| ||||
John Smeaton outlines more evidence why Fr Radcliffe should be cancelled by Dublin’s Divine Mercy conference
John Smeaton, the Director of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, has outlined more evidence why Fr Radcliffe should be cancelled by Dublin’s Divine Mercy conference. John Smeaton writes:
Fr Timothy Radcliffe O.P. has issued a statement in response to calls by concerned Catholics, including myself, for this weekend’s Divine Mercy Conference in Dublin tocancel his appearance due to his dissent from Catholic teaching on sexual ethics. Deacon Nick Donnelly of the excellent Protect the Pope blog has already detailed Fr Radcliffe’s unorthodox contribution to the Church of England’s Pilling review on homosexuality, and Kathy Sinnott and Fr Dominic Allain have taken apart that contribution in an edition of Kathy’s Celtic Connections radio programme on EWTN. In his statement on the Divine Mercy Conference website, Fr Radcliffe admits that: “I have presided occasionally at Masses which were intended to be especially welcoming to gay people.”The Masses in question are the infamous Soho gay Masses. Fr Radcliffe goes on to claim that: “There are no grounds at all for regarding these Masses as gatherings of dissenters from the Church’s teaching.”Fr Radcliffe’s claim is demonstrably false – there is a mountain of evidence that those Masses were precisely “gatherings of dissenters from the Church’s teaching” – see my blog-posts of 25 Aug. 2010, 9 Sep. 2010, 13 Dec. 2010 and 7 Jan. 2012 ) Fr Radcliffe himself gave words of succour to those dissenters in his sermons to them. On 7 May 2004, The Catholic Herald reported that Fr Radcliffe “has presided over a Mass for London’s gay Catholics.” The paper also reported that Fr Radcliffe told a recent convert that he “must understand that he has joined with all sorts of people whose opinions on homosexuality may differ widely.” The paper quoted Fr Radcliffe saying that: “You are becoming one with all sorts of people with whom you may profoundly disagree, and who may appear to reject your sexual orientation and much that you may hold dear … [such as] Cardinal Ratzinger”.And in a sermon on 18 August 2010 at the Soho Mass, Fr Radcliffe complained that: “Every statement that comes from the Vatican seems to provoke more misunderstanding, more embarrassment, more frustration. My indignation with what the Vatican says is only exceeded by my indignation at its wilful misrepresentation by the press.”In a 10 March 2012 article in The Tablet entitled “Can marriage ever change“, Fr Radcliffe wrote: “This is not to denigrate committed love of people of the same sex. This too should be cherished and supported, which is why church leaders are slowly coming to support samesex civil unions. The God of love can be present in every true love.”In a 26 November 2005 article in The Tablet entitled “Can gays be priests?” Fr Radcliffe interpreted the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s document on “Persons with homosexual tendencies and the priesthood”. Criticising Fr Radcliffe’s interpretation, Fr Alphonsus de Valk wrote that: “The article has done a disservice to the Church…by attempting to deconstruct the Vatican warnings … In unjustly deriding the Vatican warnings, Fr. Radcliffe has given succor to other detractors.”In 2006, Fr Radcliffe joined Britain’s leading dissenting Catholics in contributing an essay to “Opening up: Speaking out in the Church“, a book of essays produced as a tribute to Martin Pendergast, one of Britain’s leading Christian homosexual activists and one of the organisers of the Soho gay Masses. The book co-edited by Julian Filochowski, Pendergast’s civil partner, and Peter Stanford, another notorious dissenter from Catholic sexual ethics. On 10 July 2009, Fr Radcliffe gave a talk to a Catholic parish in Mashpee, Massachusetts, which he said: “It’s not that sexual ethics are particularly important. I don’t think they are” (video at 8min40sec)and “We have to find ways of promoting our vision of the Christian family so as we can have a context within which to raise children, another generation; but we have to do it in a way which doesn’t trash the relationships that people actually have” (video at 1min)This echoes Fr Radcliffe’s words in:
“[S]hould the Church accommodate her teaching to the experience of our contemporaries or should we stick by our traditional sexual ethics and risk becoming a fortress Church, a small minority out of step with people’s lives? Neither option seems right … I confess that I do not know the answer.”
