Religious Liberty: A Commentary by Fr. Barron

Another part of a video series from Wordonfire.org. Father Barron will be commenting on subjects from modern day culture. For more visit http://www.wordonfire.org/

• Category

  People & Blogs

[billcat2]

@wordonfirevideo oh come on Father you're better than that.You're a priest not a politician.You know very well that the issue has been resolved.There's no Catholic money paying for women's access to birth control.If you wanna force your female employees not to use birth control,that's up to you,but leave the government out of it! And if the church is not imposing itself on anyone than why don't you let gay people live THEIR LIVES?

[wordonfirevideo]

No Catholic money paying for abortifacients and birth control and sterilization?! You bet there will be, under the Sibelius plan. And gay people living their lives?! Last time I checked the Vatican police is not exactly preventing gay people from doing whatever they want.

[wordonfirevideo]

You're right: you don't get it! Friend, this hasn't a thing to do with religion "imposing itself" on anyone, just the contrary. The Catholic Church objects to the government compelling Catholic institutions to act against Catholic beliefs. The imposing is coming, not from religion, but from the secular government.

[billybagbom]

Oh yeah? Well, you are a -- a -- You stink! "I know you are, but what am I? I know you are but what am I? I know you are, but "-- You're just saying what I'm saying. Mom, make him stop! Mom?

[billybagbom]

You're missing the finer point, my friend. I am critiquing the whole post-modernist, subjectivist, relativist philosophical enterprise. It doesn't matter "which dog" we're talking about; any dog's leg can be CALLED a "tail," but that will not alter the fact that a dog's leg is a leg, and not a tail. I am striking a blow for objectivity and common sense realism (Scottish or not). You, sir, are a breathing illustration of what is wrong with the present age; you couldn't rise to the level of error.

[billybagbom]

Which dog?

[Neelloc1973]

Very well put. This priest is a great speaker. Thanks for posting.

[Brent Grainger]

What's really important to note about 16th century England is that the persecution of religionists was by religionists themselves, each convinced, absent any evidence whatever, that they were completely correct. Nothing encourages the persecution of others more than one's being convinced that one's own views are correct with no doubt whatever. Secularism does not "exclude" religion. It threatens religion only because it DEMANDS EVIDENCE. NB: the Elizabethan Era was the glory of England.

[retsea1]

Wow! I think we were in agreement the entire time? Well, God bless.

[FromAcrossTheDesert]

Exactly! ;) That's all I was trying to say.

[retsea1]

Actually, I was referring to unalienable rights endowed by the Creator. God's Word decrees murder, theft, cheating, rape, bearing false witness, etc as acts sinful behavior not to be partaken in. So is homosexuality and abortion; therefore, there is no natural right to a marriage license or to abortion like there is no natural right to the aforementioned behaviors. Because of this, they should not become legal, or even common, practice in society either.

[FromAcrossTheDesert]

No, I am not saying that. God did not endow us with the right to kill, mame, nor rape.

First, we are NOT equal. Some are taller, shorter, smarter, or stronger than another.

Second: we are NOT equal in rights. E.g. Some justly own (have a right to) property that other do not.

Thirdly: we ARE equal in ONLY one way: we all are born with certain unalienable rights granted by our Creator.

You confuse unalienble right (endowed by the Creator God) with legal rights (endowed by man). :)