Bishop Barron on Why What You Believe Matters

A team of sociologists, led by William D’Antonio, who is a professor of a Catholic University, just published a survey. It's got a lot of media attention because it shows that there's this kind of disconnect between people's beliefs in Catholic doctrine and people's sense of their viability as Catholic. So I'll give you an example: 40% of people in the survey evidently said that they don't accept the doctrine of the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist which is pretty basic Catholic doctrine and still say but we're good faithful Catholics.

The one that got my attention that was 88%, and it's an overwhelming majority of people, said that what really matters is being a good person. What you do matters, not so much what you believe. There's a follow-up to this in the Chicago Sun-Times, they talked to a Catholic on the street who said: "You know, it's what's in my heart that matters, not so much what the Church teaches.

" Again I was struck by this some kind of falling apart between doctrine and ethics, doctrine and practice and the clear of favoring of ethics over doctrine and if you want to trace this back historically you can do it pretty easily by looking at the work of Immanuel Kant, the 18th century German philosopher. Kant famously said in his book called "Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone" he said: "Look religion comes down to ethics that's what is fundamentally about. Doctrines, dogmas, liturgies and all that are fine in the measure that they contribute to good ethical behavior.

If they don't, they're irrelevant at best, problematic at worst. " So Kant drove a wedge between doctrine and ethics and I would dare say: Many people in the West, and this survey reflects it, many people in the West would agree with that essentially. They say: "Do you know, deep down, what matters is: Are you good person?

And then, you know, what you believe. . .

well, that's kind of up to you. . .

that's more subjective. . .

but what really matters is: Are you a good person? " Ok. I see, what I think is really dangerous, I'm not with Immanuel Kant, I think it's really dangerous is precisely this bifurcation.

Precisely driving this wedge between doctrine and practice and here's why: Without knowing it, a lot of the ethical practices are in fact grounded in fundamental doctrines, and so, when the doctrines become marginalized or rejected or we have a cavalier attitude about them in fact we are undermining many of these ethical directives. So let me try to show it, I think it is showed a lot of ways but just in a couple of ways. Being good person, right?

I bet most people would say that means that you are a person of love, you are a loving person. that's what it means to be good that's what they look - that's the criteria is that a person of love. But what is love?

Love, as I've said very often, is not a feeling or a sentiment, nor a private subjective conviction. Love is willing the good of the other, as other. Meaning love gets you out of this sort of black hole of your own subjectivity, your own egocentrism.

If I'm kind to you then you might be kind to me. That isn't love, right? That's just indirect egotism or if I say what I'll be just to you that that you'll be just to me and in return that isn't love, it's a sort of clever way to be self-interested, right?

What's love? You see, love is a very peculiar thing, that's just many wonder, it's a very peculiar thing too because it means I've broken free of that self-reference. I want your good for you.

Period. No strings attached, no reciprocation required. The Church has said traditionally that love so described is a theological virtue.

Aristotle didn't recognize love. It wasn't one of the virtues that he recognized. The Church identifies love as I've been describing, as a participation in God's way of being.

See God who has no need God is God, God is perfect, absolute, God is no need, therefore God alone can truly want the good of the other for the sake of the other. God can operate in a totally non self-interested way, and see, when we do that, when we were capable of that, it's only because we've received an infusion of Grace, we've received a participation in God's own life. Here's the problem: get rid of God, or language about God, or the doctrines that describe God in time that love that I've been describing will also be attenuated, it will also vanish.

Love that we so admire in the ethical order is a theological reality described by doctrinal truths. Ok. That's the more subjective side of the equation.

Now look at the objective side. We say to love, you know, is to respect the dignity and the freedom and the inherent worth of every individual, no matter of gender background, raise, education, every human person we say, decent people we say, is worthy of this sort of infinite respect. And see, again we take that for granted but think about it.

Why is that self-evidently true? I would argue is not self-evidently true. What makes it true is a theological doctrine: that every person has been created by God and destined for eternal life.

That's why the person is properly seen as a subject of rights, freedom, dignity, equality and inherent worth. Now if you doubt me take away God from the equation. Take God out of consideration.

What do you get? We'll, look back at classical times. Would Aristotle or Plato or Cicero have thought that each individual person, every person is the subject of rights, freedom, dignity, infinite worth?

Absolutely not! You know, for the classical philosophers, a handful of people: the aristocrats, the virtuous, the well-educated were the subject of rights and freedom and so on. The vast majority of people: Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, should do what they're told!

More to it a lot of them felt that children who are malformed should be exposed to the elements, left to die. And a huge number, you know the classical world, were slaves and the great philosophers thought that was natural. Many people were naturally destined for slavery.

Now fast forward to more contemporary times. Look at the great totalitarianisms in the last century where God was systematically denyied so go to the Soviet Russia, go to Hitler's Germany, go to Mao's China, etc. What do you find?

You find tens of millions of corpses. Well, Lenin put it very succinctly, didn't it? If you want to make an omelet, you gotta break a few eggs and the idea there was: hey, do you want to produce this perfect communist society?

Well you've got to kill some people. Every person is the subject of infinite right, freedom, dignity, worth. .

. No way! No way!

On the contrary! Well, is there perhaps a little connection between the explicit systematic atheism of these regimes and this attitude? Yes!

It seems to me, it's very hard to deny it. When you deny certain doctrines like the doctrine of Creation, the doctrine of God's existence, then love begins to disappear rather quickly. Oh no!

That would never happen! You bet that'll happen! It happened in our own lifetime it happened in the lifetimes of our parents and grandparents The point is this is a dangerous business when we drive Kant's wedge between doctrine and ethics.

When we say so blithely: Oh, it doesn't really matter, you know, what you believe it's the kind of person you are. The kind of person you are, if by that you mean a person of love, depends very much, depends radically upon certain key doctrines and that's why doctrine matters, precisely because we want to be people of love.