Absorbing Evil and Fr. Richard Rohr

[AlanFromWichita]

Bad luck if its not God Whos directing the path; but the Adversary. His “siren song” is quite enticing to individuals who are so full of themselves that they thumb their noses at the Church. Who and what does Fr. Rohr think he is? Strikes me that he`s yet another parasite, sucking life out of the host, purely to satisfy his ego, and his determination to propagate a false spirituality. Living off the Church under false pretenses!

Wow. Watch out where you point that thing.

Even those who think he is heretical, including CA apologist Fr. Serpa in the AAA thread, at least give him credit for good intentions and for the good he has done for others.
Fr. Vincent Serpa:

I have no doubt that Fr. Rohr is well intentioned. His compassion has helped many people…

Peace,
Alan

 

[Julia_Mae]

Wow. Watch out where you point that thing.

Even those who think he is heretical, including CA apologist Fr. Serpa in the AAA thread, at least give him credit for good intentions and for the good he has done for others.

Why would I give him credit for good intentions?

As far as I can see from his website and his writings over the last few days, his intention is to replace a lot of what we need to take from our Church with what he is offering, and he charges money. He writes well and he speaks well. So does Corapi.

Being a Christian is hard. Paying this guy money doesn’t actually make it easier. There are a lot of slippery slopes in life. Drinking in a strip club is one kind. But the slope that leads us away from dogma, that’s the scary one. Feels good and positive and uplifting and from a priest … it’s so easy to believe what he says must be dogmatic, I mean, he is a priest, right? It’s easier if you don’t know what dogma actually is.

We aren’t speaking of something minor here. Souls get lost. Forever.

There is a shortage of parish priests all over the country. Why isn’t he one of them? Who’s in charge of this guy and how do we even know for sure he’s ordained?

He seems to me to be serving himself, so, no, I don’t have to give him one bit of credit.

If any good at all has come from something he’s done, the credit goes to the Holy Spirit.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Why would I give him credit for good intentions?

Since you gave him punishment for your perceived bad intentions, I thought I might “balance” it a bit by Fr. Serpa’s comments about him. Do you know more about this guy than Fr. Serpa?

As far as I can see from his website and his writings over the last few days, his intention is to replace a lot of what we need to take from our Church with what he is offering, and he charges money. He writes well and he speaks well. So does Corapi.

I get a daily email, for which he doesn’t charge. I haven’t paid a dime for all I’ve heard from him.

Being a Christian is hard. Paying this guy money doesn’t actually make it easier. There are a lot of slippery slopes in life. Drinking in a strip club is one kind. But the slope that leads us away from dogma, that’s the scary one. Feels good and positive and uplifting and from a priest … it’s so easy to believe what he says must be dogmatic, I mean, he is a priest, right? It’s easier if you don’t know what dogma actually is.

Actually, yes. He’s been an SD for over 30 years, and so far nobody in authority has seen fit to censor him. He’s caused enough of a stir that I’d be surprised if B16 himself doesn’t know anything about him.

There is a shortage of parish priests all over the country. Why isn’t he one of them? Who’s in charge of this guy and how do we even know for sure he’s ordained?

I don’t know, but with all the bad press I’ve seen of him, I suspect that has been sought after just like Obama’s birth certificate.

He seems to me to be serving himself, so, no, I don’t have to give him one bit of credit.

OK. Your choice.

If any good at all has come from something he’s done, the credit goes to the Holy Spirit.

That goes for all of us.

Peace and joy,
Alan

 

[rainbow1]

Since you gave him punishment for your perceived bad intentions, I thought I might “balance” it a bit by Fr. Serpa’s comments about him. Do you know more about this guy than Fr. Serpa?

I get a daily email, for which he doesn’t charge. I haven’t paid a dime for all I’ve heard from him.

Actually, yes. He’s been an SD for over 30 years, and so far nobody in authority has seen fit to censor him. He’s caused enough of a stir that I’d be surprised if B16 himself doesn’t know anything about him.

