Bishop Barron on “Silence” [Spoilers] 

He is in fact the weakest. Unlike the other two priests, he never lets go of his pride. This was the whole point of Rodrigues’ arc - he has to let go of his faith and pride in order to save the Japanese Christians. But ironically, this sacrifice is what brought him the closest to God.

@@grantlindberg3753 Rodriguez and Ferreira became traitors.

@@denverbritto5606 and they became traitors in order to save other people from a certain horrible torture and death, jesus would want those people to be saved

@@DivisiveSnoo they apostasised to save those people, they became traitors for their own egos

@@denverbritto5606 idk how that would be for their own egos if they are doing this only because they don’t want others to suffer

🙏🙏🙏😢

Not even just those who are born Christian. Saint Achmad the Calligrapher pray for us

I am a Syrian Christian now living in Canada due to the war, I have never seen, experienced nor heard of such persecution in Syria, although some Islamic groups like ISIS would do stuff even worse than that we see in Silence, I do not believe of the existence of such extreme persecution in Syria or any place on earth in this age. I could be wrong however.

MichaelLoophole A siege mentality needs a bogeyman to justify itself.

@@michaelloophole I think the Coptic Christians in Egypt have it quite bad.

Matthew Nguyen I have visited Hanoi Cathedral and prayed before the relics of the martyrs. It was a humbling, awesome experience.

Bless you, thank you for your response, it is a blessing to hear your story.

Matthew Nguyen Very enlightening. Thank you for this, Matthew.

Matthew, God bless you and thank you for your witness.

can you please link some some info about the thousands who were martyred? I can't find much, thanks

Scorsese describes himself as a lapsed Catholic, to me this film is like a view into his inner feelings about Christianity. He likes the majesty of the Church he even appreciates the lengths people will go for faith, yet at the end the lead betrays God with his renouncement. For Scorsese preservation of life is the utmost value but for Christians life isn't worth it without God.

yes, there are problems but intellectual Christians need to have challenging media like this. There were no cheap shots despite the theological problems.

The Distributist To be fair I haven't seen the movie yet, the conclusion that Father Barron makes about the laymen dying for the faith and the Jesuits' recantation of their faith is a textbook example of how Christians treat martrydom and makes for interesting characters. I wonder if Hollywood and secularists understand this concept?

Why focus on Scosese and his status as a lapsed Catholic? Endo, the author of the original novel, was a practising Catholic convert. He was a practising Catholic convert who struggled with a lot of things (truly a lot), but he never identified as lapsed. He always put a face on as a Catholic. It's weird to shift the focus away from the actual author (weird on many levels, including racial ones, as well as ideological ones). Unless it's unfaithful to the source material (and Bishop Barron seems to imply it's not), then this film is not "a view into [Scorsese's] inner feelings about Christianity" more than it is Endo's.

Racial what? Like I said before I haven't watched the movie but from what Bishop Baron is saying is that the end is altered from the book. Doing some research shows me that the book ends with the Jesuit stepping on the fumie and lamenting that it wasn't Men that failed God but Japan's tendency to be a spiritual void. Did you find any other differences between the book and film?

The cross he was made to bare was being a man of God being unable to speak his word. Silence.

God bless you! Please God, I might come to Japan some day.

Nicole Alderight right. I’d have spit on the cross before letting one other person die. And I have no clue how I’d hold up under torture, probably not long at all 😣

Still, if the situation were reversed, and it were Japanese facing torture for their beliefs, it would be cowardice to renounce your beliefs, even from the standpoint of bushido, the samurai code. In fact, the samurai would commit seppuku rather than renounce their faith. The Japanese have a concept of martyrdom and would consider Father Rodriguez's apostasy pathetic. When Rodriguez watches Garrpe die while swimming out in the harbor in a vain attempt to save Christians about to be cast into the sea, the interpreter tells Rodriguez, "You are not worthy to call yourself a 'priest'". It's even more pathetic to work with the authorities in persecuting Christians (like some kind of inversion of Paul of Tarsus), going from believer to persecutor. He could've stepped on the fumie and then just committed suicide or at least done something else to resist his captors. The movie is offensive on many levels and focuses on two priests who may have apostasized (I say "may" because there is evidence that Ferreira and Rodriguez renounced their apostasy). In fact, the vast majority of the foreign missionaries and local Christians who died at that time were indeed faithful to the end and died honorably. And we're talking about 300,000 people. The fact that we have to focus on these two priests, whose final fate is obscured by historical ambiguity, says a lot about Hollywood, but when you see Scorcese's name attached to a movie, you can rest assured that it's not going to be favorable to Christians (at least not white European Christians. The movie predictably portrayed the non-European Christians as heroic while making the European one's out to be the cowards. If you understood Hollywood and Scorcese, you could've seen that coming from a mile a way, and I predicted that aspect of the film just from the trailer.). This film is best seen as Endo's personal struggle with his Catholic faith, if not Endo's personal apostasy (or at least a sense of apostasy) in trying to fit in and gain acceptance in his own country.

It is easier said than done when you already witness the suffering of other innocents because of your refusal to renounce your Faith.. Yes! It is. But at the end of the day, that's where Your True Faith and Trust to The Divine Intervention of Jesus Christ enters. It's all surrendering Our Trust in Him. In all aspects. Let the dead bury their dead as what He said. Death in this Sinful World is Never the End of our called-to-be ChristLike Livesl. That's why as Catholics, we are taught that there really is an AfterLife in Heaven in perpetuity with The Holy Trinity and all Angels and Saints. So if its God's will that its our turn to die in this world, then, so be it. #FilipinoCatholic🇵🇭🙏

@@echoesofmarsmoondragon7600 sure wish I had your blind belief in a better after. Problem is christians don’t follow Christ’s teachings. Besides all that Jesus was freaking jewish. At no point did he renounce Judaism. Or say we need a new religion. Add king James into the equation, you’re basing your faith in an afterlife on a buncha paper found in a cave in no discernible order. Have you read all the books that were left out because they were counterproductive to the narrative of Christ the assemblers of the scrolls wanted to convey at the time? The book of Phillip. The book of Enoch. Seems like you’d want the whole Bible. Not parts of the Bible edited and reworked by a buncha people who didn’t know what soap is.

