A wolf in shepherd’s clothing

I’m going to get myself in trouble, because I know a lot of people like the writings of the guy I’m getting ready to lambast. But, a friend of mine passed along an article by Fr. Ron Rolheiser that is so insidiously wrong. It’s called, pleasantly enough, “Binding and Loosing.”

Great, I thought, I’m going to get insights on what how Our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Penance. But, what I read, instead, was gnostic tripe that could imperil an unsuspecting reader. I’m going to quote at length to try to be as fair as possible to Fr. Rolheiser.

Gabriel Marcel once said: “To love someone is to say to that person, you at least will not die!”

He’s right. To cherish another person is to give him or her a meaning and permanence that accident and death cannot take away. But there’s a deeper meaning, too: To love someone is to hold a place in heaven for him or her. What’s meant by that? It sounds fanciful.

This idea is present inside the Christian scriptures, but it’s also something we intuit in our hearts. Like Job, without the benefit of a belief in life after death but still knowing in his gut that ultimately love triumphs, we too know in the recesses of our hearts that love’s bonds are salvific. In the end, we won’t be separated from our loved ones, even if we walk different paths in life, except if the other positively chooses to be separated. We make places for each other in heaven through love.

There are some implicit assumptions here that are troublesome. Most importantly, it appears that he is assuming the salvation of himself and his readers. “We won’t be separated from our loved ones, even if we walk different paths in life, except if the other positively chooses to be separated.” So, if I read this correctly, if I love someone and that love is reciprocated, we’re both saved. Come now, Fr. Rolheiser. Even the pagans love those who love them. He almost covers himself by the caveat that the object of our love can reject it, but just because God is love does not mean that love divinizes. If that were the case, then the only people who would be unsaved are those who cut themselves off from the love of other people. That’s ludicrous.

What does this mean?

Jesus said: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Too often we understand this simplistically, taking it to mean that Jesus placed special power inside Scripture, the sacraments and the institutional church. True. But there’s more.

Any time I see the word “simplistic” associated with “understanding,” it raises a red flag, particularly when written by a progressive. He then cements my concern by saying, “True. But there’s more.” So, he’s accepting the traditional understanding? I’d hope so, but there appears to be a difference in our understanding of the word “true.” In the immortal words of Fezzig, “You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Let’s see what he means:

At another level, in saying that we can bind and loose, Jesus is saying what Gabriel Marcel is saying, namely, that to love another person is to assure him or her a place (if he or she wants it) in heaven. How does this work?

When Jesus walked the roads of Palestine for three years, a wondrous grace came to all who touched him. To touch Jesus, in love and sincerity, was to be healed, converted, made to walk upright, made to hear, and made to praise God. It also gave that person a place inside the community of life. To touch Jesus or to be touched by him was salvation.

To love a person is to assure him a place, if he wants it, in heaven. Not sure about that.

But Jesus didn’t take this grace away when he ascended. He left it with the community of believers, the community of the sincere, which is now his body on earth, In fact he promised that we, his body, could do “even greater things” than he did.

And his body is not just the historical church in its Scriptures, sacraments, church gatherings, institutional structures and hierarchy. Rather, all of us together, and each one of us individually, make up the body of Christ on earth. Therefore when we touch someone or someone touches us in love and sincerity, if we are inside the community of faith and sincerity, that other person is touching the body of Christ just as surely as people at the time of Jesus were able to touch him.

No, no, no! Yes, those in a state of grace, those in union with the Church, make up the Body of Christ. But, we cannot save people just by loving them, even if that love is reciprocated.

We are the body of Christ on earth and, like Jesus, have the power to bind and loose. Among other things, this means that when our loved ones (spouses, children, family, friends, colleagues) no longer walk the path of explicit faith and church with us, we can connect them to the faith, the church, the body of Christ, and heaven itself simply by remaining bonded with them in love and community. By being connected with us, they are connected to the church (since we are the church). Moreover, when we forgive them anything, including their non-church going, they are forgiven by the church and forgiven too, Jesus assures us, in heaven.

It gets worse. We do not have the power to bind and loose. I guess my understanding is too “simplistic,” but that power was delegated to the Apostles, their successors, and those to whom they gave it (priests). We cannot connect anyone to the Church simply by loving them or forgiving them. Catholic teaching is quite adamant that we must be baptized and in a state of grace in order to be saved. That is quite a distance from simply being in a loving relationship with another person.

One of the marvels of the Incarnation is that, if we want, our heaven will include our loved ones. In 1995, when Quebec was holding a referendum to decide whether or not to remain part of Canada, a popular slogan across Canada read: “My Canada includes Quebec!”

We can say the same thing about our loved ones, even when they don’t go to church with us: “My heaven includes my children, my spouse, this particular friend!” Heaven will back that up. That’s Jesus’ promise.

What?!? So, if I desire it, my atheist friends can be in heaven with me since I love them and they love me? What, then, is the point of conversion? What, then, is the point of other people being Christian? It seems to me that Fr. Rolheiser is making Catholicism into an individualistic religion that only matters for me, and heaven is a solipsistic fantasy that includes my family because they matter to me.

Partly this is mystical; partly it’s simply the dynamics of love and family. What binds us together as family is much deeper and wider than simply who is at table with us on a given Sunday.

Ah, another classic hedge. “Mystical.” If we want to hold two truths that are in conflict (not in paradox, but in contradiction, mind you), then one of them is “mystical,” especially the one that we’re not sure is true but darn it, we want it to be.

That’s one side of the equation, the church side, but this also works the other way: Sometimes we, the church-goers (with our own moral and spiritual blind spots), are held inside the body of Christ, the community of the sincere, by those who love us (and don’t go to church with us), but who are at God’s table in some areas where we are not.

This is just loony. I guess it fits with his “logic” that those who are outside the Body but love us save us. But, it certainly isn’t orthodox.

This idea is so wild and wonderful that it’s hard to believe. It’s always been this way. It’s not easy to believe that heaven is as accessible as the nearest water tap, or the nearest friend.

Yeah, it’s hard to believe, because it’s heresy.

When Pope Pius XII was giving the instruction for his Encyclical on the Body of Christ, Mystici Corporis, he told educators and preachers: “When you are teaching about the Body of Christ, don’t be afraid to exaggerate, because it is impossible to exaggerate so great a mystery!”

What an apt description of the Incarnation!

And, I love the quoting of a nicely traditional pope on an unrelated matter, and turning gnosticism into “Incarnation.” It’s tailor made to slip under the radar. But, I hope this little fisking has brought its deficiencies clearly into view.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “A wolf in shepherd’s clothing”


  1. 1 pritcher May 7, 2007 at 10:15 pm

    Fr. Rolheiser’s writings have been very helpful to me many times. But this idea of his–which I’ve seen him write about in other places–has always struck me as just odd (and wrong, of course). Even some of my less-seriously-Catholic friends read this and immediately smelled something fishy.


  1. 1 live stripper shows Trackback on March 19, 2017 at 8:18 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





%d bloggers like this: