YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Bishop Barron & the Presidential Religious Liberty Commission

Bishop Barron & the Presidential Religious Liberty Commission — Transcript

by Bishop Robert Barron · 6,669 words · 1,074 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Welcome back to the Word on Fire Show.
0:01I'm Matthew Petrusek, senior director of
0:03the Word on Fire Institute and the host
0:04of the Word on Fire Show. Thank you for
0:06joining us. Bishop Barron has long
0:08defended religious freedom as a
0:10universal human right. As part of his
0:12ongoing advocacy, which includes a new
0:14book on how to confront persecution
0:16against Christians, he has recently
0:18completed serving on a presidential
0:20religious liberty commission charged
0:22with ensuring that people of all faiths
0:24can participate fully in society without
0:26fear of violence or unjust
0:27discrimination. One of the few Catholic
0:30ecclesial voices on the commission, his
0:32work addressed multiple, abiding, and
0:34practical questions. For example, at the
0:37conceptual level, what is religious
0:38freedom and what role should the
0:40government play in protecting it? How
0:42can we define religious freedom in a way
0:44that prevents one religion's exercise of
0:46their freedom from infringing upon the
0:48freedom of other religions or on those
0:50who claim no religion at all? And at the
0:52more concrete level, where right now are
0:55the greatest threats to religious
0:56freedom and what can we do to combat
0:58them?
0:59Here to address these and related
1:01questions, and to discuss his experience
1:03serving on the presidential commission,
1:04is Bishop Robert Barron.
1:08>> [music]
1:17>> Welcome back to the studio, Bishop.
1:18>> Thanks, Matt. Always good to be with
1:19you.
1:19>> So, uh today we're discussing your work
1:21on the presidential uh religious liberty
1:24commission as your your term is drawing
1:26to a close. Um but before we do, uh what
1:29have you been up to recently?
1:30>> Well, I feel like I've been driving all
1:32over the diocese. You know, my my life
1:33as a bishop, it's true of most bishops
1:35of dioceses, you spend part of your time
1:37at the chancery office going to meetings
1:39and meeting with people and making the
1:40kind of administrative decisions you
1:42have to make. But a lot of the job of
1:44bishop, I think, is being out with the
1:46people. You have to go where the where
1:47the sheep are, you know, if you're the
1:49shepherd. So, very recently I went to
1:51one of our big high schools here called
1:53Cotter School. And Cotter is a great
1:55place. Uh it's got grade school kids and
1:57high school kids. It's named for my
1:59predecessor, the first Bishop of Winona.
2:02And it's just a really vibrant place and
2:04I had a Q&A session with the
2:05upperclassmen that was really good. And
2:08then mass with the whole community and
2:10then I had lunch with the kids in the
2:11cafeteria. So I love doing that. I've
2:13kind of prioritized the high schools in
2:15my diocese and try to get out to see
2:17them as much as possible.
2:18>> I know they they love it when when you
2:20arrive and visit.
2:21>> Lord, I was there recently where your
2:23son was going till very recently.
2:25>> Yeah, he graduated there.
2:26>> Right.
2:27>> Well, so I turn to the topic. So you are
2:29recently
2:30ending a term on the Presidential
2:32Religious Liberty Commission.
2:34We'll look at some both conceptual and
2:36practical questions related to your work
2:38there.
2:39But before we do, tell us a little bit
2:41about how this opportunity actually came
2:43about. It's not something you were
2:44looking for.
2:45>> No, no, it was a complete surprise. I
2:47get a call out of the blue from actually
2:49someone at the USCCB, the Bishops'
2:51Conference. They said the the White
2:53House is looking for your number. I
2:55said, "Well, I really did. I was
2:56flabbergasted. Like what does the White
2:57House want?" I thought I was in trouble.
3:00And so it turned out they wanted to
3:01reach out to me about this prospect, you
3:03know. And once I heard it, I thought,
3:05"Well,
3:06why would I say no?" I mean, here's an
3:08opportunity to be around the table when
3:10public policy is being
3:12formed in regard to a very important
3:15matter. So the Bishops of our country
3:16for the past gosh, 25, 30 years have
3:20made this a high priority, religious
3:21liberty.
3:22So, you know, I thought, "Why why would
3:24I say no to it?" The inspiration I had
3:27was um
3:28Father Hesburgh, the legendary president
3:30of Notre Dame University back in the
3:32late 20th century. And Hesburgh sat on
3:3416 presidential commissions under I
3:37think it was five presidents.
3:38>> Wow.
3:39>> Yeah, it's amazing.
3:40I got that verified by my friend Father
3:42Bill Miscamble, who's a great biographer
3:44of Hesburgh. I thought, "Well, good
3:46enough for Hesburgh, good enough for me,
3:47I suppose." And you know, Hesburgh,
3:49there's no way he could have agreed with
3:51all those presidents. They're from
3:52different parties, right? But I think he
3:54just felt as an American and being given
3:56the opportunity to bring Catholic
3:58teaching to bear, I mean, why would you
4:00say no? And that was pretty much my
4:02attitude.