@@RustinChole you are an idiot

I personally did not see the priests as being unsure. I saw them as being subjected to abuse both psychologically and physically which led them to a point of mental instability. This can , from my viewpoint, cause a person to fold in most of their beliefs. They no longer no how or what to think.

Well said.

Judy S. That's what I thought too. I also thought, that if I was in their position and had the choice of rejecting Christ or letting my friends become martyrs I would do this: NOT trample the image and let my friends go to heaven! What a grace to die a martyr's death!

C Bentler the good news is Christ is not unsure

+Dork Born you realize that no one was speaking English at these time, so the pun doesn't work!

@Dennis Metzler That was indeed the point to show that Ferreira had made a sacrifice for others. He sacrificed his own well being, future happiness, reputation and good standing ....... to save others and prevent their suffering. Remind you of anyone connected to Christianity ?!? 😉 ✝️ The step on Jesus scene is paradoxical. His apostasy was paradoxically the first show of real faith and real sacrifice in his life. What he sacrificed by stepping on the plate with Jesus face ..... was not his "faith". Jesus could care less about stepping on a plate. It was his pride he sacrificed. His reputation as a priest and holy man. It was the first time he was willing to truly get his hands dirty like Jesus did. To lower himself in order to help others. His standing on the plate - was him "taking up his cross". The worst and most painful thing he could possibly carry. To renounce his faith even though he dedicated his entire life to God and still believed in Christ with every part of his body. To become essentially a slave of the Japanese government. To become a thing of scorn and disgust amongst his kin and the church. For one reason only. Not because he wasn't strong enough to die himself but because he wanted to relieve the pain and suffering of others. The same reason Jesus went to the cross.

Still, if the situation were reversed, and it were Japanese facing torture for their beliefs, it would be cowardice to renounce your beliefs, even from the standpoint of bushido, the samurai code. In fact, the samurai would commit seppuku rather than renounce their faith. The Japanese have a concept of martyrdom and would consider Father Rodriguez's apostasy pathetic. When Rodriguez watches Garrpe die while swimming out in the harbor in a vain attempt to save Christians about to be cast into the sea, the interpreter tells Rodriguez, "You are not worthy to call yourself a 'priest'". It's even more pathetic to work with the authorities in persecuting Christians (like some kind of inversion of Paul of Tarsus), going from believer to persecutor. He could've stepped on the fumie and then just committed suicide or at least done something else to resist his captors. The movie is offensive on many levels and focuses on two priests who may have apostasized (I say "may" because there is evidence that Ferreira and Rodriguez renounced their apostasy). In fact, the vast majority of the foreign missionaries and local Christians who died at that time were indeed faithful to the end and died honorably. And we're talking about 300,000 people. The fact that we have to focus on these two priests, whose final fate is obscured by historical ambiguity, says a lot about Hollywood, but when you see Scorcese's name attached to a movie, you can rest assured that it's not going to be favorable to Christians (at least not white European Christians. The movie predictably portrayed the non-European Christians as heroic while making the European one's out to be the cowards. If you understood Hollywood and Scorcese, you could've seen that coming from a mile a way, and I predicted that aspect of the film just from the trailer.). This film is best seen as Endo's personal struggle with his Catholic faith, if not Endo's personal apostasy (or at least a sense of apostasy) in trying to fit in and gain acceptance in his own country.

@@johnreynolds5299 not sure why there is such pointed criticism at Scorsese - he didn't write this. As you say its based on the book by Endo Shusaku which was very renowned and won many awards. It follows the narrative pretty closely. Endo was a japanese Catholic who went through difficult times and was trying to understand the "silence" of God during those periods. Have you read the book of Job ? Pretty relevant for most believers - evidently especially so for Endo. I think it makes perfect sense from that perspective. Hardly typical of Hollywood - it's almost the polar opposite of what would be typical for Hollywood film where the white saviour is the prototype for most films. Refreshing to see something different for once. Whether the two men actually did apostasise or not (in the film 1 does the other doesn't and instead dies trying to save the local believers from drowning) isn't really the point. The story is meant to be a challenging thought experiment on faith to make Christians think and analyze what they would have done in the same position and what it really means to follow Christ. Is it just words of I believe .... Or is it helping others. If it is both then what happens when the two conflict with each other ? Which is more important ?

@@David-_-_- This is from the translator's preface for my edition of the book, which quotes from "The Christian Century in Japan" by C.R. Boxer: "And finally in 1643 came a group of ten (European, Chinese, and Japanese) among whom was Giuseppe Chiara - Mr. Endo's Sebastian Rodrigues. Quickly captured, they all apostatized after long and terrible tortures; though most, perhaps all, later revoked their apostasy. Even the Dutch eyewitnesses were moved to compassion by the awful state of their Papist rivals who looked 'exceedling pitiful, their eyes and cheeks strangely fallen in; their hands black and blue, and their whole bodies sadly misused and macerated by torture. These, though they had apostatized from the Faith, yet declared publicly to the interpreters that they did not freely apostatize, but the insufferable tormets which had been inflicted upon them forced them to it.' Chiara died some forty years after his apostasy, stating that he was still a Christian. As for Christovao Ferreira, about his subsequent life and death not much is known. His grave can still be seen in a temple in Nagasaki, but the record of his burial was burnt in the atomic holocaust of 1945. Chinese sailors at Macao testified that prior to his death he had revoked his apostasy, dying a martyr's death in that pit which had previously conquered. But the Dutch residents in Japan say nothing of this; and so his death, as much of his life, must forever remain a mystery."

​@@David-_-_- Yes, but Job did not apostatize his faith and is in fact a hero of faith. Neither the book nor the movie is portraying the triumph of faith. If you don't want a story with a "white savior," so to speak, then why not just do a film showing the heroism of Japanese Christians, who for the most part died heroically for the cause of Christ. Omit the foreign missionaries (who also mostly died heroically) and just focus on the Japanese Christians. Why not do a "thought experiment on faith" that shows how faith actually triumphs against incredible suffering? Why is it that "thought experiments" (as far as Hollywood is concerned)are always premised on the idea that Christian faith is just a fraud and are conducted in a way that want to encourage doubt among Christians and? A "though experiment on faith" also doesn't justify distorting history.

Old Red from you it appears small

Yeah maybe Jesus should've of just recounted, lied and said he wasn't the Son of God, just so that he could save people from the very temporary suffering of being Christian, and instead damning them to an eternal and inescapable suffering the likes of which human comprehension could never understand. It's not like suffering the pain of life is a central tenet to Christianity and the Bible itself, or anything. Job should've just denounced God and worshiped Satan, because it would've save him and his family much earthly suffering!

But the eternal suffering is so much worse and important than the mortal suffering. Sacrificing your eternal life is not a good, but rather a wrong. Though it is hard, that is only because that is what is important. Sacrificing your country for your fellow soldiers for instance. It’s hard, but only because you know what you are striving for, what is more important. Even if the men were civilians, sacrificing your country for the civilians, while hard and a sacrifice, is wrong.

@@notlengthy just have god not put them in hell. Boom. Now no earthly or eternal suffering.

Yes, that is what the Communist Chinese, for example, would want you to take from this movie. That's why it was made: an excuse for cowardice. Cowardice can be forgiven but not excused. When Peter is asked three times "do you love me?", that was a chance at repentance. And when he did, Christ fortold his martydom *as a gift*! The gospel says "signifying in what way he would glorify God." Peter would not wind up like Rodrigues. That's why I have never hated a movie like I hate this one.

I really appreciated your view and critic. I also have a similar sentiment after reading the book, I think one of the themes that is heavily explored is "what sentiment does Jesus hold for Judas". Jesus must have love Judas and knows what he would do, but he chose him to be his disciple from the beginning anyway. The author took particular effort to discuss the depth of Jesus love must have had for Judas to not see him as just a "tool" to the completion of the crucifixion. I think it is a very valid argument to say that "Christianity in Japan" cannot and will not look like what Christianity in the western countries, for faith to organically grow in this land, the expression of its love has to become something that is so deeply rooted in this country and in its own unique culture, and what love is greater to put down one's pride and humble oneself to pick up someone else's culture, clothes and subdue oneself to serve the people in a foreign land in the ways that meet them where they are? I also don't know what I feel about comparing evangelical mission to army battle and missionaries to solders. It is true that both have a very clear goal and are highly trained and disciplined. However, I think the mission of Christ's love looks different from a war that strive to conquer by force and violence.

@@tonytoons9301 It's cowardice to save other people?

@@tonytoons9301 yes, people just don't understand that as a christian, a person should love God more than anything else.

100%. Your purpose in life is not to save others from passing to eternity, especially not at the cost of your faith. What, in a Christian light is God-honoring about taking salvation into your own hands? Life on earth is short for everyone.

But he didn’t die for his pride, he sacrificed eternal life for a physical one. Saying someone is too prideful to sin is not a bad thing. “If only he would have sinned he could have saved their life” well life is not the most important thing. Comfort is not important. Your eternal salvation is the most important, even if those die around you. To say you should not die for your faith, and others should not die for it for you, because it is not worth it, is just blasphemous

Yes he didn’t die and he didn’t have those others killed to just maintain his pride exactly! he chose to save the lives and suffering of the all others he had brought into that situation of being tortured and killed. All of whom would have never been there if not for him. And he had to do it by sacrificing THE MOST important thing to him he would have gladly given his life if it was just that they were asking for. But no it was something much more difficult for him to sacrifice Also any all knowing, all caring, and all loving god could see why he took the actions he did. To save human life and suffering! Not to protect his own skin. So I don’t really see it as him sacrificing his eternal life at all And frankly if those more evangelical interpretations of god couldn’t see that and sends him to hell for eternal damnation anyways. Then let me be the first to say that god is an asshole. And I want nothing to do with him.

@@Zack-bl2gg also the big problem is being the one to make that choice for the others. Nobody has the right to chose someone for martyrdom. It’s something that comes from within.

@@Zack-bl2gg Remember the scene when Liam neeson tells him that “they don’t have even have the same gospel. they aren’t dying for god, they are dying for you!” I think that does a great job of really highlighting the whole pride thing.

@@boshamburger123 but why is it most important to him? Because it is the ONLY THING that is important If God is real, and heaven is real, than that’s all that matters. Life doesn’t matter. Physical happiness doesn’t matter So to sacrifice the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS for something that DOESNT is just STUPID. It’s like sacrificing your house for a cardboard box. Or even more to the point, sacrificing your house, and burning in hell for all of eternity, to give someone else a cardboard box. Oh, and now they are also going to burn in hell. Stupid.

Renouncing verbally doesn't really change anything. "A person changed against his will, is of the same opinion still".

@@ant7936 Jesus said, "deny me before man and I will deny you before the Father." It does make a difference, we were called to die for our faith if that's what God calls us to do.

This is a great quote. Thanks for posting it

i knew this bishops interpretation was deeply flawed somehow, but you've really put it into better words than I ever could.

To be honest, if you want to be a good Christian... Don't go to church, if god has eyes and he does see what has happen, what they have done under his name... Then all who go to church will burn in hell, buy yourself a bible... Read the things that is not wrong, things that reflect his will... Forgiveness, humble, sway from sins but shall not judge... Dont listen to pedophile, people who sleep in golden bed, people hate and judge whom doesn't lives the way they think is right.

What you say, humanism is better than christianty ? If you take story positivly, that is the message, trueth is that he liked people more than god, so ...

@@filipstruhar like most christians, you have an utterly one dimentional view of your own faith

alec Miles I believe this article, if you’re catholic, sums it up pretty well why the movies ending isn’t exactly good. www.tfp.org/catholics-cannot-silent-scorseses-silence/ Also another point is let’s say these were American soldiers. They show massive patriotism and love for the US but suddenly under intense torture or having to watch other soldiers be tortured they renounce their US citizenship and denounce the US as evil and vile. Would we then still consider these to be patriots to the US.

Great comment!

And that's just the trouble with many priests today, too many are simply too afraid to speak the truth in this neo pagan age. Christian truths are soft peddled in order to not offend. No wonder so many people are losing the faith.

