Bishop Barron on Love and Tolerance
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2024
- Love is tolerant, inasmuch as it respects the goodness of even those who hold errant points of view; and love encourages diversity, to the degree that it eschews the imperialistic imposition of one’s own ego upon another. However, sometimes love is exclusive, intolerant, and unaccepting of diversity-precisely because it wills the good of the other. Visit www.WordOnFire.org to learn more!
To quote another evangelizing Catholic Bishop (Fulton Sheen): "Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth." Therefore, we must tolerate people, because all people are equal under the Lord. We do not have to tolerate all ideas, because not all ideas are equal. Tolerance of all ideas is, itself, an idea, and thus is need not be tolerated.
Amen. And Bishop Fulton J. Sheen warned that of so many that have social justice as primacy instead of rational objective moral truth. And historically, when that happens, someone gets marginalized. And with the current Utopian ideologies - even using The Name of Jesus Christ, sometimes; --- and 'needs based' societal pressures these Utopians only legitimize 'moral relativism' as a proper 'form of godliness' to give rights to some (rather than assert compassion in truth) for some kind of inclusiveness 'rights,' and the expense of freedom of conscience, free speech, religious expression in the public sphere --- and have become of 'one mind' on these things to serve their agenda. The harshness of this in family's lives of a Judaeo Christian compassionate ethic is understated. And the immense 'peer pressure' increased over decades to conform to or be silent in the face of Utopian-ism with and ever increasingly crafty biased 'Orwellian' education system, media, arts & entertainment is greater than most realize. The culture of death kills tens of millions worldwide, every single year. There are signs of hope, even with a recent adjudication on one aspect. But if we do not combat this on both the grass roots, hedgerow, highways and top levels - the Utopian war of attrition using clever heart-string propaganda will make these things already blatantly contrary to The Founding Father's idea of freedom by The Laws of Nature and The God of Nature --- will make things decidedly worse.
Peace and warm regards.
The Light shines in the darkness.
God help us be compassionately resolutely assertive;
and combat complacency.
Sometimes, you need to get a point across to yourself as well as the others, when you stand up for a value and you don't know how.
While you anxiously seek and wait in hope, God brings you a message through a Bishop Barron video. This was exactly like that for me. Thanks a lot for this video and the clarity providing message.
Sadly, our current world is losing the fortune of healthy growth by tough love. Hope this message reaches every Christian and we stand by Christ's terms.
What a breath of fresh air.
Sorry I didn't get a chance to say hello when you were in SLC last week. It was an honor to serve at mass with you and so many other admirable priests. God bless you and I'll catch you next time.
Bishop Barron, thank you so much for these videos. The message is always well presented and articulate, and you have recommended some great thinkers and intellectual mentors. The new evangelization at its finest, praise God!
"It's quite legitimate for nations to treat their differences as a sacred inheritance and guard them at all costs" - Pope Pius XII
There have to be some self-imposed boundaries to help preserve who you are. You defend yourself because you love yourself. Without that, many present-day institutions wouldn't exist.
Asher Lev Hi there, get your left wing progressive venom out of my Church. Romans 13 affirms the right of the state to bear the sword and enforce the law.
Wisdom, wisdom, wisdom. Thank you, Bishop. God bless.
Too bad he's a modernist and part of the Vatican II Apostate "church."
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Carl Popper
This goes both ways. Liberals so extreme in their tolerance they tolerate ultra-conservative Islamic values, for example, that would see tolerance destroyed. But also sometimes the opposite happens and liberals are so focused on tolerance they become intolerant to anything that has a whiff of intolerance to them. The paradox gets resolved for many liberals on one extreme or the other.
It seems to me the solution is to find equilibrium where you aren't pulled magnetically either way, and that involves not holding tolerance as the ultimate value, but just a good thing as a rule of thumb, where reason can negotiate around the edges.
Tolerance has its limits.Anyone with an iota of common sense knows that.This is why we have the rule of law.We can readily tolerate different points of view and belief, but when these views are forced on others through intimidation and violence,then we must draw the line.Having said that, even the most heinous of actions may have mitigating circumstances, making the issue more complex
You might be surprised to find that I'm also a liberal in most sense of the word, and I am an atheist. I agree with everything you said. There are some liberals that fit the description I outlined, though, you must realize that.
Slow clap.
Brendan Beckett, "There are some liberals that fit the description I outlined" how many? two? is the catholic church that my parents go to, that has a sign outside that says "refugees welcome" (with a picture of the refugees jesus, mary, and joseph) in protest of trump's policies, are _they_ the liberals you're talking about? cuz no, they aren't.
No, not two. I don't have polling data. Some. You know the types I'm talking about. SJW, regressive left, authoritarian left, safe space extremists, whatever you wanna call them. They aren't actually liberal of course, but they are in the liberal political tribe.
Another easy to understand, well thought out presentation . Thank You!
timely words of wisdom
I'm feel so blessed to have found your TH-cam channel:) keep up the great interesting and eye-opening videos😁
"...Therefore the world knoweth not us, because it knew not him." 1 John 3:1.
Such a complex topic. So well said. Homerun for the Holy Spirit.
I just had a thought-and I don't mean this to sound terse...but when our generation is dead and gone-I bet our good friend Bishop Barron will become a canonized saint.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." - G.K. Chesterton
Awesome Video Your Excellency! you have spoken the truth and handled a oft misunderstood topic extremely well! waiting for your next one!
Wow, 'I welcome you on Christ's terms' that is a powerful statement.
I am not fond of the word diversity all it does is divide people into groups. I preferred that old fashion word 'melting pot' where we were all one no matter what culture we came from we were all one country. Tolerance is an empty word for most.
There is way too much division. its rare to find people all on the same page. Bullying and name calling, (something we got in trouble with on the playground) is the norm in the adult world. Thank God we have you Father Barron and our Church to give us hope!
amazing video!! keep them up
I watch video's every day. Don't read due to sight problems. Great video. . .not much on tolerance more on love. but what about when you try to help a Protestant and they said I was guilting because I'm Catholic. All in all great video
He is brilliant!
Woh, a complicated subject. I love it!
To simplify Cardinal Dolan says all are welcome, but before partaking in the supper of the lamb, just as partaking in supper in our homes, we are asked to wash our hands. Exclusion may drive some away because of pride, but for most of us, it will bring us to the place of repentace, "Lord I am not worthy for you to come under my roof,only say the word and I will be healed.
ok, I struggled with this one, because it is hard to tell where Bishop Barron would extrapolate this out to... I totally agree with the premise and it is well explained. Do you think others could use this argument to bolster their reasons for EXCLUSIVITY? In a manner that hurts others?
He would extrapolate the argument only so far as the virtue of Justice and revealed Truth allow.
Others would not be able to use this argument in its full form, with the above implied premises, because justice does not allow the ultimate harm of others; it may allow immediate harm (corporal punishment or imprisonment, for example), but not ultimate harm (harming the soul).
Alexis Chacchia great questions honestly asked, thank you.
Catholic Monarchy and/or Clerical fascism sounds wonderful honestly.
Father, you should watch the Young Pope and do a video on that. I watched the first episode and have mixed feelings about it, but I'd like to hear a Catholic perspective. Thanks and God Bless!
Great video.
To will the good of others assumes the existence of free will. In today's modern culture the existence of free will is being questioned. Could you explain the to us what the churches view on free will is and how we know we have it.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
#1711 - Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with >>free will
Dear Bishop Robert Barron, I agree with you 100%. We have the moral obligation to live according to the Natural Law, which dwells within our hearts. It is true that Our Lord Jesus Christ came to this world to save all humankind and He said: "Let the one who is free from sin, cast the first stone", this is God´s mercy; but once He saves her from being stoned, Jesus says: "Daughter, nobody has condemned you?", she answer: "no", Jesus with profound love says to her: "me neither, go and DON´T sin anymore". So Jesus Christ, indeed is God of mercy, but He wants our commitment to live the way we are mean to be, always getting our spiritual strength from the sacraments. Jesus Christ is my owner, He paid a very expensive price for my salvation, with His life, with blood, betrayals,, hardships, setbacks, pain and an ignominious death. I am Temple of the Holy Spirit. I have NO right to make wrong use of my body. I belong to My Lord Jesus Christ and I have the obligation to surrender to His wise, eternal and perfect will. Amen.
Dear Bishop Barron, I enjoy your videos very much.
I was wondering if you could address a talk by David Voas called"Why there is no way back for religion in the West?" It was a TED talk 17/07/2015. As I read people comment, it's very frightening to think of young people watching this.
Thank you & God Bless..
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
Yo Bishop Barron, a question. If Christ died for our sins, why is it that preternatural malevolence still rule this world? Isn't the devil's power over the world cut down by Jesus' sacrifice?
Preternatural malevolence is still present in the world, but it no longer rules the world. Christ met it and defeated it on the Cross. Christ rules the world.
Rev. 2:6 - We are supposed to "hate" as Jesus "hates."
(It's the only True Love, to hate what is unworthy of people.)
One of your best videos yet. I was cringing a little when I first started the video, hoping you wouldn't bend to societal norms. Your interview on the Rubin Report was a little alarming. Loved your baseball team analogy, BTW.
What did I say in the Rubin interview that was the least out of line with what I'm saying here? I told a gay man that homosexuality is wrong, that gay marriage is bad law and that it poses a threat to society.
ingrid But that's completely false! I made all of these points explicitly. Listen to the whole discussion again.
To be honest, I wasn't sure that's what you said until I watched that part a couple of times. At first, like Rubin, I thought that you might be conflicted on the issue. Then I thought it might be that you didn't want to offend and push away Rubin or the LGBT community as a whole. I suppose it's a matter of clarity.
Don't get me wrong, you're doing good work and I've learned a lot from your videos. Cheers.
That isn't true. Listen again. Bishop Barron stated clearly what the Church teachings are on the issues brought up by the host. Make sure you hear the part where the "homo man" invited Bishop Barron back for a future discussion. Do you think he would have been welcomed back if he had used language that the host would have found insulting or provocative? Bishop Barron skillfully evangelized while retaining the man's respect for him.
See, that's the problem. If people have to listen to it again, the message wasn't very clear.
Can we have a subtitle in english for sake of clarity ?
I like this
Love this video! It's so true. I recommend everybody to check out Representative Trey Gowdy's key note speech at Trinity University on youtube. He expands upon the ideas in this video and it really is an inspiring speech.
Bishop Barron, as someone who does short videos like yours on Catholic topics, I am curious: what kind of prep work do you do for these videos? Do you prepare notes?
I'm not sure how "More to it" translates into Latin, but I think you need to change your episcopal motto to that. imo
if love is willing the good of the other, then what is good? isn't good subjective because depends on your own needs?
In this same way we see the Love of God in the beginning and at the last judgement. God cast the fallen angels out of Heaven out of Love, not rejection, for He knew that they would not be able to stand being in His presence once they had rejected Him. In the same way He cast Adam and Eve out of the garden, because He knew that having fallen they must go out and atone for their sin before being able to return to Him in Heaven, and they did so by bringing about His Son, the Christ, who atoned for their sin. Again we see His Love in the last judgement, for only those who have rejected His Love would be unable to stand being with Him in Heaven, and so OUT OF LOVE they are sent to where He is not.
Ironically - and perhaps paradoxically as well - those who DEMAND tolerance are actively intolerant of any diversity from their own opinions regarding what is acceptable. Love, I think, in willing the good of the other, does something else too. It absorbs into itself the all intolerance, hatred and so on. It takes the blows, bears the wounds and suffers the pain. These are unavoidable when we take others, especially our enemies, into our arms and close to our hearts.
I get it, I think. Christian love doesn't have to be accompanied by feelings, though it sometimes is. Is God's love for humanity also devoid of feelings?
All depends upon how you define "feelings." God doesn't have a body; so he can't have physical passions. But whatever in the word "feelings" denotes connection, intense compassion, and love, God has that in spades.
Yes!
Your Excellency, I have a question:
Regarding the notion of love as the ultimate foundational good of Christ's Church, how exactly does that apply to withholding access to the Eucharist and excommunication?
It is one thing to will the good of the other and say no to the people who don't make the cut for a baseball team. They're not as qualified as the other players, and while those rejected may have truly desired to be on the team, perhaps there is something else they could do. The coach wills the good of the team, their success, and their quality of play while also willing the good of the success and future of those whom he rejects.
But how can denying the Eucharist ever be in someone's best interest? How can keeping someone from that intimate encounter with God be for their good? This is something I've never understood: if Judas is welcomed to the Last Supper, who could not be? And what sin can a soul harbor that is not swallowed up in the overzealous love of the God that runs to meet his son when he seems him approaching down the road?
And then, on a similar note, how can excluding someone from the Church finally be willing the good of the excommunicated party? Relieve heretics and false shepherds of their ministerial duties to safeguard the faith, certainly, but how can barring someone from the sacramental family of the true Church achieve or even strive for the good of the excommunicated?
God's blessings on you, your ministry, and the continued work of Word on Fire,
SignoftheStar
If I may, it's rooted in 1 Cor. 11;29 "For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves."
I am a former Protestant, and before I became a Catholic I knew a very liberal Catholic priest who did actually allow me to receive Communion when attending Mass. I very much wish he hadn't. Looking back on that, I am shocked at how I was allowed to mistreat the Eucharist; having no discernment of what it truly was.
As for excommunication, do remember that the path remains open for excommunicated souls to regain membership.
Prophecy update: They are going to ask priests to attend retreats to take an "Oath of allegiance" in which the meaning of the Holy Eucharist will be changed. Catechism point 677 is in play. By the way Amorus L seems to have been stage one of a three stage schism according to said prophecy. Pray for all priests that they defend the Holy Eucharist pray for Bishop Barron that when the time comes he quotes Aquinas on resisting heresy as he quotes Aquinas on other points. God bless.
interesting to know.
IS there time in heaven? or is our existence in heaven an atemporal one without change?
If there is not time in heaven: and its just a state of perpetual joy: whats the point in having a body if we cannot move around. It sounds dreadful for an eternal existence to be one without any change whatsoever. We could not move: we could not do anything: we wouldn't eve have a stream of thought: as that would requires time. It sounds terrifying.
The Bible doesn't end with all Christians going up to Heaven. The Bible ends with all those in Heaven being resurrected in new immortal bodies, and the establishment of the eternal New Jerusalem.
Could you react to the Cardinal Giovanni Battista saying abortion is worse than rape. Thanks.
Of course abortion is worse than rape.. In fact, name something abortion isn't worse than.
What are you responding to me ? Did I ask for your reaction ?
Abortion has claimed too many lives to keep track of. There have been over 51 MILLION documented abortions in the United States alone from 1970 to 2013. Not to mention, abortion is the murder of a person in their most innocent and vulnerable state. It's an atrocity that cries out to Heaven for vengeance.
Why do you keep on talking about this while I did not ask your input ?
sorry Bishop, but I gotta say this, I love your videos (all of them that I've watched), but my mind to understand this one is not getting it, I mean, your message of God's love includes and excludes is baffling me, I mean my mind is trying to understand, so I will do this, I will just replay your comments in this video over and over and over until my mind can fathom what you're saying, and I hope that I can get it.
Wayne Simpson you must try to exclude evil from your heart. and so must the church always keep christ's terms at heart while excluding evil
God doesn't stop loving the sinner, that is true, but Jesus did not eat with tax collectors and prostitutes for the purpose of validating their lifestyle choices. He ate with them to tell them that He loved them too much to let them continue in those lifestyle choices. They were jeopardizing their eternal salvation. The principal message of Christ's ministry was repentance, not acceptance or tolerance.