4:03>> Uh what other kinds of uh members were
4:05were on the commission?
4:06>> It was an interesting mix of people. Uh
4:08you had some very legal types, people
4:09who have argued these cases before the
4:11Supreme Court. You had religious
4:13leaders, so myself and Cardinal Dolan
4:15was on it. You had someone like Ryan
4:17Anderson who's uh head of the Ethics and
4:19Public Policy Center, which is a major
4:21Catholic think tank. You had cultural
4:23figures like Dr. Phil was on it, the
4:25famous Dr. Phil, who was actually very
4:27good, I thought, very bright and and
4:29contributed, I think, quite well.
4:31Uh Eric Metaxas is on it. Eric is a
4:34well-known biographer of uh Bonhoeffer
4:36and and a kind of public commentator on
4:38various things. So, it was a mix of um
4:40people from different walks of life and,
4:42you know, but all of us having some real
4:44relationship to this matter of religious
4:46liberty.
4:47>> Were there uh other religious traditions
4:49represented as well?
4:50>> There were indeed, both on the
4:51commission, but also on the advisory uh
4:53council. So, there was the the
4:54commission itself, and then there was
4:55like an advisory board, and we people
4:57there from all kinds of different
4:58religions, yeah.
5:00>> And what was the um the basic structure
5:01of of your committee work? And
5:03especially, what did you do when you you
5:04had to travel to DC pretty frequently?
5:05What did you do while you're there?
5:07>> Yeah, more than I expected. It was um
5:09roughly once a month we met between last
5:12June and now we're just ending as we
5:13record these words, it's like mid no
5:15mid-May.
5:16Um the way it worked was we gathered
5:18typically at the Museum of the Bible in
5:20Washington, which is just right off the
5:22Mall. And the reason for that, I
5:24discovered, was they have a little
5:25theater that seats about maybe three or
5:28400 people. And we were up on a stage.
5:31Now, I didn't really imagine it that
5:32way. I thought we'd meet in a room, just
5:35the 12 of us, or and we would discuss
5:37matters. But no, it's a public event.
5:39>> Mhm.
5:40>> So, we were arranged usually on two
5:41tables facing each other on the stage,
5:44and then the theater is filled with
5:47you know viewers who are taking the
5:49whole thing in plus the press was there
5:52you know
5:53I think every time the press is pretty
5:54well represented. The president came
5:57once in September then the press were
5:59there in great numbers then.
6:00But it was a public hearing is a way to
6:03think about it.
6:04And then we brought in what we call
6:06witnesses so people
6:08let's say you might have scholars
6:11talking about religious liberty and the
6:13founding fathers religious liberty and
6:15the
6:16jurisprudential tradition etc. We also
6:19had
6:20people who were in the military and who
6:23were in health care and in education and
6:25who were witnessing two ways religious
6:27liberty is being threatened in those
6:29environments.
6:30The one in education that's the one the
6:31president came to we had kids themselves
6:34we had little kids grade school high
6:36school and university students all
6:38talking about ways that their religious
6:40liberty was was threatened. So it was a
6:42it was a interesting variety of people
6:44some high academic types some very
6:47serious legal types and then also
6:49ordinary people who were kind of
6:51wrestling with this issue.
6:52>> Could those who are watching the public
6:53could they ask questions?
6:55>> Not the public but we could so then the
6:57witnesses would speak and they were I
7:00must say excellent almost to a person
7:02they were really good interesting well
7:05prepared statements and then we would
7:08interrogate them so after each maybe
7:09they'd have three would speak and then
7:12the chairman a guy a good guy named Dan
7:14Patrick he's the
7:15lieutenant governor of Texas he's the
7:17chair of the committee. He would say all
7:19right everybody uh
7:21what's on your mind and then we would
7:22signal we wanted to speak and we could
7:24ask a question make a comment
7:26and then we would talk among ourselves
7:28too but all you know in the full glare
7:30of the of the audience. So it's a it was
7:33a public happening and it was a just a
7:36lively you know conversation.
7:38>> We'll get into more of the particulars
7:40of um the work that you did in just a
7:42moment, sort of pulling back to get to
7:43more of the the conceptual questions. Uh
7:46one question that that's come up
7:47frequently, and you touched on it in
7:48your um your your introductory framing
7:50of it, uh is how does your role as a
7:53bishop, not only of the Catholic Church,
7:55but of the the Diocese of
7:57Winona-Rochester, whose primary charge
7:58is caring for his flock here, how did
8:01you understand your work serving on a
8:04federal commission? Uh
8:06you know, very closely related to the
8:08government, of course.
8:09>> Yeah, I didn't see them as in conflict
8:10because
8:11See, some people would say to me, "Oh,
8:13now that you're a member of the Trump
8:15administration." I say, "No, I'm not a
8:17member of the Trump administration."
