YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → How to Defend Religious Freedom

How to Defend Religious Freedom — Transcript

by Bishop Robert Barron · 6,817 words · 1,088 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.
0:07Sadly, religious freedom, especially for
0:10Christians, is under attack across the
0:12globe, including in the West, including
0:15right here in the United States, whether
0:17insidiously in the form of diversity,
0:19equity, and inclusion programs that
0:22block Christians from employment and
0:23advancement opportunities, or overtly,
0:26like vandalism against churches, or in
0:28some parts of the world, murderous
0:30violence against Christians themselves.
0:33In terms of sheer numbers, and this is a
0:35fact often ignored, Christians are by
0:38far the most persecuted religious group
0:40in the world. While defending religious
0:42freedom is important for people of all
0:44faiths or no faith at all, it is thus
0:46especially urgent for believers in
0:48Christ.
0:49How then can we work together as a
0:51church and as a society to make progress
0:54on this front? Taking a step back, what
0:56specifically is religious freedom, and
0:58why is it a universal human right? What
1:00is the relationship between the free
1:02exercise of religion and freedom of
1:04speech? And how can we respond to the
1:06secular charge that religious freedom is
1:08merely a back door means for the
1:10faithful to impose their beliefs on
1:12others? Here to help us understand the
1:13meaning and necessity of religious
1:15freedom, and to discuss his own work
1:17defending it as part of the White
1:18House's Religious Liberty Commission, is
1:21Bishop Robert Barron.
1:29>> [music]
1:33>> Bishop, welcome back to the studio.
1:35Thanks, Matt. Always good to be with
1:36you. So, today we're discussing the
1:37importance of religious freedom, which,
1:40as you know well, has been under attack,
1:42especially for Christians, in recent
1:44time.
1:45But, before we get into that relatively
1:46heavy topic, what what have you been up
1:48to lately? Well, one thing I've been
1:50working on is just to bring our synodal
1:52process to completion. So, I sponsored a
1:55synod in our diocese looking at two
1:57things, evangelization and vocations.
2:00And we had several preliminary meetings
2:02around the diocese, different regions
2:03and parishes. Then we all came together
2:05last summer in Mankato, which is right
2:07in the center of my diocese. And we had
2:09a wonderful kind of two-day celebration
2:11of the synod, which included liturgies,
2:13but also a lot of structured
2:14conversation, at the end of which
2:17various proposals were put forward, you
2:18know, voted on by the synod. Then my
2:20job, finally, is to draw this together
2:22in a letter. So, I'm I'm finalizing that
2:26process right now, and the letter will
2:27come out, I hope, maybe the first Sunday
2:29of Advent. I'm not sure exactly when
2:31this show's going to air, but it's a
2:33letter, I was thinking about this today,
2:34not really for like the whole church.
2:37It's it's not, you know, Bishop Barron
2:38talks about evangelization. It's really
2:40for our diocese. So, I'm going to, you
2:42know, make it available. We'll probably
2:44print it up in some nice way or get it
2:46out electronically, but really it's for
2:48the people of our diocese to help with
2:50these two
2:51key areas. What was your methodology for
2:53being able to to take in so much
2:55information and to to make that
2:56information useful to you? Yeah, but we
2:58had a there's a synod team, and they
3:00assembled all the findings of the synod,
3:02and then they collated in different ways
3:04and gave it to me, and then I spent a
3:06couple of weeks working through all that
3:09and trying to summarize it in a way that
3:11respected what the synod said, but also
3:13to give it a certain, you know,
3:14particular direction from me. So, it was
3:17it was a good process, and you know,
3:19through that long, careful deliberation,
3:22I think we've come up with some good
3:23ideas.
3:24Let's now turn to the the topic of
3:26religious freedom. And so, we'll be
3:28looking at religious freedom and its
3:29relationship to to human dignity. Yeah.
3:32Um, but before we do, as as many of our
3:34audience already know, you've been
3:35making regular trips to Washington, D.C.
3:38to participate in the President of the
3:41United States Religious Liberty
3:42Commission. So, let's start, Bishop, by
3:44if you could give us some background on
3:46how this came about, this opportunity
3:48came about, and and what kind of work
3:50you and and and those who are also on
3:52the commission do. Well, you know what,
3:53regarding the first question, my honest
3:55answer is I don't know, because out of
3:57the blue I get this request, it actually
3:59came from the USCCB that the White House
4:01was looking for my phone number, which
4:03is a little bit alarming, actually. And
4:05I did, I said, "What is the White House
4:06doing with my phone number?" Anyway,
4:08that was the invitation, was to be on
4:10this commission. How that happened, who
4:12recommended me, I don't know to this
4:14day. But, the request came through, and
4:16you know, I just thought the [snorts]
4:18President of the United States is asking
4:19me, a Catholic bishop, to be on an
4:21advisory committee helping him formulate
4:24policy about religious liberty, which we
4:26as bishops feel very strongly about. Why
4:29would I say no to that?
4:30>> Right. So, I said yes to the invitation,
4:33and we've had I've been at two of the
4:35meetings.
4:37One just got called off because of the
4:38government shutdown.
4:40Uh The next one is coming up fairly
4:42soon.
4:43I found them very interesting, the
4:44meetings. They're they're good. They're
4:46chaired by a guy named Dan Patrick, who
4:47is the
4:50the Lieutenant Governor of Texas.
4:51>> Mhm. And a lot of interesting people on
4:53this commission, including Franklin
4:55Graham, you know, Billy Graham's son.
4:57Um, a number of of legal experts and
5:00philosophers and so on. Rabbi
5:02Soloveitchik, who was right at this
5:04table for one of my Bishop Barron
5:06Presents programs, is on it. Um, and
5:08I've really enjoyed the sessions. They
5:10they go all day, like kind of 9:00 to
5:113:00, and we listen to what they call
5:14witnesses. They bring people in to talk
5:16about The first one was on the Founding
5:17Fathers and religious liberty, which is
5:19very interesting. And they had experts
5:21in the Constitution and in the Founding
5:23Fathers. The second one was on
5:25education. So, so how religious liberty
5:27is being threatened at different levels
5:29of our educational system. Um, there's
5:31one on the military I think the one on
5:32the military is one that got called off.
5:34Now, whether we'll pick that up again,
5:36we'll see.
5:37>> so, yeah. Uh but it's been a very
5:39interesting exercise, and
5:41you know, just looking at areas where
5:43religious liberty seems to be under
5:44assault in our society, and then our job
5:46is to assess that, and then make
5:48recommendations ultimately to the
5:49President. To the extent you're you're
5:51able to share any details, have you
5:52heard any stories that have really
5:54driven home how serious a threat there
5:56there is right now to religious liberty,
5:58both at home and abroad? Actually, in
6:00the session on education, they didn't
6:02bring in
6:04experts, for the most part. They brought
6:06in kids. They brought in little kids, um
6:10high school kids, and and college
6:11students,
6:12to witness to ways that their religious
6:14liberty was threatened. Uh One I
6:17remember is interesting was a young lady
6:20during the COVID period, people have the
6:22mask on, right? And her mask said
6:24um, "Jesus loves me." Right? Jesus loves
6:28me. So, it wasn't telling anyone to
6:31believe in Jesus, it wasn't even saying
6:33Jesus loves you. It was just saying
6:34Jesus loves or I love Jesus, or
6:36something that referred, right, to her.
6:39And was told by the teacher that she
6:40could not wear that mask. And kids had
6:42masks with every kind of crazy symbol,
6:45but an explicitly Christian
6:48expression was that was no good. There
6:50was another young man I remember who
6:53was part of a talent show, and he got up
6:56and he sang, I think it was at Christmas
6:57time, sang a Christian song, right? And
7:01was told that was inappropriate, you
7:03know. So, it's that kind of I mean,
7:05frankly, silly stuff, where we we so
7:08press this issue of the so-called wall
7:11of separation, which is just
7:12Jefferson's,
7:14you know, peculiar formulation in a
7:16letter that he wrote. It's not something
7:17written in the Constitution.
7:18>> Constitution, right?
7:19>> No, it's not in the Declaration of
7:20Independence, but yet it became the sort
7:23of dominant metaphor, and in a way
7:25that's really problematic and a little
7:27bit silly. So, we looked at a number of
7:29those cases and others, too.
7:31So, it's been a very interesting
7:33exercise. Before moving on and deeper
7:35into religious freedom itself, um
7:37Bishop, as you know, uh some from the
7:40very usual quarters have criticized you
7:43uh for being on this commission, both
7:46you as Bishop Barron and you being a
7:48bishop in the category of bishop. What's
7:50What's your response to to those
7:51critiques?
7:52>> I think it's ridiculous, and I go back
7:54to
7:55Father Hesburgh, and I'm dating myself
7:57here, but you know, the great President
7:59of Notre Dame University from like the
8:001950s until the 19 late '80s, I think.
8:0535 years President, and one of the most
8:07prominent Catholics in America,
8:08certainly in the 20th century. And
8:10Hesburgh served on 16
8:13presidential commissions on various
8:15topics, most famously civil rights.
8:17>> [snorts]
8:18>> Starting with Eisenhower, Kennedy,
8:20Johnson, and Nixon. Two Republicans, two
8:23Democrats.
8:24>> Yeah. 16 presidential commissions.
8:27My argument is good enough for Hesburgh,
8:29good enough for me. You know, and
8:32my point there is
8:33it doesn't mean that you're advocating
8:36one political point of view. It doesn't
8:38mean I'm a spokesman for the Trump
8:41administration. People have said written
8:42to me saying, "Now that you're in the
8:44Trump administration."
8:46I'm not in the Trump administration. I'm
8:48on a commission
8:50where the President has asked me and
8:52others to advise him in this matter. I'm
8:55not a spokesman, right? I'm someone
8:58advising him.
