MIGHT AS WELL JUMP

I. When your unfriendly host first started blogging in 2009, he posted an essay entitled Vulgar Radicals, wherein the dire ramifications of the Counterculture Revolution were analyzed. One subject discussed was the emergence of that hodgepodge of Determinisms which, when their main message is neatly summarized, contend that most human behaviours and inclinations are effectively beyond personal control. Given the topic addressed in this post - the claim that suicide is a "disease", what was explained in that essay warrants restating. That is, since the 1960s numerous socio-psychologistic, environmental and biological determinisms have been widely disseminated by book and broadcast, now well entrained into the mainstream. People who promote whatever type of Determinism will ascribe a "scientific" status to their respective hypotheses, arguing them to be corroborated by empirical data, regardless of how poorly gauged and inaccurate these data may be, or of the spuriousness of documentary "sources". Since these deterministic worldviews are now established in the mainstream, they are assumed, uncritically, to be factual aspects of the human condition.

II. Academic celebrities, like E.O. Wilson and his "sociobiology" theory,[1] are very good at this sort of thing. Indeed, so much is Wilson's biological determinism in vogue that he's an Honourary Board Member of the enviro-radicalist David Suzuki Foundation, along with other celebrities like Paul Erlich (author of the demonstratively bogus The Population Bomb), Margaret Atwood (most boring, overrated writer ever produced by Canada), Gordon Lightfoot (The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald song), including internationalist busybody Gordon Sumner, otherwise known as "Sting", formerly of The Police. They were a good band, admittedly, though it would benefit humanity greatly if such bimboesque-pop-idol-wannabe-Heideggers would just shut up and sing.

III. One thing you will notice is that Determinists use a euphemistic or vague idiom whenever communicating their main views. The language of Determinism must be expressed imprecisely because specificity in terminology and personal responsibility are correlative. This non-specificity in wording (contrary to what science as a subject demands) thus allows them to claim that certain behaviors or actions, beforehand deemed (very specifically) as immoral or depraved or illegal or manageable through self-restraint, are (in our modern, allegedly "enlightened" era) "somewhat natural" or "innate" or "commonplace" or "inescapable". Or that one is "strongly motivated" to act this way or that way, or that externally-operative economic "structures" are at work. Always, there is some outside factor involved, a shape-shifting abstraction, ambiguously defined, rooted predominantly in speculation, thereby negating responsibility for one's personal actions and diminishing the social consequences thereof. And when whatever Determinism is wielded by the neophyte popularizer, it becomes an even more dangerous ideational weapon that morphs the principle of human freewill into some form of fatalism.

IV. Keep the abovementioned in mind because that Concoctor of Sweet-Tasting Poisons for the Catholic babyboomer demographic, namely Ron Rolheiser, has again proclaimed suicide to be a "disease". I've written a number of harsh posts on Rolheiser's views, which can be found here, here, here, here and here. Quite a lot, yes. Given that for years his influence has been widespread (books, seminars, retreats, column in 70+ newspapers worldwide, YouTube videos, etc.), it's puzzling that there isn't much criticism of his writings in the Catholic blogosphere. This lack of being challenged also appears to be existent at the parish/chancery levels, where his sway is evidently most pronounced. A commenter at one of my posts remarked thusly: "Rolheiser and his book Holy Longing are absolutely insufferable. I only wish his legions of fans in my parish, including the RCIA team, questioned him one iota". But it was another commenter whose words really struck a chord in me, as her reported experience relates directly to the subject of this post:

At a time of deep grief and confusion, I picked up Ron's Shattered Lantern. MMMmmm, it reminded me of the old yoga days when I sunk into my couch and watched the sun rise while listening to my heartbeat. So far, (not?) so bad. My rationale was weak, I was frustrated with the recent relentless rehash of Priest scandal and wanted to escape. I actually re-read the book with my spouse over morning coffee. Happy as clams. After ignorantly basking in Fr. Ron's folly for a few months, we pursued one his earlier books, Against An Infinite Horizon (1995) YIKES! Suffering thru Rolheiser's condescending treatment of Church teaching, defense of radical feminism and trite circular analogies, I begged my husband to stop reading this BS. I actually found myself reacting in a most un-ladylike manner; my verbal objections descended to the depths of crudeness, the expletives issued forth without hesitation [Good lady, TH2 fully understands the reasons for, and sympathizes with, your descent into symphonic profanity :) ]. When will these clowns realize that they insult not only our intelligence and decency, but waste our precious time and energy?

Thankfully - because it is a good thing, I've also received criticism from Rolheiser's adherents in the com boxes. And as the saying goes: if you're not getting any flak, you're not over the target. Yet there is a raison d'être for semi-regularly setting my B-52 bombing sights onto someone who publicly announces himself to be "in exile". Notice: the most excellent lady just quoted started off by saying: "At a time of deep grief and confusion... my rationale was weak, I was frustrated... wanted to escape..." - and that's the thing. Whether intentionally or not, Rolheiser's inwardist, psychologism-drenched writings are perfectly tailored for, or appeal to, the mindsets of vulnerable persons - those undergoing some type of crisis, to whatever degree. They are therefore more prone to be manipulated and misled as their defences are down, openly trusting of some seeming "authority" or "guru" regarding whatever emotional, psychological or spiritual cross they're enduring.

V. Accordingly, we come to a recent column by Rolheiser entitled "Our Misunderstandings About Suicide". Note the patronizing use of "Our", as if readers are in agreement and that which follows issues from a supreme authority. Below is the pertinent part of the opinion piece, with TH2 emphasis/capitalization:

At the risk of repeating what I have been writing year after year... it's a DISEASE, something that in most cases takes a person out of life against his or her will, the emotional equivalent of cancer!, a stroke, or a heart attack... I also receive a lot of very critical letters every year suggesting that I am making light of suicide by seeming to lessen its ultimate taboo and thus making it easier for people to do the act: Wasn't it G.K. Chesterton himself who said that, by killing yourself, you insult every flower on earth?... Chesterton is correct, when suicide is indeed a despairing act within which one kills oneself. But in most suicides, I SUSPECT, this is not the case because there is HUGE DISTINCTION between falling victim to suicide and killing oneself... In suicide, a person, through illness of whatever sort, is taken out of life against his or her will...There is an INFINITE DISTANCE between an act done out of weakness and one done out of strength. Likewise there is an ABSOLUTE DISTINCTION between being too bruised to continue to touch life and being too proud to continue to take one's place within it.

