But didn't the Catholic Church commit countless atrocities as well? The same church that preached the doctrine of god and love that you spoke about. Doesn't that indicate that with or without god, good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things?
@ledzep288 I just want to comment quickly about your sex outside of marriage comment. First Hebrews 13:4. Then I will say I was in an honest and committed relationship with a girl when I was on the rocks with Jesus and my faith. We had sex a few times because we planned on marrying someday....well we are not married now. There is never a guarantee, and committed and honest is not marriage. Hope this blesses you. (:
I would like some clarification on why the secular state's stance on gay marriage ?(I.e that it is a contract in law, with certain rights and responsibilities, and subject to various other laws) threatens in any way the Catholic sacramental view of marriage. The Church can choose to consecrate whatever union it chooses, wholly separately from the secular state.
Not your best argument. We should align our actions with our beliefs--and yes, beliefs matter--but your point, really, is this: what matters is having the correct (by your account) beliefs. You are good at framing questions such that the answer is always "be a better Catholic".
But your causal chain is shaky if you think that failure to believe in an obscure deity is the reason why Greeks and Romans failed to espouse human rights as we know them, or that all atheism slopes to totalitarianism.
@jontv Well I don't think the God I'm talking about is "an obscure deity." He is the creator of the universe, the non-contingent ground of contingency. It is the case that classical thinkers did not hold to a creator God, and this did indeed lead them not to recognize inalienable rights in all people. And atheism does slope toward ethical relativism, which indeed conduces to totalitarianism. When there is no objective ground for morality, the will of the powerful becomes absolute.
@wordonfirevideo - Jehovah was obscure to the Greeks and Romans. You're indulging in self-serving anachronism, akin to saying that if Plato had listened to Woody Guthrie, he would have known slavery is wrong.
Failure on your part to envision a robust ethics in the absence of faith is no proof of anything. You're an historical cherry-picker. You don't get to choose Hitler and Stalin as my representatives, as if all atheists would behave the same way, given a chance.
@wordonfirevideo - We've been over this before, but it's always amusing to see you argue that humanity would be beastly without belief in God, when Christian history is saturated with beastliness. Your belief system has a mediocre record at best when it comes to preventing the kind of atrocities you attribute to atheism. You think if everyone were a proper Catholic, we'd do better, but the same could be said of Buddhism or any number of other godless belief systems. Your bias is undeniable.
@jontv As Chesterton said, "men today have lost their way, but that's not surprising. Men always lose their way. The difference is that they've lost their address." Yes, religious peole have done terrible things, but at least I can say, with objectivity, that I know they've done bad things. Take God out of the picture, you have a very hard time naming anything as definitively right or wrong. And that's indeed why a systematic atheism has led, time after time, to brutality.
@wordonfirevideo - The order of these comments seems to be screwed up, or things are disappearing.
Can you really imagine a scenario in which naming something "definitively wrong" is going to make more than an academic difference? Do you think a potential rapist, murderer, or totalitarian dictator is going to hesitate because something is not just "wrong", but "definitively wrong", according to you and the Catholic tradition? "Wrong and here's why" is the best we can do, and it's good enough.
@wordonfirevideo - Ultimately, arguing on the basis of objective morality is just a fancy, rationalized "God says so" argument, because you see your deity as the basis for all morality. Why you expect that to make a difference when the vast majority of people on this planet are not Catholic, I don't know. That is part of why I find this kind my-way-or-the-highway rhetoric rather divisive and counterproductive: i.e. "We can agree as long as you accept all of my stipulations about the universe."
@jontv Do you think what you've said in your posting is objectively right? Then you're appealing to some intrinsic quality of your statement: its truthfulness. Catholics hold that there is something analogous within ethical acts: they carry a quality of goodness or evil, not because we think so or the majority stipulates. "God" is simply a shorthand for the unconditioned exemplar of objective goodness. None of this has a thing to do with things being good "because God says so."
@wordonfirevideo - But ultimately, you believe that God is the basis for morality, and when you discover what is "objectively right", it's in accordance with God's will. I think that is a distinction without a difference.
If one need not refer to God to achieve "objective morality", then you must admit that atheists are just as capable of knowing what's right as you are (your denial of which is what I balked against). Or is it just the idea of "objective morality" that's so important to you?
@wordonfirevideo - As I've said, I don't think it's necessary or helpful to believe in objective absolutes when it comes to morality. To me, improving one's ethical philosophy is an ongoing effort. To say "we know this is objectively right" is to shut down that process too soon, as when people think that science as discovered the definitive answer to some question, only to find out that another discovery has reframed the question. My aim is not black or white, but an ever-lighter shade of gray.
@wordonfirevideo - I still think you are too sold on the efficacy of declaring your values to be absolute. In its real-world effect, that is just a rhetorical strategy, and not a very good one, in my opinion. You focus on the danger of allowing people to believe that maybe they can figure this stuff out for themselves. I would rather declare that we have NO OTHER CHOICE, so let's get serious about it and do a better job of applying our best ethical principles to a society that badly needs them.
Fr. Barron, what are your thoughts on female/married priests? Changes may need to eventually be made with this policy. How about gay marriage, how is this not a civil rights issue? Other institutions (the military, some states) have begun to accept gays- why does the Church seem hesitant to support gay marriage? How can a mostly unmarried Church clergy tell any lay person who they can or cannot marry? I respect your profession and your vows father, but the argument against it doesn't make sense.
With respects to birth control (condoms in particular) while not 100% effective, you can’t deny the effectiveness of them in regards to helping prevent diseases from spreading. I understand the Church’s position that sex should be reserved for reproduction and should stay within the contexts of marriage- an honorable, moral concept. However, I think that if unmarried couples are honest with each other and in a committed relationship, they should be able to practice “safe sex” (no abortions)
I think the Church is going to have to at least consider this policy change, many parishes today face priest shortages. There are many benefits to having female priests and I’m sure there are women who would love to do the job but can’t because they aren’t allowed yet. Maybe they can let priests get married someday. Who’s to say you can’t be a good priest just because you’re married? This might help priests understand marital problems better too, if they were allowed to be married themselves.
There were female followers of Jesus too, they just weren’t called Apostles. Keep in mind the early Church existed in an extremely male dominated time in history- which was probably why the Church gave more authority and power to men than women. Ordaining women would have been unheard of back then. All I’m saying is a person’s gender/old traditions shouldn’t disqualify women from applying for this position. It should be based on their character, values, and abilities just like any other job.
Gazdo01, I appreciate your comments and ideas. Judging from some of your comments it's clear that you've paid attention during the readings last Sunday.
Let me just say that I agree with you on abortion, I think it's morally wrong and that people need to take responsibility for their actions and need to consider other options such as adoption. Gay marriage is a huge topic which I won't go into detail but I think the Church should view it as a civil rights issue.
I consider myself to be a good Catholic, but there are some policies and Church rules that I just don't understand. For example, why can't priests be married? Why are there no female priests or clergy members? Who cares if gay people get married or not? Why doesn't the Church recognize the practical benefits of birth control? (ex. less disease spreading, less teen pregnancies). The Church has changed their policies in the past (Vatican 2), do you think they will change them anytime soon?
@ledzep288 1. Priest can be married. The Church never doctrinaly imposed celibacy. Proof is that in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church married men can become priests. However, in the West, it is a matter of purity of tradition.
For one thing, Jesus is the perfect model, the perfect man, and he was celibate. He demanded that those who can, should remain celibate.
Paul, the greatest Apostle, remained celibate and recommanded celibacy in order to serve the Lord more perfectly.
@ledzep288 2. It is a matter of historical fact that Jesus appointed MEN (the 12 Apotles) as his successors. Those men in return passed their authority to other men. They were all the first bishops.
Remember that the priest acts "in Persona Christi". Christ was a man.
It is not so much that the Church denies ordination of woman per se, but the Church is saying it doesn't have the authority necessary to ordain women, since Christ himself never ordained one.
@ledzep288 3. Birth control and disease spreading. You talk of PRACTICAL benefits... Well, they don't exist. Of course if you do a clinical trial on condoms for example, you can show that condom use is an effective way to prevent transmission of STDs. But that's not the point. The Church is against fornication. She wants to protect family, mariage, being faithfull, etc. Look at the ABC program is Uganda, and compare it to the situation in the rest of Africa.
@ledzep288 4. Birth control and teen pregnancies. Let me ask you a question: why are there MORE and MORE teen pregnancies since we introducted birth control? There is a direct correlation between contraception use and undesired pregnancies, which equals to abortion. There has been 50 000 000 abortons in the USA alone since it's implantation in the health program.
Father Barron has produced 3 greats videos on the subject, just seach "abortion" on his channel.
There are eunuchs born so from their mother's womb, there are eunuchs made so by human agency and there are eunuchs who have made THEMSELVES so for the sake of the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Let anyone accept this WHO CAN. Mt 19.12
I should still like everyone to be as I am myself; but everyone has his own gift from God, one this kind and the next something different. To the unmarried and to widows I say: IT IS GOOD FOR THEM TO STAY AS THEY ARE, LIKE ME. 1 Cor 7.7-8
@ledzep288 I should like you to have your minds free from all worry. The UNMARRIED MAN gives his mind TO THE LORD'S affairs and to how he can please the Lord; but the man who is married gives his mind to the AFFAIRS OF THIS WORLD and to how he can please his wife, and he is DIVIDED in mind. 1 Cor 7.32-33
@ledzep288 So, too, the UNMARRIED WOMAN, and the VIRGIN, gives her mind to the LORD'S AFFAIRES and to being HOLY in BODY AND SPIRIT; but the married woman gives her mind to the AFFAIRS OF THIS WORLD and to how she can please her husband. I am saying this only to help you, not to put a bridle on you, but so that everything is as it should be, and you are able to give your UNDIVIDED ATTENTION TO THE LORD. 1 Cor 7.34-35
The Catholic Church is THE Biblical Church. Does this answer your question?
Oh, and we don't just "see" that Word in the Blessed Sacrament, we *experience it* there. It's not just a simple perspective thing. It's a reality, brought into this world thanks to the Last Supper/Institution of the Eucharist. He is God, He is the Word made flesh, that is His Body, and we take it into ourselves. There seems to come a point, then, that there just isn't "other" any more. We're all connected through the Eucharist. Is there any truth to this, or would you suggest I've gone bananas?
Father, I'm going to go out on a limb here and share an insight I had that addresses the "other" idea. I was thinking about how in the Eucharist, when we receive the Blessed Sacrament, we are not really "other" from the Word any more. St. John wrote that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the word WAS GOD. And we see that Word in the Blessed Sacrament. So when we consume that Bread and Wine, can there really be "other" any more? Or do I sound really Johanine??