8:18>> Right.
8:19>> Someone in the Trump administration is
8:20someone who's charged with implementing
8:22the policies of of Donald Trump. That's,
8:25you know, the cabinet members and and so
8:26on. Um we're on the other side of the
8:29ledger, if you want. We're there to help
8:32formulate policy, to make
8:34recommendations to the president. Here's
8:36something you might do in terms of
8:39legislation or executive order. So,
8:41we're not implementing the decisions,
8:42we're trying to shape the decisions. So,
8:45what was my role? I I thought to bring
8:48the Catholic perspective to bear. See, I
8:50I never felt any pressure, like I've got
8:52to conform to something. No, I'm here as
8:55a Catholic bishop, and my job is to
8:58raise questions, and make comments that
9:00are congruent with the Catholic
9:01tradition, and are using that tradition
9:03to inform this process.
9:05If someone disagree with me, that's
9:07fine, that's their prerogative.
9:09We're we're going to formulate a final
9:11report to the president. He can take it
9:13or leave it. He can say, "I don't like
9:15this. I like every bit of it. I like
9:17some of it." You know, so I I never felt
9:20a compulsion, like I had to say things
9:22in a certain way, or I better be careful
9:23about Never. I felt I'm going to speak
9:25my mind as a as a Catholic bishop. Also,
9:29I'm an American citizen.
9:31>> Yeah.
9:31>> And the president of the United States
9:32invited me to be on this uh commission.
9:35All right. And I saw no contradiction
9:37between my being a Catholic bishop and
9:39American citizen and never felt pressure
9:42from either side.
9:44Uh again, taking Heusburg as my model,
9:46who did this, you know, with uh
9:49great aplomb, uh I I tried to do it in
9:51the same way.
9:52>> You know, there's some who argue,
9:52especially from a secular perspective,
9:54that it's okay for, quote unquote,
9:56religious people to serve on on bodies
9:58like this, but they must leave their
10:00religion at the door. Uh how do you
10:02respond to that kind
10:03>> Well, that's repugnant to America. It's
10:04repugnant to the First Amendment. I
10:06mean, the free exercise of religion. And
10:08that means it's not just a matter of
10:09private worship or I'm I'm something I
10:11whisper to my coreligionists, but it's
10:13something I can exercise in the public
10:14forum. Here's a good example of it. I
10:16mean, so I can bring my perspective to
10:19bear in a public debate. I'm not
10:21imposing my religion. I'm not using the
10:23the secular arm, you know, to uh compel
10:27people to see things my way, but I'm
10:29entering into the public debate
10:31precisely as a Catholic um and as an
10:34American. And I think there's there's no
10:35contradiction there.
10:37>> Let's get some more clarity on what
10:38defines uh religious freedom because it
10:41can be kind of an unwieldy concept, so
10:42it needs some clarity. Um where does it,
10:44from a specifically Catholic
10:46perspective, we could perhaps even say a
10:47natural law perspective, where does it
10:49emanate from uh morally and perhaps even
10:51say anthropologically as well?
10:53>> Human dignity. I think And that's why
10:55it's interesting, Matt, that coming out
10:57of the specificity of my religious
10:59tradition, so as a biblically shaped
11:02Catholic Christian, I believe in the
11:05intrinsic dignity of the individual made
11:06in God's image and likeness. Well, part
11:08of that dignity is that what is most um
11:13precious to me,
11:15what what's in the in the treasure house
11:17of my conscience, should never be
11:19coerced.
11:21That there should never be some external
11:22coercion imposed upon my convictions in
11:27regard to the deepest and most precious
11:29things in life. So, what what your
11:31religion is, your relationship to God.
11:33There should be no coercion of that
11:35inner sanctum of the conscience.
11:37So, that's where it comes from. It It's
11:39a paradox in a way.
11:41It's precisely as a biblically formed
11:44Catholic that I hold to the principle of
11:47religious liberty. And I think that's
11:49exactly what was in the mind of the vast
11:51majority of the founders of our country.
11:53Is they didn't see a contradiction. They
11:55saw it coming up out of their Christian
11:57convictions.
11:59I say it's a paradox because it's it's
12:01the it's your Christianity that's
12:03preventing you from imposing your
12:05Christianity on somebody.
12:07It's your It's your very Christian
12:09convictions that tell you you've got to
12:11respect the religious liberty of
12:12everybody else. Um now,
12:15can and should we have lively religious
12:18debate? Yes. Yes. And And my job as a as
12:21a Catholic, I want to bring Christ to
12:23everybody. I want to bring the fullness
12:25of Christ which to my mind means
12:27becoming a Catholic Christian. Fine.
12:29Fine. But I can't do it in a way that is
12:31now coercing or using the secular arm to
12:35coerce people.
12:36That's where religious liberty comes
12:38from.
