Radcliffe: the denial, the clarification, the ambiguity

The Dominican cardinal now denies having blessed a couple of men in London. Three weeks after the images, the denial indirectly acknowledges the red line of Fiducia Supplicans, without dispelling the ambiguity.

The Fact

We reported in our last issue about the controversial mass celebrated in London by Cardinal Timothy Radcliffe: according to several testimonies, he would have blessed a couple of men in a union. Infovaticana reports, on July 5, 2026, that the Dominican cardinal now formally denies having blessed the couple. His version: he would not have blessed a union, but greeted people present in the assembly. The denial comes in a context of increasing Roman pressure around the declaration Fiducia Supplicans.

Our Reading (in the light of the magisterium)

The doctrinal question raised by this denial is not that of pastoral charity towards people who live with a homosexual inclination: it is taught by the Catechism (CEC 2358) and no one contests it. It is that of the very object of the blessing. The declaration Fiducia Supplicans (December 18, 2023) authorizes "pastoral and spontaneous" blessings of people, but expressly forbids any form that could be confused with a blessing of union (n° 39). The liturgical protocol is not optional: it is what guarantees that mercy does not become endorsement. By clarifying that he did not bless the couple as a couple, Radcliffe indirectly recognizes the doctrinal scope of the red line drawn by the DDF under Cardinal Fernández. There remains an ambiguity: the images have circulated, they have been received as a blessing of union, and the symbolic weight now exceeds the cardinal's subjective intention. In pastoral care, the public word of a prince of the Church is a visible sign.

To Ponder

A cardinal is bound to his public word as much as to his intention. Evangelical mercy only makes sense if it leaves the truth intact, and if the clarification follows the gesture without delay.