Too many of the uncatechized today choose to believe a fiction about Christ that He was all about inclusivity and acceptance of all forms of sinful behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth.
"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division" - Luke 12:51
Do you think maybe Bishop Baron you wish you could have said this to one Dave Rubin on The Rubin Reports, that he might be jeapordizing his eternal soul by being gay married? Well it's not too late to say it now. He loves and respects you. If friends don't lead those in sin away from their sin, who will? I understand you may have been afraid and not fully knowing to approach this face to face, as we all are. We must pray for wisdom here. Think about it though. Say Dave Rubin were to get in a fatal accident on the way home from his interview with you, was he shown why to repent/how to repent? This is a question all we Catholics must ponder. It seems to me, you made this vlog after the fact, when Bishop B, you probably should have said all these things to Dave Rubin when you were there. Good you're saying it now, better late than never.
ingrid, it would not have been apporopriate for Bp. Barron to publicly and specifically denounce Mr. Ruben's lifestyle, on his channel no less. I'd recommend you also refrain from such a personal discussion in a place meant for public discourse unless it is meant to forward a more intellectual discussion.
Thank you for your views Mr. Peter. God Bless You
ingrid may He bless you as well!
bonnie43uk, St. Paul denounces homosexuality in Romans, Corinthians, and Timothy. Since the books of the New Testament are said to be inspired by God, they are essentially His word and by effect those of Jesus.
Hi Bonnie! I realize there are many GOOD gay couples out there, good loving honest people. Trouble is Bonnie, they are jeapordizing their eternal soul, that is a consequence. Wouldn't you say?
Auxilliary Bishop of LA, and they didn't crucify you for heresy against their CultMarx god? A miracle, indeed.
Bishop, what do i do if I am overrun by a certain fear of hell:
-a fear that I am not good enough of a Catholic no matter how hard i try, thus condemning me to hell based off what various saints have said and people online as well
-a fear based off the fact that I might go to hell because God may not be Jesus and may be Allah, and thus I would be condemned by him...my faith is not based off history, science, or various truths as the Catholic Church puts it, so if you plan on saying how the RC is true, that may not help here, I am afraid. My faith is based off trust alone and maybe some reason but thats it...
I doubt you will answer this, but if you do consider helping me. It would mean a lot.
Marco, my first recommendation is this: don't listen to most people on the Internet! God is love, right through. He wants, more than anything, to share his life with you. All he asks is that you be open to this and that you try your best to live life of love. Follow your desire for God. It is infinitely less than God's desire for you.
Thank you bishop, though there are a few things i hoped you would have said as well (like attacking the point they make such that; what if these people are right in the end and you & me were wrong on these opinions we have ); all i ask for you to do is hopefully pray for me and maybe the remaining details may come later on in time maybe.
All I can do really is hope, but thank you for your reply, it really means a lot.
-Marco
Sorry bishop I wanted to actually ask my last point included in my most recent post, I get what you mean concerning what you say about Jesus....but what if you and me are wrong on our thoughts concerning this subject, and the fear mongers are actually right somehow?
I get it, it sounds unreasonable but what if they are right... they will always say that even though they sound unreasonable, they will use things like "Well God is unreasonable sometimes, for example, the old testament"..."God is infinite is mercy BUT infinite in justice" ...and other things as well, I am sure you heard it all.
But yea I get you mean about how much God loves me but what if the people included in my original comment listed above are right and I WILL have a chance of going to hell for the reasons listed above..
I have been through a lot of fear mongering throughout the years so much so that it tossed out my ability to see God as reasonable and merciful, so I apologize for my comment.
I just feel like honestly they could have a chance of being right in the end and my religious choice will be wrong..Idk I was hoping you could maybe help me with the core of my argument if anything. Its okay if you don't know how to answer this question I suppose.
Note: Again I can only really see my religion from a faith perspective, when using human truths to help me, it doesn't always help since i believe humans can be wrong on things sometimes. But you never know.
Thank you so much bishop
Marco K Do you love God? Is He your primary desire, your end goal?
I am growing in love with him. I don't want to see the law as a fearful thing, but I want to see it as something to do through and with love...I hate how the Church **sometimes** overemphasises a fear of hell, its like you are never good enough for some reason and sometimes its like the littlest mis-step can sends you to hell, I don't believe hell is that easy to go to, nor is mortal sin that easy to commit.
His argument is extremely flawed. Also, tolerance means accepting those of other cultures and beliefs on earth, it doesn't mean accepting them into heaven. Only Christians want to go to or believe in heaven, no one else is asking to, so I don't really see the point in his words. This just sounds like somebody trying to justify (in a very flawed manner) not being tolerant of different sexualities or even cultures to me.
Random question for you...can you do some videos on cults in America? I just got this article passed out to me in the NYC subway and saw that it was by Tony Alamo. He's still in prison for child rape but accuses the Catholic Church as actually being a cult. Can you clarify terms of what a cult is and isn't and why the Catholic Church even with its issues and scandals is not a cult? This article/pamphlet really saddened me and I pray that if people read it, it will make them more curious about the Truth and they will find it!
Father, why do you not condemn the communists on the same level as the national socialists or more?
But the question is how do we decide what it is we exclude? For instance for 1800 years of its history the church tolerated slavery. Now there were exceptions, one thinks of the great Wulstan in the eleventh century, but for the most part the church could not see it, it tolerated slavery. But at some point in the modern period the church came to see that slavery was wrong and could not be tolerated and actively worked to abolish slavery.
How did it come to that view and how had it missed it for so long?
And that then for me, leads to another question, what are we not seeing now?
Marcus Small The Catholic Church was among the first in the West to denounce slavery.
I am not suggesting it was not, I referenced Wulstan in the 11th century. However it still took its time.
My question is why so long? And what made the difference?
Marcus Small I think that is a good question
'All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare[a] of their slaves'.
1 Timothy 6
'A son, as such, belongs to his father, and a slave, as such, belongs to his master; yet each, considered as a man, is something having separate existence and distinct from others. Hence in so far as each of them is a man, there is justice towards them in a way: and for this reason too there are certain laws regulating the relations of father to his son, and of a master to his slave; but in so far as each is something belonging to another, the perfect idea of "right" or "just" is wanting to them'.
since the child is subject to the power of the parent, and the slave to the power of his master, a parent can lawfully strike his child, and a master his slave that instruction may be enforced by correction...
The command that masters should forbear from threatening their slaves may be understood in two ways. First that they should be slow to threaten, and this pertains to the moderation of correction; secondly, that they should not always carry out their threats, that is that they should sometimes by a merciful forgiveness temper the judgment whereby they threatened punishment.
St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
I am not sure that either of these Christian writers were happy with slavery, but they tolerated it, as did St Augustine, and one could with an extended search find other.
The church has been one of the most powerful institutions in the west, and yet did nothing until comparatively late.
Why is that? It seems to me that scripture and tradition are not enough, neither, on their own, make the abolition of slavery a self evident good, it took reason (without a capital R) and the perspective of a long history to see that slavery is an obvious evil.
The same could be said of the Declaration of Independance. Many of its writers owned slaves, it should have been self evident to them from their own words that slavery was evil. But they did not see it. Because their view was partial they could not stand back form their own situation.
But that is speaking metaphorically, and even if it isn't it makes no difference, one could better quote Galatians 3:28 'There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus'.
No one is denying that the seeds of opposition to slavery are there, the point is it took along time for the church and society to fully realise that.
It tolerated slavery for a long time and found reasons for doing. Nevertheless at some point the church changed and began to work for change. My question, not yet answered is 'What precipitated that change?
