Ron Rolheiser, OMI - Peddles a false Catholicism for his false religion of Feelgoodism

A few days ago, Ron Rolheiser's weekly column appeared again in Toronto's Catholic Register, a media outlet owned by the Archdiocese of Toronto. 

I'm all for freedom of the press which means that the State cannot interfere with a free press. The Catholic Register, however, has no business continuing to publish those things which fall outside of Catholic orthodoxy. It's Editors have once again failed the Catholics of Canada, as it is read nationally, and the Cardinal Archbishop who owns the paper as a Corporation Sole.

We've had Ron grace Vox previously. 

He has OMI after his name, however, since he refuses to wear his collar, we'll refuse to call him by his proper title. When he goes low, we go low too. 

Rolheiser's work also appears on his own webpage and reportedly, other Catholic news outlets. The Editor at the Register titled the article in question here, "Who are we to judge what is a sin." On Ron's page, he titles it, Orthodoxy, Sin and Heresy.

Let us first acknowledge the Catholic Register's foolish choice of title, let us not blame that on Ron, but on the Editor of the Catholic Register. 

"Who are we to judge what is a sin?" Asks the Register? 

We are Catholics, that is who we are and being Catholics we have every right, duty and obligation to judge what is and is not a sin ,and to govern our lives accordingly.

We cannot judge an individual person's soul but we can certainly judge what is a sin and what isn't a sin.  This is a cute little play on the words of Pope Francis, eh? "Who are we to judge?" Murder is a sin and abortion is murder. Stealing is a sin. Fornication, masturbation, watching pornography, sodomy, homosexual and lesbian behavior and its cultural fascism is a sin. Contraceptive chemicals and prophylactics are a sin. Suicide is a sin, as is aiding and abetting it under the doctor-assisted death. It is suicide for the individual and murder for those who did it. it is mortal sin. Mortal sins at that and one mortal sin can put a person in Hell. That is Catholic teaching, always was and always will be.

Ron explains how he entered a Cathedral for "Sunday Eucharist." Clearly, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a term that Ron's "theology" acknowledges. Ron continues then to berate the homily of the priest offering the Holy Mass, clearly a Catholic priest; he mocks him and what he told the people. Well, if it is good enough for Ron to pick apart that priest's homily, then it is good for us to pick apart, Ron's error. 

"The priest used the Gospel text where Jesus says “I am the vine and you are the branches” to tell the congregation that what Jesus is teaching here is that the Roman Catholic Church constitutes what is referred to as the branches and the way we link to those branches is through the Mass and if we miss Mass on a Sunday we are committing a mortal sin and should we die in that state we will go to hell.

Then, aware that what he was saying would be unpopular, he protested that the truth is often unpopular, but that what he just said is orthodox Catholic teaching and that anyone denying this is in heresy. It’s sad that this kind of thing is still being said in our churches."

Not enough for Ron to decry the traditional and true teaching, he then continues by actually undermining the Truth and misleading all by what he writes: 

"Does the Catholic Church really teach that missing Mass is a mortal sin and that if you die in that state you will go to hell? No, that’s not Catholic orthodoxy, though popular preaching and catechesis often suppose that it is, even as neither accepts the full consequences."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it quite clear in Part III, Life in Christ, Section II, The Ten Commandments, Chapter I, "You shall love the Lord your God, ..." 

You can read the whole section at the link, but here is the summary, (of course, you already know this.)

2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

2189 "Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Deut 5:12). "The seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord" (Ex 31:15).

2190 The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ.

2191 The Church celebrates the day of Christ's Resurrection on the "eighth day," Sunday, which is rightly called the Lord's Day (cf. SC 106).

2192 "Sunday . . . is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church" (CIC, can. 1246 § 1). "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass" (CIC, can. 1247).

2193 "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound . . . to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord's Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body" (CIC, can. 1247).

2194 The institution of Sunday helps all "to be allowed sufficient rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives" (GS 67 § 3).

2195 Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord's Day.

Shall we send Ron a Catechism? What is it that he does not get about, "Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin?"

Rolheiser deliberately contradicts the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

1033 “...To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice.  This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’.”

1874 “...This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible.  Unrepented, it brings eternal death.”

1035 “...Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell.…”

The rest of the article gets worse, particularly as he refers to a Catholic who died in an accident:

"Some years ago, I presided at the funeral of a young man, in his 20s, who had been killed in a car accident. In the months before his death he had for all practical purposes ceased practising his Catholicism. He had stopped going to church, was living with his girlfriend outside of marriage, and had not been sober when he died.

However, his family and the congregation who surrounded him at his burial knew him, and they knew that despite his ecclesial and moral carelessness he had a good heart, that he brought sunshine into a room and that he was a generous young man.

At the reception after the funeral, one of his aunts, who believed that missing Mass was a mortal sin that could condemn you to hell, approached me and said: “He had such a great heart and such a wonderful energy; if I were running the gates of Heaven, I would let him in.”"

The Prophet Ezekiel tells us what God thinks:

If the just man turn himself away from his justice and do iniquity … all his justices which he hath done shall not be remembered. (Ezekiel 18:20)

Sorry Auntie, you don't write the rules of heaven.