Honestly, people outside of places like China, and North Korea a good majority of them, I'm thinking over 85-90 percent know about Christianity. And while in those countries defying the authorities and outside knowledge of all sorts is a good thing. I would say in the west it's overkill you might say maybe they don't know what I know about Christianity, but that life. We all know what we know, and more apropos to this dialogue we all seek to know on our own. We don't need and obtrusive missionaries anymore pounding it to us that they have the good news.

Passive aggressive much?

mathew idicula The problem we have is that we have atheists going around asking people for evidence that God exists, and none of our young people have the answers. So, yeah, I don't think we need to tell people Jesus is alive, necessarily, but I do think educating people on the fact that there is proof that God exists is a public service that needs to happen. Basically, I think the focus needs to be on apologetics.

What is mortal life compared to an eternity in Paradise? Rodrigues should have let them enter God's Domain, rather than betray his faith.

​@@JonyTony2018 What worth is Rodrigues' faith when it's steeped in arrogance and the belief that he is like Christ? Him sacrificing his faith, and by extension his pride, for the safety of others is the greatest and most genuine act of love he committed in his entire life and is arguably the closest he comes to truly being like Chist.

@@casuallectures2655 this take right here is what that movie is all about. Nice explanation!

@@casuallectures2655 He could just sacrifice his life like Garupe did. Unlike Ferreira and Rodrigues, Garupe's faith is the strongest, even in death he refused to give in.

@@casuallectures2655 Blessed are you when people mock you because of me...

❤

That is a really good story, and perfectly exemplifies his choice. Not only is it she wouldn’t sacrifice her faith for random people, but she wouldn’t sacrifice them for her own sons.

You pinned it there.

So sad. My condolences to the weakness of your character

@@Ossory88 😂😂😂 how desperate are you to get into an argument or maybe for the likes of you a "conversation" that you had to make this comment. Don't you have friends ??

​@Ossory88 you obviously slip up aswell in life.

What a terrible person to see as like yourself. He was a miserable person.

@@joshseeley7 in most cases aren't we all, I mean think about it. Faith is tough to have especially when you don't feel Gods grace in your life. and I keep failing and then I keep coming back and I keep failing and I keep coming back. that's how I relate to him. nothing wrong in that. God loves all equally sinner and saint alike so if he's miserable its fine God still loves him.

"My power is perfected in weakness."

Christ died knowing his followers would be tortured to death for their beliefs, or did you not read a lick of scripture? John 11:25. Great, you saved their lives but did not save their souls. You traded their temporary torment for eternal torment... you would not be a savior in this situation, you would be a condemner. The voice that told rodriguez to trample the image was Satan and not God. God would never, ever, ever ask someone to sin.

@@notlengthy a question Peroxide Ladybirds asked is whether or not they were dying for Rodrigues's faith, or for faith itself. The movie makes a significant point in saying that the Japanese Christians mostly did not understand Christianity because the Jesuits did not make an effort to broach the cultural barrier and make it clear. The apostate Father stated, outright, that the Japanese were not dying for Christ, but for Rodrigues. Rodrigues wanted to be like Christ so much that the prospect of martyrdom became an idol. Moreover, the narrative makes it pretty clear that the majority of the Japanese Christians were most likely not saved in the sense that we understand Salvation to be. So the question becomes, if a Christian sacrificed the lives of nonChristians (who would thereafter be condemned to Hell) so that his own faith could be saved such that the martyrs who do not understand the Gospel would have no chance at truly being saved, is that Christian really making a Christ-like sacrifice? He may think he is, but it is not so clear. Another way of putting it would be this: is the possibility of you soul burning in Hell worth the possibility that those nonChristians might live another day and eventually come to truly know Christ? If it is, then is that sacrifice Christ-like? Notably, Christ died knowing others would also die for Him. But what if He lived knowing others would also die for Him, no death and resurrection? Those are two different things, especially considering His death was utterly necessary. Christ's situation was not an impossible situation, because He is God and has the ability to accomplish His will in even the worst of situations. So the question is not what God can accomplish in impossible situations, but what are we to make of Christians who are in situations that are impossible to navigate through? Again, your soul versus another? If you choose the others' have you really lost your soul? Some things are just impossible to clearly see through. God sees it clearly at the end, and I think the movie is trying to give some comfort to the vast difficulty of seeing clearly as humans in this life, even as we try to please God and do His will.

@@notlengthy I will say though, that Rodrigues becoming a force against Christianity in Japan was a pretty clear indication that his faith after a certain point most certainly became false, even if he tried to hold onto it at the end. But it's kinda interesting because it makes him very similar to the Japanese man whom he forgave over and over, and who betrayed him over and over, except now instead of Rodrigues being a priest who conduits forgiveness onto the Japanese traitor, it's Christ who is being asked by the traitor Rodrigues to be forgiven. Rodrigues despised that Japanese man through the fault of prideful sin in his heart (though he offered him the sacrament of confession), and now there's a question of whether or not Christ (who is not guilty of pride or selfish hatred) would forgive Rodrigues. I think more than a statement on what it means to be saved, the film asks us to consider whether or not our faith manifests genuinely.

The point is if other people die for your faith, it doesn’t matter. Your faith is the most important. Giving up your faith for other’s lives is not worth it. It isn’t a valiant choice, but rather an easy way out. Sure the psychological torture is hard, but it doesn’t matter. Eternal life is the most important. Take it back to the soldier point. If the soldier was asked to sacrifice his country to save civilians of another country, he shouldn’t do it. He’s not being prideful by saying his country is worth more than their lives, because the point is it IS worth more. Eternal salvation is worth more than any one’s life, even if they are not sacrificing it themselves. He is not the one killing them, and no one in their right mind would say he should sacrifice his country for the other’s lives.

@@educationalporpoises9592 how do you know it was not the devil tempting Rodriguez through the other apostate when he said "they are dying for you"

I think you are missing something here. The sacrifice of the martyrs at the sea is different from that of the priests. Giving your life for a cause you believe in can be way easier than mantaining your faith at the expense of the lives of innocent people. That's exactly why the Japanese authorities were not torturing the priests directly, they knew that it would not work because they would gladly give their life for the cause, they wanted to be martyrs. But being the cause of the death of innocent people (both believers and non believers)... for the priests that was a far worse fate than death itself. After all who were they to decide that others (even people who had already given up the faith) had to die in order for them to remain believers?