12:38>> I'll play uh devil's advocate here. Some
12:40may again argue from a more secular
12:42perspective may hear that framing of
12:43religious liberty and say, "Yes,
12:45absolutely. Uh and what that means is
12:47that religion is has to do with the
12:49conscience. It has to do with your
12:51interior life and please feel free to
12:53have these debates uh but all outside of
12:56the public sphere. Uh so, how how do we
12:58frame the religious liberty in such a
13:00way so that it's understood as as having
13:02a place in public life as well?"
13:04>> what goes on in your conscience now will
13:06manifest itself publicly. So, you say,
13:08"Here's what I've I've come to in
13:10conscience and the Constitution gives me
13:12the right to the free exercise of my
13:14religion." So, these are my my
13:15convictions. You can't coerce me in that
13:17regard and you can't compel me to
13:20privatize what my conscience has
13:23dictated to me, you know? Now, as long
13:25as I'm not being aggressive to you, I'm
13:27not trying to impose myself on you, but
13:29I can freely exercise my religion. See,
13:32I think that's the part of the First
13:33Amendment we tend to overlook, the free
13:35exercise clause, right? And or we
13:38underplay that, we turn that into
13:40privatize the right to worship as you
13:42choose. No, no, exercise.
13:46It's out in in space, that's where I
13:48exercise my my religion. And so there's
13:50got to be freedom in that arena.
13:52>> You've often described religious freedom
13:54as a first freedom in the sense it's a
13:57foundational freedom for other freedoms.
13:59Say a little bit more about how it plays
14:00that role.
14:01>> Yes, I think for two reasons. One is in
14:03our constitutional framework, the First
14:05Amendment talks about religious liberty.
14:07It's the first liberty guaranteed by the
14:09Constitution. So just kind of in a
14:11chronological sense.
14:13Uh but also I'm following John Paul II
14:15here that it's the most basic of the of
14:17the freedoms. It's the most basic of the
14:19rights because it is so
14:21precious to us. It it's what's most
14:24um
14:25uh elevated and what's most what's of
14:28you know, primary concern to me. And so
14:31all the other liberties and rights
14:33um flow from it in a way. They're
14:35they're related to it as periphery to
14:37center.
14:38You know, so that if religious liberty
14:41is compromised, the other ones are close
14:43behind and I think that's been
14:44demonstrated over and over again.
14:46In fact, in the totalitarianisms,
14:48certainly of the last century, what was
14:50their opening move? Go after religion.
14:52>> Right. And they knew what they were
14:53doing. Um
14:55>> Karl Marx says the first critique is the
14:57critique of religion. Before you get to
14:59the critique of politics or economics or
15:01culture, you get to religion. And um the
15:05great dictators knew that. The great
15:07totalitarians knew that. You first have
15:09to
15:10restrict religious liberty, the other
15:11ones will follow.
15:13>> You've touched on what might limit
15:15religious freedom in terms of
15:16aggressivity or certainly violence. But
15:18say a little bit more in terms of its
15:20conceptual framing, um how we can define
15:22religious liberty in such a way so that
15:24uh one exercise one religion's exercise
15:27of its liberty isn't going to infringe
15:29upon other religions or on those who
15:31claim no religion at all.
15:33>> No, that's the great test case in a way.
15:34Like let's say you know, my religion, my
15:37conscience dictates that it's okay to
15:39abuse children.
15:40>> Yeah, right.
15:41>> Or let's say you know, these are real
15:42examples,
15:43to sacrifice an animal or you know,
15:46let's say my religious convictions are
15:48leading me to to to do morally repugnant
15:51things. Well, no, there's a moral limit
15:53on it. And I would say as a Catholic
15:55it's the limit provided by the natural
15:57law that there's a consensus around
15:59certain moral behaviors that are
16:01prohibited by the natural law.
16:02>> Mhm.
16:03>> But then see now as an American, let's
16:05say my religion says that you shouldn't
16:07have any rights. My religion dictates
16:10that you don't have a right to vote. You
16:11don't have a right to free assembly.
16:14My religion says you don't have a right
16:16to religious liberty. Well, being an
16:18American now precludes that possibility.
16:20So there there are restrictions kind of
16:22inherent to both the moral system and
16:24the political system that keep it from
16:27running, you know, rampant
16:29or going berserk like I've got some
16:31completely unlimited, you know,
16:33religious liberty. No, no, it's hemmed
16:35in both morally and politically.
16:37>> And given that our religious freedom
16:38defined this way, what role does the
16:41government have not only in respecting
16:43it but also protecting it?
16:45>> Yeah, well, I think that's the operative
16:47word. The government there
16:50You know, the the Congress shall make no
16:51law prohibiting the free exercise of
16:54religion. So first of all, it's like you
16:55know, do no harm. Like Congress can't
16:57make a law that is going to set limits
17:00to my religious liberty. So there's a
17:02negative thing.
17:03But I think yes, to protect it.
17:05I'll give an example. This happened
17:07early on in our time.
