Viewing Life from the Bottom, from Richard Rohr

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mystical_Seeker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mystical_Seeker

Guest
A writing from an author I like. I just “expect” to shower in the morning, as most of us in my country and social class do, but I always think of how good it would feel to so many people who have nothing. I don’t really feel guilty because I have these nice comforts of “civilization” but I do feel very lucky and grateful. And I honor very much, those who have to deal with extreme poverty beyond anything I can imagine. Are they unhappy? I can’t say that necessarily because gosh I can be unhappy and look at how little I have to worry about – compared to people with problems involving their very survival. The same respect goes for the very sick as well; for whatever your reason, if you’re at the bottom looking up, things look a little different.

In almost all of history, the vast majority of people understood the view from the bottom due to their own life circumstance. Most of the people who have ever lived on this planet have been oppressed and poor. But their history was seldom written except in the Bible (until very recently in such books as Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States). Only in modern times and wealthy countries do we find the strange phenomenon of the masses of people having an establishment mentality! This relatively new thing, called “the middle class,” gives many of us just enough comfort not to have to feel the pinch or worry about injustice for ourselves. Only by solidarity with other people’s suffering can comfortable people be converted. Otherwise they are disconnected from the cross–of the world, of others, of Jesus, and finally of their own necessary participation in the great mystery of dying and rising. Most of us in the Northern Hemisphere have a view from the top even though we are nowhere near the top ourselves. The mass of people can normally be bought off by giving them just enough “bread and circuses,” as the Romans said.

In the early Christian Scriptures, or the “New” Testament, we clearly see that it’s mostly the lame, the poor, the blind, the prostitutes, the drunkards, the tax collectors, the sinners–those on the bottom and the outside–that really hear Jesus’ teaching and get the point and respond to him. It’s the leaders and insiders (the priests, scribes, Pharisees, teachers of the law, and Roman leaders) who crucify him. Check this out, if you do not believe me. How did we miss such a core point? Most of Christian history kept the point from hitting home by blaming the Jews. Power was the problem, not the Jews. When Christians have all the power, they do the same thing, and we also would have crucified Jesus if he had critiqued the Catholic Church or any church the way he did his own religion.

After Jesus’ death and resurrection, the first Christians are largely “underground.” They are the persecuted ones, meeting in secrecy in the catacombs. During this time, we see a lot of good interpretation of the Scriptures, with a liberationist worldview (i.e., a view from the bottom). You could say that at that time, we were largely a Church of the poor and for the poor.

The turning point, at which the Church moved from the bottom to the top, is the year 313 when Emperor Constantine thinks he’s doing us a great favor by beginning to make Christianity the established religion of the Holy Roman Empire. That’s how the Apostolic Church became Roman Catholicism. We got all linked up with imperial world views, and our perspective changed from the view from the bottom and powerlessness (the persecuted, the outsiders) to the view from the top where we were now the ultimate insiders (power, money, status, and control)–and Emperors convened (and controlled?) most of the early Councils of the Church, not bishops or popes. That is verifiable history. Sadly, most did not see the problem with that (and many still don’t). Many saints along the way still tried to be a Church for the poor, but from a somewhat “superior” and safe stance. It is only in some form of actual solidarity with the outsiders/sinners/little ones that we fully get the message of the Gospel. It is only then that we understand our own poor soul and its neediness.

by Richard Rohr – Adapted from Scripture as Liberation; and Gospel Call for Compassionate Action (Bias from the Bottom)
 
I think the reason that Fr. Richard Rohr is such a polarizing figure for those who are aware of him - people seem to either love him or hate him - is that he has made it a great part of his mission to challenge what he sees as complacency and hypocrisy among the faithful, while providing a voice for those who have difficulty accepting certain aspects of our faith. Many of us do not want to be challenged or to consider matters of life and faith in a new or different way. We want the comfort and stability of having things all figured out, or figured out for us. If one can accept or get past his provocation (and no one has to), I think it is possible to find much wisdom in his writings. But without an open mind, one will likely only find things to condemn and criticize. Of course, it is also possible to have a mind that is too open, unable to distinguish truth from falsehood or speculation.

