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. 201013 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.”

  • a  keynote address to a US religious education conference, in which he was reported as saying:

“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:

  • During his 2009 Mashpee talk, he said that the Catholic Church “tends to be addicted to the culture of control” (video at 3min40sec).
  • In an article in The Catholic Herald on 2 December 2005, (“A wound to the Body of Chirst”), Fr Radcliffe complained that Catholics during the Reformation “had to toe the party line, to stick to precise formulations of dogmatic positions”.
  • In an article in The Catholic Herald on 10 December 2006, writer Raymond Edwards described Fr Radcliffe as the “darling of English progressives” and criticised what he described as Fr Radcliffe’s “misunderstanding of the role of the Church’s Magisterium” and his “agnosticism” regarding sexual ethics.

Again, during his 2009 Mashpee talk, Fr Radcliffe was asked about relations between the Catholic Church and the newly-elected President Barack Obama. He replied (video at 9mins28secs) that:

“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:

  • Obama “on many, many issues, really embraces Catholic social teaching”
  • “many Catholics would not be in favour” of banning all abortions
  • banning all abortions would “to send abortions back to the back-alleys of our country”
  • Obama is “deeply committed to reducing the numbers of abortions”
  • Catholics “can work with” Obama on the abortion issue.

http://spuc-director.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/more-evidence-for-why-fr-timothy.html

46 comments to John Smeaton outlines more evidence why Fr Radcliffe should be cancelled by Dublin’s Divine Mercy conference

  • Kinga Gray - Grzeczynska LLB

    I think you need to send this to the Apostolic Nuncio in Ireland and to the Dominican Master Father Bruno Cadore OP at Sancta Sabina, Roma.

    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

  • Anabela

    Oh dear. That is bad. Very bad indeed.

  • Anabela

    It shows the importance of choosing only those who are true to the teachings of the Church for Catholic Conferences. That should be obvious. Those who organise Catholic Conferences have a responsibility to the lay faithful but are giving great scandal if they choose someone to speak who goes against the Church’s teaching because they are also going against Christ. We must pray for the Conference and for all those concerned and that the will of the Lord to be done in this situation. The Lord has allowed it for a reason…nothing happens that He cannot bring good out of. God bless you.

    • Michael Sheridan

      Oh dear! I would find any conference that ONLY towed the party line, intensely boring. When I have attended Conferences I have wanted to be challenged and to come away firmer in my Faith. It is like taking part in a Retreat. I do not want to be told how good I am! I want to leave that Retreat a changed person determined to do all I can to improve my life and to live the Gospel.
      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.

      • Augustine

        Oh dear!

        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!

        • Michael Sheridan

          I am sure that it was not boring for the Twelve Apostles and the many Disciples. Jesus gave them hope and love, and I am not talking about some sort of wishy washy, dreamy notion. I am talking about a love that conquers prejudice, injustice and those who are different or in seeking a re-conversion and a heart like Jesus’. Many of the Apostles were married but I would not advocate a married clergy. At the time of the Apostles/Disciples procedures for divorce and re-marriage were very different. I am not advocating divorce or re-marriage except where the Church has declared a marriage Null and Void. I am advocating respect for others who like us all are on a journey to be united with the Father. I am quite happy to listen to someone who has a different point of view to mine and I am prepared to argue and discuss with them. Since the time of Christ there has been discussion and search for truth and that will continue until the end of time. We all have a duty to make our Faith our own BASED upon Scripture, Tradition and Study and that includes listening to others who may hold different views, through their searching. This is what keeps the Church alive and vibrant and a Church that I am proud to be part of.

      • Lynda

        Red herring. It is not an academic exercise; nor is Fr Radcliffe being presented as a small, optional, extra speaker who opposes essential elements of the Faith and the Natural Law.

        • Michael Sheridan

          I am not sure where you get the idea of the “academic exercise”. It would be wonderful to go from the waters of birth through the waters of Baptism and to the end of life with complete knowledge of the Faith. Sadly the reality is that it does not happen and we have to be helped and we have to help ourselves on a hourly/daily basis. Life is a constant struggle. Sometimes it seems easier to do that which we shouldn’t than to do that which we should. I need the help of others on my journey to the Father in all sorts of ways.

