Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Fracture and Power
Bishop Barron argues that totalitarian governments of the past century resulted from lack of unity in truth. To the extent that people lose interest in objective truth and prefer isolated fantasies for their own pleasures or ease, government replaces truth as the unifying authority. Control of government becomes a contest of self-interested wills rather than a contest of arguments.
Barron continues by discussing the power of one person’s public devotion to truth for inviting honest witness from others. With each firm profession of shared reality, more people find confidence and courage to live in accordance with truth.
Recently, I have heard a variety of theologians refer to the “divine simplicity” of God. An honest person is a complex person, yet easy to understand and follow because everything that one represents is plainly available. Ask and receive.
That, among other virtues, is what people need today: simplicity. Speak truth for love of truth, without bitterness or anxiety. Live in truth because it is the proper way, trusting that any harsh consequences will be turned toward the good by God. The world is chaotic. We need not be so.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
Bishop Barron is a media genius. And he works like a beaver. He seems to be everywhere. He sticks with the tradition but comes across as open and friendly. He loves Bob Dylan’s music. He reads Flannery O’Connor. (He sells a tee shirt with her remark to Mary McCarthy, “Well, if its just symbolism, to hell with it.”) His videos have really first rate production values. And he has done his homework. In short, he is using social media to reach out to the doubters without dumbing down the teaching.
Republicans could learn a lot from him. Are we not famous for giving up on whole constituencies? For managing to come accross as mean spirited or stiff necked? For approaching policy from the negative side (what to stop, not what to build)?
My email is flooded with Republican appeals for money. There are only two messages ever: We are gaining, send money. We are losing badly and America is over, send money. Absolutely nothing of any interest in the body of the email. Never an attempt to explain just who this “we” is and what “we” stand for beyond platitudes and abstractions.
The first rule: Don’t Be Boring.
Yeah, sorry…I’m not a Bishop Barron fan boy. He’s promoted the idea that Hell is empty. He’s a political animal kowtowing to a reckless, socialist, and dishonest pope. He’s admitted he’s not holy enough to perform exorcisms and who for some strange reason seems to have a lot of priest body-builder friends. He fancies himself as the successor to Fulton J. Sheen but he isn’t in his league. Yes, occasionally he says something intelligent but be careful where you place your admiration or devotion.
I understand you guys are having some trouble in the Papal department and could use a new Pope.
I nominate Bishop Barron.
Thanks, Brian. This is thought provoking. I should have known there would be controversy. Anything involving Catholicism is bound to be fraught with it. And any clergyman on TV who sells books and things and asks for money is going to be a political animal.
I listened to some of the video you linked. I used to listen to Dr. Taylor Marshall’s podcast but found it a bit too dogmatic for my taste. When I get the chance I will check out the rest of his j’accuse. He is good at it. And I think his warnings are useful and bracing.
As for bodybuilders–I did see a video about an amazing guy (much handsomer before he got tatted up), a champion weightlifter with an MA in English Literature who realized that bodybuilding was not THE answer. He credited Word on Fire and the Bishop’s talks with helping him find (re-find?) God. He is now working for Word On Fire. Any champion bodybuilder has a LOT of self-discipline, so the bishop was shrewd to hire him, I think. I don’t know about other bodybuilders in his orbit–or much care.
As for hell being empty, who knows? Do you? I recently learned that according to the Church, the Virgin Mary herself gave us a prayer which asks Jesus to “lead all souls into heaven, especially those who most need Thy mercy.” Since any soul that turns to God for mercy even a split second before death is saved (at least so said the Xaverian Brothers in my Catholic high school) I don’t know how Dr. Maxwell can be so sure, even about Judas. Maybe at the last instant he asked for Mercy.
I like what Barron says and I like what he is doing. That doesn’t make me a fanboy. There are no heroes; we’re all flawed humans with strengths and weaknesses. I never expect to agree with anyone all the time–especially not about Catholic dogma. Popes don’t always agree with each other so why should I hold anyone to some standard of mine own before admiring his obvious good points?
Still and all, your warning is timely and thought-provoking.
Ouch. Should I retract my Papal nomination?
Let’s just say that in traditional Catholic circles Barron is not highly thought of. He is a rising star in Francis’ pontificate primarily because he is an effective communicator and doesn’t rock Francis’ boat – so kudos for his eloquence and his team’s studio skills…and half the time, what he says is interesting.
Unfortunately, the current pontificate has been and continues to be plagued with scandals and many of them of Bergoglio’s own making. And through all of it, Barron was very quiet while other prelates – bishops and cardinals here and abroad – voiced their concerns and outright objections to many of the Pope’s actions, pronouncements, like his veneration of the pagan idol, Pachamama, his courting and embrace of Communist China, his elevation of prelates to the Curia who he knew were sexual predators – McCarrick, Zanchetta, his appointment of Coccopalmerio to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (that office of the Curia that investigates allegations of sexual misconduct and predation and other crimes against the Church) who subsequently hosted a drug-fueled gay orgy in the Vatican where numerous arrests were made by the Italian police; and the Pope’s defamation and falsehoods about Archbishop Vigano – to name just a few.
Yes, it’s wonderful that Barron warns about the dangers of totalitarianism – but other thinkers and lecturers like Jordan Peterson or Stephen Hicks have done more in-depth and scholarly work on this front.
I’ll let the article in this link speak for itself.
King David was a pretty flawed character, as were St Paul and St Augustine. Heck, even St Peter denied Christ a few times. Let’s welcome truth wherever we find it.
I think Bishop Barron is mistaken on a few things, not least of which is his persistent notion that the Democrat party has the better take on some actions. So I comment on his videos. I debate.
Flawed, yes. But Bishop Barron has done a great deal to promote orthodoxy, not a cafeteria Catholicism. He’s one of the good guys. At the very least, his reflections offer good food for thought.
Well, there’s always little old me: Baptist, no great fan of the current Pope, no team, no studio, no skills, interesting probably at least 49% of the time, and sometimes Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, and Aquinas!
But also–thanks for the information on Barron. I sure hope I remember some of this.
I’d prefer Cardinal Sarah. But I pray for the present pope.
I disagree that Barron has done a great deal to promote orthodoxy and I could call up dozens of articles to show that he has not and in fact in some cases has done grave harm to the Church – including what is set forth in the link in Comment #7. I will leave it at that. If you want to publish a Ricochet post on how Barron has done a great deal to promote Catholic orthodoxy, have at it. I’m moving on.
Nigerian chap, wasn’t he? Yes, I dig.
And good grief, yes–pray for the Pope.
It didn’t speak at all. Looks like a broken link.
But I may not have time to read it if you get it fixed.
Forgive me. Try this:
https://catholiccitizens.org/news/93135/bp-barron-hit-with-massive-backlash-after-praising-pro-lgbt-fr-james-martin/
[Facepalm.]
The headline says a lot all by itself.
Eh, not every bishop can be Ratzinger or Wojtila. I find much of what Bishop Barron imparts to be worthy of consideration and often admiration. He leads much of his evangelization with beauty (Beauty), which I appreciate. But, he has a couple weak spots, although nothing as heretical or nonsensical as Cardinal Cupich, for example. He is way more visible than the others, though, due to his media presence. His books are too intellectual for me, but I’m glad he isn’t “dumbing down the faith.” He strongly opposes that.
If the College of Cardinals was inclined to elevate an American bishop, my nominee would be Archbishop Chaput. I know other R> Catholics favor Strickland, but I’ve long been an admirer of Chaput and I’ve heard him speak (once in-person at my parish on SSM) courageous truths. Cardinal Burke would also be great, but I’m afraid he’s too old and wouldn’t last long.
But, my first choice would be either Cardinal Sarah or Cardinal Arinze — both Africans and both courageous truth-tellers.
Listen to me. As if I have a vote. Ha! God will provide. Jesus, I trust in you.
Thanks for reminding me: One of the Catholics in my latest book talks about Barron!
You have a line to the One in charge. He got me my current job. He can get you a good Pope.
I applied the personal rule I learned from my dad and later figured out it was from a work in the mid 19th century by Edgar Allen Poe, “Believe nothing you hear, and only one-half that you see.” I monitored the results of using it over the years and it’s uncanny how often it saves time. In this case, I stopped listening to Marshall as he seemed to be all in the what-you-hear category. Life is too short.
I watched Bishop Barron two times endeavoring to follow his thinking. At least it was his thinking which mostly falls in the what-you-see category. I figure you can see and consider ideas and decide if they have merit. I thought he squeezed roughly 90 seconds’ worth of knowledge into 10 minutes. Sorry to report, he did not gain a subscriber.
To the subject at hand, I think Bishop Barron offered some useful thinking. Truth is the enemy of control freaks. People want to believe something and if you remove their options, they will believe the best one left. If they have more than one and neither option is all that good, they choose sides and fight. Sound familiar? I think part of the allure and maybe the other thing the Bishop was getting at is a weary people could decide life might be easier if they just give up control. After all, they/him/her promised to solve their ills and provide all they need.
There are many people that don’t know who to believe, their beliefs are shallow and quite frankly they have no lasting hope. “Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die.”
