Dear Father Barron: An Appeal
If any Catholic media outlet were to nominate Father Robert Barron as their Catholic Person of the Year for 2011, they’d have my support. His Catholicism Series is probably the single most exciting media initiative in what John Paul II called the New Evangelization. I pre-ordered it and am currently part of a team running it at the Newman Centre here in Toronto.
Readers here will know that I am a long-time Barron fan. He is clear, balanced, and Catholic. I listen to his homilies weekly and I have found his Youtube videos very useful for helping people understand all kinds of things that are commonly misunderstood about Catholicism. I have even found some of his more academic work helpful in my doctoral dissertation. He is one of the only public Catholic voices that I can endorse without qualification.
All of which is why I found this video so disappointing:
The video starts off very well. Father Barron should of course be commended for drawing attention to the plight of persecuted Christians the world over. But at 5:26 the video takes a turn for the worse. Father Barron confesses that his inspiration for this video lay, at least in part, with the National Catholic Reporter’s choice of Sister Elizabeth Johnson as their Person of the Year. Sister Johnson, of course, was at the center of controversy last year when the doctrinal arm of the USCCB found fault with one of her books. The controversy, it must be noted, did not focus to any large extent on the actual content of the criticism or the simple fact of the criticism, but on the procedure that surrounded the criticism. Here is not the place to rehash all the details, but it should be enough to point out that Sister Johnson was not even contacted by the office responsible during their investigation.
According to Father Barron, the NCR’s choice of Sister Johnson perpetuates “the 1970s era narrative of the brave progressive theologian fighting against the repressive Church” – “a very tired and utterly unilluminating” narrative. And on this I agree with him. In certain quarters, including the NCR, this narrative is seized upon any time questions are raised about any theologian. I simply cannot imagine the NCR acknowledging actual doctrinal concerns that the USCCB might legitimately have. Furthermore, I am at least a little sympathetic to the specific concerns they had about this particular book, even if I wish they had been a little more respectful in their treatment of Sister Johnson. In sum, while I certainly sympathize with the concerns of the academy that theologians be accorded fair treatment in such circumstances, it would never have occurred to me to call Sister Johnson my Person of the Year.
My problem with Father Barron’s video, then, is not that I support the NCR’s choice. Rather, my concern is that Father Barron has, in at least one way, replicated the Bishop’s failure on the Sister Johnson question. He has failed to engage her. Instead, in this video, she is made into a totem for the dissident wing of the Church and criticized in the abstract. Whether or not you like her theology, Sister Johnson doesn’t deserve this. She didn’t select herself as Person of the Year. And, as convenient a segué as “persecution” provides rhetorically, this is a false comparison. I have no doubt that Sister Johnson, and even the editors of the NCR, recognize the radical seriousness of real persecution. To insinuate that they don’t is disingenuous. They weren’t consciously making a choice between the good Sister and the persecuted Christians whose plight Father Barron rightly brings to our attention.
All of which is to say that I found Father Barron’s own narrative “unilluminating.” Father Barron’s great gift is that of communicating the faith deeply and clearly in language and concepts that are accessible to a wide audience. It is unfortunate that he didn’t use them for that here. I am quite confident, however, that Father Barron could produce a first rate elucidation of exactly the theological question that concerned the Bishops in Sister’s book. The vast majority of Father’s audience has never and will never read the book. A slightly smaller, but still vast, majority has never and will never read the Bishop’s critique. Such a situation provides an opportunity for Father Barron to do what he does best.
Father Barron is usually very illuminating. I hope he will take the opportunity to illuminate on this question.
Brett Salkeld is a doctoral student in theology at Regis College in Toronto. He is a father of three (so far) and husband of one.
Comments are closed.
All I can say to this is – what a pity. I am in agreement with you about Fr. Barron in general and about this situation in particular. I hope that there can be some clarification about why he has spoken in this way.
I agree that this segue contributes nothing and detracts mightily from Fr. Barron’s overall point about persecuted Christians. However, I would go further than you. You write:
“According to Father Barron, the NCR’s choice of Sister Johnson perpetuates “the 1970s era narrative of the brave progressive theologian fighting against the repressive Church” – “a very tired and utterly unilluminating” narrative.”
I really do not accept this reading of the NCR article; indeed, by imposing this reading on the text, Fr. Barron is creating a false dichotomy that overlooks the significant differences between the 70′s and now. The editors are making some deep and pertinent points about the practice of theology and the relation between theologians and the bishops. Further, the gender issue is hard to ignore: even when Fr. Curran got slammed, then Cardinal Ratzinger did at least meet with him.