  • Lynda

    It’s not evidence that’s the problem. It’s the lack of will on the part of our bishops in general to do their solemn duty to teach, govern and sanctify in line with the deposit of Faith. See the testimony of the two Bergin brothers from Tipperary on how they like the majority of Catholics were denied knowledge of the Faith by priests and schools and had to find it themselves. Their interview is illustrative of the situation for most baptised Catholics over past few decades. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x66H_qXJv0g

  • Paul Commins

    On a separate note,some may wish to view this link tonight,from 19.30.
    Guest Speaker is well known dissident,Fr.Brian Darcy.
    http://www.portlaoiseparish.ie/web-cam/

  • (X)MCCLXIII

    Fr Radcliffe appears to be a cause of great scandal. God help him.

  • I agree with Anabela that any Catholic conference should only invite speakers who are faithful to the teaching of the Church. Every person who attends the Divine Mercy conference has the right in Canon Law to hear the teaching of the Church proclaimed faithfully – the full Catholic faith without subtraction or addition. Fr. Radcliffe has given plenty of testimony to the fact that he is a cafeteria Catholic who picks and chooses which doctrines of the Church he will or won’t accept. I wouldn’t let him teach my children about the faith – the bishops shouldn’t let him teach their children either.

    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.”

  • Lynda

    The current Dominican newsletter that I picked up in my Dublin parish had a piece by a Dominican priest endorsing yogic spiritual practices, that he has participated in for decades, letting it influence his Catholic spirituality.

  • Lynda

    Is Peter Stanford the Peter that comments on this blog?

  • jaykay

    That’s sad about the yoga thing, Lynda, but on the other hand, as you know, the Irish Dominicans also publish the “Alive” monthly free paper, a model of fidelity and sound teaching. Long may it flourish.

    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.

  • I like the new masthead but where’s Francis?

  • I am sorry that Fr Radcliffe is not a friend of mine I could take him around my town and introduce him to all the young women who were sexually used and abandoned. Then there are the divorced women left on their own to raise their children because their partner `fell in love` with someone else. There are few families that have not seen their loved ones destroyed in this way and few parents who have not had to pick up the broken hearts shattered in pieces. But then like so many who attack the Church on sex, they have no idea how other people live, or they purposely blind themselves to the problems. In other words they do not really give a damn but when it comes to gays they become the epitome of open-mindedness.

  • annpauley

    we need people who speak and stand for the truth in our Catholic Church. Christ stood for the truth and HE has called us to be ”salt of the earth”.
    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!

  • Michael Sheridan

    In an article in The Washington Post dated 20th February there is a report of a Patient in a Hospital who thinking that their condition was serious and in danger of death, asked for a Priest. The Patient referred to the Sacrament as “The Last Rites” rather than more correctly The Sacrament of the Sick. During the course of the administration of the Sacrament the Patient told the Chaplain that he was Gay. The Chaplain would not continue with the administration of the Sacrament and said that he would pray for him and bless him. The Patient is a practising Catholic who had been an altar boy until he was 18 and attends Mass weekly. Should he have been denied one of the Sacraments of the Church? I don’t think so! I have recently heard that a person who is Gay could be refused a Requiem Mass and buried in a Catholic Cemetery. Should they be denied this? I don’t think so! If a Murderer, before execution asks to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation are they denied? Are they also denied the right to a Requiem Mass and burial in a Catholic Cemetery? My thinking is that in neither case are they denied the Sacrament of Reconciliation or a Requiem Mass and burial in a Catholic Cemetery. Why should a person who is Gay be denied what we all would want? I know of no where in Canon Law where it says that a person who is Gay is to be treated differently to anyone else. Pope Francis has spoken of the healing and reconciling character of the Eucharist. Pope Francis has also spoken about how the Sacrament of Reconciliation is to be administered in love and charity not with criticism and fear.

    • Nicolas Bellord

      I do not think anyone on this blog has suggested that a person who has homosexual tendencies should be discriminated against in any of the ways you mention. You seem to be rather confused about all this. The only thing I can imagine is that a Priest might refuse communion to someone who tells the priest of a sin and refuses to seek absolution for that sin.

    • Nicolas Bellord

      Having read the article in the Washington Post it is based on the testimony of the patient alone and it is not clear what actually happened. It is possible that the patient refused to confess and receive absolution for a grave sin and the Priest then, quite rightly, refused communion. That is no more unjust discrimination then a club refusing membership to someone who says he is not prepared to abide by the rules of the club.

