Fr. Robert Barron Brings the Common Sense, Faith, and Hope

Fr. Robert Barron Brings the Common Sense, Faith, and Hope July 10, 2015

to the SCOTUS decision:

So what do we do? We continue to put forth our point of view winsomely, invitingly, and non-violently, loving our opponents and reaching out to those with whom we disagree. As St. John Paul II said, the Church always proposes, never imposes. And we take a deep breath, preparing for what could be some aggression from the secular society, but we take courage from a great cloud of witnesses who have gone before us. The Church has faced this sort of thing before—and we’re still standing.

"So you inherently object to Shakespeare's ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA or JULIUS CAESAR or RICHARD III ..."

Trailer for a new biopic about ..."
"I've not heard the radio drama, but the BBC, in general, seems to have a ..."

Trailer for a new biopic about ..."
""It will be boon to humanity when the boomers dies off."In case you haven't noticed ..."

Dear Prolife Suckers
"I'll generally try any new food I see, but I've not had camel so far. ..."

Simcha Fisher Has a Great Idea

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Michaelus

    Hmmm… Pius VI had an army as did his successors. Many Frenchmen stood up and fought with actual guns against the Jacobins. I wonder what things would be like if instead they wrote polite letters and cooperated with evil people who told them Jesus would have also worshiped the Goddess of Reason.

    • Joe

      Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Not sure if I understand you. Are you saying that Father Barron is said “cooperate with evil people” in their evil actions? Where did he say that? He said we should love “our opponents” and reach out “to those with whom we disagree”. Didn’t Jesus tell us to “love our enemies” (Matthew 5:44)? Didn’t Jesus reach out to those who disagreed with Him? Isn’t this what the Apostles and early Christians did? If someone doesn’t understand who Jesus really is, isn’t it our job to explain to them why they are mistaken? Isn’t this what St. Paul did? Maybe I am misunderstanding you. I would appreciate your feedback. Thanks.

      • Irksome1

        Perhaps Michaelus has a point. For over a thousand years, the Church invited the errant back into her good graces with a threat of death. The heretic’s error was explained to him at the point of the executioner’s sword. One may aver that the Church was, largely, not directly responsible for the majority of of such responses but it’s undeniable that such things were carried out with her tacit approval. The fact is that in days past, violence and coercion were necessary tools in the Church’s apologetical mission. It is incumbent upon those who say we ought to lay them aside now to explain why.

        • Alma Peregrina

          “The fact is that in days past, violence and coercion were necessary tools in the Church’s apologetical mission.”

          And in days past before those, the Church’s apologetical mission never involved violence or coercion, but evangelizing to the point of martyrdom.

          Before we lay those strategies aside in favor of more modern approaches, like those of the medieval and renaissance Church, it would be incumbent of those who approve of violence and coercion to explain why.

          • Irksome1

            I’m not sure I see your point. The Church, at her inception, did not have the means to properly evangelize with the sword. As soon as she obtained those means, she did. I’m not sure any lesson can be gleaned from that other than that we make the best use of the gifts God provides.

            • K. Lundquist

              I object to the phrase “properly evangelize with the sword”. The only possible context I can see for such a concept is a just, defensive war. Not buying the idea that the burden of proof is on those who insist on nonviolence.

            • Artevelde

              ”For he, through compulsion, provided the tools to end all human suffering and for humanity to unite under the banner of the Church”

            • Sue Korlan

              I think you are mistaken about this. The Church generally did not evangelize with the sword. Catholic emperors usually exiled those with whom they disagreed. Athanasius was exiled by various emperors 5 times. That was not the action of the Church but of the state.

        • Michaelus

          um…no..this has nothing to do with the fact that secular leaders used to execute heretics.

        • Willard

          Umm it’s called Dignitatis Humane from the Second Vatican Council.

        • Sue Korlan

          Actually, that is generally untrue. The first heretic executed for his beliefs was Priscillian, who was killed by the emperor Maximus, who had promised St. Martin of Tours that he would not shed any of Priscillian’s blood. When Martin left Priscillian and some of his followers were executed. One notes whose side the Church was on by who got canonized. Even long after that, heretics were not generally executed. For example, in the 11th century Berengarius proposed that the Eucharist was not the physical presence of Jesus. After the first 3 recantations he made he went back to preaching and writing against the real presence. After the 5th he was ordered to live in what was basically house arrest until he died a natural death as a faithful Catholic. In the 13th century, the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor agreed that anyone convicted of heresy by the Church would be turned over to the government for execution. If Berengarius had lived after this time, he would have been executed after his first relapse.

      • Michaelus

        What will you do when your next door neighbor has to sell his home at a huge loss after being sued by homosexuals for refusing to rent them space for a sodomy party? Try to crowdfund to help him? Feel really sorry for the fellow?

        We are cooperating with evil people. Paying tuition to Fordham University seems pretty close to formal cooperation at this point – except that we justify it by saying that we are not specifically supporting the insane man who runs their theology department.

        My point is that Fr. Barron’s examples are incorrect. There is no historical precedent. The Jacobins had to exterminate us because we really were a danger to them. The people who rule us today know they can get us to shut up by telling us the “judge not” – and having most of us agree – even after they were the ones who got an actual powerful legal judgement.

    • Alma Peregrina

      The Jacobins and other antichristian agressors at the time used not only reason, but weapons as well. And the Church replied not only with weapons, but also with reason (i.e. apologetics).

      The heretics of this time use (at least for now) a twisted sense of what Love is. A diferent modus operandi, rooted in love, is completely justified.

  • Christ would have exorcised those who made this decision. We would have needed a whole stockyard full of pigs.

  • Doyle

    Innovation, creativity and using the licit tools that modern technology creates is the way to fight back. Father Baron has it right with his Word on Fire apostalate. Mel Gibson’s Passion. I think another one may be good, too, the Sophia institute for teachers– Post-Christian beliefs have invaded the schools, get orthodox beliefs back in there. In two thousand years no one has refuted Church doctrine and still the Cross draws all men. Those are two powerful facts that great communicators can use, while the rest of us support those communicators 🙂

  • Gunnar Thalweg

    It helps to have some context. And I laughed at the Pius VII quote.