8:59So, my answer is why wouldn't I, as a
9:02Catholic bishop, want to be a voice
9:04around the table
9:05when this great issue is being
9:06discussed? Um, so to me it's it's a
9:09non-issue. It's a it's an invented
9:11quarrel. Yeah, well, everybody not
9:12addicted to outrage agrees with you.
9:15>> [clears throat and laughter]
9:16>> Let's now dig deeper into the meaning of
9:18religious freedom itself and why it's a
9:20universal human right. So, Bishop, as
9:21you know, the church has always
9:22implicitly recognized the right to
9:25religious freedom long before rights
9:27became popularized. However, Pope Paul
9:30VI, now Saint Pope Paul VI, made an
9:33explicit defense of religious liberty
9:35during Vatican II in his 1965
9:37declaration Dignitatis Humanae. So,
9:39Bishop, help us understand the
9:40declaration's basic argument and its
9:42significance for both the church and the
9:44world. You know, I I may be sum up this
9:46way. I'm oversimplifying a bit, but
9:49error has no rights,
9:51but erroneous people do. So, one of the
9:54great beautiful one of the great
9:55counterarguments was always
9:58classically expressed well error has no
10:00rights and so if you've got an erroneous
10:03philosophy or religion, well then
10:05shouldn't you use state power to coerce
10:07people away from it and to coerce them
10:09in the direction of the right religion.
10:10Wouldn't that make sense? And God knows
10:12people have advocated that over the
10:13centuries, right? Well, one of the great
10:16inspirations for it was John Courtney
10:18Murray, the Jesuit
10:20philosopher and theologian. And he I
10:22think would have put it just that way
10:24that yes, I agree error has no rights
10:25and error should be opposed whenever it
10:27can, however it can, except limited in
10:30this way that erroneous people have
10:32rights. So even if you're erroneous
10:35about your religion and look, I'm a
10:37Catholic. I think anyone who's not a
10:38Catholic is to some degree or other
10:40erroneous in their religion. But does
10:43that mean I think state power should be
10:45used to coerce them in the direction of
10:47Catholicism? No, because erroneous
10:51people
10:52have a dignity as as a human being as a
10:54child of God. And one of the most sacred
10:58dimensions of that dignity is this
11:02deep part of the soul where we make a
11:04decision about religion,
11:07about [clears throat] God, about how we
11:09worship. It's it's you might say the
11:11most serious and fundamental expression
11:14of our conscience is when it comes to
11:16religious questions. And so I don't have
11:19the right to use coercion to compel
11:23someone to believe, you know, what I
11:24believe.
11:25Argument? Sure.
11:27Um
11:28Um confident evangelization? Of course,
11:31you know. But to use coercion,
11:33especially coercion backed up by the
11:35state
11:36uh
11:37is repugnant to this idea of human
11:39dignity. And I think that's the basic
11:41argument of Dignitatis Humanae.
11:43>> And that's that's universal.
11:45All times, all places, independent of
11:47constitutions.
11:48>> Right. Right. Now it's enshrined in the
11:51more modern constitutions, which is a
11:52good thing. Um but the very fact that
11:54document, you know, that they never do
11:57this casually, bears that title that
11:59that human dignity is the opening move
12:01of that document. Because that's the
12:03ground for religious liberty. That's why
12:05John Paul II, you know, said it was the
12:07first of our rights. And you know, it's
12:09very interesting put now in the secular
12:11context. We talk about religious liberty
12:13as the first freedom because it's in the
12:16first amendment that it's it's honored.
12:19You know,
12:20and so I think both [clears throat] in
12:21in secular terms and religious terms,
12:23there's something primal about it.
12:25Primordial, fundamental in our
12:28understanding of the human being that
12:29religious liberty uh
12:32belongs for belongs to us.
12:33>> Yes, you brought up conscience. Is
12:35freedom of conscience or or liberty of
12:37conscience the same as religious
12:39liberty? Are there any distinctions
12:40there or what?
12:41>> not entirely. I mean, the conscience has
12:43to do with with your moral life in in
12:45general and the the conscience should be
12:48free. I mean, if you talk about coercing
12:50someone in conscience, that's also a
12:52violation.
12:53You might say that religion is the is
12:55the most serious matter engaged by
12:58conscience. What's my if I can dare use
13:00this that old term the the sort of
13:02fundamental choice that you make
13:05for God that belongs in the most sacred
13:08part of your personality. What's the
13:10relationship freedom of speech and
13:12freedom of religion? Because some on the
13:14secular side argue, we don't need
13:16freedom of religion. We already have
13:17freedom of speech. That does all the
13:18work we need it to do.
13:19>> Well, no, but they what obviates that is
13:21the in the first amendment is the free
13:23exercise of religion.
13:25>> Right. So it's not just you've got the
13:27right to entertain your own religious
13:29ideas or even to speak them to one
13:32another, but you have a right to
13:33exercise your religion in in the public
13:36sphere. Now, we can name maybe later as
13:38limits to that, but
13:40the free exercise clause is overlooked
13:43very often and if we just say for
13:45example, freedom of worship or freedom
13:47of religious speech, that's not enough.
