Absorbing Evil and Fr. Richard Rohr

[SunnaB16]

You are free to disagree with Fr. Rohr’s teaching, message, or to even question his orthodoxy, but to call him a “spiritual realm” Hitler or Stalin is really over the top.

Leading people to Hell (everlasting “Death”: ie everlasting misery) has much more grave consequences than “merely” murdering people (in this life).
Remember our Lord`s words: “Fear not him who can destroy the body; rather fear him who can destroy both body and soul in Hell.”.
Heaven is forever: so is Hell.

im not questioning his orthodoxy; im DENYING his orthodoxy. Compare his “teachings” with the teachings of the Church; and there`s no choice.

Regarding absorbing evil: our Lord didn`t embrace the money changers, and tell them what good fellas they were. He drove them out of the Temple with a home-made whip. He CONFRONTED evil.

By the way: i`m not in any way condoning what those two monsters (H &S) did!

Neil:
Looks like he`s just playing with words.
“Jesus” means “God (Yahweh) saves”
“Christ” means "Annointed one ". (Chrism)
The rest is mostly a lot of twisted prose. Hot air.
To say He has one name before, and the other name after, the Resurrection is absurd.

Why haven`t his superiors tried to correct him?

 

[tskrobacz]

Regarding absorbing evil: our Lord didn`t embrace the money changers, and tell them what good fellas they were. He drove them out of the Temple with a home-made whip. He CONFRONTED evil.

Why do you think the money changers were evil? The message of this scripture is clearly that you cannot serve God and mammon, especially in our churches. It is not at all about confronting or absorbing evil.

 

[Seagirt]

eil:
Looks like he`s just playing with words.
“Jesus” means “God (Yahweh) saves”
“Christ” means "Annointed one ". (Chrism)
The rest is mostly a lot of twisted prose. Hot air.
To say He has one name before, and the other name after, the Resurrection is absurd.

Why haven`t his superiors tried to correct him?

good point, Neil. as i said in previous posts. I like Fr. Rohr’s early tapes from the 90’s. But lately he has gotten quite " new agey" in his talks and seems to constantly be re- interpreting who Jesus is for Spiritual Searchers who grew up listening to Dr. Phil and Oprah.

 

[SunnaB16]

Why do you think the money changers were evil? The message of this scripture is clearly that you cannot serve God and mammon, especially in our churches. ** It is not at all about confronting or absorbing evil**.

Eh?
Our Lord drove the money changers out of the Temple because they were ripping off the folks who had to exchange their Roman coins for Jewish coins which were acceptable to the Temple authorities. What the money changers were doing was EVIL. They were violating the Seventh Commandment. Any sin is evil. Turning the Temple into a market place wasnt so good, either. If its not at all about confronting (and rectifying) evil, then, what is it about?

Earlier on, our Lord called some of the Scribes and Pharisees blind guides, play-actors (hypocrites), venomous serpents, whitewashed tombs etc. Incendiary language!
“Sweet Jesus, meek and mild” Not always.

Abraham Lincoln said that the way to defeat your enemy is to make him your friend: sometimes, that`s not possible.

Seagirt:
Tragically, your words can be applied in a general way to so many foolish people who think they know better than the Church does. As time goes on, they move farther and farther away.

 

[tskrobacz]

Eh?
If it`s not at all about confronting (and rectifying) evil, then, what is it about?

Abraham Lincoln said that the way to defeat your enemy is to make him your friend: sometimes, that`s not possible.

Its about Love. As Thomas Merton says…our job is to Love without stopping to ask if the other is worthy. It is none of our business if the other person is worthy and in fact it is no one’s business. That love will render ourself and others “worthy” if anything can.

To “confront” what we perceive as evil requires us to exercise a judgement that is and should be reserved for God alone. Who are we to declare something evil? By loving and forgiving we disarm any evil around us.

 

[SunnaB16]

**Its about Love. ** As Thomas Merton says…our job is to Love without stopping to ask if the other is worthy. It is none of our business if the other person is worthy and in fact it is no one’s business. That love will render ourself and others “worthy” if anything can.

When dealing with a person, thats true. But, when dealing with a persons sinful acts: No. Its a case of "Love the sinner; but hate the sin.". We have to do what we can for the sinners welfare; so we have a duty to frustrate the sinners sinful (evil) acts. **Thats true love.** We`re all sinners…(Gulp!)

To “confront” what we perceive as evil requires us to exercise a judgement that is and should be reserved for God alone. Who are we to declare something evil? By loving and forgiving we disarm any evil around us.