17:09The state of Washington was proposing
17:12a bill that would require Catholic
17:14priests to break the seal of confession
17:16in matters of child uh sex abuse, right?
17:20And um you know, motivated by the very
17:21good desire to eradicate uh child sex
17:24abuse, but they were
17:26grossly overreacting to say that a
17:28Catholic priest is obligated to break
17:30the seal of confession. So, that the
17:31option for a priest would be either
17:33excommunication or imprisonment, right?
17:36So, I and many others uh raised our
17:38voices to say this is a gross violation
17:41of the free exercise of religion. And
17:43happily uh judge intervened, you know,
17:45to uh circumvent that. But, the
17:47government should be vigilant in that
17:49regard that it does not allow for these
17:51violations of religious liberty. It
17:53protects it. And then it the
17:55Constitution itself guarantees that
17:57Congress shall make no law that would
17:59set restrictions to the free exercise of
18:01religion.
18:02>> We've already touched on this, but um
18:03you know, so often religious liberty,
18:05especially in American context, is
18:07framed uh i- i- incorrectly, but still
18:10framed as the separation of church and
18:12state that there's this this bright
18:13line, which is as you pointed out does
18:15not appear in the Constitution. Um but
18:18again, at this more theoretical level,
18:19is it even possible to have a
18:21constitution, to have governing
18:23principles, to have a moral foundation
18:25that's completely uh devoid of any kind
18:27of religious uh content?
18:29>> it depends on what level you're at. At
18:30the 30,000 ft level, I I would say no,
18:33because our very our very Declaration of
18:35Independence
18:36Fulton Sheen had a great line I ran
18:38across recently. He said that the
18:39Declaration of Independence, our
18:40Declaration of Independence, is in fact
18:42a declaration of dependence upon God.
18:45So, it is indeed independence from a
18:47corrupt English, you know, tyranny, but
18:49at the same time, it's a clear
18:51affirmation of our dependence upon God.
18:53We hold these truths to be self-evident
18:55that all men are
18:56created equal and endowed by their
18:58creator with certain inalienable rights.
19:01Take God out of it, equality and rights
19:03both even out.
19:05And so, the declaration itself is, if
19:08you want, religious. I mean, it's it's a
19:10clear affirmation of the role that God
19:12plays in guaranteeing equality, freedom,
19:15etc. and rights.
19:16Um so at that level, I would say no, you
19:19can't really separate religion out. Now,
19:21what does the First Amendment say? It
19:23talks about indeed the free exercise,
19:25but also the anti-establishment clause.
19:28So Congress shall make no law regarding
19:30the establishment of religion. Good.
19:33That means I don't want the government
19:36determining here's the one religion that
19:37we're all going to you know get behind
19:39and this is the government's going to
19:40foster this religion not the other ones.
19:43Uh I love that. I mean because I don't
19:45want the government involved in propping
19:48up one religion or another. Uh that
19:50would involve in fact a violation of
19:52religious liberty.
19:53You know, so uh
19:55that's the separation if you want. No,
19:57we don't want a system that they were
19:59rebelling against, you know, the English
20:01system where there was an official
20:03state-sponsored religion.
20:05Um I'm glad the Founding Fathers said no
20:07to that. That's the a legitimate
20:10separation if you want.
20:12The problem is as everyone points out,
20:14the famous Jeffersonian line about you
20:16know, the wall of separation.
20:18It's in a letter he wrote to a Baptist
20:20convention, right? Uh it's not in the
20:22Declaration, not in the Constitution,
20:24not in the Federalist Papers, it's not
20:26in any of our founding documents. It's
20:28in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote.
20:30And again, even what he meant by that,
20:33we had a scholar come in to talk about
20:35it there's a lot of ambiguity about what
20:36Jefferson himself meant by that.
20:38>> Mhm.
20:38>> But even if you say Thomas Jefferson
20:40felt in this private letter there should
20:42be a wall of separation.
20:44To take that as a foundational um
20:47statement of our position is absolutely
20:50problematic. Now, what happened
20:53in the jurisprudence and going to the
20:55Supreme Court level from I say the
20:57mid-20th century up until fairly recent
20:59years
21:00is that principle [clears throat]
21:02took on exaggerated importance. And it
21:05was stressed in such a way that we got
21:08ourselves into this mess whereby
21:10any
21:12any presence of religion in in any any
21:14public setting is just a violation of
21:16the Constitution and then and we we have
21:18to do away with that and we can't have
21:20anyone praying and the Ten Commandments
21:22and none of that and
21:24See, but that's a I would say a gross
21:27overreading of a particular line from a
21:30letter written by one founding father.
21:33Not something elemental to our
21:35Constitution or the Declaration of
21:37Independence.
21:38That's a big part of the problem.
