Principles.. As if they we detained sufficient knowledge to make them universal.. Include them in those things where e need to exercise caution. (make reference to the history of principle) (try not to laugh too much)
Hi Bishop Barron - greeting. I am a Roman Catholic from Singapore and I have been watching your video clips for the last few months and I really must say i have benefited tremendously and spiritually from all of your unofficial homily. Somehow it strengthens my own Catholic way in immeasurable and enlightening way. Please please continue to do this. Do not stop. I thank God for you.
@Damian Vigorito, To me he is a skater to serious issues. He really confuses me. He DOES GET TO THE TRUTH. My opinion not yours. WHEN I HEAR HIM SPEAK; I AM ALWAYS LOST??!!?
"Not everything a decent person does or wants is morally right...we sentimentalize the issue." Feels matter most in this age of self-referring relativity.
An 'accidental' bump with your videos showed me how resourceful the catholic church and her ministers are; which I have not been aware of until I saw a few of your video clips. Excellent audio-visual quality, amazing analysis and very systematic argument. Thank you and God bless dear Fr. Barron.
Thank you Bishop Barron. I needed to hear this today especially. This matter is present within my family where some women are concerned. I am grateful for your comments and you have helped me understand many things.
I was born with HOMOSEXUAL tendences, but for me i have very clear what is the TRUE and REAL marriage, it is created by a MAN and a WOMAN. Why i say this, well, it is simple because i see it and live it through my PARENTS and other family members who are married and there is not other way to appreciate it. It is true that the recent SCOTUS decition brings benefits for GAY couples about social security, insurance, house benefits, rights property and also no-discrimination attitudes at public and private institutions but for me it is a big mistake to try to put this SAME SEX CIVIL UNION PARTNERSHIP at the same level of a TRUE MARRIAGE ( man and woman ) i think it is not correct by LGBT people who support that false vision. perhaps that wrong vision is also an influence by POP CULTURE, MAINSTREAM MEDIA, ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY that traditionally support a SAME-SEX UNION like If it were exactly the same as a TRUE MARRIAGE ( man and woman ). I was born with HOMOSEXUAL tendences and if i felt in love with my boyfriend i wouldn't need to put a signature over a BUREAUCREATIC paper to LOVE him. I don't put my homosexual tendences at the hands of LGBT'S agenda who only bully people who dont share their point of views however i put my HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCES be guided first by the love of my lord GOD and also by reliable friends and relatives. LGBT activists say LOVE is LOVE ....mmmmm....ok could be right but i say LOVE IS LOVE and also TRUE is TRUE. holy sacred marriage belongs to a man and a woman that's the true GOD's marriage plan.
This is so true. Society today has become very child like. Most people are not Truth seekers, they just defend what seems convenient to them in the very immediate future. They don´t stop to think about long term repercussions, nor do they seem to care.
@DannyGirl What is marriage , is it strictly a religious union of 2 people till death do they part or is it a civil union requiring a licence from the Govt ?
Hello Bishop Barron. I have benefited greatly from your videos, even though I am a Protestant. You have presented very eloquent defenses for orthodoxy and I commend you greatly for it. I realize more and more the similarities between our two expressions of the Christian faith when I watch your videos. Keep doing what you are doing! Pax
Hi Fr. Barron, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I lament about the tainting of this issue by sentimentalism, aggression and politics. However, you are probably aware that beneath these are real philosophical and theological arguments. Those who are driven emotionally by this issue are probably people who have experienced and seen a kind of oppression - latent and overt - by the church (and considering her political history and based on personal experience, this is no surprise). There is on the one hand some space where intelligent arguments have been brought up based on scientific and philosophical issues and on pastoral concerns. Many Christians/Catholics (now if my stats is correct, this is about half or even more than half of the faithful), including myself, seem to have had a change of mind and heart regarding this issue, but this change and the changing polls did not and do not occur in a vacuum. Might it not be acknowledged that the slowly changing attitudes towards LGBT issues - that you suggested to have started in the 70s across denominations - may have sprung from a discovery that is inspired, true and sincere? On the issue of slavery, St. Paul and Henry Newman have not in any way considered slavery as necessarily intrinsically evil. That evolved within for example the thought of St. Pope John Paul II, and earlier from the reflections of both the secular and faithful, who discovered slavery as de facto intrinsically evil. Or if I may recall the sense that "salvation is not exclusive for the baptized" or the idea behind "anonymous Christianity" expounded by Karl Rahner, both of which have trickled bottom-up from the thoughts and attitudes of the lay - the sensus fidei. Is it at all possible that this same movement is making its way into LGBT issues in favour of them our brother and sisters who have truly endured decades of oppression and persecution from both secular and religious institutions? I am not a theologian so I know little about the complexity of the discussions surrounding this issue. I am a neuroscientist, a psychiatrist and Catholic, and I can speak as such. My discipline does tell me - and I just reiterate here the discovery that psychology, biology and anthropology have made many years ago - that homosexuality is not a disorder but a naturally occurring minority variant of the human condition. This is in some sense somewhat counter to the current church teaching. But I cannot ever look at an LGBT brother and sister in the eye and tell them that he is a defective heterosexual, and that he has a tendency towards an intrinsic disorder or evil. From a pastoral perspective, it may seem that this teaching is so destructive psychologically - driving many to hide in the closet and compelling them to not be true to themselves - that it may be construed as a religious taboo rather than moral guidance. I am inclined to believe in the judgement of psychology and neuroscience, that there is nothing abnormal about being LGBT and in living out a flourishing life as such. And I have my doubts about the magisterial teaching simply because my discipline tells me that this is in their nature, and that grace can perfect this nature and not despise it. Because of this, I subscribe to the primacy of my conscience rather than to the teaching.
I agree with your comments and if the LGBT are a naturally occurring minority variant of the human condition who are we to deny them the fullest expression of love in the marriage state.
We must live by the word of God, not our Opinions. The word of God condemns Homosexual acts, it's pretty simple. Seek God and do not be deceived. Souls are at risk.
This is an excellent argument, I really see you point here - I would say that when you boil it down everything from the polls to the arguments and the history and abuse cannot prove whether lgbtq+ rights are true or wrong - I'd say those arguments are just mud on the wall to distract us from truly discussing the morality of the issues. The big thing he's address in this particular video is simply that we become so defensive and detract so easily from the morality and complexity of the issues because of 1) changing vocabulary 2) emotion-based arguments - on both sides I mean! and 3) wariness toward any legal judgement on morality. These aren't themselves bad things or bad arguments but we get so distracted by them we don't have a clear discussion when two opposing opinions meet. I hope he posts a video soon on his opinions and arguments about lgbtq+, I disagree with you on some points but your words are thoughtful and merit prayerful consideration and open discussion with theologians who are willing to both hear and speak as clearly as you.
This makes me think of a quote that a seminarian friend of mine said recently. He said people need to “remember the reality of eternity.” It was a good reminder for myself too, especially since I liked the said friend; his words helped me see that what I wanted was somewhat selfish. He feels a call to the priesthood and he is not interested in me, so I need to let my personal feelings go. I believe God has a plan much better than anything I could ever come up with, so I’ll try to follow Him.
Messino Hart,I know it's been four years now though I hope you're into Him now if not just know He's into you. Just take a look back on your life so far and you'll see.
It's sad how 3 of the above 4 responses rather then talking about the point the commenter made: "He's got a good point not reliant on faith, I agree despite not sharing his religion." and decided that the best way to respond is almost appearing to be an expectation that he's going to convert to Christianity. - That has absolutely nothing to do with the points that neither the video makes, nor the person writing this comment made.
@@AutoGamerZ_ People are sad. They are going to do what they will, no one can reasonbly make the bet that praying to improve their flaws will do any good. From my POV, their replies although unrelated, are fine to me because they were kind and nice, that's my top priority.
I am a fairly new believer in Christ and just recently came to some of your videos in pursuit of trying to understand and know God and having a deeper relationship with him .. I have got to say you are one of the most clearly spoken intellects , with the ability to make what otherwise would have been difficult for me to understand information , i have ever came across in my life. I can actually grasp matters in a way that is so very clear to even a simple person like me...God has bleased you to bless others thank you
@@michaeloconnor6280 A tutor telling his student that she is doing well in math because it will make her feel better may seem nice but when finals come and she fails her class the "niceness" will be revealed to have been damaging to her and actually quite unloving. The question is if homosexual activity is inherently damaging. That is a question that can be considered and argued. And if the truth is that homosexual activity is damaging then calling it good to make people feel good and to be nice is actually, like the lying math tutor, quite unloving.
@@michaeloconnor6280 why does anyone care about anything, Michael? Simple. Because they... care. Now you might wrap yourself in indifference, but others, thankfully, will not. Having moved past ignorance of reality (that there IS a God; that God created man and woman to procreate and make families; that it is harmful to a person and society when he sins against his very own bodily design) the caring person CARES about the well-being of his fellow man. And says "Hey, that's a tar pit. I want to help you recognize that and help you get out of it." THAT'S why God cares. That's why people who know God care.
@@alanlo-557 You have to actually explain what these harmful effects are. So far your only argument is that "God didn't make people to have sex/get married if they can't have kids therefore they shouldn't." 1. You need a nonreligious argument if you're proposing this as a law. 2. That would mean anyone incapable of procreating should not get married or have sex. 3. This makes any sex act outside of those specifically designed to have the maximum chance of procreating are bad. 4. Why is this a moral issue? What's immoral about gay sex? It's a sin yeah don't care, explain why it's *immoral*. Because immoral and a sin aren't necessarily the same thing. Morality is a set of rules by which humans cooperate. Gay sex harms neither party nor anyone else. All you are saying by saying gay sex is immoral because it's a sin is "You shouldn't do gay sex because god doesn't like it."
Romans 1:26-27 which says: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." How can one read this and conclude that sexual acts involving same sexed individuals could be anything but "shameful lusts" "unnatural relations" "indecent acts" "received...due penalty for their perversion"....... Did you hear that?...." due penalty for their perversion"......Perversion of what? "natural relations". This passage is plain and clear God called homosexual acts "shameful lusts" and will have a "penalty". End of story. Don't get me wrong.....God gave man was given free will. And here in America one is free to love whom he/she pleases. So, if you want to satisfy you lust for each other in ways that God did not intend, then by all means go for it. Just do not say that God's word justifies your actions. If you stick up your middle finger at God in rebellion and say " I don't give a sh__t what you want. I am going to do it my way." Instead of confessing that you are a sinner and are trying your best not to sin, then you will get exactly what you wanted......the rest of eternity without him. This goes just as well for every other sin under the sun not just homosexuality.
And people wonder why the LGB community has serious dissociative and mental turmoil. It's not because people are oppressing them, it is because their actions are at the core causing them pain. And people aren't allowed to talk about it? People should ask why. It's a red flag.
This is so true.......it is so important to have these topics at hand from the Church to help us on our journey. Logic and faith often go hand in hand, and it is needed in today's political and social climate. Thank you Bishop Barron, God Bless
I would respectfully argue that Logic and Faith, by their definitions do NOT go hand in hand. Example: Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. - Hebrews 11:1 Logic- reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. With respect to the argument of Gay marriage, I could be wrong, but the need/want for validation of "Gay Marriage" is mostly to have access to the same rights as a heterosexual "Spouse" has in the eyes of the law. Medical, Financial etc. I am sure there are also many gay couples who believe the Church should also recognize a gay union, but to my "lay-man" understanding. Having a gay child, the want of validity and equality of Gay Marriage is mostly in the eyes of the LAW and not religion. Politicians have made this a moral and religious argument and used it as a soap box. If a law was passed to give the same rights to a common law partnership as marriage, I feel a vast majority of gay unions would be satisfied.
Michael Montague The Catholic Church is absolutely built on Jesus Christ. It is through the Eucharist. Jesus gave himself to us through the Eucharist! Demons are terrified of it and cannot be around it. So for you to say such things that our Church is evil is blasphemous. Your hope is in yourself! Our hope as Christians is through Jesus Christ which is very comforting.
First let me address that not "ALL" Jews consider Christians blasphemous. You are incorrect in making a blanket statement on this. Yes I accept totally with all my heart the divinity of Jesus Christ, my beloved King. I call him this because I love him and he loves me, and indeed he is King of Kings! Because I saw and experienced his infinite mercy, his never ending love, his never ending goodness, and his healing power for myself. I was healed from a terrible stammer which rendered me unable to speak. I was 7 years old. I was healed when I was 20 years old. So I am not afraid to speak the truth, and that truth is Jesus Christ. He is the way the truth and the life. Just as it says in scripture. I try to reach out to all in Christ's love. To help others come to know his infinite mercy and goodness. God bless will be praying for you.
+Michael Montague I always laugh when people doubt that Jesus actually existed. When you look at educated people who have no bias toward the issue (I.e. Agnostic scholars), there is no question whether or not Jesus actually existed. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic who teaches at the university of North Carolina writes “The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet” (Did Jesus Exist?, p. 4). The New Testament is one of the most reliable ancient texts that we have. There are 500+ manuscripts that can be traced back to the 1st century! Aside from that we have other non-biblical sources that confirm Jesus's existence. For example, an ancient text attributed to Josephus, a 1st century Jewish historian mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." We know this is unbiased because it clearly does not call Jesus "lord" or any reference to divinity. It just says that people called him Christ, which would be historically accurate.
+Scott Noll So once we accept that Jesus actually existed, we have to look at what he said. The New Testament, one of the most reliable ancient texts we have, quotes him as saying "I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE". Unlike any other religion, Christianity's founder is not claiming to have the truth, he is claiming to BE TRUTH ITSELF. This is significant. The way I see it, there are three possibilities. He could be lying, which I don't know many people that would lie to be put up on a cross, he could be a delusional lunatic, which it doesn't seem logical that so many people would drop everything to devote their lives to following a lunatic, or lastly, he could actually be telling the truth.
+Scott Noll Yes, that is a very interesting and compelling way to put it into perspective. My aspect on the subject matter is from personnel experience.
+Michael Montague Actually.... Since you say you are a scientist. Take a look at the Shroud of Turin. www.shroud.com Science has not been able to explain it. Also there are many Eucharist miracles through our Churches history that science cannot explain. The Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano Also the incorruptible Saints. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility This should give you some education Michael about the profound and awesome history of our Church!
I hope there is another video on this channel that continues this by answering "how do we know what is morally right and wrong?" especially on this and similar issues. It would be good to link to those videos in the description.
Natural law can guide us on what's right or wrong. Religion can too. Or we can use common sense and ask if we'd want our behavior on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper.
Bishop Barron, I can see you are a reasonable person, so I feel I should come clean about my thoughts when I first clicked on this video. When I read the title, I immediately started the video and started counting the seconds until you said something that I, admittedly, hate hearing. But then you started explaining how people can't agree on anything anymore and that people confuse sentimentality with morality in politics as well as church. With those points as the things I will take from this video, I must say that I am impressed and agree completely.
@@thenapierfamilychannel2819 if u was a christian at all you would know romans 1 doesn't mention homosexuality at all. This is paul condemning the heterosexuals he knew who used same sex acts in their idolotry cults which was unatural for straight folk, so God gave them over to a reprobate mind, Gods words not mine, but feel free to add to Gods word as you have been doing so far if thats what helps make u feel better to hate LGBT people.
lmao at everyone saying he dodged the question, he's just explaining why there can't be an argument if you simply follow sentiments and refuse to engage in a logical conversation, this video aged like wine.
i was raised Baptist and still consider myself the same. although i do not agree with gay marriage, i have friends and family who are gay and i am understanding this video 100%. and having a different opinion than someone else is ok. im not a homophobe or a racist, i just have a different belief.
He blames society for not being able to reason calmly about gay marriage, but the main reason for this is that the Church has forbidden such calm reasoning, in totally peremptory documents such as this one: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
The "question" was his own doing, we already know the Church's stance on gay marriage but he describes a more nuanced issue with society that isn't given due examination.
@@conchtalks But science doesn’t “back” gay marriage as-well studies have shown that gay people are not born gay but it’s environmental and it takes an effect on the mind Also he’s talking from a philosophical stance then a scientific one what does it matter if science doesn’t back his claims?
Absolutely stunning Intellectual deep contemplating theologian, this is very impressive and convinced my heart of defining the perverse and subversive natures I know I could never condone or approve of, but I do respect those who disagree with love and contentment. Peace be with you all.. :-)
Travis Kraft - Says you. Are you the arbiter of such things? If that is your view of marriage then, by all means, marry or don’t marry based on that. You have no standing, however, to dictate to others whether or not their marriage is legitimate.
Bishop Barron can't do it. He can't say homosexuality is wrong. The sin is not the problem necessarily, it's the celebration of the sin that Christians are against. I sin. But I'm not asking everyone to accept my sin nor am I proud of it.
VERITAS homosexuality is not bad. Homosexual acts are. When I was in a navy ship we had 1000s of guys on ship and no girls. Homosexual. Not bad as long as there is no homosexual acts.
As long as the Holy Church has representatives like BB and a great many other gifted vocations, moral arguments will continue to be exchanged. Do not underestimate the essential role of the Holy Church in today's world; it is pivotal.
What is the moral purpose of the state in matters of marriage and family law? Is it to sanctify the union? Or is it to provide the protections legal normally associated with the formation of a household?
Thank you Bishop for your clarity and confirmation of that which we hold dearest in our hearts and for some completely inexplicable reason our countries leader completely denies.