13:50It's got to be a public space where
13:53religious
13:54convictions can be exercised, which
13:57indeed they were. You know, go back to
13:58the beginning of our republic. People
14:00were very much at home with the free
14:02exercise of religion. Now, it naturally
14:04caused certain conflicts, but we reached
14:06the point where it's like, oh no, no,
14:08let it just be something you whisper
14:09among yourselves.
14:10>> Privatize, yeah.
14:11>> That can't work. That cuz Christianity
14:13is not a private religion. It's a public
14:15religion. And so it's very important
14:17that our founding fathers I think
14:19phrased the first amendment that way. Is
14:21it closely associated with the freedom
14:22of association as well to be together?
14:25>> Cuz that's a public public sort of act.
14:27So Paul VI writes in the declaration
14:29that I'm quoting him here.
14:31Religious freedom is necessary to
14:33fulfill one's duty to worship God.
14:37What does the the Pope mean by by this
14:39linking religious freedom to worship in
14:40this way and should we interpret that as
14:43as meaning well, if we don't have
14:44religious freedom, then we can't worship
14:46God? Well, yeah, it means that if it's
14:48really worship of God, it it can't be a
14:50coerced matter. You can't be coerced
14:53into worshiping God. It's it's something
14:55that comes from the very depths of your
14:56freedom. Um so to say God is a supreme
15:01value of my life. If I'm being coerced
15:03to to worship in a way that's that's
15:05counter to that, well, that's just
15:07violates my my humanity. So in that
15:09sense, right? Freedom belongs to the
15:10very heart of it.
15:12So there freedom of worship indeed is is
15:14a great value, but we have to push
15:16beyond that to the free exercise. And in
15:18and in fact, that is a type of free
15:19exercise, too, that I can gather in a in
15:22a public place and and worship God. But
15:25it has to do with um
15:27of freedom belongs to
15:30the essence of religion.
15:32That without that, it's it's something
15:34else. It's devolved into something else.
15:36>> And conversely, if you're not free to
15:37worship, there's there's that's a great
15:40assault to to who you are at level of
15:42your humanity. Right. You know, John
15:44Paul saying about freedom is is this
15:46capacity to do as I ought, you know. And
15:49what's the most fundamental thing that I
15:51ought to do? It's to order my life to
15:53God. So worship is the most fundamental.
15:56That's why the 10 Commandments, what
15:57comes first is is the Commandments about
15:59God, you know, to have no God besides
16:01me.
16:02You say, well, isn't that just kind of a
16:03weird cultic thing? No, no, that's
16:05entirely moral. That's entirely
16:08important and not to take his name in
16:10vain and to worship him. Those are of
16:12the most fundamental moral significance.
16:14I heard
16:15Bill Maher recently and he was going on
16:17about the 10 Commandments. I think
16:18there's only one that he liked, but he
16:20said, well, let's get rid of the first
16:21three. They have nothing to do with with
16:22morality. I said, no, no, no. They have
16:24everything to do with morality, right?
16:26You know, so if I'm not free to worship,
16:28well, then my my moral life is being
16:30compromised.
16:30>> That's they're the ground of morality,
16:32yeah. Right. Right. So Paul VI sorry,
16:35the VI also writes and this is a sort of
16:37a summary of the meaning of religious
16:39freedom. It writes religious freedom
16:40means that all men are to be immune from
16:43coercion on the part of individuals or
16:45of social groups and of any human power
16:48in such wise that no one is to be forced
16:50to act in a manner contrary to his own
16:52beliefs, whether privately or publicly,
16:54whether alone or in association with
16:56others
16:57within due limits.
16:59So [snorts] I want to emphasize that
17:01within due limits. That's how he ends
17:02that clause. So on the one hand, Bishop,
17:03this sounds like the strongest
17:05statements you could possibly get in
17:06defense of religious freedom, but at the
17:07end, he also says within due limits. So
17:09let's look at that. What what do you
17:11think he has in mind when he's saying
17:12that there are limits to religious
17:14freedom?
17:14>> Yeah, and this comes up all the time in
17:15these debates. It came up in one of our
17:17sessions on the religious liberty
17:19commission
17:20because I'm not claiming it as an
17:22absolute right. Let's say a person says,
17:26look, my religion calls for human
17:29sacrifice.
17:30>> Yeah, exactly. You know, and so you
17:32can't limit my religious freedom and
17:34that's the way I worship God is by is by
17:36murdering human beings.
17:37>> Yeah. Um torturing children is essential
17:40to my religious consciousness. Well, of
17:43course not. See, the the limit there
17:45would be the limit of what we call the
17:47natural law or the the basic moral law.
17:50Um
17:51Within a more secular context, it's
17:52interesting.
17:54We would say religious liberty, yes,
17:55except for those things that are
17:57directly repugnant to the Constitution
17:59itself.
