Just listen to a number of his talks which are available on-line.
I listened to one last night at our Light of the World meeting. And he addressed God the Father and added ‘or Mother’.
He certainly seemed to deny Purgatory and Hell. There was an allusion that even Satan would be forgiven and welcomed back by the archangels… and all would go to Heaven, nobody would be condemned to Hell.
This hour long talk certainly resulted in some lively conversation and I had a bad night’s sleep thinking about it all.
Rove
I can’t recall how long ago I heard comments about “mother” in relation to God, but I am guessing in may be 40 years ago give or take some. It was something which came up in scripture scholarship, but was not long after that co-opted by radical feminists, which was not its original purpose. It comes up in Old Testament study, and one can probably start with Genesis, wherein it states “God created man in his image, in the divine image he created him, male and female he created them.”
The scholarship went on to point out that the image of God was one that, among other things, was nurturing, nursing, and the list went on for some other images that are (generally) seen as female. None of that was done or said to contradict how Christ revealed the Father; but it is easy to get stuck with the image in the back of the mind that God is a male. God is pure spirit, something that we mortals can’t really wrap our minds around. And the primary image of Scripture as a whole is God as Father.
So when someone gets into some of the language and images of something other than male in reference to God, it tends to raise hackles. It may not be healthy - nay, it may be unhealthy - for many people to get off down this path. Something may be true and yet not edifying for many.
I find Rohr to be lucidly conveying Catholic truth some times, and other times, to be using language that, for lack of any other word coming to mind, comes across to many as psychobabble. It may not be that; there may be more to what he says than some can take a way from his musings, but as another poster said he has not been censured as near as we can tell by those with the authority to censure.
He is clearly edgy. Being edgy can merely mean that one is in the forefront of a way of conveying truth which is not widely understood, and therefore, not accepted.
It can also mean that one has gone off the rails. Again, no known censure.
it can also mean that one is prone to using terms and constructs which are “in”, as in, playing to a certain crowd. That does not necessarily mean that one is in heresy or dissent, but rather, that one may be part of a group of (again, other terms escape me) of navel gazers. A lot of fluff and not necessarily a lot of substance.
I am not particularly taken with someone’s list (and granted, I am familiar with most of the names as they have been in dissent for decades) when at the end of the list, Bayside is brought up, given that was squashed by the local bishop in the 1980’s. The only thing that struck me was that the list was so old, along with many listed (I was actually wondering how many of the radicals were still alive…).
Rohr is clearly too edgy for many. That is nothing new under the sun; but one should be a bit leary of some of the comments which seem to take positions the Church has not taken. The best advice might be to say little, other than that he (Rohr) leaves one not sure of what he (Rohr) has said, or how that might further the reader’s spiritual life; and then propose someone else as worthy of reading.