“We accompany people in friendship as they become moral agents. Let’s look at the gays. For some reason–I don’t actually understand why–it’s become a very hot topic in all the churches at the moment. It’s tearing the Church of England apart. It’s the cause of great dissension in our own church. Usually when we think about it, we ask, ‘What is forbidden or permitted?’ But I’m afraid I’m an old-fashioned and traditional Catholic, and I believe that’s the wrong place to start. We begin by standing by gay people as they hear the voice of the Lord that summons them to life and happiness. We accompany them as they wrestle with discovering what this means and how they must walk. And this means letting our imaginations be stretched open to watching Brokeback Mountain, reading gay novels, having gay friends, making that leap of the heart and the mind, delighting in their being, listening with them as they listen to the Lord.”In March 2012, Stephen Hough, a concert pianist who is openly practising homosexual Catholic, argued in favour of same-sex marriage in a blogpost on The Telegraph website, in which he said: “I am heartened by Father Timothy Radcliffe’s article in The Tablet which tries to place marriage and partnerships from a Catholic viewpoint in a clearer perspective. As the former head of the Dominican Order worldwide, he is the most senior churchman to offer a revisionist view on this issue … If Fr. Radcliffe’s lone voice were a united choir from the bishops worldwide the Church might be in a better position to discuss this issue and make a valuable contribution.”Fr Radcliffe has a problem understanding and accepting the concept of obedience, both to the truth and to the Magisterium which proclaims that truth:
“I think that the most important thing is to have a mutually-respectful dialogue with President Obama. He is a very bright man. I have to say that when he was elected, in England you cannot believe the excitement we had. And I believe that he is a man with whom the Church can be in dialogue, on all sorts of issues.”Fr Radcliffe then called to the stage Professor Thomas Groome to speak as an expert on the Church’s “dialogue” with Mr Obama. As LifeSiteNews.com has detailed, Professor Groome is a leading dissenter from Catholic teaching within the world of Catholic education. Cardinal George Pell has banned his books within the Archdiocese of Sydney. Professor Groome said (video at 0mins40secs) that:
46 comments to John Smeaton outlines more evidence why Fr Radcliffe should be cancelled by Dublin’s Divine Mercy conferenceLeave a Reply | ||||
| Copyright © 2014 Protect the Pope - All Rights Reserved Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa  | ||||
Thursday, March 13, 2014
John Smeaton outlines more evidence why Fr Radcliffe should be cancelled by Dublin’s Divine Mercy conference « Protect the Pope
John Smeaton outlines more evidence why Fr Radcliffe should be cancelled by Dublin’s Divine Mercy conference « Protect the Pope
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fr Radcliffe OP may want to remind himself of what the motto of the Dominicans is:
Laudare, Benedicere, Praedicare – Praise, Bless, Preach.
The Order was founded to preach the Gospel and combat heresey.
We are not risking becoming ‘a fortress church’. We are holding on to the Teachings of Christ himself while many others wish to change this to suit them or others.
Where there is no authority for change – than change cannot be implemented.
KG
Over the years I have attended many Conferences where some remarkably eminent Theologians have delivered talks, some of which I have agreed with and others that I have not agreed with. Even where I have not agreed with a speaker I have respected their opinion and their academic expertise.
We are not talking about “the party line”, we are talking about the Teaching of Christ.
How boring it must have been for the Twelve Apostles!
Guest Speaker is well known dissident,Fr.Brian Darcy.
http://www.portlaoiseparish.ie/web-cam/
I would say to all faithful Irish Catholics: “Your Church has suffered enough from the abuse and corruption of rotten clergy – don’t give them the chance to abuse your minds and your souls anymore. What they will do to your soul is the same as what they have done to your children. Boycott this event – don’t give them the platform, the attention or the money to take advantage of you again.”
No. Peter is a Catholic religious of some sort, but we don’t know if he’s a priest.
As for the Divine Mercy conference, the almost histrionic accusations from its organiser Mr. Don Devanney about “bullying” and “scaring off” (as reported by Deacon Nick in an earlier post), remind me of a spoiled teenager reacting to being caught red-handed. Not impressive.
