Fr. Richard Rohr giving a talk. It seems sketchy

I did a search on this guy on this site and I see he’s into some New Age junk. A friend of mine saw this in a recent bulletin saying this guy is coming to speak. Here’s what the bulletin reads describing the talk:

Day after day, Sunday after Sunday, a continous revolutionary process has occurred in which we have shifted through a set of practices our self-understanding as a people before God. The surety of unchangeable rubrics, the “universality” of the Latin language, the ethos of mystery, the reverence for the sacred species, and the priest as worth intercessor at the altar of sacrifice were all important values that we safeguarded as we worshiped each week. These were engaged by other claims of ongoing renewal: the vernacular and the appreciation of local custom, the ethos of welcome and communion, the priest’s call to communal prayer, and the mutual support of a shared vocation of discipleship.

[font=Arial]The strict boundaries that defined us as Catholics before the Second Vatican Council were operative in the liturgical actions we practiced. Among those boundaries was the altar rail that physically, spiritually, and emotionally kept us at a distance from the altar. Even more remote was the host itself, an object of such veneration that we could never let it touch our hands. Those boundaries reinforced our own self-understanding. [/font]

[font=Arial]Now the dominant virtues of obedience, reverence, and awe are replaced by love, community, and service.[/font]

My friend wants to at least speak with the pastor and see if he knows what he’s getting himself into. I’ve also read that Rohr says the crucifixion was not redemptive, that women must emancipate themselves from Jesus as redeemer and seek a new redemptive disclosure of God and of human possibility in female form.

Anyway, do you guys have any more examples of dissent from Church teaching on this guy. My friend wants to make sure he puts together a comprehensive argument for why this Rohr should not come. Also, what problems do you see in the quote from the bulletin? Thanks everyone!

[quote=Genesis315]I did a search on this guy on this site and I see he’s into some New Age junk. A friend of mine saw this in a recent bulletin saying this guy is coming to speak. Here’s what the bulletin reads describing the talk:

My friend wants to at least speak with the pastor and see if he knows what he’s getting himself into. I’ve also read that Rohr says the crucifixion was not redemptive, that women must emancipate themselves from Jesus as redeemer and seek a new redemptive disclosure of God and of human possibility in female form.

Anyway, do you guys have any more examples of dissent from Church teaching on this guy. My friend wants to make sure he puts together a comprehensive argument for why this Rohr should not come. Also, what problems do you see in the quote from the bulletin? Thanks everyone!
[/quote]

How sad that one who is called to Gods service is led away and leading others away:tsktsk: :mad:

This guy must be making the rounds. I found this in Father Bryce Sibley’s blog.

Also, I see Rohr’s name associated with a lot of other New Age nuts (Matthew Fox, Charlene Spretnak, et al).

The pastor of the parish in question needs to be informed, and you might also give the pastor a copy of the 2003 Vatican document Jesus Christ, the Bearer of the Water of Life - A Christian Reflection on the New Age

It’s disheartening that some of the Church’s most ardent foes are found within her own ranks.

To quote Pogo, “We have met the enemy and it is us.”

'thann

Is there anything in that bulletin quote that can concretely be argued against? I mean, who knows if he will talk about all that other mumbo jumbo.

I would steer clear of this priest and his spirituality which is strongly laced with New Age ideologies and wanting to remove the centrality of Christ’s suffering, passion and death as core to the Gospel message of salvation. This is his home web page for his new agey agnostic eastern mix of spirituality (note the strong resemblence he has to actor Richard Drefuss in his picture, could it be …):
cacradicalgrace.org/aboutus/founder.html

Here is an excert from Fr. Richard’s Rohr’s critique of “The Passion” (bold added): (cacradicalgrace.org/getc…ed/passion.html):

It is about suffering pure and simple, as if Jesus was just born to suffer*. He has no other message. There is no plausible “why?” to his suffering, and no connection with his teaching, his social or religious critique, his prophetic vision.*

It ends up being a message of Divine will power instead of the much more needed messages of human vulnerability, human solidarity, and human compassion. Gibson’s version of Jesus is closer to a Hollywood superhero or Greek god than to the Biblical version of the “son of man.”

As many of you know, I am a strong proponent of…… Jesus did not have to die to make God love us, he was paying no debt……Unfortunately, the movie is entirely based on the old atonement theory that suffering was needed…

*It might take these graphic images of suffering love to break through some peoples’ consciousness, but I am afraid it will largely be true for people who do not think too much. *

Richard Rohr, OFM

%between%

In reading the bulletin, I am never really surprised that Priests or others with erroneous theological views greatly prefer mediocre liturgy and believe it is better than the way things were done prior to the changes after Vatican II.

He teaches enneagram! :bigyikes:

He denies the Atonement. That should be enough. Add to it the New Age stuff. I’m astonished that he’s still a Catholic priest. The Episcopalians would have been glad to have him, I’m sure.

Where is he speaking? Looks interesting.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.