The tower of Babel isn't a literal allegory about different languages per se, but rather a story about differentiated consciousnesses ergo perceptions of reality. If we continue to fight over the definitions of truth, we can never agree on a fundamental nature for discourse and understanding. I think being an individual who loves her or himself, and actively seeking to understand others and be understood is the only thing we can do to combat a Babel-esque experience in our own personal lives.
@@bradhaywood4355 unfortunately that is not how things are going so eventually it will lead to at best war with a good end or at worst peaceful acceptance of Oppression.
I don't want to judge, but by which authority does the catholic church allow itself to create restrictions to love, even though love is the most important commandment?
I respect Bishop Barron as a thinker, but I think this particular video is a bit disingenuous. I don't think Justice Kagan was saying that moral arguments always indicate discrimination. What she meant was that a moral appeal is often a substitute for an argument rather than an argument itself. In this context, "red flag" doesn't mean a rejection of a claim. It means that the claim requires a high level of scrutiny. If you say "because the Bible says it's wrong," then this is an appeal to morality without an argument to support it. Bishop Barron is absolutely right to say that we've lost a vocabulary for making moral arguments and that we need one in order to talk with each other instead of past each other. But I don't think he provides one here or gets us any closer to one. In fact, he seems sneakily dismissive of exactly the sort of common ground that might move us closer to dialogue. What he calls "the sentimentalizing" of the issue is really a recognition that gay people can love and honor each other as much as straight people. In other words "sentimentalizing" means recognizing the capacity and dignity of others and wanting what's best for them. I imagine that the Bishop would argue that marriage is not what's best for gay people. As he says, that's an argument for a different video. Okay, but he's done nothing in this video to pave the way for that argument.
@@BishopBarron "To invite people to rational argument and to let go of emotionally driven responses." That's a great goal, and I appreciate the effort. Here is where I think you fell short, at least in this particular video. You identify three types of appeals which you claim avoid rational argument in favor of emotionally driven responses: 1. It's not rational to rule out morality as the basis for an argument. You claim Justice Kagan was refusing to consider any argument that involves morality. But I don't think that's what she meant. I think she meant that arguments that appeal to morality are often a matter of prejudice with no reasoning behind them. For instance, "Gay marriage is immoral because God says so." She didn't say that you cannot appeal to morality. ("Red flag" doesn't mean rejection. It means that a claim requires scrutiny.) But your morality must appeal to reason. It must be something that carries weight to people who do not share your religious beliefs. 2. Polls indicate what people think, not what is right, so people shouldn't cite poll numbers in defense of gay marriage. It's true that polls are not in themselves arguments. But I don't think that's why people cite them in regard to gay marriage. It may be (and probably is) the case that these polls reflect the fact that 25 years ago most people didn't know any openly gay people and certainly no same-sex parents. They may have felt that such unions were unnatural or immoral or just plain strange. As gay people have come out of the closet and straight people see loving unions and loving parents, their opinions have changed. So it's not that anyone is saying that morality is the same thing as public opinion. It's that public opinion, especially when it has shifted this dramatically, may indicate something that is important to the discussion. 3. "My son is gay" is not a rational argument but an emotional one. Rationally, one might respond, "So you're okay with prescribing laws for other people's children, but you change your tune when it's your own?" But I think this is a variation of #2 above. It may not be that the father in question wants to do what will benefit his son rather than to do what is right. It might be that having a gay son has changed his idea about what it means to be gay. Perhaps he previously thought that marriage should be preserved only for straight couples, and now he looks at his son and thinks, "I love my son, and he is as deserving as anyone of a loving marriage." To sum up, I agree that the three kinds of appeals you refer to are not rational arguments in and of themselves. But I think they are the surface features which indicate possible underlying arguments, some of which are rational and some of which have an emotional element as well. I don't think you would want to banish love as the ultimate factor supporting a moral argument. Bishop, you strike me as one of the more open and thoughtful voices on religion, so I hope you don't take my criticism as an attack on you. I appreciate the dialog that you are trying to start here, and I hope you'll take my comment as a way to continue to think and speak on this topic. I think that you are absolutely right that we speak past each other most of the time and that we need to invent a new way of talking to (and listening to) one another!
What I have trouble with is the idea that certain civil rights (and SCOTUS has called marriage a basic civil rights for decades) can be denied to certain groups of people because it doesn't meet the personal or religious standards of other groups. Personally, I don't see any civil marriage as a true marriage for a Catholic. It's not like the sacrament at all. It doesn't even involve the Lord. It's basically a civil contract. If any court tried to force any church to marry gay people, or do anything else that violates their religious beliefs, I would be outraged. But "gay marriage" doesn't involve any other citizens and doesn't change what civil marriage means to heterosexuals at all. The only reason I've been given by Catholics, or other Christiand, about why gay people should be denied this civil right is that it goes against their own religious beliefs, or they just don't approve of it themselves. IMO that's not sufficient reason for the government to take away an entire group's civil rights. It's really no different from the way interracial couples were once denied the right to marry. My religious beliefs should not have the power to interfere with someone else's basic civil rights.
SCOTUS calling marriage a civil right is a bit slippery. In a way, marriage is both a right AND a privilege for those God has called to it. The danger of a secular government legalizing something like this is it sows divisions in religious groups and makes possibly destructive and harmful things (which CAN be somewhat subjective) easier to access or do. A good religious person should not say "I am against this because it goes against my religion." They should say "I am against this because it puts that person/group of people in a dangerous position with God, whether they believe it or not." The true goal of believers is to convert people in their hearts, to make them WANT to oppose evil for their soul's sake, and to be the holiest self they can be. (Sorry for the long reply but it just kept coming 😥🤐😥)
Heroica Knight In my country, the Netherlands, the legal marriage is the civil marriage. People have to do the legal marriage before they can do the religious marriage in church. Same sex marriage is accepted by the vast majority and does not harm anyone. Remember that your sense of morality is subjective and does not give you the right to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
Please remember, all who support gay marriage that the Bible states homosexuality is an "abomination." The Bible also defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
@@tanjavankessel2548 Your reply ignores the Laws Of Nature. To reproduce the species we need a man and a woman. It is your opinion that same sex marriage does no harm. Even a "gay" neighbour of mine is against gay marriage "30 years ago people said to me you are homosexual cos of what happened in your childhood .. I reply I had the most wonderful parents .... Now they say you can get married & I say there is no way a gay couple could have such a wonderful marriage as a lot of heterosexuals do .... no it is not the same & I am not in favour of "gay marriage" " When asked why he does not say that publically "I am not going to put myself up for ridicule and possible physical attack"
They only have the "Right" because it has been enacted to make it law. Morality is not subjective. It is subjectively interpreted by the none religious to become meaningless... In Nazi Germany for an "Arian" to marry a Jew was not allowed and to do so was considered immoral as well as unlawful. So for the none religious morality is very fluid. Research "natural law"
He actually answered by stating the same old discriminatory ideologies they've been saying for centuries. I thought this man might have been different, but he's just a bit more knowledgeable.
@Sheldon Cooper not everyone, for example I love J.Peterson who is not a pro gay/trans activist but he doesn't use rhetoric to reinstate old-fashioned intolerance, pretending to be open minded. Everyone is entitled to have his own ideas, as I am free to criticize.
@@Paolo_Del_Casale not supporting gay marriage, which is a gross misappropriation of the Christian religion, does NOT make you intolerant. Gay life-long couples go against God, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily evil. We are all sinners, which is important for us to remember. HOWEVER, actively CELEBRATING your sins, especially in the case of "gay marriage," which again is the subversion of the Christian faith to fit your own sins, IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Marriage is a SPECIFICALLY RELIGIOUS act that should not be allowed to be misappropriated in such a disrespectful manner.
Obama is a 70s moderate Republican, he said his policies were 70s Republicanesque in an interview. Obama is not a progressive, just another corporate indentured servant who only goes as far his bosses allow him to go, so stfu with that bullcrap about Obama saying "not to go too far to the left".
Hayden S. Gay people are Born Gay .They are a part of the human story from the start .in every race And Creed . Its high time you and Barron and all other bigots got over it and stop using Your religion as a stick to beat your fellow men and women .
People equate gay marriage as a good thing not because many gay people they know are good, but because it's good to treat others equally. Society determines what is good and what is bad. This generation is acknowledging that gays should be treated equally. That's our new morality. But not the Church's. In my opinion, the Church needs to have a serious debate on their doctrine and focus on today's problems not on what people in the past have said. Because these people of the past no longer have the same moral values as the generation of today and the future.
I think the anti-gay marriage side has failed to offer a legitimate argument for why gay people shouldn't have equal rights. If I said you catholics shouldn't have the right to get married, would that make me a biggot? I would tend to think so.
Why do gay people claimed the mantle of tolerance and diversity -- and yet have betrayed those same principles in attacking anyone that disagrees. Speak up for marriage in any public place today and you will be shamed and shunned. I do love gay people, REALLY ! Why should I be considered a hater, just because I love God and follow his teachings, even if some gays don't understand that . Why punish Christians, who want to be obedient to our love, God. If you believe, in the truth about love, about marriage. You must understand this love, He is my love, my life, my world and he has taught me to love everyone, you too and I do. Please try to be open, to other people, who don't always agree, who also can not change the way they feel and are born inside to feel this way too ! Why can't you just love me too, even if we have made different choices for our lives? Let us, just love and let God settle our differences. and ( thank you, Father Barron for taking all the retaliation, for all the Christians. I don't think, Gay people mean to hate or be nice, they are just emotional towards their cause. Christians and Gay people should get together and battle the real enemy, the evil one, who wants to cause the problems and only wants us to separate us, and wants us to fight over our differences. We will not mention his name because he already lost the battle at the cross! Right! and we claim and most importantly, we stand on the victory of the resurrection, because Jesus whipped his butt. yea, woo whoo.! WE ( people of God. Love) both are the real winner!
+Kyle Smit Jesus saved me from the pit of anxiety and depression, and further suicidal thoughts... Jesus loves us so much, that He suffered and died for us, so we wouldn't have to go to hell as punishment for sinning against God... Confess to God that we are all sinners, who desperately need a saviour, and confess that Jesus is your Lord and saviour, and if you really mean it from your heart, you need to stop willfully sinning and the moment you accept Christ, the Holy Spirit will come dwell in you and He will be your helper and comforter, i speak from experience, i accepted Jesus and then received the Holy Spirit, and my life actually changed its not a lie, it pretty much confirms that the Bible really is God's Word, because i felt the Holy Spirit's presence before i even knew what the Holy Spirit did... Im not forcing you to accept Him, but im begging you to consider Him :)
+Francisco Mendez Jesus saved me from the pit of anxiety and depression, and further suicidal thoughts... Jesus loves us so much, that He suffered and died for us, so we wouldn't have to go to hell as punishment for sinning against God... Confess to God that we are all sinners, who desperately need a saviour, and confess that Jesus is your Lord and saviour, and if you really mean it from your heart, you need to stop willfully sinning and the moment you accept Christ, the Holy Spirit will come dwell in you and He will be your helper and comforter, i speak from experience, i accepted Jesus and then received the Holy Spirit, and my life actually changed its not a lie, it pretty much confirms that the Bible really is God's Word, because i felt the Holy Spirit's presence before i even knew what the Holy Spirit did... Im not forcing you to accept Him, but im begging you to consider Him :)
Its kind of hard to respect the opinion of someone who is actively trying to prevent you from marrying the person that you are in love with and want to spend the rest of your life with. I think that if someone was trying to prevent you from marrying the person that you love for completely bullshit reasons, than you would be pretty upset too.
as usual, a wonderfully logical and cogent piece. i would offer that holding a moral argument in an environment of secular relativism (pls see Benedict XIII on this for great discourse) is nigh well impossible. the moral argument is about right and wrong and in the secular relativist world there is no real right or wrong..............
The onus is on the opponents of gay marriage to show that it does harm in some way to innocent persons or the society and they never do that because they can't.
***** Obviously from what you are saying some types of love are abominations which God cannot condone. The examples you gave are far worse than a homosexual relationship. The focus now should be on making sure no members of the clergy be allowed to perform gay marriage ceremonies. There is a separation of church and state and gay couples can just be married by a judge. It is really important that Pope Petrus does not force clergy to perform these marriages.
Fernanda giron What is HIV/AIDS and where did it come from? What is venereal disease and where did it come from? Why is Throat Cancer on the Rise and where did it come from? If you can give me a good reason that these things are good in a society at large, then you won the argument, but you cannot do that.
@Susanna Donovan HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is a RNA virus and is a member of the the Lentivirus family of viruses. HIV is a zoonotic disease - meaning it originally comes from an animal that is not human (in the case of HIV, chimpanzees). It's theorised to have first infecting people around ~1910/20 in Africa, after they were commonly used as a food source (similar to how SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 is theorised to have come from wet market bats in China), however it was only discovered and properly studied decades later, as the virus has a decades long incubation period. AIDS is the result of HIV depleting the T-Helper cells in the body to below 200, allowing opportunistic infections to take place, which usually call the patients death - HIV/AIDS does *not* kill the patient itself. The first patients to be found in America with AIDS were gay, which led to scientists naively believing it was a "gay disease", which led to scientists not studying straight patients merely as much, which resulted in a serious error in judgement - as we all know the virus infects humans regardless of their sexuality (this in 2020, is common sense, but were talking 1960-80s America here). EDIT: RUclips just deleted the rest of the comments, so I'll keep it brief: - "What is a venereal disease?" A venereal disease is any disease spread by sexual intercourse, regardless of sexual orientation (after all, the disease doesn't know whether someone is gay or not). - "Where do venereal diseases come from" - The most probable answer is that, at a point in time, a disease went through enough mutations to spread through sexual intercourse and the rest is history (viruses split out into different branches from a common ancestor, etc - evolution does not just apply to living things (viruses after all do not live)). - "Why is throat cancer on the rise?" No one knows for sure, but given data on other cancers plus a little bit of common sense, it is more than likely due to a range of factors including lifestyle (not including sexual orientation, it has no affinity to mutation), diet, environmental factors such as pollution, etc. - "Where did throat cancer come from?" You might as well be asking, "Where did cancer come from?", as all cancers are caused by the same thing, a mutation in the body, which we've established in the scientific community can literally come from anything at any time at any place, because the human body is horribly flawed and fragile in its design (great creator, your God was). For a more deep and reasonable answer that extends past a RUclips comment, study genetics. Cancer does not have any provable relation to sexual orientation and so, by logic, the same answer can be applied to "Where did throat cancer come from?"
4:13 I would not agree that "innocent people" is entirely true, especially with how heinous Japan was in WWII, nor ignorant of the bomb to come with the flyers dropped by the US
Yes, and under a democratic system, the majority rules. This isn't to say that every poll determines every moral truth, but imagine if the college of cardinals elected a new Pope, but then someone said, "yeah, but just because the majority says so, doesn't make it morally right." Maybe so, even, nonetheless, the rules are the rules, else we're left with no arbiter of moral authority
I’ll never ever understand why the church considers healthy gay relationships wrong. Who does it hurt? How much good do loving gay couples bring into the world, especially for the children that they often adopt? What makes those fleeting passages in the Bible any more relevant than the many other ones we functionally ignore? Isn’t the power of the church it’s ability to make sense of scripture, to think critically about it and create a fully fleshed out religion for understanding the teachings and deeds of Christ?
In short : it is not about the love between the gay couple That love is good What is condemned is the sexual act because it violates the function of the sexual organs For details I recommend checking out the perverted faculty argument from Ed Feser Check out the theology of the body institute
This video does not discuss same sex marriage. It talks about the way pro-ssm people shut down any opposing views by calling the other a "hater." But I guess that's too nuanced a topic for those pro-ssm people who are spewing hate against Father Barron in the comments. They are simply proving him right.
Religious views on same sex marriage should be shut down. It's call separation of church and state and most free countries have it. If christians don't want same sex marriage in their church that's their right, but they get no say in what is legally allowed in a country. Of course the church is in a crisis now because most people have no issue with same sex marriage and with numbers of catholics at a record low, the church is trying to do anything it can not to push more away.
Fr. James Martin what's up with this priest. Will gay marriage be ok in the church? I know we love everyone but isn't marriage between a man and woman only, are things changing? Thank you bishop Barron. God Bless🌷
As a man of the cloth, he would be more productive teaching Gods Word, instead of wishing for a meaningful dialogue about morality. The Bible clearly states “ the heart of man is deceitful”.Jeremiah 17: 9-10. This current culture of “sentimentality” towards people who are openly sinful he describes is clearly exactly what God warns us against in Jeremiah. It’s called moral relativism and is a direct path to eternal death. My question is why doesn’t the Bishop use scripture to point out the work of Satan the liar, it could save souls. Having moral discussions is nice but not unless it leads to teaching God’s Word.
Oh- live and let live. It's 2020. Simply live by: 1. Bring no harm to others 2. Bring no harm to yourself We're all spiraling into history, after all. Is it any wonder younger people are dropping formal religion in droves.
Listen to the video again --- he directly says that he is not engaging the moral argument here, but clearing away the fog surrounding the issue. So you need to understand his purpose.
I would be on the side of caution though. Gays are still children of God and Jesus died for them too. While as Christians we must encourage to live in accordance to the gospel we cannot exclude them from it. Jesus came for the sinner not the people who believed they were righteous.
the heart of the man have 2 horses: the horse of the light, made of justice and love, and the horse of darkness, made of hatred and deceitfulness, please don't try to make the man as someone evil by nature, that idea is exactly how all the cults works, negating our dual nature and then our capability for the good.
@Peasant Scrublord We are in the midst of a pandemic. It serves to remind us that life is fragile. There is no time to bind our hearts to some outdated religious belief. Each of us will be in a heaven or hell of our own making. If we've been kind and generous, we will go gently. If we are selfish and cruel, we'll be met with lonliness and indifference at our final hour. Practice love and understanding. Who we love is not nearly as important as how we face these hours.
By definition, marriage is a Christian word that means the joining of a man and women FOR the procreation of children. They can become a domestic partnership but if they want nothing to do with Christianity why do they want to be married so bad? It’s ironic that they choose the rainbow as their symbol, a literal wink from God.
It is SIN = Sin is an offence against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is a failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods.... It has been defined [by St Augustine] as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law." All people are subjected to it. Including priests. God instituted marriage in the beginning...... NOT PEOPLE..... He intended it to be one man and one woman. The holy union was blessed by God and made holy. Rom 1:18-32 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. So Michael you do not speak the TRUTH but instead..... insist on scientific evidence in everything. The TRUTH is in Jesus Christ. HE is the way the TRUTH and the LIFE. God is far above your enlightenment and you lead people away from God by not speaking the truth. You will need to answer for that at the end of your life.
+Michael Montague It is because I DO BELIEVE. I do WANT to go to heaven when I die. You are free to make your choice. Jesus respects your free will. But it is very hurtful to him when we DO choose freely to reject him. It is actually a tragedy when someone does so with their free will. Jesus offers all people eternal life. Why are you angry?
+Michael Montague Wow, you just proved the point of the video. Way to try to shut down an argument because you don't like the points someone else makes. Please, please allow for rational discussion to take place. None of this "my way or the highway" nonsense. He did provide evidence, and it was not ridiculous in any way.
I found it ironic that the very first response to Fr. Barron's argument that we today are largely incapable of making sound moral arguments was the utterly unsound argument that "The Supreme Court has ruled; therefore the issue is settled, both legally and morally."
I wonder. Has there ever been an age when some great evil was not legal? Probably the only time something evil has not had the sanction of the law was before men made positive laws.
I think that there is a God, singular, yes (and demonstrably so), but the position you put forward is simply legal positivism, and although popular today, it has traditionally been a minority position in Western thought. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, the majority of the classical Christian tradition, and even the majority of the Enlightenment tradition believe that there is some way to base positive or legal justice, on NATURAL JUSTICE (natural law, natural right), whose authority is grounded in reason and human nature, without directly requiring any appeal to God (even if it should be the case that God should turn out to be the ultimate ground of morality -- after all, God is the creator of the laws of nature in all senses, but we do not appeal to God in physics, save perhaps as the ultimate metaphysical cause of nature). The Declaration of Independence is speaks of "nature and nature's God" and although it does speak of us being "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights", it also declares these to "self-evident truths." Your position denies and anyone can in fact know this, any fundamental truths before which the positive law has to bow. This conflict came up immediately after the Second World War. Not only had legal positivism been the prevalent theory with the national socialists, it was popular throughout the West (as it still is) and was appealed to: How could the Nazis be TRIED FOR CRIMES? The had not broken any laws. For legal positivism, that's the end of the matter. If killing Jews is not illegal, then it isn't a crime; and if it isn't a crime, nothing wrong was done. This reasoning was not, at the time, accepted: it was held that there are certain things are that are inherently wrong (genocide is one of them) that are inherently wrong, and that this can be known by reason from nature. According to this unwritten natural (non-positive) law, the Nazis were guilty, guilty of crimes against humanity. So I side firmly with the majority of the Western tradition which rejects BOTH the reduction of natural right to mere positive law, or else tries to skip natural right entirely by rooting everything in direct divine command theory. The traditional teaching is that between God and the mere work of man is nature, and that natural law and natural right is the rational standard for positive law and positive right. In legal terms, there are crimes mala in se, or evil in themselves (that is, crimes prescribed by the natural law, such as murder) and crimes mala prohibitum (that is, crimes which are merely prohibited by a government of the sake of order, like traffic regulations -- there is nothing intrinsically wrong with driving on either side of the road, but one is not legal in the US and the other not in England). It is absurd to say that laws don't address moral issues. Why do we have laws against murder and rape and child abuse? For convenience? No, these things are illegal BECAUSE they are wrong. Legal positivism, the position you seem to think is the only alternative to a divine command theory in ethics, is its a position which stands in need of defense. Finally, you seem confused about the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. No where in the Constitution will you find the phrase "separation of Church and State," and what the clause prohibits is the State *officially sanctioning a State religion* and from *preventing people from practicing their religion.* It is about what the State IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO. The Church is under no such constraint. Religious citizens, who are the vast majority in the US, are allowed to vote, and nothing prohibits them from voting accord to their reason and consciences, and if they do so informed by their religious beliefs (as will as many other beliefs that everyone has), so what? That is actually how democracy works. It would be ridiculous (wouldn't it?) to argue something like this: "The 10 Commandments prohibit murder. Therefore any law prohibiting murder is based on either Judaism or Christianity. Therefore, any law of the US prohibiting murder is an establishment of religion. Therefore the SCOTUS should strike down all laws against murder." For Jews and Christians, the direct prohibition of murder by God isn't what CONVINCES them that murder is wrong -- they already knew that -- but RECONFIRMS what they already knew by reason alone AND ups the ante, just in case they start being tempted to kill off a few "undesirables" -- and don't kid yourself that human beings would never do such a thing. For a thirst, he has to say, "Sorry, you can't murder these people because that is absolutely prohibited by God." For a natural law philosopher, he has to say, "Sorry, you can't murder these people because it is a violation of natural right and inherently wrong." For a legal positivist, he can only say this much, "Well, you can't kill them while the laws still makes it illegal to kill them, but all you have to do is change the law, and then killing them will be okay, or at least legal, since 'legal' and 'okay' are the same thing after all." In other words, those who accept legal positivism generally do so because they accept one or both of these propositions: 1. there are no objective moral truths, or 2. if there are any objective moral truths, no one can know them. Are there good arguments for these positions? Well, some have held them, but not the majority of Western philosophers. The main support seems to be a fallacious argument: 1. There is disagreement about moral matters; 2. therefore, there is no objective truth of the matter. This is the same, logically, as: 1. There is disagreement about the shape of the earth; 2. therefore, there is no objective truth of the matter (the earth "is" flat to flat-earthers). So, disagreement isn't a very strong argument for moral subjectivism, especailly since many moral disagreements are only apparent (e.g. in the abortion debate, both sides generally accept the moral principe that it is wrong to directly kill an innocent person; the locus of the disagreement is over the factual metaphysical issue of whether or not a human fetus is an innocent person in the relevant sense. But that is a matter of fact, not of value). But, you might say, there is so much MORE disagreement about morals than about (say) scientific matters. Isn't that explained by the fact that morals are subjective? Well, not if there as another, better, explanation, and it was given by Socrates, and repeated by Plato and Aristotle, and it is quite simply this: it is in the nature of things that quantitative matters are easy to reach agreement about, when a measurement can be made, in part because quantities allow for exactness. Qualities, which is the category of reality under which all moral things fall, cannot be measured in this -- for the simple and sufficient reason that they are not quantities. Many relations also can't be measured that way (how do you measure "to the left of". And qualities are not less real that quantities. Even quantities themselves have qualities: the number 12 is even, for example, and also immaterial, as are all numbers. So if I can accurately discern that an immaterial entity such as the number 12 has the quality of being even, I see no reason it is strange or even problematic to observe that certain human actions (which as actions, seem to be more material than numbers), have the quality of "being unfair" or "being fair", or most generally "being right" and "being wrong" (although it is always better to be as specific as possible about the kind of wrong that is involved. By declaring it to be a RIGHT for persons of the same-sex to marry, the court took a very firm moral position. Many people were joyful for, it exactly on moral grounds. To them it looked something like: 1. It is wrong to treat a person unequally on the basis of an arbitrary and benign or natural characteristic. 2. Homosexuality is a benign and possibly natural characteristic, upon the basis of which homosexuals as a class are being treated equally; 3. THIS unequal treatment is therefore unjust. 4. The law should establish JUSTICE. 5. Therefore, the taw of the land should recognize same-sex marriage as equal to traditional marriage, because this is what justice requires. Americans have always believed in 4. "Separate Church and State" isn't in the Constitution, but "Establish Justice" is. Americans have always believed in 1 in the ideal, but had to overcome various obstacles, racism being the obvious example. In recent decades, Americans have come to accept that 2, that gay people are a class in a sense relevantly similar to black people. We did argue about 3 for a bit. A lot of people thought "Civil Unions" for same-sex couples would be the way to go, but most Americans tend to equate "equality" with "completely identical treatment", so that didn't work out. It became "Nothing less than total recognition of same-sex marriage as marriage and as the law of the land will satisfy justice." So, since you had 1 and 4, all one needed to do was get 2 ("And there's nothing wrong with that!") and then 3. Once those are in place, you'll get 5, at least if you have a SCOTUS that holds that its the job of the SCOTUS to establish justice directly, which is the majority view. Personally, I don't see Scalia's question about why, if Americans truly want same-sex marriage, we don't Amend the Constitution to recognize it, as a pretty good one.
Eve Keneinan Pardon me but, who in the (HELL) is the Supreme Court that defines Almighty God's marriage between One Man and One Woman as wrong. Almighty God designed marriage over 2,000 years ago long before ANY Supreme Court was ever around. Just look at when Almighty God told Noah to bring into the Ark a pair of each (make & female) Every homosexual out there has a mother AND a father!
@@johnjacob5990 You Sir, are entitled to believe what you want. However, the remains of Noah's Ark rest on Mount Ararat in Turkey to this very day and even the Scientists who for the most part are atheists believe in the geological changes after the flood. Question, Why is it that you can find seashells on top of the mountains?
Bishop Barron, your excellency, I am scouring through your videos searching... any encouraging videos for those of us with ssa who choose chastity? any videos on how to live celibacy in a healthy way? anything?
Hello Bishop! I'm gay and Catholic myself and am curious about what you have to say about the law in reference to Fruit of the Spirit. If a loving heterosexual or homosexual relationship does not defile those principles then the marriage of any class should not even be considered by way of Law but of Spirit. The legalization is strictly an American civil issue. So then how can one say that gay marriage legalization should not follow based on these specific principles Paul did write about?
Hi friend, I don't quite understand your question. But I found this website that is very helpful for me to understand how we should view the church teaching about gay marriage: www.catholic.com/tract/homosexuality I pray that you will be able to find some help from the article.
What is the MORAL argument against homosexual behavior? The Church says God created sex for man-woman relationships, but how does that imply that any other type of behavior is immoral? There are thousands of things we do that have nothing to do with "God's original purpose" for them. One or two passages from the books of Moses mean nothing when the Church ignores 95% of those laws. You could say the exact same thing about how popular eating pork and shellfish are. The reason why the "moral argument" has broken down is becuase one side's entire justification boils down to "tradition for the sake of tradition."
Marriage is not "Holy Matrimony." "Holy Matrimony" is a specifically Christian religious concept: Its defenders base their argument on the Christian Bible and on medieval Christianity's theological definition of "Nature"-and on the manipulation of that definition so that many common animal (including human) behaviors could be classed as “unnatural,” as in the fantasized pseudo-biology books called "bestiaries," written by medieval clerics. The theological concept, "Holy Matrimony," is not shared by many other religions-not even all Christian churches admit “Holy Matrimony” as a "sacrament" -and in the United States this religious concept (including the idea that a union between two people must be between only one man and one woman) cannot be imposed by some citizens on others without violating the First Amendment. And how can Christians forget that the Lord’s anointed King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines? In the Holy Bible! Does that sound like "the traditional one-man, one-woman" marriage touted by homophobic Christian fanatics? Marriage (not “Holy Matrimony”) existed all over the world long before Christianity, and still exists outside Christianity, in order to ensure the orderly transfer of property-through an economic pact between two families which would include (but was not limited to) inheritance by children. That is why marriages have always required “dowries” and “bride-prices,” to guarantee economic solvency. In fact, these contracts were required among the Hebrews, from whom Christianity originated. Remember how Jacob in the Old Testament, had to buy his two wives, Leah and Rachel, from his father-in-law, Laban? And they were sisters. Sister-wives. In the Holy Bible! (They were also his cousins on his mother's side. Incest!) Does that sound like "the traditional one-man, one-woman" marriage of reactionary Christians? Outside Islamic and Judaic theocracies, marriage (not “Holy Matrimony”) is a civil contract registered with and regulated by the state. It is, in effect, a kind of incorporation. That is why couples are required by law to go to a demographic registry and fill out a marriage license. They register with the state, which establishes by law who will possess the property that each brings to the marriage and the property that they acquire during the marriage. That is also why modern countries require not only a state-issued marriage license but also, if the marriage is dissolved, a civil divorce decree that, among other things, apportions the couple’s assets and assigns obligations, sometimes as established by law. Furthermore, the fact that marriage is a civil contract is clearly shown in the prenuptial agreements that dispose of the couple’s property in the case of a dissolution of the marriage. They are contracts-modifications of the property distributions explicit and implicit in marriage contracts.
Wonderfully put! I couldn't have expressed it better myself. This is a huge problem America is suffering from right now, the issue of so-called "religious liberty." In the context I'm talking about, it refers to the liberty others allegedly have to discriminate based off their religious beliefs (the baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple) and the liberty elected officials have to vote on and craft laws 'based off their faith.' I worked for a Catholic congressman in DC who was, you guessed it, Republican and he constantly over-used his Catholic faith as a crutch for not even just fusing his faith with laws passed in a secular democracy, but actually to justify immoral votes the Catholic Church wouldn't even approve of! With the dawn of so-called 'religious liberty,' we are now even seeing the Ten Commandments being placed in state capitols, a direct slap in the face to secular democracy. It's a very cunning tactic of these right-wingers, and one that can technically also be shielded by the First Amendment. "The congressman needs to vote based off his sense of morality, which is grounded in his faith," and thus the doctrines of the faith become influences on the laws passed. What we need is a Supreme Court that ISN'T stacked with conservatives and that will seriously analyze this impasse where both sides claim the First Amendment grants them the right to do what they do. Ultimately, I'd hope a reasonable Supreme Court would finally realize that while the First Amendment clearly allows freedom of religion, it does not tolerate forcing religious doctrine into laws that would impact the lives of those not even belonging to the faith. I'd then hope and expect that issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the right to bear arms would all be tolerated by law and infringing on those rights, as we have in a secular society, is unlawful even by those who pass the laws. Now, I think things like abortion, while being legal, could be perhaps discouraged by government voices while not being outlawed or infringed upon. There comes a point where secularism can turn to a point where morality is silenced totally, which is just as bad. Then we're no different a democracy than Ancient Athens, where the people can vote to kill off an entire island in combat and enslave the population. We can't just allow evil in the name of secularism. Abortion is medically necessary sometimes and even needed as a last resort by some families, but that's the key right there. Last resort. We should not seek to normalize it or make it seem like something to take for granted. Ironically, the same people who claim their religion stands against abortion also claim that it allows for the death penalty, which no Christian religion certainly does. Back to gay marriage, I hope that the day comes when Catholics and Christians stop pointing to a few out of context verses and, in Catholicism's case, dogma and doctrines based upon them. I hope we can realize what Jimmy Carter pointed out, that at no recorded point during his ministry did Jesus even preach on homosexuality, and certainly didn't condemn it. The only condemnations we have are from the Old Testament, which is outdated since this was the Bronze Age and the people back then weren't exactly scientists or biologists, and the letters of Paul, which are taken out of context. I've heard the argument that when discussing the sin of homosexuality, Paul was actually referring to the sin of betraying one's naturally-created sexuality. This was directed at the sexuality cults of the day in Rome where people would engage in homosexuality, pederasty, and other sexual acts solely as a part of a religious rite to appease some god or goddess. He probably didn't know that homosexuality is also found in nature just as heterosexuality, but the gist of his message is this: don't engage in sexual acts that are alien to your own making and beliefs. This also applies to people born as homosexuals who repress themselves and force themselves into a heterosexual marriage built on lies. They were created by God to be gay (and yes, I believe that God created homosexuality as well, even if it does not lead to procreation, it is based on two individuals' love for one another and God is love). I think the biggest point is the fact that Jesus never even brought it up. The Old Testament verse dates back to when God was considered a harsh war god, while Paul was merely expressing his views based on the times he lived in. Jesus is timeless, outside of time, and created all things. I think his perspective is more important than Paul's (allegedly) and whichever sheep farmer wrote that verse in the Old Testament "a man shall not lie with another man."
@@joetookmyvideo Try reading the Constitution, our actual law. Freedom of and from religion is all over it. Also history, the Founding Fathers were Deists, they had no care for "God's Law"
Half or more priests are gay so what's the point here...at least gay people who are born that way want to legitimatize their union to get the same benefits that other couples get while the Catholic priests hide in the shadows...of all people to argue about this priests are not really the right authority to point fingers...
@@francodesus9519 that's true so why don't you follow all the laws in the bible that tell you to stone people to death and for slaves to obey their masters...why the cherry picking? And don't use the old it's the new testament argument if that's the case then throw out the old testament you can't have it both ways.