My question is, did he read In Search of The Living God? She addresses persecution and discovering God’s Love where it may not readily be seen and where dogma and theology which supports this dogma actually inhibits a fuller expression of God’s Love. She risked her position within the faith by pushing the envelope beyond dogma and he strengthened his position within the faith by staying within dogma. I, for one side with pushing the envelope.
I think this is as much a misreading of Johnson as the other one; she doesn’t see herself as “risking her position within the faith” and while she might concede the ‘pushing the envelope’ label, I don’t think she would regard it as being in opposition with ‘staying within dogma’ — she was wholly caught by surprise by the bishop’s criticism (pretty much everyone was) — there simply was no expectation of any sort of risk; and precisely one of the themes running through her defense is that she was (1) doing descriptive and exploratory work, not presenting all the views in the book as her own; and (2) that the views she herself prefers are entirely consistent with fundamental Catholic doctrine — indeed her own view of her work is of working Catholic doctrine out more consistently than it has been before by not only sticking with incomplete formulations. By suggesting otherwise I think you are actually raising her critics’ account of her work as more accurate than her own — which may be true, but I think it needs to be noted.
I see her critics account of her work within the framework of dogma as restrictive. Do her critics think less of her? I imagine they do. Do their criticisms of her work put her position in the church at risk? Perhaps. Did she take a risk publishing her insights? In my opinion, yes. We disagree. So be it.
OK, that’s perfectly fine, as long as you realize that you are not putting forward what seems to be Sr. Johnson’s own assessment of her work.
That’s correct Brandon. That is my assessment.
I also agree with pretty much everything you said, Brett, up until the point where David does.
I will take it a step further. It seems clear to me, having read the books, as well as the Bishop’s statements and the good Sister’s responses, that the USCCB was reading the book very differently than I was, and seemingly very differntly than the intent of the author. It was as though they were looking at it through a colored lens of what would a feminist theologian write and what would the intent of a feminist theologian be, rather than what did Elizabeth Johnson write, and what was her intent. Of course, without engaging in dialogue, it is easy to make assumptions. Fr. Barrons response perpetuates the idea that Sr. Elizabeth Johnson is some kind of radical theologian.
Brett, you speak with a balance I only wish I could see more of. As you point out, NCR and Fr. Barron are making the same mistake by failing to engage dialogically with those they disagree with. These kinds of discussions all too easily devolve into ecclesial polemics (brace yourself), but it’s refreshing to see a glimmer of even-handedness before I have to go back to banging my head against the wall.
Seconded. Don’t let this go to your head, or we’ll call you on it – that’s a promise. ;)
Ha! Deal.
1. I dunno. I didn’t follow the controversy at the time, but this is what the procedure looks like to me based on my quick Google searches right now. (Am I missing something?)
-Sister Johnson puts out a book that is popular and is used by theology departments.
-Four years later, after a lot of time and study, the bishops put out a lengthy 21-page academic analysis and critique of the book.
-Sister Johnson publishes a 38-page response to the critique.
-The bishops review Sister Johnson’s response, and then put out a 11-page response in return.
The procedure doesn’t seem that terrible to me. Perhaps the bishops should have alerted Sister Johnson beforehand that the first critique was coming out? I can understand that, and I agree. And maybe the public nature of the back and forth is a little unseemly, and the debate should have happened in private or in a collegial/academic setting? I agree that it would have been better to have a less public and more of an academic-setting debate, but part of the problem is that Sister Johnson’s book wasn’t simply a book proposed in an academic setting about which theologians could debate back and forth — it was a textbook being used to teach college students. I don’t see anything wrong with Sister Johnson’s ideas being discussed by theologians, but a student textbook is an entirely different matter. If the bishops found the book inappropriate for teaching students, then I don’t blame them for saying something. And they didn’t condemn it with no explanations or try to censor it; they put out a long analysis for what they thought was wrong with it.
2. The NCR article doesn’t just take issue with the procedure in the Sister Johnson case. The last 3 paragraphs of the article support the content of Sister Johnson’s book, and imply that critiques of Sister Johnson’s book are “regressive”, old-fashioned and sexist. I think that’s the narrative that Fr. Barron is seeing and criticizing.
Thales, I’m not sure if you’re reading me correctly. I agreed with Father Barron about this aspect of NCR’s narrative.
