Principles.. As if they we detained sufficient knowledge to make them universal.. Include them in those things where e need to exercise caution. (make reference to the history of principle) (try not to laugh too much)
Hi Bishop Barron - greeting. I am a Roman Catholic from Singapore and I have been watching your video clips for the last few months and I really must say i have benefited tremendously and spiritually from all of your unofficial homily. Somehow it strengthens my own Catholic way in immeasurable and enlightening way. Please please continue to do this. Do not stop. I thank God for you.
@Damian Vigorito, To me he is a skater to serious issues. He really confuses me. He DOES GET TO THE TRUTH. My opinion not yours. WHEN I HEAR HIM SPEAK; I AM ALWAYS LOST??!!?
Thank you Bishop Barron. I needed to hear this today especially. This matter is present within my family where some women are concerned. I am grateful for your comments and you have helped me understand many things.
This is so true. Society today has become very child like. Most people are not Truth seekers, they just defend what seems convenient to them in the very immediate future. They don´t stop to think about long term repercussions, nor do they seem to care.
@DannyGirl What is marriage , is it strictly a religious union of 2 people till death do they part or is it a civil union requiring a licence from the Govt ?
This makes me think of a quote that a seminarian friend of mine said recently. He said people need to “remember the reality of eternity.” It was a good reminder for myself too, especially since I liked the said friend; his words helped me see that what I wanted was somewhat selfish. He feels a call to the priesthood and he is not interested in me, so I need to let my personal feelings go. I believe God has a plan much better than anything I could ever come up with, so I’ll try to follow Him.
An 'accidental' bump with your videos showed me how resourceful the catholic church and her ministers are; which I have not been aware of until I saw a few of your video clips. Excellent audio-visual quality, amazing analysis and very systematic argument. Thank you and God bless dear Fr. Barron.
Hello Bishop Barron. I have benefited greatly from your videos, even though I am a Protestant. You have presented very eloquent defenses for orthodoxy and I commend you greatly for it. I realize more and more the similarities between our two expressions of the Christian faith when I watch your videos. Keep doing what you are doing! Pax
This is so true.......it is so important to have these topics at hand from the Church to help us on our journey. Logic and faith often go hand in hand, and it is needed in today's political and social climate. Thank you Bishop Barron, God Bless
I would respectfully argue that Logic and Faith, by their definitions do NOT go hand in hand. Example: Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. - Hebrews 11:1 Logic- reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. With respect to the argument of Gay marriage, I could be wrong, but the need/want for validation of "Gay Marriage" is mostly to have access to the same rights as a heterosexual "Spouse" has in the eyes of the law. Medical, Financial etc. I am sure there are also many gay couples who believe the Church should also recognize a gay union, but to my "lay-man" understanding. Having a gay child, the want of validity and equality of Gay Marriage is mostly in the eyes of the LAW and not religion. Politicians have made this a moral and religious argument and used it as a soap box. If a law was passed to give the same rights to a common law partnership as marriage, I feel a vast majority of gay unions would be satisfied.
"Not everything a decent person does or wants is morally right...we sentimentalize the issue." Feels matter most in this age of self-referring relativity.
@@michaeloconnor6280 A tutor telling his student that she is doing well in math because it will make her feel better may seem nice but when finals come and she fails her class the "niceness" will be revealed to have been damaging to her and actually quite unloving. The question is if homosexual activity is inherently damaging. That is a question that can be considered and argued. And if the truth is that homosexual activity is damaging then calling it good to make people feel good and to be nice is actually, like the lying math tutor, quite unloving.
@@michaeloconnor6280 why does anyone care about anything, Michael? Simple. Because they... care. Now you might wrap yourself in indifference, but others, thankfully, will not. Having moved past ignorance of reality (that there IS a God; that God created man and woman to procreate and make families; that it is harmful to a person and society when he sins against his very own bodily design) the caring person CARES about the well-being of his fellow man. And says "Hey, that's a tar pit. I want to help you recognize that and help you get out of it." THAT'S why God cares. That's why people who know God care.
@@alanlo-557 You have to actually explain what these harmful effects are. So far your only argument is that "God didn't make people to have sex/get married if they can't have kids therefore they shouldn't." 1. You need a nonreligious argument if you're proposing this as a law. 2. That would mean anyone incapable of procreating should not get married or have sex. 3. This makes any sex act outside of those specifically designed to have the maximum chance of procreating are bad. 4. Why is this a moral issue? What's immoral about gay sex? It's a sin yeah don't care, explain why it's *immoral*. Because immoral and a sin aren't necessarily the same thing. Morality is a set of rules by which humans cooperate. Gay sex harms neither party nor anyone else. All you are saying by saying gay sex is immoral because it's a sin is "You shouldn't do gay sex because god doesn't like it."
I am a fairly new believer in Christ and just recently came to some of your videos in pursuit of trying to understand and know God and having a deeper relationship with him .. I have got to say you are one of the most clearly spoken intellects , with the ability to make what otherwise would have been difficult for me to understand information , i have ever came across in my life. I can actually grasp matters in a way that is so very clear to even a simple person like me...God has bleased you to bless others thank you
@@thenapierfamilychannel2819 if u was a christian at all you would know romans 1 doesn't mention homosexuality at all. This is paul condemning the heterosexuals he knew who used same sex acts in their idolotry cults which was unatural for straight folk, so God gave them over to a reprobate mind, Gods words not mine, but feel free to add to Gods word as you have been doing so far if thats what helps make u feel better to hate LGBT people.
The question of the morality of gay marriage aside (most of the comments here are dealing with that even though the video does not discuss it), I think the point that Fr. Barron brings up - Alister McIntyre's lamentation of our inability to have a coherent moral conversation anymore - is very compelling. We cannot talk to each other anymore on issues of morality - we 'talk past each other' because we live in a pluralistic society. "You have your truth, I have my truth - nobody knows the Truth." We appear to be operating on the assumption that there is no fundamental Truth. Philosophers in the past who tried to argue that there is no right or wrong inevitably found themselves contradicting this half-baked theory with their actions. Also, Barron's comment on poll-numbers not being at all relevant in the question is so spot on! Poll-numbers indicate the most 'fashionable' mode of thinking among the population - it is not necessarily the most informed or the most ethical. At one time, poll-numbers would have indicated slavery was okay. Thankfully, our laws no longer reflect that unjust and morally repugnant mode of thinking.
This is a good point, and I wanted to add (6 years later) that part of the problem, perhaps, is that legalism has crept into popular society. I mean that normal, everyday people are inclined to think about the legality of an action than the morality of an action. This is likely because legal consequences are immediately observed, but it becomes a problem because the legal system is EXTREMELY rules based. In real life, day to day human interactions you simply can't operate on that basis. In a court procedure matters just as much as the specific issue being addressed. A murderer can be released because the government failed to file some papers. That's just how a system of laws has to work. A moral system is a different animal, and in fact THE WHOLE POINT OF CHRISTIANITY was to reject the strict dogmatic nature of the ruling religious practices that reduced faith in God to a checklist of rituals. How and why American society became so legalistic, I have no idea. How to change that, I have no idea.
I don't think the church had EVER organized a discussion or dialogue on this "taboo" "red button" issue. It is notoriously one on which theologians observe a cowardly silence, and those who don't are... silenced!
Buddhism posits not that right or wrong do not exist, but that they only exist in relation to one another. Beyond a certain level of conscious experience, it is argued, right and wrong become meaningless. Certain experiences of mine have shown this to be experientially true.
I was born with HOMOSEXUAL tendences, but for me i have very clear what is the TRUE and REAL marriage, it is created by a MAN and a WOMAN. Why i say this, well, it is simple because i see it and live it through my PARENTS and other family members who are married and there is not other way to appreciate it. It is true that the recent SCOTUS decition brings benefits for GAY couples about social security, insurance, house benefits, rights property and also no-discrimination attitudes at public and private institutions but for me it is a big mistake to try to put this SAME SEX CIVIL UNION PARTNERSHIP at the same level of a TRUE MARRIAGE ( man and woman ) i think it is not correct by LGBT people who support that false vision. perhaps that wrong vision is also an influence by POP CULTURE, MAINSTREAM MEDIA, ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY that traditionally support a SAME-SEX UNION like If it were exactly the same as a TRUE MARRIAGE ( man and woman ). I was born with HOMOSEXUAL tendences and if i felt in love with my boyfriend i wouldn't need to put a signature over a BUREAUCREATIC paper to LOVE him. I don't put my homosexual tendences at the hands of LGBT'S agenda who only bully people who dont share their point of views however i put my HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCES be guided first by the love of my lord GOD and also by reliable friends and relatives. LGBT activists say LOVE is LOVE ....mmmmm....ok could be right but i say LOVE IS LOVE and also TRUE is TRUE. holy sacred marriage belongs to a man and a woman that's the true GOD's marriage plan.
Thank you Bishop for your clarity and confirmation of that which we hold dearest in our hearts and for some completely inexplicable reason our countries leader completely denies.
Hi Fr. Barron, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I lament about the tainting of this issue by sentimentalism, aggression and politics. However, you are probably aware that beneath these are real philosophical and theological arguments. Those who are driven emotionally by this issue are probably people who have experienced and seen a kind of oppression - latent and overt - by the church (and considering her political history and based on personal experience, this is no surprise). There is on the one hand some space where intelligent arguments have been brought up based on scientific and philosophical issues and on pastoral concerns. Many Christians/Catholics (now if my stats is correct, this is about half or even more than half of the faithful), including myself, seem to have had a change of mind and heart regarding this issue, but this change and the changing polls did not and do not occur in a vacuum. Might it not be acknowledged that the slowly changing attitudes towards LGBT issues - that you suggested to have started in the 70s across denominations - may have sprung from a discovery that is inspired, true and sincere? On the issue of slavery, St. Paul and Henry Newman have not in any way considered slavery as necessarily intrinsically evil. That evolved within for example the thought of St. Pope John Paul II, and earlier from the reflections of both the secular and faithful, who discovered slavery as de facto intrinsically evil. Or if I may recall the sense that "salvation is not exclusive for the baptized" or the idea behind "anonymous Christianity" expounded by Karl Rahner, both of which have trickled bottom-up from the thoughts and attitudes of the lay - the sensus fidei. Is it at all possible that this same movement is making its way into LGBT issues in favour of them our brother and sisters who have truly endured decades of oppression and persecution from both secular and religious institutions? I am not a theologian so I know little about the complexity of the discussions surrounding this issue. I am a neuroscientist, a psychiatrist and Catholic, and I can speak as such. My discipline does tell me - and I just reiterate here the discovery that psychology, biology and anthropology have made many years ago - that homosexuality is not a disorder but a naturally occurring minority variant of the human condition. This is in some sense somewhat counter to the current church teaching. But I cannot ever look at an LGBT brother and sister in the eye and tell them that he is a defective heterosexual, and that he has a tendency towards an intrinsic disorder or evil. From a pastoral perspective, it may seem that this teaching is so destructive psychologically - driving many to hide in the closet and compelling them to not be true to themselves - that it may be construed as a religious taboo rather than moral guidance. I am inclined to believe in the judgement of psychology and neuroscience, that there is nothing abnormal about being LGBT and in living out a flourishing life as such. And I have my doubts about the magisterial teaching simply because my discipline tells me that this is in their nature, and that grace can perfect this nature and not despise it. Because of this, I subscribe to the primacy of my conscience rather than to the teaching.
I agree with your comments and if the LGBT are a naturally occurring minority variant of the human condition who are we to deny them the fullest expression of love in the marriage state.
We must live by the word of God, not our Opinions. The word of God condemns Homosexual acts, it's pretty simple. Seek God and do not be deceived. Souls are at risk.
This is an excellent argument, I really see you point here - I would say that when you boil it down everything from the polls to the arguments and the history and abuse cannot prove whether lgbtq+ rights are true or wrong - I'd say those arguments are just mud on the wall to distract us from truly discussing the morality of the issues. The big thing he's address in this particular video is simply that we become so defensive and detract so easily from the morality and complexity of the issues because of 1) changing vocabulary 2) emotion-based arguments - on both sides I mean! and 3) wariness toward any legal judgement on morality. These aren't themselves bad things or bad arguments but we get so distracted by them we don't have a clear discussion when two opposing opinions meet. I hope he posts a video soon on his opinions and arguments about lgbtq+, I disagree with you on some points but your words are thoughtful and merit prayerful consideration and open discussion with theologians who are willing to both hear and speak as clearly as you.
The church teaches a vary narrow acceptance of "ordered sexuality". Masturbation, though natural, is disordered. Fornication, though natural, is disordered. Use of Pornography though arguably a harmless act of consensual consumerism, is disordered, and same sex sexual activity is a disordered sexual expression. By your understanding, that that which is natural is itself therefore not disordered, how can we discount anything as vice or virtue? From Pride to avarice to gluttony to selfishness, all vice is naturally occurring. Why does that change the idea that it is a passion in disorder?
I hope there is another video on this channel that continues this by answering "how do we know what is morally right and wrong?" especially on this and similar issues. It would be good to link to those videos in the description.
Natural law can guide us on what's right or wrong. Religion can too. Or we can use common sense and ask if we'd want our behavior on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper.
Yes, and under a democratic system, the majority rules. This isn't to say that every poll determines every moral truth, but imagine if the college of cardinals elected a new Pope, but then someone said, "yeah, but just because the majority says so, doesn't make it morally right." Maybe so, even, nonetheless, the rules are the rules, else we're left with no arbiter of moral authority
Messino Hart,I know it's been four years now though I hope you're into Him now if not just know He's into you. Just take a look back on your life so far and you'll see.