Our Lord showed us by His own example in the Temple (and with the Scribes and Pharisees, and in other places) what we sometimes have to say and do. How should the rest of us have handled it?

"Who are we to…" act like ostridges? We can be guided by the Holy Spirit. In any case, the Church as an entity can declare something evil, because the Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Church.
What did Peter say to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-10? What should he have said, and done?

Anyway, nothing alters the fact that Fr. R Rohr is way of the rails and, **unless hes guiltless because of some mental problem**, hes put his soul in danger. Thats a conviction based on contrasting his "teachings" with the Churchs INFALLIBLE teachings.

As an aside: Do you believe in the active participation of the fallen angels in this world?

 

[tskrobacz]

"Who are we to…" act like ostridges? We can be guided by the Holy Spirit. In any case, the Church as an entity can declare something evil, because the Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Church.
What did Peter say to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-10? What should he have said, and done?

Anyway, nothing alters the fact that Fr. R Rohr is way of the rails and, **unless hes guiltless because of some mental problem**, hes put his soul in danger. Thats a conviction based on contrasting his "teachings" with the Churchs INFALLIBLE teachings.

As an aside: Do you believe in the active participation of the fallen angels in this world?

Loving and forgiving is hardly acting like ostridges - it is being a conduit for light amidst the darkness… We are known by our fruits, to my mind Fr. Rohr has born great fruit and has led many to seek and know Christ…I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

To “confront” what we perceive as evil requires us to exercise a judgement that is and should be reserved for God alone. Who are we to declare something evil? By loving and forgiving we disarm any evil around us.

So, according to this theology, if you see a crime being committed, you ignore it, because it’s not your place to judge. Doesn’t sound very Christian to me.

 

[rebeccanew]

Jesus commanded evil spirits out of people, did not say anything about fusion or absorbing evil. I would be very careful of developing that sort of practice.

 

[tskrobacz]

So, according to this theology, if you see a crime being committed, you ignore it, because it’s not your place to judge. Doesn’t sound very Christian to me.

Not at all…love demands action.

 

[Corki]

Fr. Rohr speaks from a deep spirituality that is often misinterpreted by anyone that is not familiar with the teachings of the Catholic mystics including Thomas Merton, Thomas Keating and others. He correctly teaches that the only way to overcome evil is by not fueling it with confrontation…Love thy enemies remains a tough pill to swallow but is the ultimate call of Christian love.

The biggest problem with Fr.Rohr is the marketing. His work is not sold primarily to theologians and those “familiar with the teachings of the Catholic mystics.” His work is marketed as “pop” spirituality, as a way to deepen one’s spriritual life without all the “rules” that go with actually adhering to Church teaching. I haven’t been to a catechists’ event or a youth conference that didn’t have someone promoting his books.

His work should have prerequisites.

 

[Corki]

Its about Love. As Thomas Merton says…our job is to Love without stopping to ask if the other is worthy. It is none of our business if the other person is worthy and in fact it is no one’s business. That love will render ourself and others “worthy” if anything can.

To “confront” what we perceive as evil requires us to exercise a judgement that is and should be reserved for God alone. Who are we to declare something evil? By loving and forgiving we disarm any evil around us.

God calls us to recognize evil; to be careful not to call evil good. The Holy Spirit grants the gift of discernment, of right judgement, in order to help us know what is evil and what is good. Recognizing evil and confronting it in the world are judgements that are not reserved for God alone. Judging a person as unworthy is. You seem to be mixing up two types of judgement.

 

[tskrobacz]

The biggest problem with Fr.Rohr is the marketing. His work is not sold primarily to theologians and those “familiar with the teachings of the Catholic mystics.” His work is marketed as “pop” spirituality, as a way to deepen one’s spriritual life without all the “rules” that go with actually adhering to Church teaching. I haven’t been to a catechists’ event or a youth conference that didn’t have someone promoting his books.

His work should have prerequisites.

His marketing? He is an author…I don’t understand how he spreads the word without some form of promotion. I agree his work is not for everyone…you have to be open to Catholic mystics throughout the ages to be able to hear his message clearly.

 

[tskrobacz]

God calls us to recognize evil; to be careful not to call evil good. The Holy Spirit grants the gift of discernment, of right judgement, in order to help us know what is evil and what is good. Recognizing evil and confronting it in the world are judgements that are not reserved for God alone. Judging a person as unworthy is. You seem to be mixing up two types of judgement.