Spot on.

Exactly.

It's not noble to deny Christ. He will be denied before the Father and cast into hell.

@@joshseeley7 You missed the entire message of the film then.

@@space_1073No he didn’t, he just was more able to see it was a trash film.

@@SevereFamine If you guys genuinely think the point of that movie was that Father Rodriguez made the wrong decision, and now he's going to hell and that's the end of the movie, you have worms in your brain.

God Bless you Sister, I have the same thoughts. I also feel haunted by the movie, how would I respond to watch innocent people suffer and be tortured when I can stop it? This is of course in the face of being absurd psychologically and physcially. I do believe that a person can withstand only so much and then they loose they mind and make decisions and choices that are not coming from their true self.

Peace be with you Sister. The line that Fr. Ferreira said that is haunting me is spoken just before Fr. Rodrigues steps on the icon: "You are now going to perform the most painful act of love that has ever been performed." In the book this line is repeated. This has opened for me similar questions as the ones you suggested. What is sacrifice? Is there something greater than the sacrifice of our body? At the end of the movie Fr. Rodrigues appears to be an empty broken shell of a man. What does it mean to sacrifice out of love? Fr. Ferreira saved his own life, Fr. Rodrigues saves the lives of others, what does this difference tell us? My faith is such that God forgave both priests.

I just recently returned from a private pilgrimage Nagasaki. I had already been set to go when the movie came out. During my week there I visited many sites of both the martyrs and the hidden Christians. I also by God's "coincidence" was able to view a real fumi-e in a temporary exhibit at the museum of history and culture. I knelt under the praying stone where the hidden Christians for 300 years brought their children in the dark of night to teach them to pray. These people continued on in secret and darkness with no outside assistance until Fr. Petitjean began the building of Oura Church. I believe that God permitted the act of stepping on the fumi-e in order that the faith may persevere in silence. I cannot condemn either priest because I feel I too would step on my beloved Lord. In the book the character that I feel I most resemble is Kichijiro. The man who was a coward and constantly stepped on the fumi-e and yet was constantly compelled to return. I discovered at his literary museum that Shusaku Endo considered himself to be Kichijiro also. In the book it should be noted that it is Kichijiro who returns the priesthood to Fr. Rodregues when he comes at the end asking for confession. Once a priest always a priest. This book/movie has been a real blessing for me as it has forced me to lookdeeper into my soul.

Yes, Kichijiro and Peter. From the interaction between Jesus and Peter at the end of John, I know I will be forgiven and would be if I stepped on the fumi-e as Frs. Ferreira and Rodrigues were. I watched the 1971 Japanese version of the movie and there were a few differences, including that Fr. Ferreira stepped on the fumi-e to save five believers who were being tortured and that both fathers experienced the pit before hearing the cries of the other believers. I've yet to read the book, but it is on the way. A few years ago I accompanied another American on a tour of the cathedral in which I had been worshiping when I first moved to Beijing. The person giving the tour said that during the Cultural Revolution the crucifixes and stations of the cross and other icons were laid in the center aisle and the priests and nuns were told to walk on them. Those who refused were beaten, some to death. That was not several hundred years ago, rather within my lifetime.

P.S. it isn't like that in China today, occasionally we heard of some harassment of Chinese Christians, but nothing like during the Cultural Revolution. As foreigners we were free to worship and while we could answer questions about our faith to anyone older than 18, we were forbidden to postalize.

Plus I just noticed I have that Hitchcock book that's behind you

Beautifully said. And this is why I think it's only a logical extension for Pope Francis to extend our understanding of the divine to include the natural and animal worlds.

But those people were wrong about Jesus They thought they were worshipping the Sun of God rather than the Son of God If only the Misionaries cared about the Japanese Language, their customs and traditions along with foods

Trí Đoàn the complexity comes in where none of us know if we are worshipping the “correct” version of Christianity. I took it as their version being as valid as anyone else’s, and father Ferarra not being able to understand that due to the strict catholic dogma

@@croesuslydias6488 Yes, but the point of Christianity is to believe that Jesus who is THE Son of God and God Himself, came down to earth and died for our sins so that we may enter a relationship with God and Jesus The Japanese thought they were worshipping the Sun of God since they can grapse the concept of something natural or from nature NOT being a sort of the Divine and God

Trí Đoàn I didn’t take the part of the film you are describing as literally then. I took it as ferarr convincing himself that it was impossible to convert japan when it was his own failure not that of the people of Japan

@@trioan3500 They did, the Jesuits even created the first dictionaries. The movie is not historical when it accuses the priests of not caring about the language, it serves as plot device but its untrue. The way to evangelize a lot of people was to first convert the Lords, and so the Jesuits intermingled with the high society and obviously spoke Japanese with them.

That's interesting. I am not really familiar with Hinduism. What did you find similar?

@gamerloaders Get behind me Satan! Repent and give up your false gods' or you too shall be cast into eternal damnation. Follow Jesus who is the way, the truth and life.

323guiltyspark Beautiful!, that is exactly the stunning message of the movie and book. God bless you and keep you.

I think I agree with this interpretation the most. I'm not Christian (just a film guy) but I gotta say the most interesting interpretations of this film come from Christians.

You misunderstand the special forces example. Christians fight a battle against the devil, who in many times works through people the same as God does. He isn't equating Japan to a hostile force, he is talking about going into the heart of the enemy, IE a nation shrouded in darkness due to it's lack of faith and the persecution they face, and then giving in to their demands and joining them. As for "faith kept close to the heart being the most distilled forms of faith" you would also be incorrect. While faith and your relationship with Christ is very personal, it is something you are called to share, part of that whole "go and make disciples of all nations" that people like it ignore in favor of the "when you pay close the door and do so in private" passage that is so often misunderstood and misquoted by people who never really studied it. Faith and Christianity are not about "being a good person" as we humanly define it. People who are being made martyrs while the suffer in the human sense actually receive one of the greatest gifts of all, "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness for theirs of the kingdom of heaven." What you don't realize is you are making an argument for the humane over the Godly. You say Jesus would never have allowed people to suffer and yet he has the power to end all suffering, including that of his missionaries, and yet he does not on a daily basis. Many people still suffer to this day for God, it is THE highest calling a person can have to suffer for Christ's sake. What you have posted here is of a faith in humanity, not in a faith of Christ.

