The spirit of Yogi Berra is evident in Rome as the New York Yankees return to the World Series. It’s deja vu again. A Scandinavian cardinal has disparaged African bishops and subsequently distanced himself from his comments.
In 2014, it was Cardinal Walter Kasper. Ten years later, the next Cardinal, Timothy Radcliffe.
Kasper talks about Africans
Ten years ago this month, Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke about Africans at the 2014 Family Conference, telling the Register’s Edward Pentin that Africans opposed liberalization of positions on divorce, remarriage and homosexuality. .
Cardinal Kasper said, “Africa is completely different from the West.” “Asia and Islamic countries are also very different, especially when it comes to homosexuality. You can’t talk about this with Africans or people in Islamic countries. It’s impossible. It’s taboo. There has to be room for solutions, but I don’t think that’s possible for Africa. But they shouldn’t say too much about what we have to do. Not.”
There was an uproar after Pentin’s interview was published, with some even claiming Cardinal Kasper’s remarks were racist. That accusation aside, Cardinal Kasper did indeed suggest that the African perspective should be overcome by “us”, perhaps European liberals.
Cardinal Kasper denied such a statement, insisting that after Pentin made an audio recording, it was off the record and it was not clear whether it was a media interview. Mr Pentin released his own statement to clarify the issue.
Father Radcliffe’s article
Cardinal Kasper’s misfortune comes as Dominican Father Radcliffe, who was appointed preacher at last year's and this year's synods, gave a speech this month about Africa’s position on homosexuality in general, and African bishops’ refusal to bless same-sex couples in particular. repeated. . In an October 12 article for L’Osservatore Romano, Father Radcliffe wrote about the African resistance movement.
“Is refusing to bless homosexuals in Africa an example of acculturation or a refusal to be an exoticist?” the priest wrote. “African bishops are under intense pressure from evangelicals using American funds. From the Russian Orthodox Church, with Russian money. And from Muslims, with funds from wealthy Gulf states.”
It was an incendiary analysis suggesting that African bishops lacked the courage to defend the Gospel, were cowardly, and were corrupted by funding from foreign sources.
The Register’s Joan Frawley Desmond last year tracked Father Radcliffe’s “public exposure of the church’s (contradictory) teachings on homosexuality” for more than two decades. Father Radcliffe’s views became well known when Pope Francis appointed him head of the synodal retreat. But to accuse African representatives in the same parliament of being pressured by foreign funds is certainly a departure from the spirit of the synod, if not a major slander.
delayed reaction
In March 2021, Pope Francis visited the Vatican Radio Station and surprised the host by rebuking the radio station’s effectiveness.
“I have one concern,” the pope said. “But it’s something that really sticks with me. How many people listen to the radio? How many people read L’Osservatore Romano?
The answer is very few – even the Vatican. Despite the publication of Father Radcliffe’s commentary on October 12, there was no reaction at the synod on synodality. No one bothers reading it. The person who took notice was Phil Lawler, a highly observant American Catholic commentator. And on October 17, he sharply challenged Father Radcliffe’s analysis.
“Father Radcliffe would have us believe that external pressures on African culture reflect the economic influence of American evangelicals and Russian Orthodoxy,” Lawler wrote. “But the missionary work of these small groups pales in comparison to the vast sums of money poured into Africa by the European Union and the Obama and Biden administrations in foreign aid programs aimed at advancing anti-gay agendas. And does Father Radcliffe want us to believe that the economic power of the Russian Orthodox Church in Africa, which is not a hotbed of Orthodoxy, is comparable to Planned Parenthood’s influence?
first explanation
Mr Lawlor sounded the alarm, so it was no surprise that Cardinal Fridlin Ambongo of Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, who Father Radcliffe specifically quoted in the article, was asked about the matter at a press conference on October 22nd. Ta. Radcliffe had discussed the matter privately.
Cardinal Ambongo said: “Father Radcliffe is shocked that something like this could have been written thinking it was his fault.” “Father Radcliffe has never said anything like this, and this is totally out of character for him. …I don’t know who wrote this article, but the purpose was to create an incident. Fortunately, that hasn’t happened.”