I agree we are to recognize evil. The question is how does one “confront” evil without becoming the evil itself. Our response (if in fact it is our place to respond) must be from a place of love or forgiveness…to confront it otherwise is a recipe for becoming the very thing we discern to be evil.

 

[Dorothy]

His marketing? He is an author…I don’t understand how he spreads the word without some form of promotion. I agree his work is not for everyone…you have to be open to Catholic mystics throughout the ages to be able to hear his message clearly.

We have Catholic mystics who are Doctors of the Church on prayer. Those are the ones that teach authentically, compared to the ones whose later works veered away from the total truth, and those who teach that contemplation is easy to reach.

Many years ago in our Catholic newspaper here in Florida I read a column by Father Richard Rohr. In it he ridiculed the belief in angels using, as an example, the Cure of Ars, who had frequently experienced the presence of evil by the tauntings and beatings of evil spirits. Thankfully, that was the last time I read a column of his in our Catholic newspaper, as they no longer were printed there.

 

[tskrobacz]

We have Catholic mystics who are Doctors of the Church on prayer. Those are the ones that teach authentically, compared to the ones whose later works veered away from the total truth, and those who teach that contemplation is easy to reach.

Many years ago in our Catholic newspaper here in Florida I read a column by Father Richard Rohr. In it he ridiculed the belief in angels using, as an example, the Cure of Ars, who had frequently experienced the presence of evil by the tauntings and beatings of evil spirits. Thankfully, that was the last time I read a column of his in our Catholic newspaper, as they no longer were printed there.

I cannot comment since I am not familiar with the article you are referring to. As the Bible says we are known by our fruits. I recently attended a conference where Fr. Rohr spoke with more than 1000 attendees. I have also had the opportunity to meet him - in person he is a humble and gentle spirit. I have read much of his writings and can assure he does NOT teach that contemplation is easy to reach. As with many of the mystics (Thomas Merton, John of the Cross, Thomas Keating, etc), his message, like the parables, has a deeper truth that is often 180 degrees opposite of what many hear.

 

[Dorothy]

I need to make a correction in my recent post in which I said that Father Richard Rohr was the author of a particular article in a Catholic newspaper.

My memory corrected me that it was another priest who had a first and last name that began with R.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Not at all…love demands action.

But how can we take action if we have no judgement? If I can’t judge whether something wrong is occurring, how can I decide whether to intervene?

How can we guide our children if we can’t judge whether they are doing the right thing or the wrong thing?

This is probably just semantics, but I find these new-agey liberal theologians love to change the meanings of words, and it seems as though they do it just to avoid having their statements exposed to the rigors of logical analysis.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I agree we are to recognize evil. The question is how does one “confront” evil without becoming the evil itself. Our response (if in fact it is our place to respond) must be from a place of love or forgiveness…to confront it otherwise is a recipe for becoming the very thing we discern to be evil.

If that’s all he means, it is nothing new. It’s called forgiveness. Why the jargon about “absorbing evil” when we’ve been calling it forgiveness for 2000 years?

I suspect he means something more than that. He wants us to accept evil, not just forgive and love the sinner. But how can I back up my statement when everything he says equivocates on the terms he has used previously, and the meaning of each word changes from one moment to the next.

 

[tskrobacz]

If that’s all he means, it is nothing new. It’s called forgiveness. Why the jargon about “absorbing evil” when we’ve been calling it forgiveness for 2000 years?

I suspect he means something more than that. He wants us to accept evil, not just forgive and love the sinner. But how can I back up my statement when everything he says equivocates on the terms he has used previously, and the meaning of each word changes from one moment to the next.

I’ve never heard that. Here’s quotes from Fr. Rohr on the subject:

Evil is not overcome by attack or even avoidance, but by union at a higher level. It is overcome not by fight or flight, but rather by “fusion”!

So we will pose the great spiritual problem in this way, “How do I stand against hate without becoming hate myself?”

We would all agree that evil is to be rejected and overcome; the only question is, how? How can we stand against evil without becoming a mirror—but denied—image of the same? That is often the heart of the matter, and in my experience is resolved successfully by a very small portion of people, even though it is quite clearly resolved in the life, death and teaching of Jesus.

Jesus gives us a totally different way of dealing with evil—absorbing it in God (which is the real meaning of the suffering body of Jesus) instead of attacking it outside and in others. It is undoubtedly the most counter-intuitive theme of the entire Bible. It demands real enlightenment and conversion for almost all of us.