I don’t know, but with all the bad press I’ve seen of him, I suspect that has been sought after just like Obama’s birth certificate.

OK. Your choice.

That goes for all of us.

Peace and joy,
Alan

Thanks Alan for the information about his free email…just signed up for it.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Since you gave him punishment

I didn’t do a thing to him.

Watch your step.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I didn’t do a thing to him.

Watch your step.

I just retraced the thread and saw my comments about “punishing him” were directed at a post by Fink, not you. You jumped in and responded on Fink’s behalf, quoting what I said to Fink, and I attributed what he wrote, to you.

I apologize for that mistake.

Alan

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Father Rohr is a priest and is accorded respect due to him because of this fact. We need to discuss his methods and writings, not his character. This is absolutely wrong to do.

Where the writings of Rohr diverge from Catholicism is not always easy to see. He does not seemingly state the principles of his thought but the results of these principles. This keeps him from coming under fire from the Church authority because he does not state the obvious but the esoteric.

When one delves deeply into the Church’s theology, Her philosophical traditions, and the errors of modern philosophy, it is then that the “depth” of Fr. Rohr is exposed and the shallowness of his theology is understood. On his view on “Blood Atonement” of the Cross and Jesus’ Sacrifice, this subject is not specifically defined by the Church because it is a deep mystery. Fr. Rohr denies any “blood atonement” because “violence does not save”. Good enough and true that violence does not save, but the Cross of Christ is not limited to a violent act but is so much more a voluntary act of Love and an act of following the Fathers Will that His Blood shed on the Cross has truly atoning power. Elevating nonviolence is the priority in this view of Fr. Rohr and seems to be the presupposition that leads to this. Violence does not save but there is a place for violent acts in battling evil: defending the weak from aggressors, defending one’s country, or capitol punishment (if necessary). Fr. Rohr does not reject the other levels of truth in the saving power of the Cross but in elevating this nonviolence aspect as he does, he reduces the depth of this mystery considerably.

If someone wanted to learn the depth of the Catholic faith they would not stop at Fr. Rohr’s writings, but if one wanted to be confirmed in their progressive viewpoint, they would find in his writings that confirmation.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If someone wanted to learn the depth of the Catholic faith they would not stop at Fr. Rohr’s writings, but if one wanted to be confirmed in their progressive viewpoint, they would find in his writings that confirmation.

You say that as if “progressive” were a bad thing.

I don’t know what you would call me, but I no particular beef with Catholic theology in general, and the number of her teachings I find too difficult to accept at this point are in the minority. That said, I see a great number of problems and issues with the structure, operation, and strategy that are employed all the way from parish lay leaders on up. I’ve had first hand experience at godlessness and lack of charity from parish lay leaders, parish priests, and lip service and window dressing over substance on the part of certain bishops – not in what they proclaim but in what they do and how I believe it affects people in a way that does not advance them along the spiritual journey.

Whether any given teaching is convincingly traceable to Jesus Himself, I’m not too interested in challenging them. How they deliver that message? I am interested in that because I see so many fellow parishioners and friends get messed around in one way or other by those in authority, who are actually employed by God, if you get right down to it. I’ve seen sheep who would never stray and gave everything they had to the parish, get kicked in the teeth for petty reasons that offended certain members of the leadership of the parish. I’ve seen one priest in particular who was promoted to monsignor because he wrote beautifully, treat so many people with hatred and intolerance that he was infamous in the diocese for being and angry person who needs to be avoided. Is it against Church teachings to hold these views? Or am I supposed to say, “well, he’s a monsignor; I can’t say anything about him.” But it’s OK to talk negatively about Fr. Rohr. If that’s the case than it’s a double standard.

Alan

 

[rainbow1]

Father Rohr is a priest and is accorded respect due to him because of this fact. We need to discuss his methods and writings, not his character. This is absolutely wrong to do.