However fancily it is worded, when suicide is classed, say, as a "disease", or characterized as the "emotional equivalent of cancer!" (note exclamation mark to show his insistence), we see that an act of the will (behaviour) is made proximate with, if not equal to, a biological condition. A disease as such, cancer, a stroke, a heart attack - these are physiological in aspect. Meaning, the unfree mechanical laws of the natural world are preponderant. Determinism, that is. The act of "most suicides", says Rolheiser, are "against his or her will". In the final analysis, there actually is no free choice for the majority who commit the terrible act.

VI. Notice what is happening here: Rolheiser is severing the tensile yet balanced dualism between the material (the body, biology, "disease") and the immaterial (the mind, the will). This is why he states there exists a "huge distinction", an "infinite distance", an "absolute distinction", between: (i) falling victim to suicide vs. killing oneself, (ii) an act done out of weakness vs. strength, (iii) being too bruised vs. too proud. Seen in its proper Catholic mode (not in Rolheiser's transmogrification), the dualism of mind and body are two through-going yet distinct units (so to speak), they are separable but still contingent, not necessitous in regard to one another. Making them separated, which is what Rolheiser is obviously doing, means a total detachment of these two units. A helpful analogy here might be the Nestorian heresy. It disconnected the divine and human natures of Christ, refuting the God-Man union.

VII. Right. Let's break things down and categorize Rolheiser's notion of suicide into its two types:

• Type 1: "falling victim", "done out of weakness", "being too bruised": points to some outside force, an external factor, triggering someone to commit suicide. Claimed to be the "most" frequent cause. No personal responsibility involved. Akin to Determinism.

- CONTRA -

• Type 2: "killing oneself", "done out of... strength", "being too proud": implies that only the self, freely with full knowledge and awareness, commits suicide. Claimed to be an infrequent cause. Personal responsibility is involved. Freewill seemingly affirmed.

What is ridiculous is the so-called justification for differentiating the two: "in most suicides I suspect...". He suspects! That's it! This is conjecture, subjectivity, without empirical validation. What about references? Data sources? Some sort of deduction? If attribution for suicide is to be placed primarily outside of the self, to some "other" force or factor, then why not speak of the proportional relationship between the secularization of Western society and the rise in suicide rates. Indeed, statistical studies in recent decades evidence suicide increases with a decline of the population's participation in "institutionalized religion", i.e. church attendance.[2] Moreover, the rate is significantly high for youth since, during the last five decades, they've been less likely to attend "church services", to speak generically - and this in large part encouraged, if not prompted by, precepts of the Hippie Revolution during the 1960s: anti-authoritarianism, antinomianism, anti-Western political posturing, drug-induced escapism, hedonism, self-actualization, gnosticism, misology, irresponsibility, incivility. Take a gander at the graph below to understand what's going on here...

From the 1960s onward, trends in data collected by Statistics Canada[3] exhibit a precipitous rise in the suicide rate (number per 100,000) for Canadian males in the 20-29 age range. There was also a slight, but still noteworthy increase in the female suicide rate. And is it not interesting that, after a long period of relatively low suicide rates from the 1920s to 1950s - when anti-Christian sentiment and the rejection of Western values belonged principally to the mind of the intellectual, there occurs an abrupt rise in suicide starting in the very decade when such corrosive views entered mainstream culture? More interesting are the trend lines during the Great Depression (ca. 1930s) and World War II (1939-1945). There are no upticks in suicide trends during these times of economic and geopolitical crisis, when an increase would normally be expected. Look closer at the graph and notice even a small decrease in the male suicide rate from the 1930s to 1940s.

VIII. Within a Catholic context, haven't read much in Rolheiser's writings on Mass attendance, the sacraments (with emphasis on Confession), devotion to the saints, pilgrimages to holy sites, the Blessed Mother, the Rosary, the Catechism - in how these and other elements of Catholic Tradition would aid in mitigating suicidal attempts. However, a perusal of the column archive at his website will demonstrate favourable quotes and references to the likes of Malcolm X, Jung, Freud and others whose stances are not so, shall we say, commensurable with Catholicism. Indeed, Rolheiser has this penchant for deferring to, and associating with, dubious characters. Like, for example, Fr. Richard "Enneagram" Rohr, with whom he collaborated at a surreal conference earlier this year. Reportedly, 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".[4] One wonders if Rohr, an unabashed advocate of homosexuality,[5] is aware that suicide death/attempt rates for homosexuals well exceeds those of the overall population.[6]

IX. True, a wide array of causes have been put forward endeavouring to explain suicide: those associated with an impairing neurobiological condition, of course, but also alcoholism and drug use, heredity, climate, unemployment, poverty, work and income related stresses, engagement in deviant sexual activity, alienation, public exposure of a personal fault or wrongdoing, a betrayal and other incidents actuating mental anguish. Suicide as such is not the outcome of any one specific cause but, as the Catholic Encyclopedia states: "it is undeniable that the religious factor is by far the most important, the increase in suicides keeping step with the de-Christianization of a country".[7] Canadian suicide rate trends presented in the graph above is but one piece of attesting evidence.

X. Not a few academics will contend ancient pagan societies, like that of the Greeks, Romans, Japanese, or the Brahman caste of India, "tolerated" suicide, or deemed it "acceptable", even "dignified", and so on with the candy-coating routine. Greek tragedy dramas involve suicide, therefore - so goes the inference - it was, in a way, "part of life", or death rather. Sure, Jocasta commits suicide in Sophocles' Oedipus Rex. So what? Proves nothing. In actuality, heightened suicide was concurrent with periods of nihilism and debauchery. As for suicide in the modern era - the drugged-up kamikaze pilot chained to the cockpit seat whilst screaming his Zero into the deck of an aircraft carrier, the Mohammed-enthused, box-cutter slashing barbarian plowing a passenger jet into a skyscraper - these are not signs of "honour", "glory", "righteousness" or "martyrdom". They indicate, rather, a hatred of life, contempt for the material world, and the abyss of despair. They're driven purely by emotion and willpower, eclipsing reason, and their so-called inspiriting "faith" or "religious belief" or "divine wind" or "jihad" is but a soul-putrefying penumbra which would even make those berserker gods of the Norse pantheon avert their eyes in disgust. The Catholic Encyclopedia again regarding suicide: "In fact, despair and anger are not as a general thing movements of the soul which it is impossible to resist, especially if one does not neglect the helps offered by religion, confidence in God, belief in the immortality of the soul and in a future life of rewards and punishments".[8]

XI. Instead of relying on the opinion of someone who apparently doesn't put much reliance in Catholic Church teaching, let's now make reference to the Catechism. It states that "voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law" (no. 2282). The Baltimore Catechism (Q. 1274) more specifically calls suicide a mortal sin. And what makes the Church's teaching on suicide considerably different from Rolheiser's ruminations is this: "Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him" (no. 2280). In evident disagreement, Rolheiser inserts a qualifier: only the relatively few commit suicide by force of "strength", by being "too proud" (cf. Type 2), not "Everyone is responsible", as the silly Catechism instructs. To be sure, "most suicides", according to Rolheiser, are "against his or her will" (cf. Type 1). Why? It is a "disease". How is this known? "I suspect". Really? And is there not something very important missing so far from this analysis?

