Another part of a video series from Wordonfire.org. Bishop Barron will be commenting on subjects from modern day culture. For more visit www.wordonfire....
Bishop Robert Barron, you've got such a magnetic strength, and I am absolutely convinced that Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit speaks to me straightforward through your teachings. When I listen to you in the deepest of my heart I can feel the fire of the Holy Spirit speaking to me. You are so brilliant, even though there are many genius people in the history of life, the way you convey to me Jesus Christ presence, it all makes sense in my life. I can affirm without any doubts that your teachings represent the Jesus Christ I have always yearn for, this is something I have discerned and have arrived to this conclusion after many years of being disappointed and dissatisfied with many priests I met. I always respect them, because they are men of God, they have delivered their lives, committed to God, and they have a ministry, but their teachings and way of sharing me, the presence of Jesus Christ didn't satisfy me at all, kind of very archaical and out dated, too much parsimony and quoting the readings of the Bible but NOT making sense; without an anthropologist, philosophical, psychologist, politic, economic, emotional, cultural and holistic perspective. God has granted you with many natural gifts that you have educated and cultivated and for these and many other reasons, all your teachings make sense in my personal life. I thank God for your praiseworthy priesthood and wise apostolic work. May God grant me the miraculous blessing to become a member of your spiritual family, NOT because I deserve it, but because Jesus Christ loves me. Amen.
Fr Barron, you analogy of the golf coach saying no to his student's bad golf swings reminds me of Christopher West's example of a piano teacher teaching a piano student. Thank you for this wonderful video.
In response to all these people saying celibates have nothing valuable to say about sex, let me grant that for the sake of argument. Well, not all priests are virgins. Many have converted from a licentious lifestyle and would now happily echo everything Fr. Barron said in the video. So with that in mind, your argument has no legs to stand on because *many* people who *have* experienced sexual activity would propose *exactly* what is said in this video.
+Alex Wallo Just because someone has experienced sexual activity doesn't mean they have any authority to speak about another person's sexuality. I'm very curious about something... if other people are so wrong about sex, why is it such a big deal? If they're wrong, why do you need to be right? If someone is wrong, why is it even necessary to tell them at all? If you love someone, why try and change them? That is not love... that is fear.
+Loga Fixico Jesus said to repent. That is to change someone for the better. Why allow those you love to settle? People say they want the best for their loved ones. How is settling for sinful behavior the best? Why send your kids to school, then? Why discipline them? Just let them be themselves.
There are monetary consequences to the sexual immorality that has been practiced for decades. There seems to be a tremendous hostility towards marriage in society, and that threatens to deeply shock our infrastructure. No one is an island.
Loga Fixico letting someone live a destructive lifestyle is not loving. Have you ever asked someone engaging in sexual promiscuity if they are truly happy? I assure you, you'll scarcely hear yes. It's just like an analogy: if you saw someone eating rotten food and they seemed to be enjoying it, but you know that that way if eating food would be bad for their health and make them sick, would you let them know that what they're doing will make them unhappy and point them to a fridge stocked full of healthy food, that they may not like but will give them happiness? Or would you simply conclude that trying to change what they do would be unloving (which it wouldn't, of course, and shows complete indifference which is not love).
@@turtlenoheart Hello. I think it is the nature of love to desire the perfection/beafication of the beloved. If you love your child and he is mean you want him to become kind, if you love your friend and she is spiteful you want her to become gracious not because you say "eww, clean yourself so I don't have to deal with or see your ugliness" even though they can be hard to deal with. Rather you say "No that makes you less than what you are meant to be abd it breaks my heart because I desire to see you whole and beautiful."
There's also the just plain wrong notion that widespread use of birth control has resulted in increased decadence and decay in modern society. The vast majority of people in the United States use birth control. Yet where are the terrible consequences? Teenage pregnancy and abortions are at a 40-year low. Women have greater economic autonomy than ever and are not locked into unhappy marriages - of which there are many today, but just as many in the 'good old days' before reproductive freedom.
You're right. And belief is a matter of the will over the intellect-- so arguement is hopeless between two hearts that don't traverse the same plane and don't wish to.
@hoto551 There is no Church Teaching that says babies go to Hell because they are unbaptized. A Sacrament is an outward sign of inner Grace and serves a powerful function in anchoring in Catholic Conscience our role in passing on the unconditional love of God to the soul of the baby - but that does not mean that babies who do not go through the ritual of Baptism go to Hell - in fact such an assertion demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of God's love.
Lacking personal experience in many areas, including sexuality, does not disqualify one from engaging in an intelligent discussion of those issues, but personal experience does help, often a great deal. I would rather ask someone who's walked the path with a keen and open mind for advice on something - whatever it may be - than someone who has not.
