Absorbing Evil and Fr. Richard Rohr

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neil_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
More Quotes from Fr. Rohr:

On the Day of Atonement (see Leviticus 16:21-22) a goat was brought into the sanctuary. The high priest would lay his hands on the goat and all the sins and failures of the people from the last year were ceremonially laid on the goat, and the goat was sent out into the desert to die. The assumption here is that evil can be expelled elsewhere, and the goal of religion is personal “purity.”

What immediately follows from the scapegoat story (the “escaping” goat) of Leviticus 16 is what is called “The Law of Holiness” (Leviticus 17-27), which largely defines holiness as separation from evil—which is exactly what they had just ritualized. In general, this is the pattern of most first-stage religion.

Three thousand years later, human consciousness hasn’t moved a great deal beyond that, despite the message of the cross. Jesus does not define holiness as separation from evil as much as absorption and transformation of it, wherein I pay the price instead of always asking others to pay the price.

From the cross, Jesus is shouting to history, “No more scapegoats! Look how wrong you can be.”
 
This one fromn today seems a bit off :
THE COSMIC CHRIST
Question of the Day:
Is my faith focused more on Jesus or on Christ?
The three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are largely about the historical Jesus who worked miracles, who taught, who promised us a new way of seeing, a new way of life in this world.
It is seldom pointed out, however, that Paul is not talking about Jesus; Paul is almost always talking about “Christ.” Paul hardly ever quotes the historical Jesus and never knew him in the flesh. Really rather shocking when you realize that his letters are one third of the New Testament! The phrase “in Christ” is his most common usage—over 100 times, I’ve been told.
We take Paul as a touchstone of orthodoxy, the central, foundational teacher of Christianity—and yet he hardly quotes Jesus! Something else is going on here, which has largely been off of the Christian radar. Paul has largely fallen in love with "the Christ” and it was Jesus who pointed him there. Most Christians still need to make the same movement, and to believe in both Jesus AND Christ. They are two distinct faith affirmations.
Isn’t this the nestorian heresy, that Jesus is two persons, the human person Jesus and the divine Christ?
 
This is the priest I was referring to when contrasting his preaching with the preaching of for example Fr. Corapi. I find these thoughts to be on opposite ends of a spectrum of Catholic thought. Someone mentioned that we need to think about doctrine vs opinion and always go with doctrine.

I go through such periods of confusion. Another person said stick with reading the scripture, lives of the saints and doctors of the Church. I decided to work with the tried and true and as our Pastor says why should I think that I all by myself have the wisdom to discern God’s words without the help of the great thinkers of our Church?

Going back to my old catechism days I remember that God made us to know love and serve Him in this world and to be happy with Him in heaven. I see that as totally true today but I would add the words to the best of my ability.

I have to trust that the Lord is with me and knows my intentions and I pray that He will give me the graces I need at the time I need them.

There is an old story that might have a Christian and a Hebrew version that says at the last judgement the Lord will want to know if I was the best me I could be. Nobody said it was going to be easy.

Thank you for your thoughts and discussion and links.
 
Great idea…why not re-start the inquisition and you can light the first match!

as someone said at another thread, why doesn’t the pope excommunicate people… who are heretics???

it seems to me the Church is just too wimpy these days… :mad:
 
Harsh. I’m not labelling anybody a heretic. I don’t know that much about my own religion. All I’m saying is there appears to be a spectrum of beliefs from traditional to more open with emphasis on bogus societal beliefs than on individual beliefs. Both are appealing with their own merits and worthy of consideration.

Further I am saying the doctors of the Church such as Saint Augustine have something to say to us in our time and I am open to finding out what it might be. I am certainly free to accept or reject in part or totally for that matter. I’m not telling you or anybody else what to do.

Friend. I’m here to learn. I don’t know your agenda. All I know is Catholicism made me who I am and I feel compelled to explore it. We all know it hurt a lot of people and is not perfect but I also hurt people and I also am not perfect. I am compelled to work on that.
I
It’s slow going.
 
Thanks for your response. Sorry if I came across as harsh.

Unfortunately, their are people within the church (always have been if you look at the history) who go out of their way to raise the flag of heresy without really knowing what or whom they’re talking about.