XII. Catechism, No. 2281: "Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life". It's the natural law thing, teleology. In the classical philosophical tradition of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, it was understood that things naturally tend toward goals, are orientated to certain "final causes". In the context of man, a moral factor is involved because, with freewill, he makes choices that operate either for or against those goals to which nature as such arranges for him. It is in man's nature to survive, it is one of his purposes. Says the Summa on suicide:

...everything naturally loves itself, the result being that everything naturally keeps itself in being, and resists corruptions so far as it can. Wherefore suicide is contrary to the inclination of nature, and to charity whereby every man should love himself. Hence suicide is always a mortal sin, as being contrary to the natural law and charity.[9]

Man can defy nature by the commission of suicide. But not only does he risk eternal salvation with the act[10], he's not fulfilling a purpose as set up within the framework of natural law. Preservation and perpetuation of life is good, the act of ending one's own life is a spectacular evil, like it or not. It is a spectacle to others. It's that simple.

XIII. It's hard to tell exactly what role, if any, natural law features in Rolheiser's suicidal scheme of things. Yet it is clear that the assigning of "most suicides... against his or her will" to some personally uncontrollable, deterministic-like "disease" functioning beyond the domain of freewill belongs to that potpourri of nebulously-defined characteristics of "society" as a formless abstraction. Read what the influential French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858-1917) wrote during the second decade of the twentieth century: "We can say... with assurance and without being excessively dogmatic, that a great number of our mental states, including some of the most important ones, are of social origin... it is civilization that has made man what he is".[11] With Durkheim, we have a sociological expression of that diehard mantra of the modern Left: something outside myself is to blame for my affliction or circumstance. Not my own sins, blunders, willfulness, thought processes - but that thing "out there", without myself. The origin of this presumption goes all the way back to Rousseau's Social Contract with its famous line: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains", and so forth. More immediately, however, Durkheim was following in the footsteps of Auguste Comte's (1798-1857) Positivism. And when Durkheim wrote his book Le Suicide, the main argument put forward therein was that social forces determine the overall suicide rate:

Each social group really has a collective inclination for the act, quite its own, and the source of all individual inclination, rather than their result... tendencies of the whole social body, by affecting individuals, cause them to commit suicide.[12]

Similarly, because Rolheiser seems not wanting to be that precise on the role of personal responsibility in suicide, he must use obscure, feelings-based phraseology, characterizing it as the "emotional equivalent of cancer" (which is downright unscientific), something from without, beyond individual control, something somewhere "out there" in the societal collective that works "against his or her will". Thusly, it wouldn't be unreasonable to opine that Rolheiser's commentaries on suicide causation are strongly influenced by the writings of Durkheim. About two years ago he wrote a column entitled "Being Stretched by Great Writers", wherein Durkheim is mentioned, amongst other not so Catholic friendly intellectuals. He paraphrased advice on what some professors said to him when a seminarian: "Take for granted that because these are great minds they have something to teach you, something that will much help you, even inside your faith. Be careful, but be open!" Not careful enough, methinks.

XIV. Can't help but conclude that Rolheiser's psychobabble-based wizardry of turning suicide into a "disease" gives people a backstage pass to defy the natural law or, straightforwardly, a license to transgress the Fifth Commandment. It provides vulnerable persons with an out... Pop those pills, slit your wrists, put that gun barrel in your mouth, jump from the 35th floor. There's nothing you can do, your suicidal thoughts are the "emotional equivalent of cancer" and there's no cure. To tell your readership that suicide is a "disease" which in most cases is resultant of the nullification of human will... to do that insistently, routinely on a per annum basis, almost with revelry, is disturbing and insidious. It is also very dangerous for those sensitive souls who, weakened through whatever circumstance, are in a state of despair and overwhelmed when thoughts of suicide are presented to the mind. Those who have written to Rolheiser, complaining about his efforts to obfuscate the "taboo"[13] of suicide, are absolutely justified in their criticism. Recommendation: Stay away from Rolheiser's writings. If you do venture to read, then be leery and exercise well your powers of discrimination.


NOTES / REFERENCES

1. Deriving from Wilson's Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, first published in 1975. So popular was this book that a 25th anniversary edition was published in 2000.

2. See, for example, S. Stack, "The Effect of the Decline in Institutionalized Religion on Suicide, 1954-1978", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1983, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 239-252.

3. See Expert Working Group, Suicide in Canada, Update of the Report of the Task Force on Suicide in Canada, Mental Health Division, Health Canada, Report No. H39-107/1995E, 1994, Figure 4.2, p. 44. More recent data from for the 2005-2009 period show the male suicide rate has decreased somewhat, ranging between 16.7 to 20.1/100,000. The female rate has remained relatively constant, ranging from 3.0 to 6.5/100,000. The male suicide rate is still high when compared to the pre-1960 period. Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM, Table 102-0551: Canadian Vital Statistics, Birth and Death Databases and Appendix II of the publication "Mortality Summary List of Causes" (catalogue number 84F0209XIE).

4. See M.C. Abbot, "Priest: 'The boy always gets naked...'", Renew America, January 23, 2006.

5. See B.A. Sibley, "The Fr. Richard Rohr Phenomenon", New Oxford Review, March 2006, vol. LXXIII, no. 3.

6. Cf. S. Langlois and P. Morrison, "Suicide Deaths and Suicide Attempts", Statistics Canada (Catalogue 82-003), Health Reports, January 2002, vol. 13, no. 2, p. 12; and C. Bagley and P. Tremblay, "Suicidal behaviors in homosexual and bisexual males", Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 1997, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 24-34.

7. Quoted in A. Vander Heeren, "Suicide", In: The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912), vol. 14. Available online.

