Good Morning Granny,
]The former Catholic priest, Matthew Fox, birthdate, 1940, is one of many who looked for “solutions” and chose against the Catholic Church. Father Rohr followed. Turning away from old-time traditional Catholicism, these men, and many others, including women…
Granny Dear, are you bearing witness? If so, what proof do you have that Fr. Rohr has chosen against Catholicism? Before you answer that question, please read this:
DEFAMATION
Definition
Unjust injury of a person’s good name. It consists in telling facts that harm another’s reputation. In defamation, there is at least an implicit intention to harm the reputation of another, who is absent and therefore not a witness to being defamed.
Defamation may be committed in two ways: by spreading injurious facts that are true but not publicly known, or by saying things that are false.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32987
… Father Rohr chose the wrong fork in the road, that is, he left his original path and deliberately chose the path leading away from true Catholicism.
SLANDER
Excerpts:
The important thing to note of slander is that it is a lesion of our neighbor’s right to his reputation.
Slander involves a violation of commutative justice and therefore imposes on its perpetrator the obligation of restitution. First of all, he must undo the injury of the defamation itself. There seems in general to be only one adequate way to do this: he must simply retract his false statement. Moralists say that if he can make full atonement by declaring that he has made a mistake, this will be sufficient; otherwise he must unequivocally take back his untruth, even at the expense of exhibiting himself a liar. In addition he is bound to make compensation to his victim for whatever losses may have been sustained as a result of his malicious imputation. It is supposed that the damage which ensues has been in some measure foreseen by the slanderer.
newadvent.org/cathen/14035b.htm
Please note: Dear, I am not accusing you of slander. For slander involves “attributing to another of a fault of which one knows him to be innocent”. It is clear that you do not “know” him to be innocent, for you have read his works and drawn your own conclusions. However, there is a gap in your knowing. You do not know his heart, and you certainly do not know his intent. What does one want for another’s reputation when one’s words are defamatory?
While ignorance is forgiven, it is not to be upheld, and it does not justify defamation.
Here are suggestions for a more Catholic approach to what you are trying to say:
“I disagree with Fr. Rohr on the importance of Original Blessing over Original Sin”
“In my opinion, Fr. Rohr is taking the wrong path.”
“While I mean no harm to Fr. Rohr’s reputation, I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that the Church needs rebuilding.”
You see, to set the example that defamation is acceptable in itself leads the flock astray, Granny. We are to love people and give everyone the benefit of the doubt. We are not to instill fear, divisiveness, aversion, and condemnation because these are against the Spirit. As I put on the other thread, I will put here, because it is worth a bit of Lectio Divina
I urge you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that all of you agree in what you say,
and that there be no divisions among you,
but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers and sisters,
by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.
I mean that each of you is saying,
“I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,”
or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
Is Christ divided?
1Cor1:10-13
Please, Granny, prayerfully consider the content of this post. Remember, I don’t always agree with him either. It doesn’t mean that we can say falsehoods.
.