Didn’t our Lord say: “HE who hears you, {meaning his disciples} hears ME.” i would definitely call him on the carpet and deny him the opportunity of
speaking. Where is the COURAGE needed in defending the faith in TRUTH!
See my comment to BJC. (It may explain my understanding of the issue.)
No Priest would “pretend” to absolve. My understanding is that the Sacrament of Reconciliation was not completed because of someone entering the room. We do no know if the Priest had even begun the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is not always necessary before receiving the Sacrament of the Sick. I have received the Sacrament of the Sick twice and on neither occasion was I offered or asked if I wished to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
The Patient would not have been affected by a sin committed by the Priest. If the Patient believed that the absolution was valid then it probably would be. A Priest in a state of grave sin does not invalidate the celebration of the Sacraments.
Nicolas: The article in the Washington Blade gives a fuller version of the incident. I have survived a Heart Attack (18 months ago) and Cancer (13 years ago) and I thank God every day of my life. I am fairly philosophical about major illness and my own death, basically if it is the will of God, I will accept it. If the skill of Medics saves me, so be it. My theory is that God thinks that I have not annoyed enough people to be taken yet.
Someone such as the Patient in the incident was, it would seem, quite worried and after the Priest left a Doctor told him to calm down in case he had another Heart Attack. For most people it is frightening when something like a Heart Attack happens and the thought of receiving the Sacrament of the Sick, which I have had twice, can be very consoling.
Don’t know what the problem is. The whole story is below, and it’s pretty obvious the priest quite rightly refused this man confession and communion because he was unrepentent of having committed grave sin, i.e. homosexual acts. A second priest from his own parish then concurred with the first priest’s decision.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gay-patient-says-catholic-chaplain-refused-him-last-rites/2014/02/19/35d163f6-99b1-11e3-80ac-63a8ba7f7942_story.html
The Patient was asked if he would like to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation which he agreed to. As part of it he spoke about his past life and told the Priest that he was gay. The Priest said that it did not bother him. Given that the Patient thought that he was in danger of death it would seem that he wanted and needed to confess. Unfortunately they were disturbed by another Patient entering the room and the Priest did not continue. Something was said for the Priest not to continue. The Patient who thought that he was in danger of death would, I would suggest, not have been considering any form of sexual activity. If I thought that I was in danger of death, my only concern would be ensuring that I was prepared to meet my Maker. I would not want to be treated in any other way other than with love, mercy and kindness. Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery. He told her to go away and sin no more. Would that we had more Priests who in accepting the title “alter Christus” were more pastoral in their approach and role of Pastor.
I don’t think so either.
Canon 1184 states:
$ 1 Church funerals are to be denied to the following unless they gave some signs of repentance before death:
1. notorious apostates, heretics and schismatics
2. those who for anti-Christian motives chose that their bodies be cremated
3. other manifest sinners to whom a Church funeral could not be given without public scandal to the faithful.
$ 2 If any doubt occurs, the local Ordinary (aka the Bishop) is to be consulted and his judgement followed.
The only scandal that I think could occur would be if the priest turned the Funeral Mass (or allowed the Funeral Mass to be turned) into a vehicle for exulting the Gay Lifestyle – rather than praying for the deceased.
Either the priest was wrong – or (perhaps more likely) the newspaper report was wrong.
None of us is perfect: we all need God’s mercy and forgiveness.
From the Collect for a Funeral Mass:
“O God whose nature is always to forgive and to show mercy,
we humbly implore you for your servant N.
whom you have called (this day)to journey to you,
and since he (she) hoped and believed in you,
grant that he (she) may be led to our true homeland
to delight in its everlasting joys.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ…..”
Prayer after Communion
“Grant we pray, almighty God, that your servant N.
who (today) has journeyed from this world,
may by this sacrifice be cleansed and freed from sin
and so receive the everlasting hoys of the resurrection.
Through Christ our Lord.”
“Either the priest was wrong – or (perhaps more likely) the newspaper report was wrong.”
should be ignored.