I'm sharing the hell out of this, because I know a lot of New Age folks who tend to buy into this "being a good person is what really matters" idea. A lot of them don't like this video, because to them Christianity and the Catholic Church, etc, have lost all credibility because of the bad things that have happened throughout history in the name of Jesus and the Church, etc, but I can't back down in the face of those arguments. Got to keep the message out there.
I'm reminded of a university chaplain of mine who spent some time in Japan studying Buddhism and got angry about Western self-styled Buddhists who "treat Buddhism like it's a denomination of Christianity." That is, they would talk in glowing terms about how Buddhism is all about love. No, it's not. It does talk about benevolence, but the metaphysical structure proposed by Buddha is strikingly different from that of Judeo-Christianity and does not particularly involve love.
christian belief is strange:He decides to redeem mankind, to save them from his eternal damnation.To do so, he will send his son to be murdered as a sacrifice to himself,in atonement for the transgressions committed aginst himself. He chooses a people to help him do it. He makes sure that theyknow of his plan by sending hunderds of prophets, But if they know he is the Messiah, they will not kill him, and the plan will be spoiled. She he makes the prophecies murky. His scheme works. What a script
@ndzoko Well friend, if you're serious about having a dialogue, I have to ask you to move beyond this ridiculous caricature of Christianity that you've presented.
@wordonfirevideo May I express my admiration for your genuine christian response. NO KIDDING. Finally a christian who seems to grasp the spirit of the gospels. You are a rare breed.
Thank you for the clarity in defining the difference between ethics and doctrine. So many times it has been posed to me that being a good person is sufficient and I never had the knowledge to explain why that wasn't complete. Maybe after listening to this talk a couple of more times, I will be able to explain...or just point them to your video! LOL Keep up the great work Father!
My mother was raised Baptist and my Father was raised Catholic. I chose Catholisium when I got older, with out my Dad having much to do with it.
When my mother started noticing me paying more attintion to the difrent teachings of The Church and all the Doctrents. She became upset to see me folowing them, espesholy when they whent aginst what she belives. She would say, "Be carfule with Religeus Doctren! It maters more what is in your hart."
Father Barron, I've noted that people actually care very little about history and what happened a generation or two ago with the Communists, etc etc. Sad, really. If people understood world history a bit better, maybe, just maybe, some of the errors of the past might not be repeated. But that's a big MAYBE.
So....if we're not good, that does *not* matter? We can be so-called "bad" and rapists and murderers and robbers and cheats and liars and it doesn't matter? I find it difficult to wrap my mind around that.
I agree with what Fr Barron is saying in this posting, but what I find absent is a criticism of the Catholic hierarchy that is failing to instruct the laity in the doctrine if the Church. Apart from homilies, most of which fail to correlate doctrine and the existential questions people have in culture (Paul Tillich's "throwing stones"), there is hardly any teaching in most parishes. All the parishes I have been to were more or less dead (I'm in the Uk).
I have found that it is very hard to get most others to grasp the meaning of this unconditional love. This is the love that Jesus had for all peoples all over the world. Accepting "sacrifice" is what makes it so hard as many do not really want to make these sacrifices so therefore they cannot truly love and commit...
Mr. Baron, as a follower of God that is not a member of the RCC, I can say that I am glad to see this being discussed more. What you believer certainly matters, for eternity. Thank you for bringing this into discussion.
Father, I really need to ask this: would you say that you and many other Catholics love (by *any* definition of the word) gay people? I have a lot of gay friends who feel anything *but* loved by Christian people and the Church, etc etc. Is there any form of love there for them as human beings at all?
@ladylejean215 Of course the Catholic Church and all good Catholics love gay people! We love all people, regardless of any qualifier you could come up with. But listen to what Fr. Baron says love is: Love is willing the good of the other. Love is NOT letting someone do whatever they want. Because Catholics believe homosexual behavior is disordered and sinful, that is, it is not "good" for the individual who practices it, we condemn that behavior.
Which is more important though - believing the right things: or having the right attitudes ? What is the point of being orthodox in doctrine, if one's life is a contradiction of the teaching of Christ ? He set ethical conduct above external forms & external observances, as had the Prophets before him. This is not the position you are combatting BTW; & it avoids letting the Church muffle the teaching of Christ, as it is apt to do. For the Teaching Church is no better than we are :(
plus go to confession regularly and pray the rosary, I was an skeptical of the Virgin and the rosary but It has been amazing what has done for me on one year.
Certainly it matters what we believe. Some beliefs help, some hurt. And looking big picture you'd be hard pressed to find a correlation between ethical behavior and religiousness. Wickedness seems to be pretty evenly distributed between the believer and the heathen. Been that way since Cain wacked Abel – I exempt Adam & Eve because that was entrapment.
May I just congratulate all involved in the Catholicism series, especially for the "Extended Preview" which I've only just now seen. Though I thought the previous short trailer was disappointing in concentrating solely upon the Third World, and neglecting ethnic Europeans, the extended preview is so beautiful it brought tears to my eyes, firm Protestant that I am. Beautiful, just beautiful !
this video does an incredible job of expressing the fact that you cannot truly be a good person without following the words of the bible. because if you are to truly believe in them then you know well enough that if you listen to what it says you will be how your supposed to be and that no matter what society says its your beliefs that tell you whats right and wrong and what makes a person good or bad.
Father, I have a question about this. When you said that the idea equality stems from the doctrine of God, how could you explain the treatment of say, women in the the Dark Ages Europe? Just as an example.
(Please note that this is an honest question, it's not meant to be malignant towards you in anyway. I am just curious on what you think the explanation for this would be.)
@Operateer You mean Women in the Age of the Cathedrals? There's a book by that name, as a matter of fact. I think you would appreciate finding out how women were actually treated in the era referred to by the propoganda label "Dark Ages." Suffice it to say that women were a whole lot better off once Christianity was normalized than they were in Pagan Rome. You might even make the case that they were a whole lot better off than they are now, but that depends on whether or not you worship Bahomet.
@benabaxter Pardon, but it's "Women in the Days of the Cathedrals," and the manufactured pagan deity is spelled Baphomet, and because Baphomet is fake I should have written Moloch.
@benabaxter Hmm, I should look it up. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there would be propaganda about such things, in attempt to make the Church look bad. If you don't mind me asking, what do you mean by, "that depends on whether or not you worship Baphomet."?
Father Barron, long time viewer of your videos but this is my first comment. I found this video one of the most intriguing because I am not Catholic, I am Methodist. My question for you is, how would I as a Methodist fit into this definition of being a good person if we have different doctrinal views on things such as the Eucharist or the Saints?
@mrandquist Well those are not as central as our common beliefs in God, creation, incarnation, etc. But they do indeed make a difference. The key is finding common ground and then having a good, vigorous discussion. God bless you!
@wordonfirevideo Well I am reading a book about Saints and I do visit the local Catholic church near my house though I find that people are in a rush to get to church and a rush to get out, thus having a good vigorous discussion is difficult. I share in the Catholic beliefs in the Creation, Incarnation, Resurrection, Atonement etc; As for being a good person, how would God define a good person? I think His view would be vastly different than most people's view, myself included.
@wordonfirevideo Father Barron... I loved what you did here. I think you've touched on the central dilemma for atheists, most of whom want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to deny God and yet enjoy a love that is beyond utilitarian self-interest. But if this unselfish love that we yearn for is real then so is God. Father, please continue to do what you you. I work with young Catholic kids and see first hand what the world does to them. God bless you.
Oh, and I so deeply wish, Father, that you'd do a specific video on the "SBNRs" or "Spiritual But Not Religious" people and why it's so inadvisable to completely divide spirituality from religion. These folks are getting it all wrong and they don't even know why.
Doctrine, as defined in Catholicism, is a practice or belief that may or may not necessarily be believed or practiced by the entirety of the faithful Church. I.E. to take part in Marian devotion is a doctrine since not every person does so nor is it taught that one MUST do so in order to be saved or to be consistent in faith.
Dogma however is what must believed by the entire Church. The divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, ect. are all dogmas. If disbelieved, you are anathema.
Father, you should do a video on the Occupy movement, and the pepper-spraying incident at UC Davis. Because it might - repeat, MIGHT - come to your university too. You know how students can get. :)
In all fairness, this is hard. It's hard to put aside how we feel and make a choice to love another person. For me, it didn't even become possible until a. I asked sincerely for the grace to do so and b. I began to understand that love is as much (perhaps more) a cognitive choice as it is an emotional feeling. I don't always FEEL very loving toward my spouse or children, but I can always make the CHOICE to respond/interact with love. When I do this, my love grows.
The failure to the draw a correlation between the systematic immanentization of individual merit via the soul, and the ~120,000,000 dead—a median estimate—at the hands of autocratic, communist regimes, is a supreme cognitive dissonance indeed. Secular reciprocity, mutual altruism, and other tripe espoused by the New Atheists has no answer to this problem. Altruism is nice, but why spare the egg when it's conducive to crack it?
More fantastic work from Fr. Barron & company. Thank you very much.
TORONTO - Stephen Hawking says the colonization of outer space is key to the survival of humankind, predicting it will be difficult for the world's inhabitants "to avoid disaster in the next hundred years."
Science turns superhero as it battles to save the planet and preserve the human race.
I am catholic and do not believe all doctrines of the church. I agree with him on the doctrines he mentions, but others not mentioned I do not agree with. The bible tells us to test all things, that doesn't mean to check our brain at the church doors. Proestants who believe in God, but do not believe in all the catholics doctrines, in no way lack love or love less because of this.
If you don't believe all the teachings of the Church, you don't have any business calling yourself Catholic. Catholicism is an all or nothing proposition. If you want to pick and choose what you believe out of it fine, but don't try and be taken seriously if you claim to be a faithful Catholic.
@Childinfaith : I did not claim to be what you call a faithful catholic, just a catholic. I'll ask you the same question no other catholic has been able to answer when this comes up. The catholic doctrine teaches us to pray to the blessed mother. I do not, now, is this a mortal sin because I don't, and do not believe we should, and that she is not the co medieator?
You are not required to pray to the Blessed Mother for salvation so it is not a sin to do so or not to do so. However, the Church is very clear on its teachings surrounding the Virgin Mary. To explain it all in 500 characters would be difficult. My suggestion is read the Catechism on the subject of the Virgin Mary and perhaps the biblical basis for our devotion to her. Other than that all I can say is if you just want to be a "Catholic" and not "faithful" then there's a problem.
@Childinfaith Thank you, if there is no sin in this then I am being faitthful. Like the church if you chose to do so because you think it is either necessary or just want to, you have my blessing. Being faithful is not doing the same things as others or your not part of the club. It is the reason I am a catholic. Most catholics who pray to the blessed mother cannot see this.