      • Lynda

        In fact, the priest would have no choice but to refuse absolution and thus Holy Communion if there was no true confession, firm purpose of amendment, etc. if the priest pretended to absolve in this situation, there would have been no valid confession, and the soul of the person would have been in greater danger for the sacrilege of Our Blessed Lord. Needless to say it would be a most egregious mortal sin on the part of the priest, if he were to collude in such sacrilege. Of course, the priest is not going to speak to anyone about a private situation like this. It is seriously bad journalism, not following basic ethics.

        • Michael Sheridan

          Lynda,
          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 Bellord

            Michael: Where did you read “that the Sacrament of Reconciliation was not completed because of someone entering the room.”?

      • Michael Sheridan

        Nicolas: It was implied in the article where it says that someone entered the room.

      • Michael Sheridan

        Addendum:
        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.

    • BJC

      Michael Sheridan

      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

      • Michael Sheridan

        It is not “pretty obvious” to me. What is obvious is that the Patient, who felt that he was in danger of death, asked to receive the Sacrament of the Sick as any practising Catholic who understood the Sacraments would. (It never ceases to amaze me that there are far too many Catholics who do not ask for the Sacrament of the Sick when in Hospital confusing it with Viaticum.)
        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.

  • Augustine

    Michael : “I have recently heard that a person who is Gay could be refused a Requiem Mass and buried in a Catholic Cemetery. Should they be denied this? I don’t think so!”

    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.”

    • Lynda

      This is one of the problems with accepting the false notion of a “gay” person. There is no such thing. It is a very dangerous idea and leads to faulty, illogical thinking.

    • Augustine

      The above post did not refer to the newspaper report – so the line:

      “Either the priest was wrong – or (perhaps more likely) the newspaper report was wrong.”

      should be ignored.

    • Michael Sheridan

      Every Requiem is a Mass of the Resurrection. My Mother who died in 2010 at the age of 92 years was refused the Requiem of her choice by her Parish Priest who would not visit her or bring her Communion during the last two years of her life. Thank God the Chaplain at the Hospital, every time she was in hospital celebrated the Sacrament of the Sick and she was well prepared when she died on Good Friday.
      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.

      • A Catholic Priest

        Michael I am very sorry to hear both of your mother’s death and of the problems you and your mother had with her parish priest.

        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.”

        • Michael Sheridan

          Thank you very much for your very kind words. I am a big fan of the Sacrament of the Sick because of the effect I saw it having on my Mother. PRAYER AND THE SACRAMENTS WORK, regardless of what some people say. I take consolation that my Mother after many years of extreme pain and regular hospitalisation she willingly answered the Lord’s call and gave herself up. She was very well prepared to meet the Lord and I rejoiced. There was no sadness from me. Having looked after her full-time for 7 years providing at times very personal care and experiencing the pain of being unable to help, there was joy at her now being pain free but there was the sadness of being separated from my greatest friend. To anyone who has the opportunity to do what I did, I say you will not be disappointed. There is pain, frustration but also great joy. It was never a duty any more than the love that a Parent shows to their child is duty. I gain as much if not more than I gave. The Lord does not love out of a sense of duty. The Lord loves because HE IS LOVE. I am not capable of true altruism which I consider a philosophical concept that does not exist.

  • Augustine

    Michael : “I have recently heard that a person who is Gay could be refused a Requiem Mass and buried in a Catholic Cemetery. Should they be denied this? I don’t think so!”

    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.”

  • Gary

    In 2012 this heretic was invited to the Flame Congress organised for thousands of young people by Father Dominic Howarth of Brentwood Diocese ( under the aegis of CYMFED): http://cymfed.org.uk/fr-timothy-radcliffe-op/ . I notice that in 2015 another Flame Congress is being organised by Howarth and co: http://cymfed.org.uk/flame2/, if Father Radcliffe is invited again, lets get ready to make a noise about this dissenter being invited. Father Timothy Radcliffe has the potential to ruin thousands of young souls….

  • Bob Hayes

    Fr Radcliffe claims “There are no grounds at all for regarding these Masses as gatherings of dissenters from the Church’s teaching”.

    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?

  • A Catholic Priest

    Thank you Michael.

    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.

  • A Catholic Priest

    were infants

    • Michael Sheridan

      We are indeed infants and for all of our sophistication may our Faith remain innocent and child-like in simplicity. Don’t let us get tied up with rules and regulations that block us. I don’t know who said it but I like the saying, “Rules for fools. Guidance for the wise.”

  • When Fr Radcliffe says, “I have presided occasionally at Masses which were intended to be especially welcoming to gay people.” and…

    “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.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>