Bloody well articulated mate!

The holy martyrs who died in Japan did not die for Rodriguez. That is what the cruel ruling Japanese pitted it as. But even though they gave up the faith by word, they were still suffering for Christ. Not only did poor Rodriguez put his soul in peril, but also denied the people being tortured the chance to die for Christ. That is true ego. There is no sacrifice there, no matter how much you’d like to make it out to be. Only wanting people to stop suffering and succumb to the prince of earth at the possible forfeit of their eternal reward in heaven. God bless those who stayed strong in the faith until the end.

Me too, and you feel the difference in perspectives from afar. xD In my opinion, deconstruction of faith, gave a much more complex perspective than shown here, since it took into consideration the greatest aspect ignored; Rodrigues and his excessive ego that threatens the lives of others under the idea of spiritual superiority.

Yeah Deconstruction of Faith is way more observervant and a lot bias. It is especially telling that the movie especially shows that the Lay people or native Japanese don't even understand Christianity, and probably are not even christian. Not Barron either does mention it or was blind to it.

Deconstruction of faith analyses actions Father Rodriguez through perspective of a commoner, In this video it is a priest's perspective. Usually as a movie watcher; people tend to associate themselves with protogonist and try to draw parallels. Sympathies with his/her sufferings and find inspiration/ answers for their own lives. Deconstruction describes that very well. In fact going beyond it, it erases the 'identity'. Maybe conflict isn't between Buddhist Japan and Christianity. This is war of identities. Buddhist, Christian, are simply names of these identities (replaceable as depicted in the movie how Japanese perceive Jesus. Also highlighted by change of name for Rodriguez and Ferreiro.) Maybe the deconstruction of faith suggests sacrifice should be the centerpiec of faith and not the the identity. Faith is a medium; a mean to reach divinity and not the goal itself. If I am fixated upon such identities it automatically brings in separation from so called non believers. From example Kichijiro movie also comments on nature of sacrifice. There's no sacrifice without the belief. In the end it isn't us and they. Maybe it is all about me for everything else. How to assimilate with rest whilst remaining 'ME' in most pious sense. Sacrifice of my faith; letting go of daunting mantle of heroic attribution of sacrifice and wearing a humble robe of self discovery. The silence within; far from constant chaotic turmoil of conflict. This video however Bishop talks about the same fight that Rodrigues plagued from the beginning. Even in his example he cites a company soldiers. Which I fundamentally disagree. Again even on those terms; considering nation is another identity, we keep fighting/ dying for identity to keep them alive in whatever form possible. And the true conflict arises there. Why do we need silence? The conflict isn't out there. It is within us. The sacrifice of life or the sacrifice of egoistic identity? What gives you the peace?

@@ameygetsitright our bias are diffently gonna affect the way we view/consume media, as someone who is much for keeping or defending culture I think the Japanese are being horrible, regardless of whether or not they view Christianity as a threat to their way of life. That being said christian missionaries are often a branch of imperialism and colonialism, and where often violent in the cause. So I can understand why the Japanese viewed them as a threat. As someone who is not religious I see Rodrigies actions as not only ego driven as he seems to be often comparing himself to Jesus, but futile.

@@ff8740 Yeah I agree with you. I think it's kinda like a game. It may sure sound insensitive; but in a way missionaries are somewhat responsible for actions of the Japanese. Ideally what of paramount importance should is life, yet as a missionary; in order to 'replicate' passion of Jesus, many missionaries historically has sacrificed their lives in order to upheld faith. Now there's a lucrative prospect of being a martyr which too was beneficial as PR gig for the church. But somehow it reduced the value of life, made 'religion' and it's symbols larger th life and thus worthy of dying for. Now Inquisitors in a way are merely matching the stakes raised by the Church. Missionaries promoted martyrdom, and people are simply following it blindly through faith. Isn't it wasted? Isn't it marching in a void for no appearant cause? Is the goal of a living to achieve martyrdom over a religious sentiments? These questions arise, and maybe, just maybe 'Silence' takes a divergent take on what true martyrdom is. It is not of life but that of ego.

Its ironic because bhuddism is also a foreign religion. Their native religion is shinto.

@@ilearncode7365 Buddhism is very easily syncretized compared to Christianity. That's why they took roots far easier.

​@@yunaru3643Christianity has taken root in China better

Good, look at what Christianity has done to the Americas alone. Genocides done with glee

I’m a Christian. But I appreciate your comment. It shows your maturity to think in such a way.

“Christianity is not always a big religion and wherever it spreads it is also persecuted” talk about an understatement. Even today Christianity is the most persecuted religion. This is especially true in the middle where in countries such as Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Many Christian communities have been wiped out or are in the process of being destroyed. In the United States and many other countries founded by north Western Europeans its popular to hate Christianity. Many secular people see it as an oppressive and powerful force. However if you take a broader look at history you’ll find that Christianity tended to act as a civilizing force. Christianity wiped out barbaric practices such human sacrifice where it spread and laid the foundation for modern civil society. I know how it feels to only know certain parts of history that spotlight negative aspects of western people and cultural. I went to public school. Anything I learned from public school I heavily discount. I Retain the what, where, and when, but the why, how, and impact usually reflect the biases of the institution. Try to learn what happened and when from history. Try to realize the scale and context of events. For example the slave trade: how many slave were brought where by who? Most schools will not tell you this. Most slaves stayed in Africa next most went to the caribians and Middle East. A relatively small percentage actually went to North America. Yet I would have never know this if I didn’t look outside of what I was taught in school. Furthermore almost every group of people have been enslaved at various points throughout history. Europeans for example enslaved each other for example during Rome’s conquest of Gaul, Spain, and other areas. Europeans were often enslaved to Arabs and North Africans during the conquest of Spain or the sack of the eastern Roman Empire for example. Anyway this just one area where context helps to understand the role of slavery in history. Yet I would have thought slavery was exclusively a white on black thing after coming out of high school. My advice for learning history in an environment where so many people are trying to push their own agenda is this: try to read history books written before the cultural revolution of the 1960s. When someone tells you what the meaning of something is ignore it. Focus on what happened and try to construct your own prospective.