Brett,
From the video, it looks to me that this happened:
Fr. Barron reads the NCR article and finds that the NCR’s point is that there is a “persecuted victim” narrative in Sister Johnson’s story, and that this narrative was so worthy of highlighting that it makes Sister Johnson-as-persecuted-victim worthy of “person of the year”. And when Fr. Barron reads this, he apparently thinks to himself that it wasn’t worthy to highlight, because there are other real “persecuted victims” out there who are more noteworhty. That thought process doesn’t sound too strange to me. I get that it would be nice for Fr. Barron to talk about the Johnson controversy, but he’s just giving his impression of the NCR article and what made him think of persecution that is really noteworthy.
You say: I have no doubt that Sister Johnson, and even the editors of the NCR, recognize the radical seriousness of real persecution. To insinuate that they don’t is disingenuous. Set Sister Johnson herself aside, as I think it’s obvious that Fr. Barron is talking about his reaction to the NCR article, not to Sister Johnson herself. So you’re saying that Fr. Barron is disingenuous to insinuate that the NCR doesn’t recognize the radical seriousness of real persecution. But that’s not Fr. Barron’s point. His point is that the NCR found Sister Johnson “persecution” to be more noteworthy, more worthy of “of the year” honors, than real persecution, and he disagrees.
Thales,
I agree with his point, as you reiterate it here. I also don’t think the thought process (to which Father Barron specifically adverts) is “strange.” But I don’t think that he handled the reference to Sister Johnson in a very fair way. I think it’s hard to deny that she looks at least a little like the villain in his piece, and I think Father Barron is usually better than that.
Brett,
I see your point. To me, it doesn’t look like that’s what Fr. Barron is doing, but I see your point.
Thales et al,,
I have waited to see if anyone will apply Ockham’s Razor to this whole matter. But no, no one has. Instead, Brett is lambasted and chastised for trying to revive the long Catholic tradition of judiciousness in judgment, which seems to have disappeared in recent times. Fr. Barron’s version of that disappearance was on display in his recent piece on RealClear Religion in which he opined, making no remotely conceivable sense at all, that the 60′s and 70′s views on sex were characterized by some sort of legalism that has now been left behind. Given that now they are pushing a much more restrictive version of sexual morality, it is impossible to know what he might mean as a bolster for these ideas. But then we can recall that he somehow views his views as not about moral legalism, but about love, even if his are more restrictive. He fails to mention that the 60′s and 70′s were filled with more Catholic talk of “love” than at Wedding Chapel in Vegas. The difference was that occasionally people actually meant by that hallowed word something that really was unclear in terms of legalism. By contrast, what Padre Barron means by “love” somehow always, without exception, turns out to be what has been opined by the most conservative theologians. Neat trick, eh?
Anyways, the Ockham’s Razor insight aforementioned is closely related to this. If we don’t multiply entities and possible explanations here, we deduce the real reason for this little video. Since Barron believes he is beyond liberal and conservative, he no doubt feels that even a liberal Catholic newspaper like NC should have made HIM their Person of the Year. He is the one who went to Uganda and other hotspots of Catholic devotion and the fight against “gay” Kings (and their Martyrs?) and made a video for his series about this favorite of his destinations. Going to Italy and France is fun to make a video. You think going to Uganda was fun. Oh, the humanity! And what thanks did he get…..from NPR. Meanwhile, happy, contented looking Sister Johnson, with her beatific and motherly smile stays at home writing inclusive theology and gets all the praise. Life is unjust!!
It’s a brave move you have made here, Brett. And I am grateful to you for opening up some thoughtful dialog and public discourse about the impact of Father Robert Barron on the contemporary Catholic community in North America.
This post is another brilliant example of the contribution to our community of faith which Vox Nova is providing, and may it long continue this rather hazardous way.
With the secular community wringing its hands over the recent introduction of SOPA & PIPA legislation, one can only hope that censorship is not being imposed on NCR or even (God forbid) Vox Nova.
Catholic journalism and open dialog through the new media provide us with such wonderful opportunities. However I do worry about the slings and arrows of outrage which tempt even the most thoughtful adherents and advocates of our faith community.
Let this be a positive and lifegiving moment of honesty & soul searching for our esteemed Contributors, as well as those of us who are occasional readers & participants. After all, every one of us do have a life outside the confines of these words in cyberspace.