8. Ibid. Cf. also a short analysis by the manualist Fr. Thomas Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1925), vol. 1, bk. vi, pt. v, ch. i, pp. 194-195.

9. Sum. theol., ii-ii, q. 64, art. 5.

10. No. 2283 of the Catechism for consolation: "We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives".

11. E. Durkheim, "The Dualism of Human Nature", In: Emile Durkheim, On Morality and Society, ed. R.N. Bellah (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1973), p. 149. Paper first published in 1914.

12. E. Durkheim, Suicide, A Study in Sociology, trans. J.A. Spaulding and G. Simpson (New York: The Free Press, 1951), pp. 299-300. First published in 1897.

13. It is revealing that Rolheiser uses the pagan word "taboo" (tabu, of Tongan origin) instead of the Catholic "mortal sin".

MIGHT AS WELL JUMP

WHY DO WEIRDOS SUDDENLY APPEAR EVERYTIME YOU ARE NEAR ?

I. Your humble correspondent is currently preparing an article on the Catholic blogosphere and the Church in Canada. Yet, as it often turns out, more rumination and research are necessitated than originally anticipated. As per usual, I'm hoping it will prompt some apparatchiks to execute cartwheels throughout the offices of their variegated bureaucracies. You see – and I must confess, it gives me much joy to annoy such people by introducing them to harsh reality. The screech of a hippy heretic, the laments of a chancery apostate, the wailing of a habitless hussy... these are wonderful, harmonious sounds. Like the celestial choir of angels.

II. Now judging by the blunt and bombastic writing style found at this blog, it could logically be deduced that yours truly is a cold–blooded scoundrel. Perhaps. But know that the degree of outrageousness found herein is directly proportional to the pathetic state of affairs I regularly witness. If it's any consolation, I did cry when, in the made–for–TV movie, the castaways were finally rescued from Gilligan's Island. I was especially happy for Mr. and Mrs. Howell. They were getting on in age and I did not want them to spend their remaining few years in that palm tree hell. You can get the DVD here.

III. So in the mean time, let's make a brief detour and visit our old friend Fr. Ron Rolheiser. I've fisked/posted on Rollie a few times in the recent past, which you may peruse here, here and here. One reason for repeatedly being tough on the poor fellow is likely attributable to my guilt. Rollie, although currently US based in the great state of Texas, is a Canadian. Consequently, I feel a kind of Canucki–culpability for his subtle and slyly watered–down kitsch Catholicism, gaining wide acclaim, especially amongst that galley of aging baby boomers so easily bamboozled by cornball pop–theology. Let alone the syrupy, inwardist emotionalism that constitutes much in Rollie's tracts, now syndicated globally in 70+ newspapers. I have experienced the dire effects of this emotionalism first hand. One day at my parish a lady mentioned to me, in a genteel Dutch accent – with hand on heart and eyes gazing aloft – that she found great inspiration in Rollie's newspaper columns. "Dear lady", I responded, "the man reads like Schopenhauer on amphetamines"... Well, I didn't say that. But I wanted to. And how could I betray this innocent creature? Minutes prior, she had just shared with me the most delicious home–baked cookies I have consumed in probably a decade. The dilemma's the good God puts me in! Honestly, I do believe Rolheiser has done significant damage. The only other comparable V2–theo–pop Canadian effectuating similar harm is the ex–Anglican cleric Tom Harpur. However, today he even contends that Christ was not a historical person. If wanting to punish yourself, read my book–long post on this rascal here. But enough rambling...

IV. Just before Christmas a reader of this space kindly advised this blogger of a conference that started just yesterday. So I clicked the link sent to me and then this suddenly appeared:

Oh my... what's going on down here in the peanut gallery? Just look at those smiling faces. Seems interesting. Let's investigate...

V. Now with a title like that it has to be either an advertisement for a Saturday afternoon program on PBS or else – you guessed it Catholic peoples – Ron Rolheiser just got a brilliant idea. Or at least he and his two friends did. So, then, who do we have behind Door No. 1? Looks like it's Fr. Richard Rohr, OFM. In New Age circles, word has it he goes by name Lucidus Enneagramus. But don't tell that to St. Francis. Take a gander:

He considers the proclamation of the Gospel to be his primary call and the related themes he addresses include eco–spirituality, scripture as liberation, the integration of action and contemplation, community building, peace and justice issues, male spirituality, and the Enneagram.

Hmmmm... I'm getting suspicious. That descriptor is to be found at the website for the Center for Action and Contemplation, an organization founded by Rohr, sponsor for the aforesaid conference. At this point I am going to ask readers to pause momentarily and retract any food or beverages in close proximity to keyboards as below you will find some titles/topics of past conferences held at CAC:

---------------------------------------o Creation as the Body of God
---------------------------------------o Emerging Church / Naked Now
---------------------------------------o Laughing and Weeping
---------------------------------------o How Do We Breathe Under Water?
---------------------------------------o Holding the Tension: Prague

That first bullet has a twang of emanationist pantheism to it. But to be sure I'll astrally project into the 6th dimension and get confirmation from Meister Eckhart. The second is creepy in a sweaty–frolicking–fruitcake–at–a–nudist–camp kind of way. The third sounds like a 1970s Argentinean soap opera viewed at 2 am on Telemundo. The fourth evidences that Richie is either oblivious of basic hydrodynamics or else he has a thing for Aquaman. The fifth... well, can you think of a better phrase that characterizes homely Oprahesque surrealism? Oh, I forgot to mention that he was on the "Oprah and Friends" radio show. Though I really need not elaborate further. Rohr is widely known for his admixture of Pelagianism and paganized Catholicism, let alone his advocacy of the enneagram and homosexualism.[1] Unfortunately, he's got quite a following.