It's sad how 3 of the above 4 responses rather then talking about the point the commenter made: "He's got a good point not reliant on faith, I agree despite not sharing his religion." and decided that the best way to respond is almost appearing to be an expectation that he's going to convert to Christianity. - That has absolutely nothing to do with the points that neither the video makes, nor the person writing this comment made.
@@AutoGamerZ_ People are sad. They are going to do what they will, no one can reasonbly make the bet that praying to improve their flaws will do any good. From my POV, their replies although unrelated, are fine to me because they were kind and nice, that's my top priority.
Bishop Barron, I can see you are a reasonable person, so I feel I should come clean about my thoughts when I first clicked on this video. When I read the title, I immediately started the video and started counting the seconds until you said something that I, admittedly, hate hearing. But then you started explaining how people can't agree on anything anymore and that people confuse sentimentality with morality in politics as well as church. With those points as the things I will take from this video, I must say that I am impressed and agree completely.
Thank you for eloquently expressing my opinion. We need arguements and place cards to strengthen our dedication and service to the truth. We need to be brave.
Father, thank you for this video. I'm a Catholic who is also SSA. I've come back to the Church and embraced Her teachings on this issue. I try, for the love of God I try to have rational conversations with my friends, most of whom are in favor of 'same-sex marriage'. Yet at every turn, either myself or the Church are just lambasted at bigots who are blinded by hate. It's as if the guiding principle of the LGBT community (a community to which I once belonged) is 'If you oppose us, you hate us!'. It's so terribly frustrating. There are times when I want to throw up my hands and say, 'whats the point!'. All I can say is, pray for me father, please pray for us all!
Please keep in mind it isn't just the gay rights movement where this can be a problem. It's also a problem in the very community you've chosen to come to.
Magalahi02 ‘How regretful u will be when u realize u tortured urself for blaphemous, unscriptural teachings just to please mortal men and to feed their prejudices. If the church’s vomit is your meal, then YOU eat it without forcing your diet on others. If gays want to marry, then keep your nose out of their right to be married.
Hi Magalahi02. I expect it is difficult dealing with desires that culture and friends see as defining what you are. I hope you are well and full of peace in the knowledge that you are a child of God. Thank you for your testimony of holding on to God.
Absolutely stunning Intellectual deep contemplating theologian, this is very impressive and convinced my heart of defining the perverse and subversive natures I know I could never condone or approve of, but I do respect those who disagree with love and contentment. Peace be with you all.. :-)
I’ll never ever understand why the church considers healthy gay relationships wrong. Who does it hurt? How much good do loving gay couples bring into the world, especially for the children that they often adopt? What makes those fleeting passages in the Bible any more relevant than the many other ones we functionally ignore? Isn’t the power of the church it’s ability to make sense of scripture, to think critically about it and create a fully fleshed out religion for understanding the teachings and deeds of Christ?
In short : it is not about the love between the gay couple That love is good What is condemned is the sexual act because it violates the function of the sexual organs For details I recommend checking out the perverted faculty argument from Ed Feser Check out the theology of the body institute
lmao at everyone saying he dodged the question, he's just explaining why there can't be an argument if you simply follow sentiments and refuse to engage in a logical conversation, this video aged like wine.
He blames society for not being able to reason calmly about gay marriage, but the main reason for this is that the Church has forbidden such calm reasoning, in totally peremptory documents such as this one: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
The "question" was his own doing, we already know the Church's stance on gay marriage but he describes a more nuanced issue with society that isn't given due examination.
@@conchtalks But science doesn’t “back” gay marriage as-well studies have shown that gay people are not born gay but it’s environmental and it takes an effect on the mind Also he’s talking from a philosophical stance then a scientific one what does it matter if science doesn’t back his claims?
as usual, a wonderfully logical and cogent piece. i would offer that holding a moral argument in an environment of secular relativism (pls see Benedict XIII on this for great discourse) is nigh well impossible. the moral argument is about right and wrong and in the secular relativist world there is no real right or wrong..............
As long as the Holy Church has representatives like BB and a great many other gifted vocations, moral arguments will continue to be exchanged. Do not underestimate the essential role of the Holy Church in today's world; it is pivotal.
Dear Bishop Barron, Thank you for your videos. They provide food for thought and clarification, and always bring me closer to understanding God and Christ. I am learning to have patience, pray for myself and others more often, and stay in God's Word, but, yes, the patience part is difficult. I'm embarrassed that you have to read the kind of language you read in the Comment sections--like this one. It would be nice to give the big mouths a belt in the jaw and in the process teach them a lesson--(like Spencer Tracy in Boys Town). I know you can handle it, but I'm still embarrassed that this language occurs around a man of God. I can see why we must be purified before we are allowed close to God. I would be embarrassed to approach God any other way. Well, you have my prayers for strength and courage and leadership in doing God's work. Please don't ever stop making your videos and know that all you do at Word on Fire (and everywhere else) my wife and kids greatly appreciate. God Bless.
Michael Montague The Catholic Church is absolutely built on Jesus Christ. It is through the Eucharist. Jesus gave himself to us through the Eucharist! Demons are terrified of it and cannot be around it. So for you to say such things that our Church is evil is blasphemous. Your hope is in yourself! Our hope as Christians is through Jesus Christ which is very comforting.
First let me address that not "ALL" Jews consider Christians blasphemous. You are incorrect in making a blanket statement on this. Yes I accept totally with all my heart the divinity of Jesus Christ, my beloved King. I call him this because I love him and he loves me, and indeed he is King of Kings! Because I saw and experienced his infinite mercy, his never ending love, his never ending goodness, and his healing power for myself. I was healed from a terrible stammer which rendered me unable to speak. I was 7 years old. I was healed when I was 20 years old. So I am not afraid to speak the truth, and that truth is Jesus Christ. He is the way the truth and the life. Just as it says in scripture. I try to reach out to all in Christ's love. To help others come to know his infinite mercy and goodness. God bless will be praying for you.
+Michael Montague I always laugh when people doubt that Jesus actually existed. When you look at educated people who have no bias toward the issue (I.e. Agnostic scholars), there is no question whether or not Jesus actually existed. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic who teaches at the university of North Carolina writes “The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet” (Did Jesus Exist?, p. 4). The New Testament is one of the most reliable ancient texts that we have. There are 500+ manuscripts that can be traced back to the 1st century! Aside from that we have other non-biblical sources that confirm Jesus's existence. For example, an ancient text attributed to Josephus, a 1st century Jewish historian mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." We know this is unbiased because it clearly does not call Jesus "lord" or any reference to divinity. It just says that people called him Christ, which would be historically accurate.
+Scott Noll So once we accept that Jesus actually existed, we have to look at what he said. The New Testament, one of the most reliable ancient texts we have, quotes him as saying "I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE". Unlike any other religion, Christianity's founder is not claiming to have the truth, he is claiming to BE TRUTH ITSELF. This is significant. The way I see it, there are three possibilities. He could be lying, which I don't know many people that would lie to be put up on a cross, he could be a delusional lunatic, which it doesn't seem logical that so many people would drop everything to devote their lives to following a lunatic, or lastly, he could actually be telling the truth.
+Scott Noll Yes, that is a very interesting and compelling way to put it into perspective. My aspect on the subject matter is from personnel experience.
+Michael Montague Actually.... Since you say you are a scientist. Take a look at the Shroud of Turin. www.shroud.com Science has not been able to explain it. Also there are many Eucharist miracles through our Churches history that science cannot explain. The Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano Also the incorruptible Saints. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility This should give you some education Michael about the profound and awesome history of our Church!
Travis Kraft - Says you. Are you the arbiter of such things? If that is your view of marriage then, by all means, marry or don’t marry based on that. You have no standing, however, to dictate to others whether or not their marriage is legitimate.
I respect Bishop Barron as a thinker, but I think this particular video is a bit disingenuous. I don't think Justice Kagan was saying that moral arguments always indicate discrimination. What she meant was that a moral appeal is often a substitute for an argument rather than an argument itself. In this context, "red flag" doesn't mean a rejection of a claim. It means that the claim requires a high level of scrutiny. If you say "because the Bible says it's wrong," then this is an appeal to morality without an argument to support it. Bishop Barron is absolutely right to say that we've lost a vocabulary for making moral arguments and that we need one in order to talk with each other instead of past each other. But I don't think he provides one here or gets us any closer to one. In fact, he seems sneakily dismissive of exactly the sort of common ground that might move us closer to dialogue. What he calls "the sentimentalizing" of the issue is really a recognition that gay people can love and honor each other as much as straight people. In other words "sentimentalizing" means recognizing the capacity and dignity of others and wanting what's best for them. I imagine that the Bishop would argue that marriage is not what's best for gay people. As he says, that's an argument for a different video. Okay, but he's done nothing in this video to pave the way for that argument.
@@BishopBarron "To invite people to rational argument and to let go of emotionally driven responses." That's a great goal, and I appreciate the effort. Here is where I think you fell short, at least in this particular video. You identify three types of appeals which you claim avoid rational argument in favor of emotionally driven responses: 1. It's not rational to rule out morality as the basis for an argument. You claim Justice Kagan was refusing to consider any argument that involves morality. But I don't think that's what she meant. I think she meant that arguments that appeal to morality are often a matter of prejudice with no reasoning behind them. For instance, "Gay marriage is immoral because God says so." She didn't say that you cannot appeal to morality. ("Red flag" doesn't mean rejection. It means that a claim requires scrutiny.) But your morality must appeal to reason. It must be something that carries weight to people who do not share your religious beliefs. 2. Polls indicate what people think, not what is right, so people shouldn't cite poll numbers in defense of gay marriage. It's true that polls are not in themselves arguments. But I don't think that's why people cite them in regard to gay marriage. It may be (and probably is) the case that these polls reflect the fact that 25 years ago most people didn't know any openly gay people and certainly no same-sex parents. They may have felt that such unions were unnatural or immoral or just plain strange. As gay people have come out of the closet and straight people see loving unions and loving parents, their opinions have changed. So it's not that anyone is saying that morality is the same thing as public opinion. It's that public opinion, especially when it has shifted this dramatically, may indicate something that is important to the discussion. 3. "My son is gay" is not a rational argument but an emotional one. Rationally, one might respond, "So you're okay with prescribing laws for other people's children, but you change your tune when it's your own?" But I think this is a variation of #2 above. It may not be that the father in question wants to do what will benefit his son rather than to do what is right. It might be that having a gay son has changed his idea about what it means to be gay. Perhaps he previously thought that marriage should be preserved only for straight couples, and now he looks at his son and thinks, "I love my son, and he is as deserving as anyone of a loving marriage." To sum up, I agree that the three kinds of appeals you refer to are not rational arguments in and of themselves. But I think they are the surface features which indicate possible underlying arguments, some of which are rational and some of which have an emotional element as well. I don't think you would want to banish love as the ultimate factor supporting a moral argument. Bishop, you strike me as one of the more open and thoughtful voices on religion, so I hope you don't take my criticism as an attack on you. I appreciate the dialog that you are trying to start here, and I hope you'll take my comment as a way to continue to think and speak on this topic. I think that you are absolutely right that we speak past each other most of the time and that we need to invent a new way of talking to (and listening to) one another!
James DeNino Pope John Paul 1 said this about LGBT people: “The day is not far off when we will have to answer to these people who through the years have been humiliated, whose rights have been ignored, whose human dignity has been offended, their identity denied and their liberty oppressed. What is more we will have to answer to the God who created them” That says it in a nutshell, and I couldn't have said it better myself.
This video is several years ahead of it's time in my opinion. People say the bubble burst in 2016 and these discussions have been much more common since then but this video for 3 years before then goes through many of these things in a much more elegant and cohesive way. Or something like that.
Romans 1:26-27 which says: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." How can one read this and conclude that sexual acts involving same sexed individuals could be anything but "shameful lusts" "unnatural relations" "indecent acts" "received...due penalty for their perversion"....... Did you hear that?...." due penalty for their perversion"......Perversion of what? "natural relations". This passage is plain and clear God called homosexual acts "shameful lusts" and will have a "penalty". End of story. Don't get me wrong.....God gave man was given free will. And here in America one is free to love whom he/she pleases. So, if you want to satisfy you lust for each other in ways that God did not intend, then by all means go for it. Just do not say that God's word justifies your actions. If you stick up your middle finger at God in rebellion and say " I don't give a sh__t what you want. I am going to do it my way." Instead of confessing that you are a sinner and are trying your best not to sin, then you will get exactly what you wanted......the rest of eternity without him. This goes just as well for every other sin under the sun not just homosexuality.
And people wonder why the LGB community has serious dissociative and mental turmoil. It's not because people are oppressing them, it is because their actions are at the core causing them pain. And people aren't allowed to talk about it? People should ask why. It's a red flag.
i was raised Baptist and still consider myself the same. although i do not agree with gay marriage, i have friends and family who are gay and i am understanding this video 100%. and having a different opinion than someone else is ok. im not a homophobe or a racist, i just have a different belief.
The onus is on the opponents of gay marriage to show that it does harm in some way to innocent persons or the society and they never do that because they can't.
