At the conference I explained to another attendee that I did not think Rohr should call his "male spirituality" Catholic. This individual responded that I was being too rigid in my interpretation of Catholicism, that Rohr just has a very "broad" sense of what it means to be Catholic. To which I posed this situation in reply: Imagine that you, a Cajun, traveled to some state in the Midwest and went to a restaurant advertising that it sold "Cajun food" and you ordered a bowl of gumbo. But what was brought out to you was a bowl of watery soup with a few pieces of steak floating in it. Would you call that authentic "Cajun food"? Of course not. No Cajun in his right mind would. Then why would you be more dogmatic in your approach to food than in your approach to your faith?
I think I have heard Fr. Sibley using that comparison before, but I still love it.
Fr. Sibley critique of Fr. Rohr is quite good and it seems that Fr. Rohr has fallen into the same mistake of others. That the example of a good father in someone’s life means that they will thus be totally unresponsive to God as father. Scott Hahn ran into this same concept where he was asked to tone down his speaking of God as father when speaking to kids from broken families. The opposite is what is true is that when we lack this example of earthly fatherhood that we need to see the perfection on which it is based.