Absorbing Evil and Fr. Richard Rohr

[Neil_Anthony]

Fr. Rohr’s teachings are about participation instead of just sitting in churches, listening to teachings, and “believing” they are true just because the church says they are true. His center includes the word “actIon” in its name to remind each of us that being a follower of Christ has much less to do with what we think or believe and much more to do with our action in the world that unites and heal divisions wherever they may occur. People of faith (Mother Theresa, etc) are always found stepping into darkness and bringing light. I’d say that is catholic thought at its best.

As St Francis said…Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary use words.

I’m (sincerely) glad that Fr. Rohr’s way of living the faith has helped you. In my case I had powerful religious experiences (and the growth the comes along with it, which is the precursor for the action you speak of) once I discovered praying the rosary and meditating on the psalms like christian monks did for many centuries. But it required shoving my way past the Richard Rohr’s and new agey catholics to discover these gems in books from the 1950’s that were seemingly forgotten by a whole generation. I’m not saying my way is better, but it was the better way for me and I think that if something stood the test of time over 2000 years then it should be taught first, and Fr. Rohr’s stuff taught second to people looking for something different. That’s my experience.

 

[Julia_Mae]

His center includes the word “actIon” in its name to remind each of us that being a follower of Christ has much less to do with what we think or believe and much more to do with our action in the world that unites and heal divisions wherever they may occur. People of faith (Mother Theresa, etc) are always found stepping into darkness and bringing light. I’d say that is catholic thought at its best.

Jesus saw Martha running about serving everyone and she was irritated that Mary just sat there, listening to Jesus. What did he tell her? “Mary chose the better part.”

I’m all for service, but I’m also for focusing on Christ, not people or my own work. What we believe, faith, is everything. The rest follows. Faith is first.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Does “sin” mean going against the rules of His church?

Why do you ask, have you perceived me as a fideist? First, 'going against the rules" is a pretty good indicator you are in an actual state of sin. What do you think they are for? You think when Jesus said “Don’t lie, steal, cheat or commit adultery” He was just making arbitrary rules?

If you don’t know what sin is for you, what occasions of sin are, if you don’t know through self-examination and prayer what it is that separates you from God, you’d best stop doing everything else and figure that out. Like, now.

What about picking grain on the sabbath? What about washing the outside of the cups?

Stop making presumptions about what people think. It’s very very rude, and a way to act as if I, or someone else, doesn’t exist, only you and your own rhetoric do.

While I await the reply to this, I am curious how situations are “never vague” and actions are “always specific.” Are you saying that you do, or intend to, amass such knowledge of rules and teachings, that you are never in a quandary as to what to do?

I have no idea how you can possibly have gotten that out of what I said. Again, you are assuming things about others and attributing attitudes to people they don’t have. IF you were curious, actually curious, you could have asked. But you like having an argument all by yourself, apparently. You decide what someone else thinks or feels and then “answer” what they have never said. Lecture, is actually more correct. What possible need is there for me to even be here?

None, I suppose.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Am I saying that theology is unimportant? No way. Just saying that transformation of heart is what Jesus was really after, above amassing knowledge.

Alan

Good thing we have you here to tell all of us unenlightened mindless drone Catholics what Jesus was really after. Stupid me, I was wasting my time on Teresa of Avila and Scripture. And to think, I could have just asked Alan from Witchita.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

None, I suppose.

I don’t know why I get like that. I’ll back off and reread what I wrote to see if I can figure it out.

Alan

 

[Dionysius01]

I could be described as a regular consumer of Fr. Richard Rohr’s material and a fan! But I don’t think I am a new age Catholic or a heritic. I read a lot of saints and doctor’s of the Church too. I love Fr. Benedict Groeschel and Pope Benedict. What I like about Fr. Richard is that he challenges the status quo. Don’t just pick out a statement or two, but listen to an entire talk and try to understand where he is coming from. Many are offended by some of Fr. Richard’s teaching because it strikes too close to home. We don’t like it when we have to look into our own hearts and find sin, heresy, or that we’ve been just plain wrong. Fr. Richard asks good and fair questions. We might all come up wth different answers, but I think as all good teachers do, Fr. Richard opens up our heart and challenges us to look at our own sin, prejudice, and hard heartedness and not merely point our fingers at whatever scapegoat might be handy. Peace to all.

 

[Seagirt]

Absorbing evil means avoiding fueling it by confrontation. We must love not only in thought and in word, but in deed. "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst give him to drink (Rom. 12:20) Nowhere is service more necessary or more blessed than when we serve our enemies. How does love conquer? By asking not how the enemy treats her but only how Jesus treated her. The love of our enemies takes us along the way of the cross and into fellowship with the Crucified. As Thomas Merton says: “Our job is to Love without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy - that is not our business, and in fact, it is nobody’s business. What we are asked to do is love and this love itself will render both ourselves and our neighbors (or enemies) worthy, if anything can.”

Good quote. I have mixed feeling for Father Rohr. I do like his early tapes. Helped me a lot in my trying to understand the catholic faith in all its umbrella spirituality. Some of his newer stuff seems too " New Agey" and too Homo-centric for me. I do think that Homosexuality is disordered and should not be celebrated in any way or form. I think we can all read his books and critique them fairly without becoming overly Right Wingers like the " Wanderer" crowd.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Good quote. I have mixed feeling for Father Rohr. I do like his early tapes. Helped me a lot in my trying to understand the catholic faith in all its umbrella spirituality. Some of his newer stuff seems too " New Agey" and too Homo-centric for me. I do think that Homosexuality is disordered and should not be celebrated in any way or form. I think we can all read his books and critique them fairly without becoming overly Right Wingers like the " Wanderer" crowd.

Does he actually promote and celebrate homosexuality, or is it more of a reachout effort whereas he’s trying to gather sinners of all sorts? Suddenly I’m thinking of the play Guys and Dolls.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Why do you ask, have you perceived me as a fideist?

I hope you are still on the thread. I really am interested in what you mean by this. This is the first I’ve seen the term. Dictionary.com gives me this:

fideism: exclusive reliance in religious matters upon faith, with consequent rejection of appeals to science or philosophy.

What is it you see about fideism that you aren’t associating yourself with? I think it could be a useful term.

Alan

 

[tskrobacz]

I’m (sincerely) glad that Fr. Rohr’s way of living the faith has helped you. In my case I had powerful religious experiences (and the growth the comes along with it, which is the precursor for the action you speak of) once I discovered praying the rosary and meditating on the psalms like christian monks did for many centuries. But it required shoving my way past the Richard Rohr’s and new agey catholics to discover these gems in books from the 1950’s that were seemingly forgotten by a whole generation. I’m not saying my way is better, but it was the better way for me and I think that if something stood the test of time over 2000 years then it should be taught first, and Fr. Rohr’s stuff taught second to people looking for something different. That’s my experience.

If you study Fr. Richard you’ll discover that he teaches from the early contemplative church (first 300 years). What on the surface appears “new agey” is in fact a call to the ancient (much like Vatican II)…

 

[Julia_Mae]

If you study Fr. Richard you’ll discover that he teaches from the early contemplative church (first 300 years). What on the surface appears “new agey” is in fact a call to the ancient (much like Vatican II)…

Why does he say the Francuscans suspended him?

 

[Corki]

I hope you are still on the thread. I really am interested in what you mean by this. This is the first I’ve seen the term. Dictionary.com gives me this:

fideism: exclusive reliance in religious matters upon faith, with consequent rejection of appeals to science or philosophy.

What is it you see about fideism that you aren’t associating yourself with? I think it could be a useful term.

Alan

This seems to be one of Fr. Rohr’s main message - that the Catholic Church teaches fideism and not Christianity. I, of course, disagree with Father on this point.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

This seems to be one of Fr. Rohr’s main message - that the Catholic Church teaches fideism and not Christianity. I, of course, disagree with Father on this point.

I’m not sure I know what you’re saying, just based on that dictionary definition. Does he say the Church ignores scientifically discovered facts? I don’t see that as being one of his main messages.

Alan

 

[rainbow1]

I’m always leery of propositions that limit my options by telling me how many options I have.

There are questions here such as: Is this or can it become an a occasion of sin for me? Is my behavior likely to be seen as acceptance and become an occasion of sin for them? And before I decide anything, did Jesus have anything to say on the subject?

Just exactly how many options are there, really?

You proposed do something rather vague. But in my life I find the situations are never vague and the actions called for are always specific. Perhaps a concrete example would clarify just what :“fusion” is and how it would be carried out.

Sorry if I offended you! I sure didn’t mean to! I was just trying to explain that for me, when I am dealing with a person in a compromised situation (they are doing something I think is not good for them) I tend to believe, in most of the situations, that fighting with them doesnt work. Running away from the problem doesn’t usually work (for me). Denial of the problem doesn’t work for me (because if I care about the person, I sure don’t want them doing something wrong), and so the only option (other than prayer) that works for me (or at least that I can think!) is to show the person a different way by what I do, and that is what I interpret “fusion” to be. It is more of a joining with the person and providing goodness to counterbalance any evil. It is hard to do sometimes and takes patience, but is worth it if I hope to help the person. God has promised us to bring goodness out of the messy stuff in this world. I try to focus on that promise and open my heart to Him to help out. I pray so hard to be a channel for the Holy Spirit to pass through to the other person. I am hoping I have explained better this time…sorry for the confusion! Peace and Joy!

 

[Fink]

Without the actual words of Sheen, on the surface I am wary of this. First of all, the way a well-trained (dualistic) mind works, is as soon as you say, “do not think outside the box” the first thing I think of is that there is a box, with an outside.

His words were quite wise; and were spoken during a series of Retreat talks in the Diocese of Gary, Indiana in September 1973. The audio tapes are here, somewhere; but i can`t find them (causing the delay in answering ) , and so, can go only from memory. He recited a piece of prose, NOT poetry, which went something like this:

There was an island inhabited by children who sang and danced and played. Right around the island were massive walls which protected the children from any danger from without.

One day, some people came to the island, and said to the children: “Why are you hiding behind these walls? Tear them down! Be** FREE!!!”**
So they tore them down! And now, they huddle together in the middle of the island; afraid to sing, afraid to dance, afraid to play, afraid of falling into the seeeeeeaaaaaaa.

Keep your walls, you minority.
Keep the walls.
It wasnt just what he said: it was how he said it! In the*** context ***of the talk, whose title i cant even remember (!), those quoted words were absolutely appropriate.

With the likes of R Rohr, H Kung, J Chittister, R McBrien et al, its quite easy to pick out the blatant heresy in the "fruits" of their labours; but when you move into the grey areas of their utterances...... Black is black; white is white: theres no argument. But, i, for one, do NOT consider my grasp of Catholic teaching to be adequate to discriminate in the grey areas. Therefore, theres no choice but to avoid any danger like the proverbial plague! If a guaranteed orthodox person were to walk me through any genuine insights from these individuals, thatd be different; but, the same genuine insights have probably already independently been thought and presented by others who can be trusted totally.

Second, if we are to fully appreciate the box, doesn’t it pay to know what it looks like from the outside? Doesn’t mean I’m abandoning the box. If we are to defend the box against outsiders,…? If we’ve never been outside the box, we have no idea whether any particular type of attack might result in hull breach.

'Know your enemy." True, AND great for those with the ability; BUT:
see above.
i`m not a St. Thomas Aquinas or a Josef Ratzinger.
The "outside the box"ing has to be done by their kind; and then they they can pass on their discoveries/insights - as these totally faithful sons of the Church have done!

The late,*** great ***Cardinal Ratzinger said to one prominent dissenter:
“Your own words condemn you.”

I did use Google to find out a little about Archbishop Sheen, since I didn’t know anything about him before now. Here is one quote that caught my eye that I think Richard Rohr would support: “You must not involve yourselves, My pastors, with the political machines of your world. It is a satanic involvement.” - Jesus, May 15, 1976

I agree with him on that, on several levels…

Get hold of some of his stuff! You must! Seriously, the man was a visionary; and his words are more relevant now than they were when he uttered them. May his Cause roll on.

“Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves." – Matt 10:16. In politics, it doesn’t pay to be “gentle as doves” when you don’t know how to get done the things you believe in.

And some of us are NOT worldly wise. We have to be protected.

Plus, probably the most anti-Catholic…

…he showed his true colors. I don’t want to partner with such an evil person.

A few years ago, i came across a site run by an individual whose hatred of the Church was so baleful that he loathed the word “Christmas” (Mass). He aimed some extremely vicious words at non-Catholic Pro-Lifers who cooperate with the “satanic” Roman Catholic…whatever he labelled her.
Later on, i could never find my way back to that individual. Wonder if theres any connection with yours...... Then again, Slick of CARM notoriety couldnt sign the Manhattan Declaration because the Church is listed as Christian!
Not everyone who says" “Lord, Lord” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Matthew 7:21

Better to focus on true inward growth that takes a little more openness to becoming renewed and transformed by the Holy Spirit, than to stand alongside someone seething in hatred…
I never even heard of the “spiritual journey” or any serious strategy to improve it until I was 42 years old?

i knew nothing about the Trinity until 41yo.
For Heaven`s sake, the older primary school pupils could be taught more than just:
There are three Persons in one God: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Full stop!
(In the 1960s, He was the Holy*** Ghost***.)
No wonder the ranks of the Jehovah Witnesses and other anti-Trinitarians are full of ex-Catholics!

I don’t fault Church teachings for this,*** but I think her priorities and strategies might be revisited.***
Alan

True.
But, sometimes the Church`s teachings as handed down to us are woefully inadequate (as above).

Theres plenty of safe stuff if we know where to look. Heres something i was told about only six days ago: and i`m 57, so there!
thesumma.info/reality/index.php

PS
That #%&$@# 6,000 character limit!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

With the likes of R Rohr, H Kung, J Chittister, R McBrien et al, its quite easy to pick out the blatant heresy in the "fruits" of their labours; but when you move into the grey areas of their utterances...... Black is black; white is white: theres no argument. But, i, for one, do NOT consider my grasp of Catholic teaching to be adequate to discriminate in the grey areas. Therefore, theres no choice but to avoid any danger like the proverbial plague! If a guaranteed orthodox person were to walk me through any genuine insights from these individuals, thatd be different; but, the same genuine insights have probably already independently been thought and presented by others who can be trusted totally.

“Black is black” and “'white is white” to the dualistic mind. The Spiritual journey is about more than avoiding sin, and involves making decisions based on “touchy-feely” things, not just clear dogma. Maybe that isn’t what you meant…

Get hold of some of his stuff! You must! Seriously, the man was a visionary; and his words are more relevant now than they were when he uttered them. May his Cause roll on.

I think I will. Thank you. :tiphat:

And some of us are NOT worldly wise. We have to be protected.

Agree. The problem is we’re electing people who have an agenda we like, but who are not worldly wise, to lead us. So we have the blind leading the blind.

Not everyone who says" “Lord, Lord” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Matthew 7:21

Nice. Thank you.

i knew nothing about the Trinity until 41yo.
For Heaven`s sake, the older primary school pupils could be taught more than just:
There are three Persons in one God: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Full stop!
(In the 1960s, He was the Holy*** Ghost***.)
No wonder the ranks of the Jehovah Witnesses and other anti-Trinitarians are full of ex-Catholics!

I hear you.

Theres plenty of safe stuff if we know where to look. Heres something i was told about only six days ago: and i`m 57, so there!
thesumma.info/reality/index.php

Thank you again. I’ll check it out.

PS
That #%&$@# 6,000 character limit!

I hear you on that one!
http://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gif

Alan

 

[Julia_Mae]

Sorry if I offended you!

You didn’t offend me in the slightest, I can’t imagine why you’d believe that you did.

so the only option (other than prayer) that works for me (or at least that I can think!) is to show the person a different way by what I do, and that is what I interpret “fusion” to be. It is more of a joining with the person and providing goodness to counterbalance any evil.

Right, you said that before. But it’s still generalizations. Could you please give a specific situation that you have been in with someone and tell what you did in response to what they did and how that seemed to effect a change in them?

 

[Julia_Mae]

I’m not sure I know what you’re saying, just based on that dictionary definition.

Alan

You would naturally be confused if you looked online for a common definition of a word used in a religious context that has a specific meaning in the Church. Try the Catholic Encyclopedia. When you understand why fideism can be a sin, you’ll be less confused.

 

[Julia_Mae]

“Black is black” and “'white is white” to the dualistic mind. The Spiritual journey is about more than avoiding sin, and involves making decisions based on “touchy-feely” things, not just clear dogma. Maybe that isn’t what you meant…

You might try rereading Fink’s post to see *what he actually said *and then responding to that. Believe me, this Spirituality 101 you keep handing out, everyone ITT is way beyond it.

I’m going to rephrase, he can correct me if I get it wrong:

We can go through the utterances of many well-known theologians since the beginning of the Church and find a lot of thoughts that are not only exactly in line with Church teaching, but also quite beautiful and inspiring.

But amongst all of it, are the trap-sticks: Heresies. It’s too easy, when you are not very sophisticated or well-read or learned about what basic theology is, to be unable to tell the difference.

Best to avoid the trap altogether, because there are equally beautiful and inspiriting words from those in whom we can place our complete trust.

Now, if you read what I wrote and go back and read what Fink wrote, can you paraphrase back to us, what we said? If you do this before you respond, then we might be able to have a more successful dialogue.

 

[rainbow1]

You didn’t offend me in the slightest, I can’t imagine why you’d believe that you did.

Right, you said that before. But it’s still generalizations. Could you please give a specific situation that you have been in with someone and tell what you did in response to what they did and how that seemed to effect a change in them?

It is possible to be specific by picking any personal relationship in which the friend is involved in some type of poor decision-making. It would not be my responsibility to actually cause the change…I would want to “try” to model a different behavior to them, but that also would be a choice. It is all God’s battle…I hopefully would just be open to to be His instrument to help out, if that is what He wants…and that, of course, would be after much prayer…this goes hand in hand with the thread entitled, “The Perfect Joy of St.Francis”. It is a wonderful thread that discusses this type of approach to relationships…more of a “modelling” approach rather than “confrontational” or “arguing”. A living-out of gospel values, rather than pointing a finger. Pointing fingers tends to send a message that a person isn’t really listening. Modelling by living the gospel values takes time and patience and a willingness and confidence to stay in difficult situations.
Peace and Joy!