Is this a treacly, soft answer that Bishop Barron gives? I'm seeing this posted around a lot with declarations that it's another example of prominent Catholics being unwilling to say the hard truth so they sugar coat it and bake up something contrary to the Christian tradition on how one is saved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EevRrWyBllY


Not to say that there isn't invincible ignorance. But Bishop Barron's response doesn't mention that.

Lumen Gentium 16: https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v2church.htm

He's the last person I would have asked that question.

Barron may be worried about offending people, or saying something that will alienate them and “put them off.”

The result is that he just babbles on and on – a product of the New Theology™

There’s a way to say those “hard truths” that isn’t as bad as people will think it will be. But, there is always someone who is going to be “put off” – and that is the nature of things, it is unavoidable.

Example:

“In Catholicism, salvation is a gift from God through His grace; we are called to love and serve God. Christ’s life and sacrifice has given us a gateway to be with God forever. Now I know some will disagree, that is okay, we can have a discussion about this – but in Catholicism, Christ founded the Catholic Church and instituted the sacraments. These are gifts and sources of salvific grace that He earned through His sacrifice on the cross.

This Church and the life-giving sacraments were instituted as the ordinary means of salvation for the entire world. I know other religions and non-Catholics Christians will disagree, but that is okay. There is a lot each religion disagrees on, but we can understand that having a difference in belief should not stop us from taking to each other, working towards common goods, and ultimately seeking God.

Ultimately, the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation as it the Mystical Body of Christ. God gives every human person the necessary grace for salvation. If there are people who do not know Catholicism, or experience some other impediment, they may be saved – but only through God’s gift of grace. This salvation is not apart from Catholic Church, as we believe there is no salvation outside the Church. In the end, it is a mystery on how God can do this, but we know He loves everyone and provides all the chance for salvation, to be with Him and love Him forever.”


See that? It should be easy for someone like Barron who is used to interviews and public engagement to do this.

Alexandros, you are assuming that Bishop Barron insincerely said things in that interview which he doesn't believe. I don't know why you would assume that, as there are plenty of Catholics who believe those things, why wouldn't Bishop Barron be one of them?

Whether you agree with him or not, I think you should at least respect him and not accuse him of being insincere. Also, when you refer to him just babbling on and on, do you realise that he has won loads of awards?

From Wikipedia:

Awards:

2015: Fisher's Net Award for Best Overall and for Best Social Media Presence

2012: Relevant Radio Christ Brings Hope Award

2003: Catholic Press Association Book Award: The Strangest Way: Walking the Christian Path

1998: Catholic Press Association Journalism Award: Best Article - Clergy, Religious, "The Uncanny God"

1997: Catholic Press Association Book Award: Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master

1995: Catholic Press Association Journalism Award: Best Article - Professional and Special Interest, "Priest as Bearer of the Mystery"

I won a karaoke contest once.

But he's not speaking from his own personal opinion on the matter.
He's speaking about salvation as Catholicism teaches.

I never said anything about what Barron believes or does not believe.



Awards for wishy-washy babbling no doubt.

I fail to see how his winning awards proves that he doesn't babble, or that his writing is any good. I mean, Titanic won 11 Oscars and that movie is absolute crap.

At any rate, no one has accused him of holding to unorthodox opinions, only of being wishy-washy and using weasel words because he is afraid of offending someone. As far as it goes, I think his theology is more or less orthodox. I say 'more or less' because there are some things that he says every now and again that causes me to raise my eyebrows and wonder what he has been smoking but in general, he is theologically okay, more or less. However, I think the accusations of excessive wordiness and wishy-washiness are valid.

I can also make the same argument about Nobel prizes, eg Obama won the Nobel while Gandhiji didn't.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been a complete joke for a very long time, long before they gave it to Obama. Before they gave it to Obama, they gave it to Henry Kissinger for the Paris Peace Accords that supposedly ended the Vietnam War (even though they did no such thing), then they gave it to Gorbachov, which led Andre Sakharov to return his Nobel in protest, they gave it to Yassir Arafat, one of the greatest terrorists in history, and they gave it to Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. By the time Obama got it, the Nobel Peace Prize had become a Booby Prize.

I thought Bishop Barron was very engaging in that video. I'd never heard of him before. I also very much enjoyed Titanic, though I thought it was a bit far fetched.

We're not all the same, Doom. It would be boring if we were. I enjoy and/or agree with some of your opinions and very much disagree with others. At least you're not boring...

Doom will let you know where he stands. Its great. I agree with why he said.

I'll go ahead and say it. Bishop Barron has made literature with wide Appel and a lot of people like it. He seems to transmit the faith fairly well. Which almost by default means the he avoids hard points and softballs a little. But there is one issue that people have taken umbrage with him about, and it is exactly this question. I think he has said basically that no one goes to hell. So while most of his stuff is fine I would look elsewhere for guidance on what the faith teaches on this topic.

I hope Bishop Barron is right about no one going to hell. I wouldn't wish eternal suffering on even my worst enemy.

Bishop Barron has not said that no one goes to Hell. He has said that we can hope that no one goes to Hell--not simply in the sense that we hope that any particular person does not go there, but in the sense that we hope Hell is empty. I think he's very wrong about that, but let's be clear what he's wrong about.

Is hell a physical place, somewhere in the universe?

Those are two different questions. Because bodies will join souls in Hell at the Last Judgment, it has to be a physical space. I am inclined to doubt that it's within the universe as we know it.

haven't read everything here

Barron is doing what OP says, basically ad-libbing away the Faith (my way of putting it)

I have to say i have sometimes been sort of guilty of this but the older I get, the less I do anything remotely like that.

Here's why: I have often thought that God's will was [this or that] and then when I go to Holy Mass and, well, you know how your mind wanders. I don't think that is a bad thing most of the time or at least some of the time. But the point I am tyring to make is that SO often during Mass I get a different perspective on my life and I just know that perspective that comes during Mass is from the Holy Spirit and when that view of my situation is different from my view when not there.. guess which one I will choose?

and so.. we see how you cannot get this perspective outside the Real Presence in the Catholic Church, therefore, we need the Church. If that logic doesn't set well with everyone, well, how aabout this

Jesus s aid that He would build His Church, that the gates of Hell would not prevail over it(heresy, scandal, etc)

If Jesus Christ establishes a Church, who in his right mind would say that it is no big deal (say or imply that) when everyone does not join that Church?

Heaven is so foreign to us earth bound knuckleheads.. (self included so don't get on soap box there) that we need... surprise, surprise.. JESUS's Church and nothing else can take the place of that. (That said, there ARE many nefarious things going on in said Church.........................)

however, all the nefarious in the world cannot take away from Mt 16:18, cannot take away from what I just said RE the Church and how it is necessary to belong to it in order to get to heaven. Even a lot of Catholics aren't going to make it (so i have heard from saints ..) As the Word says "The just [person] is barely saved"

I respect Bishop Barron and I really enjoy listening to him.
But on a topic like this I'm just reminded of my soft-pitch religious teachers in high school. I went to a Catholic high school where teaching of the faith was diluted with either the teachers political interests (liberal) or their new age'y spiritualism.
Hamfisted ways of dumbing down tough topics.... silly attempts to be so wide open and accepting in their beliefs that it covered everything and made everything boring.


I know of 3 people from my class of 100 that are devout with their faith.


My wife went to a strict WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran) school which was roughly the same size.... and all of her close friends are still WELS and attend church more often than not.


My Catholic high school did a horrendous job of conveying the significance of the faith. Anyone I know from my school that is devout (not necessarily from my graduating class) they are that way notwithstanding the efforts of our high school.


When I hear Bishop Barron giving such a saccharine response it takes me back to those days.

He has his strong points and his weak ones, like everyone else.

He was formed in an era when Hans Urs von Balthasar was all the rage in Catholic theology. Many good solid Catholic theologians like much of HUvB, including St. JP II and B XVI. But HUvB also pushed the envelope, especially (I think) when he let his theology be influenced by the alleged revelations to Adrienne von Speyr. The idea that we may hope that Hell is empty came both from (Protestant theologian) Karl Barth and from von Speyr. The idea remains enormously controversial, as does HUvB's treatment of Scripture and Patristic writings to support the idea.