For me the definition of being faithful is adhering to the teachings of your faith regardless of whether or not you agree with them. At times I may not wish to go to Mass each Sunday for whatever deficient reason I may have but still I go. You may not at times enjoy the company of your spouse at times, but you remain married. Yes, Marian devotion is a doctrine not dogma, but the ability to do so is most certainly dogma and praise given as well. To take part however is up to you.
@Childinfaith Very well said. All non catholics should take note of this. The church teaches that our God is the God of the living not the dead. The saints and Blessed Mother can pray for mankind. They may be dead here on earth but are alive in heaven. Thank you for taking the time to share your beliefs.
Is Father Barron serious? The God of the Bible is not one of love. He does not believe in respect, dignity, freedom and inherent worth of every individual. The God of the Bible is one of genocide, slavery, prejudice and hate. As one example, In Samuel 8, David [with God's support] kills 2/3 of the Moabites and makes the rest slaves. 2/3 is even worse than the Holocaust. The doctrine that this obscene character exists is what allows us to love?
Nah. What I'm doing in contrast to you is realizing that not everything I can read on the internet is true. Were it "historical evidence" maybe I would have been tested on it in high school.
"How many Jews did the Catholic Church want Hitler to kill in WWII? A. 100, B. 100000, C. 1 million, D. All of um"
"Why did priests and or bishops protect Jews during WWII?"
"A. Because they were endowed by God with a conscience to protect innocent people from genocide." B. Because they knew Catholicism said its ok to kill Jews but said no anyway." C. Because they made good sandwiches."
This is precicly why any attempt to show the obvious truths of history in opposition to the attempts to have Catholicism and Nazism as synonymous terms makes people like you go all up in arms. Why? Because whatever axe you have to grind against Catholicism or religion or God , that axe becomes a but duller. What better why to tarnish an institution or person nowadays that you don't agree with than by calling them a Nazi? Get real pal. Find some other way to express your anger against God.
....that this so-called partner in crime would most certainly, for reasons neither you nor any other conspiracy person can actually point too, support the genocide of Jews when the movement itself was largely orchistrated by members who were at one point strongly Lutheran Protestant. If anything you would think the Church, be it this devil of murder you claim it to be, would have sought out the destruction of its longtime enemies the Protestants through their supposed connections to the Nazis.
Can you guys help me? From this I got that a good person is defined by love. Love is with the infusion of grace from God. Without it, a nation could devolve into something like stalin, lenin, or mao's communism.
- But what about the Norwegians and Swedes? Their country is very secular and I am not aware of any genocides or anything like that (not including abortions). Did Fr. Barron just present something that is contrary to the teaching of Natural Law?
The abortion part is the key. You seem to be downplaying it as less genocidal than the kinds of human rights abuses Fr. Barron described. However, the exact same thing is happening fundamentally: the rights of human beings being ignored for the sake of 'convenience' or 'progress'. If something like abortion is accepted, then that automatically keeps Norway and Sweden from being the so-called secular paradises they are often championed as. Same thing goes for any other society.
Key? Maybe? An immense atrocity? Yes - no doubt. Sorry for my lack of faith, but it seems that we (Catholics) are losing all fronts that is related to sexuality. I almost see it as an inevitable loss...Even the most Catholic nations (Philippines!) allow it. You ask if something like abortion is accepted...It already has been. Just like gay marriage. It is an inevitable loss in my eyes - And i'm an idealist.
The point is. Many would settle to be like the Swedes. What do we do then?
We need to be careful not to become metaphysical fundamentalists. It is precisely because of a relation that exists that we are able to be objective in our moral pursuits. Like W. Norris Clarke says, "Being is Relation." However, we must not forget that a man cannot Love, or Be where he is not.
Those who take their existence for granted, from the "get go" of their sacramental response are already misappropriating their existence. Therefore there is a lack of Love in there communication.
(cont. from previous comment).. I'm an atheist so far be it for me to tell tell her that she 'should' believe these things, I just think it's a little dishonest for someone to call themselves a catholic when their actual beliefs are much closer aligned with Hitchens than they are with the Popes.
I keep saying, "look, go see you're priest, tell him all of the above, and ask him if you're a catholic."
This is something that I talk about all the time. My wife for instance says that she's catholic. She doesn't accept transubstantiation, Doesn't believe that Jesus was divine, Doesn't believe that any of the miracles in the new testament actually happened. She's pro choice, pro birth control and actually answered "it's when Mary became pregnant" when I asked "what's the immaculate conception?" I know a lot of catholics, and she's not very rare. (cont. in next comment)
@BalladoftheWindfish because priests and others knew it was inhuman to let them die, feel free to look it up around the internet what the actual agenda of the catholic church was in ww2
@FrontlinerCdV Nazi Germany's government's attitude to Christianity was ambiguous. There are tons of sources for Hitler wanting to abolish Christianity: The concept of a "Kirchenkampf" was established in order to combat Christianity. Over 1000 priest died in Dachau's concentration camp. Modern Germany? Please, go to any German professor teaching the constitution and ask them on what the constitution is based on. Exactly, a strong Christian influence like it was custom in Germany during Adenauer.
There is no reason to believe that without the concept of God the love you described will vanish. There are some atheistic hindu philosophers ( Buddha for example) that use pretty much the same description of love and compassion and claim it to be entirely natural in humans and have no concept of God or even dismiss it as part of the belief system that creates ego.
If society keeps conditioning people, how could we know that a person who has no conditioning will not display this love?
Well, in a multi cultural society the only position you can really take is that what you believe doesn't matter.
Imagine you're a catholic and you're working somewhere and your co-workers are four or five catholics, two russian orthodox, two muslims, and a hindu.
This group would never be able to function if they don't accept that religion isn't important.
"Kill them all, God will recognize his own." As a counterpoint to your Stalinist argument.
But overall, I agree and I even admire the Church's definition of love however unpracticed it is by most Christians around the world. But ultimately, these abstract constructs of morality does not matter. At least to me, because I cannot bring myself to believe in God,however right and virtuous (in this particular case) they may seem to be.
According to secular bible scholars, the Catholics who say they favor ethics over doctrine are closer to the authentic teachings of Jesus. When confronted with the question of how one gains eternal life, Jesus said to do good things and follow the Jewish laws.
@StormTrek "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (Jn 14:6)
No, Jesus does not just say 'try your best' He Himself is His own teaching. He says none is saved without Him. This idea that He's just a hippie is modern and theres a good reason for that: because people like to think Jesus is like them. He claimed to be God and told people to "Repent and believe the good news!”" (Mk 1:15b) and that none can be saved without that.
@Antisyncretism Personally, I only know of one time recorded in the gospels where someone asked Jesus directly how they could have eternal life. Matthew 19:16-30, Mark 10:17-31, and Luke 18:18-30.
The answer Jesus gave is not consistent with what you're trying to tell me.
Also, Jesus never claimed to be God in any of his recorded words. However, the NT authors and early Christianity worshipped him as God and presented him as God in their writings.
@StormTrek when Christ says that man will be saved if he fulfills the law he knows while saying this that no human can do so.
He claimed to be God: "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." (Jn 17:5).
To say that this was imposed on Jesus is simply ahistorical, Jesus clearly claims to be the Son of God and God himself. Don't tell me that your false interpretation of Jesus' words supersedes the understanding held for 2000 years
@StormTrek so basically you don't trust what John said there because you don't like it.
You seemed to trust those words you misinterpreted from Mt, Mk, and Lk. So why not John? Or is John trustworthy except where he disagrees with you? Since Mt, Mk, Lk also say that Jesus claimed to be God are they also untrustworthy? Are the only things they say Jesus said that are true the ones that you like?
John was an apostle of Christ, he knows better than you what Jesus thought and said.
@BalladoftheWindfish Do you know what "Son of God" means to Jews? It means one who is close to God or the Jewish messiah.
Is that the Catholic definition too? If not, then your doctrine conflicts with Jesus' 1st century Jewish doctrine. Consequently, you have a theological separation from Jesus. And that breaks the claimed line of a "one true church".
Yes. But I hardly see how that matters. You cannot escape the fact that how we act (the will) proceeds from what we believe (the intellect). Your example could not avoid that because, underlying his directive, is an implicit doctrine that provides it with context and coherence. As Fr. Barron said, removing that context and coherence will eventually obscure the directive. Moreover, granting your point for the sake of argument, Christ said more!
If I may as a supporter, I've noticed that these YouTube videos are getting repetitive (you mentioned Aristotle/Cicero/etc recently even; In God We Trust video). Perhaps getting back to secular movies/music for a while is in order. Thank you for all your work.
You have hit the nail on the head. In my own work of apologetics I have allways said that people will allways do what they believe. people lie because they believe in the lie in someway in that its reult will benifit themselves. Not at all loving. Keep up the good work.
TY for the vid. How does believing in the Real Pres. (believing in a virgin birth/transfig./etc.) make one a moral person who practices agape (selfless love) from a sec. pt of view? (Not explicit in vid.) Why would sec think believing in non-moral doctrines is impor. for "being good"? As a Cath., I believe that Jesus in the Bl. Sac. works on one's soul and that He changes the Communicant. Hwr, how would you explain that to a non-Churched person? (I think that good people want to know the Truth.)
@otaaac3 Obviously, denying doctrines such as the existence of God and Creation will have an effect on one's ethics, philosophy of nature, etc., but I do not think that Fr. Barron meant to say that ALL of the Church's doctrines have a similar effect from a secular point of view. However, if one knows that Christ and his Church do teach the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it WOULD effect one's agape.
@wordonfirevideo I find your argument problematic in two ways: (1) You CANNOT KNOW (be certain) that your particular doctrine, rituals, denomination, religion, etc. is exclusively correct, and that a God doesn't want you (or forbids you) to believe/practice otherwise. And (2) Whenever people seriously and committedly believed that, it only led to wars, persecution, terrorism, etc. For me, that 80% of believers that think being a good person is what matters most is a GREAT news.
@cristianfcao Disagree: 1) What you can prove to others is different than what you can prove to yourself. Sure, there is no scientific way of "proving" ethics but coming from a completely neutral ethical teaching I would still feel bad if I killed a person. 2) Sure, and I don't think that he says it's bad that 80% of people believe being a good person is important is bad. But ultimately, how you act comes from what you believe, and what makes a good person? As you said, some "believed" that
@CatandMaster I expressed myself poorly in my 1st point. What I mean is that people may BELIEVE (indeed with a lot of individual certainty) that, for instance, there's only one god, that Jesus is his son, that hell exists, etc. but that there's no way to positively know that what they believe is ultimately right (at least until death). Religion discourages the acknowledgement of that uncertainty and with that false certainty often comes lots of trouble for people who think differently.