Where the writings of Rohr diverge from Catholicism is not always easy to see. He does not seemingly state the principles of his thought but the results of these principles. This keeps him from coming under fire from the Church authority because he does not state the obvious but the esoteric.

When one delves deeply into the Church’s theology, Her philosophical traditions, and the errors of modern philosophy, it is then that the “depth” of Fr. Rohr is exposed and the shallowness of his theology is understood. On his view on “Blood Atonement” of the Cross and Jesus’ Sacrifice, this subject is not specifically defined by the Church because it is a deep mystery. Fr. Rohr denies any “blood atonement” because “violence does not save”. Good enough and true that violence does not save, but the Cross of Christ is not limited to a violent act but is so much more a voluntary act of Love and an act of following the Fathers Will that His Blood shed on the Cross has truly atoning power. Elevating nonviolence is the priority in this view of Fr. Rohr and seems to be the presupposition that leads to this. Violence does not save but there is a place for violent acts in battling evil: defending the weak from aggressors, defending one’s country, or capitol punishment (if necessary). Fr. Rohr does not reject the other levels of truth in the saving power of the Cross but in elevating this nonviolence aspect as he does, he reduces the depth of this mystery considerably.

If someone wanted to learn the depth of the Catholic faith they would not stop at Fr. Rohr’s writings, but if one wanted to be confirmed in their progressive viewpoint, they would find in his writings that confirmation.

Quote,“there is a place for violent acts in battling evil, etc…”
I don’t agree. “Thou shalt not kill” is not diluted by adding “unless you want to” or “unless or in your opinion you need to”. The only thing that counters evil is love. Br.Jay once commented something to the effect that you can kill a person, you can scatter their ashes, but you can’t kill their love. Jesus’ love is what made a difference on the cross. His love is what attones for our sins. His love is what mattered.

 

[rainbow1]

You say that as if “progressive” were a bad thing.

I don’t know what you would call me, but I no particular beef with Catholic theology in general, and the number of her teachings I find too difficult to accept at this point are in the minority. That said, I see a great number of problems and issues with the structure, operation, and strategy that are employed all the way from parish lay leaders on up. I’ve had first hand experience at godlessness and lack of charity from parish lay leaders, parish priests, and lip service and window dressing over substance on the part of certain bishops – not in what they proclaim but in what they do and how I believe it affects people in a way that does not advance them along the spiritual journey.

Whether any given teaching is convincingly traceable to Jesus Himself, I’m not too interested in challenging them. How they deliver that message? I am interested in that because I see so many fellow parishioners and friends get messed around in one way or other by those in authority, who are actually employed by God, if you get right down to it. I’ve seen sheep who would never stray and gave everything they had to the parish, get kicked in the teeth for petty reasons that offended certain members of the leadership of the parish. I’ve seen one priest in particular who was promoted to monsignor because he wrote beautifully, treat so many people with hatred and intolerance that he was infamous in the diocese for being and angry person who needs to be avoided. Is it against Church teachings to hold these views? Or am I supposed to say, “well, he’s a monsignor; I can’t say anything about him.” But it’s OK to talk negatively about Fr. Rohr. If that’s the case than it’s a double standard.

Alan

If a monsignor is treating his people with hatred and intolerance, it is perfectly fine to speak up on behalf of the weak (in a loving and non-violent way) …hate the sin, but love the sinner…go to him directly and voice your concern, if that doesn’t work, take other parishioners with you…if that doesn’t work, speak to the bishop about the monsignor’s actions, not his personage.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I apologize for that mistake.

Alan

Don’t worry about it, I wasn’t offended. Just be careful, please.

God bless.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Fr. Rohr denies any “blood atonement” because “violence does not save”. .

Yeah, see, this how someone can end up downhill, by subtly switching the focus from what Jesus did, to what others did. Then we aren’t focused on Christ anymore. Combine that with some clever catchphrase theology and you have every televangelist church in the US.

What do they do? They follow a charismatic speaker.