A christian has no right to tell others to seek knowledge considering how proudly ignorant and meek you people are. Im well aware that I may be lied to or handed false info but unlike you I question all of it when you aren't even allowed. you blindly follow men who have more than often not manipulated you into getting what they want.

TheBAGman17 I’m not even Christian but what would it matter if I was? Dude you just assume all these negative attributes about people you haven’t even met. You call them ignorant while at the same time making lots of negative assumptions. Please think about that.

@@joejohn6795 It's not an assumption it's experience. There are very important questions that had to be answered that I was neither allowed to ask nor would ever be answered.

".....but he saved those people from torture and death" I think that this is the main point, and I agree with Madoka K. If the movie (and book) had been made differently, with a renunciation of faith meaning only the death of the priest, then perhaps we could look at it differently. But his renunciation, in fact, saved the life of many innocent people.

Christianity is concerned with the salvation of souls and the glorifying of God, NOT maximising material utility and the life span of individuals... no-one has the right to deny Christ no matter how many lives it could "save" (I write "save" because ultimately everybody will die eventually anyway) . Their renunciation and defeatism arguably prevented countless Japanese souls from ever entering Heaven.

God only knows what you would have done Michael. And, it is important to remember that in many ways, we deny Christ every time we sin.

William Brown 1) This isn't about what a weak individual would have or wouldn't have done, this is about what the RIGHT THING to do in that situation would have been. 2) Some sins are more egregious than others, deliberate wilful and public rejection of Christ is one of the more serious ones. (Church teaching on mortal vs. venial sin is proof of this heirachy)

It was utterly disgraceful. I empathise of course, but nevertheless. Any empathy I had was lost when they were casually going through religious articles and pictures of saints like St Laurence - who did die for his faith - and turning them into authorities. Not only turning away yourself but stopping others from being strengthened in the faith.

But what did Jesus say about Whoever wants to save the lives of others? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - that quote makes judgement very difficult. Buddhists were very good (that is, evil) at probing the psychological weakness of any human, not only Christians. As the movie says as the final scene arrives, "The man who was Rodrigues . . . was lost to God. But as to that, indeed, only God can answer." No man can judge souls, only God.

@@not2tees So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. Not Peace, but a Sword 34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

@@HassanMadeov It's a relief to know that Buddhists, who usually get presented in such a positive light, were capable of some exquisite torturing of minds and bodies, just like their Christian brothers of the Inquisition. I personally do not fear Hell - that's my judgement at the moment. When you look down from your cloud in the future and see me screaming and writhing, I hope you won't feel extra good about it. But like I say, only God can judge a soul.

@@not2tees i quoted just Jesus and im sure he did not say it for fun. He knew there will be people which deny him and he warned us. I dont judge

Whoever is in control of the torture and the brain washing takes the responsibility of ruining "the value of a common sense of humanity and love of one's fellow man" and diabolically attacking that value by opposing it against "one's beliefs and personal convictions." And in this movie, that is Buddhism.

interesting point.

Spinlok so modern society is drowning, torturing, beheading, crucifying and burning alive christians?

Metaphorically yes.

Our materialist society never tolerated and will never tolerate the Church of Jesus Christ, the Holy Catholic Church.

Not only metaphorically. There are christians suffering persecution in the middle east. Many of whom have been crucified, especially in Syria. And of course, there is the cutural persecution in the west too

Friend, I'm with you in regard to silence, under certain circumstances. But public and repeated apostasy? That's not silence, but most eloquent denial.

To the Most Reverend Bishop Robert Barron: I wholeheartedly agree with your thought-provoking review. Moreover, as with other videos of yours, it has the great double merit of answering and raising many fundamental questions. Such as: is killing a man intrinsically evil? I was wondering how, for example, the doctrine of Just War is to be understood in this perspective. I find the issue quite troubling. Also, while the reiterated renunciation of the faith out of convenience is morally objectionable and utterly repugnant to the Will of God, as You correctly point out; what are we to make of someone stepping on a sacred image as a mere exterior and formal act? In order not to save his own life, but to save the life of innocents (granted that no one is truly innocent and all have fallen short of the glory of God)? Were the lives of my own father, mother and younger sister threatened in such a horrific way, how am I supposed to react, what is the right thing to do? I'm struggling to find a clear and definitive answer. I would greatly appreciate your help, dear Bishop. In Matthew 10:16 we find Jesus saying: "Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves." What is therefore to be understood as wise in such extreme circumstances? It seems to me we are here confronted with two evils. From the one side an act of formal apostasy (be it only exterior and inauthentic or simulated). From the other side the tacit though unwilling consent to innocent people being tortured and executed. This is highly problematic. What is the lesser evil of the two? Is a forced repudiation factual, even when selfless, or the responsibility of it falls entirely on the torturers and slaughterers? What kind of behavior would Jesus expect of us, what would He consider wise and moral out of His infinite Love and mercy, and out of His profound humanity? Thank you dear Bishop Barron

You have said elsewhere that A Man For All Seasons is your favorite movie. I haven't seen "Silence" yet but I have seen AMFAS almost as many times as you have (so you can't slip a piece of dialogue from the movie past me). Meg saying, "Say the words of the oath and in your heart think otherwise" always seemed to make good sense to me.

