Some Objections to Fr. Radcliffe

From Radcliffe to the Cardinals: Upholding Orthodoxy in Today's Church

A distinguished and renowned Brother of mine, Father Timothy Radcliffe, former Master General of my Order, was, as is well known, recently elevated to the dignity of the cardinalate by the Pope, and I cannot but rejoice in this. I wish him ongoing success, with even greater fruitfulness, in the work he is undertaking for the benefit of the Church [1] and the salvation of souls.

I do not doubt that the Holy Father intended to reward him for his merits. Nevertheless, I feel that I am rendering useful service to readers and the Church by republishing, duly revised and corrected, an article I wrote about him in 2017 and republished on this blog in 2019 (https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/search?q=radcliffe), wherein I expressed certain concerns regarding his positions.

Since then, I have not heard any updates on the matters I addressed. I sincerely hope that, in the meantime, he may have reconsidered. I bring up these issues only because they reflect the current thinking of that powerful pro-modernist faction within the Church, which bears the influence of Freemasonry. Should Father Radcliffe still hold these views, it is possible that the Holy Father has chosen to overlook them, aiming instead to promote the good so that, in turn, the negative might be eliminated.

I noted that on 23 July 2017, “La Stampa” featured an interview with Father Timothy Radcliffe, conducted by Alain Elkann.

I appreciated many of the points he made, particularly the significance of love for truth and silence, the beauty of faith in its relationship with reason, the fraternal life of the Dominican community, the notion that every human being is created to reach God and is thus called to salvation, as well as the peaceful coexistence of the faithful from various religions.

However, I must express my disagreement with certain other statements of his, which I will present here along with my corresponding observations. I have numbered Father Radcliffe’s remarks, followed by my reflections:

1. To the question posed by the interviewer: Do you believe that all religions are means to reach the same destination? Father Radcliffe responded: I would like to say so, but it is beyond our capacity for comprehension.

I would have answered: that all religions are more or less imperfect human means for reaching God. Yet, of all these, only the Christian religion is the highest, for it was founded by the very Son of God, Jesus Christ, the sole and perfect Mediator, Who reveals to us that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

2. Father Radcliffe said: Wars are part of human history, and in war, every means is employed to win, be it nationalism or religion. It is not correct to say that religion is the origin of war. I would rather say that human beings have cultivated violence and have used religion either to impose it or to justify it.

I observe that Father Radcliffe is engaging in a false generalisation. War can have a just end: for instance, the defence of one’s country, the liberation of an oppressed people, the overthrow of a tyrannical regime, the reclaiming of a territory occupied by the enemy, or the deliverance of Christians from the oppression of Islamists or Communists.

If it is true that God desires the triumph of justice, that He seeks the vindication of rights, and to liberate the oppressed from the hand of the oppressor, why should it not be stated that the use of arms to achieve these ends is by the divine will? And why, then, should one not recognise that a just military action may be undertaken in the name of religion?

One must not conflate violence with the just use of force. Violence is an act of injustice and is condemned by both civil and military codes; the just use of force is an act of fortitude that may reach the heights of heroism and is the foundation of military valour, worthy of the highest honour. To despise or indiscriminately condemn war as such, without distinguishing between just and unjust wars, is a sign of a weak and falsely pacifist spirit, which ultimately allows the arrogant to oppress the weak and leave them defenceless.

The defense of religion can, at times, serve as a justification for war, as seen in the Battle of Lepanto or the wars of Israel recounted in the Old Testament. However, religion can also be used as a pretext, masking ambitions for power or domination, such as in the case of the Lutheran princes' war against the Church, which aimed to confiscate its properties.

It is, therefore, not true, as Marx thought, that wars always arise from material interests, and that ideal motives merely serve to cloak these baser aims. Such a view is indicative of a narrow and shallow spirit, incapable of grasping that man is not merely a beast, fighting only for food or sexual gratification, but one who also struggles for the conquest of freedom, for the defence of honour, and for justice and right.