21:41Now, I would say happily the
21:42jurisprudence of the last 20 years or so
21:45has been reversing that. And we've been
21:47moving away from the Jeffersonian, you
21:50know, wall of separation and seeing I It
21:53occurs to my mind, I'm no great legal
21:55expert, but simply a fair reading of the
21:58First Amendment that the two elements of
22:00it,
22:01you know, no establishment of religion,
22:04but also the free exercise. I think
22:06those two read together gives us a
22:09healthy environment, which by the way,
22:11was kind of non-problematic for
22:14Americans up until the mid-20th century.
22:17You look at the 19th century, even early
22:1820th century, they didn't have these
22:20huge problems. But it it was
22:22problematized in the mid-20th century, I
22:25think, because of a hyper stress on the
22:27Jeffersonian line.
22:29>> And and behind that as well some
22:31political aims as well using misusing
22:34>> Yeah.
22:35>> Um well, let's let's now turn back to
22:36your to your work on the commission and
22:39especially identifying the major threats
22:41to religious freedom right now. Let's
22:43start at the
22:45sort of the higher cultural level. What
22:46kinds of ideas are circulating in
22:49society and the culture right now that
22:50are undermining religious freedom?
22:52>> You know, if there's one thing, Matt,
22:53that I would like I hope to be
22:55remembered for in this commission is a
22:57point that I kept making. I made it at
22:59the very first meeting, I made it at the
23:00last meeting when I was summing things
23:02up, I made it a lot during the sessions.
23:05Is it the principal threat to religious
23:07liberty in our country is what I've
23:08called the cultural self-invention, that
23:11there's a a kind of alternate religious
23:13view, by which I mean a really
23:15overarching grand view of the whole,
23:19which says something like
23:21there is no God, there are no objective
23:22values, it's all a matter of my choice,
23:25uh it's a valorization of freedom.
23:28Uh think of um
23:29Casey versus Planned Parenthood, 1992,
23:32the way they formulated that principle,
23:34it belongs to the very nature of freedom
23:37to determine the meaning of the
23:38universe. I mean, all this nonsense.
23:41But I think what's happened is that that
23:43philosophy
23:44uh has worked its way into our
23:47institutions
23:48and into our minds.
23:50Uh
23:50I've argued for years it's the default
23:52position of most teenagers in America.
23:55But it's also expressed institutionally
23:57all over the place.
23:58That oh the you know, don't be imposing
24:00values on me. I don't know that's that's
24:01your opinion, it's not my opinion. It's
24:03all up to me to decide.
24:06Well, that philosophy, call it what you
24:08want. I've called it wokeism. If you
24:09don't like that term, I don't care what
24:11you call it.
24:12Um
24:12it's it's born of of European critical
24:15theory, it's got all kinds of different
24:17tangled unhappy roots. But that
24:19philosophy uh I think is the greatest
24:22threat to religious liberty because
24:24it correctly its advocates correctly
24:28intuit that the principal enemy of that
24:30is religion.
24:32Cuz the religions that believe in God,
24:34they believe in objective values, they
24:36believe in a stable human nature. See,
24:38once all that's in place, the the woke
24:41philosophy is going to is going to give
24:43way.
24:44So, that's the war as I read it.
24:47It's being fought in the universities,
24:49although they largely won at the
24:51university level, I think. But it's
24:53being fought institutionally. It's being
24:56fought personally.
24:57And it in my judgment, that's the
24:59greatest threat to religious liberty.
25:01>> What about the the institutional level
25:02right now? Are are the threats emanating
25:04from corporations, health care, public
25:07education, higher education, government,
25:09all the above?
25:09>> All the above. No, I think so. And you
25:11know, in our in the course of the year
25:12we heard we had sessions on health care,
25:14sessions on education. We had a session
25:17on the military that was eye-opener for
25:19me. I I hadn't thought that deeply about
25:20the military, but um it's the wokest
25:24philosophy that's made its way into
25:26these institutions. Um
25:29you know, in education, we we both, you
25:31know, come out of that world and um
25:34can you see the effects of it there?
25:35Where
25:36any attempt, you know, I'm talking even
25:39about the grade school kids here in a
25:41way, that to bring religion into that
25:44into that public conversation in the
25:46educational framework is met with
25:48enormous resistance.
25:50An appeal made to the Jeffersonian
25:51divide to say, "No, no, no, that can't
25:53happen here."
25:54Um
25:56health care,
25:57you know, it's that massive problem of
25:59of conscious protection. There's all
26:00kinds of people
26:02in the health care world that, you know,
26:03their their religious faith tells them
26:05this, you know, medical procedure is
26:08repugnant. Um do they have the right to
26:11absent themselves from it or are they
26:13being imposed upon
26:15by this, you know, philosophy of
26:16self-invention?
26:18So, yes, it does manifest itself in all
26:20kinds of particular ways, health care,
26:22education, military. Um
26:25uh but I I think it's worked its way
26:26into most of our institutions.
26:27>> What are one or two uh stories that that
26:30you heard in the testimony that really
26:31unsettled or or surprised you?
