In a critique of Rohr, Fr. Bryce Sibley writes that Rohr asserts that God is neither male nor female, supports the mission of homosexual advocacy groups, asserts that the Crucifixion of Jesus was not necessary for the redemption of mankind, and criticizes Catholic rituals for a lack of efficacy.
Sibley, Rev. Bryce (2006). "The Fr. Richard Rohr Phenomenon". New Oxford Review. Retrieved April 7, 2013.
The following is from the spiritualdirection.com site Rebecca posted a link to:
What Fr. Rohr teaches is gravely in error. Unfortunately, he has been a prolific author, allowing him to spread these errors quite widely.
The CAC [founded by Fr. Rohr] was a well-known hub for the Churchs premier dissent group in the U.S., better known as Call to Action (endorses womens ordination, homosexuality, goddess worship, etc.).
Fr. Rohr has also been a long-time teacher of the Enneagram, an enormously popular New Age gimmick used for discerning ones personality type. A specific warning against the use of the Enneagram for spiritual direction is included in the pontifical document, Jesus Christ, the Bearer of the Water of Life.
Another area where he is heavily involved is in the Emerging Church Movement, which consists of a diverse group of people who identify with Christianity but think its beliefs and teachings need to be updated to better conform to modern society (read compromise the faith).Fr. Rohr also has a weak understanding of original sin, Fr. Sibley said, noting that without a proper understanding of Original Sin, Christ is reduced to nothing more than a prophet who teaches us to love ourselves, and this is unfortunately who Rohrs Christ turns out to be.
Read more: rcspiritualdirection.com
David, many of the statements you made regarding Fr. Rohr are things you have no way of knowing, one way or the other: " I think his heart's in the right place", "ultimately, he is a good man", " I applaud his love, compassion" (I will give you that he does appear to be consistent, not that that is a good thing in this case), "not perfect, but working on it", "He has done much good but also caused some harm" These are the types of judgements that are left to God, because only God is capable of judging them. And for our purposes, they don't matter.
What does matter is how Fr. Rohr's teachings compare to the objective truth's taught by the Magisterium of the Church On this criteria he is not close at all. How this will ultimately affect his eternal salvation, we do not know; but what we do know is that no Catholic should be embracing these teachings. While some of his teachings may be in accordance with the Faith, due to the numerous grave errors in his teachings and his obstinate adherence to these errors, it would be seriously imprudent for any Catholic to attempt to use him or his teachings for spiritual direction or development: if one has the knowledge to sort the wheat from the chaff, there would be no need to do sol if one does not, there is serious risk of being led into grave error.
Sounds par for the course. This sort of thing is very dated. It's redolent of the era of confusion immediately following the close of the Second Vatican Council. Many of the people who fell for this are/were well-intentioned, but they went way too far off the path. Our pastor used to say that "novelty is the vice of the clergy". All we can do is pray. Thankfully, this sort of thing is rapidly fading into the past. We have weathered the worst of the storm. peter's boat will never sink.