Comments on: Discussing Oprah and Tolle http://www.catechistsjourney.org/2008/05/09/discussing-oprah-and-tolle/ Joe Paprocki Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:31:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Joe http://www.catechistsjourney.org/2008/05/09/discussing-oprah-and-tolle/#comment-44200 Joe Thu, 15 May 2008 02:17:19 +0000 http://www.catechistsjourney.org/2008/05/09/discussing-oprah-and-tolle/#comment-44200 William, thanks for your comments. Fr. Rohr is often accused of bordering on Pantheism. I like Fr. Rohr but I didn't say anything about promoting his approach to spirituality in our catechesis. On the contrary, I was warning about his approach which, for the average Catholic, can be very misleading and confusing. I can like somebody and still find fault with some of the things they say. I like Richard Rohr a lot but I don't agree with everything he says. I like Ghandi a lot too. I like a lot of Hindus. That doesn't mean that I equate Hindu spirituality with Catholic spirituality. As for recognizing the oneness of everything, don't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that it must be equated with everything. Saint Ignatius of Loyola spoke eloquently about "finding God in all things." This does not mean equating God with the world but recognizing that all of creation reflects the grandeur of God. It's important to pay attention to these nuances. The realm of spirituality is not so "black and white" and "cut and dry." Much of our language, when talking about spirituality, borders on poetic, not scientific. William, thanks for your comments. Fr. Rohr is often accused of bordering on Pantheism. I like Fr. Rohr but I didn’t say anything about promoting his approach to spirituality in our catechesis. On the contrary, I was warning about his approach which, for the average Catholic, can be very misleading and confusing. I can like somebody and still find fault with some of the things they say. I like Richard Rohr a lot but I don’t agree with everything he says. I like Ghandi a lot too. I like a lot of Hindus. That doesn’t mean that I equate Hindu spirituality with Catholic spirituality. As for recognizing the oneness of everything, don’t be so quick to jump to the conclusion that it must be equated with everything. Saint Ignatius of Loyola spoke eloquently about “finding God in all things.” This does not mean equating God with the world but recognizing that all of creation reflects the grandeur of God. It’s important to pay attention to these nuances. The realm of spirituality is not so “black and white” and “cut and dry.” Much of our language, when talking about spirituality, borders on poetic, not scientific.

]]> By: William O'Leary http://www.catechistsjourney.org/2008/05/09/discussing-oprah-and-tolle/#comment-43951 William O'Leary Wed, 14 May 2008 16:53:08 +0000 http://www.catechistsjourney.org/2008/05/09/discussing-oprah-and-tolle/#comment-43951 Dear Joe, As I read your blog I am concerned as a Catholic and as a catechst to hear you articulate Fr. Rohr's spirituality as seeing the "oneness of everything". My concern is that this seems to be very close to the philisophical idea of Pantheism. Pantheism as defined by the Catholic Encyclopedia is as follows: "the view according to which God and the world are one. The name pantheist was introduced by John Toland (1670-1722) in his "Socinianism truly Stated" (1705), while pantheism was first used by his opponent Fay in "Defensio Religionis" (1709). Toland published his "Pantheisticon" in 1732. The doctrine itself goes back to the early Indian philosophy; it appears during the course of history in a great variety of forms, and it enters into or draws support from so many other systems that, as Professor Flint says ("Antitheistic Theories", 334), "there is probably no pure pantheism". Taken in the strictest sense, i.e. as identifying God and the world, Pantheism is simply Atheism." I'm not sure if Fr. Rohr's ideas are pantheistic, but the way you describe his spirituality and connecting his depth to Ghandi (a hindu) is problematic when speak of Catholic Spirituality. Sincerely in Christ, William Dear Joe,