@@armandolarade7861 my dear.. let me put this clear I'm a Christian and remember christianity came after Jesus Christ and not before and when talking about Old Testament on whether to abide with it or not Jesus himself made it clear he came not to abolish the Torah but to complete it. The theological interpretation is that many people (Jews) had these laws because of their hardness such as divorce and even stoning someone to death and Jesus made it clear on the gospel. We follow new testament as the good news brought by God himself to redeem his people. We incorporated old testament as a matter of reference since christianity had its core roots from Torah but not to say christians must then live what also old testament commands. I can give you a simple example we all aware of the word technology and for the purposes of understanding in order to understand how new inventions come into existence you must first trace back from it's old version technology about anything whether computer, or a certain type of cars or even cell phones you must have some knowledge of old version to understand its modern version. That to say old testament (Torah)was there for the Israelites themselves that's why until today there's Judaism which its doctrine is mainly intended for Israel people but Gospel was for whole human kind and Jesus said to Peter "Peter you're the rock and upon this rock I will build my church" remember I never said he will bulid his synagogue as Jews used to during his time and even before him which was a practice under Mosaic laws.. cutting it short we as christians we live under Jesus teachings and not what Moses laws which was mainly for Jews at that particular time because Jesus is above all and anything contradicts with his teachings then his teachings precedes
"God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies .25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. 28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done" Romans 1:24-28 (NLT)
@@peterfoenander6234 Not forgetting Saint Jude. "5 I want to remind you about what you already know: The Lord once saved his people from Egypt. But on another occasion he destroyed those who didn't believe. 6 He held angels for judgment on the great day. They were held in darkness, bound by eternal chains. These are the angels who didn't keep their position of authority but abandoned their assigned place. 7 What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them is an example for us of the punishment of eternal fire. The people of these cities suffered the same fate that God's people and the angels did, because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities. 8 Yet, in a similar way, the people who slipped in among you are dreamers. They contaminate their bodies with sin, reject the Lord's authority, and insult his glory." Jude 1:5-8 (GW)
......@@prince5063 Almighty God calls killing another human murder and a sin when He forbids men whom He as created, from killing one another. But when He commands the killing of evil humans, it is a sin not to. Almighty God is the author of what is sin, and what is not sin. Almighty God can never commit 'murder' as only He has the right to kill and destroy what He Himself has created in the first place. HTH.
As a gay Catholic, I appreciate your discussion of this matter. In terms of gay marriage, I do not care what it is called but simply want the ability to take care of and be with the person I love and who loves me. I am not promiscuous nor do I partake in the activities commonly and sadly associated with gay men. I respect those who may not agree with me and ask that that same kindness and respect be shown to me. You do not have to like me for what I am classified as, but love me as a human being as I will do the same to you.
You are loved as a person, Christ demands we love our neighbor , but Christ also states we cannot love sin and when we do that’s mortal and grave and we must confess that sin and promise to work on that. So while I love people , be it a gay union or a man wanting 2 wives or someone getting prostitutes and thinks he loves them and they love him and just let them be happy, that goes against directly the Roman Catholic catechism , the deposit of faith, being gay in itself it is not the sin, acting upon those is the sin . Doesn’t matter what sin , when we act and accept sin it’s mortal and grave, God bless.
@@Bourbonandbrews I respectfully disagree with you and wish you well. I am not someone who wishes to be with multiple people, have random sex, nor do I want prostitutes. That is abhorrent. I simply love the same sex rather than the opposite sex. God bless you
@@BabyBugBug I was referring to others types of sin for an example. Male and male marriage , woman and woman marriage go against the catechism , 10 commandments and examination of consciousness. Again having gay feelings is one thing, thinking the Roman Catholic Church has the ability to change scripture , or the deposit of faith is quite another. Plenty of people who have same sex attraction don’t act on it and fight it, certainly not thinking they can have a same sex marriage and be within the doctrine of faith in such relationships and not in mortal sin of the Roman Catholic Church is quite another. No priest will tell you same sex marriages are defined in the Roman Catholic faith. Loving a person is one thing, I can love my sister or brother, but not in the same way I love my wife. Two superset forms of love , trying to mix them is not a Catholic teaching nor can it ever be. Blessings and prayers .
@@Bourbonandbrews I still respectfully disagree for reasons I will not mention here for fear of getting into a theological debate. God bless you and take care!
"they might have said that slavery was a legitimate practice and might even had appealed to religous sources to do so".... They did... And they found them and used them to justify the slavery industrial complex. So, this being a known historical fact, why then do you still assume that the mere presence of biblical justification for a practice or exclusionary mode of thinking is justification for its continuance? Id also like to call you out for a certain degree of cognitive dissonance in your whole having a problem with someone having a problem with moral observations on a moral issues while simultaneously holding that sentimentalizing what is clearly an inherently sentimental issue to many people automatically leads to distortions and biases in their reasoning.
James DeNino Pope John Paul 1 said this about LGBT people: “The day is not far off when we will have to answer to these people who through the years have been humiliated, whose rights have been ignored, whose human dignity has been offended, their identity denied and their liberty oppressed. What is more we will have to answer to the God who created them” That says it in a nutshell, and I couldn't have said it better myself.
Here I am, thinking you're going to give a diatribe on gay marriage. Instead, you gave a well thought, lucid thesis on moral argument (using the issue of gay marriage as a point of reference). Well done, your eminence!
There is a red flag of discrimination when the Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and says nothing about civil divorce, or marriage between un-annulled divorced people, or marriage between two people who have no desire to have children - It would seem less discriminatory if these were also civil rights that you protested. The discrimination seems evident when the church picks out this sin as the sin that they can't abide, can't pray away and can't allow - the arguments otherwise are sound but not the singular application to this one sin from Paul's list of sins - the church is blind to the other sins on the list but not this one.
Matt Alexander discrimination is a word secular leftist use to denigrate God‘s divine law. The church has teachings about divorce - but right now it seems homosexuality is on the forefront so it is being spoken about more. And we must discriminate. We are called to discriminate between things that are good and bad, order and disorder, divine law and damnation. That is the whole point of God’s church on earth - to discriminate what is holy and unholy and to follow that which is holy. I say proudly yes! We discriminate between that which will damn someone and that which can save their eternal soul and bring real happiness.
Marriage has been used in a variety of ways. I think it means togetherness. I think it means love. And I feel it is greatly immoral for us to cast judgment upon two people who want nothing more than to go about their daily lives with those they feel are good to them and or a high moral character. It is greatly shameful upon us that we base our entire system of beliefs on old traditions and grandiose stereotypes instead of asking them and actually listening calmly without bias, before making unproven or stereotype-fueled claims
By definition, marriage is a Christian word that means the joining of a man and women FOR the procreation of children. They can become a domestic partnership but if they want nothing to do with Christianity why do they want to be married so bad? It’s ironic that they choose the rainbow as their symbol, a literal wink from God.
When you define people as “gay,” as if God made some third sex of people, - instead of the fact that fallen man has institutionalized certain predilections toward sinful lifestyles, - you have already lost the marriage debate.
chris sonofpear1 You agreed with them in their assessment that they are a behavior. There is same sex attraction, the same way there is alcoholism or tendencies to lie, but no one says they belong to a unique group of people called ‘liars.” It’s a sinful behavior pattern, not an identity. - if God made “gay” people it immediately implies that the behavior is legitimate, so when you grant someone that they are gay and not just struggling with a type of sin, you have basically already lost the debate over whether or not gay behavior is justifiable.
I now live in the gay community and I can honestly say since I move here I am very happy compare where I use to live in the ghetto. I don't hear gun shots at night or homless people knocking in the middle of the night. Since I move here I have a different opinion about gays . I found out they are honest ,respectable no gay homeless, they are professional own their business. They don't like guns or own them ,they turn the other cheek if you hit them . They clean up their neighborhood no graffiti on walls. They help their own people when in need. The only Mortal sin this people have is having sex with a man. Because loving a man is not wrong is the lust.I think god will forgive them better then us . I really think they are closer to god then us corrupt so call straight people.
But why exactly is two men having sex a moral sin? What negative consequences does it have on anyone? Simply saying “god says its wrong” is not a good enough argument. For something to be a moral sin, it must have negative consequences. So far no one has been able to convince me that gay sex is a legitimate sin.
arlen guest well since by definition Sin is to go against Gods will, then saying “God says it’s wrong” actually is the best proper response. If you don’t believe in God, then why argue about sin. Otherwise, it would be wrong for a God to create two people who can love each other and produce children which is two flesh becoming one flesh, but then create two people who can’t manifest that love by producing children as a matter of design rather than a developmental flaw as with sterile people.
Oh, i believe there is a God. I just don’t believe God’s will can be found in any one book. The holy bible is one piece in a much larger puzzle that has been heavily amended over centuries in order for the shepherds to control the lives of their sheep. Not everything is a sin just because a book says it is. There are many other ways in which love can manifest besides making children. Not every person on the planet is meant to be a parent. What if god created homosexuality to act as a biological population control? Almost every species of animal has a small percentage of the population that displays homosexual tendencies. These same sex couples often adopt children that were abandoned by their biological parents for one reason or another. Maybe some people are simply not meant to have children, and are destined to help humanity in other ways instead, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to Marry and spend the rest of their life with the person that they love.
arlen guest homosexuality doesn’t actually effect population, especially in men since it is known that only half the male population in history has produced offspring. Second, a God that designed a world in which children would be abandoned by their parents is definitely not a good God. If you weren’t bent to reproduce, then why have sexual urges or even functionality, again not a good God. Also sex does not equal love, so no reason for sex if love is what we are talking about....it often gets I the way. But if your just inventing your own God, aka making yourself God, then it doesn’t matter. At least until judgment day.
I agree we all sin but it's still immoral & we're supposed to repent & try to turn from sin every day. BTW you generalized homosexuals by the ones you know in your area. I got to know a couple because one thing we had in common is we all absolutely love guns.
@S B Animals sometimes have homosexual sex, 'in nature' as you say - Bononos, for instance. You say your position is self evident, but I'm not sure I see it. Where is the harm?
Another fantastic video, Bishop Barron. And I'm someone who is pretty okay with gay marriage. And yet still, I can appreciate how articulate you are and how you can break a topic down in a way that I only used to hear in college classrooms by professors with PHDs in psychology or philosophy. What you say is exactly true. We've reached a point that we can no longer identify or even discuss anything "immoral" lest we be slapped with the intolerance label. And yes, very true that what the masses claim to support is not always a good thing. Thank you for yet another thought provoking video.
Its a difficult argument between what is morally acceptable and what is acceptable to the Church and to God. What is acceptable to God is really all I care about. I am sure happy that I am not gay but I have met my share of them and my heart does go out to them and their struggle to be accepted and to make the right decisions.
@@landyn3052 There is a God and I am quite sure Jesus would say to go down there. They have to go back out for sure. I am in agreement with the Canadian who has the book out. The pilot flew it into the ocean
It would be best to understand the arguments behind it. The video clearly states how bad it is to simplify arguments because, this day and age, people tend to assume the worst in the opposition to gay "marriage"!
Polls are not a compass of moral rectitude, it is simply a statistical tool to gauge political sentiment. The Bishop wants to merge political sentiment with moral judgement. Our founding fathers warned against this very ideology. Here is an example: while it may be morally repugnant for some to sentence any prisoner to death, for others the political calculus of a death sentence is justified for the preservation of order in a civil society regardless of its moral implications.. Life is complicated, it is often shades of gray and not black or white. Jesus knew that when he acknowledged the political power of Caesar.
Marriage is literally a religious rituals. If you don't want to follow religion which (among many things) consists sets of rules and laws set by God. And you can do whatever you want with your life that's your choice (you'll get punished in afterlife tho) but coming back trying to seek validation from the same religion you disobeyed and try to even justify your actions is the problem. And it is one of the reason Christianity became so corrupted
@@andreasgrund8330 Everybody lives in a society so one's action may not directly affect other people but it will affect the society which in turn will affect the other person (especially an action the affect an important institution of the society like marriage). A family is an important unit in any society. Keeping it strong and original is a basic necessity for the survival & well-being of the society.
SECULAR marriage is a different thing to sacramental marriage. Proponents of SSM are talking about the secular concept - they are not requiring the Church to change its doctrines: the Church is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The sacred is the Church's province - but if it crosses the boundary into the secular world, then it will need good secular arguments to be heard. And in this cause, if it tries to use scientifically defunct arguments about the welfare of children or natural law, then it will be met with the minimum of a wry eye. It is truly pathetic to hear bishops, priests and laity fulminating that their SECULAR edicts and dogmas have no currency in the republic of letters.
I’m dutch and same sex marriage has been accepted here by the majority of people. I even saw an interview with a gay couple where one of the two was a reverend. And guess what: it does nothing bad to society. Homosexuals deserve the same rights as anyone else.
He presents no argument at all against gay marriage. He sets up some straw-man bad, or at least non-moral, arguments for gay marriage and pushes them over. Since his beloved and never-erring church endorses companionate (i.e., where-procreation-is-impossible) marriage between 2 opposite-sex persons, provided they never married before or paid that same church to cancel ("annul", even though today 60% of RC "annulments" are mere feel-good appendages to civil divorces taking place 1 year or more after marriage) their previous marriage, he needs to present a moral argument distinguishing such a marriage from a marriage of 2 same-sex persons, or else he has to admit that his church's condemnation of gay marriage has no moral basis. Of course, he does neither. But he does complain that those condemning gay marriage are dismissed as bigots. No, in his case, he must be dismissed as a hypocrite. There's a moral distinction there - but why should it matter to the gay couple whose marriage he and the all-holy Roman Pontiff agree in condemning?
Well he is maybe navigating toward the default position of liberal bishops : you can celebrate your union in a civil union but don't call it marriage. But he should not be so condescending about it, given that the RCC has been stomping on any such idea since forever: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Fr Barron is a very fair-minded thinker. In this video he discusses how we ALL talk past each other on today's moral issues, instead of actually arguing/ discussing. Regardless on which side of the gay marriage argument you fall, we can at least agree on this. We need to really THINK and really TALK and really LISTEN. He makes many fair points. Fr. Barron is a Catholic Priest, he represents the Catholic Church to the best of his ability. So do not be surprised or critical that he doesn't support gay marriage arguments in his video.
Marriage is just marriage. Gay people have been around since the beginning of time. It's so sad the Bible locks Christians into thinkn homosexuality is evil thus making it a choice not something ur born with. The Bible teaches us to have compassion and empathy of other born ailments disabilities etc. Yet ur born gay which is a small fraction of the grand human total ur screwed. In Russia ur killed they don't play around. Terrible. Now I was the biggest homophob until just a few years ago. I was struggling in Christianity and started exploring Taoism and Hinduism. They teach we grow outta the universe not put here by a diety. Everything the universe is u are. We all are simply the universe observing itself. They beauty is the uniqueness of each observer its infinitely different spice of life as it would be boring if we all the same like deer. Then u value each person as a unique universe observer apart of the whole. I was watching local news one day and they brought up gay pride parade happening in town. They showed some drag and creative costumes. Normally I'd ve turning the channel but this time I experienced pride. The gay experience is unique theyr boldness in attire is cool. I was proud of living in a state and country where it was ok for them to parade. It looked packed and a total party. I felt shame about the flat out hate I had for 45+ years of my life. Their contribution to the human condition is legitimate should be accepted and value as we should gender races and cultures. And since heterosexuals at this point get divorced 50% of time we got no business owning the sanctity of marriage.
Thank you Father, this was a great, common sense approach to the issue. I think the real issue is society has lost its sense of sin. Offending God is not something people are afraid to do at their own peril. This country was founded on Christian principles and in no way, shape or form did the founders ever contemplate this nonsense. Our society is sick. Some posters incorrectly believe a secular society has the power to institutionalize sinful and until recently criminal behavior. The offense one poster took to equating dropping the bomb and gay marriage is laughable, they just don't get it. Your observation of the sentimentality of the issue is accurate. While we must live and respect all people we can not bless sin. The background music with this issue really is to ultimately label the Word of God as hate speech, start taxing churches and shut down people of faith. I can't wait until the pendulum swings back to the right payback is gonna be swift and sweet. The vast majority of Americans still hold deep traditional values. We need more leadership from clergy and brave politicians. We the people are sick of the left, they are killing this once great nation. God bless you. God save America.
@RoxanneDrew Those principles are not Christian in origin. They, like all fundamental morals, were developed as society grew. Religions then appropriate these values and sometimes adhere to them.
yeah the US was built on slavery and slaughter of Native Americans, not built on Christian values. The founding fathers were slave-owners, and yet we hold ourselves to their centuries-old words and thoughts.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
"Tolerance only applies to persons, never to principles. Intolerance only applies to principles, never persons." Blessed Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Not 'Blessed' yet, but if the Diocese of Rochester would get out of the way, he might get there soon, please God.
Principles.. As if they we detained sufficient knowledge to make them universal.. Include them in those things where e need to exercise caution. (make reference to the history of principle) (try not to laugh too much)
People are effected by principles and other people’s interpretations thereof. What a nonsensical quote from the archbishop.
@@Red_Cupp Try again, it simply means love the sinner not the sin
Joe Rocha stop, you’re cognitive dissonance has a hold of you
Hi Bishop Barron - greeting. I am a Roman Catholic from Singapore and I have been watching your video clips for the last few months and I really must say i have benefited tremendously and spiritually from all of your unofficial homily. Somehow it strengthens my own Catholic way in immeasurable and enlightening way. Please please continue to do this. Do not stop. I thank God for you.
God bless you!
And people like you cause me want to defund Planned Parent Hood.
Roberts, not the only inspirational one.
Fan of Bishop Barron and Singaporean too!
@Damian Vigorito, To me he is a skater to serious issues.
He really confuses me. He DOES GET TO THE TRUTH.
My opinion not yours.
WHEN I HEAR HIM SPEAK; I AM ALWAYS LOST??!!?
I am not a Catholic but I watch your videos all the time. Thank you for what you do!!
Im a Protestant and I agreed with you on this
"Not everything a decent person does or wants is morally right...we sentimentalize the issue." Feels matter most in this age of self-referring relativity.
An 'accidental' bump with your videos showed me how resourceful the catholic church and her ministers are; which I have not been aware of until I saw a few of your video clips. Excellent audio-visual quality, amazing analysis and very systematic argument. Thank you and God bless dear Fr. Barron.
Thank you Bishop Barron. I needed to hear this today especially. This matter is present within my family where some women are concerned. I am grateful for your comments and you have helped me understand many things.
I'm sure this video will encourage you to spit on the women in your family by yelling at them "immoral people, go to the fire"
I was born with HOMOSEXUAL tendences, but for me i have very clear what is the TRUE and REAL marriage, it is created by a MAN and a WOMAN. Why i say this, well, it is simple because i see it and live it through my PARENTS and other family members who are married and there is not other way to appreciate it. It is true that the recent SCOTUS decition brings benefits for GAY couples about social security, insurance, house benefits, rights property and also no-discrimination attitudes at public and private institutions but for me it is a big mistake to try to put this SAME SEX CIVIL UNION PARTNERSHIP at the same level of a TRUE MARRIAGE ( man and woman ) i think it is not correct by LGBT people who support that false vision. perhaps that wrong vision is also an influence by POP CULTURE, MAINSTREAM MEDIA, ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY that traditionally support a SAME-SEX UNION like If it were exactly the same as a TRUE MARRIAGE ( man and woman ). I was born with HOMOSEXUAL tendences and if i felt in love with my boyfriend i wouldn't need to put a signature over a BUREAUCREATIC paper to LOVE him. I don't put my homosexual tendences at the hands of LGBT'S agenda who only bully people who dont share their point of views however i put my HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCES be guided first by the love of my lord GOD and also by reliable friends and relatives. LGBT activists say LOVE is LOVE ....mmmmm....ok could be right but i say LOVE IS LOVE and also TRUE is TRUE. holy sacred marriage belongs to a man and a woman that's the true GOD's marriage plan.
wow fuck your life for having to live a lie!
+1134gh i feel blessed from GOD for living a fuck life then.
Gustavo Pérez whatever it takes, right?
+1134gh very blessed
+1134gh so sorry man, my homosexual life belong to me and not to any LGBT bullying agenda. peace be with you.
This is so true. Society today has become very child like. Most people are not Truth seekers, they just defend what seems convenient to them in the very immediate future. They don´t stop to think about long term repercussions, nor do they seem to care.
We can't afford to keep moaning and mooping around with all this. We must act.
it's the entitlement shared by the millenial generation and the lack of responsibility that's ingrained itself in today's culture.
@@darionkormos-mysticcity7997 What do you mean by act , do you mean kill some first born children or create a joint flood ?
@DannyGirl One question after reading this painful diatribe . Will Gay marriage increase or decrease the amount of sex occurring in the World ?
@DannyGirl What is marriage , is it strictly a religious union of 2 people till death do they part or is it a civil union requiring a licence from the Govt ?
Hello Bishop Barron. I have benefited greatly from your videos, even though I am a Protestant. You have presented very eloquent defenses for orthodoxy and I commend you greatly for it. I realize more and more the similarities between our two expressions of the Christian faith when I watch your videos. Keep doing what you are doing!
Pax
Same, I'm protestant, and I am really enjoying his commentary.
Hi Fr. Barron, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I lament about the tainting of this issue by sentimentalism, aggression and politics. However, you are probably aware that beneath these are real philosophical and theological arguments. Those who are driven emotionally by this issue are probably people who have experienced and seen a kind of oppression - latent and overt - by the church (and considering her political history and based on personal experience, this is no surprise). There is on the one hand some space where intelligent arguments have been brought up based on scientific and philosophical issues and on pastoral concerns. Many Christians/Catholics (now if my stats is correct, this is about half or even more than half of the faithful), including myself, seem to have had a change of mind and heart regarding this issue, but this change and the changing polls did not and do not occur in a vacuum. Might it not be acknowledged that the slowly changing attitudes towards LGBT issues - that you suggested to have started in the 70s across denominations - may have sprung from a discovery that is inspired, true and sincere? On the issue of slavery, St. Paul and Henry Newman have not in any way considered slavery as necessarily intrinsically evil. That evolved within for example the thought of St. Pope John Paul II, and earlier from the reflections of both the secular and faithful, who discovered slavery as de facto intrinsically evil. Or if I may recall the sense that "salvation is not exclusive for the baptized" or the idea behind "anonymous Christianity" expounded by Karl Rahner, both of which have trickled bottom-up from the thoughts and attitudes of the lay - the sensus fidei. Is it at all possible that this same movement is making its way into LGBT issues in favour of them our brother and sisters who have truly endured decades of oppression and persecution from both secular and religious institutions? I am not a theologian so I know little about the complexity of the discussions surrounding this issue. I am a neuroscientist, a psychiatrist and Catholic, and I can speak as such. My discipline does tell me - and I just reiterate here the discovery that psychology, biology and anthropology have made many years ago - that homosexuality is not a disorder but a naturally occurring minority variant of the human condition. This is in some sense somewhat counter to the current church teaching. But I cannot ever look at an LGBT brother and sister in the eye and tell them that he is a defective heterosexual, and that he has a tendency towards an intrinsic disorder or evil. From a pastoral perspective, it may seem that this teaching is so destructive psychologically - driving many to hide in the closet and compelling them to not be true to themselves - that it may be construed as a religious taboo rather than moral guidance. I am inclined to believe in the judgement of psychology and neuroscience, that there is nothing abnormal about being LGBT and in living out a flourishing life as such. And I have my doubts about the magisterial teaching simply because my discipline tells me that this is in their nature, and that grace can perfect this nature and not despise it. Because of this, I subscribe to the primacy of my conscience rather than to the teaching.
I agree with your comments and if the LGBT are a naturally occurring minority variant of the human condition who are we to deny them the fullest expression of love in the marriage state.
Brilliant and thoughtful response. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
We must live by the word of God, not our Opinions. The word of God condemns Homosexual acts, it's pretty simple. Seek God and do not be deceived. Souls are at risk.
This is an excellent argument, I really see you point here - I would say that when you boil it down everything from the polls to the arguments and the history and abuse cannot prove whether lgbtq+ rights are true or wrong - I'd say those arguments are just mud on the wall to distract us from truly discussing the morality of the issues. The big thing he's address in this particular video is simply that we become so defensive and detract so easily from the morality and complexity of the issues because of 1) changing vocabulary 2) emotion-based arguments - on both sides I mean! and 3) wariness toward any legal judgement on morality.
These aren't themselves bad things or bad arguments but we get so distracted by them we don't have a clear discussion when two opposing opinions meet.
I hope he posts a video soon on his opinions and arguments about lgbtq+, I disagree with you on some points but your words are thoughtful and merit prayerful consideration and open discussion with theologians who are willing to both hear and speak as clearly as you.
@@johndouglas4826Adults are talking.
Life here is fleeting but eternity is forever. Let's think deeply on this
This makes me think of a quote that a seminarian friend of mine said recently. He said people need to “remember the reality of eternity.”
It was a good reminder for myself too, especially since I liked the said friend; his words helped me see that what I wanted was somewhat selfish. He feels a call to the priesthood and he is not interested in me, so I need to let my personal feelings go. I believe God has a plan much better than anything I could ever come up with, so I’ll try to follow Him.
Ebony George there is the saying “memento mori” which means “remember your death”, which refers to exactly this
There is not such thing as eternity, that's why we must do all the good we can while we are alive
I heard of a quote that said "I'd rather believe in God and die finding out he isn't real than to not believe in God and die finding out He is"
@@zanir2387 Thank you.👍🔥💯
Well I'm not into God, I'm not even baptised and I'm surely not from a catholic background, but I think he's got a point!
Ria, you may not be into Him yet, but Jesus loves you!
Seek. & you will find Ria, God bless your journey
Messino Hart,I know it's been four years now though I hope you're into Him now if not just know He's into you. Just take a look back on your life so far and you'll see.
It's sad how 3 of the above 4 responses rather then talking about the point the commenter made: "He's got a good point not reliant on faith, I agree despite not sharing his religion." and decided that the best way to respond is almost appearing to be an expectation that he's going to convert to Christianity. - That has absolutely nothing to do with the points that neither the video makes, nor the person writing this comment made.
@@AutoGamerZ_ People are sad. They are going to do what they will, no one can reasonbly make the bet that praying to improve their flaws will do any good.
From my POV, their replies although unrelated, are fine to me because they were kind and nice, that's my top priority.
I am a fairly new believer in Christ and just recently came to some of your videos in pursuit of trying to understand and know God and having a deeper relationship with him .. I have got to say you are one of the most clearly spoken intellects , with the ability to make what otherwise would have been difficult for me to understand information , i have ever came across in my life. I can actually grasp matters in a way that is so very clear to even a simple person like me...God has bleased you to bless others thank you
We’re waiting for that video where you discuss this issue.
Anytime we give approval of sin in the name of compassion can only hurt the person we are justifying for eternity.
No wonder your brain is mashed potatoes soupy mashed potatoes at that . Gay marriage is not a good or bad issue
@@michaeloconnor6280 A tutor telling his student that she is doing well in math because it will make her feel better may seem nice but when finals come and she fails her class the "niceness" will be revealed to have been damaging to her and actually quite unloving.
The question is if homosexual activity is inherently damaging. That is a question that can be considered and argued. And if the truth is that homosexual activity is damaging then calling it good to make people feel good and to be nice is actually, like the lying math tutor, quite unloving.
@@michaeloconnor6280 why does anyone care about anything, Michael?
Simple. Because they... care.
Now you might wrap yourself in indifference, but others, thankfully, will not.
Having moved past ignorance of reality (that there IS a God; that God created man and woman to procreate and make families; that it is harmful to a person and society when he sins against his very own bodily design) the caring person CARES about the well-being of his fellow man. And says "Hey, that's a tar pit. I want to help you recognize that and help you get out of it."
THAT'S why God cares. That's why people who know God care.
@@michaeloconnor6280 Well, we know sinners tend to go to hell. Scripture is the evidence if you accept it as true.
@@alanlo-557 You have to actually explain what these harmful effects are. So far your only argument is that "God didn't make people to have sex/get married if they can't have kids therefore they shouldn't." 1. You need a nonreligious argument if you're proposing this as a law.
2. That would mean anyone incapable of procreating should not get married or have sex.
3. This makes any sex act outside of those specifically designed to have the maximum chance of procreating are bad.
4. Why is this a moral issue? What's immoral about gay sex? It's a sin yeah don't care, explain why it's *immoral*. Because immoral and a sin aren't necessarily the same thing. Morality is a set of rules by which humans cooperate. Gay sex harms neither party nor anyone else. All you are saying by saying gay sex is immoral because it's a sin is "You shouldn't do gay sex because god doesn't like it."
Romans 1:26-27 which says: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
How can one read this and conclude that sexual acts involving same sexed individuals could be anything but "shameful lusts" "unnatural relations" "indecent acts" "received...due penalty for their perversion"....... Did you hear that?...." due penalty for their perversion"......Perversion of what? "natural relations". This passage is plain and clear God called homosexual acts "shameful lusts" and will have a "penalty". End of story.
Don't get me wrong.....God gave man was given free will. And here in America one is free to love whom he/she pleases.
So, if you want to satisfy you lust for each other in ways that God did not intend, then by all means go for it. Just do not say that God's word justifies your actions.
If you stick up your middle finger at God in rebellion and say " I don't give a sh__t what you want. I am going to do it my way." Instead of confessing that you are a sinner and are trying your best not to sin, then you will get exactly what you wanted......the rest of eternity without him. This goes just as well for every other sin under the sun not just homosexuality.
And people wonder why the LGB community has serious dissociative and mental turmoil. It's not because people are oppressing them, it is because their actions are at the core causing them pain. And people aren't allowed to talk about it? People should ask why. It's a red flag.
Thank you Bishop Barron for everything that you do.
You are truly amazing Bishop Barron. God bless you for your kind ways of explains everything with love.
for sure. I used to think that eating meat on Friday was a sin but it is okay now. the line in the sand was erased.
This is so true.......it is so important to have these topics at hand from the Church to help us on our journey. Logic and faith often go hand in hand, and it is needed in today's political and social climate. Thank you Bishop Barron, God Bless
I would respectfully argue that Logic and Faith, by their definitions do NOT go hand in hand.
Example:
Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. - Hebrews 11:1
Logic- reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
With respect to the argument of Gay marriage, I could be wrong, but the need/want for validation of "Gay Marriage" is mostly to have access to the same rights as a heterosexual "Spouse" has in the eyes of the law. Medical, Financial etc. I am sure there are also many gay couples who believe the Church should also recognize a gay union, but to my "lay-man" understanding. Having a gay child, the want of validity and equality of Gay Marriage is mostly in the eyes of the LAW and not religion. Politicians have made this a moral and religious argument and used it as a soap box. If a law was passed to give the same rights to a common law partnership as marriage, I feel a vast majority of gay unions would be satisfied.
Michael Montague The Catholic Church is absolutely built on Jesus Christ. It is through the Eucharist. Jesus gave himself to us through the Eucharist! Demons are terrified of it and cannot be around it. So for you to say such things that our Church is evil is blasphemous. Your hope is in yourself! Our hope as Christians is through Jesus Christ which is very comforting.
First let me address that not "ALL" Jews consider Christians blasphemous. You are incorrect in making a blanket statement on this. Yes I accept totally with all my heart the divinity of Jesus Christ, my beloved King. I call him this because I love him and he loves me, and indeed he is King of Kings! Because I saw and experienced his infinite mercy, his never ending love, his never ending goodness, and his healing power for myself. I was healed from a terrible stammer which rendered me unable to speak. I was 7 years old. I was healed when I was 20 years old. So I am not afraid to speak the truth, and that truth is Jesus Christ. He is the way the truth and the life. Just as it says in scripture. I try to reach out to all in Christ's love. To help others come to know his infinite mercy and goodness. God bless will be praying for you.
+Michael Montague I always laugh when people doubt that Jesus actually existed. When you look at educated people who have no bias toward the issue (I.e. Agnostic scholars), there is no question whether or not Jesus actually existed. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic who teaches at the university of North Carolina writes “The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet” (Did Jesus Exist?, p. 4). The New Testament is one of the most reliable ancient texts that we have. There are 500+ manuscripts that can be traced back to the 1st century! Aside from that we have other non-biblical sources that confirm Jesus's existence. For example, an ancient text attributed to Josephus, a 1st century Jewish historian mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." We know this is unbiased because it clearly does not call Jesus "lord" or any reference to divinity. It just says that people called him Christ, which would be historically accurate.
+Scott Noll So once we accept that Jesus actually existed, we have to look at what he said. The New Testament, one of the most reliable ancient texts we have, quotes him as saying "I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE". Unlike any other religion, Christianity's founder is not claiming to have the truth, he is claiming to BE TRUTH ITSELF. This is significant. The way I see it, there are three possibilities. He could be lying, which I don't know many people that would lie to be put up on a cross, he could be a delusional lunatic, which it doesn't seem logical that so many people would drop everything to devote their lives to following a lunatic, or lastly, he could actually be telling the truth.
+Scott Noll Yes, that is a very interesting and compelling way to put it into perspective. My aspect on the subject matter is from personnel experience.
+Michael Montague Actually.... Since you say you are a scientist. Take a look at the Shroud of Turin. www.shroud.com
Science has not been able to explain it. Also there are many Eucharist miracles through our Churches history that science cannot explain. The Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano
Also the incorruptible Saints. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility
This should give you some education Michael about the profound and awesome history of our Church!
Can anyone link to the video where Bishop Barren gives any moral argument against gay marriage?
I hope there is another video on this channel that continues this by answering "how do we know what is morally right and wrong?" especially on this and similar issues. It would be good to link to those videos in the description.
Natural law can guide us on what's right or wrong. Religion can too. Or we can use common sense and ask if we'd want our behavior on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper.
Thank you this actually helps me explain to my confirmation classes
Bishop Barron, I can see you are a reasonable person, so I feel I should come clean about my thoughts when I first clicked on this video. When I read the title, I immediately started the video and started counting the seconds until you said something that I, admittedly, hate hearing. But then you started explaining how people can't agree on anything anymore and that people confuse sentimentality with morality in politics as well as church. With those points as the things I will take from this video, I must say that I am impressed and agree completely.
Thank you for you great work and mission, Bishop Barron. I'm about to finish Word on Fire Bible: the Gospels. Amazingly beautiful and insightful book.
but u know homophobia is a sin, right?
@@pastorbri if your a pastor then u know in romans it speaks against homosexuality not me speaking but God is its his words not mine
@@thenapierfamilychannel2819 if u was a christian at all you would know romans 1 doesn't mention homosexuality at all. This is paul condemning the heterosexuals he knew who used same sex acts in their idolotry cults which was unatural for straight folk, so God gave them over to a reprobate mind, Gods words not mine, but feel free to add to Gods word as you have been doing so far if thats what helps make u feel better to hate LGBT people.
Thanks for publishing this video.
lmao at everyone saying he dodged the question, he's just explaining why there can't be an argument if you simply follow sentiments and refuse to engage in a logical conversation, this video aged like wine.
Thank you Father Bishop Barron for this video.
Thank Bishop for this insight. Please do continue...
Bishop Barron the most powerful talk on the scandal and staying within our beautiful church. Thank you and God Bless
If you think this Bishop is a powerful talker, then you are a mental lightweight.
God Bless Bishop Barron - keep on fighting the good fight by inspiring us to do the same.
i was raised Baptist and still consider myself the same. although i do not agree with gay marriage, i have friends and family who are gay and i am understanding this video 100%. and having a different opinion than someone else is ok. im not a homophobe or a racist, i just have a different belief.
Read the title and was expecting more. I think he dodged the question implied in the title.
He blames society for not being able to reason calmly about gay marriage, but the main reason for this is that the Church has forbidden such calm reasoning, in totally peremptory documents such as this one: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
In the end he explained Nothing !!!!!!!
The "question" was his own doing, we already know the Church's stance on gay marriage but he describes a more nuanced issue with society that isn't given due examination.
I mean... that's what people who won't admit that science doesn't back their argument do.
@@conchtalks But science doesn’t “back” gay marriage as-well studies have shown that gay people are not born gay but it’s environmental and it takes an effect on the mind Also he’s talking from a philosophical stance then a scientific one what does it matter if science doesn’t back his claims?
Excellent! First, a common vocabulary. Second, stay focused on the question. Third, LISTEN!
Absolutely stunning Intellectual deep contemplating theologian, this is very impressive and convinced my heart of defining the perverse and subversive natures I know I could never condone or approve of, but I do respect those who disagree with love and contentment. Peace be with you all.. :-)
Marriage is for having a family...it is as simple as that.
Ok well that's blatantly false. Can infertile people not get married?
The union of man and woman. Pretty simple folk's.
Travis Kraft - Says you. Are you the arbiter of such things? If that is your view of marriage then, by all means, marry or don’t marry based on that. You have no standing, however, to dictate to others whether or not their marriage is legitimate.
Shawn McCuen - Why, Yes. That is a pretty simple definition. Other people have other definitions. How is yours better than theirs?
@@jerometaperman7102 Other people can believe what ever they want. Quit a number off people can define things incorrectly. That doesn't make it TRUE.
The catholic church was the first to protest slavery and abortion.
Bishop Barron can't do it. He can't say homosexuality is wrong. The sin is not the problem necessarily, it's the celebration of the sin that Christians are against. I sin. But I'm not asking everyone to accept my sin nor am I proud of it.
VERITAS homosexuality is not bad.
Homosexual acts are. When I was in a navy ship we had 1000s of guys on ship and no girls. Homosexual. Not bad as long as there is no homosexual acts.
Him Bike I knew you were a gay sailor this whole time... ha.
VERITAS wring again. I was a
Marine Corps Machinegunner.
But the navy gives us rides on they boats. But the boats have no girls.
As long as the Holy Church has representatives like BB and a great many other gifted vocations, moral arguments will continue to be exchanged. Do not underestimate the essential role of the Holy Church in today's world; it is pivotal.
the church also knows homophobia is a sin
@@pastorbri
Yet at the same time it is not homophobic to speak the truth on where Catholicism stands on homosexuality
@@jak7138 who cares what man made religions come up with?
@@pastorbri
Touched a nerve did I?
@@jak7138 no, why...is that what you hoped for? Sorry to disapoint. Has a hissy fit did you?
I’m gay (watching this is 2019), and I have to admit I completely understand and agree with bishop Barron...
Then why are you "gay"?!
Billy Tell so what you’re saying it’s not good to come out?
Maybe the correct term could be a repentant Homosexual. Or a person who suffers from adult same sex attraction and are repentant.
thank you for approaching discourse with honesty.
Billy Tell
You’re delusional.
What is the moral purpose of the state in matters of marriage and family law? Is it to sanctify the union? Or is it to provide the protections legal normally associated with the formation of a household?
Thank you Bishop for your clarity and confirmation of that which we hold dearest in our hearts and for some completely inexplicable reason our countries leader completely denies.
00:20 - The Tower of Babel is happening all over again.
The tower of Babel isn't a literal allegory about different languages per se, but rather a story about differentiated consciousnesses ergo perceptions of reality. If we continue to fight over the definitions of truth, we can never agree on a fundamental nature for discourse and understanding. I think being an individual who loves her or himself, and actively seeking to understand others and be understood is the only thing we can do to combat a Babel-esque experience in our own personal lives.
@@bradhaywood4355 unfortunately that is not how things are going so eventually it will lead to at best war with a good end or at worst peaceful acceptance of Oppression.
Brad Haywood there is only one truth in Jesus Christ. He came not for the ones who believed they were righteous but the ones who were sinners.
ruclips.net/video/LHJx8uXxQlQ/видео.html&feature=em-comments
@@lumanate1493 at some point of the sinners life even if it's at the end they Still need to convert !
I don't want to judge, but by which authority does the catholic church allow itself to create restrictions to love, even though love is the most important commandment?
Thanks Bishop Barron. Beautiful & meaningful. GBU.
I respect Bishop Barron as a thinker, but I think this particular video is a bit disingenuous. I don't think Justice Kagan was saying that moral arguments always indicate discrimination. What she meant was that a moral appeal is often a substitute for an argument rather than an argument itself. In this context, "red flag" doesn't mean a rejection of a claim. It means that the claim requires a high level of scrutiny. If you say "because the Bible says it's wrong," then this is an appeal to morality without an argument to support it.
Bishop Barron is absolutely right to say that we've lost a vocabulary for making moral arguments and that we need one in order to talk with each other instead of past each other. But I don't think he provides one here or gets us any closer to one. In fact, he seems sneakily dismissive of exactly the sort of common ground that might move us closer to dialogue. What he calls "the sentimentalizing" of the issue is really a recognition that gay people can love and honor each other as much as straight people. In other words "sentimentalizing" means recognizing the capacity and dignity of others and wanting what's best for them. I imagine that the Bishop would argue that marriage is not what's best for gay people. As he says, that's an argument for a different video. Okay, but he's done nothing in this video to pave the way for that argument.
Christopher Weaver Friend, that simply wasn’t the point or purpose of this video.
@@BishopBarron Thanks very much for the response. I do really enjoy your videos. What was the point/purpose, then?
Christopher Weaver To invite people to rational argument and to let go of emotionally driven responses.
Michael O'Connor Ah Herod! Still listening in. Good. I’m still praying for you.
@@BishopBarron "To invite people to rational argument and to let go of emotionally driven responses." That's a great goal, and I appreciate the effort. Here is where I think you fell short, at least in this particular video.
You identify three types of appeals which you claim avoid rational argument in favor of emotionally driven responses:
1. It's not rational to rule out morality as the basis for an argument. You claim Justice Kagan was refusing to consider any argument that involves morality. But I don't think that's what she meant. I think she meant that arguments that appeal to morality are often a matter of prejudice with no reasoning behind them. For instance, "Gay marriage is immoral because God says so." She didn't say that you cannot appeal to morality. ("Red flag" doesn't mean rejection. It means that a claim requires scrutiny.) But your morality must appeal to reason. It must be something that carries weight to people who do not share your religious beliefs.
2. Polls indicate what people think, not what is right, so people shouldn't cite poll numbers in defense of gay marriage. It's true that polls are not in themselves arguments. But I don't think that's why people cite them in regard to gay marriage. It may be (and probably is) the case that these polls reflect the fact that 25 years ago most people didn't know any openly gay people and certainly no same-sex parents. They may have felt that such unions were unnatural or immoral or just plain strange. As gay people have come out of the closet and straight people see loving unions and loving parents, their opinions have changed. So it's not that anyone is saying that morality is the same thing as public opinion. It's that public opinion, especially when it has shifted this dramatically, may indicate something that is important to the discussion.
3. "My son is gay" is not a rational argument but an emotional one. Rationally, one might respond, "So you're okay with prescribing laws for other people's children, but you change your tune when it's your own?" But I think this is a variation of #2 above. It may not be that the father in question wants to do what will benefit his son rather than to do what is right. It might be that having a gay son has changed his idea about what it means to be gay. Perhaps he previously thought that marriage should be preserved only for straight couples, and now he looks at his son and thinks, "I love my son, and he is as deserving as anyone of a loving marriage."
To sum up, I agree that the three kinds of appeals you refer to are not rational arguments in and of themselves. But I think they are the surface features which indicate possible underlying arguments, some of which are rational and some of which have an emotional element as well. I don't think you would want to banish love as the ultimate factor supporting a moral argument.
Bishop, you strike me as one of the more open and thoughtful voices on religion, so I hope you don't take my criticism as an attack on you. I appreciate the dialog that you are trying to start here, and I hope you'll take my comment as a way to continue to think and speak on this topic. I think that you are absolutely right that we speak past each other most of the time and that we need to invent a new way of talking to (and listening to) one another!
What I have trouble with is the idea that certain civil rights (and SCOTUS has called marriage a basic civil rights for decades) can be denied to certain groups of people because it doesn't meet the personal or religious standards of other groups. Personally, I don't see any civil marriage as a true marriage for a Catholic. It's not like the sacrament at all. It doesn't even involve the Lord. It's basically a civil contract. If any court tried to force any church to marry gay people, or do anything else that violates their religious beliefs, I would be outraged. But "gay marriage" doesn't involve any other citizens and doesn't change what civil marriage means to heterosexuals at all. The only reason I've been given by Catholics, or other Christiand, about why gay people should be denied this civil right is that it goes against their own religious beliefs, or they just don't approve of it themselves. IMO that's not sufficient reason for the government to take away an entire group's civil rights. It's really no different from the way interracial couples were once denied the right to marry. My religious beliefs should not have the power to interfere with someone else's basic civil rights.
SCOTUS calling marriage a civil right is a bit slippery. In a way, marriage is both a right AND a privilege for those God has called to it. The danger of a secular government legalizing something like this is it sows divisions in religious groups and makes possibly destructive and harmful things (which CAN be somewhat subjective) easier to access or do. A good religious person should not say "I am against this because it goes against my religion." They should say "I am against this because it puts that person/group of people in a dangerous position with God, whether they believe it or not." The true goal of believers is to convert people in their hearts, to make them WANT to oppose evil for their soul's sake, and to be the holiest self they can be. (Sorry for the long reply but it just kept coming 😥🤐😥)
Heroica Knight In my country, the Netherlands, the legal marriage is the civil marriage. People have to do the legal marriage before they can do the religious marriage in church. Same sex marriage is accepted by the vast majority and does not harm anyone. Remember that your sense of morality is subjective and does not give you the right to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
Please remember, all who support gay marriage that the Bible states homosexuality is an "abomination." The Bible also defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
@@tanjavankessel2548 Your reply ignores the Laws Of Nature. To reproduce the species we need a man and a woman. It is your opinion that same sex marriage does no harm. Even a "gay" neighbour of mine is against gay marriage "30 years ago people said to me you are homosexual cos of what happened in your childhood .. I reply I had the most wonderful parents .... Now they say you can get married & I say there is no way a gay couple could have such a wonderful marriage as a lot of heterosexuals do .... no it is not the same & I am not in favour of "gay marriage" " When asked why he does not say that publically "I am not going to put myself up for ridicule and possible physical attack"
They only have the "Right" because it has been enacted to make it law. Morality is not subjective. It is subjectively interpreted by the none religious to become meaningless... In Nazi Germany for an "Arian" to marry a Jew was not allowed and to do so was considered immoral as well as unlawful. So for the none religious morality is very fluid. Research "natural law"
You waffled on the question and did not answer it.
He actually answered by stating the same old discriminatory ideologies they've been saying for centuries.
I thought this man might have been different, but he's just a bit more knowledgeable.
@Sheldon Cooper not everyone, for example I love J.Peterson who is not a pro gay/trans activist but he doesn't use rhetoric to reinstate old-fashioned intolerance, pretending to be open minded.
Everyone is entitled to have his own ideas, as I am free to criticize.
@@Paolo_Del_Casale not supporting gay marriage, which is a gross misappropriation of the Christian religion, does NOT make you intolerant. Gay life-long couples go against God, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily evil. We are all sinners, which is important for us to remember. HOWEVER, actively CELEBRATING your sins, especially in the case of "gay marriage," which again is the subversion of the Christian faith to fit your own sins, IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Marriage is a SPECIFICALLY RELIGIOUS act that should not be allowed to be misappropriated in such a disrespectful manner.
Obama is a 70s moderate Republican, he said his policies were 70s Republicanesque in an interview. Obama is not a progressive, just another corporate indentured servant who only goes as far his bosses allow him to go, so stfu with that bullcrap about Obama saying "not to go too far to the left".
Hayden S.
Gay people are Born Gay .They are a part of the human story from the start .in every race And Creed . Its high time you and Barron and all other bigots got over it and stop using Your religion as a stick to beat your fellow men and women .
People equate gay marriage as a good thing not because many gay people they know are good, but because it's good to treat others equally.
Society determines what is good and what is bad. This generation is acknowledging that gays should be treated equally. That's our new morality. But not the Church's.
In my opinion, the Church needs to have a serious debate on their doctrine and focus on today's problems not on what people in the past have said. Because these people of the past no longer have the same moral values as the generation of today and the future.
I think the anti-gay marriage side has failed to offer a legitimate argument for why gay people shouldn't have equal rights. If I said you catholics shouldn't have the right to get married, would that make me a biggot? I would tend to think so.
Why do gay people claimed the mantle of tolerance and diversity -- and yet have betrayed those same principles in attacking anyone that disagrees. Speak up for marriage in any public place today and you will be shamed and shunned. I do love gay people, REALLY ! Why should I be considered a hater, just because I love God and follow his teachings, even if some gays don't understand that . Why punish Christians, who want to be obedient to our love, God. If you believe, in the truth about love, about marriage. You must understand this love, He is my love, my life, my world and he has taught me to love everyone, you too and I do. Please try to be open, to other people, who don't always agree, who also can not change the way they feel and are born inside to feel this way too ! Why can't you just love me too, even if we have made different choices for our lives? Let us, just love and let God settle our differences.
and ( thank you, Father Barron for taking all the retaliation, for all the Christians. I don't think, Gay people mean to hate or be nice, they are just emotional towards their cause. Christians and Gay people should get together and battle the real enemy, the evil one, who wants to cause the problems and only wants us to separate us, and wants us to fight over our differences. We will not mention his name because he already lost the battle at the cross! Right! and we claim and most importantly, we stand on the victory of the resurrection, because Jesus whipped his butt. yea, woo whoo.! WE ( people of God. Love) both are the real winner!
who the hell are you?
+Kyle Smit Jesus saved me from the pit of anxiety and depression, and further suicidal thoughts... Jesus loves us so much, that He suffered and died for us, so we wouldn't have to go to hell as punishment for sinning against God... Confess to God that we are all sinners, who desperately need a saviour, and confess that Jesus is your Lord and saviour, and if you really mean it from your heart, you need to stop willfully sinning and the moment you accept Christ, the Holy Spirit will come dwell in you and He will be your helper and comforter, i speak from experience, i accepted Jesus and then received the Holy Spirit, and my life actually changed its not a lie, it pretty much confirms that the Bible really is God's Word, because i felt the Holy Spirit's presence before i even knew what the Holy Spirit did... Im not forcing you to accept Him, but im begging you to consider Him :)
+Francisco Mendez Jesus saved me from the pit of anxiety and depression, and further suicidal thoughts... Jesus loves us so much, that He suffered and died for us, so we wouldn't have to go to hell as punishment for sinning against God... Confess to God that we are all sinners, who desperately need a saviour, and confess that Jesus is your Lord and saviour, and if you really mean it from your heart, you need to stop willfully sinning and the moment you accept Christ, the Holy Spirit will come dwell in you and He will be your helper and comforter, i speak from experience, i accepted Jesus and then received the Holy Spirit, and my life actually changed its not a lie, it pretty much confirms that the Bible really is God's Word, because i felt the Holy Spirit's presence before i even knew what the Holy Spirit did... Im not forcing you to accept Him, but im begging you to consider Him :)
Its kind of hard to respect the opinion of someone who is actively trying to prevent you from marrying the person that you are in love with and want to spend the rest of your life with. I think that if someone was trying to prevent you from marrying the person that you love for completely bullshit reasons, than you would be pretty upset too.
as usual, a wonderfully logical and cogent piece. i would offer that holding a moral argument in an environment of secular relativism (pls see Benedict XIII on this for great discourse) is nigh well impossible. the moral argument is about right and wrong and in the secular relativist world there is no real right or wrong..............
Is there a source for the quote by Justice Kagan that Fr. Barron references? I can't seem to find one.
You are such an amazing person Bishop Barron. God bless you always. 🙏✝️😀
The onus is on the opponents of gay marriage to show that it does harm in some way to innocent persons or the society and they never do that because they can't.
***** Obviously from what you are saying some types of love are abominations which God cannot condone. The examples you gave are far worse than a homosexual relationship. The focus now should be on making sure no members of the clergy be allowed to perform gay marriage ceremonies. There is a separation of church and state and gay couples can just be married by a judge. It is really important that Pope Petrus does not force clergy to perform these marriages.
Fernanda giron What is HIV/AIDS and where did it come from? What is venereal disease and where did it come from? Why is Throat Cancer on the Rise and where did it come from? If you can give me a good reason that these things are good in a society at large, then you won the argument, but you cannot do that.