In Father Radcliffe’s pacifist ideas, one perceives rationalist and naive utopianism, which, despite its intentions, ends up being dangerous and even war-mongering. This is typical of Rousseau and the Masonic Enlightenment, which posits a “human nature” constructed theoretically, considered abstractly and originally “good,” irrespective of its tragic historical condition consequent to original sin—a nature which, on the contrary, needs to be disciplined and restrained, even, when necessary, with severity.

Indeed, as experience shows, humanity, relying solely on the powers of reason and will—even when aided by grace—is unable to correct its deviations or to perfect justice and peace through appropriate negotiations and political actions, especially from a purely earthly perspective. Rather, it needs divine grace, as the history of Christian civilisation and the Church herself bears witness.

3. Father Radcliffe said: I am a great fan of Pope Francis. He is performing wonders by moving the Church forward in a more relaxed and less centralised manner. Of course, he encounters resistance, but he is leading us towards freedom and spontaneity, managing to connect with every community.

In my view, Father Radcliffe’s statements in this article demonstrate that he has not correctly understood the Pope’s intentions and actions, nor does he grasp the true, dramatic current state of the Church, as repeatedly emphasised by Benedict XVI. Furthermore, he seems to lack a proper comprehension of the Church’s real prospects and hopes.

In the way Father Radcliffe articulates his views, one senses a sheltered, almost idealized atmosphere, infused with youthful exuberance and naïveté. He seems strikingly unaware—despite the prevalent discussions of “discernment”—of both the gravity of the crisis facing the Church and the values now emerging, which point towards a true fulfilment of the Second Vatican Council’s mission.

This implementation is not to be understood in the modernist sense of Schillebeeckx and Rahner, but in line with the true teachings of the post-conciliar Popes, from Blessed Paul VI to the present day, all in continuity with Tradition, in the supreme listening to the Word of God and to what "the Spirit says to the Churches" (Rev 2:7).

When I speak of “Tradition,” I do not refer to externals such as the celebrant facing away from the people, Communion on the tongue, altar rails, or maniples. Rather, I mean Sacred Tradition: the infallible apostolic oral transmission, custody, and preservation of revealed truth—in essence, the preaching of the Gospel.

Today, the Pope has little use for flatterers or harsh detractors. He neither needs to be coddled nor lectured on the true faith. Rather, he asks that we heed him as the teacher of the faith and the infallible interpreter of Tradition and Scripture. What he truly requires are trustworthy, wise, and efficient collaborators who can support him without creating scandal among the People of God.

He needs to be enlightened, comforted, consoled, encouraged, and freed from the Judases, the schemers, and the careerists who surround him like bees around honey. Following the example of Saint Catherine of Siena, the Pope needs to be persistently exhorted with frankness, charity, and respect to fulfil his duty for the honour of Christ and the good of the Church.

In contrast, Father Radcliffe seems to imagine a Pope as the champion of a "relaxed" Church, akin to someone lounging comfortably in an armchair, casually enjoying a television show. His notion of a “decentralised” Church is a euphemism that seems either to conceal or ignore the state of confusion currently afflicting the Church—an all-out bellum omnium contra omnes among cardinals, bishops, theologians, priests, and religious, on matters of faith and morals.

According to Father Radcliffe, Pope Francis is steering us toward a “free and spontaneous” Church. However, if that’s all we needed, we could simply consult a good moral treatise instead of requiring the Successor of Peter! The Pope’s mission is much grander: he leads the Church in listening to the Word of God, imitating Christ, shaking off sin, living in grace, triumphing over the world and Satan, communing with the saints, exercising charity, striving for evangelical perfection, remaining open to the Holy Spirit’s nudges, conquering the Kingdom of God, and ultimately achieving eternal bliss.

“The Pope manages to connect with every community”? Certainly, he is the common Father of all the children of God. He is entrusted by Christ with the mission to share the Gospel throughout the world. He must comprehend the profound needs of all people, recognise the values found in all religions, and lead those who are 'weary and burdened' (Mt 11:28) to Christ.

The Pope certainly demonstrates impressive energy and skill in connecting with the crowds. However, those very crowds—often swayed by the secular interpretation of his actions presented by major media outlets, an interpretation that the Pope himself seems to leave largely unchallenged—what do they see in him? Do they view him as a friendly proponent of “relaxed” morality, or do they recognize him as a man of God urging us to reach for higher truths?

If, as Father Radcliffe suggests, the Pope “encounters resistance”, he should ask himself what that resistance signifies. Certainly, there are the usual corrosive Lefebvrist sympathisers. But some genuinely love him, who suffer from his human weaknesses, yet, as sincere disciples and friends, desire to see him strive for holiness.

4. Father Radcliffe states: We must pray for brotherhood among the faiths, not foment division.

I find it surprising that a Dominican would articulate such imprecision, which hints at a relativistic and indifferentist perspective on religion. He appears to blur the line between faith and opinion. While opinions can be diverse and even contradictory, this is entirely to be expected. However, faith in God is singular, just as truth is one—objective, certain, absolute, and universal.

We must, therefore, promote brotherhood among the followers of different religions. However, it makes no sense to speak of “brotherhood among faiths,” just as there is no sense in suggesting brotherhood between truth and falsehood. What should be united must not be divided, but what must be separated should indeed be kept apart. The spirit of peace does not involve duplicity or the serving of two masters. In this regard, Christ says that He has come to bring a “sword” (Mt 10:34).

“Whoever is not with me,” the Lord says (Mt 12:30), “is against me.” If the Qur’an denies what Christ teaches, then both Christ and the Qur’an cannot simultaneously be right. Consequently, religions are not like political parties in a parliament, nor do they resemble the plurality of religious institutes within the Catholic Church. In the case of the Church, various groups integrate and complement one another to represent the whole: be it the entire citizenship of a nation or the entire ecclesial body.

However, the question of the relationship between religions is not simply a social issue; it does not pertain solely to the competence of the State, in the application of religious freedom, where the State must ensure the peaceful coexistence of different groups. The issue is deeper, touching on the matter of the truth of the doctrines of these religions.

And on this point, a Dominican should be particularly sensitive. The Catholic Church acknowledges the presence of salvific values in other religions, although mixed with errors. Indeed, the fullness of salvific truth is the exclusive domain of Catholic doctrine, as the Second Vatican Council affirms in the decree Unitatis Redintegratio.

For this reason, the Church also has the duty to reject or correct the errors present in other religions, because all men are called to conversion to Christ through the Church, as was clarified by the Council of Florence in 1442, even though it is possible, as taught by the Second Vatican Council, to belong to the Church unconsciously.

Father Radcliffe, therefore, seems to embrace Schillebeeckx’s theory, which posits that true religion results from the sum of all religions, with each contributing to the construction of the whole, much like how an encyclopedia is composed of contributions from its various authors. According to Schillebeeckx, “no particular religion exhausts the problem of truth” [2]. “Consequently, we can and must say that there is more religious truth in all religions combined than in any one religion” [3].

What does this mean? That the Qur’an adds salvific truths not found in the Gospel? That the Gospel cannot afford to correct the Qur’an?

Schillebeeckx does not realize that God has revealed salvific truths through Christ and the Church in a defined number and has been gathered in the Apostolic Creed. Other religions do not introduce new truths that are not already present in the Christian Creed; if anything, they are missing some. Therefore, Father Radcliffe’s position, reflecting Schillebeeckx’s ideas, does not align with the doctrine of the faith.

Let’s wrap up with a word of reassurance. Reflecting back on my article, I recall the insightful meditation Father Radcliffe delivered on October 10th at the Synod. Now that he has been made a Cardinal, we can imagine him committing himself wholeheartedly—as a devoted Dominican—to the affirmation and defense of sound doctrine in full communion with the Vicar of Christ.

P. Giovanni Cavalcoli, OP

Fontanellato, Italy, October 13, 2024

source:

https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/alcune-obiezioni-padre-radcliffe.html

Notes

[1] The meditation of Father Radcliffe at the Synod of October 10, 2024:

https://www.vaticannews.va/it/vaticano/news/2024-10/padre-radcliffe-mai-tapparsi-le-orecchie-davanti-alle-domande.html

https://www.vaticannews.va/it/vaticano/news/2024-10/testo-integrale-meditazione-padre-radcliffe-10-ottobre-2024.html

[2] Umanità, la storia di Dio, Queriniana 1992, p. 215.

[3] Ibid., p. 220.