David Rubin Interview with Bishop Barron

[Amppax]

It seems PhuturePriest is busy being a seminarian, or something, and hasn't done his due diligence as our resident Fr. Barron groupie.

Anyway, the good bishop recently did an interview with David Rubin, who has an interesting youtube channel (The Rubin Report). One of the things Rubin does is interview people of all different types and opinions, mostly on political matters. However, he recently did a two part interview with Bishop Barron, which has generated some controversy: 

Specifically, his comments regarding gay marriage. Fr. Barron posted a quick post on Facebook regarding the controversy (which FP did share on Facebook, so I guess he's not totally shirking his duties). Here's what Bishop Barron said: 

Quote

Friends, after reading a few comments, I know there's been some confusion about one of my answers during the "Rubin Report" interview. Of course, during any long, unscripted interview there will be things you wish you could have said more clearly, and perhaps this was one of them.

So to clarify: I don't support same-sex marriage. My heart and mind are united on that, and there's no confusion. I clearly stated my opposition to it even as a married gay man sat directly in front of me.

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.

Again, please don’t misunderstand me: God impinges upon all aspects of life and therefore 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.

My aim in the "Rubin Report" interview was to show its secular viewers that there is a lot more to Christianity than the “pelvic issues.”

Here is a link to the his longer article addressing these issues: https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/dave-rubin-the-pelvic-issues-and-larry-david/5384/

[Nihil Obstat]

I have not had time yet to inform myself fully on this interview... At the moment I am feeling some reservations about the way Bishop Barron has expressed himself. This will somewhat depend on the specifics of what he said, so I need to at least listen to the interview before I say more.

[Amppax]

14 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I have not had time yet to inform myself fully on this interview... At the moment I am feeling some reservations about the way Bishop Barron has expressed himself. This will somewhat depend on the specifics of what he said, so I need to at least listen to the interview before I say more.

I haven't finished the interview either. He walks back his statements somewhat in what he's written since, it seems. Still not entirely sure if I agree with him, but I'll have to come back to this after I've had a chance to listen to the interviews. 

Take a look at Barron's article. He says some interesting things there. Plus, you can read it a lot faster than you can listen to the hour long interview. 

Edited February 2, 2017 by Amppax

[Guest]

I think Bishop Barron has been reflecting on Pope Francis as well as Pope Benedict.   We are loosing if not already lost our political clout of the past.  We are making a major investment in futility.  Will we, can we, ever regain that clout is debatable.

5 hours ago, Amppax said:

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.

Formatting above is mine. 

As a person in a glass house chucking stones............  Reflecting on the above, it is an underscoring that we in the Laity who are primarily involved in secular matters need to give witness to The Gospel and we just might need to personally consider new ways...........we also need direly education in how to go about evangelising in the current climate in society.  I would absolutely embrace more education if I could afford it - and it is very expensive, including Catholic education.  I am trying to be quite overt about Jesus and HIs Gospel about Church teaching, aware that it is going to be a hit and miss matter for me.  I might have success at times and I might have failure.  However, I intend to hang in there regardless if God's Will is on my side "they have persecuted Me and they will persecute you" is in effect now in an obvious and overt way (in my book) in the secular section of society - if we do stand up for Jesus and His Gospel, for His Church, without holding back for some humanly logical reason - and forging ahead when it seems safe to oneself to do so.  What I should say and underscore is that that has been in the past my path.  Love = risk.

Being a psychiatric patient and having obtained in the past my Public Mental Health file under Freedom of Information, I know what has been written about me.  I used to care and to a degree I guess I still do, but I am working on it to not care at all and just forge ahead praying to be unafraid of what is said about me or written about me no matter who is doing it.  Our time here is short, limited, our eternity is forever.

I know a totally faithful Catholic woman in every way - an admirable Catholic woman.  However, her investment is totally in mystical type revelations and she regularly sends them to me.  If I quote the CCC or Scripture including The Gospel, she is most often unfamiliar with it - and unwilling to reflect on it let alone embrace it.  Not only that, but her thinking is affected, even forged, to a very large degree by what she is reading on the internet without any reference whatsoever to the source she might be embracing and quoting.  We not only have a problem out in the secular world, we have problems within The Church too and it is a problem of education.  Probably for most of us out here in the pews, the only human type education we get is the 5min (if that) Sunday homily, although there is a supernatural or another level to those 5mins or so if I am invested in listening an hearing the homily.

It is can be a very difficult time to be Catholic in an overt manner.

None of the above is cause for doomsday predictions, nor any level of despair, Jesus promises to be with us to the end of our own age or journey here, as well as the overall journey of The Church Militant's journey to "the end of the age".  One just needs to plod on prayerfully and doing what one can, what one thinks is rightful for oneself......and one can confidently leave the rest to Jesus, striving to not let failure, criticism even ridicule and detraction discourage totally......rather to expect it as an intrinsic part of the journey, work through it - and walk on.........and to rejoice and give thanks in success.  "All is Grace" St Therese of Lisieux.  Also, in the Doctrine of Divine Providence, The Good God knows what He is about in all things great and small, negative and positive.

