RON ROLHEISER: BORDERLINE DWELLER

TH2 is very suspicious of any priest who formally presents himself without clerical garb. Thus we introduce Fr. Ron "the borderline dweller" Rolheiser, "speaker, columnist and author". His "weekly column appears in more than 65 Catholic newspapers worldwide". He's one of these liberal priests whose politically–correct–non–judgmental–never–taking–a–real–stand writings are everywhere, but hardly anybody knows who this guy is. Sort of like those obscure bureaucrats that run the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops – nobody knows who these people are, but their impacts on an unwitting Catholic populace are pernicious. An situational analogy would be Franz Kafka's book The Castle, where the main character K. is forever thwarted and obstructed by an indifferent bureaucracy. You get the idea...

Accordingly, let us peruse and dissect a recent column by Rolheiser where he attempts to perform a balancing act between "conservatives" (i.e. authentic Catholic orthodoxy) and "liberals" (i.e. dissenters, heretics, apostates, etc.). The article is entitled: "Conservatives and Liberals – We Need Both" (September 6, 2009 / LINK). [TH2 analysis in bolded square brackets]

The late Malcolm X [you gotta be kidding me] was raised a Christian but [here we go...], at one point in his life, became a Muslim [i.e. he was attracted to the revolutionary violence of Mohammedism as manifested in the "Nation of Islam", learned whilst in prison, from an anti–Semitic racist Mohammedan convert]. However, both in his own mind and in his ministry, he never ceased being a Christian [really, I don't see a previous life of criminality as being expressive of the Christian ethic; he hated religion as a youth]. He used to carry both the Koran and the New Testament with him [big deal, I carry a Rosary and a pack of smokes]. He felt the need for both [the Rosary and Bible alone will do me just fine]. Here's how he explained this [no, here's how you justify historical revisionism and cultural relativism because, in the psychological subsurface, you are ashamed of the singularity of authentic Catholic beliefs and really do not believe in objective truth]

"Most of the people I work with need the hard discipline of Allah [i.e. fatalism, rigid moralism] in order to get some order into their lives, particularly their religious and moral lives. Later, after they have the essentials more in hand, will be the time for the more liberal love of Jesus." [what a load of crap]

What Malcolm X brilliantly [i.e. ridiculously] juxtaposes here is the tension that perennially exists between prescribed discipline and personal maturity, between the letter of the law and its spirit, between conservatives and liberals. And he affirms that we need both: prescribed discipline and personal maturity, law and spirit, conservatives and liberals. [And how was this "tension" balanced and manifested in the life of Malcolm "X" Little? With his hatred for the civil rights movement? His delight in the assassination of JFK? His oh–so–wonderful consorting with the pygmy Communist dictator Fidel Castro? His racial segregationism?]

Sadly today this kind of voice is rare on both sides of the ideological spectrum. Liberals [heroes, with just minor faults] and conservatives [villains with unredeemable faults], both in the church and in society, tend to demonize and hate each other and to lack basic respect, empathy, understanding, and even civility towards each other [i.e. fair and objective criticism from conservatives are taken as personal affronts since liberals have no reasoned responses for counterargumentation; hence liberals resort to insult, vilification and diversion]. Each side has its own truth [again, a euphemism saying that there is no real truth] and, unlike Malcolm X [as sanctified by Ronny], cannot see the need for any other truth. Allow me an example: [do I have to?]

In church circles today, conservatives and liberals would agree that things are not ideal [only liberals are idealists, conservatives are realists], that there is a need to do things differently. However they have very different visions of what the problem is and how it should be addressed.

Conservatives tend to focus on the lack of fundamentals. They see a whole of generation of Christians emerging who have never been essentially catechized, who lack a basic understanding of what constitutes Christian identity and what makes for proper religious and moral boundaries. Hence they insist strongly, sometimes to the point of a near intolerance [notice the nonchalant, standard pop–up vilification], on clear identity, on proper boundaries and distinctiveness from others, and on rules and regulations, with a corresponding impatience and (often) anger against anyone who challenges this view. [Oh, Ronny, like so many liberals – and even some conservatives who are so afraid of being "uncharitable" – you focus on the anger and overlook the argumentation, based on solid reason, that makes the anger justified, which is an emotional response to some apprehension – and this is the ruse used by the likes of you to disregard and disqualify conservatives. St. Athanasius may have been a vehement writer – and excellently so – but he was also correct.]