***** Obviously from what you are saying some types of love are abominations which God cannot condone. The examples you gave are far worse than a homosexual relationship. The focus now should be on making sure no members of the clergy be allowed to perform gay marriage ceremonies. There is a separation of church and state and gay couples can just be married by a judge. It is really important that Pope Petrus does not force clergy to perform these marriages.
Fernanda giron What is HIV/AIDS and where did it come from? What is venereal disease and where did it come from? Why is Throat Cancer on the Rise and where did it come from? If you can give me a good reason that these things are good in a society at large, then you won the argument, but you cannot do that.
@Susanna Donovan HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is a RNA virus and is a member of the the Lentivirus family of viruses. HIV is a zoonotic disease - meaning it originally comes from an animal that is not human (in the case of HIV, chimpanzees). It's theorised to have first infecting people around ~1910/20 in Africa, after they were commonly used as a food source (similar to how SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 is theorised to have come from wet market bats in China), however it was only discovered and properly studied decades later, as the virus has a decades long incubation period. AIDS is the result of HIV depleting the T-Helper cells in the body to below 200, allowing opportunistic infections to take place, which usually call the patients death - HIV/AIDS does *not* kill the patient itself. The first patients to be found in America with AIDS were gay, which led to scientists naively believing it was a "gay disease", which led to scientists not studying straight patients merely as much, which resulted in a serious error in judgement - as we all know the virus infects humans regardless of their sexuality (this in 2020, is common sense, but were talking 1960-80s America here). EDIT: TH-cam just deleted the rest of the comments, so I'll keep it brief: - "What is a venereal disease?" A venereal disease is any disease spread by sexual intercourse, regardless of sexual orientation (after all, the disease doesn't know whether someone is gay or not). - "Where do venereal diseases come from" - The most probable answer is that, at a point in time, a disease went through enough mutations to spread through sexual intercourse and the rest is history (viruses split out into different branches from a common ancestor, etc - evolution does not just apply to living things (viruses after all do not live)). - "Why is throat cancer on the rise?" No one knows for sure, but given data on other cancers plus a little bit of common sense, it is more than likely due to a range of factors including lifestyle (not including sexual orientation, it has no affinity to mutation), diet, environmental factors such as pollution, etc. - "Where did throat cancer come from?" You might as well be asking, "Where did cancer come from?", as all cancers are caused by the same thing, a mutation in the body, which we've established in the scientific community can literally come from anything at any time at any place, because the human body is horribly flawed and fragile in its design (great creator, your God was). For a more deep and reasonable answer that extends past a TH-cam comment, study genetics. Cancer does not have any provable relation to sexual orientation and so, by logic, the same answer can be applied to "Where did throat cancer come from?"
Thank you for all the work that you do. Btw, is that Word on Fire Bible more helpful in understanding scripture? So many times in my life I have wished that there was a "Coles Notes", a "for Dummies" book or something to explain scripture after reading it so that I could fully understand it. Sometimes it seems confusing, very harsh or contradicting. I am a Catholic & a believer but sometimes I wonder about some things or just don't understand.
The tower of Babel isn't a literal allegory about different languages per se, but rather a story about differentiated consciousnesses ergo perceptions of reality. If we continue to fight over the definitions of truth, we can never agree on a fundamental nature for discourse and understanding. I think being an individual who loves her or himself, and actively seeking to understand others and be understood is the only thing we can do to combat a Babel-esque experience in our own personal lives.
@@bradhaywood4355 unfortunately that is not how things are going so eventually it will lead to at best war with a good end or at worst peaceful acceptance of Oppression.
Bishop Barron can't do it. He can't say homosexuality is wrong. The sin is not the problem necessarily, it's the celebration of the sin that Christians are against. I sin. But I'm not asking everyone to accept my sin nor am I proud of it.
VERITAS homosexuality is not bad. Homosexual acts are. When I was in a navy ship we had 1000s of guys on ship and no girls. Homosexual. Not bad as long as there is no homosexual acts.
A new vocabulary is required if discussion is to take place from a position of comparative neutrality rather than one of personal and institutional superiority.
Fr, Barron, thanks for taking on this topic of Gay Marriage and the Church. First, I agree about a breakdown, as you say. Also, I thank you for showing the past views that we today, view about moral issues, as ignorant, as like slavery being okay. (I'm not black, or a woman, or even gay)! What do you think about people who ARE gay? Are they ALL born gay? Thus, God already condemns them? Or do you believe being gay is a choice? That can't be right, right? For me, it's like others looking at black people, or women. They were taken by white men, and enslaved, etc., Women too! Now, today's prominent ignorance is about gay people! Is that what you mean about moral arguments? Is the Catholic Church hierarchy willing to agree with YOUR thoughts about the loving thy neighbor commandment about Gay marriage? I haven't followed you, so I wonder, and God bless you.
Actually, Africans were the ones selling other Africans into slavery. The White Man did not come in and take them. Other tribes sold them to gain more land, more power, and to remove rivaling factions. Pretending that only one race is capable of despicable and awful acts is narrow minded and one sided. All sin is equal in the eyes of God, and no unclean thing can enter his presence. To return to him requires Faith in Jesus Christ, who sanctifies and changes us. Everyone must actively repent, regardless of whatever sin they have, to return to our Heavenly Father. Jesus Christ will, and does, help Same Sex Attracted individuals to overcome their tendencies, either through abstaining or a change of heart and soul through his atonement. Just the same way he would help someone who has violent tendencies, someone who steals compulsively, someone who lies a lot, and some who has a problem commiting adultery. Sin is sin, regardless of what it is. We all have different crosses to bear. I feel for Sam Sex Attracted persons, but they are no different from the rest of us. Their trials just come in a different form.
He actually answered by stating the same old discriminatory ideologies they've been saying for centuries. I thought this man might have been different, but he's just a bit more knowledgeable.
@Sheldon Cooper not everyone, for example I love J.Peterson who is not a pro gay/trans activist but he doesn't use rhetoric to reinstate old-fashioned intolerance, pretending to be open minded. Everyone is entitled to have his own ideas, as I am free to criticize.
@@Paolo_Del_Casale not supporting gay marriage, which is a gross misappropriation of the Christian religion, does NOT make you intolerant. Gay life-long couples go against God, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily evil. We are all sinners, which is important for us to remember. HOWEVER, actively CELEBRATING your sins, especially in the case of "gay marriage," which again is the subversion of the Christian faith to fit your own sins, IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Marriage is a SPECIFICALLY RELIGIOUS act that should not be allowed to be misappropriated in such a disrespectful manner.
Obama is a 70s moderate Republican, he said his policies were 70s Republicanesque in an interview. Obama is not a progressive, just another corporate indentured servant who only goes as far his bosses allow him to go, so stfu with that bullcrap about Obama saying "not to go too far to the left".
Hayden S. Gay people are Born Gay .They are a part of the human story from the start .in every race And Creed . Its high time you and Barron and all other bigots got over it and stop using Your religion as a stick to beat your fellow men and women .
does anyone else have google on the ready to look up words? ipso facto, obfuscating, it feels like an honors level class whenever watching this guy if nothing else my vocabulary increases...
Why do gay people claimed the mantle of tolerance and diversity -- and yet have betrayed those same principles in attacking anyone that disagrees. Speak up for marriage in any public place today and you will be shamed and shunned. I do love gay people, REALLY ! Why should I be considered a hater, just because I love God and follow his teachings, even if some gays don't understand that . Why punish Christians, who want to be obedient to our love, God. If you believe, in the truth about love, about marriage. You must understand this love, He is my love, my life, my world and he has taught me to love everyone, you too and I do. Please try to be open, to other people, who don't always agree, who also can not change the way they feel and are born inside to feel this way too ! Why can't you just love me too, even if we have made different choices for our lives? Let us, just love and let God settle our differences. and ( thank you, Father Barron for taking all the retaliation, for all the Christians. I don't think, Gay people mean to hate or be nice, they are just emotional towards their cause. Christians and Gay people should get together and battle the real enemy, the evil one, who wants to cause the problems and only wants us to separate us, and wants us to fight over our differences. We will not mention his name because he already lost the battle at the cross! Right! and we claim and most importantly, we stand on the victory of the resurrection, because Jesus whipped his butt. yea, woo whoo.! WE ( people of God. Love) both are the real winner!
+Kyle Smit Jesus saved me from the pit of anxiety and depression, and further suicidal thoughts... Jesus loves us so much, that He suffered and died for us, so we wouldn't have to go to hell as punishment for sinning against God... Confess to God that we are all sinners, who desperately need a saviour, and confess that Jesus is your Lord and saviour, and if you really mean it from your heart, you need to stop willfully sinning and the moment you accept Christ, the Holy Spirit will come dwell in you and He will be your helper and comforter, i speak from experience, i accepted Jesus and then received the Holy Spirit, and my life actually changed its not a lie, it pretty much confirms that the Bible really is God's Word, because i felt the Holy Spirit's presence before i even knew what the Holy Spirit did... Im not forcing you to accept Him, but im begging you to consider Him :)
+Francisco Mendez Jesus saved me from the pit of anxiety and depression, and further suicidal thoughts... Jesus loves us so much, that He suffered and died for us, so we wouldn't have to go to hell as punishment for sinning against God... Confess to God that we are all sinners, who desperately need a saviour, and confess that Jesus is your Lord and saviour, and if you really mean it from your heart, you need to stop willfully sinning and the moment you accept Christ, the Holy Spirit will come dwell in you and He will be your helper and comforter, i speak from experience, i accepted Jesus and then received the Holy Spirit, and my life actually changed its not a lie, it pretty much confirms that the Bible really is God's Word, because i felt the Holy Spirit's presence before i even knew what the Holy Spirit did... Im not forcing you to accept Him, but im begging you to consider Him :)
Its kind of hard to respect the opinion of someone who is actively trying to prevent you from marrying the person that you are in love with and want to spend the rest of your life with. I think that if someone was trying to prevent you from marrying the person that you love for completely bullshit reasons, than you would be pretty upset too.
This video does not discuss same sex marriage. It talks about the way pro-ssm people shut down any opposing views by calling the other a "hater." But I guess that's too nuanced a topic for those pro-ssm people who are spewing hate against Father Barron in the comments. They are simply proving him right.
Religious views on same sex marriage should be shut down. It's call separation of church and state and most free countries have it. If christians don't want same sex marriage in their church that's their right, but they get no say in what is legally allowed in a country. Of course the church is in a crisis now because most people have no issue with same sex marriage and with numbers of catholics at a record low, the church is trying to do anything it can not to push more away.
I found it ironic that the very first response to Fr. Barron's argument that we today are largely incapable of making sound moral arguments was the utterly unsound argument that "The Supreme Court has ruled; therefore the issue is settled, both legally and morally."
I wonder. Has there ever been an age when some great evil was not legal? Probably the only time something evil has not had the sanction of the law was before men made positive laws.