I’m glad you’re reading Augustine. You’re right - he has something to say now.
But so does Richard Rohr and people who decry him as a heretic would be better served by simply not reading his work or attending his talks.

It’s a very big church with many tents. Unfortunately the traditionalist wing of the church refuses to acknowledge that and end up labelling people who are quite orthodox and who have sought to engage the contemporary world in dialogue as somehow “heretical”. If Rome was overly concerned with an individual theologian discussions would ensue. Until then the “heresy” hunters ought to be content with what they know and not decry what they don’t know.

All the best.

tpw
 
I don’t know the context from which your quote comes, but if I may hazard a guess I would be willing to bet by fusion, Rohr means prayer which strengthens us to combat evil. Fighting evil without the aid of prayer and good spiritual direction is folly.

Blessings,
TPW
I’ve been reading quotes from Fr. Richard Rohr that are interesting but I’m not always sure if they’re orthodox. For example this one

“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”!”

In other quotes he talks about absorbing evil instead of separating from it.

Is he a Catholic priest in good standing? Can anyone help me understand what it means to have “fusion” with evil, in this context?

Thanks,
Neil
 
Thanks for your response. Sorry if I came across as harsh.

Unfortunately, their are people within the church (always have been if you look at the history) who go out of their way to raise the flag of heresy without really knowing what or whom they’re talking about.

I’m glad you’re reading Augustine. You’re right - he has something to say now.
But so does Richard Rohr and people who decry him as a heretic would be better served by simply not reading his work or attending his talks.

It’s a very big church with many tents. Unfortunately the traditionalist wing of the church refuses to acknowledge that and end up labelling people who are quite orthodox and who have sought to engage the contemporary world in dialogue as somehow “heretical”. If Rome was overly concerned with an individual theologian discussions would ensue. Until then the “heresy” hunters ought to be content with what they know and not decry what they don’t know.

All the best.

tpw
Amen
 
No problem.

Your point is taken. These are turbulent times and people are hungry and searching for spiritual peace.

I have to rely on that “old time religion” to get me through. Someone told me not to rely on the idea of getting through but think in terms of getting closer to God–a comment that resonated.

Thanks for your response.
 
I recommend to anyone who doubts the holiness of Father Richard Rohr to read his book “The Naked Now” and then decide whether or not he is genuine - for me it has changed my whole outlook on Christianity and helped me to be wholly aware of the the kingdom of God within ourselves and in others and what it means for us, not just for Christians, but for all, in eternity.
God’s love is unconditional and in the end, as Julian of Norwich has said “All Shall be Well”
 
I recommend to anyone who doubts the holiness of Father Richard Rohr to read his book “The Naked Now” and then decide whether or not he is genuine - for me it has changed my whole outlook on Christianity and helped me to be wholly aware of the the kingdom of God within ourselves and in others and what it means for us, not just for Christians, but for all, in eternity.
How do you know that your outlook on Christianity and beyond is correct? By trusting Fr. Rohr, youre playing with fire. Every denial of the Churchs teachings on Faith and Morals is an embracing of heresy.
No matter how good it may make you feel, it`s dangerous stuff!
God’s love is unconditional and in the end, as Julian of Norwich has said “All Shall be Well”
That quote doesn`t mean that everyone who clams to follow our Lord will end up in Heaven. The wolves in sheeps clothing who lead unwary people astray will have an alternative abode. And the people who thumb their noses at the Church and follow the wolves will be there with them.
 
Wow. Hitler, Stalin, heretic, dangerous, new-agey, “playing with fire.”

Those are some pretty serious charges. I’m glad this thread was resurrected, because just yesterday I saw another thread about Rohr, claiming he himself admitted to being a heretic. From a transcript it seemed like he did, but when I listened to the audio myself it was obvious that he was speaking tongue-in-cheek. He has certainly heard what is said about him, and is acknowledging that. I wrote a review on the site where it was posted. So now I’m really interested in discussing him.

I won’t directly reply to the posters from over a year ago; it isn’t fair. They may not still be around to explain themselves or may have changed their views since then, so now that I’ve mined them for key words I’ll let them be and focus on this year’s posts.