Liberals, on the other hand, focus on something else [Yes, they concoct preposterous situations and worldviews and maintain themselves by perpetually inventing a "crisis"]. When they look at the church today they see the most educated, literate, and theologically discriminating group of believers that have ever existed in the 2000 years of Christian history [Really? If so, and if they believe, why has Mass attendance radically declined in the last four decades?]. Thus, their insistence, often just as strong and as bitter as that of the conservatives, is for an apologetic and an inclusivity that goes directly against the call for the harder boundaries and the clearer lines of identity so desired by the conservatives. [By "inclusivity", do you mean acceptance, assimilation and (even) the endorsement of homosexualism, womyn priests, gnostic heresies?] Liberals see the millions of persons who feel alienated from their churches (e.g., the second most numerous religious group in the United States today is made up of ex–Roman Catholics) and argue that what is needed to melt these hearts and attitudes is not clearer catechesis or more tightly–drawn boundaries, but a renewed emphasis on precisely the gospel of love, wider inclusivity, and personal maturity over rules.[On this matter, TH2 could care less about what people "feel" and this emotionalized definition of "love". This is sentimentalism and feelings are transient. What about reason and truth? Truth is extraneous to man, not a function of man. Truth is, and however you "feel" about it does not change the fact that a truth is a truth.]

And both are right [i.e. once again, nobody's right, truth is what you feel, not what is]. In essence what we see in the tension between conservatives and liberals in the church and society today is the tension that Malcolm X tried to resolve for himself by carrying both the Koran and the Gospels around with him. We need to also carry with us both some conservative principles and some liberal ones. [As a Catholic priest, which "liberal ones" would you suggest? Abortion? Euthanasia? Antinomianism? Nihilism? Pagan nature worship? Oprah? Self–help books? Hollywood? New Age esoterica? Socialism? Contempt for the middle class? Revolutionism? And are you saying that Malcolm X advocated conservative principles? Buddy, from which planet in the western sector of the Andromeda galaxy were you born?]

There is a need today to strongly define identity and lay out clear boundaries [which you, as an obvious relativistic borderline dweller, have a lot of trouble doing]. Experience is showing us that we often lack the personal maturity and inner–strength [to] live out a gospel of love, without rules. To come to grips with many of our weaknesses and confusions we need the discipline of law, the clarity of a catechism, and the exclusivity and protection that is captured in the original meaning of the word seminarium [OK, fine]. But that isn't all we need. [here we go again...] To live out our faith in a way that, in the end, respects God's universal love for everyone and respects our own persons, we also need hearts that are not ghettos and a religion of freedom and personal maturity. [zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...] We need both conservatives and liberals.

But given the present polarization both in the church and in society [i.e. given the end result of 45 years of liberal/leftist–actuated heresy and apostasy], we are not going to move easily towards empathy, understanding, respect, and civility towards each other. Each side is so convinced that God is on its side of the importance of its own vision, and its own critical place in history, that it can only see the other as insincere, ignorant, self–serving, as threat, as someone to be fought in God's name. [...and what "side" are you on Fr. Ron? Or do you refuse to take sides? The latter seems to be the case as you appear to be a relativist? But I thought you were a Catholic priest? Have you not read the widely disseminated statement of His Holiness?: "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires." I guess not, for this is too "intolerant".]

But the real truth is that we need each other [Diversion. We need Christ first, Who is the Truth, the transcendent, and His Holy Catholic Church, with Peter as its head. You are employing the liberal trick of overemphasizing the community of people, immanentizing things down to the spirit of the world, making man primary and Christ secondary, when it should be the reverse. Forgive my stupidity, but TH2 always thought that a Catholic priest first and foremost loves and serves Our Lord]. Liberals need conservatives; conservatives need liberals; society and the church need both. Conservatives rightly look to roots and they, [zzzzzzz...] rightly, see that today our roots are anything but strong and nourishing. Liberals rightly look at maturity and [zzzzzzzzzzzzz...] they see, rightly, that we are anything but mature and big–hearted. Perhaps, in imitation of Malcolm X, we might all walk around carrying both a catechism and the Gospel of John, both in our pockets and in our hearts.[zzzzzzzzzzzzz... zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzz... zzzzzzzzzz... zzzzzzzzzzz... zzzzzzzzzzz... zzzzzzzzzzzz... zzzzzzzzzz... zzzzzzzzz... zzzzzzzzz... zzzzzzzzz... zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...]

...Uh? Eh? Oh ya... some advice, Fr. Ron: Relax. Have a cheese sandwich. Drink a glass of milk. Do some bloody thing. But please stop writing, re–evaluate and seriously ruminate upon those words of Our Lord in Revelation 3:16.

RON ROLHEISER: BORDERLINE DWELLER