Despite the fact that the article was published under Father Radcliffe’s byline, Cardinal Ambongo’s response suggested that Father Radcliffe had told him that he had not written it. While this cleanly absolves Father Radcliffe of writing about his African brethren as having no motive, it still raises deep journalistic questions.
If what Father Radcliffe told Cardinal Ambongo is true, it would seem that someone at Osservatore Romano should be professionally and publicly reprimanded. Injecting inflammatory analysis into a text presented as having been written by Father Radcliffe himself would be a stunning fraud and a violation of journalistic ethics.
Who did this? And what are the possible reasons? A serious investigation will be needed to uncover the truth. The credibility of the Vatican’s official communications was at risk.
Indeed, if what Father Radcliffe told Cardinal Ambongo is true, it would be the biggest scandal in Vatican communications. Communications Secretary Dario Viganò was forced to resign after publicly misrepresenting Pope Benedict XVI’s private letters to the press. In that case, Msgr. Viganò presented excerpts from the letter in a way that changed the meaning of what Pope Benedict had written. In this case, Cardinal Ambongo’s statement regarding Father Radcliffe’s explanation suggests that parts of the article were completely fabricated.
What did Father Radcliffe actually say?
But Father Radcliffe seems to have said something about Africans and foreign pressure. In April, the British Catholic newspaper The Tablet published a similar article by Father Radcliffe. The Tablet described the text as “adapted from a lecture given at Stonyhurst College, Clitheroe, on Good Friday”.
On September 22, Zenit published a very similar document by Father Radcliffe, including comments on foreign funding. The text of L’Osservatore Romano may be an Italian translation of what ZENIT published in English. Zenit explained the text as follows: “Fr Timothy Radcliffe OP is pleased to announce the “LGBT+ Catholic Westminster 25th Anniversary Conference” held at the Jesuit Center in London on Saturday 25th May 2024. The following opening speech was delivered online.
What Cardinal-elect Radcliffe said to Cardinal Ambongo is inconsistent with the existence of previous English documents prepared in April and May 2024. Therefore, the first explanation failed.
Second explanation
Because the earlier text had been reported, Father Radcliffe had to give a different explanation. So on Wednesday afternoon after Cardinal Ambongo’s press conference, the Vatican released Father Radcliffe’s statement.
“Cardinal Ambongo’s response was not a reference to the article published in L’Osservatore Romano, but to an article by Phil Lawlor published in Catholic Culture on October 17th. “This is an article that the cardinal showed me on his cell phone and we talked about it,” Father Radcliffe said, adding that he himself had read the article published in L’Osservatore Romano. He indirectly confessed that he wasn’t there.
“I have never written or suggested that the position of the Catholic Church in Africa is influenced by financial considerations,” Father Radcliffe said in a statement. “All I was aware of was that the Catholic Church in Africa was under tremendous pressure from other religions and churches (sic) that were well-funded from outside.”
Like Cardinal Kasper in 2014, Father Radcliffe was forced to admit that he had actually said something he had initially denied. But now Father Radcliffe has raised the issue of foreign funding in the context of refusing blessings to same-sex couples, and clarified that he did not mean it in the way readers might think.
Father Radcliffe’s explanation can be summarized as follows. Africans rejected same-sex blessings proposed by the Holy See in December 2023. Father Radcliffe raised the question of whether this position constituted a rejection of the gospel challenge. Father Radcliffe has argued for decades that his reading of the Gospels means the church’s teachings on homosexuality are wrong. He was then quick to point out that African bishops were under tremendous foreign pressure, including economic inducements. He has now made it clear that he does not intend any relationship between that financial pressure and the positions of African bishops, even though they appear in the same section of his essay.
All those involved in the synod on synodality agreed to accept this second explanation, contrary to the first explanation and contrary to the plain and plausible reading of the April and May essays and earlier texts.
Everyone is walking together and getting along well.