Somewhere I read that they will know we are Christians by our love for one another.
May peace prevail throughout the earth. But — let there be open & honest dialog.
I am always mystified by vague calls for ‘engagement’ or ‘dialogue’. If Party A criticizes Party B, and the criticism is relevant to Party B’s actual position, that’s engagement. If Party B defends his or her position in a relevant way, that’s engagement. If they go back and forth and remain relevant, that’s dialogue. And coming from a discipline that thrives on vigorous criticism, I am in any case firmly convinced that when academics publish, people reading and criticizing the book is engagement and dialogue, and precisely the kind an honest academic publishes a book for. Demanding anything more is as thoroughly arbitrary as demanding that no one criticize anyone else’s argument unless they’ve made each other brownies, however nice that would be.
If there is any problem among the parties in the Sister Johnson dispute, it’s not lack of engagement, but only either bad arguments or malice. There certainly were some examples of the former, but it was not universal; I see no evidence whatsoever, among any of the major parties, of malice. A bit of cluelessness on the part of NCR, in thinking that of all the newsworthy people in their purview the single most important one to single out could plausibly be an academic in a prosperous society who came to notice because her book was criticized, and I think Fr. Barron is entirely right to that extent; but I agree that there doesn’t seem to have been any conscious choice.
I agree entirely, though, that Sister Johnson shouldn’t be criticized in the abstract; if she herself is to be criticized, it should be with good arguments responding to her actual claims and arguments; and that it’s not good that she often gets treated as a representative symbol here.
Whoa folks…the point of Fr. Barron’s piece was not Elizabeth Johnson in particular or very much having to do with her book as I heard it. What I took away was a justified barb at the insular and self-congratulatory parochialism of NCR’s perspective whereby the professional strains of a well compensated “progressive” academic (much akin to the editors) where held in higher esteem, more worthy to be called out for admiration and sympathy than the (undoubtedly very “unprogressive”, not akin to the editors) masses of persecuted Christian in the far away lands whose very lives are at stake. I “took away” that it was this unflattering, telling and uncomfortable dichotomy that he was, as usual, perceptively pointing to.
Of course, the irony of this post is…anyone? Is this woman not AGAIN becoming a sort of banner or rallying-cry HERE, a mere abstraction being used in a (meta) way to make even yet another point???
I wasn’t trying to rally anyone. My only point was that I was bothered by Father Barron’s video. I mention both Johnson and Barron in the concrete. The only group that I could perhaps be accused of abstracting is the liberal Catholic media as represented by NCR and that only to clarify precisely what it is I disliked about the video so that I wasn’t seen as rejecting it tout court.
Whoa! The Padre never disappoints for looking for some button to push in the community he knows so well. As a former student of Sister Elizabeth Johnson at CUA, for Christology no less, let me start by saying that a big part of why she has been “lionized” is because she is a sweet lady. People like nice people, and tend not to like manipulators. I won’t point any fingers in this forum….just saying. The trope of the progressive fighting against repressive forces may indeed be tired, and that is so not only in the Catholic Church. But the reason that is so is because essentially the word “progressive” is so diffuse at this point. It is not that it means nothing. But in a world, where people like Padre Barron believe that their neo-hyperconservatism is somehow neither liberal or conservative, then inexorably the true nature of any kind of progressive liberalism becomes moot. But note that it is moot because the rug has been pulled out from underneath of it, at least rhetorically, by very, very conservative people who were clever enough to turn liberal language against itself in a kind of Catholic koan. I think this is Barron’s real talent, and people are a bit awed by it the way one would be of a magician at a Church carnival. It is a nifty trick, but it has one real problem. Namely, that the type of “progressive” mindset that Elizabeth Johnson represents can be thematically closely identified with the very best of evolving Christian notions identified so well in Charles Taylor’s The Secular Age. Whereas the type of clever and glib orthodoxy Padre Barron doles out is what is left simply if you hollow out Catholic culture’s actual historical meanings and replace them with a fevered and overly fiery neo-orthodoxy, which in fact never really existed anywhere in the RC Church’s history as such a simple resume. To wit, since Barron has raised the issue of different country’s treatment of Christians, we cannot fail to notice that national differences of belief alone historically confounds any simple notion of hyperorthodoxy he offers.
I agree that Sister Johnson is a really sweet, likeable person. She is very sincere and has no intention of stirring up trouble.
