A
aimee
Guest
liberal priests and orthodox
sounds more like an oxymoron
- Status
sounds more like an oxymoron
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Not so. One can be a liberal in politics while still being faithful to the Teachings of the Catholic Church.liberal priests and orthodox
I met this one guy on a vocations retreat. He gave us a talk on the order. He was the first guy we saw in the habit.
Political views do not always translate into religious views.
A
aimee
Guest
I suppose it depends on what one means by political viewsā¦if you are not loyal to the magisterium and the Popeā¦then you are not orthodox.
A
aimee
Guest
Fr Rolheiser is definitely not orthodoxā¦
J
Joan_M
Guest
Agreed! I have read a number of his columns - in one he puts forth the heretical idea that Hell is not for eternity; in another he pushes the idea that we do not, when in a state of mortal sin, have to go to confession before receiving Holy Communion.
Keep far from him!
N
ncjohn
Guest
Joan M:
aimee:
Many of us have found great wisdom and insight in Fr Rohheiser without finding him to be in the least unorthodox. Yes, he might say things differently at times and challenge the conventional thinking, but that does not make one unorthodox.
And accusing a priest of āheretical ideasā is a pretty serious thing given that the Church has done no such thing.
It seems at times here that if something isnāt 1000 years old or cited specifically in the CCC, it is automatically invalid and rejected. I find that very discouraging.
BTW, where did the conclusion of Pax Christi being a ādissenting organizationā come from? I know many wonderful people involved in Pax Christiāalthough it is a little ātooā pacifist for meāand I have never heard any such thing.
We really need to recognize that God speaks to us in different ways and through different people. He doesnāt have just one lure in his tackle box; Heās the Great Fisherman who knows that different lures work for different fish at different times.
Peace,
These are awfully strong statements for laity to be making as āfactā.
Many of us have found great wisdom and insight in Fr Rohheiser without finding him to be in the least unorthodox. Yes, he might say things differently at times and challenge the conventional thinking, but that does not make one unorthodox.
And accusing a priest of āheretical ideasā is a pretty serious thing given that the Church has done no such thing.
It seems at times here that if something isnāt 1000 years old or cited specifically in the CCC, it is automatically invalid and rejected. I find that very discouraging.
BTW, where did the conclusion of Pax Christi being a ādissenting organizationā come from? I know many wonderful people involved in Pax Christiāalthough it is a little ātooā pacifist for meāand I have never heard any such thing.
We really need to recognize that God speaks to us in different ways and through different people. He doesnāt have just one lure in his tackle box; Heās the Great Fisherman who knows that different lures work for different fish at different times.
Peace,
B
Brian_Ingram
Guest
Fr Rolheiser writtings are enjoyed by many people however he has to be read with caution for example he has flatly denied the existence of purgatory in one of his regular articles, he was severely criticised on this and followed up in his following article with a quote of the official āCatholicā teaching. There was no admission of his error only that he had been criticised.
There have been other instances in his writings that are not Catholic, he also appears to have an over emphasis in his writings about sex.
Pax
Brian
J
Joan_M
Guest
Letās get things straight - the Church (meaning officials from the Vatican, perhaps the Congregation for the Faith, or the Pope himself) are not always aware what individual priests or laity write, whether on in newspapers, in books, or on the internet.
Secondly, being a lay person does not make anyone unable to recognize heretical statements when they hear or read them. If we educate ourselves and have documents and books available to us, we can be sure when we make such statements.
It seems to me that some people who claim to know orthodoxy really do not. Instead they seem to believe that whatever resonates with them must be good. One needs to be more careful than that!
A
aimee
Guest
Its fact none the less.
Iām sure you know some good folks in Pax Christi , but they are a disinting organization.
Iāll leave it to you to maybe do a search and whether you agree or not youāll see whyā¦it isā¦
this is one link
catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=1157
N
ncjohn
Guest
So we have someoneās individual opinion that they donāt like Pax Christi. That does not make them dissenting, nor can I find any Church statement proclaiming them to be dissenting. I did a search last time I saw you make this claim and have yet to find the Church taking any negative position on Pax Christi.
If one is going to make such a statement as āfactā, there should indeed be facts to back it up. Otherwise itās personal opinion and possibly slander.
A
aimee
Guest
Then you and I will disagreeā¦I provided you with one link.
The link provided is more than one persons opinion.