I think that there is a God, singular, yes (and demonstrably so), but the position you put forward is simply legal positivism, and although popular today, it has traditionally been a minority position in Western thought. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, the majority of the classical Christian tradition, and even the majority of the Enlightenment tradition believe that there is some way to base positive or legal justice, on NATURAL JUSTICE (natural law, natural right), whose authority is grounded in reason and human nature, without directly requiring any appeal to God (even if it should be the case that God should turn out to be the ultimate ground of morality -- after all, God is the creator of the laws of nature in all senses, but we do not appeal to God in physics, save perhaps as the ultimate metaphysical cause of nature). The Declaration of Independence is speaks of "nature and nature's God" and although it does speak of us being "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights", it also declares these to "self-evident truths." Your position denies and anyone can in fact know this, any fundamental truths before which the positive law has to bow. This conflict came up immediately after the Second World War. Not only had legal positivism been the prevalent theory with the national socialists, it was popular throughout the West (as it still is) and was appealed to: How could the Nazis be TRIED FOR CRIMES? The had not broken any laws. For legal positivism, that's the end of the matter. If killing Jews is not illegal, then it isn't a crime; and if it isn't a crime, nothing wrong was done. This reasoning was not, at the time, accepted: it was held that there are certain things are that are inherently wrong (genocide is one of them) that are inherently wrong, and that this can be known by reason from nature. According to this unwritten natural (non-positive) law, the Nazis were guilty, guilty of crimes against humanity. So I side firmly with the majority of the Western tradition which rejects BOTH the reduction of natural right to mere positive law, or else tries to skip natural right entirely by rooting everything in direct divine command theory. The traditional teaching is that between God and the mere work of man is nature, and that natural law and natural right is the rational standard for positive law and positive right. In legal terms, there are crimes mala in se, or evil in themselves (that is, crimes prescribed by the natural law, such as murder) and crimes mala prohibitum (that is, crimes which are merely prohibited by a government of the sake of order, like traffic regulations -- there is nothing intrinsically wrong with driving on either side of the road, but one is not legal in the US and the other not in England). It is absurd to say that laws don't address moral issues. Why do we have laws against murder and rape and child abuse? For convenience? No, these things are illegal BECAUSE they are wrong. Legal positivism, the position you seem to think is the only alternative to a divine command theory in ethics, is its a position which stands in need of defense. Finally, you seem confused about the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. No where in the Constitution will you find the phrase "separation of Church and State," and what the clause prohibits is the State *officially sanctioning a State religion* and from *preventing people from practicing their religion.* It is about what the State IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO. The Church is under no such constraint. Religious citizens, who are the vast majority in the US, are allowed to vote, and nothing prohibits them from voting accord to their reason and consciences, and if they do so informed by their religious beliefs (as will as many other beliefs that everyone has), so what? That is actually how democracy works. It would be ridiculous (wouldn't it?) to argue something like this: "The 10 Commandments prohibit murder. Therefore any law prohibiting murder is based on either Judaism or Christianity. Therefore, any law of the US prohibiting murder is an establishment of religion. Therefore the SCOTUS should strike down all laws against murder." For Jews and Christians, the direct prohibition of murder by God isn't what CONVINCES them that murder is wrong -- they already knew that -- but RECONFIRMS what they already knew by reason alone AND ups the ante, just in case they start being tempted to kill off a few "undesirables" -- and don't kid yourself that human beings would never do such a thing. For a thirst, he has to say, "Sorry, you can't murder these people because that is absolutely prohibited by God." For a natural law philosopher, he has to say, "Sorry, you can't murder these people because it is a violation of natural right and inherently wrong." For a legal positivist, he can only say this much, "Well, you can't kill them while the laws still makes it illegal to kill them, but all you have to do is change the law, and then killing them will be okay, or at least legal, since 'legal' and 'okay' are the same thing after all." In other words, those who accept legal positivism generally do so because they accept one or both of these propositions: 1. there are no objective moral truths, or 2. if there are any objective moral truths, no one can know them. Are there good arguments for these positions? Well, some have held them, but not the majority of Western philosophers. The main support seems to be a fallacious argument: 1. There is disagreement about moral matters; 2. therefore, there is no objective truth of the matter. This is the same, logically, as: 1. There is disagreement about the shape of the earth; 2. therefore, there is no objective truth of the matter (the earth "is" flat to flat-earthers). So, disagreement isn't a very strong argument for moral subjectivism, especailly since many moral disagreements are only apparent (e.g. in the abortion debate, both sides generally accept the moral principe that it is wrong to directly kill an innocent person; the locus of the disagreement is over the factual metaphysical issue of whether or not a human fetus is an innocent person in the relevant sense. But that is a matter of fact, not of value). But, you might say, there is so much MORE disagreement about morals than about (say) scientific matters. Isn't that explained by the fact that morals are subjective? Well, not if there as another, better, explanation, and it was given by Socrates, and repeated by Plato and Aristotle, and it is quite simply this: it is in the nature of things that quantitative matters are easy to reach agreement about, when a measurement can be made, in part because quantities allow for exactness. Qualities, which is the category of reality under which all moral things fall, cannot be measured in this -- for the simple and sufficient reason that they are not quantities. Many relations also can't be measured that way (how do you measure "to the left of". And qualities are not less real that quantities. Even quantities themselves have qualities: the number 12 is even, for example, and also immaterial, as are all numbers. So if I can accurately discern that an immaterial entity such as the number 12 has the quality of being even, I see no reason it is strange or even problematic to observe that certain human actions (which as actions, seem to be more material than numbers), have the quality of "being unfair" or "being fair", or most generally "being right" and "being wrong" (although it is always better to be as specific as possible about the kind of wrong that is involved. By declaring it to be a RIGHT for persons of the same-sex to marry, the court took a very firm moral position. Many people were joyful for, it exactly on moral grounds. To them it looked something like: 1. It is wrong to treat a person unequally on the basis of an arbitrary and benign or natural characteristic. 2. Homosexuality is a benign and possibly natural characteristic, upon the basis of which homosexuals as a class are being treated equally; 3. THIS unequal treatment is therefore unjust. 4. The law should establish JUSTICE. 5. Therefore, the taw of the land should recognize same-sex marriage as equal to traditional marriage, because this is what justice requires. Americans have always believed in 4. "Separate Church and State" isn't in the Constitution, but "Establish Justice" is. Americans have always believed in 1 in the ideal, but had to overcome various obstacles, racism being the obvious example. In recent decades, Americans have come to accept that 2, that gay people are a class in a sense relevantly similar to black people. We did argue about 3 for a bit. A lot of people thought "Civil Unions" for same-sex couples would be the way to go, but most Americans tend to equate "equality" with "completely identical treatment", so that didn't work out. It became "Nothing less than total recognition of same-sex marriage as marriage and as the law of the land will satisfy justice." So, since you had 1 and 4, all one needed to do was get 2 ("And there's nothing wrong with that!") and then 3. Once those are in place, you'll get 5, at least if you have a SCOTUS that holds that its the job of the SCOTUS to establish justice directly, which is the majority view. Personally, I don't see Scalia's question about why, if Americans truly want same-sex marriage, we don't Amend the Constitution to recognize it, as a pretty good one.
Eve Keneinan Pardon me but, who in the (HELL) is the Supreme Court that defines Almighty God's marriage between One Man and One Woman as wrong. Almighty God designed marriage over 2,000 years ago long before ANY Supreme Court was ever around. Just look at when Almighty God told Noah to bring into the Ark a pair of each (make & female) Every homosexual out there has a mother AND a father!
@@johnjacob5990 You Sir, are entitled to believe what you want. However, the remains of Noah's Ark rest on Mount Ararat in Turkey to this very day and even the Scientists who for the most part are atheists believe in the geological changes after the flood. Question, Why is it that you can find seashells on top of the mountains?
Fr Barron is a very fair-minded thinker. In this video he discusses how we ALL talk past each other on today's moral issues, instead of actually arguing/ discussing. Regardless on which side of the gay marriage argument you fall, we can at least agree on this. We need to really THINK and really TALK and really LISTEN. He makes many fair points. Fr. Barron is a Catholic Priest, he represents the Catholic Church to the best of his ability. So do not be surprised or critical that he doesn't support gay marriage arguments in his video.
Well, this is above my paygrade when on one hand the news cites our Pope's compassion to same-sex unions while on the other, the Vatican writes that even: Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.
It would be best to understand the arguments behind it. The video clearly states how bad it is to simplify arguments because, this day and age, people tend to assume the worst in the opposition to gay "marriage"!
What I have trouble with is the idea that certain civil rights (and SCOTUS has called marriage a basic civil rights for decades) can be denied to certain groups of people because it doesn't meet the personal or religious standards of other groups. Personally, I don't see any civil marriage as a true marriage for a Catholic. It's not like the sacrament at all. It doesn't even involve the Lord. It's basically a civil contract. If any court tried to force any church to marry gay people, or do anything else that violates their religious beliefs, I would be outraged. But "gay marriage" doesn't involve any other citizens and doesn't change what civil marriage means to heterosexuals at all. The only reason I've been given by Catholics, or other Christiand, about why gay people should be denied this civil right is that it goes against their own religious beliefs, or they just don't approve of it themselves. IMO that's not sufficient reason for the government to take away an entire group's civil rights. It's really no different from the way interracial couples were once denied the right to marry. My religious beliefs should not have the power to interfere with someone else's basic civil rights.
SCOTUS calling marriage a civil right is a bit slippery. In a way, marriage is both a right AND a privilege for those God has called to it. The danger of a secular government legalizing something like this is it sows divisions in religious groups and makes possibly destructive and harmful things (which CAN be somewhat subjective) easier to access or do. A good religious person should not say "I am against this because it goes against my religion." They should say "I am against this because it puts that person/group of people in a dangerous position with God, whether they believe it or not." The true goal of believers is to convert people in their hearts, to make them WANT to oppose evil for their soul's sake, and to be the holiest self they can be. (Sorry for the long reply but it just kept coming 😥🤐😥)
Heroica Knight In my country, the Netherlands, the legal marriage is the civil marriage. People have to do the legal marriage before they can do the religious marriage in church. Same sex marriage is accepted by the vast majority and does not harm anyone. Remember that your sense of morality is subjective and does not give you the right to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
Please remember, all who support gay marriage that the Bible states homosexuality is an "abomination." The Bible also defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
@@tanjavankessel2548 Your reply ignores the Laws Of Nature. To reproduce the species we need a man and a woman. It is your opinion that same sex marriage does no harm. Even a "gay" neighbour of mine is against gay marriage "30 years ago people said to me you are homosexual cos of what happened in your childhood .. I reply I had the most wonderful parents .... Now they say you can get married & I say there is no way a gay couple could have such a wonderful marriage as a lot of heterosexuals do .... no it is not the same & I am not in favour of "gay marriage" " When asked why he does not say that publically "I am not going to put myself up for ridicule and possible physical attack"
They only have the "Right" because it has been enacted to make it law. Morality is not subjective. It is subjectively interpreted by the none religious to become meaningless... In Nazi Germany for an "Arian" to marry a Jew was not allowed and to do so was considered immoral as well as unlawful. So for the none religious morality is very fluid. Research "natural law"
"Tolerance only applies to persons, never to principles. Intolerance only applies to principles, never persons." Blessed Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Not 'Blessed' yet, but if the Diocese of Rochester would get out of the way, he might get there soon, please God.
Principles.. As if they we detained sufficient knowledge to make them universal.. Include them in those things where e need to exercise caution. (make reference to the history of principle) (try not to laugh too much)
People are effected by principles and other people’s interpretations thereof. What a nonsensical quote from the archbishop.
@@ERChris17 Try again, it simply means love the sinner not the sin
Joe Rocha stop, you’re cognitive dissonance has a hold of you
Hi Bishop Barron - greeting. I am a Roman Catholic from Singapore and I have been watching your video clips for the last few months and I really must say i have benefited tremendously and spiritually from all of your unofficial homily. Somehow it strengthens my own Catholic way in immeasurable and enlightening way. Please please continue to do this. Do not stop. I thank God for you.
God bless you!
And people like you cause me want to defund Planned Parent Hood.
Roberts, not the only inspirational one.
Fan of Bishop Barron and Singaporean too!
@Damian Vigorito, To me he is a skater to serious issues.
He really confuses me. He DOES GET TO THE TRUTH.
My opinion not yours.
WHEN I HEAR HIM SPEAK; I AM ALWAYS LOST??!!?
Thank you Bishop Barron. I needed to hear this today especially. This matter is present within my family where some women are concerned. I am grateful for your comments and you have helped me understand many things.
I'm sure this video will encourage you to spit on the women in your family by yelling at them "immoral people, go to the fire"
Im a Protestant and I agreed with you on this
This is so true. Society today has become very child like. Most people are not Truth seekers, they just defend what seems convenient to them in the very immediate future. They don´t stop to think about long term repercussions, nor do they seem to care.
We can't afford to keep moaning and mooping around with all this. We must act.
it's the entitlement shared by the millenial generation and the lack of responsibility that's ingrained itself in today's culture.
@@darionkormos-mysticcity7997 What do you mean by act , do you mean kill some first born children or create a joint flood ?
@DannyGirl One question after reading this painful diatribe . Will Gay marriage increase or decrease the amount of sex occurring in the World ?
@DannyGirl What is marriage , is it strictly a religious union of 2 people till death do they part or is it a civil union requiring a licence from the Govt ?
Life here is fleeting but eternity is forever. Let's think deeply on this
This makes me think of a quote that a seminarian friend of mine said recently. He said people need to “remember the reality of eternity.”
It was a good reminder for myself too, especially since I liked the said friend; his words helped me see that what I wanted was somewhat selfish. He feels a call to the priesthood and he is not interested in me, so I need to let my personal feelings go. I believe God has a plan much better than anything I could ever come up with, so I’ll try to follow Him.
Ebony George there is the saying “memento mori” which means “remember your death”, which refers to exactly this
There is not such thing as eternity, that's why we must do all the good we can while we are alive
I heard of a quote that said "I'd rather believe in God and die finding out he isn't real than to not believe in God and die finding out He is"
@@zanir2387 Thank you.👍🔥💯
I am not a Catholic but I watch your videos all the time. Thank you for what you do!!
You are truly amazing Bishop Barron. God bless you for your kind ways of explains everything with love.
for sure. I used to think that eating meat on Friday was a sin but it is okay now. the line in the sand was erased.
An 'accidental' bump with your videos showed me how resourceful the catholic church and her ministers are; which I have not been aware of until I saw a few of your video clips. Excellent audio-visual quality, amazing analysis and very systematic argument. Thank you and God bless dear Fr. Barron.
Hello Bishop Barron. I have benefited greatly from your videos, even though I am a Protestant. You have presented very eloquent defenses for orthodoxy and I commend you greatly for it. I realize more and more the similarities between our two expressions of the Christian faith when I watch your videos. Keep doing what you are doing!
Pax
Same, I'm protestant, and I am really enjoying his commentary.
Thank you Bishop Barron for everything that you do.
God Bless Bishop Barron - keep on fighting the good fight by inspiring us to do the same.
This is so true.......it is so important to have these topics at hand from the Church to help us on our journey. Logic and faith often go hand in hand, and it is needed in today's political and social climate. Thank you Bishop Barron, God Bless
I would respectfully argue that Logic and Faith, by their definitions do NOT go hand in hand.
Example:
Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. - Hebrews 11:1
Logic- reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
With respect to the argument of Gay marriage, I could be wrong, but the need/want for validation of "Gay Marriage" is mostly to have access to the same rights as a heterosexual "Spouse" has in the eyes of the law. Medical, Financial etc. I am sure there are also many gay couples who believe the Church should also recognize a gay union, but to my "lay-man" understanding. Having a gay child, the want of validity and equality of Gay Marriage is mostly in the eyes of the LAW and not religion. Politicians have made this a moral and religious argument and used it as a soap box. If a law was passed to give the same rights to a common law partnership as marriage, I feel a vast majority of gay unions would be satisfied.