Readers here know what mortal sin is; but what about the Feelgoodism religion that Ron is preaching? What about this culpability?

Three conditions are necessary for mortal sin to exist: Grave Matter: The act itself is intrinsically evil and immoral. For example, murder, rape, incest, perjury, adultery, and so on are grave matter. Full Knowledge: The person must know that what they're doing or planning to do is evil and immoral.

Who is excused from that statement? The truly insane, perhaps. 

It is impossible to believe that a Catholic does not know that they must attend Mass on Sunday. Even with the bad catechesis from men such as Rolheiser, can we truly believe that people do not know that it is a sin? Perhaps though, Ron is right. Perhaps they don't. We've just come through the Christmas season when people suddenly remembered to attend Mass. Not out of love for Christ. Not out of the Truth, but out of sentimentalism. A sentimentalist and relativist mindset.

So, if Ron is correct; and most Catholics who die today are really not responsible for anything and will all be forgiven by God, because we're just so good nice; if this were remotely true, whose fault is it?

What responsibility does Ron Rolheiser, OMI, have for the fact that Catholics do not know what is and what is not a mortal sin? Do they know any more after reading his heterodox diatribe?

God said something else through the Prophet Ezekiel before that verse above that Ron, and many other clerics and all of us might consider heading:

16 And at the end of seven days the word of the Lord came to me, saying:

17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman to the house of Israel: and thou shalt hear the word out of my mouth, and shalt tell it them from me.

18 If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.

19 But if thou give warning to the wicked, and he be not converted from his wickedness, and from his evil way: he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul.

20 Moreover if the just man shall turn away from his justice, and shall commit iniquity: I will lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die, because thou hast not given him warning: he shall die in his sin, and his justices which he hath done, shall not be remembered: but I will require his blood at thy hand.

21 But if thou warn the just man, that the just may not sin, and he doth not sin: living he shall live, because thou hast warned him, and thou hast delivered thy soul.

Rolheiser's work is sad reading from a sad man. A man who has lost the faith and who has drunk from the cup of modernism and has succumbed to its poison. A man whose work is truly "straw" unlike the Angelic Doctor who would not recognize truth in Ron's work.  

He may wish to ponder what the Holy Prophet has said and given the choice between Ezekiel and Rolheiser, I won't be taking Rolheiser's advise any time soon.

"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."

The New Theological Movement

Will I really go to Hell for one mortal sin?

EWTN

Mortal vs. venial sins

New Advent

Nature of Sin

UPDATE: 

Through his "assistant" here is Ron Rolheiser's response:

1.     What I said in the article needs to be said because many Catholics are not clear on the church’s actual teaching on both missing mass and on mortal sin:

·       Missing mass is a serious and grave thing, but one can ever, from the outside, say it is a mortal sin. That is orthodox Catholic teaching.

·       Mortal sin, and all sin, can never be judged from the outside, it is a thing of conscience, between God and that person. That too is classical Catholic moral theology.

2.     The article does not trivialize either the seriousness of missing mass or of having sex outside of marriage. In a properly, fully formed conscience these would be grave matter; but many people (not least many of our own children) often approach very serious things in a careless, irresponsible manner. That isn’t a judgment on the seriousness of the matter, but on their immaturity. We can be very careless, calloused, and mindless before serious things, and often are. That doesn’t diminish their seriousness, but speaks of what Thomas Aquinas called “invincible, non-culpable ignorance” on our part.

3.     Some persons object that this column confuses people and sends a bad signal to young people (who need clear moral teachings). I admit the danger here and agree that young people need clear moral guidance. But I risk this column nonetheless for two reasons:

i.               We need to give clear moral teaching to our young, but it needs to be accurate moral teaching. Over-simplistic, not-properly-nuanced, thinking can, I agree, frighten some into different behavior, but we are still sending them a false message. We simply may not be that black and white in naming mortal sin, particularly if we want be consistent about its consequences. 

ii.              To say someone has committed a mortal sin says too that, should he or she die in that condition, he or she would go to hell for all eternity. That’s what the word “mortal” means here. Everything we believe about God and all that’s best in us won’t let us draw out that conclusion. Millions of good people die in this state (having missed mass many times and having had sex outside of marriage, without having confessed either of them) and we cannot consign them to hell. It goes against most everything Jesus incarnated and taught.

4.     I wrote this column precisely to help free up many people who worry that some of their loved ones, children, relatives, friends, died and went to hell because they missed mass or had sex outside of marriage and then died, suddenly or otherwise, in a way that didn’t leave them either the opportunity or aptitude for explicit confession or repentance. We need to accept more fully what Jesus taught about God’s understanding and mercy. Where do we see Jesus lay down these kinds of hard, categorical kinds of statements about “mortal” sin? In deciding what is really confused here we might well ask ourselves: Where would Jesus land on this? 

I am sorry if what I have written upsets or confuses some people, but what we have often been casually teaching about missing mass and mortal sin has also confused and upset many people, many of whom have left the church precisely because of this kind of teaching – which, in its unrefined expression, does no honor to either Jesus or the Roman Catholic Church. Both need to be freed from this kind judgment.