “mafia” reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI.

 

It was also revealed this week that he once wrote a letter to the Belgium government favoring same-sex “marriage” legislation because it ended discrimination against LGBT groups.

 

[…]

 

The Vatican listed him second in importance out of 45 delegates personally chosen by Pope Francis to participate in the upcoming meeting. He also took part in last year’s Extraordinary Synod as a papal delegate.

 

At the launch of the book in Brussels this week, the cardinal said he was part of a secret club of cardinals opposed to Pope Benedict XVI.

 

He called it a “mafia” club that bore the name of St. Gallen. The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, to make it “much more modern”, and for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to head it. The group, which also comprised Cardinal Walter Kasper and the late Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, has been documented in Austen Ivereigh’s biography of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer.

Even more shocking is this news is coming from the authorized biography about Godfried Cardinal Danneels. Moreso, Cardinal Danneels admits on video that he was a part of a mafia to oust Pope Benedict.

This appears to conflict with what Pope St. John Paul II wrote in Universi Dominici Gregis:

79. Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors, I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a Cardinal, during the Pope’s lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings.

 

80. In the same way, I wish to confirm the provisions made by my Predecessors for the purpose of excluding any external interference in the election of the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, in virtue of holy obedience and under pain of excommunication latae sententiae, I again forbid each and every Cardinal elector, present and future, as also the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and all other persons taking part in the preparation and carrying out of everything necessary for the election, to accept under any pretext whatsoever, from any civil authority whatsoever, the task of proposing the veto or the so-called exclusiva, even under the guise of a simple desire, or to reveal such either to the entire electoral body assembled together or to individual electors, in writing or by word of mouth, either directly and personally or indirectly and through others, both before the election begins and for its duration. I intend this prohibition to include all possible forms of interference, opposition and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree, or any individual or group, might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope.

 

81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.

 

82. I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void.

 

83. With the same insistence shown by my Predecessors, I earnestly exhort the Cardinal electors not to allow themselves to be guided, in choosing the Pope, by friendship or aversion, or to be influenced by favour or personal relationships towards anyone, or to be constrained by the interference of persons in authority or by pressure groups, by the suggestions of the mass media, or by force, fear or the pursuit of popularity. Rather, having before their eyes solely the glory of God and the good of the Church, and having prayed for divine assistance, they shall give their vote to the person, even outside the College of Cardinals, who in their judgment is most suited to govern the universal Church in a fruitful and beneficial way.

Taking all of this in, and taking Cardinal Danneels for his own word, it makes one wonder if the abdication of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is indeed valid or not. Also interesting is Cardinal Danneels has been placed in a high post at the Synod of the Family. Not only is he for gay marriage and adultery, but he was partially responsible for the abdication of Pope Benedict.

We are left with a few questions. If this Cardinal is against the family, then why is he given the number two spot on the Synod? If he indeed was a part of ousting Pope Benedict and violated Universi Dominici Gregis in order to elect Pope Francis, why would he admit all of this now, just one and a half weeks (at the time of the announcement) from the Synod of the Family? If Pope Benedict was indeed forced to resign, then is he still our Pope?

This bombshell is a lot to process and it is scary to think of the ramifications for it’s implications. I await to hear more about this story as it develops, and will report more when I have more information. I am aware that a statement came out shortly after the breaking of this story saying that it was in error, but the fact still remains that there is video evidence of Cardinal Danneels admitting to it all. And that is where we need to find out more information.