18:00>> Yeah. Then the government can indeed
18:02intervene to say, no. Um
18:05You know, it's essential to my religion
18:06that that you can't gather
18:09publicly, you know, or that you can't
18:11protest. That's basic to my religion or
18:13my religion says that you can't say
18:15those things. Well, in American context,
18:17we'd say, no, that's repugnant to the
18:18Constitution. So in a moral context,
18:20you'd say, yes, you have religious
18:22liberty, but limited by the demands of
18:25the moral law. I know you brought up
18:26human sacrifice as an extreme example to
18:29sort of illustrate the point. However, I
18:30have read articles
18:33that the pro-choice movement does indeed
18:36think it can use religious liberty in
18:37order to justify a right to abortion.
18:40But from the context that you're laying
18:42out from Dignitatis Humanae, that would
18:44that's a that's a non-starter, right?
18:45No, that's why I that's why the moral
18:47law is so important and and why the
18:48maintaining of the natural law is so
18:50essential. When I was going through
18:52school, you know, proportionalism was
18:53all the rage and you know, well the view
18:56that there really are no objective you
18:58know, goods and bads. It's simply a
19:00matter of
19:01gauging consequences and you if there's
19:03a proportion between the good
19:04consequences and bad, well
19:07But the trouble is is it just is such a
19:11slippery slope and such a collapsing
19:14mountain that there's nothing finally
19:16that you can say, look, that's wrong.
19:18You can't do that.
19:19>> Right. Or that's right. You have to do
19:21that. You can't say that. And so the
19:24moral enterprise
19:26collapses under the weight of
19:27proportionalism. So that's why it's so
19:29important that we have the natural law
19:31in place
19:32as a bullwark in this matter. Relatedly,
19:35a common criticism of religious freedom
19:37from the secular world is that it
19:39enables people of faith a kind of back
19:41door means to be able to impose, that's
19:43the word often times used, impose their
19:45religious beliefs on others.
19:47Say how the the Catholic vision of
19:49religious freedom sort of provides a
19:50bullwark against that kind of misuse of
19:52it. Yeah, again John Paul II, the the
19:54church never imposes, the church
19:56proposes. Now, has it imposed? Sure,
19:58that's done bad things and have been bad
20:00people over the years. But ideally
20:02speaking, the church doesn't impose, it
20:05proposes. So,
20:06uh no, if I start aggressively imposing
20:09my religion on people, then that's
20:11against the principle of of uh religious
20:13liberty. So, I'm undermining myself.
20:15>> Right. Uh the church though should
20:17propose with confidence and with panache
20:20and it should have the freedom to do
20:21that, to propose the faith. But never in
20:24a way that's aggressive or an
20:25imposition. But more broadly, does the
20:27principle of religious freedom teach us
20:28about the the proper domains of civil
20:31authority on the one hand and religious
20:33authority on the other? How does it
20:34adjudicate those those two domains?
20:36Well, I mean I I I think it has to it
20:38has to tell the civil authority to back
20:40off and uh in the measure of the civil
20:42authority becomes too aggressive and
20:44wants to kind of impose itself on
20:46religion, it's a way of keeping it at
20:48bay.
20:49>> [snorts]
20:49>> You know, it's been argued that you
20:50know, the separation of church and state
20:52famously always meant to protect the
20:53state from religion. Well, yeah, to some
20:56degree, but I think it's the other way
20:57around, protect religion from the
20:59incursions of the state.
21:01And you know, I think we in our history
21:03largely have struck that balance. It's
21:05one of the motifs of American history of
21:07how to read those things together.
21:09But you know, think of of
21:11the great moral movements in our
21:13country, abolition 19th century, civil
21:15rights 20th century, were led by deeply
21:18religious people.
21:19You know, it was deeply believing
21:21Christians that led the abolitionist
21:23charge. It was deeply believing
21:25Christians like Martin Luther King and
21:26Ralph Abernathy who led the civil rights
21:28movement. So, that's a way that civil
21:30life, religious life, you know, came
21:31together
21:32in a way that wasn't coercive, it wasn't
21:34one imposing on the other.
21:36I always think of King, Martin Luther
21:38King on the steps of the Lincoln
21:39Memorial giving the great I Have a Dream
21:42speech. So, here's a religious figure,
21:44he's a Christian minister on the steps
21:47of Lincoln's Memorial, Lincoln an
21:48American president. And then in that
21:50speech he in invokes American themes
21:53like man, you know, we hold these truths
21:55to be self-evident.
21:56And he sings great Christian hymns. You
21:59know, he's he's mixing the two together
22:01in a way that was so powerful
22:03and and it wasn't one imposing on the
22:05other. It was one enforcing the other,
22:08you know? And that's why that speech is
22:10such a masterpiece and why it's so
22:11revered. And cuz King got that. He he
22:14lived in that space very comfortably.
22:17But my own view
22:19I'm going to go off on wokeness again is
22:22we've forgotten a lot of that. That you
22:23know, we've forgotten Martin Luther
22:25King.
22:26And and look at in the woke movement how
22:27anti-religious it's become, right?
22:30Where King's time the great moral
22:33movement was led by religious people.
22:36As it was in the 19th century.
22:38And [snorts] and some of that has fallen
22:39apart and that's regrettable.
