Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Shhhh! Richard Rohr's Coming To DC! Big Secret!

At least, it seems that the Franciscan Monastery in Washington DC tried to keep it a secret!  And why do I think they tried to keep Fr Rohr's appearance "on the q-t"?  Well, let's go to the Monastery's web page.  Look to the right under "events".  Notice how all the events are fairly well-described, except one!  It's called "October 23, 2010 Event."  Now doesn't that seem like an odd way to publicize an event?  I might think that if one were trying to draw attention, they might do something better than give it that non-descript title.  Could it be that the Franciscans simply don't want to draw attention to it?  Now why wouldn't they want to do that???  

Let's sneak a peak by clicking on that date (or this link if you'd prefer).
Ooops!  No details there, but it looks like we have a choice of pdfs.  Let's click on the first one called "October 23, 2010 Event.pdf".   Therein lie the details of the appearance.  I suspect they didn't want decent Catholics to get wind of this as we did with their Chris Matthews dissent fest in late June.  Remember that?  They were so reluctant to face us that night that they had to sneak away to some secret location in Bethesda Maryland (they sure do love secrets, don't they?).  Now some might point out that these folks weren't trying to keep Rohr's appearance a secret, since it is in the pdf file.  I think they were.  Rohr was only mentioned in a pdf file.  Pdf files are essentially grraphics; their contents cannot be googled.

Father Rohr is rather notorious for his "male spirituality" work, which has homosexual undertones to it.  I will link to a number of works that will give greater detail.  Father Bryce Sibley, in his analysis, goes into Rohr's "male spirituality", as well as touch upon Rohr's erroneous understanding of original sin and his heretical notion that Christ's death was not necessary for our redemption.

Stephanie Block has done some research on retreats that Rohr has given for men.  She points out that his retreats often feature at least some of the men taking off their clothes.  She quotes a statement of Rohr on this: "I never encourage nakedness, as such, but it always happens."  Ladies and gentlemen, I've gone on a number of Catholic retreats, and not once have I been "inspired" to sin against modesty.  I feel safe in assuming that such is the case for the majority of my readers.  Rohr goes on: "We often have camp-fires, and I know some of you have been at these where it happens, so you know what I'm talking about. Always, always, there's some guys — I mean, is it in their hard wiring? — they'll strip and have to leap over that fire, burning their balls. . . .1 don't know what it is. They're the 'real' men, who can leap over the fire, naked."  Please forgive the crass language there, but such is the language that proceeds from an ordained priest.  Gentlemen, I believe it's reasonable that very few of you (I do have to make allowances for liberals reading this blog) have that kind of "hard wiring".

He's big on something called the Emerging Church Movement.  To get an idea of what the "thinking" is, please watch this clip of him.  Yes, I know he's not wearing clerics.  However, when a priest spouts drivvel such as this, perhaps it's just as well that he's not readily identifiable as a Catholic priest.  (Click here if you cannot see embedded video).

He founded an organzation called Center for Action and Contemplation.  It's chock-full of new age junk.

I suppose it's no secret that Trinity College is welcoming him.  Recall that this institution unleashed upon our nation such graduate-menaces as Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius.  Recall that after Pelosi became Speaker of the House, they had a big celebratory Mass, with the notorious (and now deceased) Fr Robert Drinan as main celebrant.

Stay tuned for more on this.


  1. Oh Lord have mercy on us. He wants a reformation to a form of the Catholic Church that has nothing to do with the one Jesus instituted.

    He thinks it's the Holy Spirit inspiring this "new thing" in the church. I'd say it's a spirit all right...the father of lies. It's as old as the fall. There's nothing new under the sun.

    Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.


  2. I think Father Rohr's got something going for his ideas. After all, the Catholic Church in its current form is riddled with priests who can't keep their pants zipped because of lousy sexuality teaching, ie, they're perverts who would have offended anyway or they were never helped to integrate their spirituality and their sexuality. And for you who want to scream at this: realize that celibacy didn't become law until the middle of the 12th century. Check your church history for that one. So don't pick on Father Rohr; pick on the see no evil, hear no evil bishops who've ignored and/or participated in the church's finally-open-to-the-light-and-fresh air evil scandala.

  3. "Got something going for his ideas"? Well, just where is that something going? In its current state, it's going straight towards hell, and taking many people along.

    "Lousy sexuality teaching? You might have a point there. Humanae Vitae and Casti Connubi have not been taught fully from the pulpit.

    Moreover, I too look askance upon the bishops - for not defrocking Father Rohr and his ilk many years ago.

  4. I don't blame "anonymous" for using that label.
    He/she is ignorant or sexually depraved.
    The issue is not celibacy, but sin. And it is precisely the Rohr types who encourage sin by sugar-coating it and attacking tried and true ways of opposing it. Of course, certain sins are arbitrarily forbidden by them as awful, but those they like or that the worldly like are a-ok. So sodomy is bad, unless its done to a teenage boy for the Rohr-minded. (Although some might be saying that's ok in a decade!) Rohr gives no Catholic teaching just the psycho-babble that impressed bishops since Vatican II who viewed sin as a curable pyschic pathology rather than as a great evil. That's why these bishops and a small percentage of homosexual priests failed. They did not follow the Church's teaching or discipline.

    To call the Church's sexual teaching "lousy" betrays either a perverted mind or a complete idiot. If you know the Church's teaching than you must call it lousy becuase you want to act on your lustful depravity. If you don't know the teaching, you're only a few clicks away in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Try reading that. Then, be mature enough to make a respectable comment.

  5. You judgemental jerksmake me sick.Rohr loves God, and people. He is wise enough to know religious drivel when he sees it, and expose it. Wake up and HELP HIM bring ppl into the fold, instead of hating and holding against him the clear ability to relate, and to see clearly. Why do you "good people of God" have so much animosity to a man who preaches only love and understanding? It is YOUR TYPE who killed Christ. Just You.

  6. Madcapzany, you're only nine months late - whatever. "Knows religious drivel"? I'm sure he does, since he uses it so frequently. I don't know what "fold" to which you refer, but I'll wager that fold would make his camp-fire hot-seats look comfortably cool, if you get my drift. If you think what he preaches is "love and understanding", my friend, you are most seriously deluded by progressive mental poison. Please wake up and repent before it is too late.


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.