@CatandMaster Yes, probably Fr. Barron thinks it's a good thing that 80%+ of the people believe that doing good actions is very important, but he obviously doesn't think it's enough. However I really can't understand how he (or Catholics, Muslims, etc.) can conciliate a universal understanding of love ("I want love for you, no reciprocation, no strains attached") with a doctrine such as salvation and hell. Or with specific rituals that grant/facilitate/are necessary for that salvation.
@cristianfcao persecution, wars, and terrorism were righteous. But where is that coming from? Not simply an "evil religion," but world-related response related to their experience to imperialism, international oppression, etcetera... A belief in an all powerful love is a way of escaping the very rational ways we divide ourselves from each other.
@CatandMaster Yes, there are lots of factors that contribute to war, persecution, terrorism, etc. Religion may be one of them (not always), but the way I see it, is as an example of a necessary condition for massive evil: having a lot of people absolutely convinced that only they are right, hence discouraging their acknowledgement that they may be wrong. As you've said, rel. can also serve to teach people to love each other and to exercise that love through ritual, but it's a double edge sword.
I'm wondering what you think of Ayn Rand? She said that love is selfish, because it's about the other person's value to you. Even though I'm not a believer in god, I think you make some good points in this video. I don't think we can only look at ethics, without looking at the standard for our morality. Otherwise, ethics become arbitrary.
@VanessaTexasGal Yes, that's exactly what we have today as far as ethics, they're rather arbitrary. Love can not give different values to different people simply because it would make it arbitrary and thus not Love. Love then, must be objective in order to be unselfish, and this problem directly relates to that ethical arbitrariness in human beings. As father Barron explained, we can only truly Love when we allow God to give us such grace.
> She said that love is selfish, because it's about the other person's value to you.
I think it really depends how you define 'love'. Some interpretations of love are terribly selfish (especially some contemporary ones), other kinds or interpretation of love are not selfish at all.
Christianity itself distinguishes at least three forms of love: eros, philia and agape.
Basically Eros is the love between man and woman (like in a marriage), Philia the love between friends and Agape is the most pure form of love (from which all other derive) and is the love that come from God.
Of course this is just a very synthetic summary, but I hope it gives the idea.
@Nemesis000000 I might be misunderstanding you, but I think you're saying that Nazi Germany was not an atheistic regime. And this is essentially true, but I just want to point out two things. First, many Nazis endorsed what they called "God believing" which amounted to a peculiarly vague amalgamation of neo-pagan and radical racist beliefs. They considered Christianity to be weak and unsuitable for the Reich. Secondly, Fr. Baron didn't actually say that the Nazis were Atheists ... ;)
@Nemesis000000 If you're interested, Klaus P. Fischer has written what is largely agreed to be a very good history of the Third Reich, called "Nazi Germany, A New History," published by Continuum in 1995. He has a brief section devoted to the ideas I mentioned in my other post, but even better the book's bibliography is a great resource for other sources. Derk Hastings' "Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism..." is also a very good read, and much more extensive than Fischer's section :)
@newrev9er I know there was a lot of strange twisted pagan stuff mixed in with the Nazis, but they were by and large Christian. The soliders were all Catholic and Lutheran, that much is clear. Hitler of course professed to be doing God's work, which makes sense since Christian's were very anti-semetic in Europe leading up to WW2. There's also clear ties at the time between the Vatican and the Nazis and Mussolini... I'm not saying religion is at fault but atheism certainly isn't
@Nemesis000000 I agree. I don't think either religion or atheism is at fault, I think blaming either one for everything that the Nazi's did is too simplistic.
@newrev9er And that applies to Stalin and Mao and Kim Jong Il today as well. They may be atheistic in a sense, but not really because the polical leaders are revered and obeyed without question as if they were Gods. The difference is that I think religion can be plausibly used to create totalitarian systems, while atheism cannot because there's no content in atheism, other than a tendency to be sceptical, and scepticism certainly doesn't lead to communism or worshipping the "Dear Leader"
@Nemesis000000 I used to think you were a troll but still smart. But now, I see you are a very stupid and wicked person. There is an intellectual and moral failure involved in making these cringe-worthy remarks:
"They may be atheistic in a sense, but not really because the polical leaders are revered and obeyed without question as if they were Gods. "
@BalladoftheWindfish I assure you I mean no ill will, I'm just expressing my opinion and I think making valid arguments. If what I said is "cringe worthy" how about you don't call me stupid and wicked and say why? It seems you have the rolls confused on "trolling".
Do you know that there's even a name for the state religion of North Korea? It's called Juche. The Dear leader is said to have supernatural powers, even.
@Nemesis000000 Juche is a political philosophy, founded on the belief that "man is the master of everything and decides everything," a belief that inevitably results from atheism. But that's beside the point. Loyalty to a political leader, however strong, doesn't all of sudden make it non-atheistic. That is a sophistical turn that you parrot from Hitchens. It's utterly FUCKING RETARDED.
@BalladoftheWindfish Good thing I never said that. It's not just loyalty, it's utter faithful devotion and credulity, which includes in the case of Kim Jong Il a belief that he has supernatural powers! I'm not saying it resembles the Abrahamic God in any way, but it has all the features of a primitive tribal religion.
@Nemesis000000 So what. I know Obama supporters that are but willing to suck his cock. That does not make them religious or theists. What a fucking pitiful "argument." And do not back away from what you said. You said that one's obedience to a political leader makes them out to be gods. Guess what, stupid, that is a retarded sophistical turn.
@Nemesis000000 You are a typical new atheist dip-shit that is not intellectually formed enough to realize your simplistic hinking. You pin every evil on this specter called "religion," even atheistic regimes are somehow religious! You write like a whiny cunt as opposed to a detached intellect that is willing to listen to points of view charitably and honestly. See, that requires moral and intellectual strengths that you don't have. Only a moral person has that kind of patience and respect.
@BalladoftheWindfish I see you're dealing with me as Jesus would. A few last things then I will depart beause you're just mean spirited. No Obama supporters think he has magical powers. I am not backing out from what I said, Kim Jong Il is the God of North Korea. Stalinism and Maoism were irrational state religions. And obedience is not the point. I'm saddened you've resorted to childish name calling, I really don't have any bad intentions here, but you seem to. I respect and listen to all views
Nazi Germany was atheistic to its core, preach it preacher!
xd0u9x 1 week ago
But didn't the Catholic Church commit countless atrocities as well? The same church that preached the doctrine of god and love that you spoke about. Doesn't that indicate that with or without god, good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things?
JAEKIM10 2 weeks ago
@JAEKIM10 "The Church" didn't commit them; bad Christians did. Our doctrine of original sin predisposes us to expect people to go bad.
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo hmm so im a bit confused. would you say that someone who values Church doctrines has the moral superiority over someone who doesn't?
JAEKIM10 2 weeks ago
@JAEKIM10 Not necessarily, for that person might not act on what she knows at all.
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
@ledzep288 I just want to comment quickly about your sex outside of marriage comment. First Hebrews 13:4. Then I will say I was in an honest and committed relationship with a girl when I was on the rocks with Jesus and my faith. We had sex a few times because we planned on marrying someday....well we are not married now. There is never a guarantee, and committed and honest is not marriage. Hope this blesses you. (:
Ndftblwannabe1 2 weeks ago
I would like some clarification on why the secular state's stance on gay marriage ?(I.e that it is a contract in law, with certain rights and responsibilities, and subject to various other laws) threatens in any way the Catholic sacramental view of marriage. The Church can choose to consecrate whatever union it chooses, wholly separately from the secular state.
Pi10sco 3 weeks ago
Not your best argument. We should align our actions with our beliefs--and yes, beliefs matter--but your point, really, is this: what matters is having the correct (by your account) beliefs. You are good at framing questions such that the answer is always "be a better Catholic".
But your causal chain is shaky if you think that failure to believe in an obscure deity is the reason why Greeks and Romans failed to espouse human rights as we know them, or that all atheism slopes to totalitarianism.
jontv 3 weeks ago
@jontv Well I don't think the God I'm talking about is "an obscure deity." He is the creator of the universe, the non-contingent ground of contingency. It is the case that classical thinkers did not hold to a creator God, and this did indeed lead them not to recognize inalienable rights in all people. And atheism does slope toward ethical relativism, which indeed conduces to totalitarianism. When there is no objective ground for morality, the will of the powerful becomes absolute.
wordonfirevideo 3 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo - Jehovah was obscure to the Greeks and Romans. You're indulging in self-serving anachronism, akin to saying that if Plato had listened to Woody Guthrie, he would have known slavery is wrong.
Failure on your part to envision a robust ethics in the absence of faith is no proof of anything. You're an historical cherry-picker. You don't get to choose Hitler and Stalin as my representatives, as if all atheists would behave the same way, given a chance.
jontv 3 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo - We've been over this before, but it's always amusing to see you argue that humanity would be beastly without belief in God, when Christian history is saturated with beastliness. Your belief system has a mediocre record at best when it comes to preventing the kind of atrocities you attribute to atheism. You think if everyone were a proper Catholic, we'd do better, but the same could be said of Buddhism or any number of other godless belief systems. Your bias is undeniable.
jontv 3 weeks ago
@jontv As Chesterton said, "men today have lost their way, but that's not surprising. Men always lose their way. The difference is that they've lost their address." Yes, religious peole have done terrible things, but at least I can say, with objectivity, that I know they've done bad things. Take God out of the picture, you have a very hard time naming anything as definitively right or wrong. And that's indeed why a systematic atheism has led, time after time, to brutality.
wordonfirevideo 3 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo - The order of these comments seems to be screwed up, or things are disappearing.
Can you really imagine a scenario in which naming something "definitively wrong" is going to make more than an academic difference? Do you think a potential rapist, murderer, or totalitarian dictator is going to hesitate because something is not just "wrong", but "definitively wrong", according to you and the Catholic tradition? "Wrong and here's why" is the best we can do, and it's good enough.
jontv 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo - Ultimately, arguing on the basis of objective morality is just a fancy, rationalized "God says so" argument, because you see your deity as the basis for all morality. Why you expect that to make a difference when the vast majority of people on this planet are not Catholic, I don't know. That is part of why I find this kind my-way-or-the-highway rhetoric rather divisive and counterproductive: i.e. "We can agree as long as you accept all of my stipulations about the universe."
jontv 2 weeks ago
@jontv Do you think what you've said in your posting is objectively right? Then you're appealing to some intrinsic quality of your statement: its truthfulness. Catholics hold that there is something analogous within ethical acts: they carry a quality of goodness or evil, not because we think so or the majority stipulates. "God" is simply a shorthand for the unconditioned exemplar of objective goodness. None of this has a thing to do with things being good "because God says so."
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo - But ultimately, you believe that God is the basis for morality, and when you discover what is "objectively right", it's in accordance with God's will. I think that is a distinction without a difference.
If one need not refer to God to achieve "objective morality", then you must admit that atheists are just as capable of knowing what's right as you are (your denial of which is what I balked against). Or is it just the idea of "objective morality" that's so important to you?
jontv 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo - As I've said, I don't think it's necessary or helpful to believe in objective absolutes when it comes to morality. To me, improving one's ethical philosophy is an ongoing effort. To say "we know this is objectively right" is to shut down that process too soon, as when people think that science as discovered the definitive answer to some question, only to find out that another discovery has reframed the question. My aim is not black or white, but an ever-lighter shade of gray.
jontv 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo - I still think you are too sold on the efficacy of declaring your values to be absolute. In its real-world effect, that is just a rhetorical strategy, and not a very good one, in my opinion. You focus on the danger of allowing people to believe that maybe they can figure this stuff out for themselves. I would rather declare that we have NO OTHER CHOICE, so let's get serious about it and do a better job of applying our best ethical principles to a society that badly needs them.
jontv 2 weeks ago
Fr. Barron, what are your thoughts on female/married priests? Changes may need to eventually be made with this policy. How about gay marriage, how is this not a civil rights issue? Other institutions (the military, some states) have begun to accept gays- why does the Church seem hesitant to support gay marriage? How can a mostly unmarried Church clergy tell any lay person who they can or cannot marry? I respect your profession and your vows father, but the argument against it doesn't make sense.
ledzep288 3 weeks ago
With respects to birth control (condoms in particular) while not 100% effective, you can’t deny the effectiveness of them in regards to helping prevent diseases from spreading. I understand the Church’s position that sex should be reserved for reproduction and should stay within the contexts of marriage- an honorable, moral concept. However, I think that if unmarried couples are honest with each other and in a committed relationship, they should be able to practice “safe sex” (no abortions)
ledzep288 3 weeks ago
I think the Church is going to have to at least consider this policy change, many parishes today face priest shortages. There are many benefits to having female priests and I’m sure there are women who would love to do the job but can’t because they aren’t allowed yet. Maybe they can let priests get married someday. Who’s to say you can’t be a good priest just because you’re married? This might help priests understand marital problems better too, if they were allowed to be married themselves.
ledzep288 3 weeks ago
There were female followers of Jesus too, they just weren’t called Apostles. Keep in mind the early Church existed in an extremely male dominated time in history- which was probably why the Church gave more authority and power to men than women. Ordaining women would have been unheard of back then. All I’m saying is a person’s gender/old traditions shouldn’t disqualify women from applying for this position. It should be based on their character, values, and abilities just like any other job.
ledzep288 3 weeks ago
Gazdo01, I appreciate your comments and ideas. Judging from some of your comments it's clear that you've paid attention during the readings last Sunday.
Let me just say that I agree with you on abortion, I think it's morally wrong and that people need to take responsibility for their actions and need to consider other options such as adoption. Gay marriage is a huge topic which I won't go into detail but I think the Church should view it as a civil rights issue.
ledzep288 3 weeks ago
father thank you so much for this video. the world makes a little more sense to me today.
dipsaucerose 1 month ago
I consider myself to be a good Catholic, but there are some policies and Church rules that I just don't understand. For example, why can't priests be married? Why are there no female priests or clergy members? Who cares if gay people get married or not? Why doesn't the Church recognize the practical benefits of birth control? (ex. less disease spreading, less teen pregnancies). The Church has changed their policies in the past (Vatican 2), do you think they will change them anytime soon?
ledzep288 1 month ago
@ledzep288 1. Priest can be married. The Church never doctrinaly imposed celibacy. Proof is that in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church married men can become priests. However, in the West, it is a matter of purity of tradition.
For one thing, Jesus is the perfect model, the perfect man, and he was celibate. He demanded that those who can, should remain celibate.
Paul, the greatest Apostle, remained celibate and recommanded celibacy in order to serve the Lord more perfectly.
Gazdo01 3 weeks ago
@ledzep288 2. It is a matter of historical fact that Jesus appointed MEN (the 12 Apotles) as his successors. Those men in return passed their authority to other men. They were all the first bishops.
Remember that the priest acts "in Persona Christi". Christ was a man.
It is not so much that the Church denies ordination of woman per se, but the Church is saying it doesn't have the authority necessary to ordain women, since Christ himself never ordained one.
Gazdo01 3 weeks ago
@ledzep288 3. Birth control and disease spreading. You talk of PRACTICAL benefits... Well, they don't exist. Of course if you do a clinical trial on condoms for example, you can show that condom use is an effective way to prevent transmission of STDs. But that's not the point. The Church is against fornication. She wants to protect family, mariage, being faithfull, etc. Look at the ABC program is Uganda, and compare it to the situation in the rest of Africa.
Gazdo01 3 weeks ago
@ledzep288 4. Birth control and teen pregnancies. Let me ask you a question: why are there MORE and MORE teen pregnancies since we introducted birth control? There is a direct correlation between contraception use and undesired pregnancies, which equals to abortion. There has been 50 000 000 abortons in the USA alone since it's implantation in the health program.
Father Barron has produced 3 greats videos on the subject, just seach "abortion" on his channel.
Gazdo01 3 weeks ago
@ledzep288 5. "The Church has changed their policies in the past"
Never has it changed policies from a doctrinal point of view.
Celibacy of priest might change one day, but in my view, it would be a terrible loss for the Western Tradition.
Women can never be ordained, I explained why.
The killing of an innocent human being is intrinsically evil. Therefore, the Church will never accept contraceptives or abortion.
Gazdo01 3 weeks ago
@ledzep288 6. On gay marriage, it's a complicated topic.
Here's something to reflect on:
/watch?v=nA093eRcC10
/watch?v=djPZ9q-F13E
/watch?v=VVr7Mc6KP8o
/watch?v=_pZq9zVhrlo
/watch?v=ZZCxknNRwg8
Gazdo01 3 weeks ago
@ledzep288 To finish, on celibacy:
There are eunuchs born so from their mother's womb, there are eunuchs made so by human agency and there are eunuchs who have made THEMSELVES so for the sake of the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Let anyone accept this WHO CAN. Mt 19.12
I should still like everyone to be as I am myself; but everyone has his own gift from God, one this kind and the next something different. To the unmarried and to widows I say: IT IS GOOD FOR THEM TO STAY AS THEY ARE, LIKE ME. 1 Cor 7.7-8
Gazdo01 3 weeks ago
@ledzep288 I should like you to have your minds free from all worry. The UNMARRIED MAN gives his mind TO THE LORD'S affairs and to how he can please the Lord; but the man who is married gives his mind to the AFFAIRS OF THIS WORLD and to how he can please his wife, and he is DIVIDED in mind. 1 Cor 7.32-33
Gazdo01 3 weeks ago
@ledzep288 So, too, the UNMARRIED WOMAN, and the VIRGIN, gives her mind to the LORD'S AFFAIRES and to being HOLY in BODY AND SPIRIT; but the married woman gives her mind to the AFFAIRS OF THIS WORLD and to how she can please her husband. I am saying this only to help you, not to put a bridle on you, but so that everything is as it should be, and you are able to give your UNDIVIDED ATTENTION TO THE LORD. 1 Cor 7.34-35
The Catholic Church is THE Biblical Church. Does this answer your question?
Gazdo01 3 weeks ago
Oh, and we don't just "see" that Word in the Blessed Sacrament, we *experience it* there. It's not just a simple perspective thing. It's a reality, brought into this world thanks to the Last Supper/Institution of the Eucharist. He is God, He is the Word made flesh, that is His Body, and we take it into ourselves. There seems to come a point, then, that there just isn't "other" any more. We're all connected through the Eucharist. Is there any truth to this, or would you suggest I've gone bananas?
ladylejean215 1 month ago
Father, I'm going to go out on a limb here and share an insight I had that addresses the "other" idea. I was thinking about how in the Eucharist, when we receive the Blessed Sacrament, we are not really "other" from the Word any more. St. John wrote that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the word WAS GOD. And we see that Word in the Blessed Sacrament. So when we consume that Bread and Wine, can there really be "other" any more? Or do I sound really Johanine??
ladylejean215 1 month ago
I'm sharing the hell out of this, because I know a lot of New Age folks who tend to buy into this "being a good person is what really matters" idea. A lot of them don't like this video, because to them Christianity and the Catholic Church, etc, have lost all credibility because of the bad things that have happened throughout history in the name of Jesus and the Church, etc, but I can't back down in the face of those arguments. Got to keep the message out there.
ladylejean215 1 month ago
I'm reminded of a university chaplain of mine who spent some time in Japan studying Buddhism and got angry about Western self-styled Buddhists who "treat Buddhism like it's a denomination of Christianity." That is, they would talk in glowing terms about how Buddhism is all about love. No, it's not. It does talk about benevolence, but the metaphysical structure proposed by Buddha is strikingly different from that of Judeo-Christianity and does not particularly involve love.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
christian belief is strange:He decides to redeem mankind, to save them from his eternal damnation.To do so, he will send his son to be murdered as a sacrifice to himself,in atonement for the transgressions committed aginst himself. He chooses a people to help him do it. He makes sure that theyknow of his plan by sending hunderds of prophets, But if they know he is the Messiah, they will not kill him, and the plan will be spoiled. She he makes the prophecies murky. His scheme works. What a script
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko Well friend, if you're serious about having a dialogue, I have to ask you to move beyond this ridiculous caricature of Christianity that you've presented.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago 8
@wordonfirevideo May I express my admiration for your genuine christian response. NO KIDDING. Finally a christian who seems to grasp the spirit of the gospels. You are a rare breed.
ndzoko 1 month ago 2
Thank you for the clarity in defining the difference between ethics and doctrine. So many times it has been posed to me that being a good person is sufficient and I never had the knowledge to explain why that wasn't complete. Maybe after listening to this talk a couple of more times, I will be able to explain...or just point them to your video! LOL Keep up the great work Father!
laywhispers 1 month ago
My mother was raised Baptist and my Father was raised Catholic. I chose Catholisium when I got older, with out my Dad having much to do with it.
When my mother started noticing me paying more attintion to the difrent teachings of The Church and all the Doctrents. She became upset to see me folowing them, espesholy when they whent aginst what she belives. She would say, "Be carfule with Religeus Doctren! It maters more what is in your hart."
Thank you Fr. Barron!
MsJuliet1991 2 months ago
Father Barron, I've noted that people actually care very little about history and what happened a generation or two ago with the Communists, etc etc. Sad, really. If people understood world history a bit better, maybe, just maybe, some of the errors of the past might not be repeated. But that's a big MAYBE.
tangotangoromeo 2 months ago
So....if we're not good, that does *not* matter? We can be so-called "bad" and rapists and murderers and robbers and cheats and liars and it doesn't matter? I find it difficult to wrap my mind around that.
tangotangoromeo 2 months ago
I agree with what Fr Barron is saying in this posting, but what I find absent is a criticism of the Catholic hierarchy that is failing to instruct the laity in the doctrine if the Church. Apart from homilies, most of which fail to correlate doctrine and the existential questions people have in culture (Paul Tillich's "throwing stones"), there is hardly any teaching in most parishes. All the parishes I have been to were more or less dead (I'm in the Uk).
bayreuth79 2 months ago
I have found that it is very hard to get most others to grasp the meaning of this unconditional love. This is the love that Jesus had for all peoples all over the world. Accepting "sacrifice" is what makes it so hard as many do not really want to make these sacrifices so therefore they cannot truly love and commit...
wdkarabinus 2 months ago
Is the correct term Nihilism? Or is it Relativism? I sometimes get those confused...
zztstenglish 2 months ago
Love your videos! God Bless. :-) Vincent
vtorrieri 2 months ago
Absolutely wonderful truth
simonferet 2 months ago
Mr. Baron, as a follower of God that is not a member of the RCC, I can say that I am glad to see this being discussed more. What you believer certainly matters, for eternity. Thank you for bringing this into discussion.
truthseeker370 2 months ago
Father, I really need to ask this: would you say that you and many other Catholics love (by *any* definition of the word) gay people? I have a lot of gay friends who feel anything *but* loved by Christian people and the Church, etc etc. Is there any form of love there for them as human beings at all?
ladylejean215 3 months ago
@ladylejean215 Of course the Catholic Church and all good Catholics love gay people! We love all people, regardless of any qualifier you could come up with. But listen to what Fr. Baron says love is: Love is willing the good of the other. Love is NOT letting someone do whatever they want. Because Catholics believe homosexual behavior is disordered and sinful, that is, it is not "good" for the individual who practices it, we condemn that behavior.
I hope that helps to clarify things!
jleeds07 2 months ago 2
Which is more important though - believing the right things: or having the right attitudes ? What is the point of being orthodox in doctrine, if one's life is a contradiction of the teaching of Christ ? He set ethical conduct above external forms & external observances, as had the Prophets before him. This is not the position you are combatting BTW; & it avoids letting the Church muffle the teaching of Christ, as it is apt to do. For the Teaching Church is no better than we are :(
5355vbxjbj76rvn 3 months ago
Comment removed
5355vbxjbj76rvn 3 months ago
@fancullo
plus go to confession regularly and pray the rosary, I was an skeptical of the Virgin and the rosary but It has been amazing what has done for me on one year.
yospring 3 months ago
There are many atheist, buddhist, or muslims that are good, kind, charitable people.
If the NATURAL GOOD is enough, Then, why the Sacrifice of Christ?
Why would Jesus bother to teach us?
Why should Christ mandated to evangelize in the name of the Father, the Son the Holy Spirit through the nations?
Every human been has its personal struggle with sin.
I must turn to what the church teaches to define it, avoid it and teach me how to stay in state of grace= LOVE
yospring 3 months ago
Comment removed
yospring 3 months ago
Certainly it matters what we believe. Some beliefs help, some hurt. And looking big picture you'd be hard pressed to find a correlation between ethical behavior and religiousness. Wickedness seems to be pretty evenly distributed between the believer and the heathen. Been that way since Cain wacked Abel – I exempt Adam & Eve because that was entrapment.
quantumystery 3 months ago
May I just congratulate all involved in the Catholicism series, especially for the "Extended Preview" which I've only just now seen. Though I thought the previous short trailer was disappointing in concentrating solely upon the Third World, and neglecting ethnic Europeans, the extended preview is so beautiful it brought tears to my eyes, firm Protestant that I am. Beautiful, just beautiful !
TibbieT 3 months ago
this video does an incredible job of expressing the fact that you cannot truly be a good person without following the words of the bible. because if you are to truly believe in them then you know well enough that if you listen to what it says you will be how your supposed to be and that no matter what society says its your beliefs that tell you whats right and wrong and what makes a person good or bad.
bsdagf 3 months ago
Father, I have a question about this. When you said that the idea equality stems from the doctrine of God, how could you explain the treatment of say, women in the the Dark Ages Europe? Just as an example.
(Please note that this is an honest question, it's not meant to be malignant towards you in anyway. I am just curious on what you think the explanation for this would be.)
God Bless.
Operateer 3 months ago
@Operateer You mean Women in the Age of the Cathedrals? There's a book by that name, as a matter of fact. I think you would appreciate finding out how women were actually treated in the era referred to by the propoganda label "Dark Ages." Suffice it to say that women were a whole lot better off once Christianity was normalized than they were in Pagan Rome. You might even make the case that they were a whole lot better off than they are now, but that depends on whether or not you worship Bahomet.
benabaxter 3 months ago
@benabaxter Pardon, but it's "Women in the Days of the Cathedrals," and the manufactured pagan deity is spelled Baphomet, and because Baphomet is fake I should have written Moloch.
benabaxter 3 months ago
@benabaxter Hmm, I should look it up. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there would be propaganda about such things, in attempt to make the Church look bad. If you don't mind me asking, what do you mean by, "that depends on whether or not you worship Baphomet."?
Thanks for the information!
Operateer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fr. Barron is fascinating and smart. Keep it up!
yosefbushurskii 3 months ago
Comment removed
yosefbushurskii 3 months ago
Comment removed
yosefbushurskii 3 months ago
Comment removed
yosefbushurskii 3 months ago
Father Barron, long time viewer of your videos but this is my first comment. I found this video one of the most intriguing because I am not Catholic, I am Methodist. My question for you is, how would I as a Methodist fit into this definition of being a good person if we have different doctrinal views on things such as the Eucharist or the Saints?
mrandquist 3 months ago 3
@mrandquist Well those are not as central as our common beliefs in God, creation, incarnation, etc. But they do indeed make a difference. The key is finding common ground and then having a good, vigorous discussion. God bless you!
wordonfirevideo 3 months ago 8
@wordonfirevideo Well I am reading a book about Saints and I do visit the local Catholic church near my house though I find that people are in a rush to get to church and a rush to get out, thus having a good vigorous discussion is difficult. I share in the Catholic beliefs in the Creation, Incarnation, Resurrection, Atonement etc; As for being a good person, how would God define a good person? I think His view would be vastly different than most people's view, myself included.
mrandquist 3 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Father Barron... I loved what you did here. I think you've touched on the central dilemma for atheists, most of whom want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to deny God and yet enjoy a love that is beyond utilitarian self-interest. But if this unselfish love that we yearn for is real then so is God. Father, please continue to do what you you. I work with young Catholic kids and see first hand what the world does to them. God bless you.
oldschoolsaint 3 months ago
Oh, and I so deeply wish, Father, that you'd do a specific video on the "SBNRs" or "Spiritual But Not Religious" people and why it's so inadvisable to completely divide spirituality from religion. These folks are getting it all wrong and they don't even know why.
ladylejean215 3 months ago
Oh, I have a question. What, if any, difference is there between "doctrine" and "dogma"? Are they just two different words for the same thing?
ladylejean215 3 months ago
@ladylejean215
Doctrine, as defined in Catholicism, is a practice or belief that may or may not necessarily be believed or practiced by the entirety of the faithful Church. I.E. to take part in Marian devotion is a doctrine since not every person does so nor is it taught that one MUST do so in order to be saved or to be consistent in faith.
Dogma however is what must believed by the entire Church. The divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, ect. are all dogmas. If disbelieved, you are anathema.
Childinfaith 3 months ago
@fancullo Father B is right. It is do-able. But sometimes it ain't easy.
ladylejean215 3 months ago
Father, you should do a video on the Occupy movement, and the pepper-spraying incident at UC Davis. Because it might - repeat, MIGHT - come to your university too. You know how students can get. :)
ladylejean215 3 months ago
@fancullo
In all fairness, this is hard. It's hard to put aside how we feel and make a choice to love another person. For me, it didn't even become possible until a. I asked sincerely for the grace to do so and b. I began to understand that love is as much (perhaps more) a cognitive choice as it is an emotional feeling. I don't always FEEL very loving toward my spouse or children, but I can always make the CHOICE to respond/interact with love. When I do this, my love grows.
hiswife2002 3 months ago
The failure to the draw a correlation between the systematic immanentization of individual merit via the soul, and the ~120,000,000 dead—a median estimate—at the hands of autocratic, communist regimes, is a supreme cognitive dissonance indeed. Secular reciprocity, mutual altruism, and other tripe espoused by the New Atheists has no answer to this problem. Altruism is nice, but why spare the egg when it's conducive to crack it?
More fantastic work from Fr. Barron & company. Thank you very much.
T3NGU88 3 months ago
@T3NGU88
I was just looking at the comments and just wanted to stop by and say - damn! those are some fancy words you used! lol.
factionxvt408x 3 months ago
In the Huffington Post: Top atheist are saying:
TORONTO - Stephen Hawking says the colonization of outer space is key to the survival of humankind, predicting it will be difficult for the world's inhabitants "to avoid disaster in the next hundred years."
Science turns superhero as it battles to save the planet and preserve the human race.
What say you ?
tfrenn 3 months ago
God does not want good persons, he demands SAINTS..."Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is Perfect"...
Yankeegator 3 months ago 2
I am catholic and do not believe all doctrines of the church. I agree with him on the doctrines he mentions, but others not mentioned I do not agree with. The bible tells us to test all things, that doesn't mean to check our brain at the church doors. Proestants who believe in God, but do not believe in all the catholics doctrines, in no way lack love or love less because of this.
lblaramark 3 months ago
@lblaramark
If you don't believe all the teachings of the Church, you don't have any business calling yourself Catholic. Catholicism is an all or nothing proposition. If you want to pick and choose what you believe out of it fine, but don't try and be taken seriously if you claim to be a faithful Catholic.