Regarding all these accusations, my wife told me many years ago that she was taught that it is dangerous to speak ill of any Catholic clergy member. Clergy are called to a higher obedience than the rest of us due to their positions of authoritay, and God will judge them with a stricter measure than He does lay people. (Matt 18:6, Mark 9:42) So if Rohr is really All That, we need to pray for him with the utmost charity, for what God may do to him. :signofcross:

According to Wikipedia, he’s been a priest since 1970, elsewhere I read he has been a spiritual director for over 30 years. If he were as bad as he is being portrayed, then I’d expect that after 40 years of this, the pope himself would have seen that he was stripped of any position involving contact with lay people and forbidden to publish any more books or give public interviews, if not excommunicated. Yet this hasn’t happened? Why hasn’t it? :confused:

Ah, maybe this is a clue: Wikipedia says he’s a Franciscan. That may help to explain it, given some of the other remarks I’ve read regarding Franciscans in general. I don’t know what it is about Franciscans that draw such ire, but evidently they do, and Rohr is no exception. 🤷

So yeah, let the show begin. I’m game.

🍿

Alan
 
Wow. Hitler, Stalin, heretic, dangerous, new-agey, “playing with fire.”

Those are some pretty serious charges.
Yep. They certainly are! 😃

(Maybe his chuckle was a sign of sarcasm, aimed, not at individuals, but at the Church, herself.)
Regarding all these accusations, my wife told me many years ago that she was taught that it is dangerous to speak ill of any Catholic clergy member. Clergy are called to a higher obedience than the rest of us due to their positions of authoritay, and God will judge them with a stricter measure than He does lay people. (Matt 18:6, Mark 9:42) So if Rohr is really All That, we need to pray for him with the utmost charity, for what God may do to him. :signofcross:
Youre dead right: he desparately needs our prayers! But its not a matter of what God does to him, but of what he may do to himself. God doesn`t consign us to hell: we do it, ourselves.
According to Wikipedia, he’s been a priest since 1970, elsewhere I read he has been a spiritual director for over 30 years. If he were as bad as he is being portrayed, then I’d expect that after 40 years of this, the pope himself would have seen that he was stripped of any position involving contact with lay people and forbidden to publish any more books or give public interviews, if not excommunicated. Yet this hasn’t happened? Why hasn’t it? :confused:
Fr. Hans Kung has been a priest for many years; and Sr. J Chittister has been a nun for many years. In spite of their VERY open defiance of the Church, neither of them.has been excommunicated. Fr. Kung was eventually barred from teaching as a Catholic theoligian, which he hadnt been for decades, anyway(!); but that didnt shut him up.
Theres a heap of other dissenters in the same category, and Fr. Rohrs not as…er…well known as some of them. Heaven only knows he`s tried to be, though! He must be disappointed.🤷
Ah, maybe this is a clue: Wikipedia says he’s a Franciscan. That may help to explain it, given some of the other remarks I’ve read regarding Franciscans in general. I don’t know what it is about Franciscans that draw such ire, but evidently they do, and Rohr is no exception. 🤷
The Franciscans have earned their notoriety. The ones over in Medjugorje aren`t the only disobedient ones around.
So yeah, let the show begin. I’m game.
Its a pity i dont eat popcorn (got lousy teeth)! 😊
 
I recommend to anyone who doubts the holiness of Father Richard Rohr to read his book “The Naked Now” and then decide whether or not he is genuine - for me it has changed my whole outlook on Christianity and helped me to be wholly aware of the the kingdom of God within ourselves and in others and what it means for us, not just for Christians, but for all, in eternity.
God’s love is unconditional and in the end, as Julian of Norwich has said “All Shall be Well”
Amen. Fr. Rohr is truly one of the great spiritual teachers of our day. As with Jesus and many of the saints his words are hard to hear for those steeped in dualistic, “first half of life” religion.
 
Thank you for taking the time and effort to read and reply to my post.
(Maybe his chuckle was a sign of sarcasm, aimed, not at individuals, but at the Church, herself.)
Hmmm… did you listen to the audio clip?
Youre dead right: he desparately needs our prayers! But its not a matter of what God does to him, but of what he may do to himself. God doesn`t consign us to hell: we do it, ourselves.
Tomayto, tomahto. God makes the final decision about that, does He not?
Fr. Hans Kung has been a priest for many years; and Sr. J Chittister has been a nun for many years. In spite of their VERY open defiance of the Church, neither of them.has been excommunicated. Fr. Kung was eventually barred from teaching as a Catholic theoligian, which he hadnt been for decades, anyway(!); but that didnt shut him up.
Was Rohr barred from teaching religion? Is what he is doing in defiance of his own superiors? If the Church barred him and he keeps doing it anyway, then I’d say we have some basis for leveling our charges against him.
The Franciscans have earned their notoriety. The ones over in Medjugorje aren`t the only disobedient ones around.
Ah. So this is about Franciscans in general, not just Rohr. If an entire order were evil and disobedient, why doesn’t Rome do something about it? Do they not have any authority? They stand up to entire governments and populations. The President of the United States (not the current one) who controls the world’s strongest army (at least it was at the time) got down on his knees and kissed the ring on the pope’s finger. If they can’t deal with a rogue order within the Church, then why do we even have a central authority in Rome?
Its a pity i dont eat popcorn (got lousy teeth)! 😊
Sigh. Here’s a point of agreement – I don’t either, for the same reason. I only do it virtually.

Peace,
Alan
 
Thank you for taking the time and effort to read and reply to my post.

Hmmm… did you listen to the audio clip?
Didnt bother. i know enough about him, already. To be honest, i cant stand him! 😦 You probably suspected that already. im a conservative Catholic who wishes to abide by the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; and whose ears are not itching to hear novel and dangerous stuff from a dissenter! Thats it in the proverbial nutshell.
The almost two thousand years old Holy Spirit-guided Church is more reliable than any dissenter.
Satan knows how to “gift wrap” his snares!
Tomayto, tomahto. God makes the final decision about that, does He not?
NO. If pride causes us to place SELF above God and His Church, we wouldnt want to be with God, anyway. Wed prefer to spend forever with SELF (ie nothing, emptyness).
He who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me. Luke 10:16

Gods will is that all be saved; but He also gives us free will. He cant force us…
Was Rohr barred from teaching religion? Is what he is doing in defiance of his own superiors? If the Church barred him and he keeps doing it anyway, then I’d say we have some basis for leveling our charges against him.
To mention Medjugorje again, the superiors of the disobedient friars refused to disclipine them.
Ah. So this is about Franciscans in general, not just Rohr. If an entire order were evil and disobedient, why doesn’t Rome do something about it? Do they not have any authority?
Youre the the one who brought up the bit about bashing the Franciscans; and my reply was related to that. Anyway, its not the whole order: Fr. Benedict Groeschel and co are examples of faithful ones. But there seems to be some sort of malaise…
The same can be said for some other orders…
They stand up to entire governments and populations. The President of the United States (not the current one) who controls the world’s strongest army (at least it was at the time) got down on his knees and kissed the ring on the pope’s finger. *** If they can’t deal with a rogue order within the Church, then why do we even have a central authority in Rome?***
"Tell me, and well both know." im frustrated by the seeming inaction.
Sigh. Here’s a point of agreement – I don’t either, for the same reason. I only do it virtually.
Peace,
Alan
 
Didn`t bother. i know enough about him, already.
Somehow I thought you hadn’t listened to it. We wouldn’t want to disturb preconceived notions with something as irrelevant as first-hand evidence. 😉
So you’re saying God does NOT make the final decision about where I end up? Woo Hoo! I’m FREE! Now I can do anything and still go to heaven! 😛
Gods will is that all be saved; but He also gives us free will. He cant force us…
Clarification: He chooses not to force us. He made us this way and loves us the way we are.
To mention Medjugorje again, the superiors of the disobedient friars refused to disclipine them.
Sorry. I honestly have no clue about Medjugorje, what happened there, or how it relates to Franciscans. I just never was interested in it. So if it is important to this discussion, please suggest a place where I can a good, brief overview.
Youre the the one who brought up the bit about bashing the Franciscans; and my reply was related to that. Anyway, its not the whole order: Fr. Benedict Groeschel and co are examples of faithful ones.
OK. So you’re saying not ALL Franciscans are bad? That’s cool. :cool:
"Tell me, and well both know." im frustrated by the seeming inaction.
I totally believe you on this. 👍

Thank you again for taking the time and effort to banter with me. TTYL. :tiphat:

Alan
 
I have never read a good review of Fr. Rohr from any Catholic writer that I respect.