VI. Behind Door No. 2 we have Ms. Edwina Gateley and, goodness gracious, it looks like we have just entered the Twilight Zone. The bio at her website states that she is "a poet, theologian, artist, writer, lay minister, modern–day mystic and prophet". This must be true because the National Catholic Reporter also references her as both a "mystic" and (bonus) "a living saint in our midst".[2] Edwina's subjects of interest include "her own Faith Journey, Discipleship, Women in Scripture, Justice, Mission, Spirituality, Mysticism, and the Feminine Divine". She's also into women's ordination n'stuff.[3] But there's more! A book entitled A Warm, Moist Salty God. Yuck, sounds to me like a vulgar preoccupation with biologic immanentism. Yet the pro–biotic icing on the tofu cake is that Ms. Gateley has been "publicly commended" by Bill Clinton (oh oh) and (oh no...) the late archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin (ding ding ding ding... those would be tiny little bells). Bernardin, you may recall, appointed Gumby the Gallivanting Bishop, another friend of Gateley.[4]

VII. Behind Door No. 3 we have the star of the show, namely Ron Rolheiser. No introduction needed. Indeed, Rollie did well in befriending Lucidus Enneagramus and the Manchester Muffin. Two of a kind: a gnosticized Franciscan and, as one writer noted, "an eccentric feminist whose performances resemble English music hall comedy more than religious presentations".[5] But fear not you people whose demographic likely is 55+ years in age. Rollie and friends are here to teach and guide you on your path to inner enlightenment – so long as you cough up $225 plus hotel costs and other expenses. Come, listen to the wisdom of the elders:

As a society, we have not been taught the art of loving our mortal lives every step of the way... in fact, we have largely lost the art of living. Thankfully, the wisdom of the elders is in our midst. Join Fr. Ron Rolheiser, Edwina Gateley and Fr. Richard Rohr, who will help us to clarify and embrace the two halves of life...Called to a further journey, we will look within ourselves to see that the wisdom of the elders is not only in our midst, but is within each of us

The conference is currently underway. Anyone in the area thinking of attending should learn from Bugs Bunny's mistake: Take that left turn at Albuquerque.

No offense to the memory of Ms. Carpenter. Actually, she is quite enchanting in the video.

NOTES / REFERENCES

1. See B.A. Sibley, "The Fr. Richard Rohr Phenomenon", New Oxford Review, March 2006, vol. LXXIII, no. 3. This article is available online at the Catholic Culture website. LINK

2. J. Dear, "Edwina Gateley's Big God", National Catholic Reporter, September 15, 2009. LINK

3. M.J. Maguire, "'Pink smoke' portrays growth of women's ordination movement", National Catholic Reporter, October 8, 2010. LINK

4. R.J. McClory, "35 years on 'the prophetic edge'", National Catholic Reporter, July 16, 2004. LINK

5. D. Donna Steichen, "A Church They Didn't Expect", Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission, June 2006. LINK This periodical is now known as the California Catholic Daily. LINK

WHY DO WEIRDOS SUDDENLY APPEAR EVERYTIME YOU ARE NEAR ?

CANADIAN CATHOLIC MSM HIGHLIGHTS / NO. 2

An ongoing analysis of subtle and/or blatant heresy/apostasy advocated by the Canadian Catholic Mainstream Media

Today's Lesson: The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools is infinite (Ecclesiastes 1:15).

DISSEMINARE DISSENSIO AD NAUSEUM. Novalis Publishers, an internal enemy of the Roman Catholic Church, is all geared up for its autumn publishing season. In his Fall 2010 Letter, Publishing Director Joseph Sinasac seems very excited about this season's line-up: "Once again, Joan Chittister, the best-selling American Catholic author, has provided Novalis with her latest wisdom with God's Tender Mercies, on the sustenance to be found in an attitude of forgiveness."[1] Hooray for heresy! Three cheers for womyn priests! Let's hear it for pansexual pantheism! Joanie's back with a vengeance and Novalis must be making pretty good coin from her tracts as they churn out lots of her stuff. I wonder what Fr. Paul Marx, founder of Human Life International, would think? Oh, here's one thing he said about the blueberry muffin: "Sister Joan Chittister is a wicked woman, to say nothing of a wicked nun... this wild nun... has been doing her dirty work for quite some time."[2] So thank you, Apostasy Joe, for all that you do. Keep on truckin', buddy. Note to Canadian Catholics: Did you hear about Novalis' new motto?: "Screwing you since Vatican II".

YE OLDE CATHLYC TYMES. What's going on at the New Catholic Times these days? There is always something fascinating happening over there at its website, despite hardly any responses in the com boxes. Yet I thought they were a major outfit, representing a large contingency of Canadian Catholics? What gives? Usually, no original articles. Just regurgitations from other radicalist sources. Why is that? Guess when your view of society is disproved innumerable times and becomes outdated and boring that pamphleteering duties need be relegated to others more innovative at repeating old errors with new labels. Labour Day has just come and gone and, goodness gracious, did that nostalgia for the good ole days of mayhem and Marxism brim to the surface. Let's see... an article [LINK] from haereticus extraordinarius Fr. Richard McBrien, wherein we read at the outset: "I keep hoping that one of these years the U.S. Catholic Bishops will issue a Labor Day statement that focuses on the church’s responsibility to practice what it preaches and teaches about social justice and human rights."[3] What? Social justice has not been the dominant forces in the last 40+ years? What a funny guy. Another article is by Ralph Nader, all-around-leftist-activist-do-gooder, that false messiah for the worker, now fading into the sunset. [LINK] Read this self-congratulatory extract: "One day I was at BWI airport and went to the crowded men's room. As I entered, the elderly cleaning man erupted in frustration. 'I'm sick of this job,' he shouted to no one in particular. 'Hour after hour I clean up, come back, see the crap, clean up some more. It never ends,' he wailed. The men who were wiping, flushing, washing, drying and zipping were stunned and silently shuffled out, as if he wasn’t there. I thanked him for his work and candor, calmed him down and gave him a gratuity. The others looked at me blankly as if I was dealing with a ghost they never see as a human being."[4] A kind gesture, to be sure. But where did Nader head off to afterward? The next protest rally? A TV interview? Book signing? All talk, never getting the hands dirty on a regularized or routine basis. Chesterton: "They love ordinary people from afar and talk about them often. But nearness to the people and their beliefs frightens them and confuses them".