Thank you this actually helps me explain to my confirmation classes
"Not everything a decent person does or wants is morally right...we sentimentalize the issue." Feels matter most in this age of self-referring relativity.
Anytime we give approval of sin in the name of compassion can only hurt the person we are justifying for eternity.
No wonder your brain is mashed potatoes soupy mashed potatoes at that . Gay marriage is not a good or bad issue
@@michaeloconnor6280 A tutor telling his student that she is doing well in math because it will make her feel better may seem nice but when finals come and she fails her class the "niceness" will be revealed to have been damaging to her and actually quite unloving.
The question is if homosexual activity is inherently damaging. That is a question that can be considered and argued. And if the truth is that homosexual activity is damaging then calling it good to make people feel good and to be nice is actually, like the lying math tutor, quite unloving.
@@michaeloconnor6280 why does anyone care about anything, Michael?
Simple. Because they... care.
Now you might wrap yourself in indifference, but others, thankfully, will not.
Having moved past ignorance of reality (that there IS a God; that God created man and woman to procreate and make families; that it is harmful to a person and society when he sins against his very own bodily design) the caring person CARES about the well-being of his fellow man. And says "Hey, that's a tar pit. I want to help you recognize that and help you get out of it."
THAT'S why God cares. That's why people who know God care.
@@michaeloconnor6280 Well, we know sinners tend to go to hell. Scripture is the evidence if you accept it as true.
@@alanlo-557 You have to actually explain what these harmful effects are. So far your only argument is that "God didn't make people to have sex/get married if they can't have kids therefore they shouldn't." 1. You need a nonreligious argument if you're proposing this as a law.
2. That would mean anyone incapable of procreating should not get married or have sex.
3. This makes any sex act outside of those specifically designed to have the maximum chance of procreating are bad.
4. Why is this a moral issue? What's immoral about gay sex? It's a sin yeah don't care, explain why it's *immoral*. Because immoral and a sin aren't necessarily the same thing. Morality is a set of rules by which humans cooperate. Gay sex harms neither party nor anyone else. All you are saying by saying gay sex is immoral because it's a sin is "You shouldn't do gay sex because god doesn't like it."
I am a fairly new believer in Christ and just recently came to some of your videos in pursuit of trying to understand and know God and having a deeper relationship with him .. I have got to say you are one of the most clearly spoken intellects , with the ability to make what otherwise would have been difficult for me to understand information , i have ever came across in my life. I can actually grasp matters in a way that is so very clear to even a simple person like me...God has bleased you to bless others thank you
Thank you Father Bishop Barron for this video.
Thank Bishop for this insight. Please do continue...
Thank you for you great work and mission, Bishop Barron. I'm about to finish Word on Fire Bible: the Gospels. Amazingly beautiful and insightful book.
but u know homophobia is a sin, right?
@@pastorbri if your a pastor then u know in romans it speaks against homosexuality not me speaking but God is its his words not mine
@@thenapierfamilychannel2819 if u was a christian at all you would know romans 1 doesn't mention homosexuality at all. This is paul condemning the heterosexuals he knew who used same sex acts in their idolotry cults which was unatural for straight folk, so God gave them over to a reprobate mind, Gods words not mine, but feel free to add to Gods word as you have been doing so far if thats what helps make u feel better to hate LGBT people.
Thank you Fr. Barron for this video.
The question of the morality of gay marriage aside (most of the comments here are dealing with that even though the video does not discuss it), I think the point that Fr. Barron brings up - Alister McIntyre's lamentation of our inability to have a coherent moral conversation anymore - is very compelling. We cannot talk to each other anymore on issues of morality - we 'talk past each other' because we live in a pluralistic society. "You have your truth, I have my truth - nobody knows the Truth." We appear to be operating on the assumption that there is no fundamental Truth. Philosophers in the past who tried to argue that there is no right or wrong inevitably found themselves contradicting this half-baked theory with their actions. Also, Barron's comment on poll-numbers not being at all relevant in the question is so spot on! Poll-numbers indicate the most 'fashionable' mode of thinking among the population - it is not necessarily the most informed or the most ethical. At one time, poll-numbers would have indicated slavery was okay. Thankfully, our laws no longer reflect that unjust and morally repugnant mode of thinking.
th-cam.com/video/LHJx8uXxQlQ/w-d-xo.html&feature=em-comments
This is a good point, and I wanted to add (6 years later) that part of the problem, perhaps, is that legalism has crept into popular society. I mean that normal, everyday people are inclined to think about the legality of an action than the morality of an action. This is likely because legal consequences are immediately observed, but it becomes a problem because the legal system is EXTREMELY rules based. In real life, day to day human interactions you simply can't operate on that basis. In a court procedure matters just as much as the specific issue being addressed. A murderer can be released because the government failed to file some papers. That's just how a system of laws has to work. A moral system is a different animal, and in fact THE WHOLE POINT OF CHRISTIANITY was to reject the strict dogmatic nature of the ruling religious practices that reduced faith in God to a checklist of rituals.
How and why American society became so legalistic, I have no idea. How to change that, I have no idea.
N.L. Eleid - i guess you don’t watch the news anymore. Telling lies and alternative facts is the daily bread of politicians.
I don't think the church had EVER organized a discussion or dialogue on this "taboo" "red button" issue. It is notoriously one on which theologians observe a cowardly silence, and those who don't are... silenced!
Buddhism posits not that right or wrong do not exist, but that they only exist in relation to one another. Beyond a certain level of conscious experience, it is argued, right and wrong become meaningless. Certain experiences of mine have shown this to be experientially true.
I was born with HOMOSEXUAL tendences, but for me i have very clear what is the TRUE and REAL marriage, it is created by a MAN and a WOMAN. Why i say this, well, it is simple because i see it and live it through my PARENTS and other family members who are married and there is not other way to appreciate it. It is true that the recent SCOTUS decition brings benefits for GAY couples about social security, insurance, house benefits, rights property and also no-discrimination attitudes at public and private institutions but for me it is a big mistake to try to put this SAME SEX CIVIL UNION PARTNERSHIP at the same level of a TRUE MARRIAGE ( man and woman ) i think it is not correct by LGBT people who support that false vision. perhaps that wrong vision is also an influence by POP CULTURE, MAINSTREAM MEDIA, ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY that traditionally support a SAME-SEX UNION like If it were exactly the same as a TRUE MARRIAGE ( man and woman ). I was born with HOMOSEXUAL tendences and if i felt in love with my boyfriend i wouldn't need to put a signature over a BUREAUCREATIC paper to LOVE him. I don't put my homosexual tendences at the hands of LGBT'S agenda who only bully people who dont share their point of views however i put my HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCES be guided first by the love of my lord GOD and also by reliable friends and relatives. LGBT activists say LOVE is LOVE ....mmmmm....ok could be right but i say LOVE IS LOVE and also TRUE is TRUE. holy sacred marriage belongs to a man and a woman that's the true GOD's marriage plan.
wow fuck your life for having to live a lie!
+1134gh i feel blessed from GOD for living a fuck life then.
Gustavo Pérez whatever it takes, right?
+1134gh very blessed
+1134gh so sorry man, my homosexual life belong to me and not to any LGBT bullying agenda. peace be with you.
Thank you Bishop for your clarity and confirmation of that which we hold dearest in our hearts and for some completely inexplicable reason our countries leader completely denies.
You are such an amazing person Bishop Barron. God bless you always. 🙏✝️😀
Hi Fr. Barron, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I lament about the tainting of this issue by sentimentalism, aggression and politics. However, you are probably aware that beneath these are real philosophical and theological arguments. Those who are driven emotionally by this issue are probably people who have experienced and seen a kind of oppression - latent and overt - by the church (and considering her political history and based on personal experience, this is no surprise). There is on the one hand some space where intelligent arguments have been brought up based on scientific and philosophical issues and on pastoral concerns. Many Christians/Catholics (now if my stats is correct, this is about half or even more than half of the faithful), including myself, seem to have had a change of mind and heart regarding this issue, but this change and the changing polls did not and do not occur in a vacuum. Might it not be acknowledged that the slowly changing attitudes towards LGBT issues - that you suggested to have started in the 70s across denominations - may have sprung from a discovery that is inspired, true and sincere? On the issue of slavery, St. Paul and Henry Newman have not in any way considered slavery as necessarily intrinsically evil. That evolved within for example the thought of St. Pope John Paul II, and earlier from the reflections of both the secular and faithful, who discovered slavery as de facto intrinsically evil. Or if I may recall the sense that "salvation is not exclusive for the baptized" or the idea behind "anonymous Christianity" expounded by Karl Rahner, both of which have trickled bottom-up from the thoughts and attitudes of the lay - the sensus fidei. Is it at all possible that this same movement is making its way into LGBT issues in favour of them our brother and sisters who have truly endured decades of oppression and persecution from both secular and religious institutions? I am not a theologian so I know little about the complexity of the discussions surrounding this issue. I am a neuroscientist, a psychiatrist and Catholic, and I can speak as such. My discipline does tell me - and I just reiterate here the discovery that psychology, biology and anthropology have made many years ago - that homosexuality is not a disorder but a naturally occurring minority variant of the human condition. This is in some sense somewhat counter to the current church teaching. But I cannot ever look at an LGBT brother and sister in the eye and tell them that he is a defective heterosexual, and that he has a tendency towards an intrinsic disorder or evil. From a pastoral perspective, it may seem that this teaching is so destructive psychologically - driving many to hide in the closet and compelling them to not be true to themselves - that it may be construed as a religious taboo rather than moral guidance. I am inclined to believe in the judgement of psychology and neuroscience, that there is nothing abnormal about being LGBT and in living out a flourishing life as such. And I have my doubts about the magisterial teaching simply because my discipline tells me that this is in their nature, and that grace can perfect this nature and not despise it. Because of this, I subscribe to the primacy of my conscience rather than to the teaching.
I agree with your comments and if the LGBT are a naturally occurring minority variant of the human condition who are we to deny them the fullest expression of love in the marriage state.
Brilliant and thoughtful response. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
We must live by the word of God, not our Opinions. The word of God condemns Homosexual acts, it's pretty simple. Seek God and do not be deceived. Souls are at risk.
This is an excellent argument, I really see you point here - I would say that when you boil it down everything from the polls to the arguments and the history and abuse cannot prove whether lgbtq+ rights are true or wrong - I'd say those arguments are just mud on the wall to distract us from truly discussing the morality of the issues. The big thing he's address in this particular video is simply that we become so defensive and detract so easily from the morality and complexity of the issues because of 1) changing vocabulary 2) emotion-based arguments - on both sides I mean! and 3) wariness toward any legal judgement on morality.
These aren't themselves bad things or bad arguments but we get so distracted by them we don't have a clear discussion when two opposing opinions meet.
I hope he posts a video soon on his opinions and arguments about lgbtq+, I disagree with you on some points but your words are thoughtful and merit prayerful consideration and open discussion with theologians who are willing to both hear and speak as clearly as you.
The church teaches a vary narrow acceptance of "ordered sexuality". Masturbation, though natural, is disordered. Fornication, though natural, is disordered. Use of Pornography though arguably a harmless act of consensual consumerism, is disordered, and same sex sexual activity is a disordered sexual expression.
By your understanding, that that which is natural is itself therefore not disordered, how can we discount anything as vice or virtue? From Pride to avarice to gluttony to selfishness, all vice is naturally occurring. Why does that change the idea that it is a passion in disorder?
Thanks Bishop Barron. Beautiful & meaningful. GBU.
God bless you Bishop Barron, 5:43 is a great point.
I hope there is another video on this channel that continues this by answering "how do we know what is morally right and wrong?" especially on this and similar issues. It would be good to link to those videos in the description.
Natural law can guide us on what's right or wrong. Religion can too. Or we can use common sense and ask if we'd want our behavior on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper.
Thanks for the point regarding poll numbers I think this is true for many issues.
Yes, and under a democratic system, the majority rules. This isn't to say that every poll determines every moral truth, but imagine if the college of cardinals elected a new Pope, but then someone said, "yeah, but just because the majority says so, doesn't make it morally right." Maybe so, even, nonetheless, the rules are the rules, else we're left with no arbiter of moral authority
Excellent! First, a common vocabulary. Second, stay focused on the question. Third, LISTEN!
Very insightful. Thank you. Its given me a portal to coelesce my own thoughts on this complex issue.
Well I'm not into God, I'm not even baptised and I'm surely not from a catholic background, but I think he's got a point!
Ria, you may not be into Him yet, but Jesus loves you!
Seek. & you will find Ria, God bless your journey
Messino Hart,I know it's been four years now though I hope you're into Him now if not just know He's into you. Just take a look back on your life so far and you'll see.
It's sad how 3 of the above 4 responses rather then talking about the point the commenter made: "He's got a good point not reliant on faith, I agree despite not sharing his religion." and decided that the best way to respond is almost appearing to be an expectation that he's going to convert to Christianity. - That has absolutely nothing to do with the points that neither the video makes, nor the person writing this comment made.
@@AutoGamerZ_ People are sad. They are going to do what they will, no one can reasonbly make the bet that praying to improve their flaws will do any good.
From my POV, their replies although unrelated, are fine to me because they were kind and nice, that's my top priority.
Bishop Barron, I can see you are a reasonable person, so I feel I should come clean about my thoughts when I first clicked on this video. When I read the title, I immediately started the video and started counting the seconds until you said something that I, admittedly, hate hearing. But then you started explaining how people can't agree on anything anymore and that people confuse sentimentality with morality in politics as well as church. With those points as the things I will take from this video, I must say that I am impressed and agree completely.