That is not Bp Barron’s view- better to listen to what he actually says rather than a critics mischaracterization:
https://www.wordonfire.org/hope/
https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/is-hell-crowded-or-empty-a-catholic-perspective/22323/
Addendum- a good summary:
https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/what-is-hopeful-universalism
I agree we can hope- but I wouldn’t bet any money on it….
Unfortunately, the Pope has accepted ArBp Chaput’s mandatory retirement letter( the letter is mandatory not the acceptance) and will not get the red hat (BTW the 1st ArBp of Philly not to get the red hat in a long time). He also would’ve been the 1st Native American Cardinal.
I LOLed. Reminds me of my pastor, except it’s more like 5 out of 30 minutes. . .
People have no meaning in their lives — nothing except avoidance of pain and pursuit of pleasure. Instead they end up with existential misery. I see it in the kids as they walk away from the local high school every day. This is what happens when you have no God, but many lesser gods (gaming and porn, to name just two). Heartbreaking.
But, I think Bishop Barron is right that “self-definition” is the curse we’re living under. It’s had other names like “radical individualism” or “identity politics,” but it’s all grounded in post-modern denial of objective truth — or what religion calls “Truth.” And it’s tragic-funny that “objective” suggests “widely agreed upon.” Our current dispersion of opinion into individual silos of self-defined “truth” almost seems like a strategy deployed by the Scatterer (Satan), if you believe in that sort of thing. . .
And I stopped listening to Taylor Marshall because of his dripping condescension toward the Novus Ordo mass and those of us who attend it. Life is too short for that, too.
Generally speaking, given a choice between someone who speaks joyfully with conviction or someone who speaks bitterly with constant displeasure, the joyful warrior will attract more regular listeners.
Many great saints expressed righteous anger and criticism, but few if any were habitually sour. “This peace I give you,” says the Lord.
Some Catholic commentators on YouTube and other media are intelligent and informed but not very Christ-like in presentation. Without charity, analysis is incomplete.
Thanks.
He did not praise Father James Martin’s whole ministry there, but rather endorsed a book Fr Martin wrote specifically on prayer. It would be unremarkable if Fr Martin is so grossly in error in the advocacy that made him infamous yet can speak faithfully on other subjects.
I think it’s a mischaracterization to infer that Marshall or any number of more traditional Catholic thinkers, writers, or commentators speak with constant displeasure and aren’t joyful warriors. And I’m sorry but speaking the truth about the many of the vile aspects of the current pontificate is meant to point out the obvious and what should be said especially for Catholics who can’t muster up any sense of concern about them…not what should be said in more general or vague terms with the aim of getting more listeners in a slick and polished presentation.
Re: Barron and his talk in the OP more specifically – I find some of his observations on how young people claim a self-actualized identity also to be an incomplete understanding of developing minds and how they are continually distracted and sometimes manipulated through adolescence and into young adulthood – because they have never been taught to think critically to even make the claims that he says they make. I believe that Peterson, Hicks, even David Horowitz have a much better understanding of the ways in which young people can be manipulated and their thinking warped, and who begin to act more like sheep than strident self-actualized individuals that Barron claims many of them are. I saw a good deal of this when I was in college many moons ago, of students that bought into sloganeering rather than rational discourse or students too lazy or too distracted to even grasp that what a professor might be telling them is crap.
Of course, a debate with Barron and other more traditional Catholic commentators would be most welcome to see how he stands up.
Nope. Exceeding the standard set by Pope Francis will be easy.
Bishop Barron’s comment about not be holy enough to perform an Exorcism is theologically incoherent. A Bishop has the duty and responsibility by the virtue of his office to be an Exorcist.
Canon 1172 specifically — only those priests who receive permission from their bishops can perform an exorcism after proper training. Bishops automatically have the right to perform an exorcism and can share that authority with other priests.
Bishops today just don’t understand their role in the teaching and practice of the Faith. It is residual of the heresy of Americanism: The Bishop as a CEO not a Prophet, Priest and King.
This is merely a broken clock is correct at least twice a day argument. In endorsing Martin’s work, Barron endorses his activist LGBT ministry. Here is what Archbishop Vigano has said about James Martin:
Wasn’t “each person’s questionable and variable subjective self-perception” something that Barron mentioned in the video in the OP?
Incoherent and troubling. Performing exorcisms certainly isn’t for the faint of heart but Barron doesn’t say he’s not up to the task because he has a heart condition or high blood pressure but because he is “not holy enough”…what does that mean and what are Catholics to make of that?
This is Father Barron opining in 2011 on the occupancy rate of hell. He has modified his opinion frequently even in this video and his ambivalence is clear at the end of his commentary by agreeing with the very questionable and weird theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar. Giving a choice between Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas and all of Catholic Tradition and psychologically disturbed Swiss cult member. Most of humanity is on a hell bound trajectory.