My Mother’s Requiem was not outrageous. She had wanted it as a Mass of the Resurrection with White Vestments. The Mass Booklet, I and my Brother wanted it to say it was a celebration of her life and motherhood. We were told this was out of the question. All because he did not like her or the rest of our family. Her Parish Priest was hospitalised just in the days before her Requiem and I asked a very good friend of mine who is a Seminary Professor to celebrate the Requiem.
The point of this is that anyone who is gay and chooses to have a Requiem Mass is unlikely to use the Mass for “political” motives. I would have thought that they would want a Requiem celebrated by the Church because it was the final act in their life as a Catholic and they would expect that their friends would respect their desire for the final act of commendation not to be turned into a circus “exulting the gay lifestyle”, whatever that means. I would not expect someone who was a criminal to exult the life of crime.
I would have thought that anyone falling in to one of the categories in “Canon 1184″ was unlikely to seek their final commendation in a Requiem Mass in the Catholic Church. Canon 1184 is likely to be irrelevant for them. I would also question how often Canon 1184 is used.
Yes, we are all in need of “God’s mercy and forgiveness” I am also in need of His love.
I don’t think so either.
Canon 1184 states:
$ 1 Church funerals are to be denied to the following unless they gave some signs of repentance before death:
1. notorious apostates, heretics and schismatics
2. those who for anti-Christian motives chose that their bodies be cremated
3. other manifest sinners to whom a Church funeral could not be given without public scandal to the faithful.
$ 2 If any doubt occurs, the local Ordinary (aka the Bishop) is to be consulted and his judgement followed.
The only scandal that I think could occur would be if the priest turned the Funeral Mass (or allowed the Funeral Mass to be turned) into a vehicle for exulting the Gay Lifestyle – rather than praying for the deceased.
None of us is perfect: we all need God’s mercy and forgiveness.
From the Collect for a Funeral Mass:
“O God whose nature is always to forgive and to show mercy,
we humbly implore you for your servant N.
whom you have called (this day)to journey to you,
and since he (she) hoped and believed in you,
grant that he (she) may be led to our true homeland
to delight in its everlasting joys.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ…..”
Prayer after Communion
“Grant we pray, almighty God, that your servant N.
who (today) has journeyed from this world,
may by this sacrifice be cleansed and freed from sin
and so receive the everlasting hoys of the resurrection.
Through Christ our Lord.”
Well, here is an extract from what is described as a ‘homily’ by Fr Brendan Callaghan on 21 December 2013.
‘So while the Sacrament of Marriage is boundaried, there are no boundaries to the sacramentality of sex – that is, to the possibility, the capacity of sex to be “the most efficacious sacramental symbol”, teaching us in the most embodied way possible the love of God, and inviting us in the most embodied way possible to embody that love in all our living.’
This seems to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the Sacrament of Marriage and make sex a form of ‘worship’. See: http://www.sohomasses.com/homilies
This ‘homily’, the content of Soho Masses LGBT newsletters and links to the Cutting Edge Consortium, ACTA and Quest on the ‘Soho Masses’ website are all in the public domain. Perhaps Fr Radcliffe should get out a bit more?
When my parents started becoming frail, I first began to realise that the primary reason for the 4th Commandment is to remind adults (if they need reminding!) of their duty to care for their aged parents – just as their parents cared for them when they were infants.
God bless you.
“There are no grounds at all for regarding these Masses as gatherings of dissenters from the Church’s teaching.”
…this is the most idiotic lie he could ever use in his defense! I used to be one of the organizers of the Soho Masses when I was still a gay activist. I remember Fr Radcliffe’s homilies and they sounded NOTHING like even “sympathetic” of Church’s teachings on homosexuality.
I needed to move away from the Soho Masses once I found Christ. So there is no way Father’s defensive statement even slightly cuts it!
My testimony can be read in the above link.
I agree with all of the points that you make – and in response to your question about how often Canon 1184 is used, I would think the answer is: “very rarely indeed”.
We are all in need of God’s love and His grace.
Although of course both you and your brother will still miss your mother, I do hope that the pain of bereavement has diminished – as it has for me in the time since my own parents died.
I invite everyone who reads this to pray for all who have died – and for their families.
“May their souls and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God rest in peace.”