22:41So, another key line in Dignitatis
22:43Humanae, um which you've already alluded
22:45to is is is this line.
22:47Uh quote, "The truth cannot impose
22:49itself except by virtue of its own truth
22:52>> Yeah. as it makes its entrance into the
22:54mind at once quietly and with power."
22:57>> Yeah, that's good. So, Bishop, how does
22:58this understanding of the nature of
22:59truth in relation to religious freedom,
23:01that truth cannot be imposed on others,
23:03how does that compare with the secular
23:04conception of truth that declares, uh
23:06"You have your truth, I have mine."?
23:08>> Right. See, that's just a silly
23:10relativism that leads to terrible
23:12mischief in all kinds of ways. Because
23:14what Dignitatis Humanae is assuming is
23:16there is something like truth and it
23:18really is true. And
23:21when it's proposed
23:22in a persuasive way, it has enormous
23:24power. So, it's not a relativism by any
23:27means like, you know, well, you got your
23:28religion, I got mine, let's just
23:29tolerate each other. Not at all. It's
23:32calling for in that in that passage
23:34something like evangelization. But
23:36evangelization in a spirit of of love.
23:39But but the power of the truth, it it's
23:42it's assuming there is something very
23:44densely textured about truth.
23:46>> Right. And again, wokeness has led us to
23:48this ridiculous um relativism, which
23:51then then has given way to this
23:53Nietzschean battle of wills. I mean, all
23:56of that is on display in in wokeness and
23:58and it's the opposite of what's on
24:00display there.
24:01We also see something similar and you've
24:03brought this up on many occasions, um
24:05Justice Kennedy's line in uh Obergefell
24:08v. Hodges in 2015 where he says that we
24:11have a freedom grounded in the
24:12Constitution um to define one's own
24:14concept of existence
24:16>> that's Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
24:17That's '92.
24:19>> okay.
24:19>> Although Obergefell, you're right. I
24:20mean, it's it's predicated upon that.
24:22Okay. Okay.
24:22>> Yeah, yeah. Well, that was so that line
24:24uh that line, we have the freedom to
24:25define one's own concept of existence
24:27and meaning of the universe and the
24:28mystery of human life. Now, a secularist
24:31could say, "That is religious freedom."
24:34Um but you're arguing that no, that's an
24:36that's a false understanding of
24:37religious freedom.
24:38>> That's one of the dumbest statements
24:40made ever in the history of the of the
24:41US Supreme Court. And I would say not
24:43just dumb, it it has as nefarious an an
24:46impact as Dred Scott in the 19th
24:48century, I think. [clears throat]
24:50Because if if you say, "Oh, I make up
24:52meaning, I make up value. You make up
24:54meaning, you make up value. Who knows,
24:57you know?"
24:58Well, what does that lead to? That leads
25:00to a complete falling apart of the
25:01society. There's no more cohesiveness.
25:03There's no more shared truth. You're
25:06locked in your world view, I'm locked in
25:08mine. And the best we can do is vaguely
25:11tolerate each other. But but see, that
25:14whole scenario is haunted by Friedrich
25:16Nietzsche. The minute you say, "Oh, I'm
25:18be got beyond good and evil. There's
25:19there's no objective truth. It's all a
25:21matter."
25:22Then you have indeed as Nietzsche quite
25:24correctly saw, simply a play of wills.
25:27And I think it's on display everywhere
25:29today in our society. I think that was a
25:31harbinger of much of the of the mischief
25:33of wokeness. That statement from 1992.
25:37And it's given rise to this not just
25:39litigious society but this deeply
25:41divided society.
25:43Um and we and we've lost our social
25:45cohesiveness. All we see is the negative
25:49side of unity. We don't see the positive
25:50side, you know? You look at the one and
25:52the many. I would subscribe to the view
25:54that all of philosophy is it begins with
25:56the problem of the one and the many.
25:57Okay.
25:58The one by itself
26:01can become tyrannical and oppressive.
26:03The many by itself can become just you
26:06know,
26:07fissiparous.
26:09Um
26:11when I look only at the negative side of
26:13the one and I all I see is tyranny,
26:15right? Oppressive.
26:18It has that dimension if it's if it's
26:20one-sidedly emphasized. But I overlook
26:22completely the positive side of the one,
26:24which is what brings us together, unites
26:27us, right? We've so valorized the many.
26:31Pluralism's always good. Diversity's
26:32always good. The many many many, right?
26:36Well, diversity is good in some
26:38circumstances. But if that's all I talk
26:40about
26:41then I have the fissiparous society.
26:44Everything's fallen apart, you know?
26:46But see, that's what haunts a lot of
26:48that language of it's all up to me, it's
26:50all up to you. There's no objective,
26:52it's all
26:53That's dangerous talk.
26:56Is it fair to say so so Kennedy's
26:58locating this his reasoning as emanating
27:01from the Constitution? But if we take
27:03his reasoning to its logical conclusion,
27:04doesn't undermine any kind of
27:06constitutional order.
27:07>> And it's not from the Constitution at
27:08all. It's not from the founding fathers.