¹¹(Matthew Chapter 28) "Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, ¹² and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. ¹³ And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

[Nihil Obstat]

Yeah, I remain somewhat concerned and somewhat troubled by his excellency's statements. I will simply refer to what Pope St. John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger's CDF reiterated in 2003. Emphasis mine.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Where the government's policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

 

The continuity between this document and Bishop Barron's interview is somewhat strained.

[PhuturePriest]

10 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Yeah, I remain somewhat concerned and somewhat troubled by his excellency's statements. I will simply refer to what Pope St. John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger's CDF reiterated in 2003. Emphasis mine.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Where the government's policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

 

The continuity between this document and Bishop Barron's interview is somewhat strained.

But there isn't necessarily a rupture of continuity. Bishop Barron never said it should *remain* law, but rather that, given the present situation, we will most effectively oppose it through education and personal witness. He made it clear he doesn't agree with it being law or remaining so, at least so far as I read it.

To go back to what I said last night, I think we're just too used to being a majority who gets it way legally, and we're not understanding we are not just a growing minority, but a hated and mocked one. We are discredited, ignored, and despised. Pushing laws in that type of environment will only lead to temporary wins at best. We have to win hearts on a personal basis before we can win legal cases.

The early Christians didn't change the Roman Empire by picketing and pushing through legislation -- they did it through evangelization on a personal basis. As their numbers grew, the public opinion on matters such as gladiators and abortion also changed, and the laws consequently changed with them.

I guess I just think this backlash against his words is by those who are vainly grasping on to laws which they see as an affirmation that they are doing their job, when they are in fact being called to more. We unfortunately have to work harder and in different means than we did in the '50s.

There, Amppax, is that better?

[dUSt]

I think Bishop Barron did an excellent job of explaining the gay marriage issue to a secular (and probably hostile) audience.

His point is one that I make often. Yes, we want gay marriage to be illegal, but we also want divorce to be illegal. We also want multiple marriages to be illegal. We also want adultery to be illegal. We also want masturbation to be illegal.

In the current environment, attempting to make most of those things illegal would be utterly futile, a waste of time, and used as an excuse to pit many against the Church. The Church would be better off changing the hearts and minds of people, with the intent of eventually influencing society. I think what His Excellency was illustrating is the possibility of gay marriage tinkering on the edge of now being in that category.

So yes, we are against gay marriage, but at this point, let's leave the legal stuff up to the government, and have the Church focus on hearts and minds.

The only answer I was somewhat underwhelmed by was his answer of WHY gay marriage should be illegal--other than the moral reasons. He started to touch on how marriage was a building block of society, but I don't think he gave enough "secular" reasons why marriage should remain between a man and woman.

[Jubilate Deo]

The part I think Bishop Barron nailed was when he said we need to make sure that LGBT people hear, "You are a beloved child of God." Too many LGBT people think that the Church is a bunch of gay haters or something, when the opposite is true; we love the LGBT people, so much so that we will tell them that their lifestyle is going to bring them sadness and is ultimately dangerous to their immortal soul.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

But there isn't necessarily a rupture of continuity. Bishop Barron never said it should *remain* law, but rather that, given the present situation, we will most effectively oppose it through education and personal witness. He made it clear he doesn't agree with it being law or remaining so, at least so far as I read it.

To go back to what I said last night, I think we're just too used to being a majority who gets it way legally, and we're not understanding we are not just a growing minority, but a hated and mocked one. We are discredited, ignored, and despised. Pushing laws in that type of environment will only lead to temporary wins at best. We have to win hearts on a personal basis before we can win legal cases.

The early Christians didn't change the Roman Empire by picketing and pushing through legislation -- they did it through evangelization on a personal basis. As their numbers grew, the public opinion on matters such as gladiators and abortion also changed, and the laws consequently changed with them.

I guess I just think this backlash against his words is by those who are vainly grasping on to laws which they see as an affirmation that they are doing their job, when they are in fact being called to more. We unfortunately have to work harder and in different means than we did in the '50s.

There, Amppax, is that better?

[Amppax]

Something this interview has made me think about more broadly is something that I don't think we as Christians would readily acknowledge very often. Rubin touched on it in one of his questions, but I think Bishop Barron didn't really address it. Namely, this: is it possible to spiritually (or supernaturally) be in a bad place; and yet be naturally happy? I think the converse is certainly true, especially when it comes to situations of mental or physical illness. Namely, that someone can be suffering tremendously, yet in union with God. 

The reason I bring this up is that I have several friends who are actively homosexual, but before embracing that lifestyle were attempting to live devout Catholic lives. Both continue to try to reconcile their Christian/Catholic faith with their lifestyle. One thing, however, which I can't really dispute is that they are, mentally, much healthier now than they were previously. Both were suicidal, and severely depressed; yet since renouncing their faith (if not actually, at least in deed) both are, on a natural level, much happier. Now, I think the happiness that they are enjoying is shallow, and obviously is not one that can satisfy. However, it seems impossible to say that on a natural level, they aren't in a better place, even if the place they are ultimately heading isn't a good one. I think that's what Rubin was alluding to when he asked Bishop Barron if he thought it was possible for someone who was seeking to be justified in going from inside the church to outside. And I'm not necessarily satisfied with how Bishop Barron answered the question.