Bishop Barron the most powerful talk on the scandal and staying within our beautiful church. Thank you and God Bless
If you think this Bishop is a powerful talker, then you are a mental lightweight.
Thank you Bishop Barron. God bless you. Greetings from Brazil
This is the second Bishop Barron video I've watched and I have to say that I really like him.
@@JamesRichardWiley I'm not sure why you are bothering to watch. Have you ever read the Bible, James?
Thank you for eloquently expressing my opinion. We need arguements and place cards to strengthen our dedication and service to the truth. We need to be brave.
Thank you Bishop! Great explanation!
Father, thank you for this video. I'm a Catholic who is also SSA. I've come back to the Church and embraced Her teachings on this issue. I try, for the love of God I try to have rational conversations with my friends, most of whom are in favor of 'same-sex marriage'. Yet at every turn, either myself or the Church are just lambasted at bigots who are blinded by hate. It's as if the guiding principle of the LGBT community (a community to which I once belonged) is 'If you oppose us, you hate us!'. It's so terribly frustrating. There are times when I want to throw up my hands and say, 'whats the point!'. All I can say is, pray for me father, please pray for us all!
magalahi02 Very well said! God bless you!
Please keep in mind it isn't just the gay rights movement where this can be a problem. It's also a problem in the very community you've chosen to come to.
Magalahi02
‘How regretful u will be when u realize u tortured urself for blaphemous, unscriptural teachings just to please mortal men and to feed their prejudices. If the church’s vomit is your meal, then YOU eat it without forcing your diet on others. If gays want to marry, then keep your nose out of their right to be married.
Hi Magalahi02. I expect it is difficult dealing with desires that culture and friends see as defining what you are. I hope you are well and full of peace in the knowledge that you are a child of God. Thank you for your testimony of holding on to God.
yo it's not nessesarily that you hate us , but you are legit denying our existance, so what do you want us to think??
We’re waiting for that video where you discuss this issue.
Wow. Very thoughtful and well said.
Thanks for publishing this video.
An intelligent and rational approach. Refreshing.
Absolutely stunning Intellectual deep contemplating theologian, this is very impressive and convinced my heart of defining the perverse and subversive natures I know I could never condone or approve of, but I do respect those who disagree with love and contentment. Peace be with you all.. :-)
Excellent points well made!
I’ll never ever understand why the church considers healthy gay relationships wrong. Who does it hurt? How much good do loving gay couples bring into the world, especially for the children that they often adopt?
What makes those fleeting passages in the Bible any more relevant than the many other ones we functionally ignore? Isn’t the power of the church it’s ability to make sense of scripture, to think critically about it and create a fully fleshed out religion for understanding the teachings and deeds of Christ?
In short : it is not about the love between the gay couple
That love is good
What is condemned is the sexual act because it violates the function of the sexual organs
For details I recommend checking out the perverted faculty argument from Ed Feser
Check out the theology of the body institute
@@MZONE991 definitely a good response. But I wonder how many other abuses of the body we could find that get nowhere near as much attention.
@@thebacons5943
That's why the argument is not just limited to sodomy
But to masturbation, anal sex, contraception ...etc
@@MZONE991 Lmao, what is going to happen to 2 gay guys in a gay marriage. Absolutely nothing. Why dont you pester people who smoke.
@@fla8623
Check out the paper I recommend above
It explains it in detail
lmao at everyone saying he dodged the question, he's just explaining why there can't be an argument if you simply follow sentiments and refuse to engage in a logical conversation, this video aged like wine.
Love this video. Thank you Father Barron
Read the title and was expecting more. I think he dodged the question implied in the title.
He blames society for not being able to reason calmly about gay marriage, but the main reason for this is that the Church has forbidden such calm reasoning, in totally peremptory documents such as this one: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
In the end he explained Nothing !!!!!!!
The "question" was his own doing, we already know the Church's stance on gay marriage but he describes a more nuanced issue with society that isn't given due examination.
I mean... that's what people who won't admit that science doesn't back their argument do.
@@conchtalks But science doesn’t “back” gay marriage as-well studies have shown that gay people are not born gay but it’s environmental and it takes an effect on the mind Also he’s talking from a philosophical stance then a scientific one what does it matter if science doesn’t back his claims?
The catholic church was the first to protest slavery and abortion.
as usual, a wonderfully logical and cogent piece. i would offer that holding a moral argument in an environment of secular relativism (pls see Benedict XIII on this for great discourse) is nigh well impossible. the moral argument is about right and wrong and in the secular relativist world there is no real right or wrong..............
For me this video is telling me to prepare for the next 'morel argument'. I will ponder up and coming debates and have my points ready and loaded.
Thank you Bishop Barron
I would not have found Alasdair MacIntyre without your help. Thank You Barron.
As long as the Holy Church has representatives like BB and a great many other gifted vocations, moral arguments will continue to be exchanged. Do not underestimate the essential role of the Holy Church in today's world; it is pivotal.
the church also knows homophobia is a sin
@@pastorbri
Yet at the same time it is not homophobic to speak the truth on where Catholicism stands on homosexuality
@@jak7138 who cares what man made religions come up with?
@@pastorbri
Touched a nerve did I?
@@jak7138 no, why...is that what you hoped for? Sorry to disapoint. Has a hissy fit did you?
Dear Bishop Barron,
Thank you for your videos. They provide food for thought and clarification, and always bring me closer to understanding God and Christ. I am learning to have patience, pray for myself and others more often, and stay in God's Word, but, yes, the patience part is difficult. I'm embarrassed that you have to read the kind of language you read in the Comment sections--like this one. It would be nice to give the big mouths a belt in the jaw and in the process teach them a lesson--(like Spencer Tracy in Boys Town). I know you can handle it, but I'm still embarrassed that this language occurs around a man of God. I can see why we must be purified before we are allowed close to God. I would be embarrassed to approach God any other way. Well, you have my prayers for strength and courage and leadership in doing God's work. Please don't ever stop making your videos and know that all you do at Word on Fire (and everywhere else) my wife and kids greatly appreciate. God Bless.
Praise God for creating you!!!
Michael Montague The Catholic Church is absolutely built on Jesus Christ. It is through the Eucharist. Jesus gave himself to us through the Eucharist! Demons are terrified of it and cannot be around it. So for you to say such things that our Church is evil is blasphemous. Your hope is in yourself! Our hope as Christians is through Jesus Christ which is very comforting.
First let me address that not "ALL" Jews consider Christians blasphemous. You are incorrect in making a blanket statement on this. Yes I accept totally with all my heart the divinity of Jesus Christ, my beloved King. I call him this because I love him and he loves me, and indeed he is King of Kings! Because I saw and experienced his infinite mercy, his never ending love, his never ending goodness, and his healing power for myself. I was healed from a terrible stammer which rendered me unable to speak. I was 7 years old. I was healed when I was 20 years old. So I am not afraid to speak the truth, and that truth is Jesus Christ. He is the way the truth and the life. Just as it says in scripture. I try to reach out to all in Christ's love. To help others come to know his infinite mercy and goodness. God bless will be praying for you.
+Michael Montague I always laugh when people doubt that Jesus actually existed. When you look at educated people who have no bias toward the issue (I.e. Agnostic scholars), there is no question whether or not Jesus actually existed. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic who teaches at the university of North Carolina writes “The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet” (Did Jesus Exist?, p. 4). The New Testament is one of the most reliable ancient texts that we have. There are 500+ manuscripts that can be traced back to the 1st century! Aside from that we have other non-biblical sources that confirm Jesus's existence. For example, an ancient text attributed to Josephus, a 1st century Jewish historian mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." We know this is unbiased because it clearly does not call Jesus "lord" or any reference to divinity. It just says that people called him Christ, which would be historically accurate.
+Scott Noll So once we accept that Jesus actually existed, we have to look at what he said. The New Testament, one of the most reliable ancient texts we have, quotes him as saying "I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE". Unlike any other religion, Christianity's founder is not claiming to have the truth, he is claiming to BE TRUTH ITSELF. This is significant. The way I see it, there are three possibilities. He could be lying, which I don't know many people that would lie to be put up on a cross, he could be a delusional lunatic, which it doesn't seem logical that so many people would drop everything to devote their lives to following a lunatic, or lastly, he could actually be telling the truth.
+Scott Noll Yes, that is a very interesting and compelling way to put it into perspective. My aspect on the subject matter is from personnel experience.
+Michael Montague Actually.... Since you say you are a scientist. Take a look at the Shroud of Turin. www.shroud.com
Science has not been able to explain it. Also there are many Eucharist miracles through our Churches history that science cannot explain. The Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano
Also the incorruptible Saints. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility
This should give you some education Michael about the profound and awesome history of our Church!
Marriage is for having a family...it is as simple as that.
Ok well that's blatantly false. Can infertile people not get married?
The union of man and woman. Pretty simple folk's.
Travis Kraft - Says you. Are you the arbiter of such things? If that is your view of marriage then, by all means, marry or don’t marry based on that. You have no standing, however, to dictate to others whether or not their marriage is legitimate.
Shawn McCuen - Why, Yes. That is a pretty simple definition. Other people have other definitions. How is yours better than theirs?
@@jerometaperman7102 Other people can believe what ever they want. Quit a number off people can define things incorrectly. That doesn't make it TRUE.
Thank You so much . God bless
Hello greetings... Can we talk on WhatsApp or Hangout?
Wow blessed words on 🔥....
I respect Bishop Barron as a thinker, but I think this particular video is a bit disingenuous. I don't think Justice Kagan was saying that moral arguments always indicate discrimination. What she meant was that a moral appeal is often a substitute for an argument rather than an argument itself. In this context, "red flag" doesn't mean a rejection of a claim. It means that the claim requires a high level of scrutiny. If you say "because the Bible says it's wrong," then this is an appeal to morality without an argument to support it.
Bishop Barron is absolutely right to say that we've lost a vocabulary for making moral arguments and that we need one in order to talk with each other instead of past each other. But I don't think he provides one here or gets us any closer to one. In fact, he seems sneakily dismissive of exactly the sort of common ground that might move us closer to dialogue. What he calls "the sentimentalizing" of the issue is really a recognition that gay people can love and honor each other as much as straight people. In other words "sentimentalizing" means recognizing the capacity and dignity of others and wanting what's best for them. I imagine that the Bishop would argue that marriage is not what's best for gay people. As he says, that's an argument for a different video. Okay, but he's done nothing in this video to pave the way for that argument.
Christopher Weaver Friend, that simply wasn’t the point or purpose of this video.
@@BishopBarron Thanks very much for the response. I do really enjoy your videos. What was the point/purpose, then?
Christopher Weaver To invite people to rational argument and to let go of emotionally driven responses.
Michael O'Connor Ah Herod! Still listening in. Good. I’m still praying for you.
@@BishopBarron "To invite people to rational argument and to let go of emotionally driven responses." That's a great goal, and I appreciate the effort. Here is where I think you fell short, at least in this particular video.
You identify three types of appeals which you claim avoid rational argument in favor of emotionally driven responses:
1. It's not rational to rule out morality as the basis for an argument. You claim Justice Kagan was refusing to consider any argument that involves morality. But I don't think that's what she meant. I think she meant that arguments that appeal to morality are often a matter of prejudice with no reasoning behind them. For instance, "Gay marriage is immoral because God says so." She didn't say that you cannot appeal to morality. ("Red flag" doesn't mean rejection. It means that a claim requires scrutiny.) But your morality must appeal to reason. It must be something that carries weight to people who do not share your religious beliefs.
2. Polls indicate what people think, not what is right, so people shouldn't cite poll numbers in defense of gay marriage. It's true that polls are not in themselves arguments. But I don't think that's why people cite them in regard to gay marriage. It may be (and probably is) the case that these polls reflect the fact that 25 years ago most people didn't know any openly gay people and certainly no same-sex parents. They may have felt that such unions were unnatural or immoral or just plain strange. As gay people have come out of the closet and straight people see loving unions and loving parents, their opinions have changed. So it's not that anyone is saying that morality is the same thing as public opinion. It's that public opinion, especially when it has shifted this dramatically, may indicate something that is important to the discussion.
3. "My son is gay" is not a rational argument but an emotional one. Rationally, one might respond, "So you're okay with prescribing laws for other people's children, but you change your tune when it's your own?" But I think this is a variation of #2 above. It may not be that the father in question wants to do what will benefit his son rather than to do what is right. It might be that having a gay son has changed his idea about what it means to be gay. Perhaps he previously thought that marriage should be preserved only for straight couples, and now he looks at his son and thinks, "I love my son, and he is as deserving as anyone of a loving marriage."
To sum up, I agree that the three kinds of appeals you refer to are not rational arguments in and of themselves. But I think they are the surface features which indicate possible underlying arguments, some of which are rational and some of which have an emotional element as well. I don't think you would want to banish love as the ultimate factor supporting a moral argument.
Bishop, you strike me as one of the more open and thoughtful voices on religion, so I hope you don't take my criticism as an attack on you. I appreciate the dialog that you are trying to start here, and I hope you'll take my comment as a way to continue to think and speak on this topic. I think that you are absolutely right that we speak past each other most of the time and that we need to invent a new way of talking to (and listening to) one another!