26:34>> Um I remember one, the day we had the
26:36the kids come in. There's a little kid
26:38and during COVID
26:40she wore a COVID mask that said on it,
26:43"Jesus loves me." Right? And she was
26:46prohibited from wearing that. The
26:48teacher told her she couldn't wear that.
26:49It didn't even say, "Jesus loves you,"
26:51which would, you know, have maybe more
26:53of a
26:54It was just Jesus loves me.
26:56>> Right.
26:56>> But in a public school, no, no, we can't
26:59have that.
27:00There was a young kid, too, in another
27:01one of the schools. There was a
27:03Christmas pageant in a public school,
27:05and the kids were invited to, you know,
27:07skits and songs and
27:09saying a Christian song
27:12at Christmas time, and was told, "No,
27:15no, you can't do that. You can't be
27:16singing that Christmas song here, you
27:18know."
27:18Uh
27:19silly in a way. Would anyone in the 19th
27:23century or early 20th century have ever
27:25raised a question about that?
27:27Uh but an aggressive wokist philosophy
27:29will, you know, raise questions about
27:31it.
27:32>> Let's now turn to what the the committee
27:35thinks can be done about it. So, what
27:37are some solutions that that emerged
27:40among all of you?
27:41>> Well, and here I'm I'm probably less
27:43sure-footed. I would turn to all the
27:45legal people, and there were people on
27:47the commission who were very good to
27:49know how to kind of nuance and and uh
27:53uh express these things legally. So, I
27:56kind of I'll I'll cede them when their
27:58report comes out cuz they would have had
27:59some of these concrete recommendations
28:01about executive orders the president can
28:03do or even legislation.
28:05>> Mhm.
28:06>> We always were tending to our
28:07legislation if you can do it because
28:10it's less ephemeral. You know, the
28:11trouble with executive orders they can
28:12be undone by the next executive, you
28:15know. Um but I kind of let my legal
28:18people speak to the details of that.
28:20>> What about the the level of of winning
28:22over public opinion
28:24argument? One danger that I've I've come
28:27across is if you appeal to religious
28:29freedom in order to uh defend not
28:32participating in something. So, say
28:33you're a doctor in a hospital and you
28:35say, "I'm not going to participate in
28:36this supportive procedure or this gender
28:39um
28:40>> reassignment surgery.
28:41>> Yeah.
28:41>> And it's because I'm appealing to my
28:43religious freedom. The danger is is that
28:46you've now put what's an objectively
28:49immoral act into the category of kind of
28:51religious preference or this is just
28:53something that's been privately revealed
28:55to me. So, how do how do we position
28:57sort of the the overall debate of
28:59religious freedom and giving individuals
29:02its protections without sort of
29:03retreating into the the private space of
29:06revelation?
29:07>> Yeah, I know what you mean there. But
29:08maybe it's a kind of expedient because
29:10you know, what's happened, I go back to
29:11somebody like John Courtney Murray who
29:12felt that the natural law
29:15provided
29:17articles of peace as he put it that in a
29:19religiously divided country, at least we
29:22can all agree on these basic moral
29:24principles. But that's collapsed from
29:26his time. He's writing in the 1950s and
29:29still had confidence in something like a
29:31shared moral perspective.
29:33So, that's collapsed. So, maybe the the
29:36expedient of the moment is to appeal
29:38more in a religious language even
29:40though, you know, as a Catholic
29:43I'm not going to argue on specifically
29:44religious grounds against abortion or
29:46against euthanasia. I mean, I'm going to
29:48mount a natural law philosophical
29:51argument that I hope would appeal across
29:54the board. I'm less confident than John
29:57Courtney Murray was that it'll work.
30:00I think of, you know, Stanley Hauerwas,
30:02the great Methodist
30:03theologian and he he never liked the
30:05natural law tradition and
30:07he was before Congress this many years
30:09ago and there was an abortion related
30:11law under consideration and they asked
30:13him for his opinion.
30:15And he said, "I'm against this law." And
30:17they said, "Well, why?" Because
30:18Christians don't kill their children.
30:21Yeah, they said, "Well, I understand
30:22that
30:23Professor, but you know, can you can you
30:25mount a more general argument?" And he
30:27said, "No, that's my argument.
30:28Christians don't kill their children."
30:30So, I mean, there's there's that. Just
30:32kind of a just a bold affirmation of the
30:34biblical perspective.
30:36Catholics have tended to move toward
30:37natural law. I think it's culturally
30:39less
30:40promising than it was, you know. Now,
30:42that's
30:43now wading into a deeper waters and a
30:46kind of a wider conversation.
30:47>> But if we can use religious freedom in
30:49order to
30:50protect
30:50>> At least protect ourselves. Yeah, that's
30:52right. I think that's as I say in a kind
30:54of an expedient.
30:55>> Mhm.
30:56And uh finally before turning to our
30:57listener question, um Bishop as the uh
30:59founder of Word on Fire, what what
31:01relationship do you see between
31:02protecting religious freedom and
31:03evangelization?