Now - here’s a test: **how do you know when your dogma is sound and you are in the right Church? ** When your Pastor is an idiot, a bore, has bad breath, doesn’t seem to actually like people, and you know there’s nowhere else to go because that is His Body and that is His Blood.

If we reject that the Blood of Christ saves, then… what are we doing in church at all?

The Crucifixion changed the very nature of Reality by the total surrender of Jesus Christ. Anything that can undermine that in anyone’s mind, is inspired by the Liar.

 

[DanielOfDoubt]

Well said. I agree.
I have a 7 year-old whose faith is so simple yet totally complete. When asked why she wants to make her 1st Holy Communion, she said, “Because I love Jesus, silly, and I know He loves me too!” THAT is the essence of all we believe - God is love. And, even Scripture says Jesus loves the little ones. If HE loves those who are simple, why is Rohr pushing for people to “mature”?

The Buddha exhorted his followers to think for themselves and to question even him, the Buddha. I really don’t see what is to be admired in believing something ‘on faith’. Where is the discernment in such a worldview? If the 7 year old was raised in any other faith environment then she would be saying the same thing about Muhammad, or Zoroaster, or L. Ron Hubbard. That’s a childish way, not an adult way to think about a higher power. How do you not see that?

 

[DanielOfDoubt]

Father Rohr is a priest and is accorded respect due to him because of this fact. We need to discuss his methods and writings, not his character. This is absolutely wrong to do.

Where the writings of Rohr diverge from Catholicism is not always easy to see. He does not seemingly state the principles of his thought but the results of these principles. This keeps him from coming under fire from the Church authority because he does not state the obvious but the esoteric.

When one delves deeply into the Church’s theology, Her philosophical traditions, and the errors of modern philosophy, it is then that the “depth” of Fr. Rohr is exposed and the shallowness of his theology is understood. On his view on “Blood Atonement” of the Cross and Jesus’ Sacrifice, this subject is not specifically defined by the Church because it is a deep mystery. Fr. Rohr denies any “blood atonement” because “violence does not save”. Good enough and true that violence does not save, but the Cross of Christ is not limited to a violent act but is so much more a voluntary act of Love and an act of following the Fathers Will that His Blood shed on the Cross has truly atoning power. Elevating nonviolence is the priority in this view of Fr. Rohr and seems to be the presupposition that leads to this. Violence does not save but there is a place for violent acts in battling evil: defending the weak from aggressors, defending one’s country, or capitol punishment (if necessary). Fr. Rohr does not reject the other levels of truth in the saving power of the Cross but in elevating this nonviolence aspect as he does, he reduces the depth of this mystery considerably.

If someone wanted to learn the depth of the Catholic faith they would not stop at Fr. Rohr’s writings, but if one wanted to be confirmed in their progressive viewpoint, they would find in his writings that confirmation.

How is it wrong to question the character of a priest? Is it wrong to question the character of a pedophile priest? Where is your logic?

 

[Fink]

Wow. Watch out where you point that thing.

Even those who think he is heretical, including CA apologist Fr. Serpa in the AAA thread, at least give him credit for good intentions and for the good he has done for others.

Peace,
Alan

Being under the public gaze the way he is, plus being mindful of possible legal action, Fr. Serpa (along with his fellows) has to be extremely prudent with his choice of words. We peasants arent quite as restricted: The opinions expressed by individual CAF members arent necessarily those of the Management.
id much prefer to call the proverbial spade a spade; and wish there could be even more freedom of expression! :shrug: Fr. Rohr knows damned well what the Holy Spirit-inspired Church teaches; and he laughs at her. :mad: Hed do us a favour if he were to go off and team up with another particular (now ex-Catholic) dissenter: Fr. Matthew Fox.

Why would I give him credit for good intentions?