N
ncjohn
Guest
Joan M:
This is the reason why we have judicial systems in our legal system rather than having individuals or the press determining guilt without proper examination. Individuals are not judges or juries, nor are they authorized to determine āguiltā. There are authorities and bodies charged with that and as individuals we go way out on a limb when we decide to take that role upon ourselves. Many a newspaper has found itself in court for proclaiming someone guilty of a crime or wrongdoing before the legal system determined that to be the case.
If you believe him to be heretical, fine, donāt read him and advise others that you consider his work suspect. Claiming heresy as fact in the absence of proper authorities declaring it so is outside your authority and IMHO borders on scandal itself since claiming it as fact misleads others. Likewise, insulting my intelligence or orthodoxy based on your personal opinion is, aside from violating the rules of this forum, at the least uncharitable.
I can tell you really feel passionately about this, and I appreciate your desire to warn others of what you consider objectionable material. There are however many of us who have found the same material beneficial and inspiring. It is not meant for everyone, but then nobodyās material is. I will not even go so far as to say that there may not in fact be some things in it that arenāt 100% correct, although I havenāt found any at the dogmatic or doctrinal level in my readings.
In the end, I think we can be respectful of each otherās opinions and not mislead others while still making our points and allowing people to do their own research.
Peace,
With all due respect, the mere fact that there is such difference of opinion indicates that it is not clear cut. In the case of Fr Rolheiser, given the volume of things he publishes, to claim the Church may not be aware of his writings is quite a stretch. To have us believe that there would not be statements from the Church if there was a problemāagain given the volume of his materialāis an even further stretch. It might take a while for them to take formal action, but there would certainly be indications of problems from appropriate officials.
This is the reason why we have judicial systems in our legal system rather than having individuals or the press determining guilt without proper examination. Individuals are not judges or juries, nor are they authorized to determine āguiltā. There are authorities and bodies charged with that and as individuals we go way out on a limb when we decide to take that role upon ourselves. Many a newspaper has found itself in court for proclaiming someone guilty of a crime or wrongdoing before the legal system determined that to be the case.
If you believe him to be heretical, fine, donāt read him and advise others that you consider his work suspect. Claiming heresy as fact in the absence of proper authorities declaring it so is outside your authority and IMHO borders on scandal itself since claiming it as fact misleads others. Likewise, insulting my intelligence or orthodoxy based on your personal opinion is, aside from violating the rules of this forum, at the least uncharitable.
I can tell you really feel passionately about this, and I appreciate your desire to warn others of what you consider objectionable material. There are however many of us who have found the same material beneficial and inspiring. It is not meant for everyone, but then nobodyās material is. I will not even go so far as to say that there may not in fact be some things in it that arenāt 100% correct, although I havenāt found any at the dogmatic or doctrinal level in my readings.
In the end, I think we can be respectful of each otherās opinions and not mislead others while still making our points and allowing people to do their own research.
Peace,
F
fix
Guest
John,
I would like to comment on this. I often have read this line of reasoning when someone is defending a priest or bishop who many seem as *liberal minded *in their presentation of the faith.
I have never seen any proof that one must be formally declared a heretic by the Church in order for any person to discern that anotherās words are consistent with heresy or at least heterodoxy. It almost seems like a game where one tries to step as close as possible to the line of orthodoxy without stepping over it and then claim one is faithful to all that the Church teaches. Can you not see how that would appear disingenuous to many?
I would think the faithful have a right for their priests and bishops to speak the truth without ambiguity. I am not talking about theologians discussing arcane points among themselves, but claiming to inform and inspire the faithful while being intentionally nebulous.
Let me ask you this. Does one need to be formally convicted in a court of law to be thought of as a bank robber even if 100 people see a man rob a bank? Is the robber only a robber if he is convicted or is he a robber when he committed the action?
N
ncjohn
Guest
I understand what youāre saying fix, and respect it. The only thing Iām pointing out is that it is not our job, nor even our prerogative, to declare such things as FACT.
If we want to express our opinions that is fine. Declaring them to be āfactā, without documentation that that is true, is unsupportable. Declaring it to be fact misleads people into thinking that your opinion is officially held and incontrovertable, which is unfair both to the person asking the question and the personāor organization in the case of Pax Christiābeing attacked without a chance to even know they are being attacked, much less a chance to defend themselves.