31:05>> Well, yeah, that's a good point that uh
31:07we've got to have the freedom to
31:08evangelize. And
31:11if you start seeing evangelization in
31:12the public sphere as somehow as an
31:14imposing your religion, it's a threat to
31:16others.
31:18No, no, we have to have the right. Jesus
31:20gives us the command to declare to all
31:22nations. And so,
31:24you know, uh
31:25having the right to do that politically
31:27is very important for Christians. God
31:29knows over the centuries there've been
31:31lots of limitations on it. Look around
31:34the world today. There are many
31:35countries where you cannot in any way
31:37evangelize. Um
31:40So,
31:41that's something we got to keep our eyes
31:42on. A point I made a lot and one reason
31:45I think
31:46our committee should continue in some
31:48form, I think,
31:49is religious liberty around the world is
31:52a major concern. And that's one of the
31:54faces of it is the prohibition against
31:57evangelization. Um
32:00Thank God, you know, in this country we
32:02have the right to evangelize. I'm not to
32:04proselytize in some aggressive way, not
32:06to be imposing my faith,
32:08but the right to declare it publicly,
32:11you know, and to invite an argument
32:13about it. Thank God we have that right
32:15in our country. That's something our
32:16founding fathers saw and uh we should
32:19celebrate it.
32:21>> [music]
32:24>> It's now time for our listener question.
32:25Today we have Charlotte from England uh
32:28who is an Anglican Christian asking
32:30whether or not we should really get hung
32:31up on denominational differences.
32:34>> My name is Charlotte. I'm from the south
32:36of England in Dorset.
32:38I want to ask to what extent should we
32:40or should we not get hung up on
32:42denominations of Christianity?
32:45I was baptized into the Church of
32:46England. I was confirmed into the Church
32:48of England almost by default. It's my
32:51community. It's where I live. It's the
32:53church here in the village.
32:56My friends, my family.
32:58Yeah, to what extent is this important
33:01or not?
33:03>> Yeah, that's a good question. And you
33:04know, look I'll I'll I'll say it
33:06positively first. Of course, there are
33:10enormous points of contact between
33:12Catholicism and for example, especially
33:13a high church Anglicanism. There'd be a
33:15lot of points of contact liturgically
33:17and practice and belief
33:19uh with other Protestant denominations,
33:21lots of points of contact. And we should
33:23start with that in an ecumenical
33:25conversation. So,
33:27we should affirm that and not move into
33:29a you know, simply antagonistic
33:31framework.
33:33Uh having said that, I think the
33:35differences make a difference. And uh
33:37I'm with John Henry Newman. I I don't
33:40think I don't hold to the Kantian view,
33:42by which I mean
33:43well, deep down isn't it all about being
33:45a good person? It's about ethics. So,
33:48Kant famously said, "Religion all comes
33:50down to ethics." Yeah, so liturgy and
33:52dogma and all that is fine. It's meant
33:54to lead you to be a morally upright
33:56person. I think a lot of people today
33:59are I would call them casual Kantian
34:01when it comes to religion. You know,
34:02well, you know, you're Catholic, I'm
34:04Anglican, you're you're a Jew, you're a
34:05Muslim. As long as we all agree it's
34:07nice to be nice. Well, isn't that what
34:09matters?
34:10No, I don't hold to that. I'm with John
34:12Henry Newman, your your countryman. Uh
34:15John Henry Newman who made Read his
34:18Apologia Pro Vita Sua. He makes this
34:19sort of agonizing journey from achingly
34:23high Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism.
34:25But it was this gut-wrenching,
34:27soul-wrenching
34:28process for Newman because he took the
34:31doctrinal issues so seriously.
34:34So, it's somewhere in there that the
34:36right answer is. You don't want to so
34:38emphasize the differences that you
34:39forget these enormous points of contact,
34:42but I say don't succumb to that casual
34:45Kantianism that says doctrinal
34:47differences don't matter. I think they
34:48they do matter.
34:50>> Well, thank you Charlotte for reaching
34:52out to us. If you would like to ask
34:53Bishop Barron a question for
34:55in a future Word on Fire show, please
34:58visit askbishopbarron.com.
35:00Again, that's askbishopbarron.com. We
35:03always love to hear from you.
35:04Well, we're out of time, Bishop. Thank
35:06you another great conversation.
35:08>> Yeah, thanks, Matt. Always a pleasure.
35:10>> That does it for us today. Thanks for
35:11joining us on the Word on Fire show. If
35:13you are interested in learning more
35:14about how Word on Fire can help you grow
35:16closer to Christ, become a better
35:18evangelist with and for others, and work
35:20for the common good, consider joining
35:22the Word on Fire Institute. Check us out
35:24[music] at institute.wordonfire.org.
35:27That's institute.wordonfire.org.
35:30And we'll see you next time.
35:36>> [music]

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Bishop Barron & the Presidential Religious Liberty Commission by Bishop Robert Barron, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 6,669 words across 1,074 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.