This is brilliant and dead-on as insight into our present culture
James DeNino Pope John Paul 1 said this about LGBT people:
“The day is not far off when we will have to answer to these people who through the years have been humiliated, whose rights have been ignored, whose human dignity has been offended, their identity denied and their liberty oppressed. What is more we will have to answer to the God who created them”
That says it in a nutshell, and I couldn't have said it better myself.
Steven Patrick Stone Yeah, where's your source? Pope John Paul I was pope for 30 days before he passed away.
Con't : is supposed to represent Christ in the confessional, then what am I supposed to do / say? Mahalo nui.
Bishop thank you for directing
Can anyone link to the video where Bishop Barren gives any moral argument against gay marriage?
I just LOVE the way you explain things. You’re such a heartwarming person. Thank you for sharing your thoughts! ❤️❤️❤️
Brenda Schwieterman Fuck off Brenda
Chris Why? How can my comment possibly “offend” you?
Brenda Schwieterman cause this guy's a homophobic piece of shit you stupid fucking Boomer
Brenda Schwieterman he's the truest form of the devil
Chris ok.
This video is several years ahead of it's time in my opinion. People say the bubble burst in 2016 and these discussions have been much more common since then but this video for 3 years before then goes through many of these things in a much more elegant and cohesive way. Or something like that.
Gracias! Muy bueno!
Romans 1:26-27 which says: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
How can one read this and conclude that sexual acts involving same sexed individuals could be anything but "shameful lusts" "unnatural relations" "indecent acts" "received...due penalty for their perversion"....... Did you hear that?...." due penalty for their perversion"......Perversion of what? "natural relations". This passage is plain and clear God called homosexual acts "shameful lusts" and will have a "penalty". End of story.
Don't get me wrong.....God gave man was given free will. And here in America one is free to love whom he/she pleases.
So, if you want to satisfy you lust for each other in ways that God did not intend, then by all means go for it. Just do not say that God's word justifies your actions.
If you stick up your middle finger at God in rebellion and say " I don't give a sh__t what you want. I am going to do it my way." Instead of confessing that you are a sinner and are trying your best not to sin, then you will get exactly what you wanted......the rest of eternity without him. This goes just as well for every other sin under the sun not just homosexuality.
And people wonder why the LGB community has serious dissociative and mental turmoil. It's not because people are oppressing them, it is because their actions are at the core causing them pain. And people aren't allowed to talk about it? People should ask why. It's a red flag.
I’m gay (watching this is 2019), and I have to admit I completely understand and agree with bishop Barron...
Then why are you "gay"?!
Billy Tell so what you’re saying it’s not good to come out?
Maybe the correct term could be a repentant Homosexual. Or a person who suffers from adult same sex attraction and are repentant.
thank you for approaching discourse with honesty.
Billy Tell
You’re delusional.
Wow. Well said.
I pray I can give my understanding Bishop that could help our moral confusion...
i was raised Baptist and still consider myself the same. although i do not agree with gay marriage, i have friends and family who are gay and i am understanding this video 100%. and having a different opinion than someone else is ok. im not a homophobe or a racist, i just have a different belief.
The onus is on the opponents of gay marriage to show that it does harm in some way to innocent persons or the society and they never do that because they can't.
***** Obviously from what you are saying some types of love are abominations which God cannot condone. The examples you gave are far worse than a homosexual relationship. The focus now should be on making sure no members of the clergy be allowed to perform gay marriage ceremonies. There is a separation of church and state and gay couples can just be married by a judge. It is really important that Pope Petrus does not force clergy to perform these marriages.
Fernanda giron What is HIV/AIDS and where did it come from? What is venereal disease and where did it come from? Why is Throat Cancer on the Rise and where did it come from? If you can give me a good reason that these things are good in a society at large, then you won the argument, but you cannot do that.
@Susanna Donovan HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is a RNA virus and is a member of the the Lentivirus family of viruses. HIV is a zoonotic disease - meaning it originally comes from an animal that is not human (in the case of HIV, chimpanzees). It's theorised to have first infecting people around ~1910/20 in Africa, after they were commonly used as a food source (similar to how SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 is theorised to have come from wet market bats in China), however it was only discovered and properly studied decades later, as the virus has a decades long incubation period. AIDS is the result of HIV depleting the T-Helper cells in the body to below 200, allowing opportunistic infections to take place, which usually call the patients death - HIV/AIDS does *not* kill the patient itself. The first patients to be found in America with AIDS were gay, which led to scientists naively believing it was a "gay disease", which led to scientists not studying straight patients merely as much, which resulted in a serious error in judgement - as we all know the virus infects humans regardless of their sexuality (this in 2020, is common sense, but were talking 1960-80s America here).
EDIT: TH-cam just deleted the rest of the comments, so I'll keep it brief:
- "What is a venereal disease?" A venereal disease is any disease spread by sexual intercourse, regardless of sexual orientation (after all, the disease doesn't know whether someone is gay or not).
- "Where do venereal diseases come from" - The most probable answer is that, at a point in time, a disease went through enough mutations to spread through sexual intercourse and the rest is history (viruses split out into different branches from a common ancestor, etc - evolution does not just apply to living things (viruses after all do not live)).
- "Why is throat cancer on the rise?" No one knows for sure, but given data on other cancers plus a little bit of common sense, it is more than likely due to a range of factors including lifestyle (not including sexual orientation, it has no affinity to mutation), diet, environmental factors such as pollution, etc.
- "Where did throat cancer come from?" You might as well be asking, "Where did cancer come from?", as all cancers are caused by the same thing, a mutation in the body, which we've established in the scientific community can literally come from anything at any time at any place, because the human body is horribly flawed and fragile in its design (great creator, your God was). For a more deep and reasonable answer that extends past a TH-cam comment, study genetics. Cancer does not have any provable relation to sexual orientation and so, by logic, the same answer can be applied to "Where did throat cancer come from?"
Thank you for all the work that you do. Btw, is that Word on Fire Bible more helpful in understanding scripture? So many times in my life I have wished that there was a "Coles Notes", a "for Dummies" book or something to explain scripture after reading it so that I could fully understand it. Sometimes it seems confusing, very harsh or contradicting. I am a Catholic & a believer but sometimes I wonder about some things or just don't understand.
Is there a video WITH arguments? I would be very interested. 🤔
00:20 - The Tower of Babel is happening all over again.
The tower of Babel isn't a literal allegory about different languages per se, but rather a story about differentiated consciousnesses ergo perceptions of reality. If we continue to fight over the definitions of truth, we can never agree on a fundamental nature for discourse and understanding. I think being an individual who loves her or himself, and actively seeking to understand others and be understood is the only thing we can do to combat a Babel-esque experience in our own personal lives.
@@bradhaywood4355 unfortunately that is not how things are going so eventually it will lead to at best war with a good end or at worst peaceful acceptance of Oppression.
Brad Haywood there is only one truth in Jesus Christ. He came not for the ones who believed they were righteous but the ones who were sinners.
th-cam.com/video/LHJx8uXxQlQ/w-d-xo.html&feature=em-comments
@@lumanate1493 at some point of the sinners life even if it's at the end they Still need to convert !
Bishop Barron can't do it. He can't say homosexuality is wrong. The sin is not the problem necessarily, it's the celebration of the sin that Christians are against. I sin. But I'm not asking everyone to accept my sin nor am I proud of it.
VERITAS homosexuality is not bad.
Homosexual acts are. When I was in a navy ship we had 1000s of guys on ship and no girls. Homosexual. Not bad as long as there is no homosexual acts.
Him Bike I knew you were a gay sailor this whole time... ha.
VERITAS wring again. I was a
Marine Corps Machinegunner.
But the navy gives us rides on they boats. But the boats have no girls.
very well made segment.
A new vocabulary is required if discussion is to take place from a position of comparative neutrality rather than one of personal and institutional superiority.
Fr, Barron, thanks for taking on this topic of Gay Marriage and the Church. First, I agree about a breakdown, as you say. Also, I thank you for showing the past views that we today, view about moral issues, as ignorant, as like slavery being okay. (I'm not black, or a woman, or even gay)!
What do you think about people who ARE gay? Are they ALL born gay? Thus, God already condemns them? Or do you believe being gay is a choice? That can't be right, right? For me, it's like others looking at black people, or women. They were taken by white men, and enslaved, etc., Women too!
Now, today's prominent ignorance is about gay people! Is that what you mean about moral arguments? Is the Catholic Church hierarchy willing to agree with YOUR thoughts about the loving thy neighbor commandment about Gay marriage?
I haven't followed you, so I wonder, and God bless you.
Actually, Africans were the ones selling other Africans into slavery. The White Man did not come in and take them. Other tribes sold them to gain more land, more power, and to remove rivaling factions. Pretending that only one race is capable of despicable and awful acts is narrow minded and one sided.
All sin is equal in the eyes of God, and no unclean thing can enter his presence. To return to him requires Faith in Jesus Christ, who sanctifies and changes us. Everyone must actively repent, regardless of whatever sin they have, to return to our Heavenly Father.
Jesus Christ will, and does, help Same Sex Attracted individuals to overcome their tendencies, either through abstaining or a change of heart and soul through his atonement. Just the same way he would help someone who has violent tendencies, someone who steals compulsively, someone who lies a lot, and some who has a problem commiting adultery.
Sin is sin, regardless of what it is. We all have different crosses to bear. I feel for Sam Sex Attracted persons, but they are no different from the rest of us. Their trials just come in a different form.
You waffled on the question and did not answer it.
He actually answered by stating the same old discriminatory ideologies they've been saying for centuries.
I thought this man might have been different, but he's just a bit more knowledgeable.
@Sheldon Cooper not everyone, for example I love J.Peterson who is not a pro gay/trans activist but he doesn't use rhetoric to reinstate old-fashioned intolerance, pretending to be open minded.
Everyone is entitled to have his own ideas, as I am free to criticize.
@@Paolo_Del_Casale not supporting gay marriage, which is a gross misappropriation of the Christian religion, does NOT make you intolerant. Gay life-long couples go against God, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily evil. We are all sinners, which is important for us to remember. HOWEVER, actively CELEBRATING your sins, especially in the case of "gay marriage," which again is the subversion of the Christian faith to fit your own sins, IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Marriage is a SPECIFICALLY RELIGIOUS act that should not be allowed to be misappropriated in such a disrespectful manner.
Obama is a 70s moderate Republican, he said his policies were 70s Republicanesque in an interview. Obama is not a progressive, just another corporate indentured servant who only goes as far his bosses allow him to go, so stfu with that bullcrap about Obama saying "not to go too far to the left".
Hayden S.
Gay people are Born Gay .They are a part of the human story from the start .in every race And Creed . Its high time you and Barron and all other bigots got over it and stop using Your religion as a stick to beat your fellow men and women .
does anyone else have google on the ready to look up words? ipso facto, obfuscating, it feels like an honors level class whenever watching this guy if nothing else my vocabulary increases...
Excellent explanation!
Why do gay people claimed the mantle of tolerance and diversity -- and yet have betrayed those same principles in attacking anyone that disagrees. Speak up for marriage in any public place today and you will be shamed and shunned. I do love gay people, REALLY ! Why should I be considered a hater, just because I love God and follow his teachings, even if some gays don't understand that . Why punish Christians, who want to be obedient to our love, God. If you believe, in the truth about love, about marriage. You must understand this love, He is my love, my life, my world and he has taught me to love everyone, you too and I do. Please try to be open, to other people, who don't always agree, who also can not change the way they feel and are born inside to feel this way too ! Why can't you just love me too, even if we have made different choices for our lives? Let us, just love and let God settle our differences.
and ( thank you, Father Barron for taking all the retaliation, for all the Christians. I don't think, Gay people mean to hate or be nice, they are just emotional towards their cause. Christians and Gay people should get together and battle the real enemy, the evil one, who wants to cause the problems and only wants us to separate us, and wants us to fight over our differences. We will not mention his name because he already lost the battle at the cross! Right! and we claim and most importantly, we stand on the victory of the resurrection, because Jesus whipped his butt. yea, woo whoo.! WE ( people of God. Love) both are the real winner!
who the hell are you?
+Kyle Smit Jesus saved me from the pit of anxiety and depression, and further suicidal thoughts... Jesus loves us so much, that He suffered and died for us, so we wouldn't have to go to hell as punishment for sinning against God... Confess to God that we are all sinners, who desperately need a saviour, and confess that Jesus is your Lord and saviour, and if you really mean it from your heart, you need to stop willfully sinning and the moment you accept Christ, the Holy Spirit will come dwell in you and He will be your helper and comforter, i speak from experience, i accepted Jesus and then received the Holy Spirit, and my life actually changed its not a lie, it pretty much confirms that the Bible really is God's Word, because i felt the Holy Spirit's presence before i even knew what the Holy Spirit did... Im not forcing you to accept Him, but im begging you to consider Him :)
+Francisco Mendez Jesus saved me from the pit of anxiety and depression, and further suicidal thoughts... Jesus loves us so much, that He suffered and died for us, so we wouldn't have to go to hell as punishment for sinning against God... Confess to God that we are all sinners, who desperately need a saviour, and confess that Jesus is your Lord and saviour, and if you really mean it from your heart, you need to stop willfully sinning and the moment you accept Christ, the Holy Spirit will come dwell in you and He will be your helper and comforter, i speak from experience, i accepted Jesus and then received the Holy Spirit, and my life actually changed its not a lie, it pretty much confirms that the Bible really is God's Word, because i felt the Holy Spirit's presence before i even knew what the Holy Spirit did... Im not forcing you to accept Him, but im begging you to consider Him :)
Its kind of hard to respect the opinion of someone who is actively trying to prevent you from marrying the person that you are in love with and want to spend the rest of your life with. I think that if someone was trying to prevent you from marrying the person that you love for completely bullshit reasons, than you would be pretty upset too.
Over the seven years since this was published, the problem has only become far, far worse.
What is the problem you are suggesting?
@@darwin6883
the problem is that people are immediately labeling those who disagree with them as bigots instead of sitting and talking
That was a brilliant video
God with you :)
This video does not discuss same sex marriage. It talks about the way pro-ssm people shut down any opposing views by calling the other a "hater." But I guess that's too nuanced a topic for those pro-ssm people who are spewing hate against Father Barron in the comments. They are simply proving him right.
Religious views on same sex marriage should be shut down. It's call separation of church and state and most free countries have it. If christians don't want same sex marriage in their church that's their right, but they get no say in what is legally allowed in a country. Of course the church is in a crisis now because most people have no issue with same sex marriage and with numbers of catholics at a record low, the church is trying to do anything it can not to push more away.
I found it ironic that the very first response to Fr. Barron's argument that we today are largely incapable of making sound moral arguments was the utterly unsound argument that "The Supreme Court has ruled; therefore the issue is settled, both legally and morally."
I wonder. Has there ever been an age when some great evil was not legal?
Probably the only time something evil has not had the sanction of the law was before men made positive laws.
I think that there is a God, singular, yes (and demonstrably so), but the position you put forward is simply legal positivism, and although popular today, it has traditionally been a minority position in Western thought.
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, the majority of the classical Christian tradition, and even the majority of the Enlightenment tradition believe that there is some way to base positive or legal justice, on NATURAL JUSTICE (natural law, natural right), whose authority is grounded in reason and human nature, without directly requiring any appeal to God (even if it should be the case that God should turn out to be the ultimate ground of morality -- after all, God is the creator of the laws of nature in all senses, but we do not appeal to God in physics, save perhaps as the ultimate metaphysical cause of nature). The Declaration of Independence is speaks of "nature and nature's God" and although it does speak of us being "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights", it also declares these to "self-evident truths." Your position denies and anyone can in fact know this, any fundamental truths before which the positive law has to bow.
This conflict came up immediately after the Second World War. Not only had legal positivism been the prevalent theory with the national socialists, it was popular throughout the West (as it still is) and was appealed to: How could the Nazis be TRIED FOR CRIMES? The had not broken any laws. For legal positivism, that's the end of the matter. If killing Jews is not illegal, then it isn't a crime; and if it isn't a crime, nothing wrong was done. This reasoning was not, at the time, accepted: it was held that there are certain things are that are inherently wrong (genocide is one of them) that are inherently wrong, and that this can be known by reason from nature. According to this unwritten natural (non-positive) law, the Nazis were guilty, guilty of crimes against humanity.
So I side firmly with the majority of the Western tradition which rejects BOTH the reduction of natural right to mere positive law, or else tries to skip natural right entirely by rooting everything in direct divine command theory. The traditional teaching is that between God and the mere work of man is nature, and that natural law and natural right is the rational standard for positive law and positive right. In legal terms, there are crimes mala in se, or evil in themselves (that is, crimes prescribed by the natural law, such as murder) and crimes mala prohibitum (that is, crimes which are merely prohibited by a government of the sake of order, like traffic regulations -- there is nothing intrinsically wrong with driving on either side of the road, but one is not legal in the US and the other not in England).
It is absurd to say that laws don't address moral issues. Why do we have laws against murder and rape and child abuse? For convenience? No, these things are illegal BECAUSE they are wrong.
Legal positivism, the position you seem to think is the only alternative to a divine command theory in ethics, is its a position which stands in need of defense.
Finally, you seem confused about the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. No where in the Constitution will you find the phrase "separation of Church and State," and what the clause prohibits is the State *officially sanctioning a State religion* and from *preventing people from practicing their religion.* It is about what the State IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO. The Church is under no such constraint. Religious citizens, who are the vast majority in the US, are allowed to vote, and nothing prohibits them from voting accord to their reason and consciences, and if they do so informed by their religious beliefs (as will as many other beliefs that everyone has), so what? That is actually how democracy works.
It would be ridiculous (wouldn't it?) to argue something like this: "The 10 Commandments prohibit murder. Therefore any law prohibiting murder is based on either Judaism or Christianity. Therefore, any law of the US prohibiting murder is an establishment of religion. Therefore the SCOTUS should strike down all laws against murder."
For Jews and Christians, the direct prohibition of murder by God isn't what CONVINCES them that murder is wrong -- they already knew that -- but RECONFIRMS what they already knew by reason alone AND ups the ante, just in case they start being tempted to kill off a few "undesirables" -- and don't kid yourself that human beings would never do such a thing. For a thirst, he has to say, "Sorry, you can't murder these people because that is absolutely prohibited by God." For a natural law philosopher, he has to say, "Sorry, you can't murder these people because it is a violation of natural right and inherently wrong." For a legal positivist, he can only say this much, "Well, you can't kill them while the laws still makes it illegal to kill them, but all you have to do is change the law, and then killing them will be okay, or at least legal, since 'legal' and 'okay' are the same thing after all."
In other words, those who accept legal positivism generally do so because they accept one or both of these propositions:
1. there are no objective moral truths, or
2. if there are any objective moral truths, no one can know them.
Are there good arguments for these positions? Well, some have held them, but not the majority of Western philosophers.
The main support seems to be a fallacious argument:
1. There is disagreement about moral matters;
2. therefore, there is no objective truth of the matter.
This is the same, logically, as:
1. There is disagreement about the shape of the earth;
2. therefore, there is no objective truth of the matter (the earth "is" flat to flat-earthers).
So, disagreement isn't a very strong argument for moral subjectivism, especailly since many moral disagreements are only apparent (e.g. in the abortion debate, both sides generally accept the moral principe that it is wrong to directly kill an innocent person; the locus of the disagreement is over the factual metaphysical issue of whether or not a human fetus is an innocent person in the relevant sense. But that is a matter of fact, not of value).
But, you might say, there is so much MORE disagreement about morals than about (say) scientific matters. Isn't that explained by the fact that morals are subjective? Well, not if there as another, better, explanation, and it was given by Socrates, and repeated by Plato and Aristotle, and it is quite simply this: it is in the nature of things that quantitative matters are easy to reach agreement about, when a measurement can be made, in part because quantities allow for exactness. Qualities, which is the category of reality under which all moral things fall, cannot be measured in this -- for the simple and sufficient reason that they are not quantities. Many relations also can't be measured that way (how do you measure "to the left of". And qualities are not less real that quantities. Even quantities themselves have qualities: the number 12 is even, for example, and also immaterial, as are all numbers.
So if I can accurately discern that an immaterial entity such as the number 12 has the quality of being even, I see no reason it is strange or even problematic to observe that certain human actions (which as actions, seem to be more material than numbers), have the quality of "being unfair" or "being fair", or most generally "being right" and "being wrong" (although it is always better to be as specific as possible about the kind of wrong that is involved.
By declaring it to be a RIGHT for persons of the same-sex to marry, the court took a very firm moral position.
Many people were joyful for, it exactly on moral grounds. To them it looked something like:
1. It is wrong to treat a person unequally on the basis of an arbitrary and benign or natural characteristic.
2. Homosexuality is a benign and possibly natural characteristic, upon the basis of which homosexuals as a class are being treated equally;
3. THIS unequal treatment is therefore unjust.
4. The law should establish JUSTICE.
5. Therefore, the taw of the land should recognize same-sex marriage as equal to traditional marriage, because this is what justice requires.
Americans have always believed in 4. "Separate Church and State" isn't in the Constitution, but "Establish Justice" is.
Americans have always believed in 1 in the ideal, but had to overcome various obstacles, racism being the obvious example.
In recent decades, Americans have come to accept that 2, that gay people are a class in a sense relevantly similar to black people.
We did argue about 3 for a bit. A lot of people thought "Civil Unions" for same-sex couples would be the way to go, but most Americans tend to equate "equality" with "completely identical treatment", so that didn't work out. It became "Nothing less than total recognition of same-sex marriage as marriage and as the law of the land will satisfy justice."
So, since you had 1 and 4, all one needed to do was get 2 ("And there's nothing wrong with that!") and then 3.
Once those are in place, you'll get 5, at least if you have a SCOTUS that holds that its the job of the SCOTUS to establish justice directly, which is the majority view. Personally, I don't see Scalia's question about why, if Americans truly want same-sex marriage, we don't Amend the Constitution to recognize it, as a pretty good one.
Eve Keneinan Pardon me but, who in the (HELL) is the Supreme Court that defines Almighty God's marriage between One Man and One Woman as wrong. Almighty God designed marriage over 2,000 years ago long before ANY Supreme Court was ever around. Just look at when Almighty God told Noah to bring into the Ark a pair of each (make & female) Every homosexual out there has a mother AND a father!
@@juans6639 There was no literal world wide flood. The Abrahamic God is just a myth.
@@johnjacob5990 You Sir, are entitled to believe what you want. However, the remains of Noah's Ark rest on Mount Ararat in Turkey to this very day and even the Scientists who for the most part are atheists believe in the geological changes after the flood. Question, Why is it that you can find seashells on top of the mountains?
Fr Barron is a very fair-minded thinker. In this video he discusses how we ALL talk past each other on today's moral issues, instead of actually arguing/ discussing. Regardless on which side of the gay marriage argument you fall, we can at least agree on this. We need to really THINK and really TALK and really LISTEN. He makes many fair points.
Fr. Barron is a Catholic Priest, he represents the Catholic Church to the best of his ability. So do not be surprised or critical that he doesn't support gay marriage arguments in his video.
Well, this is above my paygrade when on one hand the news cites our Pope's compassion to same-sex unions while on the other, the Vatican writes that even:
Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.
Very well explained!❤️💚
In short, the church says no gay marriages , the end
It would be best to understand the arguments behind it. The video clearly states how bad it is to simplify arguments because, this day and age, people tend to assume the worst in the opposition to gay "marriage"!
@Onuigbo kenneth guy this comment is a year old
@Onuigbo kenneth i mean she isn't going to respond because her original comment is very old
You either accept the word of God or reject it.
It's not a democratic vote.
He’s absolutely right.
Gods plan included chattel slavery,
Leviticus 25:44-46,
Peter 2:18
Colossians 3:22
Deutronomy 20:11
Exodus 21:20-21
Exodus 21:2-7
Ephesians 6:5
What I have trouble with is the idea that certain civil rights (and SCOTUS has called marriage a basic civil rights for decades) can be denied to certain groups of people because it doesn't meet the personal or religious standards of other groups. Personally, I don't see any civil marriage as a true marriage for a Catholic. It's not like the sacrament at all. It doesn't even involve the Lord. It's basically a civil contract. If any court tried to force any church to marry gay people, or do anything else that violates their religious beliefs, I would be outraged. But "gay marriage" doesn't involve any other citizens and doesn't change what civil marriage means to heterosexuals at all. The only reason I've been given by Catholics, or other Christiand, about why gay people should be denied this civil right is that it goes against their own religious beliefs, or they just don't approve of it themselves. IMO that's not sufficient reason for the government to take away an entire group's civil rights. It's really no different from the way interracial couples were once denied the right to marry. My religious beliefs should not have the power to interfere with someone else's basic civil rights.
SCOTUS calling marriage a civil right is a bit slippery. In a way, marriage is both a right AND a privilege for those God has called to it. The danger of a secular government legalizing something like this is it sows divisions in religious groups and makes possibly destructive and harmful things (which CAN be somewhat subjective) easier to access or do. A good religious person should not say "I am against this because it goes against my religion." They should say "I am against this because it puts that person/group of people in a dangerous position with God, whether they believe it or not." The true goal of believers is to convert people in their hearts, to make them WANT to oppose evil for their soul's sake, and to be the holiest self they can be. (Sorry for the long reply but it just kept coming 😥🤐😥)
Heroica Knight In my country, the Netherlands, the legal marriage is the civil marriage. People have to do the legal marriage before they can do the religious marriage in church. Same sex marriage is accepted by the vast majority and does not harm anyone. Remember that your sense of morality is subjective and does not give you the right to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
Please remember, all who support gay marriage that the Bible states homosexuality is an "abomination." The Bible also defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
@@tanjavankessel2548 Your reply ignores the Laws Of Nature. To reproduce the species we need a man and a woman. It is your opinion that same sex marriage does no harm. Even a "gay" neighbour of mine is against gay marriage "30 years ago people said to me you are homosexual cos of what happened in your childhood .. I reply I had the most wonderful parents .... Now they say you can get married & I say there is no way a gay couple could have such a wonderful marriage as a lot of heterosexuals do .... no it is not the same & I am not in favour of "gay marriage" " When asked why he does not say that publically "I am not going to put myself up for ridicule and possible physical attack"
They only have the "Right" because it has been enacted to make it law. Morality is not subjective. It is subjectively interpreted by the none religious to become meaningless... In Nazi Germany for an "Arian" to marry a Jew was not allowed and to do so was considered immoral as well as unlawful. So for the none religious morality is very fluid. Research "natural law"
What an amazing and elaborate argumentationof truth! Truth is what a lot of people don't want to listen to nowadays. Why?
Because they don't want the responsibility of living according to Truth
Because it's one religion's truth, not reality.