fourquartetsier than thou

By Diogenes (articles ) | May 03, 2006

Timothy Radcliffe is such a cute Catholic he astounds himself.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 23 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: Gene Church - May. 05, 2006 7:40 PM ET USA

    The text was "mix of the printed text and spoken word of a lecture delivered April 1"--you don't suppose this was an April Fool's joke, do you?

  • Posted by: - May. 04, 2006 8:29 PM ET USA

    Here's the link to Bishop Bruskewitz's talk on dialog and toleration:

  • Posted by: - May. 04, 2006 1:54 PM ET USA

    CWN Reader, A few things happened. Certain Dominicans traded the hairshirt and discipline for sweatervests, banjo and "gothic etymology and oriental kitcschz" to paraphrase Stanley Rosen. Its painful to listen to Radcliffe bloviate on and on with a lot of "hound and hurry signifying no such thing". I wish at times the 16,000 lb anvil or huge foot from the Old Python series would come down on him. He *never* expects a Spanish Inquisition. Mainly because you can't dance to it.

  • Posted by: - May. 04, 2006 1:45 PM ET USA

    GentleBill, You can find the speech at Drop them a donation and you can get access to their power tools, which include the ability to use a printable version. Gloria in excelsis Deo!

  • Posted by: - May. 04, 2006 1:35 PM ET USA

    Thank you for your terse synopsis, Wheresthemoneyroger. This piece parallels Fr. Radcliffe's earlier wandering broadside regarding homosexuals being admitted to the seminary. As a graduate of Dominican higher education (back when such institutions were still Catholic), I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me what happened to the "Dominican Mind." It used to be solidly orthodox and rigorously logical. Much of what I hear/read these days is diffuse, rambling, and heretical.

  • Posted by: - May. 04, 2006 1:10 PM ET USA

    Charles made me realize that Fr RadTradCliffe is really a type of Straussian Dominican -- minus the sagacity, knowledge of Greek, exegetical skill and intelligence of Strauss, of course. He bloviates on and on in turgid, post modernist dreck and then right at the end, *BOOM* short Anglo Saxon plea for pelvic liberty. BraveHeart without the military paraphenalia. "Give me sodomy or Give me death!" You get one guaranteed, and the other merely hastens it.

  • Posted by: - May. 04, 2006 10:38 AM ET USA

    Oh, if only space permitted me to reprint an address given by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz in April of 1999 at a meeting of the Institute on Religious Life entitled "The Limitations on Dialog and Toleration." Perhaps it can be found on the internet with a Google search. The man is brilliant, as well as good (as are most of those who add comments to this feature.)

  • Posted by: Charles134 - May. 04, 2006 9:49 AM ET USA

    Wheresthemoneyroger nails it. The lecture was interesting at times, boring at times, no big deal, just your standard on-and-on without saying much, and then, BOOM! The real point: the Church should recognize that sodomy can be a morally acceptable choice.

  • Posted by: - May. 04, 2006 8:25 AM ET USA

    Beware the Dominican who thinks a sweatervest is a hairshirt.

  • Posted by: Andy K - May. 04, 2006 7:53 AM ET USA

    Fr. Radcliffe is correct in pointing out the division. How we repair it is where the disagreements begin. We need time. Then a generation that is striving for both (contemplation and action) may find these arguments pointless.

  • Posted by: - May. 04, 2006 12:26 AM ET USA

    The dialog ends when the premise Radcliffe presents is proven WRONG. For more sophisticated disposal, let us reject his major preimse. The is no dealing with the devil.

  • Posted by: Venerable Aussie - May. 03, 2006 7:42 PM ET USA

    RADCLIFFE: Paul- model of "dialogue". BENEDICT XVI 3May'06 General Audience: "St. Paul, originally called by Christ with a personal vocation, is an authentic apostle and yet... what counts fundamentally is fidelity to what he has received. He did not want to "invent" a new, so to speak, "Pauline" Christianity. Therefore, he insists: "I deliver to you what I also received." He transmitted the initial gift that comes from the Lord, as it is truth that saves." Radcliffian Christianity loses.

  • Posted by: - May. 03, 2006 7:13 PM ET USA

    Dialogue. Isn't that something we do with a terrorist?

  • Posted by: Venerable Aussie - May. 03, 2006 6:25 PM ET USA

    Radcliffe on dialogue: "The Acts of the Apostles describes Paul as literally dialoguing with people left, right and center". Yeah, that's how I read 1 Cor 6:9-11 too! R's advice to "Communion Catholics": "Forty years after the Council of Nicea... most of the bishops were Arian, but the church did not collapse." In other words, relax man! Just thank God that Radcliffe wasn't around in the 4th century advising Athanasius to be more tolerant and open and loving.

  • Posted by: - May. 03, 2006 5:49 PM ET USA

    I managed to get through it to the end where he finally gets to his real point..... The sexual morality taught infallibly by the Church based on Christ, scripture and apostolic tradition must be changed to meet the modern world. The previous drivel was all set up for that one paragraph. The drumbeat never ends or changes. He should have a 500 character limit like OTR - we all get our say in under the limit!

  • Posted by: - May. 03, 2006 5:29 PM ET USA

    "Dialogue" implies that someone, eventually, is going to change his mind. If the dialogue is between a person with principles, and a person without principles, only the latter stands to win. This is done by grinding down the guy with principles. Illegitimi no carburundum!

  • Posted by: - May. 03, 2006 4:09 PM ET USA

    At issue... Is there some point at which the dialog ends? And who decides on that point? I always thought it was the magisterium, but clearly I must be wrong. I guess the "dialog" doesn't end until all the participants or their descendents are dead. Therefore, the last one standing decides the resolution... until a new group (Dan Brown) picks up the argument (sorry, dialog) again where it left off. This sounds like the "Kingdom" dream: there is no magisterium.

  • Posted by: - May. 03, 2006 4:02 PM ET USA

    That article was so poorly written and full of thought cliches that I must be forced to conclude that our chap is not an Oxford Litterae Humaniores graduate.

  • Posted by: rpp - May. 03, 2006 3:42 PM ET USA

    This is an article full of double-speak. It was simply not worth my time to read most of it. What a weasel.

  • Posted by: NonSumDignus - May. 03, 2006 3:31 PM ET USA

    Diogenes, I'm sure almost as much as you must astound yourself, which must be at the root of your obesssion with this Dominican. By the way, you really ought to read his book, "What is the Point of Being a Christian?" You might be surprised. Oremus pro invicem!

  • Posted by: Publicus - May. 03, 2006 3:22 PM ET USA

    It's a sure bet one knows deep down he is off base when he expends so much energy relabeling himself. "Kingdom" Catholics??

  • Posted by: - May. 03, 2006 3:03 PM ET USA

    OK, but don't pick on Eliot, as the ineffable Bottum did in First Things years back.

  • Posted by: Quadratus - May. 03, 2006 2:14 PM ET USA

    Dialogue: You must give up your orthodoxy because it's rigid, intolerant and based on old superstitions like the divinity of Christ, the existence of God, Truth, the Real Presence, the virginity of Mary, sin as a reality, adherence to the bishop of Rome. Answer: No we will not, we believe in One God, One Lord, One Savior of all, we believe in His virgin birth and the forgiveness of sin and life everlasting. Dialogue: Then you are bigots, we will make you an illegal faction with our hate laws.