When I read the excerpt you provided, I am reminded of Our Lord’s response to the rich young man, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come follow me.” In many ways, my response has been like that rich young man, unwilling to go all the way in following Jesus. But I am in some ways affirmed in my lukewarm response by a Church that has also grown comfortable, as Fr. Rohr points out. Well, I certainly don’t need Richard Rohr spoiling my complacency by reminding me of this! (or maybe I do :o)
 
Search this forum for Rohr, and you’ll get your answer.

There are better sources.😉
 
Since I posted this, I indicated in another thread that I was going to give up caring about what others say about Fr. Rohr, for the rest of Lent. :rolleyes:

Good chance I’m going to fail really soon. Oh well. 😃
 
Since I posted this, I indicated in another thread that I was going to give up caring about what others say about Fr. Rohr, for the rest of Lent. :rolleyes:

Good chance I’m going to fail really soon. Oh well. 😃
The trouble is that the original post in this thread sounds dangerously close to liberation theology. Not to mention Fr. Rohr’s affiliations with dissident organizations, and many other issues that have already been covered in another recent thread.

While I’m sure not everything he teaches is harmful, there are enough red flags that it’s probably best to find other spiritual teachers who don’t stray from Church teaching.

Peace be with you! 🙂
 
FWIW, there’s some stuff from Rohr that I really like and I have a couple of his books that have really touched me. I realize he sometimes comes too closely to the outer edges of orthodoxy for some including myself, though far as I can tell he’s a priest in good standing.

However my life has been much less anxiety-filled when I realized how damaging to human relationships a binary, black-or-white view of people can be. None of us is perfect, and I’m not willing to toss out the good things a person has done when he or she has gone of the rails on some aspect or another.

Even Origen, who’s writings are extensively used in the liturgy at the Office of Readings in the Liturgy of the Hours, flirted with heresy at the end of his life and many of his writings were destroyed because of it.

I think therefore we can take a critical look at Rohr’s writings and embrace his good works while being wary of some of his ideas that may seem out in left field.
 
I think therefore we can take a critical look at Rohr’s writings and embrace his good works while being wary of some of his ideas that may seem out in left field.
Yeah. I take a critical look at any writings I read, no matter how allegedly “orthodox” the source is. Especially here on CAF where there are many who claim to be “100% ‘orthodox’ Catholic” and then go on to make false statements about Church teachings. 🤷

You really have to watch yourself these days. Technology brings us disinformation along with information. 😉
 
I think the author is trying to persuade the reader that the Church is in error. Who is this guy???
Only by solidarity with other people’s suffering can comfortable people be converted. Otherwise they are disconnected from the cross–of the world, of others, of Jesus, and finally of their own necessary participation in the great mystery of dying and rising.
Each of us has his own cross. Even those who are viewing from the top have a cross. There is no such thing as a cross of the world. Solidarity with other people’s suffering is righteous but has never been taught as necessary for conversion. Conversion is a movement of the heart which is the work of the Holy Spirit.
In the early Christian Scriptures, or the “New” Testament, we clearly see that it’s mostly the lame, the poor, the blind, the prostitutes, the drunkards, the tax collectors, the sinners–those on the bottom and the outside–that really hear Jesus’ teaching and get the point and respond to him.
The apostles are good examples of those who really hear Jesus’ teachings. They were mostly fishermen. Mathew was a tax collector. Bartholomew was believed to be of royal blood. Paul was a Pharisee. All of them were sinners, but do not seem to support the authors point.
It’s the leaders and insiders (the priests, scribes, Pharisees, teachers of the law, and Roman leaders) who crucify him
.
These were the only people who could have crucified him.
Check this out, if you do not believe me. How did we miss such a core point? Most of Christian history kept the point from hitting home by blaming the Jews. Power was the problem, not the Jews. When Christians have all the power, they do the same thing, and we also would have crucified Jesus if he had critiqued the Catholic Church or any church the way he did his own religion.
Although I have heard it said before, I am not aware of any Catholic teaching that blames the Jews for Christ’s death. We believe that Christ died for our sins, hence we all crucified Jesus. Jesus wasn’t crucified for critiquing the Jewish religion.
After Jesus’ death and resurrection, the first Christians are largely “underground.” They are the persecuted ones, meeting in secrecy in the catacombs. During this time, we see a lot of good interpretation of the Scriptures, with a liberationist worldview (i.e., a view from the bottom). You could say that at that time, we were largely a Church of the poor and for the poor.