I must disagree with your assessment of Father Barron though. It seems completely overblown to me. “Neo-hyperconservatism” would seem to apply to folks like Voris or Corapi. To me, Father Barron is in a completely different class.
Brett,
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree there. On the one hand you have a lot more recent experience and knowledge of what the RC Church is doing, so I have admit that under that view, he may have an aspect I don’t quite recognize in terms of recent Catholic culture. I tend to assess this guy, again admittedly, as an avatar of trends in this great worldwide Church. Under that scrutiny I think there is no doubt whatsoever that he can be closely identified with regressive trends that appear in the RC Church. And I know you might see this as a species of “overblown”, but thematically there is something akin to Savanarola in him. Especially all the talk of
“persecution”. The odd thing is that I ironically agreed with the first part of his little speech. That is, he is widening his “The Church is Under Attack” trope which his trailers for the series proclaim, and now cleverly and I must say utterly correctly identifying it as “Christianity is under attack”. Of this there can be no debate, if we are talking about truly repressive regimes in poor parts of the world. Again, the reasons why are clear historically. Christianity is — relatively speaking — less impositional, less dictatorial, less violent than many other faiths. The reasons of course have to do largely with the founder, but also in the relative diffusion of religious power which always went along with the centralized ethos of the Papacy. It is just that in the past it was hard to actually be centralized in fact because of travel and lack of technology. Now it is easy, and it is easy for other faiths as well. Thus the doctrinal and sectarian divisions are more in-the-face than before and the comparatively peaceable nature of Christianity at its true center is more annoying to bellicose religionists everywhere. Of course all the foregoing has zero to do really with Christianity and even less Catholicism specifically in the First World. Here Christians have the luxury of losing the meaning of it all together and actually becoming war mongerers, or saying, as Barron and Co. does, that a religion like Catholicism which counts the majority of the Supreme Court Justices in its fold, and top Presidential contenders too, is somehow the great persecuted underdog. Not!
This is extremely petty
Really? Could you spell that out a bit for me?
Yeah, Zach. What are you talking about? Extremely petty? Brett’s post isn’t the least bit petty.
It’s a 7 minute Youtube video! It’s not meant to be a critical engagement of Sister Johnson’s work. He doesn’t even comment on whether the Bishop’s were correct in their criticism of her work.
First and foremost the video is a criticism of the silliness of the National Catholic Register in choosing a comfortable academic as their person of the year over and above people who are dying for their faith.
You say that NCR et al would recognize the seriousness of modern Christian martyrdom; I say that if this is true, they would have picked a modern martyr over a comfortable if possibly unjustly criticized academic. Their choice of person of the year shows us what their priorities are – what kind of martyr they take seriously. It’s a reflection on the character of the magazine, NOT Sister Johnson.
Zach’s comment captured my thought more succinctly.
I know what it is first and foremost. I acknowledged that in my post. And I know it’s not intended as a critical engagement with her work! That was part of my concern. Sister got sideswiped and she deserves better. It makes me wonder if you even read what I wrote.
In any case, our differing assessment over whether or not this was fair to Sister Johnson is hardly grounds for calling me “extremely petty.” It’s not like I was looking for any little thing I could find to pin on Father. That would be petty. The case is exactly the opposite: I am grieved to find a problem with Father Barron. Again, it’s like you didn’t even read the post. If you did, it was with the utmost suspicion of my true intention.
As for your claim that if people truly recognize the seriousness of martyrdom they would necessarily choose a martyr as their person of the year, rather than someone less persecuted, that simply boggles the mind. That was the false dichotomy Father Barron implied that I’m not buying. I agree NCR’s choice was political and I said that it wouldn’t have been my choice. But to say that their choice shows with certainty that they don’t care about real martyrs is both irresponsible and uncharitable. Father Barron only implied it. You have said it straight out.
“It’s not like I was looking for any little thing I could find to pin on Father. That would be petty”
I think this is exactly what you are doing, and that is why I still think this is petty. Father Barron makes hundreds of these videos and you make a big whoop out of a 2 minute segment about a nun who you believe you be slighted. I read your post and I know you wrote you were upset Father Barron didn’t engage the good Sister’s work – I responded by saying you were off the mark to criticize him for something HE NEVER INTENDED TO DO, and didn’t need to do to make his point.
And I don’t think the nun was slighted – nor do I think she was persecuted by the Bishops. Sure, Father Barron painted her as progressive theologian – BECAUSE SHE IS. This is not the same as dismissing her, as you suggest he is doing. Again: Father Barron’s video was about the priorities of the NCR. He is making the simple point that NCR is silly for choosing a well-to-do progressive theologian over the literally thousands of Christians who are dying for the faith.