Dear Bishop Barron, upon further reflection and having examined the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I arrived at the unavoidable conclusion that your stance is thoroughly accurate. So that previous doubts have now dissipated for the most part. In fact, according to the Catechism “A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).” And again, “The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” Regarding self-defence, it is stated that “The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”” I think I am left with this one last difficulty, Bishop Barron. Let’s say a missionary, as in the case at hand, is forced to apostatize formally or else people entrusted to his care, but unwilling to die as martyrs, be tortured and killed. Were he to perpetrate this intrinsically evil/disordered act, in order not to preserve his own material body, but the life of those people in peril; in that case, granted no other option is available, and that he intends not to renounce Faith, but to defend innocent lives, would he still be responsible, at least in part? And to what extent? I mean, does the moral burden for the terrible act (apostasy in and of itself is gravely and intrinsically sinful) fall on the torturers and murderers alone/entirely? Sure, Love of God comes before any and all worldly preoccupations and considerations, so that some measure of detachment from all which is other than God or mundane has to be achieved. That argument I’ve made in previous comments, concerning equally evil alternatives, was probably flawed at its core, since we must never commit evil, no matter what. In this sense, by its own nature, apostasy is possibly the most evil of acts. Yet, from the Love of God derives love for our brother, grounded as it is in that Love. Tortured, helpless men, there the suffering face of the crucified Christ is most visible. It is made clear how problematic and disheartening the position of the missionary is, how dramatic his choice (I'm not talking of repeated public denial, of course). Nonetheless “It is…an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” This being true, as it is, does not deny the legitimacy of self-defence, because in certain circumstances resorting to violence against a brutal aggressor is not in and of itself repugnant to morality nor intrinsically illicit: he is not innocent, but is harming the innocent. Thank You Bishop Barron. God bless You

I think the criticism is not of the silence, but the outright betrayal and public conversion, when push came to shove, against Christ. But it's easy to say so, while the obviously heroic and difficult position to die for the Faith is the most difficult and complete expression of the Faith. Most of us betray Christ in small matters, so it is silly to think that we could ever be faithful in the Largest matters of life and death; and that is why we need LENT and mortification. Then when the time comes, we can choose to die so that we may truly Live. God bless you and keep up the struggle. "When you're going through hell what do you do?" "You keep on GOING!" ~Churchill

Every Scorcese movie is a masterpiece

God bless you 🙏 ❤

But one can never do evil that good might come of it.

If good comes from it, can it really be evil? Ambiguous, perhaps, even distasteful, but evil is pretty categorical to say about something that leads to good.

Sure it's evil: the direct renunciation of one's faith, reiterated time and again for many decades, even long after the immediate pressure is off. And lots of evil things can produce good effects. One could say that the killing of 75,000 innocent people at Hiroshima hastened the end of the war, but this wouldn't for a moment make that act morally praiseworthy.

Bishop Robert Barron At what point can something evil be permissible Father? Looking at the crusades for instance the Europeans waged them to protect Christ, country and family. Now in this day and age our homelands are under siege by foreigners. Is protecting one's hegemony always evil?

Bishop Robert Barron Not morally praiseworthy maybe, but there's a case to be made for it, which isn't something you say about evil. I'm not a utilitarian, but the fact that utilitarianism is a moral philosophy most people agree with to varying degrees depending on the context, and at the very least requires a robust critique and isn't obviously wrong, suggests black and white moral claims about it aren't appropriate.

What is the use of a car if roads werent built for it. What is the use of a bicycle to a man who lost his legs etc Even tools were made for different people.

Your first claim simply isn't true. Atheists and Muslims are the two most disliked minorities in America. 49% of Americans say they would be most disappointed if an immediate family member married an atheist. There are zero atheists in Congress and seven states that prohibit atheists from holding public office. It is sanctimonious for Christians to act like they are part of a persecuted minority.

Why would you criticise an atheist? He/She doesn't believe in any spiritual movement. They mostly criticise the organisation behind the religion and they have valid points. You as a Christian decided to be Part of this organisition which in many cases neglects modern science and forces its views upon people (being born as a member of the catholic church, you are forced to be part of it before you can question that institution). If an atheist dislikes your cult what is there to criticise if he is being polite. Being an atheist just means not believing in religion, it isn't rude behavior or being unpolite to people who follow the spiritual orientation of a religion.

This arrogance and blindness is exactly why people turn away from religion.

@@Newovar and Seinfeld, Mo just got done expressing that atheism isn't rude and it looks like his statement was immediately contradicted, twice. I'm not here to condemn anyone and I don't think it would be a good idea to try to justify this approach, but this isn't the way to do things. I also don't think it's fair to say atheism is just a lack of belief or simply a rejection of religion since by not believing in the supernatural, it immediately leads one to becoming a naturalist (unless you are a spiritual atheist such as a Buddhist), which is a belief. Atheists disagree about the definition of atheism and those that say it's just a lack of belief, it just can't be true. This lack of belief fuels how an atheist views the world. Invent your own purpose because there isn't any, we create our own meaning and value, naturalism, all of it is tied to this lack of belief. Due to atheism being a positive belief, it should be included in this list of worldview beliefs and therefore should not be seen as superior to any other belief. It is a preferred position, not an evidential one, because it being a positive belief needs to be justified with evidence just as any other belief and if the burden of proof for no God has not been met, evidence can't be the reason to be atheist, just a preference. I understand if you disagree and it's not my intention to be insulting because I know this offends some atheists but when a person is a naturalist due to their lack of belief or their lack of belief is due to one's naturalist perspective, either way, it is a belief and this needs to be justified with the burden of proof of God's existence and is therefore not superior to alternative views. It would only be a preference apart from the proof. Either you are a naturalist atheist or a spiritual atheist (like Buddhism). Both are beliefs. Please look up the definition of naturalism on Google. It is a belief... Then ask yourself, "Is it that I don't believe because there is no proof for God? If so, where's my proof for my beliefs? If not, then is it simply because I don't want God to exist?" That is something only you can answer for yourself. Please be honest and done be afraid of the truthful answer, but follow truth because that's what you claim to be in pursuit of... Here is the moment of Truth...

Did you say that after you stepped over the hundreds of thousands of dead non believers to say that lol. You are truly warped..

If its a discussion of the film theres a good chance its gonna be a spoiler

very good point. it seems like in an age where everything is secularized it's almost even more of a challenge to keep the faith. An irony of all ironies.

very good point. it seems like in an age where everything is secularized it's almost even more of a challenge to keep the faith. An irony of all ironies.

But friend, they maintained their apostasy long after lives were in immediate danger. For decades and decades, they continued to repudiate their faith, their priestly commitment, and their deepest identity. I just can't see them as heroes.

Bishop Robert Barron exactly Fr. they realized that being a "hero", or a Marty to the faith was not worth the lives of the lay. i understand that it was painful for the two to denounce their Faith, but by doing so, they saved multiple lives. at the end, it wasn't anymore important if they became martyrs of the Church. it was love. only love.