27:10They would not have had that view at
27:12all. They weren't, you know, Thomas
27:14Aquinas, but they they certainly had a
27:16strong sense of God and of moral purpose
27:20and of of shared um
27:22goals and so on.
27:24They would never have adopted that kind
27:25of silly relativism. So, we we can see
27:28pretty clearly how secularism can be a
27:30threat to religious liberty. But how
27:32about some
27:33some faulty understandings of religion?
27:35How can how can a religion or a bad
27:37understanding of religion also undermine
27:39religious liberty? Well, I suppose if it
27:40gets aggressive, if religion becomes
27:42imperialistic and and overbearing and
27:44aggressive and
27:46you know, again failing to make the
27:47distinction between um
27:49error and erroneous people. So, if
27:51you're you've got an error in your mind,
27:53I'm justified in oppressing you or
27:55excluding you or you know, no, no.
27:58You're you're a person of infinite
28:01value. You've got an error in your mind
28:03and I'm going to try the best I can to
28:05you know, change your mind.
28:06But
28:07>> [snorts]
28:07>> uh I suppose that's the danger
28:08[clears throat] is an aggressive
28:09religiosity and and God knows over our
28:11history we've seen that in different
28:13ways. Right. Uh not so much now, it's
28:15the other problem now. But in history to
28:18be fair, there have been expressions of
28:20Christianity that have been
28:22you know, aggressive and and indifferent
28:24to people's dignity. So, um that's the
28:27danger from religion. So, let's now move
28:29to some um some practical approaches to
28:32protecting and advancing advancing
28:34religious liberty. Let's start at the
28:35rhetorical level.
28:36Uh so, Bishop, what's in a nutshell,
28:38what's the best way to frame advocacy
28:41for religious liberty that both uh has
28:43the audience of sort of a secular West
28:45on the one hand, but also countries
28:47where that allow for the practice of one
28:50religion but not others?
28:52>> Human dignity.
28:53Dignitatis Humanae. We got to go right
28:55back to that, human dignity. Um so, I
28:59wouldn't make the appeal right away to
29:00the dogmatic claims of the church. I'd
29:02make appeal to this anthropology
29:04um cuz I think that should appeal to
29:06everybody. And think here of the UN
29:08Declaration of Human Rights 1948. Think
29:11of other great statements of the Western
29:13democracies that have tried to express
29:15basic human rights. And recognizing that
29:18religious liberty is is the first.
29:20Again, that's John Paul the Second. So,
29:22I would begin with anthropology as he
29:24often did. Remember, he said that the
29:26trouble with the 20th century was bad
29:28anthropology, which I think is dead
29:30right.
29:32You know, so I I would I would emphasize
29:34human dignity. Is it also fair to say
29:36that um without religious freedom, all
29:39other human rights will eventually
29:41collapse? Yes, and I think that's right
29:43both from a religious standpoint and a
29:44secular standpoint. And we bring that up
29:46a lot at the Religious Liberty
29:47Commission. It that's it's the first of
29:49the rights, not just sort of
29:50chronologically, but but ontologically.
29:52But if you undermine religious freedom,
29:54well then why not go after the other
29:55rights, too? You've attacked the
29:57foundation of the conscience. So, how
29:59about the rest of the conscience while
30:01you're at it? So, yes, I think that's
30:03true.
30:04What are some um
30:06policy uh or even we say governmental
30:09approaches that we can take to
30:10protecting religious freedom, especially
30:12drawing on the work that you're doing
30:13right now in the commission?
30:14>> Yeah, and we're kind of wrestling with
30:16that right now. That's getting into the
30:17practicalities of it. Um
30:20you know, I think one thing Matt is
30:21overcoming this tendency within our
30:24jurisprudence beginning in the mid-20th
30:26century
30:27of hyper-stressing the Jeffersonian wall
30:30of separation. And you see it, as I say,
30:32in the jurisprudence moving through the
30:33decades. Where by the time I was a let's
30:36say a teenager or young man,
30:37oh yeah, it just seems of course you you
30:39can't have, you know, prayer in schools
30:41or of course you couldn't read from the
30:42Bible in that setting or of course you
30:44can't have the Ten Commandments set in a
30:46courthouse. Well, no one in the 19th
30:48century or or late 18th century would
30:50have accepted any of that. But we began
30:52to accept it because of I would say
30:54certain exaggerated jurisprudence after
30:56the middle of the 20th century.
30:58So, one thing is to
31:00This is a William F. Buckley said at a
31:01debate many years ago where he argued,
31:03is it time to lower the wall of
31:05separation? Not not eliminate it, but is
31:08it time to lower the wall of separation?
31:10And I think the answer to that is yes,
31:12that that we that wall had become
31:14exaggeratedly high. And so, to allow go
31:18back now to the Constitution, the free
31:19exercise of religion,
31:21that that my exercising my Christianity
31:24in a public way is not
31:26necessarily a threat to you if you're a
31:28non-Christian, not necessarily an attack
31:30on you.
31:31Um so, those are things that we can do.