Your bank robber scenario, if it was the case here, would be a valid one. What if you change the scenario though and have 100 people who were there and say the guy DIDNāT rob the bank? Are we now allowed to give greater weight to those who say he did over those who say he didnāt and assume him guilty as fact?
If someone asks an opionion about someone, we can and should give them our opinion and let them make their decisions based on the weight they give those opinions. Iām sure youāve seen the threads here accusing bishops and even Cardinals of heresy based on some comment or action taken out of context. Making claims of this type against clergy, in my mind, requires a high standard of proof. To forward such a claim to the appropriate Church official for investigation is one thing; to make the unsubstantiated claim *as fact * in a public forum can not be defended in my humble opinion, especially when there is a significant disagreement on what those āfactsā are.
Peace Brother,
E
estesbob
Guest
Well let me see-this is a thread about Father Rolheiser and somone posted Karl Keatngs opinion on the said Fr. At which point you got you knickers in a wad. Which , I suspect means that :
A. You dont like Karl Keating
B. You do like Fr Rolheiser
C. All of the above.
A
aimee
Guest
NCJohn,
I do not know Fr Rolheiserā¦but if he is associated with pax christiā¦then its problematic to me.
You said this in a post
"In the end, I think we can be respectful of each otherās opinions and not mislead others while still making our points and allowing people to do their own research. "
I would hope that you would apply this to me as wellā¦
as I will apply it to you.
God Bless
I do not know Fr Rolheiserā¦but if he is associated with pax christiā¦then its problematic to me.
You said this in a post
"In the end, I think we can be respectful of each otherās opinions and not mislead others while still making our points and allowing people to do their own research. "
I would hope that you would apply this to me as wellā¦
as I will apply it to you.
God Bless
F
fix
Guest
I can see that we should not declare as a fact that any one person is a heretic, but perhaps should say oneās views or public record appears to be consistent with heresy or heterodoxy. To a degree I can accept your position, but it also seems to be unreasonable for a person to set aside logic and correct judgment in the face of blatant evidence.
I agree.
In that case we should look at both sets of evidence and use reason to come to a conclusion. Both sides cannot be correct.
I would say in most of these cases here we have a long public record that can be examined. IMO, often this idea that well known folks who seem to constantly skirt the borders of orthodoxy for one reason or another deserve not to be criticized is often simply an attempt to silence those who want the truth to be known to all.
N
ncjohn
Guest
Iām not saying at all that they cannot or should not be open to criticism. What Iām saying is that our responses should be limited to expressing our opinions and/or pointing out the record so the questioner can come to their conclusions, rather than declaring people to be heretics or heterodox or whatever the condemnation might be.
Saying that āXāsā statements seem to conflict with Catholic teachings for āyā reasons, or āZā report questions Xās beliefs, differs greatly from stating āXā is a heretic.
Sorry if I wasnāt clear on all of that before. Thanks for keeping me honest.
N
ncjohn
Guest
I certainly would Aimee as I have great respect for you.
As I said, I donāt agree with all of Pax Christiās views, which is why I didnāt join them. I have not however seen anything authoritative yet that shows them to be ādissentingā. To me, that kind of claim requires a high burden of proof. I have no problem with you disagreeing with their views.
One other thing to consider though is whether it is fair to dismiss someone solely based on an organization they belong to, if the organization is not completely in conflict to Catholic teachings. Even if Fr Rolheiser is a memberāwhich I donāt know to be the caseāthat would not necessarily equate with his supporting everything that they do. If that were legitimate, I could condemn everyone here who belongs to either of our political parties since each party and/or large parts of their membership promote things that are outside of Catholic teaching. Many of us passively condone sweatshops through the buying choices we make. Many of us passively condone racism by not speaking up when racist statements are made around us. The point is that very little in life is that black and white that we can totally condemn a person by association.
Peace to you Aimeeā¦I know weāre both working for the Kingdom.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Having pretty much run itās course, this thread is now closed.
I will however offer one thing that I was unable to find in any of the posts on this thread, a direct link to Pax Christi USA so that those interested can research and see for themselves and come to a balanced and informed opinion.
May all our hearts be open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Michael Francis
I will however offer one thing that I was unable to find in any of the posts on this thread, a direct link to Pax Christi USA so that those interested can research and see for themselves and come to a balanced and informed opinion.
May all our hearts be open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Michael Francis
- Status