He did not become “confused” at all. He remained a faithful Catholic Priest to his dying day. Had he not, he would not have been allowed to continue as a Trappist, and he most certainly would not have been allowed to travel around the world taking part in conferences, etc.
He saw beauty, and a way to God, in the practices of other religions. That does not make him “confused”, it makes him a great deal like Blessed Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
I would strongly recommend that you actually read his books. I would also recommend that you go to his Monastery, where he is still spoke of as a faithful Catholic. He is buried there under his Cistercian name of Father Louis. And, they utilize the techniques of some of those other religions in their retreats, and in their own lives at the Abbey.
I just love the way that people judge one another on these forums. They accuse others of being wrong, of being “confused”, when it they themselves that are confused. They forget that we are enjoined NOT to judge others, less we be judged exactly as we judge those others.
Well - I have read his writings.
Here’s a list of 17 of them with a helpful division of his early and later writings where he strayed into the non-Christian east. With respect to your lament about judging, the Church does so regularly. They issue warnings about teachings and teachers. When those warnings reflect the writings of particular authors or teachings, we can compare the warnings with the writings of others and learn a great deal. Jesus said to “judge with right judgment” in John. St. Paul said to “test all things and hold fast to that which is true.” We can do this by doing as you suggest - by reading their works, and then going one step further and comparing them to Church tradition. This is by no means condemning the souls of the individual but simply assessing their faithfulness.
There are also statements that can indicate their status to any who would listen. As noted in the post above, later in his life while in Bankok, a Dutch abbot asked him (Merton) to appear in a television interview, for “the good of the Church.” But Merton writes that, “It would be much ‘better for the Church’ if I refrained.” This is a very telling statement.
As to your assertions to my ignorance of his writings, just because one doesn’t agree doesn’t mean that one is lacking the comparable education on the topic as you might have. In fact, the disagreement might mean that they know more - though admittedly this is not always the case. In this case I don’t claim to be a Merton expert and may know far less than you.
As to your arguments that:
- He was buried as a Trappist, therefore he was faithful
- He was allowed to travel and speak, therefore he was faithful
- His techniques are still in use, therefore he was faithful
These are what is known as non-sequiturs. There are plenty of heretics (though I am not calling him one) who are buried in the graveyards of their orders and who were, before their death, allowed to continue in their orders.
Father Anthony Demello is a great example of one who was allowed to travel and speak, who remained in his order, and who’s “techniques” and writings are still in practice in spite of strong warnings and admonitions from the Holy See.
That said, your emotional response is revealing. Though I suspect it will be insulting to your sensitive soul, might I suggest that you may have a disordered attachment to Merton because he has helped you in some significant way? I don’t deny that he has brought good to you. I am aware that he has helped a great many people in their faith. That said, it is clear by any objective measure that he was confused in the latter period of his life and straying away from the heart of the Church. He may have been a good man. He may have died in a state of grace. As you say, he certainly died a Trappist and a priest. He helped many in their faith. Nonetheless, he was confused and his latter writings should be read with great care.
Pax