God bless you Father!.. your words made me think on myself and how I have lived my life so far :).. thanks and please continue spreading your insights in your channel
If you could show me just one unwed mother or even just one young woman or even just one random person who was living a "good" life, I would be more inclined to give your comments some thought, but you cannot, because you probably would not know what to look for, and even given that, it would be extremely rare to find such a person. Instead of trying to blame the Catholic Church for "history," look to yourself. Try to be that one person living a good life through prayer and charity.
@zztstenglish Hi again. Actually the statements "Childless heterosexual .....14th amendment" does not "logically imply" the statement "Gays cannot procreate, there fore it is NOT marriage". This said, there is some interesting logic: "Childless heterosexual marriages" is a subset of "Childless marriages" is a subset of "marriage". This says a couple can be childless and married. So procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Does Baker v Nelson present a reason why gay shouldn't marry?
@zztstenglish You have stated a number of reasons why you think gays should not be allowed to marry. In your desire to make an impression I have little doubt you consider these reason's to be among the most prominent. I have simply used logical argument to show that none of these supposed "reasons" present a valid argument as to why gays should not marry. I am sure disproof by contra-positive can just as easily debunk any other woolly reasons you care to give for why gays shouldn't marry.
You say marriage is not a civil right - I point out the highest court in the have ruled 11 times it is - now you say the federal government don't decide what marriage is yet its the federal government that decide what tax relief, inheritance and other benefit accrue with marriage - its your country you should know this - we are Brits
You don't know how liberating it is to live chastely. I wouldn't say it's easy and many times in fact uncomfortable and challenging, but it is worth it.
I actually understand what fr Barron means by this, to offer your body as a sacrifice. the Body, has to be pure in order to make the a sacrifice. But I have to say that what you find negative to homosexuals not only applies to them but any person' who has committed any type of sin. No ramblings or babblings. Just because you think its agains on type of person doesn't mean it is. Its just your pride is influencing your thinking negatively.
I completely agree. The Catholic Church is the ONLY body in the entire world that teaches what sex is. Sex is holy and used properly mimics the Trinitarian God but used improperly (and there are many ways to use it improperly) will lead to darkness of the soul and wound our hearts thereby leading us farther away from being able to really love the way God loves, which is our goal here on earth. I used to share the popular idea that the Catholic Church hates/condemns sex until I actually went to the Church's documents, doctrines, encyclicals and pastoral letters. In other words, most who hold the 'popular idea' don't really KNOW what the Catholic Church teaches and I was one of them. Now that I know, I wouldn't dream of going back to that very self-centered and distorted understanding of sex I used to have. It just leads to no good.
If you have that mindset then you think all pleasure is evil... Sell your computer and board up your windows! The snow is disgusting and hellish! The only white and good thing is God! GOD, I SAY! Sex feels good because there's a large amount of nerves firing off during it, sex also makes babies through the natural functions of our bodies. Contraceptives were created so you don't mistakenly create a biological life during sex. It's pretty damn black and white.
I'll reply to the only part of your comment that really has substance (although it's flawed substance). "If you have that mindset then you think all pleasure is evil." You are telling me I think all pleasure is evil. How do you know that? Did I say that? My comment didn't even mention the topic of pleasure. Please back up your claim. Don't resort to childish and unintelligent sarcasm. It sounds like you are repeating popular ideas many people and certain circles like to launch to really shut down an intelligent conversation. It's become popular to misrepresent the opposing argument, ridicule it and frankly, lie about it to not be forced to do what any real debate needs to have, namely, intelligent, logical and sensical arguments.
I used sarcasm to make you feel like an idiot, and I succeeded. Whether or not you agree with why I did it doesn't matter. I gave you the reasons why your idea of sex (especially if taught by a religion which has had incidents of child molesting in the church) was wrong, eat 'em and weep.
Devdraco you: If you have that mindset then you think all pleasure is evil.. Me: the fact is that you mis-read what pale was writing. he was saying that not all pleasure is evil. It simply needs to be in the right context.
i'm not judging the state of anyone's soul. what i am saying is that as a society, we shouldn't stoop to the lowest denominator. further, i wasnt making this specific to one person, but a 'generic' comment on morals in society. that you feel the need to make it personal is a distraction from the real debate.
@hoto551 NFP is a completely separate and nuanced topic in its own right. To your point - NFP actually does NOT go against procreation. I unfortunately, lack the ability to explain why this is the case. I hope Fr. Barron can comment or do a video on NFP!
i didnt say the courts wouldnt rule on it. i said they dont have that constitutional power. if you noticed, courts are legislating all kinds of things lately, which isnt suppose to be their constitutional jurisdiction. i stated it isnt a civil right in many places - referring to gay marriage.
Marriage is meant to make visible what is invisible, by that I mean that God the Father pours out his love on God the Son (Jesus), the Son then receives this love and gives love back to the Father. This invisible, continual exchange of love is called communion. From this eternal exchange of love comes the Holy Spirit. That is what marriage is supposed to be a visible sign of, an unending and procreative exchange of love. That is why marriage must be between a man and woman...
@queerveganliberal Because that's not the only text in the Bible. You can also find Jesus' clear recommendation that those who can remain celibate should do so. You also have his own example and that of St. Paul.
Is there anything more helpful than some one that's celibate talking about the right way to have sex? If we're gonna keep using the golf analogy, if we only play at the masters there's no way we're going to be any good. You gotta try out all kinds of different courses to find the one you do best on. What if the fairway is having a drainage problem? gotta know how to go through the rough.
@wordonfirevideo also sexuality is a spiritual act in and of itself. Keep in mind that for millenia sex was worshiped as the holiest of acts. People belived it was a way to find nirvana in inner peace. Great sex can allow you to momentarily lose track of all the problems around you and even your sense of self and no only pure ecstasy for that moment. So can a virgin talk about morality sure, but as for the spirituality, you can only comment on what you've been told it is
Most people would find the idea of anyone promoting the idea of chastity in other peoples personal lives intrusive & unnatural - we would find it ludicrous
Except that the term "their own business" has specific contexts. What people engage in privately, as long as no one is being harmed, is their own business, and no one else's. A person driving drunk is an entirely different context, and would be an entirely different consideration.
@zztstenglish I will have a look as you suggest. However I was simply using your quote"Childless heterosexual marriages......", above and showing that for this quote to be true there must exist marriages without children. Of course in practice we all know that a substantial fraction of married couple chose not to have children. Others can't because of medical reasons. If procreation was a condition of marriage, these couples wouldn't exist, but yet they do.So procreation cannot be a requirement.
That is the problem Fr. Barron. I agree with much of what you have said here. If you are right though it seems difficult to justify the church's position on gay marriage.
How often within the ideal of marriage are expressions of love actually 'ideal' and not just 'inadequate expressions' ? Be honest :-) Jesus said we'd be 'like the angels' after this life. I wonder if Augustine would have reached that 'idea' - 'how late have I loved Thee,' without those countless inadequate expressions. Loving much 'cause he expressed inadequately - and 'sinned' much in that ever inadequate expression.. :)
i understand you 'want' the same acceptance for your gay relationship, as others have for their heterosexual ones. The issue isnt really about what you or i want. It isnt a reduction to personal inclinations at all. The question is, what is really in the best interest of others, beyond my personal desires? the answer to that is: to be aligned towards the truth. It is self evident in the human person that a man and a woman share an inherent complementarity not possible in same sex relationships.
@MikeG4936 NFP does not go against procreation simply because it does not alter the fundamental nature of the sex act. NFP is simply not having sex when we're not prepared for the consequences. The only way NFP could be wrong would be if it's wrong not to have sex (which would be an interesting argument to make). At no point do you say "no" to the procreative aspects of sex.
@27182818R No one in the Catholic Church is saying that a gay person has to take part in a heterosexual marriage... The Catholic Church actually states that people who have homosexual tendencies are NOT wrong or bad...
The decision to maintain a negative stance on artificial contraception was made by Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968 against the majority opinion of a commission brought together to study the issue by John XIII. So I question the pope's judgment.
@hoto551 of course we offer them communion. "Let he who is with out sin throw the first stone." Are not people who do engage in homosexual actives, and those who have and perform abortions, in need of Gods mercy, even more, than those who don't? How could we be Christs church if we turned our back to them and told them that they are unworthy to be with us? "I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners" Luke 5:32
in reference to marriage, an amendment HAS NOT been made yet; and so it is still not part of the federal enumerated rights and powers to be used/dispensed by the federal govt.
some issues were appointed to states as their domain. traditionally, this is the case of defining marriage and its licensure according to law. to suddenly now decide that it can be a federal issue is really over stepping the constitutional powers given to the federal govt. many issues do not belong on the federal level...regardless of amendments.
@thejasonbeers Okay, friend, you'd have a point if I were talking about sexual technique, but there is no reason in the world that a non-sexually active person can't talk about the morality and spirituality of sex. And your analogy is no good. Are you really comparing "trying out" a variety of golf courses to "trying out" a variety of women?! I mean, that's pretty objectifying and abusive, don't you think?
Chastity can be intrusive and supernatural because of its demands. Because I believe in eternal life, I deny myself the pleasures of intimacy, as I don't have an object of love here to whom I would dedicate my life. You do know that there are many people who dedicate themselves to causes where they have to deny this element in their lives, right? Are they any the worse for it?
@MsKateB1 Again. I don't see the logic here. You say Gay people being married does not allow for procreation; but Gay people being married does not stop people procreating either. Nor would gay people procreate if the were not allowed to marry. So this is not a reason why gay people should not marry. It's is ironic the way you use two men (God and Jesus) coming together to symbolize marriage. It makes them sound like a gay couple. Possibly you should revise your view on gay marriage.
Unfortunately, it appears we have reached the crux of the distinction between modern secular thinking and the faith perspective on human sexuality. In our world, human sexual behavior has devolved to a point where only the mere mechanics of technique seem relevant. Any discussion of what sexuality is meant to be encounters nearly violent cognitive dissonance.
Nope. Not once. Which tells you what this poster's agenda is. An agenda so all-consuming that s/he does not have ears to hear your words. I used to think that if I could just find the right nuances, the right combination of words, I could make others see the beauty, logic and love of the Catholic faith, but this has not been so. I finally realized that it is not my words, but rather His words that will penetrate the hardest of hearts. Another great video, Father!
@zztstenglish So this time you are effectively saying: "the state wants to maximize child baring and provide increased tax incentives for kids" therefore "gays should not be allowed to marry". But again there is no logical connection. As before, take the contra-positive. Assume gays can marry: how does this restrict child baring numbers? How does it limit tax incentives? The answer, of course, is that allowing gays to marry does neither of these things. So again there is no logical connection.
Why would the best interests of others (their personal desires) be more important than your own? What makes their life considerations more important than your own? The answer is nothing. Why should anyone place a higher value upon what someone else considers than what they consider? They should not. What possible reason could you have for placing a higher value upon someone else's considerations than your considerations? None. And I am addressing a life perspective here, not a sexual one.
We have read what you posted "it isn't a civil right" & "the federal government does not constitutionally have the power to decide what marriage 'is." and yet the supreme court have ruled 11 times that it is a civil right & the federal government accrue almost all the benefits and legal status that define marriage - I think we all know DOMA is finished and fairly soon this whole mater is going to be decided at a federal level
I think some people can get so wrapped up in a project that they can neglect their physical needs however for many it would be a short term event - we think long abstinence is a bit of a cop out - encouraging others to be celibate is cruel
@5355vbxjbj76rvn Thats like saying doctors should not give advise about cancers and other illness's unless they have experienced that particular cancer or illness. You will find that most experts in cancer research are those who have not had cancer (and i hope that's obvious) likewise some of the greatest experts in human sexuality were actually celibate ( Blessed pope John Paul II )
Blocking procreation is dogma and not biblical. Please don't quote Onan because that was an act of disobedience and not because of the "withdraw" method. Please stick to the Bible, share the good news and not dogma.
I don't expect that most people will like the idea, nor that they'll adhere to it (for the record, dissenters will be pushed off the edge of the world. Literally. We'll take them to the point where the map stops and push them off the edge into oblivion. I learned that on Flat-Earth Sunday, a little known Lenten feast day). But what is unreasonable about saying: chastity is an alternative to marriage? Is it not? But you've not answered my question: is sex the highest good? If it is not, what is?
@5355vbxjbj76rvn Nonsense! As I said before, you'd have a point if I were talking about sexual technique or "how to please your wife in bed." But I'm talking about the morality and spirituality of sex. If you follow your logic all the way down, you'd have to conclude that neither Jesus, nor the Buddha, nor Gandhi, nor the Dalai Lama would have anything valuable to say about human sexuality.
its not true to say that what anyone else does is strictly 'their own business'. a person driving drunk can have serious consequences in the lives of others; people living immorally have serious impacts on the lives of others as well. Actions have consequences.
Scary how many people base their faith in Christ's church not on Christ and His words (...."and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) but on the words of exactly those other members in the pew. Talk about missing the forest for the trees!
@zztstenglish If you look at the our discussion so far you should notice a pattern. You try to present an argument why gay people should not marry. I demonstrate that there is no logical connection. Then you run away and try to come up with another reason, and the same cycle repeats. It's a bit like "mission creep" on your part. I would challenge you to give a reason why gay people should not marry, that you can actually stick to and defend. It amuses me greatly that you cant.
@hoto551 (John 3:5) Jesus answered, "Truly, I tell you with certainty, unless a person is born of water and Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God." This is to be understood as written, and as you mature from concrete level interpretation to spiritual depth of awareness you understand from the fullness of the Heart from which goodness comes. You are missing utterly the mystery, the truth that opens up into truth ad iniinitum (Romans 11:33-36) and have sunk back into concrete literalism.
That's not what I said at all - maybe its too subtle for you to realise the inconsistancy t of a position that both condemns people for sex outside of marriage and condemns some as unfit to marry - its called a no win situation for millions of decent law abiding members of society
Father, what about people who aren't allowed to produce children anymore yet they still want to bond with their husband/wife because of hormone problems? Is things like pills and family planning still a "no" to the church?