As I read your blog I am concerned as a Catholic and as a catechst to hear you articulate Fr. Rohr’s spirituality as seeing the “oneness of everything”. My concern is that this seems to be very close to the philisophical idea of Pantheism. Pantheism as defined by the Catholic Encyclopedia is as follows: “the view according to which God and the world are one. The name pantheist was introduced by John Toland (1670-1722) in his “Socinianism truly Stated” (1705), while pantheism was first used by his opponent Fay in “Defensio Religionis” (1709). Toland published his “Pantheisticon” in 1732. The doctrine itself goes back to the early Indian philosophy; it appears during the course of history in a great variety of forms, and it enters into or draws support from so many other systems that, as Professor Flint says (”Antitheistic Theories”, 334), “there is probably no pure pantheism”. Taken in the strictest sense, i.e. as identifying God and the world, Pantheism is simply Atheism.”

I’m not sure if Fr. Rohr’s ideas are pantheistic, but the way you describe his spirituality and connecting his depth to Ghandi (a hindu) is problematic when speak of Catholic Spirituality.

Sincerely in Christ,
William

]]> By: Joe http://www.catechistsjourney.org/2008/05/09/discussing-oprah-and-tolle/#comment-43229 Joe Mon, 12 May 2008 14:04:51 +0000 http://www.catechistsjourney.org/2008/05/09/discussing-oprah-and-tolle/#comment-43229 Maura, thanks so much for your comments. It hits the nail on the head as far as what I wanted to say about Rohr's article. So much so that I am pasting your comments into my post today to speak for me! Thanks! Maura, thanks so much for your comments. It hits the nail on the head as far as what I wanted to say about Rohr’s article. So much so that I am pasting your comments into my post today to speak for me! Thanks!

]]> By: Maura http://www.catechistsjourney.org/2008/05/09/discussing-oprah-and-tolle/#comment-43218 Maura Mon, 12 May 2008 11:37:14 +0000 http://www.catechistsjourney.org/2008/05/09/discussing-oprah-and-tolle/#comment-43218 Joe After reading both your article and the Rohr article on Tolle I had just a few thoughts. I believe I tend to agree with your concern about Tolle's popular appeal among those without "mature" faith. 1 thing from the Richard Rhor article that I found particularly troubling was his quote that "He (Tolle) is teaching process not doctrine or dogma." How hollow and empty to have a process without connecting to a specific meaning. It seems to me that the 2 simply can not be separated. The Sacramental vision that is at the very foundation of our Catholic Christianity does not just call us to recognize generic value in our daily experience. It calls us to recognize that our lives have meaning because of the presence of a God who loves us and wishes to have a personal relationship with us thru the world around us. Is our goal as Christians to be "“low maintenance” people who can relax and enjoy life" or to engage the world, by seeking to know and be known by the God who loves us? I believe that "processes" that are an end unto themselves and do not guide us along our journey toward a personal relationship with God are not worthy of our time and attention and can infact distract us from the development of our faith. While great mystics may have found value in simular processes ultimately their process was never abstracted from their purpose of Communion with God. Peace Maura Joe
After reading both your article and the Rohr article on Tolle I had just a few thoughts.
I believe I tend to agree with your concern about Tolle’s popular appeal among those without “mature” faith.

1 thing from the Richard Rhor article that I found particularly troubling was his quote that “He (Tolle) is teaching process not doctrine or dogma.” How hollow and empty to have a process without connecting to a specific meaning. It seems to me that the 2 simply can not be separated. The Sacramental vision that is at the very foundation of our Catholic Christianity does not just call us to recognize generic value in our daily experience. It calls us to recognize that our lives have meaning because of the presence of a God who loves us and wishes to have a personal relationship with us thru the world around us.

Is our goal as Christians to be ““low maintenance” people who can relax and enjoy life” or to engage the world, by seeking to know and be known by the God who loves us?

I believe that “processes” that are an end unto themselves and do not guide us along our journey toward a personal relationship with God are not worthy of our time and attention and can infact distract us from the development of our faith. While great mystics may have found value in simular processes ultimately their process was never abstracted from their purpose of Communion with God.

Peace
Maura

]]>