31:33Maybe maybe try to lower that wall, not
31:36eliminate it, but lower it. Finally,
31:38Bishop, as the founder of Word on Fire,
31:40um why is religious freedom so important
31:42for evangelists and also in
31:44evangelization, evangelizing with
31:46religious freedom? Right, cuz if
31:49if I'm not addressing someone who's
31:50really free, I'm not evangelizing them.
31:53Uh I'm coercing them or I'm imposing
31:55something or I'm using uh secular power
31:58to uh to constrain them.
32:00Uh
32:01no, no, it it's tied to evangelism. You
32:03you can only address
32:06um in an evangelically
32:08uh powerful way free people. If they're
32:12not free, you will not evangelize them.
32:14Uh
32:15but also I'd say that I thank God live
32:18in a society that allows me to
32:19evangelize, as we're doing right now.
32:22No one from the government's intervening
32:23to stop us.
32:25Where in a lot of places around the
32:26world right now, we could not do what
32:28we're doing. So, thank God. I say that
32:31as an American, thank God for our system
32:34um that allows us to do it.
32:36>> [music]
32:39>> It's now time for our listener question.
32:41Today we have Fadi from San Diego asking
32:45how we can grow in confidence that
32:46Catholicism is the one true religion.
32:49>> Hm.
32:51Hi Bishop Barron, my name is Fadi. I'm
32:53from San Diego.
32:54My question is, how can we be certain
32:57that the Catholic faith is the one true
33:00religion
33:01given that we could have done something
33:03wrong in the process or something could
33:05have happened uh in the history where
33:08information got delivered to us in the
33:09wrong way, maybe like the gospels were
33:11not true or something happened. How can
33:14we go beyond inferring it's the one true
33:16religion to be certain it's the one true
33:17religion? Thank you.
33:19Yeah, it's a it's a deep question and a
33:21complicated one. You know, I I'm using
33:23this example or comparison. Um
33:26if you say, I accept
33:29Einstein's theory of relativity as as
33:32the best understanding of of the
33:34physical reality of the universe.
33:36Um
33:37w- why do you hold that? Well, it's very
33:39hard to answer that in a very, you know,
33:42short way.
33:43You'd say probably something like
33:46well, there's this and there's this and
33:48there's this about it and there's that
33:49about it and there's this about it, all
33:51of which
33:52are true, all of which seem to jive with
33:56reality, right? And it's been tested
34:00here and here and here and there and
34:03there.
34:04And compared to other systems, it is far
34:07more explanatory. Now, I know as I say
34:09this, there are now post-Einsteinian
34:11views of physics. Okay. But my point is
34:14with any system, whether it's religious
34:16or scientific or or whatever,
34:18you test it against reality and you say,
34:21okay, that makes sense and that makes
34:23sense and that makes sense.
34:26You know, Chesterton said that there's a
34:27there's a thousand ways into the church,
34:30there's a thousand doors you can enter.
34:32But what all the paths have in common is
34:34they're all true, you know? So, and I
34:37would say that about Catholicism is um
34:40look at it from all these different
34:41angles and I've been at it for a long
34:43time and watching how it just it
34:46coheres, it comes together, all the
34:48different elements of it fit. Um I can't
34:52give you like a a neat Cartesian answer.
34:54Like, well, here's the here here's the
34:56syllogism, A then B and therefore C.
34:58It's more of a something you live your
35:00way through
35:01and you keep testing it against reality
35:03and you're finding it again and again
35:06and again the most persuasive
35:10beautiful fit to reality.
35:14I remember I was teaching a course a
35:15course in the post-liberal some years
35:17ago and
35:18w-
35:19they said, how do you know something is
35:20true? And I said, well, think about like
35:22a map. How do you know a map is true?
35:24Well, it got me where I wanted to go.
35:27So, how do you know Christianity is
35:28true? It it's getting me where I want to
35:31go, right? It's as I'm searching for
35:34God, it it's getting me there. I've I've
35:36tried it. The map works.
35:39Um
35:40something like that I think is the way
35:42to approach that question. Well, thank
35:44you, Fadi, for reaching out to us. If
35:45you would like to ask Bishop Barron a
35:47question in a future Word on Fire show,
35:49please visit askbishopbarron.com.
35:52Again, that's askbishopbarron.com.
35:54As you can see, we always love to hear
35:55from you.
35:57So, Rich, as always, Bishop, thank you.
35:59>> Thanks, Matt. Always good talking to
36:00you. See you next time.
36:00>> All right.
36:02That does it for us today. Thanks for
36:03joining us on the Word on Fire show. If
36:05you're interested in learning more about
36:07how Word on Fire can help you grow
36:08closer to Christ, become a better
36:10evangelist with and for others, and work
36:12for the common good, consider joining
36:14the Word on Fire Institute. Check us out
36:16at institute.wordonfire.org. [music]
36:19That's institute.wordonfire.org.
36:22See you next time.
36:30>> [music]

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of How to Defend Religious Freedom by Bishop Robert Barron, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 6,817 words across 1,088 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.