Hey guys, i’m a huge fan of Bishop Barron as someone who was/is heavily instrumental in bringing me to greater understanding of the Catholic faith and how it relates to reality. He is probably one of the Greatest Catholic heavyweights alive today fighting for Truth against a society of relativism.
In an interview with Ben Shapiro he says the following when Ben ask’s him if one can be saved outside the chruch.
Barron: “ Yes…the Catholic view…go back to the 2nd Vatican Council says it very clearly….I mean Christ is the privileged route to salvation…that is the privileged route….However, Vatican II clearly teaches that someone outside the explicitly Christian faith can be saved….it might be received according to your conscience….Now that doesn’t conduce to a complete relativism…We would still say the privileged route and the route that God has offered to humanity is the route of His Son…but no, you can be saved…uh…even Vatican II says that an Atheist of good will can be saved……because in following his conscience…John Henry Newman said the conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ in the soul…it is in fact the voice of Christ…when I follow my conscience, I’m following Him…whether I know it explicitly or not…so even the atheist of good will can be saved” .
I can’t help but feel that by using the word privileged he was sort of excusing others who are not of the faith that it’s not essential anyway, i feel that he made it sound to Ben perhaps not to push him away too much that one can still find salvation through a rightly ordered conscience and thats it. The problem is Salvation outside the Church is not a given for those who are innocently ignorant of it who just aim to be good people. It requires one to fully adhere to the law and orientate their lives around it which is difficult for us Christians nevermind someone who has a muddied understanding of it because they are not of the faith and one can easily expect since they did not receive the gifted sacraments that they may still need to atone for their sins after death.
Do others feel the Bishop was too lenient here and did not stress enough the importance of Christ and his Church for salvation by simply relegating it as being a privileged way? As i said i feel the Bishop is a great defender and evangelist of the faith but just on this area i feel his approach here was too lenient or perhaps a misuse of the word privilege which can send out the wrong message, what do others think?