Top Amchurch Catechists Subvert Church’s Doctrine and Discipline
Code:
   Rohr and others may the American Church look bad like compared to  some countries in South America &  Spain.    We as a whole are too liberal in this country.  But the error is spreading.

  Sometimes  I wonder the black figures that some describe in their dreams and nightmares accompanied by a feeling of  suffocation are not  figures born out of our consciences telling us about the moral atmosphere we live in much of the time.
 
I have never read a good review of Fr. Rohr from any Catholic writer that I respect.
But what do you know about him directly? If you haven’t already, I challenge you to put aside whatever others have told you, listen to what he’s saying, and make up your own mind rather than listening to others.

I first heard of him a couple months ago when a friend sent me a CD set of him talking about his book “the Naked Now.” That’s where I first came to understand exactly what is meant by dualistic and non-dualistic thinking.

There is nothing wrong with dualistic thinking per se, as without it we couldn’t even speak to each other. But Jesus introduced non-dualistic thinking, which didn’t set well with those most entrenched in their ways. It upset a lot of people. He was called a blasphemer. I’m not saying Father Rohr is Jesus or anything like that – just that he has some wisdom to offer that you can’t get by reading scholarly journals about intellectual debates which provide intellectual reinforcement which have the potential to surround a person’s soul with pride and feeling of self-accomplishment, or maybe with self-loathing, as one always sees himself as unworthy. It isn’t about worthiness contests. It’s about opening your mind and heart and being truly transformed. You can memorize the Bible and every canon law and CCC paragraph, give double your tithe to the church, sell all your possessions and give the proceeds to the poor, and even talk in tongues but it is all nothing without love. To find that love, you must go beyond dualistic thinking, as a part of letting go of your own ego … once you start catching on to non-dualistic thinking, you will even be better at dualistic thinking when it is needed, because you will understand its context and limitations.

The above paragraph are my thoughts; I don’t intend to speak to Father Rohr. You wouldn’t want a jury to vote on your guilt by reading negative newspaper reports and shutting their eyes and turning off their hearing aids while you are on the witness stand, would you? Of course if he says anything differently than the way everyone else says it, it’s going to stir up the beehive a little. Like Ted Nugent once told Rush Limbaugh, “if you ain’t making waves, you ain’t paddling.”

I’m not telling you Rohr is a heretic or not; I’m asking you to make up your own mind based on solid evidence rather than others’ opinions. I’m telling you that if you don’t want someone to judge you solely on the basis of negative newspaper accounts, then neither should you judge Rohr by the words of other people when their are plenty of his own words you can listen to. (Not to mention, the people who most attack Rohr have something to lose if Rohr is right.) And not out of context, like those who claimed he was calling himself a heretic. I know for a fact that the transcript of that sound bite has been copied to websites all over the world, as “proof” that Rohr knows he’s a heretic and proud of it. I was puzzled by the transcript. But when I listened to the actual soundbite, it was so obvious it was pathetic that so many people thought they had found a smoking gun. When you have first hand evidence, don’t walk by it and go for second and third-hand opinons and then make a judgment. Listen to those you trust, but get it first hand or don’t judge for yourself. If you want to say, “well, so and so says he’s a heretic,” I have no problem with that. What I am asking is that you don’t say, “he’s a heretic because so and so says he is.” Can you see the distinction I’m making? I’m not playing word games. I’d bet my immortal soul that there is a fundamental difference between the two statements. On the one hand, you’re reporting what others have said. On the other, you’re judging someone without giving them a chance to testify, and we all know what Jesus said about judgments. Would you stake your immortal soul that these people you trust – who don’t like Rohr – have made a proper judgment of him? Please accept this as a warning, offered in love, that if you judge people based on others’ judgments, you may just be in deep trouble yourself.

As always, thank you for taking the time to post on this matter. TTYL. :tiphat:

I pray that you and yours experience love, peace, joy, and a sense of true spiritual, emotional, and mental freedom – and if it’s not too much to ask, a taste of Divine Union.

Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top