Controversial Interview with Bishop Robert Barron

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moneyball
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Moneyball

Guest
Bishop Robert Barron was a guest on The Rubin Report (I like the show myself) and at one point he said he wouldn’t push too hard to reverse the redefinition of marriage. His statement raised some eyebrows and also some backlash:

lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-barron-tells-gay-interviewer-i-wouldnt-press-to-reverse-gay-marriage

For those of you interested, here’s the two part interview. The host by the way is “gay”, “married”, and an atheist democrat.

youtube.com/watch?v=bphyucResSY

youtube.com/watch?v=OYWBNMOCrlo
 
I’m sure there will be enough people who lambaste Bishop Barron but I get where he’s coming from. Certainly his efforts at evangelization focus on many different aspects of the Church and he has spoken about all of the deadly sins in talks broadcast on EWTN.
“What I question is the prudence and wisdom of pursuing the opposition to gay marriage right now through legislation. I believe that, given the present climate, it is best to oppose it through personal witness and education.”
Click to expand...
Barron wrote that “placing our sex lives under the Lordship of Jesus matters. But I fear that for so many people in the secular world today, religion is reduced to the policing of sexual behavior, and this is massively unfortunate.”
Click to expand...
I think the issue is though that if the Church’s teachings about sexuality are completely ignored then people can get the impression that they are completely optional, that they can join the Church for the “smells and bells” and continue in sexual sin.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
I’m sure there will be enough people who lambaste Bishop Barron but I get where he’s coming from. Certainly his efforts at evangelization focus on many different aspects of the Church and he has spoken about all of the deadly sins in talks broadcast on EWTN.
Click to expand...
People were saying SSM would “destroy” marriage but the reality is that if the concept of marriage had not been so weakened by abc and no-fault divorce, SSM would have been as unthinkable in the 21st century as it was at any time before 1950 or so.
I think the issue is though that if the Church’s teachings about sexuality are completely ignored then people can get the impression that they are completely optional, that they can join the Church for the “smells and bells” and continue in sexual sin.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, they already are being ignored and have been for over 50 years 😦

But the reality is that the Church can resume educating about sexuality *and *tolerate SSM, ie without agitating for the return to a previous situation.

(I say this as someone who is very unhappy with Bishop Barron’s statements on Hell, too.)
 
🍿

And the bashing of clergy in a passive-aggressive fashion continues.

I may not agree with Bishop Barron on this one, but I respect his office, and under all that verbiage, there was a half-decent point being made. To go against gay marriage isn’t enough unless one goes back and wages a (spiritual) war on the sexual revolution in toto. Gay marriage is simply a terminal symptom of the sickness that is “free love” and “free sex” (which are actually slavery to sin and do not make anyone “free” at all.) 😦
 
St_Francis said:
People were saying SSM would “destroy” marriage but the reality is that if the concept of marriage had not been so weakened by abc and no-fault divorce, SSM would have been as unthinkable in the 21st century as it was at any time before 1950 or so.

Unfortunately, they already are being ignored and have been for over 50 years 😦

But the reality is that the Church can resume educating about sexuality *and *tolerate SSM, ie without agitating for the return to a previous situation.

(I say this as someone who is very unhappy with Bishop Barron’s statements on Hell, too.)
Click to expand...
Well, SSM was unthinkable back then, mainly because most people viewed it in the same light we view pedophiles today…disgusting and wrong, to the point of being criminal.

It is only acceptable and even encouraged today due to many years of ‘social conditioning’ and desensitizing.
 
RPRPsych said:
🍿

And the bashing of clergy in a passive-aggressive fashion continues.

I may not agree with Bishop Barron on this one, but I respect his office, and under all that verbiage, there was a half-decent point being made. To go against gay marriage isn’t enough unless one goes back and wages a (spiritual) war on the sexual revolution in toto. Gay marriage is simply a terminal symptom of the sickness that is “free love” and “free sex” (which are actually slavery to sin and do not make anyone “free” at all.) 😦
Click to expand...
I was surprised to see the number of very aggressive comments directed towards Bishop Barron in the comment section of the lifesite article. It’s one thing to disagree with his evangelistic approach, but some comments were a little over the top. The man has done far more for the Church than probably most of people attacking him.

It’s a good interview though, Dave Rubin is a very fair interviewer.
 
I watch Dave Rubin a lot.

I will make sure to watch this interview.
 
Either SSM is wrong and catholics are committed to reverse it or catholics are not committed to reverse it because it is not wrong. It can’t be both ways.
Morover, catholics who coherently act against SSM are no more violent against gays than gays who support SSM are violent against catholics.
I appreciated bishop Barron in many of his speaches, but in this interview , his answers make no sense at all. I tell it with all possible respect of his person and role.
 