I’m sure NCR would appreciate the seriousness of Christian martyrs living in the 20th century – no doubt – but someone would have to bring it to their attention before they would honor such a person in their magazine as “person of the year”, as is clear by their choice for 2011.
Look Zach, I know he never intended to engage her. There’s a difference between criticizing someone for not doing something something they never intended to do and suggesting that doing that very thing would have been a better use of their time and talent than what they actually chose to do. If you reread the post, you’ll see I was doing the latter, not the former.
And I never said calling her was progressive was the same as dismissing her. Where do you get this stuff?
As for a big whoop, I hardly know what qualifies as a big whoop. One carefully qualified post that begins with my endorsement of Father Barron as Catholic Person of the Year? Seriously, Zach? I post Father Barron’s stuff here with approbation regularly. I run his video series at a parish. I use him in my academic work. (Kindly explain my motives for these while you’re at it.) Is there some reason he is above critique (and a very qualified critique at that!) when I think he slips up? I was not looking for flaws with Father Barron. Why on earth would I? What motives are you attributing to me here?
And again, I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT NCR’S CHOICE!!!
Between the insinuations about my motives and your constant misrepresentations of my positions, I’ve had about enough. How is it that your comments here aren’t making a “big whoop” out of something very small? And not a carefully qualified whoop either. I started by praising Father Barron. You started by casting aspersions on my character. People in glass houses and all that.
I absolutely agree. This discussion has gotten of Fr. Barron’s essential point…which I made less clearly in an earlier post. Fr. Barron’s barb was aimed at the insularity and parochialism of the “liberal” end of American Catholicism. I think that Fr. Barron makes such folks a bit nervous and put-off, and hypersensitive because that enterprise is tired and playing out..while some type of dynamic “post liberal” neo-orthodoxy is emerging…the more dynamic it is the more hysterical will be the criticism.
Perhaps such folks make him nervous.
CT Michael, can you specify who you’re addressing. Things get confusing after so many replies to one comment.
As for dynamic post-liberal orthodoxy? Count me in.
“dynamic post-liberal orthodoxy”? I am still waiting to meet this girl.
After re-viewing the video, it seems Zach and Thales are correct.
Posts and conversations like this are exactly why I stopped reading this blog.
This blog is a collection of some of the world’s most insufferable, petty, and miserable people.
Happy to be censored, so go ahead.
If you don’t like the way conversations that start with “This is extremely petty,” go, try a different opening next time. ;)
zach,
you would prefer o felix oompa lumpa?
Gee, Zach. You seem pretty insufferable, petty, and miserable yourself.
Also – I don’t necessarily think calling someone a progressive is a bad thing – it may very well be true, after all. Is it always unfair to characterize someone as having some sort of perspective without giving a dissertation on why it is they are that way? I don’t think so. Do you?
I don’t think Father Barron is dismissing Sister Johnson, and I’m not sure why you do.
I never said anything about having a problem with his characterization of her as progressive. Read more carefully please.
It seems relevant to this discussion that nobody, neither Fr. Barron nor any of the contributors or commentators in this discussion, has thus far suggested a name of any particular individual who would better represent the persecuted members of our community as “person of the year”.
Question: Could this because of the lack of media attention to individuals as such who are targets and victims of persecution against Christians or Catholics? Does the media simply report anonymous groups of Christians being attacked or persecuted, without attention to individuals? Or is it possibly because we have lost that focused sensitivity to personal suffering and individual pain which was proclaimed in Matthew 25 as a hallmark of discipleship?
For me, this is a fascinating and rather curious gap in the controversy over NCR’s choice of “Person of the Year”. And I believe it is worth noting, because it could be an indicator of something missing in our collective conscience as a community of faith.
Persecuted Christians abroad are too Christian to excite liberals, and too foreign to excite conservatives.
Michael,
The answer is for Father Barron to contact Archbishop Broglio, and suggest himself for hardship duty as a chaplain in Afghanistan or something. He is a little old for such things, but if he mentions the name of Fr. Anthony Chandler whom I went to seminary with and worked for the Military Archdiocese maybe I can put a good word in for him and get him embedded. That would be the best video, and finally a proof what real religious liberty does consist of or does not consist of. Watch out for that landmine Padre!