Perspectives; Richard Rohr

  • Thread starter Thread starter CelticWarlord
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CelticWarlord

Guest
Father Richard Rohr; (born 1943) is an American author, spiritual writer, and Franciscan friar based in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He was ordained to the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church in 1970.
- - - - - - -

“Until we learn to love others as ourselves, it’s difficult to blame broken people who desperately try to affirm themselves when no one else will.”

“The people who know God well—mystics, hermits, prayerful people, those who risk everything to find God—always meet a lover, not a dictator.”

“Faith is not for overcoming obstacles; it is for experiencing them—all the way through!”

“Thomas Merton, the American monk, pointed out that we may spend our whole life climbing the ladder of success, only to find when we get to the top that our ladder is leaning against the wrong wall.”

“People who know how to creatively break the rules also know why the rules were there in the first place.”

“Let’s state it clearly: One great idea of the biblical revelation is that God is manifest in the ordinary, in the actual, in the daily, in the now, in the concrete incarnations of life, and not through purity codes and moral achievement contests, which are seldom achieved anyway.”

“My scientist friends have come up with things like ‘principles of uncertainty’ and dark holes. They’re willing to live inside imagined hypotheses and theories. but many religious folks insist on answers that are always true. We love closure, resolution and clarity, while thinking that we are people of ‘faith’! How strange that the very word ‘faith’ has come to mean its exact opposite.”
 
Meh, not my cup of tea. I don’t have anything against him, but after nearly 63 years on earth dealing with human beings who are constantly obfuscating, who use ambiguity, ‘creative’ (i.e. sneaky) thinking, tinker with definitions, etc., I would much rather have ‘my yea be yea and my nay be nay’ and listen to those who espouse the same. Again, there are far too many people who have become so conditioned to thinking that there ARE ‘no rules’ ('because rules can be broken by the ‘knowing’), that there IS ‘no truth’ (because truth is ‘creatively’ or ambiguously defined), and that diversity means that there is 'no ‘one’ way because it’s all ‘individual’, that the majority of Catholics and other Christians out there don’t even know the faith that they ‘hold’ is in many cases a broken, error-ridden, twisted version, and so they themselves are easy pickings for somebody who comes in and points out, “did you know how ‘wrong’ that is?” “Oh mercy me, this ‘truth’ of Christianity is wrong, therefore my whole belief system is wrong, therefore I reject ALL I ever thought true and hate those who ‘wronged’ me.”

Yep, very dangerous for too many people.
 
stpurl said:
Meh, not my cup of tea
Click to expand...
To each his own, laddie. I post these in the hope of drawing responses representing all ‘perspectives’. It would be a frightful bore if no one did anything but click on that little heart. 🙂
 
The problem is that Fr. Rohr dissents ONLY from Catholicism. He conforms very closely to secular trends. His writings constantly tempt people to minimize conversion.
 
Last edited:
CelticWarlord said:
“My scientist friends have come up with things like ‘principles of uncertainty’ and dark holes. They’re willing to live inside imagined hypotheses and theories. but many religious folks insist on answers that are always true. We love closure, resolution and clarity, while thinking that we are people of ‘faith’! How strange that the very word ‘faith’ has come to mean its exact opposite.”
Click to expand...
To be fair, a lot of religious people feel very attacked, and are trying to answer impertinent questions and snide remarks that are thrown at them.
 
I’ve read a few of his books now, and I have no problem differentiating between what he offers as his own opinion and speculation, and what he offers as a legitimate, though often alternative interpretation of Church teaching. People do criticize him, but when the question inevitably comes up, “If he’s so wrong, why doesn’t the Church silence him?” the answers I’ve read are unconvincing. “Oh, he’s small potatoes. The Church has bigger heretics to fry,” or, “He’s a slippery one, just barely staying within the bounds of orthodoxy.” What if he’s just plain right?
 
christofirst said:
legitimate, though often alternative interpretation of Church teaching
Click to expand...
This is how I view his work. Like Rolheiser, I also find in his writings and videos a very practical guide to Christian living. We can preach prayer and dogma all we want but a large segment of people, in my experience, need to be told how this is to be applied in day to day living. We wouldn’t say to the hungry, “be warmed and filled”, so why do it with those in need of down to earth guidelines as to how, in a very physical existence, we are to act out those spiritual principles. Blessings to you. 🙂
 
christofirst said:
People do criticize him, but when the question inevitably comes up, “If he’s so wrong, why doesn’t the Church silence him?”
Click to expand...
I’m not (yet) familiar with Fr. Rohr’s writings, but in general I’ve noticed that the Church does not prevent priests and theologians from searching the margins, bogs, and crags of our faith. In this the Church shows wise leadership.
 
Beryllos said:
priests and theologians from searching the margins, bogs, and crags of our faith
Click to expand...
I’ve always felt, with all good humor intended, that anyone, such as Rohr, who recieves a lot of flak from church members, is worth a look for that reason alone. I’ve always stalked the fringes of the faith myself. 🙂
 
Well, it’s an interesting idea. Of course, if I went out to the fringes, it would be more with the idea of bringing people back from those fringes. I’ve always been more the "walk neither to right nor left, but along the straight and narrow’ type. I guess that when it comes to the Catholic faith, I find that so many people don’t even know what the core is, so going out to the fringes either means they stay there enjoying being 'away from the ‘rigid’ yet able to say, “Hey we are still on the outskirts here, we haven’t gone away altogether”, just playing with all the ‘new different stuff’, or the fringe people try to get people ‘inside’ to move out and keep them company. KWIM? So everybody is wandering around, like a bunch of sheep, going for ‘greener pastures’, and just wandering farther and farther from the safety of the fold.

When people speak of how ‘fringes’ attracted them to Catholicism, I always wonder, on the fringes, how can they really receive the fullness of faith? Do they ever go on ‘to the center’? or say"Yeah, I’m in the Catholic fold but it’s not the dull stuff, I know how to interpret it better, I have a more enlightened outlook, I’m living the real deal not like those ‘middle’ people who are ‘content’ to accept what they’re told. They probably never ever think for themselves". . .

and have you also noticed how ‘thinking for yourself’ never EVER seems to involve orthodoxy?

“I believe in the Catholic Church’s teaching on X”.
"Hmphf. Well, I THINK for MYSELF so I reject that teaching for something more relevant, something with an interpretation that I feel is more ‘true’, more ‘caring’, etc. etc.

Try saying, “I think for myself, and I accept the Church’s teaching on X” and see what response you get!! You’ll be told you’re ignorant, brainwashed, lazy, a cop-out. . . you name it.
 
Fringe could be understood in different ways.

On one hand, consider Fr. James Martin, who is going out on a limb in hope of bringing LGBT or LGBT-sympathetic Catholics back to the Church. He gets a lot of flak for it, but the Church hasn’t shut him down because (a) he hasn’t said anything heretical yet, and (b) he’s carrying out his mission in good faith (in my opinion – let’s not get in a fight about the details).

On the other hand, consider Pope Benedict XVI, who as Father and then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger thought deeply about the Incarnation of Jesus, the Eucharist, the Resurrection, the Body of Christ, and what it all means for our salvation. When I try to discuss it, people shake their heads or tell me “He wasn’t speaking infallibly, of course.”

Then there’s Pope Francis!

I appreciate them all.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
if I went out to the fringes, it would be more with the idea of bringing people back from those fringes
Click to expand...
I think it would helpful if I interjected here with a bit of my background. I very much understand your own position as well, by the way, and once thought along those same lines within another organization. But to begin with- I’m not Catholic so that may help you see my point of view somewhat. In addition to that I come from a long history of cult abuse, having attended a very controlling and manipulative pseudo-Christian church from 1974-96. I find that much of how I interpret the Catholic faith comes through those same lenses quite often. Thus I am, even today twenty plus years removed from that, constantly suspicious of dogma and the approach of the magisterium.

Please understand that I love the Roman Catholic Church and, if I choose to attend a Christian service, it is always the Mass (which I have gone to as much as four times a week). Had it not been for Richard Rohr, Ron Rolheiser and others, including Bishop Barron, I might easily have dismissed Catholicism as nothing more than yet another controlling mega church. Yet I have found that within it’s doors, history, and literature, it is anything but. However, I am still most drawn to those who think outside the traditional box which is where I reside and where I find the greatest fulfillment. For now. But if I were to be forced from my comfort zone, there would be serious rebellion. 🙂
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
Do they ever go on ‘to the center’?
Click to expand...
I thought of something else just now. I still have half an hour to put in and was reading a book titled, “Mary for all Christians”, John McQuarrie, 1990, when another idea surfaced. So I fired up the computer once more just for you, my friend. 🙂

Anyway, you’ve probably come to this conclusion already yourself but here it is anyway; don’t think of me as a fringe Christian wanting to drag the church to the edge with me. Think of me, rather, as what I am; a fringe Christian who has become interested in Catholicism. I think that makes everything much easier. 🙂
 
One thing, which probably doesn’t come across with just words and no tone, is that believe it or not, I always take the ‘positive’ view as the default position. Even when I am coming down great guns debating on say a liturgical abuse and saying, "yes this is one and the action is wrong’, I’ll always assume as the default that even if the person is doing something wrong, it’s always done from a feeling of love. . .IOW, if there’s somebody on the fringe, that person is probably there from the best and purest of motives. So my motive likewise, in bringing them ‘back’ would also be, not, “You wicked person running around causing mayhem and enticing sheep, get back in the fold”, would be more, "Hi. . .I was enjoying X back here in the sheepfold, and it is so wonderful and warm, and I wonder if you might like to enjoy it too. . .maybe we could talk a little, see where we’re coming from and where we’re planning on heading from here, and find some common ground to appreciate’.

Just glad to see people ‘looking’. Besides, Fr. Rohr might not be my cup of tea or scone of choice, but who knows? Back when I was a wee lassie, I found St. Therese over the top treacly at times, and Padre Pio cranky, and I sang St Louis Jesuit and Weston Priory music and enjoyed it. . . tastes change, people change.
 
The problem is that Fr. Rohr isn’t “alternative” enough. The ideas in his books are not really a fresh way of looking at Christianity. Rather he takes principles already common in the secular culture, changes a few words, and pretends they are “new”.

This is why his books and speaking tours get so much free promotion by the secular media. Orthodox Catholic and Protestant writers and speakers, just as gifted, get no publicity, no Mass media reviews, can only get published by tiny publishers, are not promoted by Amazon, etc. Orthodox writers and speakers are genuinely, and courageously, on the fringes.

Read Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton.
 
Last edited:
I’m glad Chesterton appeals to you 👍. You’re certainly in good company.

I haven’t read Orthodoxy, but I have read Brave New Family and some of his articles online. What often comes through to me is a spirit of combativeness, a sort of “us versus them” mentality. Even his humor can sometimes be mean-spirited, at least that’s how it comes across to me. And reading those famously well-crafted but very wordy sentences of his can be an unpleasant chore for me, which probably speaks to my lack of erudition.

One reason that Richard Rohr’s teaching appeals to me is that it is generally more positive and inclusive, open to possibilities. His writing gives me hope where some other teachers do not. Also, he is a contemporary writer, using terms and language which I can more easily comprehend. Admittedly, I come to him already agreeing with many of his ideas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top