The turning point, at which the Church moved from the bottom to the top, is the year 313 when Emperor Constantine thinks he’s doing us a great favor by beginning to make Christianity the established religion of the Holy Roman Empire. That’s how the Apostolic Church became Roman Catholicism. We got all linked up with imperial world views, and our perspective changed from the view from the bottom and powerlessness (the persecuted, the outsiders) to the view from the top where we were now the ultimate insiders (power, money, status, and control)–and Emperors convened (and controlled?) most of the early Councils of the Church, not bishops or popes. That is verifiable history. Sadly, most did not see the problem with that (and many still don’t). Many saints along the way still tried to be a Church for the poor, but from a somewhat “superior” and safe stance. It is only in some form of actual solidarity with the outsiders/sinners/little ones that we fully get the message of the Gospel. It is only then that we understand our own poor soul and its neediness.
by Richard Rohr – Adapted from Scripture as Liberation; and Gospel Call for Compassionate Action (Bias from the Bottom)[/INDENT]
There is only one vicar of Christ. He’s in Rome. That’s why we are the Roman Catholic Church. Nearly all of the Doctors of the Church did their work after the Nicene Council. These saints were not all linked up with imperialism and they made worthy contributions to the deposit of faith.
 
My response is to this particular article cited by the OP.

I don’t understand why the skeletons in our church closet, and the dirt swept under the carpet, has to be brought up time and again, by anybody. Does it really do any good?

We are suppose to be the light of the world for all to find Christ. How does something like this lead people to his light…the church. It is telling everyone our sins, our darkness, and that is how they are to find the light?

Books have already been written about this matter…do we need to hear it all again rehashed?

If he wants to do good, then let him talk about how to improve this world or improve the church currently.
That is what Pope Francis is doing. The Pope is not talking about our past, but the “now”. What are we going to do “now”.

Again, my veiw of this article is that it is not having its intended effect…to draw people to God, but quite the opposite.

Some will say, well we can’t improve if we don’t know what needs improvement which the past shows. …Really?

Well we’ve had the past displayed, shown, written about, photographed, blogged, and discussed so often I don’t know how we could ever forget it.

I would just like to say that more is accomplished by suggesting the good things we need to do than taking another historical dump on the church.

I feel he is a well meaning priest, so this is not my view of him, but his article.

“I know the sun is shinning even when it isn’t shinning.” Christian hymn
 
I get it. :o
We’re not supposed to agree with him.
Not only disagree with him, run away from him as quick as possible.
From BishopAccountability.org
Father Rohr is well known for his ‘Wild Man Retreats’ where men sometimes take their clothes off and touch each other in certain parts of their bodies — to release the demons.
Archbishop Sheen has taught that anytime nudity is used in therapy or instruction, it is a sign of demonic influence.
It tells a lot about people who promote Rohr.
 
Thanks for posting this ( in the face of so much negativity) Mystical Seeker. Like many others I am focusing my meditations and prayers on greater solidarity with the poor this Lent.

Noting too this from George Weigel writing in New Advent on the Church of the future:

“The most extraordinary Christian growth over the past century has come in Africa: home to 8.7 million Christians in 1900, 542 million today, and perhaps 1.2 billion by 2050, when there will be as many African Christians as Latin America and European Christians combined.”
 
Thanks for posting this ( in the face of so much negativity) Mystical Seeker. Like many others I am focusing my meditations and prayers on greater solidarity with the poor this Lent.

Noting too this from George Weigel writing in New Advent on the Church of the future:

“The most extraordinary Christian growth over the past century has come in Africa: home to 8.7 million Christians in 1900, 542 million today, and perhaps 1.2 billion by 2050, when there will be as many African Christians as Latin America and European Christians combined.”
That’s good information. Thank you. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top