Another part of a video series from Wordonfire.org. Bishop Barron will be commenting on subjects from modern day culture. For more visit www.wordonfire....
@fancullo Sure it's do-able. Look at the saints. To get this love in you, ask for it. It's a grace. And then practice it, even when you have no emotional inclination in that direction.
Really like how you defined love "to will the good of the other" it makes the definition much more real and practical, than the vague explanation that the secular world gives us. I've always said when i asked what i believe Love is,is that it is totally caring for someone, that you just selflessly care for them, that is real love. Jesus said it perfectly when he said " No man has greater love for his friend than to lay down his own life for him" so in other words to want good for them even at the expense of yourself. This goes for all love, romantic, familial, and friendly. great videos Fr. Barron i could listen to you all the time
In the Bible 1st Corinthians chapter 13 Verses 4 and 5 love is patient love is kind it does not envy it's not proud love does not boast it does not dishonor others it is not self-seeking is not easily angered love never records wrongs
"When you ignore doctrines love begins to disappear." Thanks for that thought. One example of removing doctrine resulting in disaster is the thought that there is nothing moral wrong with abortion.
Kant says that all that matters is staying dry when it rains. So long as there is a roof or an umbrella, you're fine. But he ignores the fact that someone built that roof, someone must maintain that roof, and not everyone has their own umbrella.
@JAEKIM10 The reasoning would go something like this: abortion is wrong because it is the taking of an innocent life; innocent life is to be protected because each human being, created and redeemed by God, is of infinite worth. Take God out of that equation, and you'll see pretty quickly what happens: tens of millions of abortions based upon the view that morality is a private matter.
If we divorce ethics from doctrine based on faith, how do define what is good or who is good? There is no point of reference beyond subjective choices,this is the key point. A Jew hater in Nazi Germany was considered a good person, service to the regime was considered the highest ethical standard-a great illustration when we remove God revealed through Christ as the source of Truth and Good. Death and hatred are the hallmarks of a society that rejects God. Excellent videos.
I am always struck at how naive those involved in politics are. Whatever else may be said of Hitler, he was a good politician and a good politician tells people what they want to hear. Hitler did precisely this. The historian Alan Bullock goes into detail in how Hitler appeased certain groups in order to be elected. However, once in power, Hitler changed his tune. "Its [Christianity] teaching, he [Hitler] declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest." Notice the atheistic language used by Hitler, sounding very much like Richard Dawkins.
+My OpenMind Hitler said a lot in those early days to get his movement legitimatized. and a lot of Christians ended up in the camps as time went on. like Maximilian Kolbe. and Corrie Ten Boom. I personally think that the analysis of the Kantian dichotomy between Doctrine and lifestyle is a lot more incisive than uncritical acceptance of the idea that Hitler's bland disclaimer can be taken at face value of how Nazism is meant to be characterized
out of curiosity, i started watching your Catholicism series. as a cradle catholic, it opened my eyes to the beauty that is the faith i had taken for granted. thank you so much for your beautiful series. God bless you, Father Barron.
Right on Father! You hit the nail right on the head! I may not be Catholic but I agree with everything that you just said. If only mainstream society could agree. haha
Our bible study group, here in Japan, just completed the Catholicism Series and I wanted to say how much I enjoyed it. It has renewed my joy in our faith on so many levels and I thank you for the enlightenment.
I agree with absolutely everything you said, Bishop Robert Barron. I am a devout Catholic. in fact, I encourage everybody to listen to the Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias. He was asked why cant someone simply be a good person without believing in the True God? He responded by saying how do I decide that i am a good person, and that it's a very dangerous move to call oneself good if you don't believe in absolutes, as it had a relativistic term. More to it, he adds, there are people who love their neighbours, and others who eat them. Yet both of them think they are good people. That's the danger: without the True God and His moral absolutes, everything goes, everything is relative.
Wow, from 1:57 to 3:56 is *such a powerful* distinction between the Enlightenment-sourced Western "goodness" that we see believed and understood throughout today's modern society, and the goodness of God, the love of Christ.
Him Bike On the surface, these rules are easy onto reject as being so obvious the need not be said, like “Duh. We already KNOW this!” And I think why so many fail to see their importance. It is hardest to love these three things, and unless we are doing so intentionally, consciously, we probably aren’t.
@Rune Age Mage Glad u asked St Francis goes into great detail what love of poverty is in his talk with Brother Leo. Basically this Jesus is God. Jesus was in heaven Jesus decided to come down to earth And be killed for the sins of the world. Jesus told us to imitate HIM. so St. Francis did imitate him. I was poor growing up. I never starved ? Yes we worried about having a roof over our heads. Life goes on. There is no such thing as “Safe” Presidents get killed Nicole Simpson lived in Brentwood and she got killed. I got divorced and was ordered to pay child support. I lived in my car for 8yrs and never missed a payment and never felt sorry for myself. Poverty is not only material it is also mental and spiritual.
@Rune Age Mage what country u ? Don’t they have social services ? My parents were poor but they believed in asking for help from the govt. st Maximilian was starved to death in Nazi camp. He died with joy because he knew Poverty. Also St Maximilian was a Franciscan so he knew a lot about St Francis
You have hit the nail on the head. In my own work of apologetics I have allways said that people will allways do what they believe. people lie because they believe in the lie in someway in that its reult will benifit themselves. Not at all loving. Keep up the good work.
@wordonfirevideo Father Barron... I loved what you did here. I think you've touched on the central dilemma for atheists, most of whom want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to deny God and yet enjoy a love that is beyond utilitarian self-interest. But if this unselfish love that we yearn for is real then so is God. Father, please continue to do what you you. I work with young Catholic kids and see first hand what the world does to them. God bless you.
Some extremely key comments and thinking here on the specific functional philosophical issues of our culture's slide into ... well, the ways in which people (even Christian people) sort of accidentally form their world views, leaving God out of the thought process, the footing for ethics and action. So important for keeping the Christian standing firm on God and not being more influenced by the world's ways. St. Paul was able to contend with the thinkers at the Areopagus because of his firm foundation. We're called to no less and therefore need no less of a God-kind-of-love foundation. Thanks, Bishop Barron.
My mother was raised Baptist and my Father was raised Catholic. I chose Catholisium when I got older, with out my Dad having much to do with it. When my mother started noticing me paying more attintion to the difrent teachings of The Church and all the Doctrents. She became upset to see me folowing them, espesholy when they whent aginst what she belives. She would say, "Be carfule with Religeus Doctren! It maters more what is in your hart." Thank you Fr. Barron!
@mrandquist Well those are not as central as our common beliefs in God, creation, incarnation, etc. But they do indeed make a difference. The key is finding common ground and then having a good, vigorous discussion. God bless you!
Bishop Barron, I always appreciate your thoughts. I also love pointing out all the flaws in your logic. Love, logic and morality have existed outside our church in many ways and forms. Without works, hollow expressions of faith make hypocrites out of many of us. Jesus was not a big fan of hypocrisy. Please read the epistle of James and the gospel of Mathew for a basic understanding of Catholic doctrine. Jesus did not tell anyone where to go to church. He said love as I have loved you. The sermon on the mount is pretty straight forward actually. It has served our church well when we actually follow it.
That was all largely debunked in the 19th century. The closer you look, the more the dissimilarities emerge. The basic difference is this: the Gospels present themselves as history, while the myths present themselves as, well, mythology. The difference between "once upon a time" and "while Quirinius was governor of Syria" gives away the game.
This is exactly why Kant is my favorite philosopher (at least who was not primarily a theologian). It is not because he was exactly right, but because he was so authenticly poignant, that even when he missed the answer, the standard he proposes leads to the truth. "Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone" is by no means the best attempt to map Christianity to what can be proven without divine revelation (that title easily falls to Aquinas), but it takes on a broader scope in defending faith from empiricism on empiricism's own grounds. In a classic Kantian move, he is accomplishing multiple things at once here, simultaneously making a rational argument for belief, giving a practical definition of faith even a staunch atheist cannot deny, and setting up Christianity (and I would argue, unwittingly, Catholicism). Barron's summation of Kant's point is spot on, "religion comes down to ethics...Doctrines, dogmas, liturgies, and all that are fine in the measure that they contribute to good, ethical behavior." What is easy to miss here is that Kant's "wedge," if read literally, is not a simple logical division of practice and ethics but a worldly burden of proof a faith must hold to. To use the common Catholic term, it's not "either, or" but rather "both, and." To stand up to empiricism, a faith must be internally consistent (which is to say, live up to all its own standards) and then ADDITIONALLY be able to say that everything it demands of its adherents will contribute to them being better people. After all, if a religion is only asking for arbitrary supplications, then there is something problematically capricious about it. And I don't deny that Kant eventually concludes that much of the practices of religions are unnecessary for the individual, and for most faith's it's hard to argue that they're at best indirectly beneficial, maybe making someone feel better about themselves so they are more prone to doing good, for instance. But Barron perfectly argues for why Christianity passes Kant's test of directing people toward virtue and I can't help but feel like Kant left that door open intentionally, wanting Christianity to easily make that cut (as he all but argues himself). Where I was a little surprised Barron didn't go (perhaps due to time constraints) is where Kant's limited belief fails to take him: to the power of grace. I have long held that when properly read, Kant's writings have a clear hole in them, one in which the Holy Spirit fits as snugly as a puzzle piece. Take the above as an example. The Catholic Church shouldn't take the claim that their doctrines, dogmas, and liturgies as much of a challenge but rather a self-imposed definition. We do not receive the eucharist simply out of tradition but because it brings Christ into us in a real, tangible way that empowers us to be converted people. We do not confess our sins merely to feel better about them but to be free of them so we can dedicate ourselves to "go forth and sin no more." We don't hold papal authority as a bureaucratic matter but as a bastion of certitude implemented by Christ, Himself. If a single one of these Traditions is not efficacious, then the Church is a liar! So the real issue with Kant's wedge is not his assessment, but rather that he did not put the right faith to its test. I'll give one final example of this and maybe the most famous ethical debate between Kant and other moral philosophers beyond the above, his strict stance that lying was never justified. In the classic example, we find the subject with a friend sheltering their friend from a murderer and then being asked by that murderer if their friend is hiding within. The obvious best possibility seems to be to lie to protect your friend (which may or may not succeed). But Kant disagrees, seeing even a well-intentioned lie as its own evil. It is worth noting that the Church almost agrees. While it might not go so far as to say a lie committed in order to save a life is a sin, it does hold that the origin of sin was settling for a less perfect good, which is what Kant is exclusively interested in: the perfect good. So, is there a more perfect good in this terrible situation than trying to save a life? Of course there is; trying to save a soul as well. While there are even saints who faced this test in real life and found the best they could do was lie (see all those who forged papers to protect Jews during the Holocaust), there are also countless stories of those, both in and out of Catholic tradition, who have stood up to someone threatening them and/or others and found the right thing to call them successfully to conversion. And almost without exception, those who did so said their words were not their own but were channeled through them by God. Do we have any doubt that this is how Christ, Himself would have handled such a situation? And so, even by Kant's own perfect standard of morality and virtue, "the summum bonum," the goal of all human endeavor, we can obviously never hope to attain it on our own. For Kant, this meant perfection had to wait for a time beyond death and yet he doesn't accept that as an excuse not to seek it on Earth. All of this seems like folly, like something is clearly missing from the equation, and yet when you plug the Holy Spirit, through Grace and divine revelation, into that gap, Kant comes alive as a ringing endorsement of the sacremental Church.
I'm reminded of a university chaplain of mine who spent some time in Japan studying Buddhism and got angry about Western self-styled Buddhists who "treat Buddhism like it's a denomination of Christianity." That is, they would talk in glowing terms about how Buddhism is all about love. No, it's not. It does talk about benevolence, but the metaphysical structure proposed by Buddha is strikingly different from that of Judeo-Christianity and does not particularly involve love.
Eucharist for Life I believe as you as once I was Baptist, till one day a woman came to my home, she was doing volunteer work for single mothers who had handicap children. guess what. She was a Catholic who knew her faith and showed me in Bible Matthew 16 18 John 6 51 55 John 20 19 23 I was surprised. I found out 7 books were missing in KJB. That I had a guardian angel and Mary was my spiritual Mother. She showed me many truths. I had been a Sunday school teacher no Baptist preacher teaches on these truths of Jesus or Marriage not to remarry unless first husband has died. It leads many good people astray.
The theory of evolution is scientific proof that we are not equal, nor endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. When Jefferson first wrote those words, he called these truths sacred rather than self evident. He got it right the first time.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who was imprisoned in the Gulags for nearly a decade for criticizing Stalin, after having interviewed hundreds of people wrote the following: "More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened. Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened." Taking God out from the equation is not just some trivial thing: rather, it is taking out the main nucleus of human existence and the results, as history has shown us many time, has very dire effects and many corpses in it's wake!
Hi Father Barron, this remind me of this one quote from the movie "Kingdom of Heaven". Orlando Bloom, the main character said he "lost his religion". Then a fellow knight told him, "you don't get anything if you put your bet on religion; what matters is what's up here (the knight points at his own forehead) and what's down here here (the knight points at his own heart). Basically saying, you just need to be a good person.
Jesus prayed that His followers... The Church, would be one, as He and the Father we're one. In this case, one in mind and in one accord. If the members of the Church all have their own separate beliefs , how can we be one?
@JAEKIM10 You have to get away from an arbitrary "command" understanding of these things. God, in the Catholic tradition, is the unconditioned ground of truth and the unconditioned ground of goodness. He is that in which the objective intelligibilities, both moral and conceptual, participate. He is, accordingly, the anchor that prevents us from drifting into moral and intellectual relativism. Things aren't true because God commands them; they're true in that they participate in God.
Whenever God is forgotten, or downplayed it follows injustice will follow. It`s happening in our very lifetimes. Abortion is one example, terrible treatment of immigrants, refugees, the elderly, handicapped and so on and so on. I`m glad you`re a Bishop of the Church and do this amazing work but would love if you were Prime Minister of our Country
@lblaramark For me the definition of being faithful is adhering to the teachings of your faith regardless of whether or not you agree with them. At times I may not wish to go to Mass each Sunday for whatever deficient reason I may have but still I go. You may not at times enjoy the company of your spouse at times, but you remain married. Yes, Marian devotion is a doctrine not dogma, but the ability to do so is most certainly dogma and praise given as well. To take part however is up to you.
I strongly suggest that this video be sent to the present Pontiff. His profound effect on people is derived from his "ethical Gospel" approach. On controverted questions, he seems closer to indifferentism, unwilling to teach the truth in a robust manner. He has undoubtedly placed catechesis on the back burner in a strategy to win over the unchurched.
Not sure what you're talking about here, friend. How is anything I'm saying in this video not "Catholic?" As for purifying oneself from the "sin" of childbirth, that's just silly.
@JAEKIM10 Where do those objective moral values come from? I would suggest that they are like the objective intelligibilities ingredient in the cosmos. What is the likelihood that such goodness and intelligibility are just dumbly there?
friend, Jesus instituted 'a church.' He made known that it was a specific one because he identified Himself as 'it' when speaking to st. paul. while this is uncomfortable for those who want to be 'unchurched' christians...it isnt what Christ gave us. He made known that religion, church, sacramental living were all important ways to grow in love of Him.
Napaka galing ni God KC no4 2019..ng May boses aku narinig at 7;days .hinukay ko ung guide nakita ko ang onang stone ung black hole.no.17 hehehe ang galing now kulang naisap my brdy 7.4..1977 wow 4/7.17. wow now kulang naisip
@jontv Well I don't think the God I'm talking about is "an obscure deity." He is the creator of the universe, the non-contingent ground of contingency. It is the case that classical thinkers did not hold to a creator God, and this did indeed lead them not to recognize inalienable rights in all people. And atheism does slope toward ethical relativism, which indeed conduces to totalitarianism. When there is no objective ground for morality, the will of the powerful becomes absolute.
@VanessaTexasGal You are welcome :) Basically Eros is the love between man and woman (like in a marriage), Philia the love between friends and Agape is the most pure form of love (from which all other derive) and is the love that come from God. Of course this is just a very synthetic summary, but I hope it gives the idea.
@VanessaTexasGal > She said that love is selfish, because it's about the other person's value to you. I think it really depends how you define 'love'. Some interpretations of love are terribly selfish (especially some contemporary ones), other kinds or interpretation of love are not selfish at all. Christianity itself distinguishes at least three forms of love: eros, philia and agape.
Moreover, Kant's ethical theory is a major force in the world of law and ethics, not a simple shortcut to atheism. It also impacts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which oddly enough is cited in the notes of documents of Vatican II (e.g., Declaration on Christian Education). How the wheel goes round.
The laity have much to say and i think more humility is required from the bishops to understand them. This of course has been the battle of the Catholic Church through the centuries. Bishop Barron is fantastic :)
The question I have about doctrine, though, is that... okay, the seven letters to the seven churches in Revelations imply that some churches have fallen away from God, and are no longer teaching God's truth, either that, or they do, but only in half-measures. In light of that idea, in light of the thought that some modern-day churches have fallen, then, who gets to decide which doctrines should and shouldn't be followed? I think we can agree that a good Christian should not be expected to participate in a fallen church, as I believe that participation in such a church would run counter to a person's spiritual health. The difficulty becomes, in figuring out which churches remain in good standing and continue to reflect God's truth, and figuring out which doctrines remain worth following, remain spiritually true. Because, in this day and age, a vast majority of churches and denominations rely not only on the Bible itself, but a miasma of material created solely by humanity, by church authority alone, of man-created works that reflect values not necessarily from God, but worldly values, that prize things that humanity, in our societies value, but that God doesn't, necessarily. It's difficult to find a good church, a trustworthy church, when you take into account the idea that some churches may have fallen.
Some people read the Bible, but do not truly understand the Bible. If you read Scripture without being infused with the Holy Spirit then you will misinterpret the text and draw your own conclusions. The Bible cannot be read like any other book, when it is read and understood correctly, then the reader will see the deeper meaning and understand the simplicity of God's plan and there will be no confusion.
+Vince Bray Luther and Zwingli were discussing the Scriptures, specifically the text, "This is my Body." Zwingli said that the words had to be understood symbolically, but Luther said that the bread on the altar would become the Body of Christ. Who, Zwingli or Luther understood the simplicity of God's plan?
Although countless Protestant denominations, including possibly 80% of Roman Catholics no longer believe that Christ is really present on the altar, in the bread. You need a teaching authority to vouchsafe Scripture, not a hot flash to individuals.
+Vince Bray and what of the many denominations and Christians who believe with Zwingli? How can you say that their approach is less than Luther"s? Why Luther?
@JAEKIM10 You're still operating out of a "command" understanding of God, as though things are right or wrong because God says so. I'm arguing that things are right in the measure that they participate in the fullness of being that God is.
@CatandMaster Yes, there are lots of factors that contribute to war, persecution, terrorism, etc. Religion may be one of them (not always), but the way I see it, is as an example of a necessary condition for massive evil: having a lot of people absolutely convinced that only they are right, hence discouraging their acknowledgement that they may be wrong. As you've said, rel. can also serve to teach people to love each other and to exercise that love through ritual, but it's a double edge sword.
@ladylejean215 Of course the Catholic Church and all good Catholics love gay people! We love all people, regardless of any qualifier you could come up with. But listen to what Fr. Baron says love is: Love is willing the good of the other. Love is NOT letting someone do whatever they want. Because Catholics believe homosexual behavior is disordered and sinful, that is, it is not "good" for the individual who practices it, we condemn that behavior. I hope that helps to clarify things!
Well, there's much more to communism than merely a classless society. Ingredient in communism as it developed in the twentieth century was a fierce atheism, which in turn conduced toward a suspension of human rights and the willingness to sacrifice even millions of individuals to the demands of the state or of "history" or some such abstraction. That's the communism, it seems to me, that in fact developed in Russia and China in the 20th century. Thanks for entering into the forum!
Over emphasis on doctrine without ethics is a problem as well. One might argue that the Inquisition happened because the powerful Iberian re-conquistadors misinterpreted the doctrine of love thy neighbor. Doctrine is important but the ethical outflows of that depend on good scriptural interpretation.
@jontv Do you think what you've said in your posting is objectively right? Then you're appealing to some intrinsic quality of your statement: its truthfulness. Catholics hold that there is something analogous within ethical acts: they carry a quality of goodness or evil, not because we think so or the majority stipulates. "God" is simply a shorthand for the unconditioned exemplar of objective goodness. None of this has a thing to do with things being good "because God says so."
I think that secular (atheists, agnostics, rational followers) have the greatest qualms with the Catholic Church is it's corporate-style PR of denial or minimization. Rather than preach solely goodness covering over the bad, acceptance and responsibility of the Church's actions is what people demand. If priests and bishops fully accept the history, accomplishments and travesties, under the Church will help reconcile differences and heal perceptions from anger to peace. Just let each one be!