Childinfaith 3 months ago
@Childinfaith : I did not claim to be what you call a faithful catholic, just a catholic. I'll ask you the same question no other catholic has been able to answer when this comes up. The catholic doctrine teaches us to pray to the blessed mother. I do not, now, is this a mortal sin because I don't, and do not believe we should, and that she is not the co medieator?
lblaramark 3 months ago
@lblaramark
You are not required to pray to the Blessed Mother for salvation so it is not a sin to do so or not to do so. However, the Church is very clear on its teachings surrounding the Virgin Mary. To explain it all in 500 characters would be difficult. My suggestion is read the Catechism on the subject of the Virgin Mary and perhaps the biblical basis for our devotion to her. Other than that all I can say is if you just want to be a "Catholic" and not "faithful" then there's a problem.
Childinfaith 3 months ago
@Childinfaith Thank you, if there is no sin in this then I am being faitthful. Like the church if you chose to do so because you think it is either necessary or just want to, you have my blessing. Being faithful is not doing the same things as others or your not part of the club. It is the reason I am a catholic. Most catholics who pray to the blessed mother cannot see this.
lblaramark 3 months ago
@lblaramark Why do you not want to know, and have a relationship with, the Mother of God?
tdb418 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tdb418 I do not understand your question.
lblaramark 3 months ago
@lblaramark
For me the definition of being faithful is adhering to the teachings of your faith regardless of whether or not you agree with them. At times I may not wish to go to Mass each Sunday for whatever deficient reason I may have but still I go. You may not at times enjoy the company of your spouse at times, but you remain married. Yes, Marian devotion is a doctrine not dogma, but the ability to do so is most certainly dogma and praise given as well. To take part however is up to you.
Childinfaith 3 months ago
@Childinfaith Very well said. All non catholics should take note of this. The church teaches that our God is the God of the living not the dead. The saints and Blessed Mother can pray for mankind. They may be dead here on earth but are alive in heaven. Thank you for taking the time to share your beliefs.
lblaramark 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is Father Barron serious? The God of the Bible is not one of love. He does not believe in respect, dignity, freedom and inherent worth of every individual. The God of the Bible is one of genocide, slavery, prejudice and hate. As one example, In Samuel 8, David [with God's support] kills 2/3 of the Moabites and makes the rest slaves. 2/3 is even worse than the Holocaust. The doctrine that this obscene character exists is what allows us to love?
Bylin1 3 months ago
Comment removed
Bylin1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FrontlinerCdV
Nah. What I'm doing in contrast to you is realizing that not everything I can read on the internet is true. Were it "historical evidence" maybe I would have been tested on it in high school.
"How many Jews did the Catholic Church want Hitler to kill in WWII? A. 100, B. 100000, C. 1 million, D. All of um"
Childinfaith 3 months ago
"Why did priests and or bishops protect Jews during WWII?"
"A. Because they were endowed by God with a conscience to protect innocent people from genocide." B. Because they knew Catholicism said its ok to kill Jews but said no anyway." C. Because they made good sandwiches."
Childinfaith 3 months ago
Comment removed
Childinfaith 3 months ago
Comment removed
Childinfaith 3 months ago
Comment removed
Childinfaith 3 months ago
Comment removed
Childinfaith 3 months ago
This is precicly why any attempt to show the obvious truths of history in opposition to the attempts to have Catholicism and Nazism as synonymous terms makes people like you go all up in arms. Why? Because whatever axe you have to grind against Catholicism or religion or God , that axe becomes a but duller. What better why to tarnish an institution or person nowadays that you don't agree with than by calling them a Nazi? Get real pal. Find some other way to express your anger against God.
Childinfaith 3 months ago
....that this so-called partner in crime would most certainly, for reasons neither you nor any other conspiracy person can actually point too, support the genocide of Jews when the movement itself was largely orchistrated by members who were at one point strongly Lutheran Protestant. If anything you would think the Church, be it this devil of murder you claim it to be, would have sought out the destruction of its longtime enemies the Protestants through their supposed connections to the Nazis.
Childinfaith 3 months ago
Can you guys help me? From this I got that a good person is defined by love. Love is with the infusion of grace from God. Without it, a nation could devolve into something like stalin, lenin, or mao's communism.
- But what about the Norwegians and Swedes? Their country is very secular and I am not aware of any genocides or anything like that (not including abortions). Did Fr. Barron just present something that is contrary to the teaching of Natural Law?
factionxvt408x 3 months ago
Comment removed
MasterZoda 3 months ago
@factionxvt408x
The abortion part is the key. You seem to be downplaying it as less genocidal than the kinds of human rights abuses Fr. Barron described. However, the exact same thing is happening fundamentally: the rights of human beings being ignored for the sake of 'convenience' or 'progress'. If something like abortion is accepted, then that automatically keeps Norway and Sweden from being the so-called secular paradises they are often championed as. Same thing goes for any other society.
MasterZoda 3 months ago
@MasterZoda
Key? Maybe? An immense atrocity? Yes - no doubt. Sorry for my lack of faith, but it seems that we (Catholics) are losing all fronts that is related to sexuality. I almost see it as an inevitable loss...Even the most Catholic nations (Philippines!) allow it. You ask if something like abortion is accepted...It already has been. Just like gay marriage. It is an inevitable loss in my eyes - And i'm an idealist.
The point is. Many would settle to be like the Swedes. What do we do then?
factionxvt408x 3 months ago
We need to be careful not to become metaphysical fundamentalists. It is precisely because of a relation that exists that we are able to be objective in our moral pursuits. Like W. Norris Clarke says, "Being is Relation." However, we must not forget that a man cannot Love, or Be where he is not.
Those who take their existence for granted, from the "get go" of their sacramental response are already misappropriating their existence. Therefore there is a lack of Love in there communication.
sleepyhead4 3 months ago
(cont. from previous comment).. I'm an atheist so far be it for me to tell tell her that she 'should' believe these things, I just think it's a little dishonest for someone to call themselves a catholic when their actual beliefs are much closer aligned with Hitchens than they are with the Popes.
I keep saying, "look, go see you're priest, tell him all of the above, and ask him if you're a catholic."
troyboulay 3 months ago
This is something that I talk about all the time. My wife for instance says that she's catholic. She doesn't accept transubstantiation, Doesn't believe that Jesus was divine, Doesn't believe that any of the miracles in the new testament actually happened. She's pro choice, pro birth control and actually answered "it's when Mary became pregnant" when I asked "what's the immaculate conception?" I know a lot of catholics, and she's not very rare. (cont. in next comment)
troyboulay 3 months ago
@FrontlinerCdV If that's the case, why is it that the Catholic Church saved more Jews than anyone else during WWII?
BalladoftheWindfish 3 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish because priests and others knew it was inhuman to let them die, feel free to look it up around the internet what the actual agenda of the catholic church was in ww2
FrontlinerCdV 3 months ago
@FrontlinerCdV Nazi Germany's government's attitude to Christianity was ambiguous. There are tons of sources for Hitler wanting to abolish Christianity: The concept of a "Kirchenkampf" was established in order to combat Christianity. Over 1000 priest died in Dachau's concentration camp. Modern Germany? Please, go to any German professor teaching the constitution and ask them on what the constitution is based on. Exactly, a strong Christian influence like it was custom in Germany during Adenauer.
Dhari1 3 months ago
There is no reason to believe that without the concept of God the love you described will vanish. There are some atheistic hindu philosophers ( Buddha for example) that use pretty much the same description of love and compassion and claim it to be entirely natural in humans and have no concept of God or even dismiss it as part of the belief system that creates ego.
If society keeps conditioning people, how could we know that a person who has no conditioning will not display this love?
mutageno 3 months ago
Well, in a multi cultural society the only position you can really take is that what you believe doesn't matter.
Imagine you're a catholic and you're working somewhere and your co-workers are four or five catholics, two russian orthodox, two muslims, and a hindu.
This group would never be able to function if they don't accept that religion isn't important.
Bulloxe4 3 months ago
"Kill them all, God will recognize his own." As a counterpoint to your Stalinist argument.
But overall, I agree and I even admire the Church's definition of love however unpracticed it is by most Christians around the world. But ultimately, these abstract constructs of morality does not matter. At least to me, because I cannot bring myself to believe in God,however right and virtuous (in this particular case) they may seem to be.
MobiusCoin 3 months ago
According to secular bible scholars, the Catholics who say they favor ethics over doctrine are closer to the authentic teachings of Jesus. When confronted with the question of how one gains eternal life, Jesus said to do good things and follow the Jewish laws.
StormTrek 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StormTrek "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (Jn 14:6)
No, Jesus does not just say 'try your best' He Himself is His own teaching. He says none is saved without Him. This idea that He's just a hippie is modern and theres a good reason for that: because people like to think Jesus is like them. He claimed to be God and told people to "Repent and believe the good news!”" (Mk 1:15b) and that none can be saved without that.
Antisyncretism 3 months ago
@Antisyncretism Personally, I only know of one time recorded in the gospels where someone asked Jesus directly how they could have eternal life. Matthew 19:16-30, Mark 10:17-31, and Luke 18:18-30.
The answer Jesus gave is not consistent with what you're trying to tell me.
Also, Jesus never claimed to be God in any of his recorded words. However, the NT authors and early Christianity worshipped him as God and presented him as God in their writings.
StormTrek 3 months ago
Comment removed
Antisyncretism 3 months ago
@StormTrek when Christ says that man will be saved if he fulfills the law he knows while saying this that no human can do so.
He claimed to be God: "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." (Jn 17:5).
To say that this was imposed on Jesus is simply ahistorical, Jesus clearly claims to be the Son of God and God himself. Don't tell me that your false interpretation of Jesus' words supersedes the understanding held for 2000 years
Antisyncretism 3 months ago
@StormTrek You also gave no explanation of Jn 14:6 or Mark 1:15b.
You dismissed them without any explanation of how they don't contradict what you say: when they clearly do contradict you.
Antisyncretism 3 months ago
@Antisyncretism Yes, John does say it.
StormTrek 3 months ago
@StormTrek so basically you don't trust what John said there because you don't like it.
You seemed to trust those words you misinterpreted from Mt, Mk, and Lk. So why not John? Or is John trustworthy except where he disagrees with you? Since Mt, Mk, Lk also say that Jesus claimed to be God are they also untrustworthy? Are the only things they say Jesus said that are true the ones that you like?
John was an apostle of Christ, he knows better than you what Jesus thought and said.
Antisyncretism 3 months ago
@StormTrek But why should we listen to Jesus? Perhaps because he's the Son of God? OOPS! That's doctrine!
BalladoftheWindfish 3 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish Do you know what "Son of God" means to Jews? It means one who is close to God or the Jewish messiah.
Is that the Catholic definition too? If not, then your doctrine conflicts with Jesus' 1st century Jewish doctrine. Consequently, you have a theological separation from Jesus. And that breaks the claimed line of a "one true church".
StormTrek 3 months ago
@StormTrek "Is that the Catholic definition too?"