WESTERN CRAPLIC REPORTER. Arrrrrrrggg. What say ye maytees? At the Western Catholic Reporter Glen Argan is troubled. He is upset over "the public face of Christianity" in light of vampire novelist Anne Rice, who recently "quit" Catholicism because it is "anti-gay... anti-feminist... anti-artificial birth control... anti-Democrat... anti-secular humanism... anti-science... anti-life". Let alone Rice's standard dilettante bromides, Argan seems to think that the Church compelled Annie to jump ship. He also sympathizes with her. Arrrrrrrggg, he's a sensitive guy. She is absolutely right and 2000 years of Catholic teaching and tradition, consistent and unwavering, is wrong. The Church has made some bad public relations decisions lately, he laments: "The recent classic example of failure in this area - though not the only one - was the decision to lift the excommunications of four traditionalist bishops, blithely unaware that one of them was a Holocaust denier."[5] Of course, the anti-Semitism of Richard Williamson (the person referred) does not form the central node of Argan's grievance. Arrrrrrrggg, this is a diversion. Rather, it is the fact that Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication on the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and, therefore, Argan is well cognizant of the Church's gradual return to orthodoxy and reverent liturgy after decades of abuse by the now graying hippies. Arrrrrrrggg, does this poor fellow seem fearful. If this horrendous trend continues, no longer will Argan be entirely comfortable with, for example, writing puff pieces on Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, as he did last July 26.[6] Johnson, for the record, is a well known heretic, advocating one-world government, goddess worship, womyn's ordination and the feminization the Holy Trinity.[7] According to Argan, "the God of love is on the side of the poor and oppressed". Ah, yes, the Marxist class warfare thing. Does this mean that my upper middle class friend who drives a Ferrari is going to Hell? Anyhow, thank you Glen for approving of Johnson and her struggle against the evils of "masculine language" and, even more so, for exemplifying the feminization of man in modern society. Send him to the plank, maytees! Feed Glen Arrrrrgan to the fishies. Arrrrrrrggg...


FAIRY MESSENGER. The Prairie Messenger is endorsing a book by Fr. Andrew Murray Britz, OSB: Truth To Power: The Journalism of a Benedictine Monk. Do you think that fellow Benedictine Sr. Joan Chittister's Foreward to this book yields a clue as to text's contents? Let's see: "This collection is an enduring part of the spiritual literature of our period". Oh my dear. The advertisment goes on to say: "Britz is known for his challenging editorials, weighing in on the concrete issues of our time: birth control, abortion, clergy abuse, sexism in the church, etc."[LINK] Hmmmm.... I wonder what all this means? Is Britz gonna get with the kidz? Truth to power, baby! Well, let's read a quote from one of Fr. Britiz's "challenging editorials": "Strange and, I think, dangerous changes are taking place in the ecumenical world."[8] Vexed about Pope Benedict's ordinariate offered to the Anglicans, are you? They seem to be crossing the Tiber is droves. I guess years of inutile liberal "dialogue" was a load of crap after all. It appears that all those decades of dissent were for nothing. Too bad. Enjoy your retirement.



A RON ROLHEISHER MOMENT. Do you ever notice that Fr. Ron Rolheiser... oops, he prefers not to formally present himself as a Catholic priest, a soul specially consecrated to Jesus Christ. I mean, rather, this: Do you ever notice that Fr. Ron Rolheiser, whose weekly column appears in 70 newspapers worldwide, approvingly quotes heretics, non-Catholics and leftist radicals on a regular basis? I do. Yes, he will quote the orthodox Catholic every once in a while, but the impression received is that their insights are really no better or superior than your run-of-the-mill dissenter. We are all the same. Difference means divisiveness, and we want none of that. This is his subtle heresy, whether done knowingly or not. After all, Rolheiser is a self-proclaimed "community-builder" (is like a community organizer?) and just wants everyone to get along. So maybe we should give him a break? But not today. Over the last few months he has, in his columns, favourably quoted from the following... First: Karl Rahner (1904-1984), progressivist Jesuit priest, "spirit" of Vatican II superstar, suit and tie kinda guy, had 22 year affair with German novelist Luise Rinser.[9] Second: the "mystical tradition of Islam". Seriously? Third: liberal Christian author Donald Miller, recently appointed to be on Barack Obama's "Task Force on Fatherhood and Healthy Families". Fourth: Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957), one-time admirer of Lenin, enchanted by Nietzsche, author of the not so Catholic friendly The Last Temptation (of Christ), made into a controversial film by Martin Scorsese (released 1988). In his latest column, entitled The Lesson of Loneliness, Rolheiser quotes from the anti-authoritarian/Dionysian Persian poet Hafez (ca. 1325-1390): "Don't surrender your loneliness / So quickly / Let it cut more deep / Let it ferment and season you."[10] Notice: wallow in sentimentality, give in to self pity and passivity, get lost in a mushy inwardist emotionalism, let your feelings fester. This has echoes of quietism, a heresy occurrent in 17th century Europe. Admittedly, yours truly is cold and indifferent in his analyses, yet no inference is here being made that emotions do not constitute part of the human condition. Still, with Rolheisher this self-remedial, self-annihilating emotionalism is made almost absolute, bordering on the pathetic. True love is an act of the will, which Catholic doctrine and the saints have always said. Emotions are ephemeral. So, then, here is our Ron Rolheiser Moment (from a December 2007 article): "Advent is about longing, about getting in touch with it, about heightening it, about letting it raise our psychic temperatures, about sizzling as damp, green logs inside the fires of intimacy, about intuiting the kingdom of God by seeing, through desire, what the world might look like if a Messiah were to come and, with us, establish justice, peace and unity on this earth". Endless gushing verbosity. Please make it stop.

CATHOLIC DISGORGISTER. John Bentley Mays at the Catholic Register argues that the Ground Zero mosque controversy is a direct consequence of racism: "The bitter controversy raging in the United States over the proposed mosque near New York’s World Trade Centre site has exposed a dark, durable stain on American public life. It’s racism of the old-fashioned, virulent kind, blurring distinctions, stereotyping the hated and feared 'Other', radically threatening the discipline and tolerance necessary to make a multicultural society work."[11] For my American readers, know that with Bentley (I like "Bentley", so let's call him Bentley) we have the typical elitist snob of the ruling intellectual class, at once spewing a vulgar anti-Americanism while extolling the so-called superior virtues of multiculturalism (he is American born, but lives up here). Pat Buchanan express Bentley's attitude more succinctly: "faculty-lounge obtuseness to the feelings of the people among whom they live."[12] Notice how the whole racism accusation immediately nullifies, in one swipe, all justified counterarguments to the mosque being built. Total silencing and vilification. According to a recent poll, 70% of Americans think the mosque should not be built. Based on Bentley's "logic", then, this means that 70% of Americans are racist. See the stupidity. What Bentley fails to understand is that - as my American friend Anita at V for Victory! pointed out - Islam is specifically a religion, not a race. But Bentley deceitfully attempts to equalize racism and religion. Racism, he writes, "always works by isolating and demonizing the 'Other', branding all as criminals for the crimes of the few, by taking indiscriminate revenge for those crimes on whole religious or ethnic communities". This is his escape hatch. Racism relates to the physical traits of a person. Religion relates to the theological beliefs of a person. The material versus the immaterial. Since, to Bentley, racism equals religious bigotry, he does not have to face head-on what Islam is as a religion. Like many on the Vulgar Left, he possesses not the testicular fortitude to deal with the objective facts of what Mohammedism is as a religion (i.e. theocratic, ideological) and thus sweeps those facts under the carpet of Political Correctness. Bentley continues: "Anyone who knows Muslims personally or Islam beyond what they hear on talk radio... is aware of the dangerous generalization embodied in this belief". Apparently, Bentley listens only to talk radio and never has read the Koran. Neither has he, it seems, read a book on the history of religions. But none of this matters to this little weasel. That Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam behind the mosque's development, does not condemn terrorism or Sharia is of no concern. That this Iman blames the US for the abomination committed on September 11, 2001 is of no relevance. That Bentley does not see in this controversy echoes of Mohammedan triumphalism at Cordoba, Spain betrays his utter historical ignorance. Fr. Raymond de Souza gets to the crux:

