Obviously, that is not in line with Catholicism and could be very confusing and misleading to those who are not adequately catechized.
I’d have to hear more of his reasoning and think more before commenting on this. It sounds bizarre, but there may be a useful point in there somewhere.
his position on the morality of homosexuality, and his use of the enneagram. Though he claimed at his conference to sit in the “larger Christian and Catholic tradition,” he fails to demonstrate how referring to God as Mother, encouraging homosexual advocacy,
I’m interested in just what his position is on homosexuality. If he says it doesn’t make a difference whether we are or not, then I’m likely to question him further. If he says that we are too focused on judging other people, that when we know of their sins we tend to shun them, then I might just agree with it. The chances of “fixing” a homosexual by closing them out and telling them how awful it is that they are doing what they are doing, are probably quite slim. If it’s just a matter of priorities, then I think he might have a point.
began with two women waving banners, followed by two liturgical dancers carrying a white tablecloth, followed by others who carried the hosts in large wicker breadbaskets and the wine in glass and plastic pitchers.
Once I got to play piano at a church with liturgical dancers. Wonderful music program, much better than in my home parish, but the dancers didn’t do much for me. They didn’t offend me, but I just wasn’t too moved by them.
As far as the Father-Mother God, I can imagine what he’s trying to say, but I’m not sure that this is the best strategy. If he’s saying that God transcends being of one sex or the other, then I might agree – God is not something we can put into a box. In humans one cannot procreate unless there is both a male and female “unit.” If God were male only, then how could he have done all that creation without a mate Himself?
That said, I find the term “Father Mother God” a bit distracting. I think it’s a bit like saying he/she every time we need a third person, singular pronoun. It’s just awkward for me. I was taught way back when, that the norm for the language is to use the male gender in referring to another person without a specific gender label.
In the commentary about his new book “Why be Catholic?” the author writes, “Today the Catholic Church is much different from the way it was a generation ago. It is not so easy to say what makes Roman Catholicism different from other forms of Christianity.”
familychristian.com/shop/product.asp?prodID=34412
If this man – a priest no less – does not know what makes Roman Catholicism different from other forms of Christianity, why would we want to use his materials? Why would any consider him a “leader” in our Church?
This is a provocative statement, and I’d like to know the scope of these comments. If he’s talking about bureaucracy and insensitivity of certain leaders – including the lay leaders of parishes for example, who nevertheless reflect on the pastor like it or not – then I’m inclined to agree. When I was VP of parish council I was astounded that not only did they refuse to hear Christ’s teaching when our job was to deliver it, but they denied it was even a useful strategy!
I’ve shared stories with coworkers in leadership in non-Catholic parishes that had the same exact issues.
In fact, I was having such a difficult time getting through to one of our pastors who was a very authoritative “sheep should shape up or ship out” type, and tended to support those lay leaders with the biggest mouths, the biggest gripes about their fellow parishioners, and did the best job of kissing up to him. I told him that the divisions in the parish (house divided and all) were “more of a threat to the survival of this parish than anything that is going on in Tiller’s clinic” (the late infamous George Tiller’s elective late-term abortion mill was only about three miles from us). Well, that didn’t work. He didn’t want to even try to understand my point, like our previous pastor would have. He maintained “peace” by squelching any criticism related to his darlings or their practices.
Fr. Rohr preaches the gospel of homosexuality, denies that birth control is a sin, changes the consecration prayers, uses pagan rituals as part of his men’s spirituality practices and preaches against both the Church and the Sacraments. He has placed himself outside of the faithful. He’s not merely controversial – he’s dangerous in that he causes scandal, confuses people and leads souls away from Truth. He and other dissidents are capable of leading less educated and less spiritually developed souls from God and into dangerous territory bordering on heresy.
Just because he “causes scandal” in and of itself doesn’t bother me. I’ve seen some well entrenched, serious issues that need to be addressed, and BTW as another poster mentioned, Jesus was pretty good at criticizing His church and creating scandal. I’m not saying Rohr is like Jesus necessarily, any more than the rest of us, but if we believe that we are infallible not only in teachings, but in structural and administrative matters, then we fail to recognize these problems our claims are thus discredited.
Yes, yes, of course take what you like from his thoughts and writings, but please take his best - and not the bizarre.
I’m glad you are able to learn from someone who says some good things and some that are difficult. Many people think it’s a matter of choosing sides. It is hard to find someone who is right 100% of the time.
Thank you for your post, and peace to you as well.
Alan
