Bishop Barron, the Postconciliar Church

Bishop Robert Barron was formerly from Los Angeles, and is now in the Diocese Of Winona–Rochester. He modeled his Word on Fire mediaapostolate on Ven. Fulton Sheen was Archbishop Fulton Sheen who used radio and television to reach a wider audience. This has proved to be a success. Bishop Barron has a substantial following on social media and garnered upwards of 100 million views on YouTube.

With that popularity came scrutiny from the hierarchy, Catholic media and criticism from all sides. Liberals aren’t happy that the bishop calls for “wokeness”, which is considered a fair approximation to Catholic social teaching. The conservatives don’t like his occasionally extravagant exegesis. His support of Cardinal Ratzinger’s continuity hermeneutic is not appreciated by the trads.

Sometimes, being criticised from every side is proof that you are doing something right. Sometimes, however, this can mean you are doing something wrong. At least when compared to other American prelates I believe Bishop Barron has been an American Catholicism force for good.

The popular but much-maligned head of Word on Fire found himself in hot water after sitting down for an interview with Fox News’s Timothy Nerozzi, in which he made the following remarks about the state of the Church after Second Vatican Council:

“The [C]hurch was often reduced to ethics and more precisely, to social justice. There was nothing wrong with social justice or ethics, but there was an element of reductionism. The doctrinal aspect was often underplayed… It was like giving in to a very relativistic culture. That’s been an issue for quite some time. “

Liberal Catholics predicted that Bishop Barron would discount the importance of social justice and ethics. The New Testament verses attributed to Bishop Barron were cited by the Liberal Catholics.

But Barron is right. In the eyes of priests, prelates and theologians as well as laymen, the Church was “often reduced” to social justice and ethics in the aftermath of the Council. Some quarters felt that the emphasis on the “horizontal” aspect of human dignity and “modern man’s virtues had the result of decreasing the faith’s “vertical” component. Properly understood, the horizontal and vertical are inseparable–we love our neighbor because we love God. In the years following the Council, the two weren’t always displayed as such.

In fact, what some American prelates since the Council have done is “sociologize” the Gospel–taken its radical calls to charity and simplicity, which make demands on individuals as well as the social order, and reframed it as a series of abstractions: “structures” and “systems” and Medicaid reimbursement rates and marginal tax rates. It seemed that the gospel demands can be satisfied by voting to increase taxes on neighbors. The proceeds will fund social programs for the needy. What would Christ have thought if the young, wealthy ruler had, instead of selling all his belongings, pledged to support the Roman tax system’s expansion?

While the progressives have unfairly criticised Bishop Barron’s argument, I believe his theology is involved in those postconciliar trends that he laments.

The bishop believes in Hans Urs von Balthasar’s belief that there is “reasonable chance” that all people are saved. Both Bathasar and Barron are not universalists. They don’t believe that universal salvation can be guaranteed. Bishop Barron uses the term “reasonable”, but not in a probabilistic sense. He means that we can have faith in universal salvation.

While we don’t know the identities of those in Hell and we would be well advised to pray that our fellow citizens escape hell, there are few grounds for believing that Hell will ever end. The bishop certainly has heard this argument, but read the conclusion of Matthew 25, Christ’s parable of the Last Judgment, often cited by Democratic politicians who have otherwise never read the Bible:

Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. You gave me nothing to eat, but I was starving. You didn’t take me in, I was naked and you didn’t cover me: you kept me in jail and sick, but you never visited me. They will then answer him by saying, “Lord, when have we seen you hungry or thirsty? Or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and didn’t minister to thee?” He will then answer them by saying, “Amen, I say to thee, so long as it did not happen to any of these little ones, nor did you do it for me.”

These will be punished forever, but those who are just and true to their word will live for ever.

Those who fail to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, welcome the stranger, visit the sick and the prisoner will be damned. They will not pass go, they will not collect $200; no appeal to the hopes of 20th-century theologians will suffice. They will go into “everlasting Punishment” as quickly and certain as the Lord orders. This is an exterior dark place where you will hear a lot of gnashing and crying.

Subscribe Today

Get weekly emails in your inbox

Bishop Barron frequently suggests that his critics feel secure about their salvation, and enjoy the idea of other people’s damnation. While I do not think this is a valid argument, I can tell you that I have no assurance that my salvation is secure and that there is an insignificant chance I will end up being damned. It is my prayer that not only I will avoid this terrible fate, but also that it be avoided by all of my fellow men.

But Hell exists and people will die there. The Gospel’s demands become mere suggestions if you don’t face this reality. As the Bishop said, you will be “granting in” to “very relativistic cultures” which seek to exonerate the gospel’s hard truths.

The bishop also says that the massa damnata view of many Church Fathers–the idea that the great mass of humanity will be lost–is no longer “effective” in evangelizing in the modern world. It may be true. It doesn’t matter if it is effective. True or false, it doesn’t matter.