Pope Francis Has a Radical Marxist Priest Adviser

0
Share

Fr. Radcliffe

Pope Francis has appointed leftist Dominican Father Timothy Radcliffe as a consultor for the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Lifesite News reports. His Marxist bent seems to foreshadow the new direction of the Catholic church. It would never have happened under Pope Benedict XVI which is probably why Pope Benedict is gone.

The pope appoints upon recommendation. Fr. Radcliffe had a lot of support.

He is an outspoken supporter of homosexuality and homosexual unions, women priests, homosexual priests, and divorced Catholics receiving communion. That doesn’t actually sound all that radical. He has said masses at a rogue gay church until it was shut down by a Cardinal after six years. One of the priests is married to his male partner. Priests are supposed to be celibate.

The Pope needs to clarify where the church stands on these issues. There is a lot of confusion and miscommunication.

 

Fr. Radcliffe currently works in the Social Justice Center at Oxford.

According to the Catholic News Agency, the pontifical council’s goal is to “promote justice and peace in the world in accordance with the Gospel and the social teaching of the Church,” and its consultors “can be called upon to participate in working groups on specific topics.”

Some years back, The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace put out its Catholic Scholars for Workers Justice Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church to Pope John Paul II.

I have included a few paragraphs here.

The following is the paragraph on ownership which appears to flirt with and dance around Marxism. They believe resources must be redistributed because otherwise they lead to unemployment and inequality.

Private and public property, as well as the various mechanisms of the economic system, must be oriented to an economy of service to mankind, so that they contribute to putting into effect the principle of the universal destination of goods. The issue of ownership and use of new technologies and knowledge — which in our day constitute a particular form of property that is no less important than ownership of land or capital [608] — becomes significant in this perspective. These resources, like all goods, have a universal destination; they too must be placed in a context of legal norms and social rules that guarantee that they will be used according to the criteria of justice, equity and respect of human rights. The new discoveries and technologies, thanks to their enormous potential, can make a decisive contribution to the promotion of social progress; but if they remain concentrated in the wealthier countries or in the hands of a small number of powerful groups, they risk becoming sources of unemployment and increasing the gap between developed and underdeveloped areas.

As it concerns government intervention, what one might call big government or Marxism, the paper said this:

Various circumstances may make it advisable that the State step in to supply certain functions[401]. One may think, for example, of situations in which it is necessary for the State itself to stimulate the economy because it is impossible for civil society to support initiatives on its own. One may also envision the reality of serious social imbalance or injustice where only the intervention of the public authority can create conditions of greater equality, justice and peace. In light of the principle of subsidiarity, however, this institutional substitution must not continue any longer than is absolutely necessary, since justification for such intervention is found only in the exceptional natureof the situation. In any case, the common good correctly understood, the demands of which will never in any way be contrary to the defence and promotion of the primacy of the person and the way this is expressed in society, must remain the criteria for making decisions concerning the application of the principle of subsidiarity.

This is a stand for redistribution but not too much, and hopefully it won’t be too much. They are all in on globalization. They believe in global authority and taxation to regulate markets.

Pope Francis doesn’t see it as communism to care for the poor. We will soon find out what he means more specifically when he speaks to the U.N. and congress about climate change in September.

These prelates aren’t scheming politicians. They’re Marxist-leaning religious leaders drifting into world politics. They want world peace and a cure for poverty. They’re believers. What we call Marxism or communism or socialism, they would call caring for the poor. They won’t subscribe their views to a political system because they are religious men bent on helping the poor, a laudable goal, however, global redistribution will not work. It will destroy the productive, and in so doing, create even more poor.

If we follow this path politically, we lose our sovereignty, our wealth, resources, and our constitution will be a thing of history.

Lifesite News has more information.

Share