What kind of mosque and community centre will Cordoba House be? The sad reality is that throughout the Islamic world, especially in the Arab nations, Christian churches, schools and orphanages - where they are allowed to be built at all - often find mosques built next door, from which hostility and harassment issues forth.[13]

But the devastating broadside to Bentley and his latte-slurping confreres comes from the pen of Amir Taheri:

In fact, the proposed structure is known in Islamic history as a rabat - literally a connector. The first rabat appeared at the time of the Prophet. The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word "raid"). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule... building a rabat close to Ground Zero would be in accordance with a tradition started by the Prophet. To all those who believe and hope that the 9/11 ghazva would lead to the destruction of the American "Great Satan," this would be of great symbolic value... The argument is that Cordoba, in southern Spain, was a city where followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism lived together in peace and produced literature and philosophy. In fact, Cordoba's history is full of stories of oppression and massacre, prompted by religious fanaticism... A rabat in the heart of Manhattan would be of great symbolic value to those who want a high-profile, "in your face" projection of Islam in the infidel West.[14]

So much for multiculturalism. But, of course, the abovementioned means naught to this mal vivant. Deer looking in the headlights. Fantasy over factuality. Instead, Bentley will be at the salon sipping apple martinis with his tight-ass windbag friends at The Walrus, blathering over deconstructionist art and architecture. Have fun in the bubble, Bentley.


NOTES / REFERENCES

1. J. Sinasac, Fall 2010 Letter from the Publishing Director, Novalis Canada. LINK [UPDATE Sept. 24/10: link removed by Novalis. See link for book here]. See my analysis of Novalis here.

2. Letter from Fr. Paul Marx to Fr. Tom Euteneuer (August 20, 2007).

3. R. McBrien, "For Labor Day, church should embody social teachings", National Catholic Reporter, September 3, 2010. LINK

4. R. Nader, "Honoring Those Who Toil", Eurasia Review, September 3, 2010. LINK

5. G. Argan, "Author's opting out from Church gives a heads up", Western Catholic Reporter (editorial), September 6, 2010. LINK

6. G. Argan, "A feminist perception of the Spirit", Western Catholic Reporter, July 26, 2010. LINK

7. See, for example, T.M. Baklinkski, "Catholic University to Give Award to Goddess-Worshipping Theologian", LifeSite News, November 13, 2007. LINK

8. A.M. Britz, "Dangerous trends evident in Catholic ecumenism", Prairie Messenger (op-ed), April 28, 2010. LINK Read more about Fr. Britz the dime-a-dozen "social justice" heretic here.

9. This affair was chronicled in P. Schaeffer, "Karl Rahner's Secret 22-year Romance", National Catholic Reporter, December 19, 1997. LINK

10. The columns cited here include: "Love in a Time of Opposition" (July 25/10), "Ego, God, and Ministry" (August 1/10), "Editing Your Own Life" (August 15/10), "Spirituality and the Seasons of our Lives" (August 22/10), "The Lesson within Loneliness" (September 9/10) and "Advent Longing" December 2/07). These can be found in the archives at Rolheiser's website. LINK

11. J.B. Mays, "Racism at centre of 9/11 mosque dispute", Catholic Register, September 1, 2010. LINK

12. P.J. Buchanan, "Only Bigots Oppose the Mosque!", Human Events, August 24, 2010. LINK

13. R.J. de Souza, "Harassment and hostility, or healing and harmony?", National Post, September 9, 2010. LINK

14. A. Taheri, "Islam center's eerie echo of ancient terror", New York Post, September 10, 2010. LINK

CANADIAN CATHOLIC MSM HIGHLIGHTS / NO. 2

RON ROLHEISER: ECUMENICAL EGALITARIANISM

Following a previous post on Ron "the borderline dweller" Rolheiser, below find another analysis of a column (dated March 14, 2010) by the Canadian priest who is ashamed to wear his collar. [TH2 analysis in bolded square brackets]

The Imperative for Ecumenism [I'm OK, you're OK]

Home is where we start from. T.S. Eliot [American born poet, playwright, literary critic and Anglican convert] wrote those words and they are true for all of us in terms of religion and our understanding of the particular denomination [Roman Catholicism is not a "denomination", Christ made St. Peter the Rock upon which to establish His ONE "Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church"] within which we were raised.[notice: "within which...", as if a separated group, not singularly distinct, not in fullness. The word "denomination" means the name of a category amongst a mosaic of others on an assumed equal footing. Mathematically, the denominator constitutes a fractional number, a common trait, the average level - this all ties in with Rolheiser's "ecumenism", which is doublespeak for a subtlety advocated religious egalitarianism].