Yes. But I hardly see how that matters. You cannot escape the fact that how we act (the will) proceeds from what we believe (the intellect). Your example could not avoid that because, underlying his directive, is an implicit doctrine that provides it with context and coherence. As Fr. Barron said, removing that context and coherence will eventually obscure the directive. Moreover, granting your point for the sake of argument, Christ said more!
BalladoftheWindfish 3 months ago
Comment removed
Antisyncretism 3 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish As long as you don't claim the Catholic church is the one true church it doesn't matter.
StormTrek 3 months ago
If I may as a supporter, I've noticed that these YouTube videos are getting repetitive (you mentioned Aristotle/Cicero/etc recently even; In God We Trust video). Perhaps getting back to secular movies/music for a while is in order. Thank you for all your work.
otaaac3 3 months ago
You have hit the nail on the head. In my own work of apologetics I have allways said that people will allways do what they believe. people lie because they believe in the lie in someway in that its reult will benifit themselves. Not at all loving. Keep up the good work.
mahoganyrush300 3 months ago
TY for the vid. How does believing in the Real Pres. (believing in a virgin birth/transfig./etc.) make one a moral person who practices agape (selfless love) from a sec. pt of view? (Not explicit in vid.) Why would sec think believing in non-moral doctrines is impor. for "being good"? As a Cath., I believe that Jesus in the Bl. Sac. works on one's soul and that He changes the Communicant. Hwr, how would you explain that to a non-Churched person? (I think that good people want to know the Truth.)
otaaac3 3 months ago
@otaaac3 Obviously, denying doctrines such as the existence of God and Creation will have an effect on one's ethics, philosophy of nature, etc., but I do not think that Fr. Barron meant to say that ALL of the Church's doctrines have a similar effect from a secular point of view. However, if one knows that Christ and his Church do teach the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it WOULD effect one's agape.
BalladoftheWindfish 3 months ago
As always, you have some fascinating insight into modern culture. Thank you for making these very interesting videos!
animatedpaintbrush 3 months ago
@wordonfirevideo I find your argument problematic in two ways: (1) You CANNOT KNOW (be certain) that your particular doctrine, rituals, denomination, religion, etc. is exclusively correct, and that a God doesn't want you (or forbids you) to believe/practice otherwise. And (2) Whenever people seriously and committedly believed that, it only led to wars, persecution, terrorism, etc. For me, that 80% of believers that think being a good person is what matters most is a GREAT news.
cristianfcao 3 months ago
@cristianfcao Disagree: 1) What you can prove to others is different than what you can prove to yourself. Sure, there is no scientific way of "proving" ethics but coming from a completely neutral ethical teaching I would still feel bad if I killed a person. 2) Sure, and I don't think that he says it's bad that 80% of people believe being a good person is important is bad. But ultimately, how you act comes from what you believe, and what makes a good person? As you said, some "believed" that
CatandMaster 3 months ago
@CatandMaster I expressed myself poorly in my 1st point. What I mean is that people may BELIEVE (indeed with a lot of individual certainty) that, for instance, there's only one god, that Jesus is his son, that hell exists, etc. but that there's no way to positively know that what they believe is ultimately right (at least until death). Religion discourages the acknowledgement of that uncertainty and with that false certainty often comes lots of trouble for people who think differently.
cristianfcao 3 months ago
@CatandMaster Yes, probably Fr. Barron thinks it's a good thing that 80%+ of the people believe that doing good actions is very important, but he obviously doesn't think it's enough. However I really can't understand how he (or Catholics, Muslims, etc.) can conciliate a universal understanding of love ("I want love for you, no reciprocation, no strains attached") with a doctrine such as salvation and hell. Or with specific rituals that grant/facilitate/are necessary for that salvation.
cristianfcao 3 months ago
@cristianfcao persecution, wars, and terrorism were righteous. But where is that coming from? Not simply an "evil religion," but world-related response related to their experience to imperialism, international oppression, etcetera... A belief in an all powerful love is a way of escaping the very rational ways we divide ourselves from each other.
CatandMaster 3 months ago
@CatandMaster Yes, there are lots of factors that contribute to war, persecution, terrorism, etc. Religion may be one of them (not always), but the way I see it, is as an example of a necessary condition for massive evil: having a lot of people absolutely convinced that only they are right, hence discouraging their acknowledgement that they may be wrong. As you've said, rel. can also serve to teach people to love each other and to exercise that love through ritual, but it's a double edge sword.
cristianfcao 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are what you worship.
LVCIVSTVLLIVSATELLVS 3 months ago
I'm wondering what you think of Ayn Rand? She said that love is selfish, because it's about the other person's value to you. Even though I'm not a believer in god, I think you make some good points in this video. I don't think we can only look at ethics, without looking at the standard for our morality. Otherwise, ethics become arbitrary.
VanessaTexasGal 3 months ago 10
@VanessaTexasGal Yes, that's exactly what we have today as far as ethics, they're rather arbitrary. Love can not give different values to different people simply because it would make it arbitrary and thus not Love. Love then, must be objective in order to be unselfish, and this problem directly relates to that ethical arbitrariness in human beings. As father Barron explained, we can only truly Love when we allow God to give us such grace.
cuantumk 3 months ago
@VanessaTexasGal
> She said that love is selfish, because it's about the other person's value to you.
I think it really depends how you define 'love'. Some interpretations of love are terribly selfish (especially some contemporary ones), other kinds or interpretation of love are not selfish at all.
Christianity itself distinguishes at least three forms of love: eros, philia and agape.
Entropy3ko 3 months ago
@Entropy3ko thanks for the answer :) I didn't know about the three forms of love before
VanessaTexasGal 3 months ago
@VanessaTexasGal You are welcome :)
Basically Eros is the love between man and woman (like in a marriage), Philia the love between friends and Agape is the most pure form of love (from which all other derive) and is the love that come from God.
Of course this is just a very synthetic summary, but I hope it gives the idea.
Entropy3ko 3 months ago
@VanessaTexasGal Ayn Rand was an evil woman.
manuelturcios 3 months ago
Again the myth of the atheist Nazi Germany. Rewriting history.
Nemesis000000 3 months ago
@Nemesis000000 I might be misunderstanding you, but I think you're saying that Nazi Germany was not an atheistic regime. And this is essentially true, but I just want to point out two things. First, many Nazis endorsed what they called "God believing" which amounted to a peculiarly vague amalgamation of neo-pagan and radical racist beliefs. They considered Christianity to be weak and unsuitable for the Reich. Secondly, Fr. Baron didn't actually say that the Nazis were Atheists ... ;)
newrev9er 3 months ago
@Nemesis000000 If you're interested, Klaus P. Fischer has written what is largely agreed to be a very good history of the Third Reich, called "Nazi Germany, A New History," published by Continuum in 1995. He has a brief section devoted to the ideas I mentioned in my other post, but even better the book's bibliography is a great resource for other sources. Derk Hastings' "Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism..." is also a very good read, and much more extensive than Fischer's section :)
newrev9er 3 months ago
@newrev9er I know there was a lot of strange twisted pagan stuff mixed in with the Nazis, but they were by and large Christian. The soliders were all Catholic and Lutheran, that much is clear. Hitler of course professed to be doing God's work, which makes sense since Christian's were very anti-semetic in Europe leading up to WW2. There's also clear ties at the time between the Vatican and the Nazis and Mussolini... I'm not saying religion is at fault but atheism certainly isn't
Nemesis000000 3 months ago
@Nemesis000000 I agree. I don't think either religion or atheism is at fault, I think blaming either one for everything that the Nazi's did is too simplistic.
newrev9er 3 months ago
@newrev9er And that applies to Stalin and Mao and Kim Jong Il today as well. They may be atheistic in a sense, but not really because the polical leaders are revered and obeyed without question as if they were Gods. The difference is that I think religion can be plausibly used to create totalitarian systems, while atheism cannot because there's no content in atheism, other than a tendency to be sceptical, and scepticism certainly doesn't lead to communism or worshipping the "Dear Leader"
Nemesis000000 3 months ago
@Nemesis000000 I used to think you were a troll but still smart. But now, I see you are a very stupid and wicked person. There is an intellectual and moral failure involved in making these cringe-worthy remarks:
"They may be atheistic in a sense, but not really because the polical leaders are revered and obeyed without question as if they were Gods. "
BalladoftheWindfish 3 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish I assure you I mean no ill will, I'm just expressing my opinion and I think making valid arguments. If what I said is "cringe worthy" how about you don't call me stupid and wicked and say why? It seems you have the rolls confused on "trolling".
Do you know that there's even a name for the state religion of North Korea? It's called Juche. The Dear leader is said to have supernatural powers, even.
Nemesis000000 3 months ago
@Nemesis000000 Juche is a political philosophy, founded on the belief that "man is the master of everything and decides everything," a belief that inevitably results from atheism. But that's beside the point. Loyalty to a political leader, however strong, doesn't all of sudden make it non-atheistic. That is a sophistical turn that you parrot from Hitchens. It's utterly FUCKING RETARDED.
BalladoftheWindfish 3 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish Good thing I never said that. It's not just loyalty, it's utter faithful devotion and credulity, which includes in the case of Kim Jong Il a belief that he has supernatural powers! I'm not saying it resembles the Abrahamic God in any way, but it has all the features of a primitive tribal religion.
Nemesis000000 3 months ago
@Nemesis000000 So what. I know Obama supporters that are but willing to suck his cock. That does not make them religious or theists. What a fucking pitiful "argument." And do not back away from what you said. You said that one's obedience to a political leader makes them out to be gods. Guess what, stupid, that is a retarded sophistical turn.
BalladoftheWindfish 3 months ago
@Nemesis000000 You are a typical new atheist dip-shit that is not intellectually formed enough to realize your simplistic hinking. You pin every evil on this specter called "religion," even atheistic regimes are somehow religious! You write like a whiny cunt as opposed to a detached intellect that is willing to listen to points of view charitably and honestly. See, that requires moral and intellectual strengths that you don't have. Only a moral person has that kind of patience and respect.
BalladoftheWindfish 3 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish I see you're dealing with me as Jesus would. A few last things then I will depart beause you're just mean spirited. No Obama supporters think he has magical powers. I am not backing out from what I said, Kim Jong Il is the God of North Korea. Stalinism and Maoism were irrational state religions. And obedience is not the point. I'm saddened you've resorted to childish name calling, I really don't have any bad intentions here, but you seem to. I respect and listen to all views
Nemesis000000 3 months ago
Don't forget everybody, Father Barron's series ''Catholicism'' starts today at 9PM on EWTN in America, and tomorrow at 9PM local on EWTN in UK.
xtrashed 3 months ago 14