The first example of tough love that Bishop Barron uses in this video describes a manager choosing a baseball team and only including the 20 players. The 80 players are excluded out of tough love. I understand his argument but think he has chosen a poor example. The church does not exist for profit, or for the entertainment of fans or to be an exclusive club for the pure and worthy. The church exists primarily to lead every human person to become whole (or holy). As he pointed out, none of us are there yet. The church is much more like a health care system than a baseball team. The manager of a good health care system would not exclude 80 and only include 20 that were worthy. Yes, I agree that mortal sins are bad and we want people to be transformed into loving, healthy individuals. How is reserving the bread of life only for the worthy believers really helping those who probably needing it the most? It looks the church is afraid that they will give away grace too cheaply. It is ironic that a priest in the state of mortal sin still has the power to administer the sacraments (absolve sins and consecrate bread and wine) because they are a protected class. The laity in the state of mortal sin cannot receive Communion apparently because they are a lower class. I propose a more merciful practice of offering Communion to all who come. Judas Iscariot received Communion from Christ.
Well, friend, it's a metaphor! It's not meant to be accurate in every detail. In regard to communion, your argument is with St. Paul, who spoke of receiving the sacrament unworthily and thereby "eating and drinking one's own condemnation."
@Marc Dansereau
And, as Bishop Barron stated, Pontius Pilate unworthily partaking of the body of Christ and "eating and drinking [his] own condemnation", promptly went out and hanged himself in despair. I'm not sure your example proves your point.
Bishop Robert Barron Thank you for such a kind reply. My post wasn't very clear at all. I am venting...really not angry with you. I am sad to know how many have only heard the need to get pure, to clean up their act before they can come to God. I don't have a big argument with St Paul either. My only real argument with that quote is the interpretation that it is ALWAYS true in every case and there can NEVER be exceptions. The prodigal son was not able to finish his confession before his father stopped him and lavished his gifts and love. I have had the privilege of knowing God's mercy in my sinfulness, not because I earned anything or became pure or worthy. I am confident that many would benefit from learning God's grace is never earned, it is always gift. Thank you. Sincerely. Marc
I admit I did a lousy job of explaining my point. It is so sad that very few Christians understand that God's grace is so amazing. They don't know that even Judas Iscariot might be in heaven. Jesus didn't refuse Judas Communion at the last supper. I believe it is because he never gave up hope for Judas. Bishop Barron has one of the most beautiful explanations of God's grace and mercy in his book Catholicism. Here are a few excerpts:
"We can't declare with utter certitude that anyone - even Judas, even Hitler - has chosen definitely to lock the door against the divine love...Furthermore, since Christ went to the very limits of godforsakenness in order to establish solidarity even with those who are furthest from grace, we may, as Hans Urs von Balthasar insisted, reasonably hope that all will find salvation. Again, this has nothing to do with our perfectibility; it has to do with God's amazing grace." (Catholicism - A Journey To The Heart of The Faith, Robert Barron, 2011, pages 257-258)
The only point that I really want to make is that our church has a great treasure to offer the world, I question some of the practices which are intended to show "tough love". The good news we have to share is that we may reasonably hope that ALL will find salvation! Believe it or not, that is NOT what I was taught growing up. I was taught that unless you are WORTHY AND EARN heaven you are guaranteed eternal damnation. I've wasted much of my life fearing God and being afraid of making mistakes. The fear was VERY effective in controlling my behavior but was a lousy method to foster a deep personal relationship with God.
So true, tough love... that's why Orthodoxy broke communion with the RCC.
Tough love... That's why you have to go to purgatory.
Tough love... That's why you're excommunicated.
Tough love... That's why anathema to you.
How is that love if you anathemize a person to eternal damnation for dissent?
How does that make sense? Wasn't love supposed to be patient and kind? 1 Cor 13:4.
It's not just about the individual. If you have someone in your family/community who is routinely negative and destructive, you give them the chance to change. Some people won't. In that case you say goodbye. If they later get it together, they're welcome back.