I was born and raised a Roman Catholic with deep roots. My parents had a strong faith and they made sure that faith and religious practice were central to every aspect of our lives. [sound like wonderful parents, God bless them] We went to mass [notice: no capital M in "mass" - and Rolheiser is a Catholic priest] whenever we could, daily when it was available, went to confession at least every two weeks, prayed the rosary daily in our home, recited the Angelus together at least twice a day, learned a good number of prayers, memorized the Catholic catechism, had a picture of the pope hanging in our house, and believed that Roman Catholicism, among all religions [shove it into the mix] and Christian denominations [again: Roman Catholicism is not a "denomination"] was the sole true faith, the only fully valid religion.[excellent - if only more families would be like this today] We didn't believe that others, Protestants and peoples of other religions, would not go to heaven [correct], but we were not exactly sure how this would happen [okay, fair enough], given that we believed that they were not of the true faith. [correct again, they are not of the "true faith"] Because of this, we lived in a certain suspicion of other denominations and religions, secure in our own truth, ["own truth", as if truth is a function of the self] but cautious always about intermingling religiously with others, fearing that somehow what we believed might be watered-down or contaminated by religious contact with non-Roman Catholics.[the watering down of Catholicism has been in process for the last 40+ years, to which Rolheiser fails to emphasize]

And that was, and is, a good place to start from. I am deeply grateful for having such strong, conservative, religious roots. But [here we go...] a lot of things have changed for me since I was a young, idealistic, Roman Catholic boy growing up in an immigrant community on the Canadian prairies. [i.e. I rejected that rigid Catholicism of old, naively believed by those stupid, uneducated peasants.... Obviously, Rolheiser was suckered in the by the "spirit" of Vatican II, its liberalism and "openness" to everything without qualification, etc.] Early on in my seminary years, my professors, honest scholars (and mostly Roman Catholic priests), exposed me to some wonderful Anglican and Protestant biblical scholars and theologians whose insights and commitment deepened my understanding of Jesus and helped rivet me more firmly in my own religious life.[TH2 wonders: Who were these professors?]

Later on in my seminary years, I was joined in the classroom by men and women from various Christian denominations, all of whom were studying for ministry and all of whom had a deep commitment to Christ. Friendship with them and respect for their faith did not lead me to leave Roman Catholicism and join another denomination, [yet again - "another denomination"] but it did begin to reshape my thinking about what constitutes true faith and true religion. [To what degree were you reshaped?] It helped me, too, to realize that our commonality as Christians largely dwarfs our differences. [see how he so subtlety and effervescently waters down Catholicism into a pleasantly tasting soup slurry]

Since my ordination I have taught and ministered in various countries and in various universities and seminaries. [spreading "feel good" egalitarian religiosity] I have prayed with, shared faith with, lectured to, and become deep friends with men and women of every kind of denominational and religious persuasion: Anglicans, Episcopalians, Protestants, Evangelicals, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and sincere humanistic searchers.[what a jet setter, a man of the world, he's seen it all and knows it all] I have been nurtured deeply in both my faith and my spirituality by Anglican and Protestant thinkers such as C.S. Lewis, Paul Tillich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jim Wallis, Jurgen Moltmann [Marxist influenced Protestant theologian, liberation theology], and Alan Jones, among others. [notice how Rolheisher admixes C.S. Lewis, a good friend of Catholicism, with a radical like Moltman - because, of course, they are really the same, i.e. no religion is preponderant] Today, alongside my Roman Catholic community, among those who help anchor my religious commitment, soul mates [how quaint, in a New Age kind of way] in the faith, there are a good number of Anglicans, Episcopalians, Protestants, Evangelicals, and persons from various other religions. Their faith and friendship has helped me internalize something that Virginia Woolf [radical novelist, extremely troubled individual, darling of feminist dilettantes] once said: Why are we so hard on each other, she asked, when life is so difficult for all of us and when, in the end, we value the same things? She was speaking about the lack of empathy between the sexes, but she could just as easily have been speaking about the lack of empathy between different denominations and different religions. [But different religions/denominations DO NOT "value the same things". Pagans, ancient and modern, put high value on the earthiness, pleasure and power. Buddhism puts great value in its (useless) attempt to escape from suffering. Mohammedism places great value on violence against infidels. Are these the same as Catholicism? Are there no real differences? Rolheiser is romanticizing. Why? Because he lives in Liberal La La Land.]

This is not to suggest that all religions are equal or that all denominations within Christianity are equal paths to God.[the aforementioned betrays otherwise; notice also: "within Christianity", not Catholicism as distinct- remember he is a Catholic priest]. There is nothing parochial or narrow in believing that one's own church is the right one or in believing that belonging to a certain church is more than a matter of historical accident or simple ecclesial taste. Deep loyalty to the truth as one perceives [again: making the un-Catholic claim that truth is a function of what one thinks/senses, i.e. "as one perceives", not as extraneous] it is one mark of a genuine faith. [No, it is not. Rather, it is a telltale mark of a vulgar Kantianism.]

But this does suggest that we must be open to a new empathy towards those whose church is different than ours and to a wider understanding of what it means to belong to a particular denomination or religion. Sometimes we must repent too of our denominationalism.[see how he relentlessly pounds the idea of "our" Catholicism as a mere denomination, but now uses the term denominationalism, which specifically means narrow mindedness, sectarian and is - strictly speaking - a term belonging to Protestantism]

Perhaps what this suggests most of all is that we must be open to a deeper understanding of the ineffability of God and the humility that asks of us. I'm still a committed Roman Catholic, but [here comes the Catholic-diminishing qualifier...], like the Evangelist, John, I know now that Jesus has other sheep that are not of this fold. I'm glad for that, glad too for the words of the 14th century Persian poet, Hafiz: "Would you think it odd if Hafiz said, I am in love with every church, and mosque, and temple, and any kind of shrine because I know it is there that people say the different names of the one God?" ["We are the world... we are the children... Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya..."]

It all comes down to this for Ron Rolheisher: I'm OK, you're OK. Were really all the same in our beliefs. This is why, at his website, he presents himself as "Ron Rolheisher" and not (as it should be) "Father Ron Rolheiser". This is why he does not formally present himself in priestly garb. At core, he wants to equalize all religions and philosophies of life. As a Catholic priest, he does not want to be a sign to the world. Moreover, all this betrays a defiance in not wanting draw non-Catholics to the Holy Faith. Just typical liberal "talk" without action.

It is important to realize that nowhere in this column on "ecumenism", nor in other columns since October 20, 2009 - with the Anglican Ordinariate issuance - has Rolheiser commented on this great work of Christian unification effected by Pope Benedict (see his column archive here). Even more tellingly, unlike prominent Canadian Catholic priests such as Fr. Raymond de Sousa, Rolheiser has not - so far as I am aware - come out in defence of the Pope amid the recent priest sexual abuse scandal in Germany, nor has he castigated the lies and disinformation spewed by the New York Times.

• Rolheiser's silence speaks volumes.

• Rolheiser works in ever so subtle ways to diminish the singularity and truth that is Roman Catholicism. He is a borderline dweller.
  

• Rolheiser's writings and views are not to be trusted by Catholics.

RON ROLHEISER: ECUMENICAL EGALITARIANISM

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