There are a lot of slippery slopes in life. Drinking in a strip club is one kind. But the slope that leads us away from dogma, that’s the scary one. Feels good and positive and uplifting and from a priest … it’s so easy to believe what he says must be dogmatic, I mean, he is a priest, right? It’s easier if you don’t know what dogma actually is.

ive a feeling that, in most cases, his followers treat the Church with the same contempt that he does. And they know it! :( His attitude towards the Church is a giveaway. (Alan: im not including you in that group; but there may be others here…)

He seems to me to be serving himself, so, no, I don’t have to give him one bit of credit.

Ditto.

If any good at all has come from something he’s done, the credit goes to the Holy Spirit.

And thankfully, we know that God allows evil only when He can bring a greater good out of it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

id much prefer to call the proverbial spade a spade; and wish there could be even more freedom of expression! :shrug: Fr. Rohr knows damned well what the Holy Spirit-inspired Church teaches; and he laughs at her. :mad: Hed do us a favour if he were to go off and team up with another particular (now ex-Catholic) dissenter: Fr. Matthew Fox.

Dunno anything about Fox. Here’s a quote from Wikipedia:
Wikipedia:

Among Fox’s most controversial teachings was a belief in “original blessing,” which became the title of one of his most popular books. The concept was in direct contravention of the core Church belief that man is born into “original sin.” Fox’s teachings also were considered more feminist- and ecology-centered, and more accepting of homosexuality than church orthodoxy.[7] In 1988, Fox wrote a public letter to Cardinal Ratzinger entitled “Is the Catholic Church Today a Dysfunctional Family,” which was subsequently widely disseminated by the National Catholic Reporter. (link to Allen Book) Soon after, Cardinal Ratzinger issued an order forbidding Fox to teach or lecture for a year.

In 1993, Fox’s conflicts with Catholic authorities climaxed with his expulsion from the Dominican order for “disobedience,” effectively ending his professional relationship with the church and his teaching at its universities.[4] Cardinal Ratzinger ordered the expulsion after Fox refused to respond to a summons to discuss his writings with his superiors in the Roman Catholic Church. Among the issues Fox was asked to defend were that he: called God “Mother;” preferred the concept of Original Blessing over Original Sin; worked too closely with Native American spiritual practices; didn’t condemn homosexuality; and taught the 4 paths of creation spirituality—the Via Positiva, Via Negativa, Via Creativa and Via Transformativa instead of the church’s classical three paths of purgation, illumination and union.[9]

This is what I’m saying. B16 hears about these things, he doesn’t mess around and he doesn’t take the word of a panel that found in his favor. And that was before he was even pope. He could and would easily give Rohr the boot if he shared some of these views or Rohr.

ive a feeling that, in most cases, his followers treat the Church with the same contempt that he does. And they know it! :( His attitude towards the Church is a giveaway. (Alan: im not including you in that group; but there may be others here…)

Well, IMO the Church has quite a few places where she needs to clean house, in order for her to be the beacon of morality that she is supposed to be. Again, I’m not talking about her teachings, but I’ve seen how she has driven the sheep from the pasture, both locally and on a grand scale, and in those cases where I am close and informed enough to trace it, I see not only issues with individual priests, but systematic weaknesses. I’ve been in large companies with very large bureaucracy, such as Bell Labs which NOBODY thought would suddenly cave the way it did in 2001-ish, and I see we have similar things at work here. And it isn’t just Catholics, necessarily.

I have no wish to destroy the Church’s teachings, but I would love to help her, using what I know as a person who has been “in the trenches” and been confided in by many parishioners (I was a “leader” and I listened to people rather than scold them so many confided in me), but those in power – all the way down to the parish level – are incredibly resistant to hearing that anything they do could be improved or made more Christian, and like I said it is often done without even hiding it, like the guy who had a stranglehold on parish leadership while denying that following Jesus even should be considered at all by the leaders. I spent a great deal of time in the bishop’s office discussing those problems with diocese leadership, and found them to be worse than useless in helping the parishes get in line with a stewardship policy we advertised and exported, but literally sat in a drawer downtown. Once I brought a copy of the stewardship manual to a parish council meeting, and was scolded by the pastor for doing so. I was actually given the job of going to diocesan stewardship training camps and bringing back what I knew, but clearly they didn’t want to hear anything except congratulations for their awesomeness.

