Thoughts on Bishop Barron/Ben Shapiro interview

  • Thread starter Thread starter lagerald24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lagerald24

Guest
Has anyone seen the new Ben Shapiro interview with Bishop Barron? If so, what did you think of it? Several people have been critical of his statements, esp. regarding salvation outside the church.
 
It does raise some logical questions, but as far as I remember, his response was pretty close to what the Catechism says.
 
His response in-re salvation outside the Catholic Church is exactly what is taught in the Catechism and Vatican II. I suggest reading the pertinent texts and ignoring the commentators.
 

Posted again, I don’t know why it did not come out earlier.
 
Well, (in the part that I watched) Bp. Barron forgot to mention the obligation that everyone has to become catholic, which I believe is kind of important. Bp. Barron’s apostolate is about evangelization, isn’t it? This would have been the perfect opportunity to…evangelize!

The Jews already asked St. Peter this question which Shapiro asks Bp. Barron. What was St. Peter’s response?
37 Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? 38 But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
semper_catholicus said:
Well, (in the part that I watched) Bp. Barron forgot to mention the obligation that everyone has to become catholic, which I believe is kind of important. Bp. Barron’s apostolate is about evangelization, isn’t it? This would have been the perfect opportunity to…evangelize!
Click to expand...
The issue of the obligation on the part of everyone to become Catholic is rather complex to get across in sound bites, and I don’t blame Bishop Barron for not bringing up a complicated subtle teaching which is also easily alienating to those who don’t understand the entire logical progression leading to it.

ETA: I say this as someone who is still disturbed by his comments on the possibility of Hell’s being empty ):
 
Last edited:
Yes, I am disturbed by his comments on the possibility of Hell being empty as well.

I would disagree that it’s the most complex part of the whole thing. It is the most important part of the whole thing, and of anything must be said, it is that. It is a great act of charity to insist ardently that there is no salvation outside the church.
 
I said it was rather complex, not the “most.”

Other than that, you’d have to take this up with the Bishop. That’s simply my opinion of why he omitted that.
 
Even though the subject of Hell possibly being empty isn’t the main thrust of this thread, I think it worthwhile to mention that Bishop Barron (and several other saints and orthodox theologians) mention this theory as a possibility, not a necessity. Bishop Barron relies greatly only Hans Urs von Balthasar for this theory. Von Balthasar’s theology can be more-or-less summed up: “Since the Church has never dogmatically declared any one particular soul to be in Hell, then Christian charity demands that we hope (hope, mind you, not presume) that Hell is empty of human persons.” That being said, the Church always holds before us the possibility of eternal damnation.

It’s interesting to note that this line of thought existed among many of the orthodox early Church Fathers as well (including St. Gregory of Nyssa).

In my experience, when conversing with others on this topic most folks fail to make the distinction between hope and presumption. Just because we hope that Hell is empty doesn’t mean that we ought to presume that it is.
 
Those who are most in danger of going to Hell are those who did not believe in its existence. - St Alphonsus de Ligouri
 
He may not be denying Catholic doctrine but this is a dangerous attitude to take.
 
Dangerous how? Truly knowing myself better than I do others, I hope not to be the only one in hell, that it be empty. Through God’s grace, may it be so. To believe that Hell cannot be empty is to invite comparisons that others are more sinful than oneself. Spiritual pride may be the clincher that keeps us from God.
 
Last edited:
It is dangerous in the sense that it I believe that assertion to be false. This is close to saying that it does not exist for if it is empty then it may not exist as far as we are concerned. This leads to a false confidence that will allow people to be loose with their consciences and leads teh way to an unfavorable judgement at the time of their death, either a much longer time in Purgatory or the loss of their souls for all eternity.
 
But that is not the teaching itself. Aloysium summarized it quite well. As per Scripture, the choice between life and death, heaven and hell, is held before us always. The possibility of us choosing eternal damnation is always there, just as the possibility of us choosing eternal life is always there.

But, as Aloysium pointed out, there is a danger in inviting comparisons with others we presume are more sinful than ourselves (not to mention that such comparisons are totally against the mystical tradition of the Church). Such “spiritual pride” was called a sickness by some in the early Church, and was thought of as almost worse than remaining outside the Faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top