In the wake of the United States Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, a not inconsiderable number of Catholics feel beleaguered and more than a little afraid. So what do we do? Find more videos at WordOnFire.org.
Naturalism Forever. Exactly! "The great intellect" Barron has never said anything original (on RU-vid). He hardly even clearly states his opinion or gives arguments for his opinion. He regurgitates Catholic doctrine in obfuscating terminology. His calm posture, his glasses and the fact that he has a RU-vid channel make people believe he is an intellectual.
Instead of tearing someone down by equating intellect with original thought, please watch Bishop Barron's videos more closely. He is stating an opinion -an opinion that agrees with his faith because faith is not something exterior to him, but a conscious, intertwine belief that coincides with his reason. His faith is based on his logical reasoning, which all faiths should be grounded in. The terminology you deem as obfuscating is simply terms you may not fully understand. He's not regurgitating Catholic doctrine, but furthering it's understanding and implication in the world today. Many Catholics and Christians need this man's guidance. Please appreciate sound theology.
Fr. Robert Barron I respect you a lot, and as a Christian myself I admire your commentary on a lot of issues. However I am going to have to disagree with you on his one. First, I don't think it is Catholics or Christians(and I am one) who have to worry about a coming persecution on the issue of LGBT rights, as you seem to imply. It is the LGBT community itself that has had to worry about their continual exclusion and I would say persecution by the Church. This comes in the form of LGBTQ youth who have been thrown out of their homes by devout Christians motivated by the teaching of their Church, or who face a whole lot of discrimination by laws backed by e Church, whether it's the Church opposing things like Employment Non Discrimination Act which cracks down on discriminatory practices in the work place or the Churches opposition to the inclusion of LGBTQ perspective on issues like the Immigration debate, to the Churches opposition to adoption rights for LGBT people. Secondly, on the issue of Gay Marriage itself there has to be a distinction made between Marriage as a Sacrament/Ordinance and Marriage as a Civil institution. No one is telling Churches how to define Marriage in their own sanctuaries. What people are demanding as an expansion of the Civil right of Marriage, and for LGBT couples that has a whole lot of legal implications from benefits such as access to social security, housing benefits, insurance, property rights, as well as medicare coverage. And this can have a damaging effect on LGBT people. So this is not a matter of the Supreme Court ruling on an issue and barring the Church from expressing their point of view. This is a matter of gay and lesbian couples being able to have access to something they were denied, which has affected them and their families in a negative way. Thirdly....on the issue of the term "bigot". I am to be honest much more worried about the demonization of LGBT people in Church spaces and communities where they are held up as pariahs and demeaned in a negative way. When an LGBT person expresses their opinion that they think Church people hold "bigoted" opinions, that is an oppressed person speaking out on their experiences. When a Church official however expresses their opinions in negative fashions about the LGBT community that is prejudice plus power being applied. Anyways, sorry for such a long comment because I am fairly passionate on this issue. And despite my disagreement here I do still watch your videos a lot and have a lot of admiration for you as a priest. And I have a whole lot of respect for the Catholic Church as an institution that bears witness to Christ. So God bless you Father and good luck on your Pivotal Players series :)
JANHOI MCCALLUM Surely you jest. The silencing of Catholics is already occurring. We live in a nation where the right to practice our beliefs is protected but in practicing those beliefs we lose jobs, are called bigots for so-called discrimination exhibted toward an event rather than a person (as in other situations of discrimination), are disabled from having community organizations that are built by the Church, manned by Catholics and yet cannot live our faith, and are essentially told "keep it inside the church and inside your homes." For you to have your views respected, you need to have the ability to respect our beliefs, also. One at the expense of the other results in a nation that is far from free for all.
***** And surely you jest in kind, at the fact that some people speak about wanting "tolerance" in speaking on an issue, but use their power and influence to fight against things like Anti Discrimination protections for LGBT people in the workplace , that fight against LGBT protections in all other spheres of life from Anti Hate Crime Laws, fight against their right to adoption like all other couples, etc. On the issue of LGBT rights it is not the Church being persecuted here. The people being persecuted here are the LGBT community who have had their rights stripped and have been oppressed. I know personally of Queer and Trans youth who have been kicked out of both their Churches and homes have to go on scraps in the streets specifically because of Church teaching. And yet some how.....the Church is the one being persecuted in this instance? I consider myself a devout Christian and I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Catholic Church(even though I am not Catholic) and even defend Catholicism fiercely from much criticism when I can. But on this issue the Churches are in the wrong. And it is not different from when Churches used their theology to uphold segregation in the South and lamented the decline of the wider culture when those Anti Miscegenation laws where struck down. It is no different from when Bible Believing people from many denominations used passages of scripture to uphold slavery by quoting St Paul's injunction in Ephesians that slaves should submit to their masters(Ephesians 6:5). Being called a "bigot" for utilizing prejudice and power to marginalize a group of people is no where near as close as being called an "abomination" at the pulpit and then having that translate into attitudes that have you ostracized, isolated, and rejected to the point where you want to commit suicide or where you are literally the target of murder in the case of Trans Youth. I don't see a high suicide rate for Catholics or Christians in the mainstream simply for holding their views. But I do see a high suicide and murder rate for LGBT youth who are the victims of a cultural environment that fosters hatred towards them for so long. And if we truly follow a Christ that says we are to stand for the least of these(Matthew 25:31-45) and (though I am not Catholic myself) if you believe in the Catechism of the Catholic Church's call that LGBT people should be treated with dignity and respect then certainly that has to result in empathizing with their struggle.
JANHOI MCCALLUM You know, friend, I sincerely hope you're right about this, but I'm not nearly as confident as you are that there will be no aggression against the Church because of this decision. Already, lots of people are poised to test the Church's practices of hiring and firing in the courts. And several high-placed people have talked about removing our tax-exempt status.
Testing hiring and firing would not be persecution. For one, even if within the Church's belief system homosexuality is an "objective disorder" - that's no excuse for denying them employment, especially paid employment. Even if your goal was to deter them from practicing a gay-lifestyle (which I hope is on the wane) - do you really think legally sanctioned exclusion is a "loving and neighbourly" way to go about that? It's perfectly acceptable for the Church to regulate its own definition of marriage, and to not have its beliefs dictated by the secular state, but if you think Indiana style RFRA is acceptable, or indicative of the measures taken to not persecute the church, then the Church deserves to be dragged through the courts. People made the same arguments 50 years ago about being able to hire and fire black people.
Vincent Fitzpatrick No - I'm not smearing the Church's beliefs, I'm telling you that it is persecution to deny someone employment on religious grounds, persecution of gay people, it is not persecution to force the church not to use race, sexulaity etc, as grounds for hiring people. Denying people employment is "hateful" and cruel. People made the same arguments for excluding black people 50 years ago. What the Church does in its own sanctuaries is fine - but we cannot afford a relativistic "live your way, I live my way" attitude. The Church must join the public discussion and not ask for special treatment when its actions affect real people. You deny someone a job for being gay, you deserve to be fined and go to jail. I also happen to be a Catholic - I'm not a secularist.
Hearing you speak is amazing, Fr. Finding answers to certain prayers. Most of the things you speak of in these videos, I've longed to hear. Thank you. May God continue to bless you and the Word on Fire team. Amen
While not Catholic myself, I am appreciative to all those who stood and fell in Christ's service and kept the gospel alive throughout history. I am also grateful, especially for learned Catholics, like Fr. Baron, who can place our time in an intellectual history and context. It seems to me this uber-aggressive secularism can only be defeated one heart and mind at a time. Whether it is the Protestant, Mormon missionary, Catholic, etc. the more people who can find Christ's love and acknowledge God's great work in our lives the weaker hold the religion of secularism will have on the culture. Then we can discuss doctrine and explore differences (which I LOVE to do). Until then, let's "evangelize the culture" together! :)
I love fr Barron's posts. I think if you come on here and just bash without any knowledge of what he is saying, you need to either say nothing or actually dig deep and really study Christianity, or get into a Bible study of some sort. So many people come on here and shout stupid superficial garbage. Its tiring.
Thank you Father Barron. You're a great teacher, and you have explained fairly clearly, I think, what I've been feeling. And what a great approach to use these beautiful garments of popes past who have stood up to persecution. We are still standing, yes?
Fr B, I share your concerns. When we were kids it was common to hear folks say "I disagree with what you say but I defend your right to say it". That ethos has now become rare. Today one is either politically correct or is condemned for thought crime. If the majority of Americans favor gay marriage then so be it. The bigger issue imho is that if a minority can create a "right" out of thin air then how long before they can disappear rights into thin air?
Tin Man Please name a single instance in modern American life in which someone has, with the full support of the law and the criminal justice system, been silenced and punished for committing a "thought crime." You can't do it, because it hasn't happened. Please, lighten up on the hyperbole, would you? Just because most people disagree with you doesn't make you a victim.
***** Most people disagree with me? How so? Do they disagree that people prominent in politics, business and media feel intimidated into pandering to LGBT politics lest they become targets of jihad? That's what I mean by thought crime - I use the term in the sense of George Orwell's "1984". Another example: At this moment the Yahoo home page is showing this headline "George Takei Calls Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas ‘Clown in Blackface’". Takei's entitled to his viewpoint but in any other context that'd be considered a racist remark. I don't doubt that Takei will be applauded by those who worship at rainbow altar. I don't give a fig about gay marriage per se, my comment is strictly about the thuggish political tactics of those promoting it.
Tin Man - The marriage right wasn't created out of thin air, it already existed for the majority of the population... The 1-3% of the population who self identify as homosexual were being left out; this correction grants equal protection under the law for all! Homosexuals have been granted the SAME rights as heterosexuals; nothing new here, it's just applied and protected for a minority that has been traditional persecuted for their sexual orientation.
Tin Man Perhaps I did not express myself clearly, so let me try again. In your original comment, you said -- and I paraphrase in order to make sure I understand you correctly -- that people who do not believe that same-sex marriage is truly marriage, and who believe it should not exist in civil law, and who state those beliefs openly, are treated the same way that those who commit thought crimes are treated in the book 1984. In that book, people who commit thought crimes are subject to extremely severe legal penalties. Moreover, you say, they are victims of jihad. By jihad I assume you mean they are subjected to extreme violence and/or death by the thought police. Is that an accurate statement of your position? If so, I believe it does not reflect reality; it is a delusion. If you think I'm wrong, please tell me about an instance when someone who fails to "pander to LGBT politics" has been arrested, charged with a "thought crime," jailed, flogged, or killed. I don't think you can do it. Therefore I think you are engaging in useless hyperbole. I think what you really mean is that these people receive criticism in public that is often very harsh. Sometimes they lose business. Sometimes they may even lose a job. None of these things can reasonably be compared to the actions of the thought police in 1984 or the jihadis in ISIS. There now. Is that clear enough for you?
Bit Phreak Marriage isn't new but gay marriage is relatively new - at least in mainstream western culture. Believe it or not there's people alive today who remember when "gay" meant cheerful, and homosexual marriage was an idea that almost nobody had heard of. This doesn't necessarily make gay marriage a bad thing, some changes are good, but I'm sorry to see decent people characterized as wicked, hateful, discriminatory, bigots just because they favor keeping marriage what it's been for nearly all of recorded history. That's all I'm saying.
With all due respect, Bishop is not explaining what’s the solution for a single gay person other than “take the cross” and follow Jesus which is not applicable for straight people. They need some sort of support system. Church repeatedly fails to acknowledge that!
Take comfort in one thing, the church has gone through a lot of things and was left standing, but it has not gone through 25% of the population having no religion. Let's see what happens
the leaders of churches are shaking because they know that the church is being wrenched from their grip and put back in the hands of those who just want to serve god without all the drama. the emperor is naked.
The good Lord has brought me and my husband a same sex attracted neighbor. By providence I have been cooking him dinner once a week and showing him Christs love. I don’t know if he knows if I am Catholic but I pray for him as I make the food. We never know how our Lord is using us to reach the suffering. May the good Lord be with you all ❤.
Yes, I do feel beleaguered by this issue and afraid. In fact, the accusations of bigotry have already started in my own parish. Last Sunday, during Mass, one of our parishioners, who apparently lives a gay lifestyle, started shouting and heckling our visiting priest during his homily because he addressed the gay marriage issue! What are we supposed to do in a situation like that?! During Mass!! I am just shocked by this behavior.
God created people male and female and told them to be fruitful and multiply, marriage needs to be open to procreation, as a covenant and sacrament. The church opposes sex outside of marriage in any form. While there is nothing wrong with loving people- sexuality is intended for marriage and open to procreation. Science backs this up. God intended procreation through man and woman.
@@ellenbaker9826 "God created people male and female and told them to be fruitful and multiply" He didn't tell "people", he told Adam and Eve, of which I hope you are neither. "marriage needs to be open to procreation," Jesus never says this, scripture never says this. If Jesus was the perfect man with no children there is no reason that a church run by celibate men should be critical of other people's lack of procreation. "The church opposes sex outside of marriage in any form." This is completely true, the Catholic church does oppose sex outside of marriage in any form. But scripture sure doesn't. Pre-marital sex is never condemned in scripture. "While there is nothing wrong with loving people- sexuality is intended for marriage and open to procreation. " According to you, not to Jesus, scripture or any other reliable source. "Science backs this up." I can guarantee that not only does science no "back up" your subjective moral views on marriage, but that such a thing is impossible.
@@Grokford You are correct that the Church doesn’t require people to marry or have children. The Bible, Jesus, and the Church allow for celibacy. If you don’t want kids- don’t have sex. If you don’t want to cherish and respect a person forever, don’t sleep with them. Pretty simple. An end to abortion and STD’s, and broken hearts all in one go! God’s commands to Adam and Eve (literally translated “man and woman”) applies to humanity, verified by Jesus himself when he discusses marriage in Matthew 19:4 as when God created man male and female he commanded them to marry. You aren’t very familiar with scripture if you feel that premarital sex or homosexuality are allowed biblically. In the OT you could be killed for either. The NT condemns it frequently, as in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” As far as contraception, the first instance of it mentioned in the Bible is Genesis 38:7-10, when Onan spills his seed upon the ground and is struck dead by God for his sin. The story of his wife, Tamar, goes further when her next husband refuses to sleep with her and she seduces him with the goal of conceiving, and is seen to be in the right despite her subterfuge as she was entitled to children. There are other discussions, such as David sleeping with another man’s wife- his sin is made clear by the conception of the child. Obviously his goal wasn’t to impregnate her, but the child’s death is his punishment. The loss of the child conceived is the hardest part for him in the ordeal. As far as science goes- sex is for procreation. That’s the biological goal as any biology book will tell you. Try living on a farm lol… Religion aside, morally women are degraded when sex is seen just as a toy, rather than part of the family and natural order. Birth control is one of the top causes of cancer throughout the world according to the WHO. STD’s are increasing and people are dying due to using their bodies as toys. Abortion and divorce are skyrocketing. Families are broken and wounded. The Church’s laws for marriage empower both men and women, and strengthen love with the meaning God intended. God is Truth, God is Love, and the Church is Christs body, without error, her teachings proclaim God’s majestic plan for life, love, and eternity.
Very great video. Very valid points and concerns. The solution that you offer is perfect. A positive yet aggressive stance on these issues is what we need right now. The concerns presented are genuinely real and I'm definitely gonna be posting videos about them in the future (am currently working on a video about the Church's logic behind the gay marriage thing). Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge with us all. God bless you! :)
"Damn, I wonder what it would be like to be ostracized and potentially be in physical danger for who you are and what you believe in," I, a gay woman, say as I look up how accessible conversion camp websites are to my Catholic parents
I find it a bit odd that you would compare Napoleon's aggressive war campaign to the expansion of civil rights in the United States. In what way is the invasion onto foreign territories anything like legally acknowledging a couple's right to marry?
***** And what, Hitler is comparable to the expansion of civil rights because he was known for his breaking down of gender roles? AIDS was caused by mothers not breast feeding? What sense are you making?!
***** Women stopped breast-feeding in the 1960s? Wow, I never realized that. By the way, you seem to have a kind of...thing about "suckling"; you may want to see somebody about that. Finally, you *do* realize that heterosexual people can contract AIDs, right? Oh, and could you provide some direct examples of how recognizing marriage rights for LGBT people compares to the actions taken by Adolph Hitler? I'm in the mood for a laugh...
Hello Father Barron. Still in Mundelein? What a great place Mundelein is, full of trees, deer, beautiful lakes and lochs, and of course, devout Catholics! Your commentary was very interesting. However, I believe that the fear of persecution is unwarranted. The Supreme Court decision was in regard to civil marriage. Perhaps the solution would be to totally separate the two types of marriage, as I believe that some European countries do. That way, nobody would have to do something that they don't want to do. I understand that there are certain premises in Catholic theology that make reconciling "God's law" and "Man's law" difficult. However, the Church lives in a pluralistic country in a pluralistic world. The greatest threat to the Church, I think, comes when it tries to force its own theology on others - particularly when to do so means denying, limiting or eliminating personal freedom when such personal freedom does not represent a denial, limitation or elimination of someone else's "rights." Many of us see the unfairness and the cruelty of the Church's teaching in regard to its persecution of homosexuals and have left the Church as a matter of conscience. To us, there are foundational principles that the Church is ignoring in order to protect certain theological claims for which it has no evidence or justification. We realize that the Church cannot very well admit the possibility of error on any matter, when to do so would cause people to doubt its teachings. People want certainty, and the Church has been the preeminent purveyor of certainty, if nothing else. The Church cannot afford to admit that it does not know what it does not know. But this is true of most religious organizations in this country, of course, that state "This is the Truth!" or "That is the Truth!" There is very little humility and next to no honesty. Such organizations can flourish nonetheless in a pluralistic society, provided they do not try to impose its questionable dogmas as law on the people. People are not nearly as against the churches as the churches are against the people. It is a shame that there has been such a betrayal. It was the great Cardinal Mundelein himself who wrote: "The trouble with us in the past is that we were too often drawn into an alliance with the wrong side" (address to the Holy Name Society, January 2, 1938). Perhaps you should have that quote engraved on a door somewhere on those beautiful seminary grounds - as a reminder.
“We are still standing” --- That phrase is rather smug, isn’t? Your Grace? And what about Separation between Church and State? I am British, and we have that in our country.
Lord Paragon Nope. Not since 2011 And Charles will get even less power than her Mom. www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/queen-elizabeth-parliament.html/ foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/18/whats-stopping-queen-elizabeth-from-seizing-power/ www.quora.com/British-Monarchy-Can-British-Queen-dissolve-the-UK-Parliament Do keep up with the changing of time. After all, that’s what enable the British Monarch to survive, and the Catholic Church to lose its relevancy.
Lord Paragon You are right. But only in theory, and only in England. After all, that was why the Princess Royal re-married in Scotland. --- Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, all in theory can separate themselves from England with a referendum.
Lord Paragon I think the correct term is the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain. Hence the formal name: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. --- Everywhere other than in England there is a formal separation between State and Religion. So if you are a U.K. Citizen, holding a U.K. passport living in London, but not a member of the Church of England, (like me) the Church of England absolutely has nothing to say regarding my private matter. -- when the Queen attending Church services in Scotland; Her Majesty does so as an ordinary member, not as the Supreme Leader and Defender of the Church (a title that was, ironically, given to Henry VIII by the Pope....).
I'm rather disappointed, Bishop Barron didn't offer any reasoning as to why same sex marriage should be illegal, or why heterosexual relationships are better. His lack of arguments leads me to believe that Catholicism is actually fine with same-sex marriage, or at the very least he doesn't feel confident in uploading such arguments onto RU-vid.
@Kevin Wood Okay, but I wanted to know *why* the Catholic Church isn't in favor of gay marriage, preferably with references to scripture for their reasoning. The only scripture I can think of that says anything against gay relationships is from Leviticus, and the modern church doesn't follow half of the rules laid out in Leviticus...
it's not the subject of the video, and it's pretty clearly delineated in the Catechism and in his other videos. the Catholic Church considers "same sex marriage" an oxymoron. it's contrary to God's law and to natural law. but that's a brute fact. this video is about something far more sophisticated, that is, the attack on an individual's right to hold to objective moral principles in the face of a growing consensus for self-determined morality.
The Catholic Church teaches to save sex for your spouse. It does so because we believe sex is sacred and shouldn’t be taken lightly. We see what free sex does to a society from STD’s,unwanted children, and abortion. Having high morals is not a negative the Church is not a prude. We are taught that their are other ways to intimacy other than sex. I grew up growing to a Catholic school and Church so I know. You would be surprised how the Church goes out if their way to support woman who have children out of wedlock and cannot support themselves. Living by such strict standards isn’t easy...there are plenty of Catholic kids having families out of wedlock, have had abortions, etc..We are all sinners. The churches stance on these matters try’s to impress upon its children what Jesus would have us do.
The spirit of liberty for all, in a society that affords "persons" fundamental protections, all people must have equal freedom in law, including the right to marry. Homosexuals aren't asking for rights that go beyond the existing rights heterosexuals enjoy; and treating them like second class citizens in terms of marriage isn't much different than notions of segregation. It might 'offend' you, but in a free society it is one's duty to be offended from time to time.
Bit Phreak That's a nice mix of nonsense and hypocrisy. You say " It might 'offend' you, but in a free society it is one's duty to be offended from time to time.", still those who advocate against same-sex marriage are clearly persecuted, ridiculed and violently attacked for their opinion. It's funny how it's "ok to offend" only when you disagree with the people who are offended. One could say a lot about the TOTALITARIAN nature of so called "libertarians". Second there is NO EQUALITY. No matted how much the LGBT lobbies preach it's "marriage equality"... it is not. If you take a close look to their arguments they fall apart like an house of cards and are quite ridiculous as philosopher Edward Feser also points out: @2015 Claiming that gay marriage is equal to REAL marriage and denying it is "segregation" or "discrimination" is like saying it is discrimination that blind people cannot drive cars or fly planes.Gay marriage is not marriage at all and the redefinition of marriage as it stands now, makes no sense, since one could hen claim it is discrimination he cannot marry a kid, or an animal or an inanimate object (after all you just need to change a few words and voilá, marriage is arbitrarily redefined)... actually there are already lobbies pushing for legalization of such things as well. In the end if marriage is just some loose legal binding based on "feelings and urges", with no Natural (as in Natural Law) and Biological basis, than it has no meaning in the first place. Another big lie is that gay marriage is akin to "civil rights movement"... which is offensive to people who were TRULY oppressed in the past and had good reason to call for a revolution. Last but not least, liberty does not entail immorality. There are those that in the name of liberty call out for legalized pefophilia (like NAMBLA and similar groups) or legalized sex with animals... and their arguments are the exact same as those of the LGBT groups. Just because the media helped people become blind to the immorality of homosexual behavior it does not make it just, like it want make pedophilia or bestiality just in the event (which I hope will never occur) these two behaviors might become "socially acceptable" SCOTUS ruling has clearly made George Orwell a prophet. In the ruling "1984" becomes a reality, except that "IngSoc" is replaces by LGBT-agendas and their equally absurd and totalitarian doctrine. Big Brother will perhaps not watch us... but might do something worse. === Last I would add that the argument against gay marriage does not have to be religeous at all. Aristotle and Plato were not Christians, but they had pretty solid arguments against homosexuality. In this context one does not need to invoke Divine Law, the Bible (or other sacred text). Natural Law theory, which is philosophical and not religeous, more than suffices (although Natural Law theory is not the only one).
Entropy3ko tldr; ...homosexuals don't want special rights, they want the same rights... you're the one throwing strawman arguments around... This has NOTHING to do with pedophilia, or polygamy or bestiality. All of those connections are in your head, and not actual real issues. Stick with the simple program of equal rights for all... Unreal, and irrational!
Entropy3ko - being offended by someone else's marriage is like me being angry at you for eating ice cream and pizza because I'm on a diet. There is no reasonable or rational grounds to treat homosexuals differently when it comes to marriage. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a homosexual. Beyond that, a marriage between two other people is none of your business!
Entropy3ko - "Another big lie is that gay marriage is akin to "civil rights movement"... which is offensive to people who were TRULY oppressed in the past and had good reason to call for a revolution." UNBELIEVABLE! Maybe you should pack up your computer and toss it in the trash because Alan Turning, a homosexual, had a key part to play in modern computing... ...and if you knew anything about the history of homosexuality you would also know he was driven to suicide by people like you who not only denied him the right to live his life as a homosexual, but forced him to accept chemical castration or incarceration... ...and you dare to suggest that homosexuals haven't been oppressed, especially by religious ideology. ISIS is throwing homosexuals off buildings! ...and the Catholic Church is treating them like 2nd class citizens! *place your head back in the sand*
"Maybe you should pack up your computer and toss it in the trash because Alan Turning, a homosexual, had a key part to play in modern computing..." Nonsense argument. Just because Turing contributed to the creation of the modern computer it does not mean that using it is an appoval of his lifestyle. Some pioneers in semiconductor physics and electronics were Nazi simpathizers as well and several scientists had (and have!) some very questionable lives. This does not mean that what they discovered is in itself evil or immoral or that by using a certain tech one endorses necessarily a certain view. Several medical treatments we have today are also based on reseach that was ethically abhorrent (such as some Nazi or Japanese studies during WWII) too, this does not mean we should not used them to save lives, too. Science and technology themselves do not have political agendas and work independently from personal beliefs of those who made the discoveries. It does not matter if a person who discovered a scientific fact or created and invention was a saint or Adolf Hitler's evil twin, such things exist independently from their discoverers/creators and can be used morally without endorsing the original creators ideology. ----- "and if you knew anything about the history of homosexuality you would also know he was driven to suicide by people like you who not only denied him the right to live his life as a homosexual, but forced him to accept chemical castration or incarceration..." I never said they should be forced to go into heterosexual marriage or be castrated or imprisoned. Just because one condemns certain ACTS it does not mean he condemns the whole person. Just because a certain "demand" is denied it does not mean that those who demand it should be destroyed or punished. A person is not only defined by its sexual orientation as you seem to think. An homosexual person can be a good person, this does not make homosexual acts (which are not the same as "persons") morally acceptable. A cleptomaniac can be a good person too, this does not mean stealing is good. BTW the same can be claimed by pedophiles and those who support bestiality. If (God forbid!!!) such things become legal (which is not so crazy seen some recent developments and the fact that in some European countries bestiality is already legal..) then they will also say that "the evil man in the past oppressed them and prohibited them to live their life". You are just basing yourself on a relativistic morality which is arbitrary, hence pointless. Hence victims become criminals and viceversa, just on a temporary fad, that way. --- "and you dare to suggest that homosexuals haven't been oppressed, especially by religious ideology." Many people have been oppressed. Some for other things than immoral behavior or disordered tendencies. People are being oppressed today. for holding fa nobler ideas. --- "ISIS is throwing homosexuals off buildings!" ISIS is also killing Christians and Muslims who do not agree with them. Also I never said we should kill homosexuals, nor said we should use verbal or physical violence against them. You are just making it up yourself. Mentioning ISIS is not reinforcing your arguments since I have not even hinted what you are attacking. which is nothing more than a strawman --- "...and the Catholic Church is treating them like 2nd class citizens! place your head back in the sand " Nope. Clearly you are ignorant regarding the views of the Church towards homosexual. Homosexuals have the same dignities and rights as any other person in the Church. They are not considered less human or less capable to be good Christians. They are called to live morally just as any other person. Maybe you should read what the church actually SAYS instead of basing yourself on anti-catholic propaganda. I think YOU discriminate them more than the Church, since the Church sees thems as people you see only their sexual orientation. While the Church condemns SOME acts, you are fixated by them as if a person is defined only by animal urges. The person who has his head in the sand is you, I think, since you are making nonsense arguments.
What part of equal justice under the law do you not understand? Marriage equality is about civil marriage. No one in is invading your realm. Dignity was shown the door. Church weddings are for those of the church. Annulments are done. Divorce is not recognized. Catholic politicians can be excommunicated over political stances and votes. The laity are expected to vote for the candidate most anti abortion. You are safe to self determinate. The church is free to see me and my ilk as intrinsically disordered. But you'll meet resistance when you deny my right to be in the civil space. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Floor Encer Sadly, these folks think that treating gay people as equals is the same thing as making Catholics victims. It's just self-pity because they can't maintain their chosen victims as victims in society at large any more.
Dear Fr. Barron, I cannot agree more that it is the Church's responsibility to guide its members to perfection. If you were to meet a married lesbian couple I assisted with one of their three adopted disabled children, who devote their lives to living Christian values, you might be hard pressed to convince them that their 'golf swing' was anything but perfect. There's the rub. As long as Catholicism remains exclusive, its attempts at true evangelism fail. I know in my own life, having had a conversion almost a year ago, as a single divorced woman in my early 60's, seeking spiritual direction has resulted in considerable rejection and failure. I will never be included in the 'club' of worthy Catholics. However, I have received much guidance from your sermons and the Catholicism series. You are truly blessed.
Father, I am not a Catholic or even a Christian, but I watch and enjoy your videos because of the level-headed and rational approach you take to religion and the issues of the day. Unfortunately I don't think this video is up to the level of quality of those past. To present the bloody history of the French Revolution and Stalin alongside the gay marriage decision comes off as desperate and hysterical. It's this sort of overwrought argument that leads people to progressively tune Catholics and other Christians out, even on issues where their perspective does a lot of good-- such as the Pope's recent environmental encyclical.
***** - just so I'm clear, we're calling the granting of existing marriage rights for heterosexuals to homosexuals as "aggression by the state"? Maybe that should be re-characterized as facilitation by the state to uphold the same rights for homosexual PERSONS are afforded heterosexual PERSONS? I think that is more in the spirit of The Constitution, with all the 'biased' language and characterizations around individual liberty.
Kevin Rilott that’s because gay people had/have a higher likelihood of AIDS, with historically fewer people who cares about it, dumbass. It’s not their fault. Being gay doesn’t lower your life expectancy. Getting AIDS does. If you are gay and take the proper measures to prevent AIDS (condoms, ect), you will be fine.
It think the church should "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" If the church refuses to marry homosexuals then don't marry them, but that doesn't mean that they should interfere in the affairs of the state. I don't remember any passage in the bible where Jesus makes a political statement.
I see the point Fr Barron is making is that the congregation is a little nervous about Government pushing that church out of the Picture and fr Barron says no fear we have been here before up and down the centuries .
I don't think I've heard the Catholic point of view on this put more eloquently than you have here Bishop. You just absolutely hit the nail on the head.
How can you say failing to distinguish between marriage as a sacrament and marriage as a civil covenant "hits the nail on the head". This distinction is fundamental to the Bishop's argument - failure to acknowledge it is either wilful or just plain ignorant.
Explain to me how two people, who love each other and support one another, and who want to devote themselves to each other is a bad thing? If God doesn’t want gay people, then why did he make them gay?
I would like to add that as far as having a strategy where we are trying to have an open and honest dialogue with the opposition such as the gay community and liberals in order to possibly persuade them as to our reasonings has a chance of success as that of a snowball on the surface of the sun. It has been my personal experience that any discussion, even with the best intentions and plans for inclusion, that even remotely suggests a disagreement with a liberal belief will be met with not only a strong disagreement but with verbal abuse.
By your argument, those that sincerely believe segregation should be reimposed in schools, mustn't be described as bigots with an 'irrational prejudice,' because to do so cuts off rational argument.
sohobod indeed! ...and he goes a step further, suggesting there is something wrong with characterizing this issue in terms of human and equal rights?!?!
Michael R As homosexuality has become more accepted in society, and gay people have come out more, the argument that one chooses one's sexuality is believed by a dwindling number of people. Ten years ago, far fewer people knew someone who was gay. They do now, and they talk to them, and they know that their cousin/brother/school friend/work mate/boss/gardener did not simply decide one day that they were gay. You appear to be in the other camp. For people like you, it simply can't be a choice, because if that were the case the whole foundation of your bigotry would give way. Your lumping gays in with pedophiles and serial killers etc is counterproductive to your cause because - as I said - more and more people now either personally know someone who is gay, and knows that that talk is just silly.
That's not the same thing. Homosexuality is within the mind. Race is not. For example, there's a man that's a heterosexual.. later in life he says no I'm a homosexual. This same man could then say he's a heterosexual again and that's how he'd be perceived. His behavior and words can change his sexuality; at least to an extent, I'm sure there are people who are more inclined to homosexuality from a very young age. Words and actions will never change your skin color however.
@@MrSmellySmell Listen, genius. The point is that like race, sexual orientation is innate not chosen. Now there are people who are bi-sexual so at different points in life they can choose one path or the other, as Michael Voris did (actually he enjoyed BOTH paths in his life). But most of us have an innate sexual orientation. If this seems bizarre to you, stop looking to Medieval philosophy in the Catholic Church and read a basic human sexuality 101 text book.
@@ArizonaWillful And what is the primary component of proof backing the modern concensus about that anyway? Who says that the broad strokes we paint with human sexuality in the current social definitions are even anything more than cultural and social constructs? Biologically speaking, traits involving attraction aim towards certain corresponding traits in the partner. However, there is no system that alters overall attractiveness by gender as it makes no sense evolutionarily for such an option to exist as it makes genetic dead-ends and lowers overall fitness of any sexual species that possess it. Now there are traits that influence how one goes about developing in one's sexuality, but the results are never set in stone. Human sexuality even on the most fundamental level is the result of hundreds of traits, ranging from the basic sex hormones, to metabolic fsctors, to neural connection and rewiring regulators, and even genetic expression regulatory complexes. As a result of the complexity of the mechanics involved, the body's response is shaped over time by earlier life events, past and present emotional responses to stimuli, goals and expectations of the person on what is acceptable, right, and allowed and the current situational environment. The body is concerned with functioning, but what it does in terms of sexuality is ultimately based upon the direction we steer it and we in turn are highly influenced by our social and cultural environment. Thus it is my contention that it is not innate but based upon life events, nurture, not nature primarily though factors may sway one to more likely associate with one option or another. One can choose however if one truly wanted to. The sheer number of variants that has resulted from putting a blank space socially there is evidence of this, were it innate, it would fall into fewer clades. Evolutionarily the only one with any worth is, one male x one female, as this is the only one that can create offspring naturally. From nature's reckoning everything else is a wasted effort since no genes are passed to the next generation. In conclusion, sexual orientation is not definef by biological factors in the organism, but by social and cultural factors, what works however is defined by the basic evolutionary and hereditary mechanisms. Thus we have the free will and capacity to choose what we want, but the correct model has been defined for us. This supports the position of the Church, that God has an intended order for human sexuality, something also backed by the ubiquity of heterosexual monogamous relationships across human cultures and history, and of course in Sacred Scripture.
If people think that claiming homosexuality is a sin and discouraging homosexuals from having relationships is an irrational practice, that's because it is.
Subject matter aside - I love the Monty Python-esque appearance and 'slipping away' of the historical figure's pictures...I was like "Did Pope Pius VI just...exit downstage?..." unintentionally comical...I think it should be a regular feature of any WOF video where historical matters/figures are discussed!
aopc cpoa Haha thanks! I edited this video, it's the first video I've done for WordonFire...glad to hear the main change I did from their past editing template worked!
aopc cpoa I liked that Fr. Barron stayed on screen more while he was talking about historical figures. The Sistine Chapel was definitely worth full screen, but some historical figures are not very pretty to look at... I also loved being able to see all six martyrs lined up along the bottom as Fr. Barron mentioned them, that helped me relate to those saints. It was also very effective to have Cardinal George's quote printed on the screen towards the end.
i was raised entirely secularly, but i've recently become quite interested in catholocism and christianity, including attending church services. i also happen to have been engaged in several same-sex relationships. from my sight, marriage has many different meanings. in the united states, marriage is a legal contract between two people. catholics have a definition that includes marriage distinctly being a man and a woman. i would argue that any legal marriage should be acceptable by the US government between two consenting adults as a matter of government dictated right. the catholic church should be allowed to say, "in our church, we do not recognize that marriage between two men or two women because of our faith."
Remaining "in" the world but not "of" the world is the biggest Christian challenge in all eras & ages. As a Christian-Catholic & as an American, my rule of thumb is "charity toward all & malice toward none."
Actually, it was not Pope Pius VII who said the famous line to Napoleon, but his secretary of state, Cardinal Ercole Consalvi. But it's still a great line!
Got sucked down a RU-vid rabbit hole with one of your videos, I disagree with nearly everything you say but do enjoy your arguments. I can assure you as a gay atheist, we will not treat you Catholics the same way we have been and currently are treated around the world. I will stand for your right to believe and practice your faith because it also protects my right to believe and practice my lack of faith.
I'm not sure why people claim that being against gay marriage makes you a bigot. Saying that "an apple is an apple" makes you bigoted and hateful? And, saying that "an apple can be an orange" is somehow tolerant and loving?
Same sex marriage may or may not change America in the future. It will take maybe a generation or more to see the outcome for society. For now we will just live with it. I hope it doesn't lead to religious persecution or more unrest in America.
@@BishopBarron I prefer facts as Catholics are skilled at casuistry. You would negate my life, my gay identity, and smile when you're done. And don't patronize me by calling me "friend." I would never be friends with a person like you.
Well said Fr. Barron. This is exactly how I, personally, feel about secularism. They will come for us also in our private lives. It hasn't happened in the US, yet, but take a look at France, where religion was banned even from schools, or in Mexico, where churches were shut down by a jacobin government back during the Cristero's war. They say, hipocritically, "no, we are for rights and your religious right will also be respected," but we all know it's hypocrisy, that when they become strong enough they will try to bully us. Sometimes I wonder, and this is one of my biggest concerns, if politics corrupts us. I keep telling myself that God cannot be defeated. It is impossible to finally defeat the word of God, so no matter how powerful they are, we will always come out victorious even if it takes centuries. But it's difficult to accept that. Politics is a temptation, the desire to run for office and make a difference according to our standars. But maybe we should drop that idea. We are stringer when we are not political.
And all your hyperbole and total nonsense is the result of 2 gay men getting married in a civil ceremony that you do not even know about? All this hysteria over THAT?
It wasn't about discovery of rights, rather it's the problem that those arguing against allowing same sex marriages have not met their burden of proof to show that denying people this freedom is justified. I'll grant you the right to hold the view that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that you cannot be forced to change that view; however, I do not grant that you can impose your view on the rest of society, or that society doesn't have the right to think less of you for such a view. If two people wish to be married, and that marriage does not, in any way harm you, who are you to say no to such a thing. In order to deny somebody freedom (in this case, the freedom to marry another consenting person), one must show that there is a good reason to justify that denial. Like the claim that your God exists, the arguments against same sex marriage have not met their burden of proof.
there is an interesting thibg about, that when you stance with strong arguments, they fight for a while and then they move away or does not continue arguing anymore, so we have to stand firm and argue with the base cause thats were they are attacking.
Great video!! Have you ever heard of Regina Magazine? They are supposedly a Catholic magazine but they are always posting vague articles about how different priests and bishops are destroying the church. They did one on you. They took a video of yours where you talk about Luther as an interesting historical figure. They said you were favoring Protestantism. I tried to defend you in the comments but they blocked me.
Dear Bishop Barron, your videos and their attention to history, doctrine, entertainment and fine argument make a powerful combination. I have enjoyed them greatly. I don't, however, think that your soft, carefully poised and chosen words accurately reflect the Church's true opinion of people like me. Indeed, your words do little more than paper over the very real harm the Church has caused--and continues to cause--in what is really war against people like me; against our right to live in the sun like anyone else. Needless to say, the Church has said a lot about the LGBT community--far more than the Bible ever did. Very little of it is nice. So it is difficult to read the Church's opposition to marriage equality as stemming from a true pastoral concern when almost none of the language that the Church uses is really Christ-like. (On this point I'm not contesting the First Amendment right of the whole Church and its followers to say the most horrible of things. I do, however, contest the right of the Church to co-opt the coercive power of the State, with its guns, police, and criminal code to shove people like me back into the shadows, into an underground existence where we live in fear from raids, humiliation, imprisonment, and worse.) The Church accuses gays of being part of “man’s” concerted effort “to disregard” the “nature of human being as man and woman,” the “destruction of God’s creation” born of a corrupt desire for “self-emancipation from creation and the Creator.” (Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Members of the Roman Curia for the Traditional Exchange of Christmas Greetings, 2008.) The critical assumption, of course, is that being gay somehow involves a malicious exercise of free will, which explains, presumably, why the Church bans discussion of homosexuality as “simply a facet of the human condition.” (Patsy McGarry, “Priest banned from writing” (Irish Times, Nov. 13, 2010).) (Importantly, that banned position mirrored the 1992 Catechism which acknowledged that homosexuals “do not choose their homosexual condition.") Most damaging is the Church's formal instruction that being LGBT is a “strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil.” (Cardinal Joseph A. Ratzinger, Prefect, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Oct. 1, 1986).) The Church may say homosexuals are to be treated with dignity and respect. But it is a rule swallowed by its exception of “just discrimination,” which of course, from the Church's perspective is only right because it stands in opposition to an "intrinsic moral evil." The Church, accordingly, has called for the broad and uniform exclusion of gays “for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.” (Id.) Following that logic, why not prohibitions on gay doctors, judges, and police officers? I suppose being a janitor is acceptable, so long as my mopping the floor isn't within 500 feet of a minor? No surprise then that Church has fought anti-discrimination legislation because “discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc.” only arises when gays make themselves known (or presumably are found out). (Id.) The Church even makes excuse for “violent malice” against gays as a predictable and understandable consequence of our seeking social acceptance. (Cardinal Joseph A. Ratzinger, Prefect, Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons (The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, July 22, 1992).) The Hierarchy has been quick to join in on the bashing. Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan stated that homosexuals “choose to embrace homosexuality of their own free will,” and that together with transsexuals, are an “insult to God” who “will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Nick Squires, “Pope says gay marriage is ‘insidious and dangerous’” (The Daily Telegraph, May 13, 2010).) Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski decried homosexuality as “a deviation, an irregularity, a wound.” (Nick Squires, “Vatican to use psychologists to weed out homosexual priests” (The Daily Telegraph, Oct. 31, 2008).) Worse, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, then Vatican Secretary of State, stated that “many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia,” a slur with no justification in the applicable science. (Simon Gardner, “Priest pedophilia not linked to celibacy: Pope’s No.2” (Reuters, April 12, 2010).) Archbishop Anthony Apuron of Guam even went so far, in an October 15, 2009 encyclical to his Diocese, to praise jihadists who murder gays. "Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture [because it is a culture of ‘death’ and ‘self-absorption’]. That is why they repress such behavior by death. Their culture is anything but one of self-absorption. It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice." (Archbishop Anthony Apuron, “In Bill 185 the Stakes are Very High” (Archbishopric of Agana, Guam, Oct. 15, 2009).) Pope Francis offers only rags to cover this vile language. I see nothing in what he as written or said that fundamentally disagrees with the established perspective. Rather, we are perhaps reduced to objects of pity. Needless to say his Holiness has doubled down on banning homosexual-oriented men from the priesthood, or those who "advocate for gay culture," whatever that catchall, broad-brush phrase might mean. Judge men not on what they say but what they do. When I needed the Church most, I was treated badly. My years of work for the Church, on parish council, as Eucharistic minister, donations and help with Sunday morning donuts; none of it seemed worth a damn. I was in a very dark place, and all I was offered for the most part was off-hand, pat commands and shrugged shoulders. The response I got was less than indifferent. It was hurtful and damaging. As I sank to my darkest moment, no one cared a bit. I was left to find my own way out. And eventually I did. But a lot of others don't. They don't because of suicide. They don't because they're left to swing from a tree or a gibbet. The Church whines and cries bitterly over marriage equality; unfair press; impingement on Her property and her rights and her this and her that. But for people like me? Apuron remains an Archbishop, without a hint of disapproval from Rome, when he is quite obviously an indecent and horrid man. But I and those like me sit outside on the Church step, denied the priesthood or any real place in the community of faith. Apologies for having said much. This topic is still raw for me. Probably always will. The sense of betrayal runs deep. God bless, Simon
Dear Simon - thank you so much for this measured and informative analysis. Abuse of same-sex attracted persons is against specific statements in the Catechism. Accordingly, why aren't these senior clerics disciplined? Where is Bishop Barron on this topic? Let's see.
limitattitude, your question as to "why aren't these senior clerics disciplined" is exactly right. The silence is needless to say deafening. I think this sorry result is twofold in origin. First, this result arises from the misconception of doctrine as having to speak to every facet of life, no matter how small, and to being so holistic and encompassing as to address every jot and tittle from sun-up to sun-down. Even rolling out bed becomes loaded with theological significance; an affirmation or refutation of the whole conception of Creation. I exaggerate of course. But truly, LGBT individuals fall into this logic trap. We simply can't be. And so we must perforce be some affront to Creation due to some Neo-Thomist application that would reduce the sublime to the ludicrous and base. Second, this result arises from the notion that every burp and fart of the Holy Father, regardless of time and place, is loaded with authority, Ex Cathedra. I'm sorry to be so flippant. But I don't think the current crop of theologians pays proper respect to what Infallibility means, when everything a holder of St. Peter's Patrimony has ever said or written--even before the descent of the Holy Spirit in Conclave--is now loaded with significance beyond the ken of us mere mortal human beings. Is what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in the mid-1980s, in a sordid, bigoted, and outdated understanding of LGBT persons binding on the Church, merely because he subsequently became Pope? And is his mere administrative actions, like banning homosexual men and those who "advocate for gay culture" now a binding pronouncement of Faith? Truly this wasn't the attitude of the historic Church, where Popes wisely exercised far more restraint. But in this hyperlinked age it seems, I'm sorry to say, that lessons hard-learned in history are all too casually tossed aside. The net result is a Church that is not flexible and adaptable (the great gift of Trent), but a Church that is so rigid, moribund, and bound in upon herself that she seems incapable of addressing anything on its own merits. Rather, all she can do is echo what has been said on what has been said, which seems a mockery of Tradition and the Magisterium; an echo of an echo in an echo. That surely can't what Christ intended for his Church; the vibrant reduced to the mere shadow of things. LGBT persons have become the test we never should have been. Can the Church make room for us in way that doesn't require us to hate and despise what in ourselves we know to be true, as to our own natures? Can the Church, in a reflection of God's Love, accept us as sinners no different than anyone else? The sad answer seems to be no. Somehow, the Church echoes a position all too close to double-predestination for my comfort. We are left at the door damned because of who we are. We are little more than a "strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil." Which other class of human being falls into that narrow and damning category? How can the Church's teaching and directives towards, or rather against, LGBT persons in any sense be Just, Right, Ethical or Moral? Better the dead fag than the theological conundrum? Archbishop Apuron seems quite certain as to what he'd prefer. And the silence of the Church on this point and horrid and indecent men like Apuron merely confirms the fact. "Qui tacet consentire videtur," said St. Thomas More. And so that maxim holds, "that person who is silent is seen to give consent." Those who claim Apostolic right to speak for the Church and Faith (and so by pedigree they most certainly have that right) have caused a great deal of suffering and harm in what they have said and done, and in what they have failed to say and do. Charity is sorely lacking. And many victims--real flesh and real blood--have been left in the crushing wake.
So what I'm sensing here is that it's unfair for gay promoters to say "You cannot even have an argument against gay marriage because ipso facto it's a bias". So we say that we do have an argument against gay marriage, but what? And I'm thinking that an employer should not be able to refuse to hire a gay person (in the SCOTUS judgement sense) when being gay has no impact on or relevance to the job. But SCOTUS has pronounced on being gay in the most relevant area to sexuality, which is marriage. But gay-marriage advocates set aside the societal impacts of this to focus on the civil equality issues - inheritance, right-to-visit in hospital, etc. etc. And from there we lose the perspectives on long-term societal impacts, simply because they were necessarily excluded from the SCOTUS decision, or were deemed unresolvable, or were judged to be addressable (if not resolvable) through other venues.
"I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist." -Masha Gessen (Jewish LGBT activist from Russia), at the the Sydney Writers Festival in 2012
Come on Fr. that is simple paranoia. There was no ruling that the Catholic church has to change their beliefs. What happened here is the church tried to force IT"S beliefs on our government. I went to Catholic school for 12 years, I was baptized and confirmed. I was an altar boy. I have multiple relatives who are priests and one is a Bishop. I went to church every Sunday, the first Friday of every month and every holy day of obligation. I no longer do that because in my eyes the church spends too much time ostracizing people than it does trying to be Christ-like. I personally know priests who have molested children, I've seen them grab children by the neck and slam them against the wall. I have seen nuns humiliate students for no good reason. That's not to say I have not met some absolutely wonderful priests, brothers who were missionaries and nuns but I am saddened to say they were definitely in the minority. If the church wants to survive they need to start getting back to the message of love and stop worrying talking about the evils of gay people. I know many gay people who are kind, compassionate, loving law abiding citizens. I can't wrap my head around the fact that God would rather accept these haters that torment gay people non-stop over these people who's only crime is loving another human being of the same sex. If God created Gay people to live a lonely life and only to be used as punching bags for the hateful, and don't try to tell me it's love because I am not an idiot, then I say that is not the God I believe in. Jesus's message of love and acceptance was quite clear and wonderful and it really upsets me that the church has allowed it to morph into this intolerance and hurtful crusade. By the way, I know MANY Catholics who love and support gay people and many gay couples that attend mass together every Sunday. Hopefully God can enter your heart and change the way you look at people who are different than you, that don't hurt anyone, but you don't fully understand. I will pray for you.
ronnie rodriguez The thing is, Jesus' message was love/non-condemning AND directing (conversion). He didn't throw a stone and he told sinners to sin no more. // This is what it comes down to for this issue. Marriage implies sex. Sodomite sex can never be condoned by the Church. Therefore, so called same-sex (sodomite) marriage can never be condoned by the Church no matter how nice the same-sex attracted people may be. // Re. loneliness, for goodness sake, even Fr. Barron is not married. Is he lonely? It doesn't look like marriage is *_necessary_* for fulfilling relationships. // Also, ultimately, it's about getting those we love to heaven. Gay sex and being uncharitable makes getting to heaven less likely. So, the most charitable thing is to encourage chastity and charity.
ronnie rodriguez Yeah, yeah! great that you love gays. Do mention that to God as you lecture Him on the failings of the nuns and other child molesting Catholic priests. He will want to hear from a great CATHOLIC like you!
Gerry M - www.upworthy.com/there-are-6-scriptures-about-homosexuality-in-the-bible-heres-what-they-really-say I think what the Bible says and what people want the Bible to say are often two different things....
I'm glad that there are people like you in the Church. It's at real risk of becoming a voice in the wind. The disengagement and lack of understanding between church and secular culture, especially centre-left liberalism, with which it shares a lot of values, is becoming detrimental to both sides. The church needs to understand the secular understanding of marriage that is demanded by gay-people to be a right (and they are entirely justified and deserving of said right) is one of a simple "public declaration of love" - is entirely different from the church understanding of heterosexual marriage which requires fertility, and the "theology of the body" values. The gay-rights movement is practically asking for the Church to drop its illogical "objective disorder" stance on gay-unions and allow a simple Union-ceremony in churches, not for the definition of marriage as it applies to straight couples to be changed nor the sacrament itself. Neither side knows enough about the other to reach the consensus Fr Barron claims to be after. As evidenced by the link provided by the person before me, and the scientific consensus that being gay is not a societal development but intrinsic to the person, there is no case against gays not having an objective love. If the love is objective, it, by the the Church's own teaching, must have originated from and be participatory in God. Therefore, gay-unions can be just as authored by God as straight marriage. This is a case the church should have been discussing on magisterium level long ago.
ronnie rodriguez Don't tell me you fell for that. Just because the liberal medias pushed it and changed the minds of many people doesn't mean it should be correct and accepted by the church now. The church's main job is to get you to heaven and your job is to uphold church teachings and to help others get there as well. There is no shade of gray in heaven and neither should the church. When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself. So do you still want to continue to idle by?
You are really irritating me with your use of the word "aggressive". You do with the French and the gays just what you do with atheists. People that your church has "aggressively" and often brutally oppressed finally stand up to you, and you paint them as the aggressors. That is a lie. If you want to paint Rome or the San Hedron as aggressors against the church - that's fine - they were. But your church cannot forcibly convert, torture, rule as dictators (as they did in much of Europe for centuries) and expect your victims to NOT look at your continued opposition to them having equal rights as anything other than bigotry. You just don't see it that way because you have a book, and an institution, and (you think) a god, that says this bigotry is justified. Sorry to say it, but the Nazis had a book, and institutions, and a leader that that justified their beliefs also. That didn't make them right, nor did it make the people who fought them anti-Nazi "aggressors".
Hmm... Bishop If you want to do something about it, I think you need to get underneath why and how it's happening. Evidently constantly repeating Catholic dogma hasn't succeeded, and doing so more vigorously may make things worse not better.
Listen. Here’s the deal. The ruling means that the *Federal Government* cannot deny marriage licenses to gay couples. *This does not, by any extent of the imagination, mean that all institutions associated with performing marriages are required to perform gay marriages.* Your right to discriminate based on religious reasons is not being impinged upon. You are under no obligation to like it. You don’t need to change anything about anything you do. “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”
***** The only thing businesses are forced to do is not discriminate. Flower shops will not be forced to sell 'burgers'. So don't worry about that. But if they sell 'item A' then they legally have to sell 'item A' to anyone who wants to purchase it. My, My, My! Now you've used the term 'Cannibal left'! You lose yet again! If you are personally against men marrying men then don't do it. It won't affect your marriage if someone else does. You are such a cry baby. Engage your brain! The moral police want to scare you and they have. Please think for yourself and use good arguments, empathy, and a sound understanding of human rights. (And it wouldn't hurt for you to learn something about debating ideas as your thinking is all over the place.) Good luck.
At 3:30 Fr Barron starts to express his intolerant, i.e. bigoted, opinions about how the SCOTUS decision has upheld the rights of gays to marry so now Catholics who oppose their judicial finding will be labeled intolerant. He uses the 'logical fallacy' called slippery slope to express that Catholics are afraid that 'today gay marriage is a right', tomorrow Catholic teachings will be outlawed. We've always been in a secular state. We don't live in the Christian Caliphate of America. So much fear about others getting equal rights betrays small frightened minds.
The content of Father Barron's presentation is very good (as always) but I really must cast a contrary vote re: the graphics of heads popping up and down. I think it really detracts from the serious presentation of the Catholic viewpoint. In particular, so soon after the passing of Cardinal George, I'm not ready to see a Francis George "bobble-head". God Bless you, Father!
Totally agree with Fr. Robert Barron. People don't like the others tell them what is Good and right, what is the truth, the most of them only want for the the flesh law and will never admit it, because the flesh law filled up their mind and heart. they only see the truth after this life....late of course...but lots of them will recieve the mercy of GOD. Sex, pleasure, desires... the new god!!!
I found this video looking for some insight why homosexual act (and homosexual marriage/relationship) is considered a sin according to catholic church. Does it come from tradition of considering anything "outside of marriage" as sin or is there specific justification?
As far as I can tell it’s the same thing as how they used to be with being left handed. “It’s weird, it’s different, and we don’t like it, therefore GOD HATES YOU AND YOURE GOING TO HELL AND ITS A MARK OF SATAN AND GOD HATES YOU REPENT REPENT REPENT!!!!!!!!”
Why do religious people feel threatened by the supreme court's ruling? Gay people want to love and be happy in peace. They want to be able to marry the same way everyone else is allowed. I personally don't think the government should've had to rule on this. The government shouldn't charge people to get married. You shouldn't have to have a license to get married. It's no one's business.
FUNNY, but it sends a message. Judge James DePiazza in Denton County, Texas, said that he would follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling and marry gay couples, but only if they agree to sign a waiver. The waiver reads: “While we may not necessarily agree with, we acknowledge Judge DePiazza’s position that he prefers not to conduct same-sex marriages and agree not to address the topic of same-sex marriages with Judge DePaizza before, during or after the ceremony.”
The images used to illustrate your points are well-chosen, but a bit jarring and comical in the way they're yanked out of frame. Fade-outs might be more effective. God bless.
Galatians 5 22-23 describes the fruits of the spirits. Two of which are love and joy. When I witnessed the out pouring on social media and tv showing amazing images accross the world following the court decision, I saw what I can only recognise to be love and joy (for 99% at least). There were so many people who after so many years finally feel they are equal and accepted. No longer outsiders. And so many non-LGBT people who recognise that injustice and pain who support the change. And across the world LGBT communities in countries where they are still persecuted there seemed to be a real sense of hope as the eyes were on the USA. I saw the same thing in Ireland a month earlier. In contrast I saw a lot of bitterness and resentment and fear from the anti side. So my question is was this "joy" and "love" that I witnessed the same sense as mentioned in the Galatians passage? If not then it means in Catholicism there is a different kind of love and joy of which I have no understanding or knowledge. What is the difference? How does one tell the difference between the joy and love I saw and the love and joy of that passage.
nitelite78 You quote Galatians 5: 22-23 somewhat wrong it talks about the fruits of the Spirit, that is the Holy Spirit (not of the spirits, whatever that would be). You left out: peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. If you had approached any of those you said represented love and joy with arguments against same-sex marriage, my guess is you would experience anything but patience, kindness and goodness, or peace for that matter. Remember what you witnessed were people in joy due to their self-interest. They thought the SCOTUS-ruling was good for them and people of their kind. Well even the tax-collectors do that. Love in a Christian sense is primarily willing the good of the other, including your enemy. Fr. Barron has made a video on the Holy Spirit, where he explains the fruits of the Holy Spirit. (you find it on this channel). Self-control in this context is to conduct your life according to the principle of willing the good of the other, no matter who that is, including those prosecuting you for that matter. It is not an easy feat. However, it is easier if you make Jesus the center of your life not yourself.
TheLongSummer Yes sorry the 's' on the end of spirit shouldn't have been there. I have watched Fr Barons video. I think many of those people in the crowds celebrating the decision would understand the Christian perspective if you did is at a more suitable time and explained things from your perspective. But it would be a strange thing to do to go and face up to then during that time. I don't see how that would mean these people aren't experiencing joy. But actually I am more thinking about onlookers like myself. I am not homosexual and I don't even have homosexual friends really. But what I experienced was love and joy within myself for these people who have suffered for so long. And it is clear that many heterosexuals without a vested interest in the law changing felt the same as me given the outpouring of love and support on social media. So the question remains as to what the joy and love from the Holy Spirit is if it is not the love and joy I felt as I witnessed those scenes. How does one tell the difference. From Fr Barons video on it the way he describes love and joy is exactly the same as the love and joy I experienced. This is a problem within Christianity I think. It could potentially be that Christians who deny the outpouring of love and joy on that day are actually denying the holy spirit.
nitelite78 Love in a Christian sense as Fr.Barron points out in the video, is not primarily a feeling or an experience, it is an act of the will; wanting the good of the other, including your enemies. My point was not particularly to show up during the celebrations of the SCOTUS-ruling, but to indicate to you that the joy and love you said you saw, was not from the Holy Spirit, but from themselves. They loved themselves, and got it their way. As Jesus pointed out even the tax-collectors do that. The love and joy you experienced I guess came from your sympathy with these people. The question is, do you experience the same joy and love for their adversaries? In addition, you cannot leave out the rest: peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Did you experience them as well, towards all people, not just the ones you sympathies with? Again your experience of love and joy was due to yourself, not a love of Jesus. Remember in Christianity your are to forget about yourself, pick up your cross and follow Jesus. Then you will experience what Fr.Barron described in his video, and know the difference. However, as I pointed out, it is not an easy feat.
TheLongSummer _"Love in a Christian sense as Fr.Barron points out in the video, is not primarily a feeling or an experience, it is an act of the will; wanting the good of the other, including your enemies."_ Yes OK. Well I would say I did feel that for both sides. But we can stick with joy if you want. Because that is a human feeling _"The question is, do you experience the same joy and love for their adversaries?"_ If I saw they were oppressed/face injustice and overcame that then I would feel the same yes. I think many Christians didn't felt joy though for those people celebrating. In the same way that neither of us would feel joy if we watched a murderer kill someone. If watching a murder makes you feel joy then there must be something wrong surely. "In addition, you cannot leave out the rest" This suggest the fruits of the spirit all come at once. But there is nothing in the passage in the Bible or Fr Barons video that suggests that the fruits aren't separate things that can be felt independently. They are all different things. For me the problem remains. How does one tell the difference between the joy from the holy spirit and the other kind of joy. The passage doesn't say "a special kind of joy distinct from other kinds of joy". It just says joy which would mean the same kind of joy I felt. As far as I can see there is only one kind of joy and the Bible only seems to back that up because it makes no distinction. Joy is Joy.
nitelite78 You are right that joy did not come with this ruling for many Christians, since where you saw freedom from oppression, they saw death and destruction, and those people living under the condition of same-sex attraction falling deeper into misery. I guess that was your analogy with murder. Feeling joy watching someone getting murdered is called sadism, not a good thing. The fruit of the Spirit do not necessarily all come at once. However, if you are filled with the Spirit, and live your life according to God's plan, they will all be hallmarks of your life. For example when you discuss same-sex marriage with the opponents of this practice, you should do so in peace, with patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self-control. There are numerous examples to the contrary in the commentary under this video, so you can see what I mean. In, addition you should not focus so much on the feeling aspect, more as an attitude and behavior towards others irrespective of who they are, friend or foe. Furthermore, you should ask yourself where does this joy come from?. For example, when you watched the celebrations after the SCOTUS-ruling the joy you experienced did it come from yourself and your sympathy with those people, or did it come from your love of Christ and that what was going in those celebrations was according to God's Law? In John 14:27:(Jesus to the disciples) "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Since the "peace" Jesus is talking about here is not of this world and therefore different, joy is not necessarily joy in the Christian sense. This is what makes these discussions so difficult. These words used by Christians do not have the standard meaning attributed to them in general. We are talking about different things.
He clouds his "moral position". Is it that: being gay is immoral? being privately gay is ok? or being public about it is ok but you shouldn't have the rights of other americans guaranteed by the Constitution? He cites the 70's as being something of a watershed in this, and that the morality of the prior generations was "better". Part of that morality was illegality (in some states) of contraception and interracial marriage. Part of the job of the secular authority is to ascertain that democracies don't become theocracies. We know that being gay has a genetic component. We didn't know that 100 years ago. Just as being left handed has a genetic component despite what the teachers and the nuns admonished
You are incorrect. It is longstanding Catholic philosophy that the State is predicated upon human nature, and that the institution of marriage flows from human nature, and the Church's sacramental aspect of it merely elevates it to become receptive to supernatural grace. This elevation does not alter the nature of marriage but is inclusive of its fundamental essence that grounded in nature. One man, one woman, and procreation are inherent in the very nature of marriage itself, whether it be sacramental or not.
***** it would follow from your argument that the Catholic church views the secular power as subservient to its own sacramental status. That ludicrous proposition is long moribund, and is not held by the Church.
+limitattitude That is exactly what the Church teaches. Sacramental marriages are nobler than natural marriages because they are receptive to supernatural grace. I don't know where you get your theological instruction from but you should start reading traditional Catholic theology, maybe start with what Trent has to say on the sacraments.
***** Please read my previous posts again, my response to your objection lies there. No one is suggesting the Church should be obliged to either recognise or perform SECULAR marriages (those defined by the State). It is untruthful to suggest otherwise. You are mistaken. As I've suggested Bishop Barron is injuring the Church injury by perpetuating this error.
Bishop Barron, would you address the struggle I have to give secular marriage rights to gay persons out of compassion? And can you address the morality of outside adults supplying gametes for the creation of children and the moral implications of that? Are these issues related in your view? How does that relate to history? Thanks
“fundamental right - freedom - for gay marriage.” The constitution says all are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . . Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” If a man or woman has a “right” to the “pursuit of Happiness,” is that right limited only to those who are heterosexual? Does a gay person have a right to his/her pursuit of happiness in a same-sex marriage? Is marriage of a homosexual couple somehow less than the marriage of a heterosexual couple? Is marriage between two persons their right? Is not one who opposes fundamental freedom a bigot? And who is cutting off rational argument when the subject of gay marriage is considered? So, yes, the Catholic position might easily be seen as an “irrational prejudice” in a democratic society in which the pursuit of Happiness is assured. Was there not a time when a practical consensus was against divorce? When a woman’s place was in the home? When it was a kind of immorality for a woman to appear on a beach without being covered practically from shoulders to ankles? Is it anithetical to a democracy to suggest that certain religious views are not appropriate to be followed in the pursuit of the common good? Was it not in the name of Christianity that the Temple of Vesta was destroyed? That the pagan rituals of the Olympic Games were banned? That heretics were murdered and their books burned? Freedom has been through this before, and freedom is still standing in many places and, one hopes, in the free United States of America.
In this continuing saga of the re-definition of marriage, it is easy to forget that marriage is a gift and treasure. However, the beauty and value of this gift is fluid like. Squeeze too hard and it slips out of your grasp. Ignore it and it dries up. Marriage cannot ultimately be a civil right because it based on an intensely private mutuality that forms a cornerstone for civil rights. Unless you respect the inescapable nature of man and woman to cling to each other, you cannot form a positive argument for respecting any other relationship or person. Civil rights emerge from a previous recognition that love and integrity are real. People who love and show integrity are dependable participants in society. Thes people associate with each other, enter into rewarding friendships and often have successful marriages. The children of these unions often fare better in the world as well. None of these people are perfect and nor are their marriages, but their efforts to support one another exemplifies love and integrity. Marriage codified by law has yet to show that it is compatible with the ancient practice of marriage. It must also show itself to be a gift, to foster the most intense mutual respect and form a bulwark for society. The challenge presents itself. History will show whether it is successful.
The intensely private mutuality of marriage necessitates compromise, discussion and not infrequently sublimation. it is a micro cosm of freedom and also sacrifice fro the good of the other person and the marriage itself. from this flows respect for others that is not as intensely mutual but maintains order and desire for the common good. Ignore this aspect of marriage and civility itself becomes imperiled. can other forms of marriage give rise this potential for goodness. Certainly it is too soon to tell but it is most likely starting off with a disadvantage.
"We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time... Tell me: When God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.” -- Pope Francis This is not a war, Fr. Barron. If there has to be one, let it be the war on gaining people's hearts, including gay people's.
I wonder if female homosexuality is permitted, as no mention of it is made in the Bible. I don't mean 'interpreting the text in the context of the times' (because that would cancel out a lot of the things that Biblical literalists have to complain about), I mean the Bible says NOTHING about it, and yet it is still proscribed by the Church. Why?
Fr., thank you for such encouraging words. I have been wondering about much of what you said, like what happens next with standing up for the faith and the possible consequences. What I have experienced in the past week gave me the tiniest taste of what many of the saints perhaps went through, dare I even put forth that comparison. It is comforting to know this is not new territory for the Church. The only thing I would add to your comments is we should pray and focus on deepening our relationship with God. God bless, and take care.
I wish i could just follow you everywhere, and talk to you whenever the words surfaced lol.. very grounding personality.. people are so ungrounded these days.. sometimes i just wish i could go away from everything just to pray, and really feel something form God... like the first time i sat in front of the sacrament. I wish god blessed me more with the whole feelings.. i don't feel whole. You should let me come and live at your place for like a month lol. I used to talk to a lot of people. I don't really trust anyone anymore because there are so many sick people, and we all seem to really disagree.. society is really like that.. very jading to see all the different people who are so twisted, and different.. it gets worse with age too... the longer someone is whoever they are, the more the person is that way.. like a jewish leader like you talked to.. only God can change that guys mind... he is a freaking rabbi! lol.
#aggressivesecularstate is the understatement of the century. Hostile doesn't even begin to describe the way people have reacted over this. #AskFrBaron what are your views about the other Christian denominations (i.e. some Episcopalians churches) that have decided to perform same-sex marriage? Do you think that this would put more pressure on the church? Do you think that it is possible for the future of the Catholic Church and marriages where the church loses it's status to do marriages that are recognized by the state if they decide to not perform same-sex marriages, or do you think becoming tax exempt is the more likely situation?
I lament the fact that Fr. Barron did not talk explicitly about so-called same-sex marriage (SSM) before now on his RU-vid channel (and not even in this video). There was a video about moral arguments vis-a-vis SSM, but nothing explicit came after that.
The issues that the Church is struggling with that attract an incredible amount of controversy and criticism from people for whom the Church is otherwise a great source of inspiration but for whom the person you choose to sleep with is not that big of a deal. And still the Church cannot budge...
Tad Whitty Well, the Bible doesn't condemn slavery, the Old Testament condones it, and even the New Testament is ambiguous regarding this much worse thing than gay marriage. So people have chosen to stop listening to it in that regard, or interpreted it as a treatise against slavery. Or they have taken Jesus' silence on the matter as license to interpret the issue either way. But he was also silent on homosexuality. So, what is truth?
valinor100 wrote: the Bible doesn't condemn slavery Me: neither does the constitution and declaration of independence. Just because a document doesn't say everything you want, it doesn't mean there is no truth to be found there. the bible says very little on slavery. there are a few mentions here and there, but a point of scripture is Salvation history, God's love for His people - this does not entail discussing every social wrong or right of the time. You wrote: Jesus' silence on the matter as license to interpret the issue either way. But he was also silent on homosexuality. So, what is truth? Me; Jesus was pretty explicit that marriage was between a man and a woman. He states in Mark 10: 6 But from the beginning of creation, `God made them male and female.' 7 `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." The context is quite clear. When a man and woman marry, it is a union; other combinations are simply not considered; a first century faithful Jew, such as Jesus was, would be outraged by the idea that two men or two women would attempt to 'marry.' it is simply a metaphysical impossibility, regardless of what a court paper states.
Tad Whitty But again, the Bible doesn't condemn slavery, and could actually be interpreted to support it. So why, then should I listen to one part of it and not another?
valinor100 wrote: could actually be interpreted to support it. me: by whom? no scripture scholar would state something as silly as that. I don't think a person should exclude parts of scripture. it is a whole and living collection of books that needs to be read rightly, based on the genre of literature each book is, and according to the whole, Salvation history. All of this is an aside from the fact that Jesus clearly stated what marriage was in the Verse i posited.
I respect the way you explain your thoughts and I don’t mean to be hostile, but here’s the problem I have as someone who disagrees with you. You explain in this video that there is a fear that denying gay people their rights will soon be seen the same way as denying black people their rights. It should be seen the same way because sexual orientation and race are both assignments at birth. The second you deny someone’s rights based on traits they were assigned at birth it’s clearly a problem.
Fr Barron has said a lot of great observations that need to be said. But one thing that is missing is original sin. In John we see the application as it is used to teach the reader why the masses hate and attack Christ. Jesus goes on further to say that they will hate and attack all of those who follow him. How this applies to the Sodomite ruling regarding their "unions" is that the culture is moveing closer and closer towards where original sin leads when it is embraced. It leads to hatred, attacking, death, and martyrdom of those who follow and believe. That needs to be said first and foremost. Without beginning with original sin and how it factors in there will be no understanding of; how we got here, what has taken place, where this is all going to lead, and what we can do about it.
Re. 4:26, Justice Kennedy didn't write that religious people could continue to "practice" religion on this issue. From Ch. Just. Roberts' dissent, (p. 28) "The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to 'advocate' and 'teach' their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to 'exercise' religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses."
Just as Pope Pius VII said to Napoleon about bringing down the church, I do not think that this issue will cause the government to eventually go after church teachings. The church will survive. I have always felt that the wording of same-sex marriage has caused much strife. The word "marriage" or matrimony is typically viewed as a holy sacrament or rite. The use of the word in secular society, whether hetero- or homosexual, has changed that. In my opinion, if a couple wants to have the same rights and benefits and the ability to raise a family as traditional marriages, so be it. Do it well. Are they married? Yes. Is it Holy Matrimony? No. If the church has not given the authority of that sacrament, then it is not holy. That is what Catholics (Christians) should embrace. Is your marriage holy? Are you living a holy marriage? The rights and benefits are secondary to that.
What the situation primarily needs is rational argument (which you rightly pointed out is cast aside). Very little progress can be made without a shared dialogue on both sides. As stands, the slightest apprehension to gay marriage is being called bigotry. Conversely, there are pronounced bigots that do, in fact, vehemently condemn homosexuality in a way that's an affront to a lot of people. So there is a lot to weed through on this subject if you wanted to talk about it honestly. However, to be honest, I hope this all just subsides. They have equal rights under a secular law which is, I think, the only thing gay people really demanded. Perhaps it's time as a nation that we just move onto something else (the several wars we're in for example).
Fr Barron You seem concerned that the Catholic Church no longer has the right to make rules for society at large. Here's some catch up news: it never had that right in the USA, nor has it had that right in Europe for centuries. You and Catholics everywhere need to give up fighting battles that have already ended. Instead, we should focus on the issue that is surely central to our faith - the right worship of God. To this end, we need to analyse what the SSM debate is teaching us about the state of our faith. For instance, do the pastoral and sacramental dimensions of the Church, as now understood, adequately serve the love of God and of neighbour? Many Catholics believe the Church is currently facing it's biggest crisis since the Reformation - and certainly I agree with you a revitalised Church can and will emerge. The question is, what encourages this emergence and what impedes it? Without collapsing into a relativistic miss mash, what in our faith must we clear out, clarify, give new life to?
Could you do a video on different types of sex? With science and LGBT communities claiming there is more than just more 2 sexes according to biology it would be interesting to hear your ideas! Thanks
There are not more than 2 sexes, and nobody claims that. Why is it so hard to accept people for who they are, and not adhere to mode all ideology designed to control people?