Jonney Shih, the "tough love" comment is meant to extend to the most extreme of cases, which here means [compassionate] excommunication. However, under no circumstance does it extend to a burning at the stake or a hate/politically driven excommunication. The cases were such methods were employed by the church are assumed to be wrongful and thereby not supported by this argument.
You quote St Paul but the same St Paul excommunicated people (the noted case of quasi-incestuous telationship where he exhorted the community to excommunicate the party involved). Also, Jesus explains when people should be excommunicated when He tells that people who refuse the teaching of the Church ought to treated as "publicans". Also the Church fathers put quite an emphasis that Peter's power of binding and loosing comprised of also excommunicating. Finally, Jesus tells his Apostles that those sins they retained will be retained in Heaven. The point is, when necessary the Church must exclude and must excise the bad. The definition of Love as "willing the good of the other" requires the "good" to be objective and grounded in Truth. It is the ultimate factor by which all things are bourn in patience and charity.
Think of it, would you tell a parish that they had to patiently and charitably tolerate a pedohiple priest by allowing him to remain pastor? Of course not because that would be unloving to everyone. Including the pastor who would be in serious need of conversion and repentance (and jail).
Finally, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what excommunication is. Anathema or excommunications do not condemn anybody to hell. All excommunication is essentially a "shunning" where certain restrictions to the sacraments are applied to that person. This is not a merely punitive measure but is primarily rehabilitatative as St Paul also explains in the aforementioned case.
Excommunication is not a sentence of eternal damnation. It is a last resort option to get the person to realize their sins and to seek forgiveness and repentance. The Church doesn't send anyone to heaven or hell. In fact, neither does God. We are given the gift of free will and with it we can choose to lead a life following Christ or we can ignore Him and do it our own way. In essence, we send ourselves to hell when we consciously reject Christ.
When you look at it that way, excommunication is a tremendous act of love and mercy. It is a desperate attempt to get the person to repent.
Excellent post Bill
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:25). Jesus spoke and taught about money more than he did any other topic, yet I have never had the experience of witnessing the Church excluding wealthy people for being greedy. Seems like the place to start if you ask me.
Well said.
mcmemmo, Jesus spoke often of money, but this was largely meant to illustrate the need for complete poverty, both spiritual and material. If you question why the Church seems to more firmly denounce actions that stem from a lack of the spiritual poverty (adultery, murder, blasphemy, etc.) instead of those steming from a lack of material poverty, then consider how diverse the relative wealth of the Church is. There is little room for straightforward rules and teachings in this context. Thus, moral direction regarding one's wealth requires a no less demanding amount of discipline, but it is done on a pastoral level by one's priest.
Jesus was not speaking about the problem of money. He was speaking about the inordinate human desire for it. Having money is not sinful at all, but it can bend the will of a spiritually weak person to choose the pursuit of wealth over God. The poor are naturally detached from this, so it is a particular spiritual struggle for those who have money.
It is entirely just and right to use wealth to glorify God. There is no obligation to reduce ourselves to destitution.
The head of the Church is Jesus Christ and he has spoken quite plainly and forcefully against the idolatry of money. As for his successors, many of them have become too used to the comforts of their office to admonish their wealthy donors. Pope Francis has taken Bishops to task on more than one occasion for it. You can hide behind whatever tortured justification you want to excuse what I see as an egregious failure to admonish the greedy. In the end, you will have to answer to Christ, who if I recall correctly, did not reward the rich young man with eternal life.
The only thing Christ spoke against was replacing God with things that are less than God. Exchanging the Creator for creation. When we hold money (or any other worldly good) higher than God, then we jeopardize our salvation by violating the First Commandment. Money itself is not evil. Having money is not evil. Having a LOT of money is not evil. It is only the disordered attachment to it that is sinful.
My justification of it is not "tortured" at all. Christ also told the parable of the woman who rejoices when she finds a lost coin. He has still another that tells of the talents. The Church has taught that private ownership of property is essential for human liberty to flourish.