jump to navigation

More on the radical errors of Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, OP May 19, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, Papa, persecution, religious, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.

I posted yesterday some content on just a few of the problematic statements of Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, OP, just this past weekend (this Pope seems to have learned quite a bit from Obama – or Juan Peron – on how to manipulate the news cycle to one’s advantage) appointed to role of Consultor to the Pontifical Council for Peace and Justice, a long-time hot bed of dissent, abuse, and even open heresy.  Radcliffe’s role of Consultor will get him a voting position at the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the family.  Burke out, Radcliffe in.  Means nothing, move along, nothing to see here, move along.

Via Vox Cantoris, some additional writings from Fr. Radcliffe, including his belief that sodomy is equivalent in “fertility” to natural relations between husband and wife (emphasis in original, I add comments):

Fr Radcliffe OP expands the meaning of fertility to include gay sex

But not every marriage is fertile in this way. We must avoid having a mechanistic or simplistic understanding of fertility. Jesus speaks a fertile word: This is my body, given for you. He is God’s fertile word. And surely it is in the kind and healing words that we offer each other that we all share in fertility of that most intimate moment. When Jesus met Peter on the shore after Easter, he offers him a word that renews their relationship. Three times he asks him; ‘Do you love me more than these others?’ He allows him to undo his threefold denial. Sexual fertility cannot be separated from the exchange of words that heal, that recreate and set free. [Just to be clear, Fr. Radcliffe is comparing Christ’s forgiveness of St. Peter with the words exchanged in the foul embrace of sodomites.  I don’t think I have to comment on just how perverse that is]

How does all of this bear on the question of gay sexuality? We cannot begin with the question of whether it is permitted or forbidden! We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. [Not even slightly, and no amount of modernist double-talk will make it so]  Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent.  [I point you again to this link, which discusses the sky-high rates of violence between same-sex partners.  Sodomy, by its very nature, is an act of violence.  It abuses the human body in ways that are unnatural and destructive. If you want to be grossed out, read about the incredibly disgusting after-products of sodomy – lube, blood, fecal matter, semen.  Oh, yes, it’s so “vulnerable and tender.”  That language, BTW, strikes me as being redolent of pederasty] So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift.  [The abomination of desolation, indeed.  And this man was head of the Dominican order for 9 years.]

We can also see how it can be expressive of mutual fidelity, a covenantal relationship in which two people bind themselves to each other for ever. But the proposed legislation for ‘gay marriage’ imply that it is not understood to be inherently unitive, a becoming one flesh. […] [I’ll just repeat, even among so-called “married” individuals fallen into these perverted lusts, the idea of monogamy – especially for men – is almost completely foreign. Trysts with others are very common. This fact is kept as undercover as possible, because it (along with a thousand other things) obliterates the call for recognition of their “unions” as marriage.]

And what about fertility? I have suggested that one should not stick to a crude, mechanistic understanding of fertility. Biological fertility is inseparable from the fertility of our mutual tenderness and compassion. And so that might seem to remove one objection to gay marriage. I am not entirely convinced, since it seems to me that our tradition is incarnational, the word becoming bodily flesh. And some heterosexual relationships may be accidentally infertile in this sense, but homosexual ones are intrinsically so.

Sexual ethics is about what our acts say. And I have the impression that we are not very sure of what gay sexual acts signify. Maybe we need to ask gay Christians who have been living in committed relationships for years. I suspect that sex will turn out to be rather unimportant.’ [Which is why an overwhelming majority of those fallen into sodomy have over 100 lifetime partners, and only 4.5% report fidelity to their current partner?]

Fr Radcliffe on Holy Communion for Catholics who are divorced and re-married:

I would conclude with two profound hopes. That a way will be found to welcome divorced and remarried people back to communion. And, most important, that women will be given real authority and voice in the church. The pope expresses his desire that this may happen, but what concrete form can it take? He believes that the ordination of women to the ministerial priesthood is not possible, [Note the phrasing: “he believes……”…….but wait till we get a really radical Pope!] but decision-making in the church has become ever more closely linked to ordination in recent years. Can that bond be loosened? Let us hope that women may be ordained to the diaconate and so have a place in preaching at the Eucharist. What other ways can authority be shared?’  [Note also that the idea that women must be “given real authority in the Church” is just an assumed good, something “desirable.”  On what basis?  The entire college of disciples was male, this is something Christ Himself instituted, but, heck, if we can admit adulterers and attempted bigamists to Communion in spite of Christ’s command, why not just scrap all His other inconvenient (to leftists) commands?]

————End Quote————-

So, as time goes by, the reality of this pontificate and its nature becomes more and more clear.

Regarding this Radcliffe character, it’s been said that modernism was an attempt by liberal “Christians” to incorporate evolutionary theory (Darwinism) into their faith – but with the evolution always predominate.  The real (main) religion of the modernists was scientific socialism and Darwinism. The neo-modernists of today are simply leftists who hold positions in the Church requiring a patina of Catholicism of them due to the nature of their position.  Their primary religion is leftism.

I think if you will look at matters through that lens you will find that virtually all these “inexplicable” acts suddenly make a great deal of sense.

Dismas and others have been quite right: different religion.


1. Branch - May 19, 2015

Is it getting to a point where one can no longer possibly spin or explain these occurrences away?

2. TLM - May 19, 2015

Getting to that point Branch. I don’t see any way possible that Pope Francis is ignorant of this man’s sodomy loving theology. It just doesn’t add up that he doesn’t know who he is and what he is all about, at least to some degree.

3. Tim - May 19, 2015

What will Voris do, now that the “uncritisizable” Pope Francis has appointed this enemy of God to this commision? Will Mr. Voris ever get it?

Tantumblogo - May 19, 2015

Yeah, I guess they had no tip that this appointment by TFG was coming. Looks pretty odd- how evil the bishops are for promoting this sodomy-loving priest, and then just a few months later, the pope appoints the same man to a position of real influence. Oops.

4. Baseballmom - May 19, 2015

You are dead on accurate. Leftists are LEFTISTS FIRST!!! Whether Catholic, Jewish, a particular nationality…. Whatever…. Their religion is their leftist religion and politics. And they DO NOT give up. Never. Because, in their tragic depravity they are never “satisfied” – whatever they get, it is never “enough.” It is the working of the demonic within them. Truly tragic.

5. Brian - May 19, 2015

This fella speaks with a forked tongue. Seen this before. Best not talk to guys like this. Just grind them into the dust. They are a destructive force. Just shows you how it was that Satan got Eve to give up Eden in exchange for slavery. Our first mother listened and pondered. We must not. Turn him off.

I sincerely hope faithful Bishops in high places are girding their loins right now. Not much we in the pews can do except guard our families and remain faithful to Magisterial truth.

6. Joseph D'Hippolito - May 20, 2015

I would love to know where Radcliffe was when the clerical sex-abuse crisis broke (again) at the turn of this century.

7. Mally El - May 20, 2015

“We cannot begin with the question of whether it is permitted or forbidden.”

No, this was not said by the devil in the Garden of Eden when he was told that God did not want the first parents to consume the forbidden fruit. This was said by Radcliffe when referring to forbidden sex. Same deceptive strategy.

8. TG - May 21, 2015

“Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent” – all I can say is What?? – the very act in the rear is violent. (Sorry for being so blunt but it’s the truth.)

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: