Father Ron Rolheiser, OMI

[GoLatin]

Does anybody know much about Father Ron Rolheiser, OMI? I think that he is a liberal, but I would like some more information. I know that he writes a column, which I have seen in the official newspaper of a Diocese neighbouring the Diocese that I live in.

Thank you! May God

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

Here is one article with a review on this speaker/priest:
faithfulvoice.com/rolheiser.htm

He is more than just ‘liberal’. I have not read his whole books and would not waste my time doing so, but Ihave seen exerpts and there are VERY serious concerns there. My pastor has recommended him. I would not recommend his writings. There are some non-Catholic ideas there that are disturbing.

My advice: given this speaker and his writings a wide berth.

Ave Maria! :nope:

 

[rwoehmke]

I have read Rollheiser’s columns and his book The Holy Longing. I tested out on one of the more orthodox Catholic web sites a while back as being a neo-traditionalist. In my opinion the review above takes a lot of what Rollheiser writes completely out of context. When I started his book there were a couple of places where I said to myself"Where is he going with this?" By the time I finished a chapter and then the whole book I thought he fitted things into the Catholic Faith more than adequately. His writings require thoughtful reading and not a quick run through looking for heresy or error.

 

[ncjohn]

I have found him to have tremendous insight into the spiritual life. I’ve listened to a couple of his books on CD and am currently in the midst of his latest, Forgotten among the Lillies.

He can get very dry at times–I remember one particular section (I believe in The Shattered Lattern) where he went on and on about concepts from Dark Night that were just beyond my grasp–but overall he tends to put things into terms that with a little thoughtful reading, as rwoehmke notes, that I find in line with Catholic teaching and the gospel.

There are times where he gets beyond me, but I tend to take my gold where I can find it. He’s probably not suitable for everybody, but then few people are.

Peace,

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

Here are a few of the "out of context " writings:
Father’s writings include writing of a “spirituality of sexuality” and says this of celibacy: “…when Christ went to bed at night he was in real solidarity with the many persons who, not by choice but by circumstance, sleep alone… Anyone who because of unwanted circumstances is effectively blocked from enjoying sexual consummation is a victim of a most painful poverty… To sleep alone is to be poor. To sleep alone is to be stigmatized… outside the norm for human intimacy and to feel acutely the sting of that… when Jesus went to bed alone he was in solidarity with that pain, in solidarity with the poor”.

And also from that article:

"In another area, Father writes about his four pillars that support a ‘healthy marriage of Christianity and spirituality’. They are: private prayer and private morality (whatever that is), social justice and mellowness of heart and spirit. Contrast that to the four areas of the Catechism of the Catholic Church with the common area being prayer. The other pillars cited in the Catechism are the Profession of Faith based on the Apostles Creed, the Celebration of the Christian Mystery based on the Sacraments and Life in Christ based on the Commandments and teachings of the Church.
Father Rolheiser asks in one writing what does it mean to ‘lose one’s soul’? Not eternal damnation, he suggests. but it is to become “unglued” or to fall apart. “When I don’t know where I am going, then I lose my soul”, he wrote. Then the reviewer asked if this was what Jesus meant when He asked, “What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul?”

All of this seems modern psycho-babble to me. A marriage of Christianity and spirituality. What spirituality? And so called spirituality? Social justice and mellowness of heart may be nice things but do they lead a soul to union with God? PRAYER is the lifeline to God! The Sacraments are literally our saving graces. Where do these come in with the writings of Fr. Rohlheiser?

Also the preoccupation with sexual consumation is just plain strange. A wholly consecrated soul is not preoccupied with this.
God does indeed fill our intimate longings. He gives Himself totally to us in the Blessed Sacrament.

Speakers and authors and others who do not lead souls to a deeper sacramental and prayer life are not worth the time to read or listen to, I will maintain. THOSE are the paths to holiness
and the areas were we greatly need guidance. Many saints help with this and I suggest reading them before modernistic confusing thoughts. Saint Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross and St. Francis de Sales and many hundreds more will teach about prayer and union with God which is what our souls seek.

Ave Maria!

 

[Balance]

GoLatin:

Does anybody know much about Father Ron Rolheiser, OMI? I think that he is a liberal, but I would like some more information. I know that he writes a column, which I have seen in the official newspaper of a Diocese neighbouring the Diocese that I live in.

Thank you! May God

Rolheiser is entirely orthodox is the sense that what he writes is faithful to Church teaching, and more than a little unorthodox in that he asks you to stretch your mind. he says stuff differently - and some of it might seem confusing. but on further thought and in prayer, the reader realises it’s all good.

the article posted on here makes no real argumnet against him - it’s very thin and weak. there’s no heterodoxy in saying Christ had a sexual nature. He was fully human remember - every human being is a sexual being. does that reviewer think he didn’t experience sexual temptation?

rolheisers writings have been of immense benefit to me - read them! but if you’re confused, talk it over with someone.

 

[Balance]

Ave Maria!:

Also the preoccupation with sexual consumation is just plain strange. A wholly consecrated soul is not preoccupied with this.

Ave Maria!

and yet the writings of both John of the Cross and Theresa Avila, boith Doctors of the Church and wholly consecrated souls, are full of sexual imagery and analogy. Full. the idea that union with God is somehow like sexual union is an ancient one and an entirely orthodox one. Rolheisers not saying anything new there.

 

[fix]

From KK letter:

When I got home I found in the diocesan newspaper the latest syndicated column by Fr. Ronald Rolheiser. I never have thought much of his writings, and my opinion was strengthened by this column.

He said, “Cardinal Ratzinger wasn’t my first choice and may have been in fact my last choice [why be coy? of course he was your last choice; he was the last choice of every liberal commentator], but, after some initial disappointment, I’ve made my peace with his selection.”

Rolheiser said that Pope Benedict “will try to move things ahead [that is, in a liberal direction] only slightly.” This will preserve the movement toward [liberal] reform that John Paul II supposedly led.

If a more liberal man had been elected pope, said Rolheiser, he might end up pushing too hard and thereby ruin any prospects at all for further reform. Thus the Church is more likely to move leftward with the most conservative man at the helm.

                        Hmmm. Maybe Rolheiser's argument should appear in the dictionary under the definition of "rationalization."

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_050510.asp

 

[Balance]

fix:

From KK letter:

I’m not sure of your point - are you saying Keating said it so it must be right? be careful of that one. why is Keating right and Rolheiser wrong? who made you the arbiter of that, or who made Keating the arbiter?

 

[Balance]

I challenge anyone to actually point out anything contrary to church teaching in Rolheiser’s work.

It seems to me that some people just can’t get their heads around it. They think, “oh that’s different, I don’t understand that, sounds a bit off, must be… heresy.” Instead of reading and rereading it and realising it stands up to any scrutiny. I really can’t understand the objections to Rolheiser’s writings.

 

[Balance]

John Paul II did lead a movement towards reform - what do you call the Theology of the Body? I’d call it reform - of the way the church teaches sexuality. the way we’ve done it doesn’t work anymore - hence the need for reform, hence the Holy Spirit leading JPII to present that great teaching - a teaching that will be refderred to as a watershed in the life of the Church and of society. A part of the great renewing and reforming of the Church in this age.

 

[fix]

Balance:

I’m not sure of your point - are you saying Keating said it so it must be right?

I simply provided a link so the OP could get some perspective on the issue he asked about.

be careful of that one.

Perhaps you can explain?

why is Keating right and Rolheiser wrong?

Why is Rolheiser right and Keating wrong?

who made you the arbiter of that, or who made Keating the arbiter?

Could I not ask you the same?

 

[fix]

Balance:

John Paul II did lead a movement towards reform - what do you call the Theology of the Body? I’d call it reform - of the way the church teaches sexuality. the way we’ve done it doesn’t work anymore - hence the need for reform, hence the Holy Spirit leading JPII to present that great teaching - a teaching that will be refderred to as a watershed in the life of the Church and of society. A part of the great renewing and reforming of the Church in this age.

I think JPII’s contribution is wonderful, but it does not change the truth one bit. Why place his teaching at odds with the constsant teaching which will never change? They are not at odds.

 

[Balance]

fix:

I think JPII’s contribution is wonderful, but it does not change the truth one bit. Why place his teaching at odds with the constsant teaching which will never change? They are not at odds.

i didn’t say they were at odds. his teachings reformed the way the church teaches on sexuality. no - nothing new, just siad in a new way.

I was making the point that Keating snarkily says “the reofrm that JPII was supposed to have lead.” as if he hadn’t lead reform - in fact he did.

 

[Balance]

fix:

I simply provided a link so the OP could get some perspective on the issue he asked about.

Perhaps you can explain?

Why is Rolheiser right and Keating wrong?

Could I not ask you the same?

Perhaps you can explain? “be careful” - I mean that some people seem to place Keating on a pedestal as if his word was Gospel. the way you just posted that excerpt with no intro or explanation sort of suggests that you were saying “this is the final word” - may be I got you wrong, but that’s how it seemed. Like someone slamming a Bible down in the middle of a discussion- unhelpful.

you ask Why is Rolheiser right and Keating wrong?
Thing is, Rolheiser’s not writing Keating off. He’s said something, Keating objects, you insert Keating’s piece into the discussion. Not your opinion, but one that you obviuosly consider important. what makes it so important?

easy for Keating to say “I’ve never thought much of Rolheisers writings” without explanation.

again, I challenge anyone to actually find any heterodoxy in Rolheiser’s writing. It all looks kosher to me.

 

[fix]

Balance:

i didn’t say they were at odds. his teachings reformed the way the church teaches on sexuality. no - nothing new, just siad in a new way.

I was making the point that Keating snarkily says “the reofrm that JPII was supposed to have lead.” as if he hadn’t lead reform - in fact he did.

I can’t speak for Keating, but I think he was intending to make the point some liberal minded folks want to hijack JPII’s agenda for their own reasons.

 

[fix]

Balance:

Perhaps you can explain? “be careful” - I mean that some people seem to place Keating on a pedestal as if his word was Gospel. the way you just posted that excerpt with no intro or explanation sort of suggests that you were saying “this is the final word” - may be I got you wrong, but that’s how it seemed. Like someone slamming a Bible down in the middle of a discussion- unhelpful.

As I said I posted that quote for the OP so he/she would have more information. One may accept it or reject, but I posted it to be seen.

you ask Why is Rolheiser right and Keating wrong?
Thing is, Rolheiser’s not writing Keating off. He’s said something, Keating objects, you insert Keating’s piece into the discussion. Not your opinion, but one that you obviuosly consider important. what makes it so important?

This site was started by him. He holds himself out as an apologist and claims some facility with Church teachings. His opinion is relevant.

easy for Keating to say “I’ve never thought much of Rolheisers writings” without explanation.

again, I challenge anyone to actually find any heterodoxy in Rolheiser’s writing. It all looks kosher to me.

Others disagree.

 

[setter]

I challenge anyone to actually point out anything contrary to church teaching in Rolheiser’s work.

It seems to me that some people just can’t get their heads around it. They think, “oh that’s different, I don’t understand that, sounds a bit off, must be… heresy.” Instead of reading and rereading it and realising it stands up to any scrutiny. I really can’t understand the objections to Rolheiser’s writings.

From a quick perusal (no need to keep endlessly rereading for the actual meaning) from his web page (hmmm, …a priest with a wed page promoting his own teachings) article archives, I cite examples of 2 articles which indicate that this priest at best walks on the edge of unorthodoxy, and at worst challenges orthodox beliefs.

In this article excerpt, Fr. Ron Rolheiser neglects/ignores the mystics’ experience of spiritual union and the Virgin Mary’s spiritual betrothal to her chaste husband Joseph. I observe that he places much emphasis on the existential human experience of aloneness and ignores/minimizes the spiritual dimension that Jesus as god-man makes available to us in whatever state in life.

BEWAILING OUR VIRGINITY ~ Fr. Ron Rolheiser
July 14, 2001

There is no such thing as a clear-cut, pure joy. This constitutes a kind of virginity. We are always somewhere unwhole, barren, unable to give full birth to what’s pushing for life inside us. This frustration takes various forms during the course of our lives, but it’s always there. Sometimes it’s there in the area of sexuality, irrespective of whether we are married or celibate. I remember a former colleague of mine, a married woman, challenging a group of priests: “You, celibates, feel too sorry for yourselves,” she said. “Do you know what’s worse than sleeping alone? Sleeping alone when you’re not sleeping alone!” Everyone, in some areas of life, is deeply alone.

In the end, one way or the other we all die as virgins, never having fully experienced consummation, barren, never having given birth. Celibate or married, we all sleep alone. There comes a time to mourn this so as to find the joy that lies on the other side, after the grief, on the altar of sacrifice.

ronrolheiser.com/arc071402.html

I find this next article besides being simply bizarre, an misconstrued attempt to reformulate and falsely attribute to God the Father (who is neither male nor female as a spirit entity) a gender identity that is equally sexualized (as male and female) and imaged as “making love” within Himself:

God’s Gender ~ Fr. Ron Rolheiser
May 12, 2002

Nowhere is this more evident, or problematic, than in our efforts to conceive of and speak of God’s gender. We speak of God as “He”, as “Father”, as masculine, but scripture assures us that God is not just masculine, nor just feminine, nor some neutered entity. God, as revealed in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, is eminently personal, gendered and sexed; but, as the first chapter of Genesis makes clear, God is equally male and female since both masculinity and femininity image God equally.

Beautiful as this is, some of our mystical images go even further: How to conceive of God? Imagine perfect masculinity and perfect femininity making perfect love. That’s what’s happening inside of God and all the creativity and fertility within the universe is the result of that. Billions of galaxies, billions of people, and gracious energy beyond imagination is constantly being generated because, inside of God, loving embrace is happening.

Such an image is perhaps more poetic than theological, but, in the end, isn’t all theology just that, poetry meant to inspire? More crassly, isn’t all orthodox theology simply a set of words that God has given us permission to use without threat of being killed for blasphemy?

This image of God, as perfect masculinity and femininity making love, can, I submit, be a rich mine-field for prayer and reflection. Of itself, it won’t solve the problem of the equality of the sexes, nor the struggle to find a more inclusive language about God, though it might serve as a valuable backdrop for these issues. Such a concept of God though can help us to see and contemplate more clearly what St. Augustine called, the “vestiges of the Trinity”, namely, images of God within nature and human life.

If God can be conceived as perfect, fully-adult, masculinity and perfect femininity making love, then vestiges of God can be seen everywhere.

ronrolheiser.com/arc051202.html

 

[aimee]

Fr. Ron Rolheiser is involved with pax christi… which is a dissenting organization.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I just want to say that using quasi political terms to describe people does not work for me.

I know many liberal priests who happen to be very orthodox in their Catholicism.