Moneyball said:
I was surprised to see the number of very aggressive comments directed towards Bishop Barron in the comment section of the lifesite article. It’s one thing to disagree with his evangelistic approach, but some comments were a little over the top. The man has done far more for the Church than probably most of people attacking him.

It’s a good interview though, Dave Rubin is a very fair interviewer.
Click to expand...
LifeSite News has come to remind me of nothing so much as the Red Guard movement in China during the 1960’s - feverish denunciations and over-the-top rhetoric for perceived straying from their definition of orthodoxy.
 
62peppe said:
Either SSM is wrong and catholics are committed to reverse it or catholics are not committed to reverse it because it is not wrong. It can’t be both ways.
Morover, catholics who coherently act against SSM are no more violent against gays than gays who support SSM are violent against catholics.
I appreciated bishop Barron in many of his speaches, but in this interview , his answers make no sense at all. I tell it with all possible respect of his person and role.
Click to expand...
So would you say “either ABC is wrong and catholics are committed to reverse it or catholics are not committed to reverse it because it is not wrong.”

I’ve never heard any Catholic priest or lay apologist suggest that Catholics should be trying to use the legal process to stop ABC. Because the chance of success is so low in this climate that it’s better to convert people’s hearts and minds about the topic.

I think Bishop Barron approaches the topic of SSM in the same way. Since even Trump has stated he is not going to challenge the status quo on SSM and I don’t think he personally cares much about abortion, though I do give him credit for sticking to his unspoken deal with religious conservatives about supporting that cause.
 
Does this discussion belong in the Popular Media forum? I would expect to find something like this either under News, or Moral Theology or perhaps Social Justice.
 
62peppe said:
Either SSM is wrong and catholics are committed to reverse it or catholics are not committed to reverse it because it is not wrong. It can’t be both ways.
Morover, catholics who coherently act against SSM are no more violent against gays than gays who support SSM are violent against catholics.
I appreciated bishop Barron in many of his speaches, but in this interview , his answers make no sense at all. I tell it with all possible respect of his person and role.
Click to expand...
Bishop Barron didn’t say that he didn’t want SSM to be illegal. He said he doesn’t think it prudent pursue it at this time.

While I pray that I see the day that SSM is gone, I doubt it will ever happen. Unlike abortion, where even atheists can be convinced it is evil; SSM is harder to convince without society relearning what marriage is really about.

As long as society doesn’t see anything wrong with fornication, divorce, homosexual acts, etc… There will never be the political will to remove SSM.

The Catholic Church in America needs to pick her battles. We MUST continue to teach how SSM is sinful, just like fornication, homosexual acts, divorce, birth control, etc; but I don’t think we can wage a lobbyist war against SSM when the people like Hillary Clinton is pushing for more abortion, euthanasia, birth control in public schools, schools encouraging homosexual behavior, and the war on religious freedom.

Waging a lobbyist war regarding SSM will hurt our lobbyist wars on abortion, euthanasia, morally safe public schools, school choice and religious freedom.

The best way to stop SSM is to stop fonication, stop divorse, stop abortion, stop pornography, and fill the pews with people again.

I pray this helps.
 
62peppe said:
Either SSM is wrong and catholics are committed to reverse it or catholics are not committed to reverse it because it is not wrong. It can’t be both ways.
Morover, catholics who coherently act against SSM are no more violent against gays than gays who support SSM are violent against catholics.
I appreciated bishop Barron in many of his speaches, but in this interview , his answers make no sense at all. I tell it with all possible respect of his person and role.
Click to expand...
Hello,

I think yours is a fair and measured response. There is no reason why anyone must agree with every prudential judgment of Bishop Barron (or anyone else, for that matter). You can even disagree with this or that point of theological/philosophical speculation.

What I wish I would see is not necessarily less disagreement (in comboxes and elsewhere) but less of this “you’re wrong about this and I don’t respect you anymore and am done with listening to you” style of response.

Do we agree with everything our spouse or parent or child or friend says? No. Nevertheless, we don’t respond with “you’re wrong and I don’t respect you and your opinion anymore.”

Some seem to do that with priests, bishops, popes, etc., and that’s wrong.

Dan
 
Moneyball said:
Bishop Robert Barron was a guest on The Rubin Report (I like the show myself) and at one point he said he wouldn’t push too hard to reverse the redefinition of marriage. His statement raised some eyebrows and also some backlash:

lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-barron-tells-gay-interviewer-i-wouldnt-press-to-reverse-gay-marriage

For those of you interested, here’s the two part interview. The host by the way is “gay”, “married”, and an atheist democrat.

youtube.com/watch?v=bphyucResSY

youtube.com/watch?v=OYWBNMOCrlo
Click to expand...
Bishop Barron didn’t say anything wrong, per se, in regards to Catholic teaching on the matter. He is just speaking on his own prudential judgement in regards to how he thinks we should go forward on the matter.