(to be continued …)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

Ten years ago, I had the privilege and honor to work as our parish liaison to the Third Synod of the Diocese of Wichita, where for the first time here in history, lay people were invited to meetings where they were encouraged to say anything out loud or anonymously on paper about the Church, good or bad, in reaction to six very open-ended questions posed by the bishop. I also worked as a volunteer doing data entry for several parishes, both in the city and at a distance from Wichita, where I was in charge of taking their written comments (did this only in the chancery office and couldn’t take them out because the Church was treating them as private confessions) about the Church, both good and bad, and entering them into the database so the the bishop could do data mining on them. I was given authority to paraphrase them ever so slightly when needed, to break it into individual items to get into the database.

What I saw that the bishop didn’t see were the doodles on those forms – and the way they used handwriting, bold, underlined, etc. to make their points. The little lightning bolts, the swirly artwork, the happy faces when talking about the Eucharist and the crying faces when they talked about their children and their relationship to the Church It changed me forever. Their love for the Church that these people was immense and brought me nearly to tears at times. Their frustration with the same Church. Their gratefulness as cradle Catholics to be asked for their opinion for the first time, ever.

The majority of those criticizing the Church, in my experience, are just frustrated at what would objectively be hypocrisy and failed strategy in leadership, and don’t know what to do because they feel helpless. Again, restricting it to structural and procedural issues alone, I can see why Rohr has the following he has. He is giving voice to many who love the Church but have remained silent their entire lives due to fear of becoming “examples” like some of their fellow parishioners, including me.

Thank you again for your time and effort on this issue, and for keeping to the subject at hand without getting personal against me. :tiphat:

Sorry again for the length of my post, but I looked it over a couple times and really had a rough time letting go of any chunks big enough to bring it under 6000 characters.

Peace,
Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If a monsignor is treating his people with hatred and intolerance, it is perfectly fine to speak up on behalf of the weak (in a loving and non-violent way) …hate the sin, but love the sinner…go to him directly and voice your concern, if that doesn’t work, take other parishioners with you…if that doesn’t work, speak to the bishop about the monsignor’s actions, not his personage.

The bishop received many complaints, from what I’ve heard; haven’t confirmed it myself.

One personal experience had such a profound negative impact on me, that I’ll leave it at that for this post. because there are priests who know exactly what happened and they have helped me tremendously. :knight2:

Alan

 

[Julia_Mae]

(continued)

Sorry again for the length of my post, but I looked it over a couple times and really had a rough time letting go of any chunks big enough to bring it under 6000 characters.

Peace,
Alan

I think both of your posts are completely excellent, thank you for writing them. And it would be a good and important discussion, what can be done or should.

So. Which of us is going to start the forum where it can be discussed?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I think both of your posts are completely excellent, thank you for writing them. And it would be a good and important discussion, what can be done or should.

So. Which of us is going to start the forum where it can be discussed?

Thank you for the support, but I think by just being here you’re opening yourself up for the Spirit to reveal truth as you see it, in ways that some of us fellow Catholics can understand. I’d say one of the most common questions had to do not with their own relationship to the Church, but what about the children? Some are leaving the Church, and some are under some terrible social condition or in trouble with the law, leaving school, etc. How can we help the children? There was appreciation for the sacraments, for Mary, adoration chapels, videotaped materials for outreach parishes, the Eucharist, apostolic succession … pretty much all the things we discuss here on these forums.

edit: oh yes, and priests were of course another big issue. there were a few concerns about well-known problems, but mostly it was either they appreciate one priest or priests in general, but are concerned about the shortage in some geographical areas.

My own son, in Catholic high school at the time, stood up in person at one of the official synod meetings, that “it bothers me when girls dress immodestly.” Wow. I had no idea he felt that way enough to stand before his own parish and say that into the microphone.

Alan