And it just so happens that many Catholics, including myself, disagree with his prudential judgement.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
Since even Trump has stated he is not going to challenge the status quo on SSM and I don’t think he personally cares much about abortion, though I do give him credit for sticking to his unspoken deal with religious conservatives about supporting that cause.
Click to expand...
As an FYI - I actually believe Trump does care about abortion. Reason: Trump talks about a “friend” who wanted his wife to have an abortion. He goes on to say that he knows this kid and that he can’t imagine the world with out him (I’m paraphrasing).

Well, I do t believe there was a “friend.” I believe he may have actually been talking about himself in regards to Barron Trump.

I think Trump became Pro Life because he realized what a mistake it would have been to abort his own child and then realized how terrible it truly is.

The reason I mention this is because the Abortion issue and SSM issue are not directly linked. There are even gay groups who are pro-life, and more growing now that they realized that for every aborted baby, there is one less child to adopt.

While these issues are related for Catholics (legalization of sin) they are not remotely related for secularists, non-Christians, and athiests.

In order to win the world for Christ, we have to do it the same way the early Christians did against the Roman Empire - through our example. Only by truly living according to the field and in accordance with Catholic teaching, will we be able to open minds and soften hearts.

God Bless
 
phil19034 said:
…
Well, I do t believe there was a “friend.” I believe he may have actually been talking about himself in regards to Barron Trump.

…
Click to expand...
Maybe I need some more caffeine. At first, I thought “Barron Trump” was a mistaken combination of Bishop Barron and Donald Trump. Then, I remembered that that is the name of the president’s son… 🙂

Dan
 
phil19034 said:
As an FYI - I actually believe Trump does care about abortion. Reason: Trump talks about a “friend” who wanted his wife to have an abortion. He goes on to say that he knows this kid and that he can’t imagine the world with out him (I’m paraphrasing).

Well, I do t believe there was a “friend.” I believe he may have actually been talking about himself in regards to Barron Trump.

I think Trump became Pro Life because he realized what a mistake it would have been to abort his own child and then realized how terrible it truly is.
Click to expand...
That is certainly plausible and I’m not ruling out Trump having a genuine conversion on this issue.

Although I’m not sure why Trump would even have wanted his wife to have an abortion since it’s not like he didn’t have money to support the child, if he thought it would cramp his lifestyle he could have hired a whole army of nannies to care for the child.

But certainly the pro-abortion culture could have tempted him to push for abortion even to avoid a relatively miniscule inconvenience.

I guess I’ve grown cynical from seeing politicians mostly convert from pro-life to pro-choice and having their sycophants crow about how this shows “growth” although there is an obvious political benefit to the change.
The reason I mention this is because the Abortion issue and SSM issue are not directly linked. There are even gay groups who are pro-life, and more growing now that they realized that for every aborted baby, there is one less child to adopt.
Click to expand...
I realize this, and while I’m not a fan of Milo from Breitbart (won’t even try to spell his surname) it is interesting how left-wingers apparently don’t count him as a “real gay” due to his pro-life stance.
 
St_Francis said:
People were saying SSM would “destroy” marriage but the reality is that if the concept of marriage had not been so weakened by abc and no-fault divorce, SSM would have been as unthinkable in the 21st century as it was at any time before 1950 or so.
Click to expand...
I agree. Since marriage has been weakened, SSM is simply the natural aftermath.

Personally, I find SSM to be an overblown non-issue. What difference does it make if a few thousand gay people want to marry, assuming neo-liberals don’t use it as means to persecute religious beliefs. High divorce rates and the disintegration of the family is a far more pressing issue.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
That is certainly plausible and I’m not ruling out Trump having a genuine conversion on this issue.

Although I’m not sure why Trump would even have wanted his wife to have an abortion since it’s not like he didn’t have money to support the child, if he thought it would cramp his lifestyle he could have hired a whole army of nannies to care for the child.

But certainly the pro-abortion culture could have tempted him to push for abortion even to avoid a relatively miniscule inconvenience.

I guess I’ve grown cynical from seeing politicians mostly convert from pro-life to pro-choice and having their sycophants crow about how this shows “growth” although there is an obvious political benefit to the change.

I realize this, and while I’m not a fan of Milo from Breitbart (won’t even try to spell his surname) it is interesting how left-wingers apparently don’t count him as a “real gay” due to his pro-life stance.
Click to expand...
Of course not. And pro-life and/or conservative women are not “real women” to feminists (and have been brainwashed to boot!), and African-Americans who stray in their thoughts… “oreos.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top