@Susanna Donovan HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is a RNA virus and is a member of the the Lentivirus family of viruses. HIV is a zoonotic disease - meaning it originally comes from an animal that is not human (in the case of HIV, chimpanzees). It's theorised to have first infecting people around ~1910/20 in Africa, after they were commonly used as a food source (similar to how SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 is theorised to have come from wet market bats in China), however it was only discovered and properly studied decades later, as the virus has a decades long incubation period. AIDS is the result of HIV depleting the T-Helper cells in the body to below 200, allowing opportunistic infections to take place, which usually call the patients death - HIV/AIDS does *not* kill the patient itself. The first patients to be found in America with AIDS were gay, which led to scientists naively believing it was a "gay disease", which led to scientists not studying straight patients merely as much, which resulted in a serious error in judgement - as we all know the virus infects humans regardless of their sexuality (this in 2020, is common sense, but were talking 1960-80s America here).
EDIT: RUclips just deleted the rest of the comments, so I'll keep it brief:
- "What is a venereal disease?" A venereal disease is any disease spread by sexual intercourse, regardless of sexual orientation (after all, the disease doesn't know whether someone is gay or not).
- "Where do venereal diseases come from" - The most probable answer is that, at a point in time, a disease went through enough mutations to spread through sexual intercourse and the rest is history (viruses split out into different branches from a common ancestor, etc - evolution does not just apply to living things (viruses after all do not live)).
- "Why is throat cancer on the rise?" No one knows for sure, but given data on other cancers plus a little bit of common sense, it is more than likely due to a range of factors including lifestyle (not including sexual orientation, it has no affinity to mutation), diet, environmental factors such as pollution, etc.
- "Where did throat cancer come from?" You might as well be asking, "Where did cancer come from?", as all cancers are caused by the same thing, a mutation in the body, which we've established in the scientific community can literally come from anything at any time at any place, because the human body is horribly flawed and fragile in its design (great creator, your God was). For a more deep and reasonable answer that extends past a RUclips comment, study genetics. Cancer does not have any provable relation to sexual orientation and so, by logic, the same answer can be applied to "Where did throat cancer come from?"
4:13 I would not agree that "innocent people" is entirely true, especially with how heinous Japan was in WWII, nor ignorant of the bomb to come with the flyers dropped by the US
Agreed. To call the Japanese an "innocent people" is a bold presumption.
2 year old kids are guilty according to you?
@@Namaster88 Ask the Chinese how they feel about Japan during WW2.
Is there a video WITH arguments? I would be very interested. 🤔
Thanks for the point regarding poll numbers I think this is true for many issues.
Yes, and under a democratic system, the majority rules. This isn't to say that every poll determines every moral truth, but imagine if the college of cardinals elected a new Pope, but then someone said, "yeah, but just because the majority says so, doesn't make it morally right." Maybe so, even, nonetheless, the rules are the rules, else we're left with no arbiter of moral authority
I’ll never ever understand why the church considers healthy gay relationships wrong. Who does it hurt? How much good do loving gay couples bring into the world, especially for the children that they often adopt?
What makes those fleeting passages in the Bible any more relevant than the many other ones we functionally ignore? Isn’t the power of the church it’s ability to make sense of scripture, to think critically about it and create a fully fleshed out religion for understanding the teachings and deeds of Christ?
In short : it is not about the love between the gay couple
That love is good
What is condemned is the sexual act because it violates the function of the sexual organs
For details I recommend checking out the perverted faculty argument from Ed Feser
Check out the theology of the body institute
@@MZONE991 definitely a good response. But I wonder how many other abuses of the body we could find that get nowhere near as much attention.
@@thebacons5943
That's why the argument is not just limited to sodomy
But to masturbation, anal sex, contraception ...etc
@@MZONE991 Lmao, what is going to happen to 2 gay guys in a gay marriage. Absolutely nothing. Why dont you pester people who smoke.
@@fla8623
Check out the paper I recommend above
It explains it in detail
This video does not discuss same sex marriage. It talks about the way pro-ssm people shut down any opposing views by calling the other a "hater." But I guess that's too nuanced a topic for those pro-ssm people who are spewing hate against Father Barron in the comments. They are simply proving him right.
Religious views on same sex marriage should be shut down. It's call separation of church and state and most free countries have it. If christians don't want same sex marriage in their church that's their right, but they get no say in what is legally allowed in a country. Of course the church is in a crisis now because most people have no issue with same sex marriage and with numbers of catholics at a record low, the church is trying to do anything it can not to push more away.
Fr. James Martin what's up with this priest. Will gay marriage be ok in the church? I know we love everyone but isn't marriage between a man and woman only, are things changing? Thank you bishop Barron. God Bless🌷
Thank you Bishop Barron. God bless you. Greetings from Brazil
As a man of the cloth, he would be more productive teaching Gods Word, instead of wishing for a meaningful dialogue about morality.
The Bible clearly states “ the heart of man is deceitful”.Jeremiah 17: 9-10.
This current culture of “sentimentality” towards people who are openly sinful he describes is clearly exactly what God warns us against in Jeremiah.
It’s called moral relativism and is a direct path to eternal death.
My question is why doesn’t the Bishop use scripture to point out the work of Satan the liar, it could save souls.
Having moral discussions is nice but not unless it leads to teaching God’s Word.
Oh- live and let live. It's 2020. Simply live by:
1. Bring no harm to others
2. Bring no harm to yourself
We're all spiraling into history, after all. Is it any wonder younger people are dropping formal religion in droves.
Listen to the video again --- he directly says that he is not engaging the moral argument here, but clearing away the fog surrounding the issue. So you need to understand his purpose.
I would be on the side of caution though. Gays are still children of God and Jesus died for them too. While as Christians we must encourage to live in accordance to the gospel we cannot exclude them from it. Jesus came for the sinner not the people who believed they were righteous.
the heart of the man have 2 horses: the horse of the light, made of justice and love, and the horse of darkness, made of hatred and deceitfulness, please don't try to make the man as someone evil by nature, that idea is exactly how all the cults works, negating our dual nature and then our capability for the good.
@Peasant Scrublord We are in the midst of a pandemic. It serves to remind us that life is fragile. There is no time to bind our hearts to some outdated religious belief. Each of us will be in a heaven or hell of our own making. If we've been kind and generous, we will go gently. If we are selfish and cruel, we'll be met with lonliness and indifference at our final hour. Practice love and understanding. Who we love is not nearly as important as how we face these hours.
This is the second Bishop Barron video I've watched and I have to say that I really like him.
@@JamesRichardWiley I'm not sure why you are bothering to watch. Have you ever read the Bible, James?
By definition, marriage is a Christian word that means the joining of a man and women FOR the procreation of children.
They can become a domestic partnership but if they want nothing to do with Christianity why do they want to be married so bad? It’s ironic that they choose the rainbow as their symbol, a literal wink from God.
It is SIN = Sin is an offence against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is a failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods.... It has been defined [by St Augustine] as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."
All people are subjected to it. Including priests. God instituted marriage in the beginning...... NOT PEOPLE..... He intended it to be one man and one woman. The holy union was blessed by God and made holy.
Rom 1:18-32
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
So Michael you do not speak the TRUTH but instead..... insist on scientific evidence in everything. The TRUTH is in Jesus Christ. HE is the way the TRUTH and the LIFE. God is far above your enlightenment and you lead people away from God by not speaking the truth. You will need to answer for that at the end of your life.
+Michael Montague It is because I DO BELIEVE. I do WANT to go to heaven when I die. You are free to make your choice. Jesus respects your free will. But it is very hurtful to him when we DO choose freely to reject him. It is actually a tragedy when someone does so with their free will. Jesus offers all people eternal life. Why are you angry?
+Michael Montague Wow, you just proved the point of the video. Way to try to shut down an argument because you don't like the points someone else makes. Please, please allow for rational discussion to take place. None of this "my way or the highway" nonsense. He did provide evidence, and it was not ridiculous in any way.
Michael Montague I can't force you to read his comment. You have to do that on your own. He directly quoted easily verifiable people and books.
+Michael Montague It is unconscionable that you would make this statement. STURP is the utmost excellence of science and scientific research.
+Michael Montague Nothing has changed since the times of Jesus. Jesus performed many miracles and still they did not beleive.
An intelligent and rational approach. Refreshing.
I found it ironic that the very first response to Fr. Barron's argument that we today are largely incapable of making sound moral arguments was the utterly unsound argument that "The Supreme Court has ruled; therefore the issue is settled, both legally and morally."
I wonder. Has there ever been an age when some great evil was not legal?
Probably the only time something evil has not had the sanction of the law was before men made positive laws.
I think that there is a God, singular, yes (and demonstrably so), but the position you put forward is simply legal positivism, and although popular today, it has traditionally been a minority position in Western thought.
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, the majority of the classical Christian tradition, and even the majority of the Enlightenment tradition believe that there is some way to base positive or legal justice, on NATURAL JUSTICE (natural law, natural right), whose authority is grounded in reason and human nature, without directly requiring any appeal to God (even if it should be the case that God should turn out to be the ultimate ground of morality -- after all, God is the creator of the laws of nature in all senses, but we do not appeal to God in physics, save perhaps as the ultimate metaphysical cause of nature). The Declaration of Independence is speaks of "nature and nature's God" and although it does speak of us being "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights", it also declares these to "self-evident truths." Your position denies and anyone can in fact know this, any fundamental truths before which the positive law has to bow.
This conflict came up immediately after the Second World War. Not only had legal positivism been the prevalent theory with the national socialists, it was popular throughout the West (as it still is) and was appealed to: How could the Nazis be TRIED FOR CRIMES? The had not broken any laws. For legal positivism, that's the end of the matter. If killing Jews is not illegal, then it isn't a crime; and if it isn't a crime, nothing wrong was done. This reasoning was not, at the time, accepted: it was held that there are certain things are that are inherently wrong (genocide is one of them) that are inherently wrong, and that this can be known by reason from nature. According to this unwritten natural (non-positive) law, the Nazis were guilty, guilty of crimes against humanity.
So I side firmly with the majority of the Western tradition which rejects BOTH the reduction of natural right to mere positive law, or else tries to skip natural right entirely by rooting everything in direct divine command theory. The traditional teaching is that between God and the mere work of man is nature, and that natural law and natural right is the rational standard for positive law and positive right. In legal terms, there are crimes mala in se, or evil in themselves (that is, crimes prescribed by the natural law, such as murder) and crimes mala prohibitum (that is, crimes which are merely prohibited by a government of the sake of order, like traffic regulations -- there is nothing intrinsically wrong with driving on either side of the road, but one is not legal in the US and the other not in England).
It is absurd to say that laws don't address moral issues. Why do we have laws against murder and rape and child abuse? For convenience? No, these things are illegal BECAUSE they are wrong.
Legal positivism, the position you seem to think is the only alternative to a divine command theory in ethics, is its a position which stands in need of defense.
Finally, you seem confused about the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. No where in the Constitution will you find the phrase "separation of Church and State," and what the clause prohibits is the State *officially sanctioning a State religion* and from *preventing people from practicing their religion.* It is about what the State IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO. The Church is under no such constraint. Religious citizens, who are the vast majority in the US, are allowed to vote, and nothing prohibits them from voting accord to their reason and consciences, and if they do so informed by their religious beliefs (as will as many other beliefs that everyone has), so what? That is actually how democracy works.
It would be ridiculous (wouldn't it?) to argue something like this: "The 10 Commandments prohibit murder. Therefore any law prohibiting murder is based on either Judaism or Christianity. Therefore, any law of the US prohibiting murder is an establishment of religion. Therefore the SCOTUS should strike down all laws against murder."
For Jews and Christians, the direct prohibition of murder by God isn't what CONVINCES them that murder is wrong -- they already knew that -- but RECONFIRMS what they already knew by reason alone AND ups the ante, just in case they start being tempted to kill off a few "undesirables" -- and don't kid yourself that human beings would never do such a thing. For a thirst, he has to say, "Sorry, you can't murder these people because that is absolutely prohibited by God." For a natural law philosopher, he has to say, "Sorry, you can't murder these people because it is a violation of natural right and inherently wrong." For a legal positivist, he can only say this much, "Well, you can't kill them while the laws still makes it illegal to kill them, but all you have to do is change the law, and then killing them will be okay, or at least legal, since 'legal' and 'okay' are the same thing after all."
In other words, those who accept legal positivism generally do so because they accept one or both of these propositions:
1. there are no objective moral truths, or
2. if there are any objective moral truths, no one can know them.
Are there good arguments for these positions? Well, some have held them, but not the majority of Western philosophers.
The main support seems to be a fallacious argument:
1. There is disagreement about moral matters;
2. therefore, there is no objective truth of the matter.
This is the same, logically, as:
1. There is disagreement about the shape of the earth;
2. therefore, there is no objective truth of the matter (the earth "is" flat to flat-earthers).
So, disagreement isn't a very strong argument for moral subjectivism, especailly since many moral disagreements are only apparent (e.g. in the abortion debate, both sides generally accept the moral principe that it is wrong to directly kill an innocent person; the locus of the disagreement is over the factual metaphysical issue of whether or not a human fetus is an innocent person in the relevant sense. But that is a matter of fact, not of value).
But, you might say, there is so much MORE disagreement about morals than about (say) scientific matters. Isn't that explained by the fact that morals are subjective? Well, not if there as another, better, explanation, and it was given by Socrates, and repeated by Plato and Aristotle, and it is quite simply this: it is in the nature of things that quantitative matters are easy to reach agreement about, when a measurement can be made, in part because quantities allow for exactness. Qualities, which is the category of reality under which all moral things fall, cannot be measured in this -- for the simple and sufficient reason that they are not quantities. Many relations also can't be measured that way (how do you measure "to the left of". And qualities are not less real that quantities. Even quantities themselves have qualities: the number 12 is even, for example, and also immaterial, as are all numbers.
So if I can accurately discern that an immaterial entity such as the number 12 has the quality of being even, I see no reason it is strange or even problematic to observe that certain human actions (which as actions, seem to be more material than numbers), have the quality of "being unfair" or "being fair", or most generally "being right" and "being wrong" (although it is always better to be as specific as possible about the kind of wrong that is involved.
By declaring it to be a RIGHT for persons of the same-sex to marry, the court took a very firm moral position.
Many people were joyful for, it exactly on moral grounds. To them it looked something like:
1. It is wrong to treat a person unequally on the basis of an arbitrary and benign or natural characteristic.
2. Homosexuality is a benign and possibly natural characteristic, upon the basis of which homosexuals as a class are being treated equally;
3. THIS unequal treatment is therefore unjust.
4. The law should establish JUSTICE.
5. Therefore, the taw of the land should recognize same-sex marriage as equal to traditional marriage, because this is what justice requires.
Americans have always believed in 4. "Separate Church and State" isn't in the Constitution, but "Establish Justice" is.
Americans have always believed in 1 in the ideal, but had to overcome various obstacles, racism being the obvious example.
In recent decades, Americans have come to accept that 2, that gay people are a class in a sense relevantly similar to black people.
We did argue about 3 for a bit. A lot of people thought "Civil Unions" for same-sex couples would be the way to go, but most Americans tend to equate "equality" with "completely identical treatment", so that didn't work out. It became "Nothing less than total recognition of same-sex marriage as marriage and as the law of the land will satisfy justice."
So, since you had 1 and 4, all one needed to do was get 2 ("And there's nothing wrong with that!") and then 3.
Once those are in place, you'll get 5, at least if you have a SCOTUS that holds that its the job of the SCOTUS to establish justice directly, which is the majority view. Personally, I don't see Scalia's question about why, if Americans truly want same-sex marriage, we don't Amend the Constitution to recognize it, as a pretty good one.
Eve Keneinan Pardon me but, who in the (HELL) is the Supreme Court that defines Almighty God's marriage between One Man and One Woman as wrong. Almighty God designed marriage over 2,000 years ago long before ANY Supreme Court was ever around. Just look at when Almighty God told Noah to bring into the Ark a pair of each (make & female) Every homosexual out there has a mother AND a father!
@@juans6639 There was no literal world wide flood. The Abrahamic God is just a myth.
@@johnjacob5990 You Sir, are entitled to believe what you want. However, the remains of Noah's Ark rest on Mount Ararat in Turkey to this very day and even the Scientists who for the most part are atheists believe in the geological changes after the flood. Question, Why is it that you can find seashells on top of the mountains?
So please post your video on arguing "why" it is wrong, i.e. references to bible and tradition, etc.
Bishop Barron, your excellency, I am scouring through your videos searching... any encouraging videos for those of us with ssa who choose chastity? any videos on how to live celibacy in a healthy way? anything?
+Elena Feick Well said!!!!
Probably not. Because most videos I've seen are only about marginalizing people with SSA.
I would not have found Alasdair MacIntyre without your help. Thank You Barron.
Since the Church isn't being forced to perform gay marriages, this issue is none of the Church's business! The Church needs to butt out.
U butt out . Ur on a church site. We have every right to discuss whatever we need to
Hello Bishop! I'm gay and Catholic myself and am curious about what you have to say about the law in reference to Fruit of the Spirit. If a loving heterosexual or homosexual relationship does not defile those principles then the marriage of any class should not even be considered by way of Law but of Spirit. The legalization is strictly an American civil issue. So then how can one say that gay marriage legalization should not follow based on these specific principles Paul did write about?
Hi friend, I don't quite understand your question. But I found this website that is very helpful for me to understand how we should view the church teaching about gay marriage: www.catholic.com/tract/homosexuality
I pray that you will be able to find some help from the article.
What is the MORAL argument against homosexual behavior?
The Church says God created sex for man-woman relationships, but how does that imply that any other type of behavior is immoral? There are thousands of things we do that have nothing to do with "God's original purpose" for them.
One or two passages from the books of Moses mean nothing when the Church ignores 95% of those laws. You could say the exact same thing about how popular eating pork and shellfish are. The reason why the "moral argument" has broken down is becuase one side's entire justification boils down to "tradition for the sake of tradition."
Marriage is not "Holy Matrimony." "Holy Matrimony" is a specifically Christian religious concept: Its defenders base their argument on the Christian Bible and on medieval Christianity's theological definition of "Nature"-and on the manipulation of that definition so that many common animal (including human) behaviors could be classed as “unnatural,” as in the fantasized pseudo-biology books called "bestiaries," written by medieval clerics.
The theological concept, "Holy Matrimony," is not shared by many other religions-not even all Christian churches admit “Holy Matrimony” as a "sacrament" -and in the United States this religious concept (including the idea that a union between two people must be between only one man and one woman) cannot be imposed by some citizens on others without violating the First Amendment.
And how can Christians forget that the Lord’s anointed King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines? In the Holy Bible! Does that sound like "the traditional one-man, one-woman" marriage touted by homophobic Christian fanatics?
Marriage (not “Holy Matrimony”) existed all over the world long before Christianity, and still exists outside Christianity, in order to ensure the orderly transfer of property-through an economic pact between two families which would include (but was not limited to) inheritance by children. That is why marriages have always required “dowries” and “bride-prices,” to guarantee economic solvency.
In fact, these contracts were required among the Hebrews, from whom Christianity originated. Remember how Jacob in the Old Testament, had to buy his two wives, Leah and Rachel, from his father-in-law, Laban? And they were sisters. Sister-wives. In the Holy Bible! (They were also his cousins on his mother's side. Incest!) Does that sound like "the traditional one-man, one-woman" marriage of reactionary Christians?
Outside Islamic and Judaic theocracies, marriage (not “Holy Matrimony”) is a civil contract registered with and regulated by the state. It is, in effect, a kind of incorporation. That is why couples are required by law to go to a demographic registry and fill out a marriage license. They register with the state, which establishes by law who will possess the property that each brings to the marriage and the property that they acquire during the marriage.
That is also why modern countries require not only a state-issued marriage license but also, if the marriage is dissolved, a civil divorce decree that, among other things, apportions the couple’s assets and assigns obligations, sometimes as established by law.
Furthermore, the fact that marriage is a civil contract is clearly shown in the prenuptial agreements that dispose of the couple’s property in the case of a dissolution of the marriage. They are contracts-modifications of the property distributions explicit and implicit in marriage contracts.
Tell that to Aristotle
Wonderfully put! I couldn't have expressed it better myself. This is a huge problem America is suffering from right now, the issue of so-called "religious liberty." In the context I'm talking about, it refers to the liberty others allegedly have to discriminate based off their religious beliefs (the baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple) and the liberty elected officials have to vote on and craft laws 'based off their faith.' I worked for a Catholic congressman in DC who was, you guessed it, Republican and he constantly over-used his Catholic faith as a crutch for not even just fusing his faith with laws passed in a secular democracy, but actually to justify immoral votes the Catholic Church wouldn't even approve of!
With the dawn of so-called 'religious liberty,' we are now even seeing the Ten Commandments being placed in state capitols, a direct slap in the face to secular democracy. It's a very cunning tactic of these right-wingers, and one that can technically also be shielded by the First Amendment. "The congressman needs to vote based off his sense of morality, which is grounded in his faith," and thus the doctrines of the faith become influences on the laws passed. What we need is a Supreme Court that ISN'T stacked with conservatives and that will seriously analyze this impasse where both sides claim the First Amendment grants them the right to do what they do. Ultimately, I'd hope a reasonable Supreme Court would finally realize that while the First Amendment clearly allows freedom of religion, it does not tolerate forcing religious doctrine into laws that would impact the lives of those not even belonging to the faith. I'd then hope and expect that issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the right to bear arms would all be tolerated by law and infringing on those rights, as we have in a secular society, is unlawful even by those who pass the laws.
Now, I think things like abortion, while being legal, could be perhaps discouraged by government voices while not being outlawed or infringed upon. There comes a point where secularism can turn to a point where morality is silenced totally, which is just as bad. Then we're no different a democracy than Ancient Athens, where the people can vote to kill off an entire island in combat and enslave the population. We can't just allow evil in the name of secularism. Abortion is medically necessary sometimes and even needed as a last resort by some families, but that's the key right there. Last resort. We should not seek to normalize it or make it seem like something to take for granted. Ironically, the same people who claim their religion stands against abortion also claim that it allows for the death penalty, which no Christian religion certainly does.
Back to gay marriage, I hope that the day comes when Catholics and Christians stop pointing to a few out of context verses and, in Catholicism's case, dogma and doctrines based upon them. I hope we can realize what Jimmy Carter pointed out, that at no recorded point during his ministry did Jesus even preach on homosexuality, and certainly didn't condemn it. The only condemnations we have are from the Old Testament, which is outdated since this was the Bronze Age and the people back then weren't exactly scientists or biologists, and the letters of Paul, which are taken out of context. I've heard the argument that when discussing the sin of homosexuality, Paul was actually referring to the sin of betraying one's naturally-created sexuality. This was directed at the sexuality cults of the day in Rome where people would engage in homosexuality, pederasty, and other sexual acts solely as a part of a religious rite to appease some god or goddess. He probably didn't know that homosexuality is also found in nature just as heterosexuality, but the gist of his message is this: don't engage in sexual acts that are alien to your own making and beliefs. This also applies to people born as homosexuals who repress themselves and force themselves into a heterosexual marriage built on lies. They were created by God to be gay (and yes, I believe that God created homosexuality as well, even if it does not lead to procreation, it is based on two individuals' love for one another and God is love). I think the biggest point is the fact that Jesus never even brought it up. The Old Testament verse dates back to when God was considered a harsh war god, while Paul was merely expressing his views based on the times he lived in. Jesus is timeless, outside of time, and created all things. I think his perspective is more important than Paul's (allegedly) and whichever sheep farmer wrote that verse in the Old Testament "a man shall not lie with another man."
@@Awakeningspirit20 Try reading the Declaration of independence, our organic law, God is all over it. Please read it
@@joetookmyvideo Try reading the Constitution, our actual law. Freedom of and from religion is all over it. Also history, the Founding Fathers were Deists, they had no care for "God's Law"
Half or more priests are gay so what's the point here...at least gay people who are born that way want to legitimatize their union to get the same benefits that other couples get while the Catholic priests hide in the shadows...of all people to argue about this priests are not really the right authority to point fingers...
So for priests being gays does that legitimize Christians to accept gay marriage? The answer is No we follow the bible and not what priests do
@@francodesus9519 that's true so why don't you follow all the laws in the bible that tell you to stone people to death and for slaves to obey their masters...why the cherry picking? And don't use the old it's the new testament argument if that's the case then throw out the old testament you can't have it both ways.
@@armandolarade7861 my dear.. let me put this clear I'm a Christian and remember christianity came after Jesus Christ and not before and when talking about Old Testament on whether to abide with it or not Jesus himself made it clear he came not to abolish the Torah but to complete it. The theological interpretation is that many people (Jews) had these laws because of their hardness such as divorce and even stoning someone to death and Jesus made it clear on the gospel. We follow new testament as the good news brought by God himself to redeem his people. We incorporated old testament as a matter of reference since christianity had its core roots from Torah but not to say christians must then live what also old testament commands. I can give you a simple example we all aware of the word technology and for the purposes of understanding in order to understand how new inventions come into existence you must first trace back from it's old version technology about anything whether computer, or a certain type of cars or even cell phones you must have some knowledge of old version to understand its modern version. That to say old testament (Torah)was there for the Israelites themselves that's why until today there's Judaism which its doctrine is mainly intended for Israel people but Gospel was for whole human kind and Jesus said to Peter "Peter you're the rock and upon this rock I will build my church" remember I never said he will bulid his synagogue as Jews used to during his time and even before him which was a practice under Mosaic laws.. cutting it short we as christians we live under Jesus teachings and not what Moses laws which was mainly for Jews at that particular time because Jesus is above all and anything contradicts with his teachings then his teachings precedes
"God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies
.25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.
26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.
27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to
their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done"
Romans 1:24-28 (NLT)
Exactly in St Paul to the Romans
@@peterfoenander6234
Not forgetting Saint Jude. "5 I want to remind you about what you already know: The Lord once saved his people from Egypt. But on another occasion he destroyed those who didn't believe.
6 He held angels for judgment on the great day. They were held in darkness, bound by eternal chains. These are the angels who didn't keep their position of authority but abandoned their assigned place.
7 What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them is an example for us of the punishment of eternal fire.
The people of these cities suffered the same fate that God's people and the angels did, because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities.
8 Yet, in a similar way, the people who slipped in among you are dreamers. They contaminate their bodies with sin, reject the Lord's authority, and insult his glory."
Jude 1:5-8 (GW)
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 Why does god call murder a sin when he murders a whole city of people? Kind of hypocritical not gonna lie...
......@@prince5063
Almighty God calls killing another human murder and a sin when He forbids men whom He as created, from killing one another.
But when He commands the killing of evil humans, it is a sin not to.
Almighty God is the author of what is sin, and what is not sin.
Almighty God can never commit 'murder' as only He has the right to kill and destroy what He Himself has created in the first place.
HTH.
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 Killing is murder. And why dosent he kill anyone now? Why can’t he just prove his existence lol?
As a gay Catholic, I appreciate your discussion of this matter. In terms of gay marriage, I do not care what it is called but simply want the ability to take care of and be with the person I love and who loves me. I am not promiscuous nor do I partake in the activities commonly and sadly associated with gay men. I respect those who may not agree with me and ask that that same kindness and respect be shown to me. You do not have to like me for what I am classified as, but love me as a human being as I will do the same to you.
You are loved as a person, Christ demands we love our neighbor , but Christ also states we cannot love sin and when we do that’s mortal and grave and we must confess that sin and promise to work on that. So while I love people , be it a gay union or a man wanting 2 wives or someone getting prostitutes and thinks he loves them and they love him and just let them be happy, that goes against directly the Roman Catholic catechism , the deposit of faith, being gay in itself it is not the sin, acting upon those is the sin . Doesn’t matter what sin , when we act and accept sin it’s mortal and grave,
God bless.
@@Bourbonandbrews I respectfully disagree with you and wish you well. I am not someone who wishes to be with multiple people, have random sex, nor do I want prostitutes. That is abhorrent. I simply love the same sex rather than the opposite sex. God bless you
@@BabyBugBug I was referring to others types of sin for an example. Male and male marriage , woman and woman marriage go against the catechism , 10 commandments and examination of consciousness. Again having gay feelings is one thing, thinking the Roman Catholic Church has the ability to change scripture , or the deposit of faith is quite another. Plenty of people who have same sex attraction don’t act on it and fight it, certainly not thinking they can have a same sex marriage and be within the doctrine of faith in such relationships and not in mortal sin of the Roman Catholic Church is quite another. No priest will tell you same sex marriages are defined in the Roman Catholic faith. Loving a person is one thing, I can love my sister or brother, but not in the same way I love my wife. Two superset forms of love , trying to mix them is not a Catholic teaching nor can it ever be. Blessings and prayers .
@@Bourbonandbrews I still respectfully disagree for reasons I will not mention here for fear of getting into a theological debate. God bless you and take care!
Love you, praying for you 🙏, but your living in sin. Single, alone, no sexual activity. ❤
I just LOVE the way you explain things. You’re such a heartwarming person. Thank you for sharing your thoughts! ❤️❤️❤️
Brenda Schwieterman Fuck off Brenda
Chris Why? How can my comment possibly “offend” you?
Brenda Schwieterman cause this guy's a homophobic piece of shit you stupid fucking Boomer
Brenda Schwieterman he's the truest form of the devil
Chris ok.
Over the seven years since this was published, the problem has only become far, far worse.
What is the problem you are suggesting?
@@darwin6883
the problem is that people are immediately labeling those who disagree with them as bigots instead of sitting and talking
"they might have said that slavery was a legitimate practice and might even had appealed to religous sources to do so".... They did... And they found them and used them to justify the slavery industrial complex. So, this being a known historical fact, why then do you still assume that the mere presence of biblical justification for a practice or exclusionary mode of thinking is justification for its continuance?
Id also like to call you out for a certain degree of cognitive dissonance in your whole having a problem with someone having a problem with moral observations on a moral issues while simultaneously holding that sentimentalizing what is clearly an inherently sentimental issue to many people automatically leads to distortions and biases in their reasoning.
This is brilliant and dead-on as insight into our present culture
James DeNino Pope John Paul 1 said this about LGBT people:
“The day is not far off when we will have to answer to these people who through the years have been humiliated, whose rights have been ignored, whose human dignity has been offended, their identity denied and their liberty oppressed. What is more we will have to answer to the God who created them”
That says it in a nutshell, and I couldn't have said it better myself.
Steven Patrick Stone Yeah, where's your source? Pope John Paul I was pope for 30 days before he passed away.
Here I am, thinking you're going to give a diatribe on gay marriage. Instead, you gave a well thought, lucid thesis on moral argument (using the issue of gay marriage as a point of reference). Well done, your eminence!
There is a red flag of discrimination when the Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and says nothing about civil divorce, or marriage between un-annulled divorced people, or marriage between two people who have no desire to have children - It would seem less discriminatory if these were also civil rights that you protested. The discrimination seems evident when the church picks out this sin as the sin that they can't abide, can't pray away and can't allow - the arguments otherwise are sound but not the singular application to this one sin from Paul's list of sins - the church is blind to the other sins on the list but not this one.
Matt Alexander discrimination is a word secular leftist use to denigrate God‘s divine law. The church has teachings about divorce - but right now it seems homosexuality is on the forefront so it is being spoken about more.
And we must discriminate. We are called to discriminate between things that are good and bad, order and disorder, divine law and damnation. That is the whole point of God’s church on earth - to discriminate what is holy and unholy and to follow that which is holy.
I say proudly yes! We discriminate between that which will damn someone and that which can save their eternal soul and bring real happiness.
Very insightful. Thank you. Its given me a portal to coelesce my own thoughts on this complex issue.
Marriage has been used in a variety of ways. I think it means togetherness. I think it means love. And I feel it is greatly immoral for us to cast judgment upon two people who want nothing more than to go about their daily lives with those they feel are good to them and or a high moral character. It is greatly shameful upon us that we base our entire system of beliefs on old traditions and grandiose stereotypes instead of asking them and actually listening calmly without bias, before making unproven or stereotype-fueled claims
By definition, marriage is a Christian word that means the joining of a man and women FOR the procreation of children.
They can become a domestic partnership but if they want nothing to do with Christianity why do they want to be married so bad? It’s ironic that they choose the rainbow as their symbol, a literal wink from God.
Here we are doing totally opposite of what Bishop Barron is saying
When you define people as “gay,” as if God made some third sex of people, - instead of the fact that fallen man has institutionalized certain predilections toward sinful lifestyles, - you have already lost the marriage debate.
chris sonofpear1 You agreed with them in their assessment that they are a behavior. There is same sex attraction, the same way there is alcoholism or tendencies to lie, but no one says they belong to a unique group of people called ‘liars.” It’s a sinful behavior pattern, not an identity. - if God made “gay” people it immediately implies that the behavior is legitimate, so when you grant someone that they are gay and not just struggling with a type of sin, you have basically already lost the debate over whether or not gay behavior is justifiable.
I now live in the gay community and I can honestly say since I move here I am very happy compare where I use to live in the ghetto. I don't hear gun shots at night or homless people knocking in the middle of the night. Since I move here I have a different opinion about gays . I found out they are honest ,respectable no gay homeless, they are professional own their business. They don't like guns or own them ,they turn the other cheek if you hit them . They clean up their neighborhood no graffiti on walls. They help their own people when in need. The only Mortal sin this people have is having sex with a man. Because loving a man is not wrong is the lust.I think god will forgive them better then us . I really think they are closer to god then us corrupt so call straight people.
But why exactly is two men having sex a moral sin? What negative consequences does it have on anyone? Simply saying “god says its wrong” is not a good enough argument. For something to be a moral sin, it must have negative consequences. So far no one has been able to convince me that gay sex is a legitimate sin.
arlen guest well since by definition Sin is to go against Gods will, then saying “God says it’s wrong” actually is the best proper response. If you don’t believe in God, then why argue about sin. Otherwise, it would be wrong for a God to create two people who can love each other and produce children which is two flesh becoming one flesh, but then create two people who can’t manifest that love by producing children as a matter of design rather than a developmental flaw as with sterile people.
Oh, i believe there is a God. I just don’t believe God’s will can be found in any one book. The holy bible is one piece in a much larger puzzle that has been heavily amended over centuries in order for the shepherds to control the lives of their sheep. Not everything is a sin just because a book says it is. There are many other ways in which love can manifest besides making children. Not every person on the planet is meant to be a parent. What if god created homosexuality to act as a biological population control? Almost every species of animal has a small percentage of the population that displays homosexual tendencies. These same sex couples often adopt children that were abandoned by their biological parents for one reason or another. Maybe some people are simply not meant to have children, and are destined to help humanity in other ways instead, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to Marry and spend the rest of their life with the person that they love.
arlen guest homosexuality doesn’t actually effect population, especially in men since it is known that only half the male population in history has produced offspring. Second, a God that designed a world in which children would be abandoned by their parents is definitely not a good God. If you weren’t bent to reproduce, then why have sexual urges or even functionality, again not a good God. Also sex does not equal love, so no reason for sex if love is what we are talking about....it often gets I the way. But if your just inventing your own God, aka making yourself God, then it doesn’t matter. At least until judgment day.
I agree we all sin but it's still immoral & we're supposed to repent & try to turn from sin every day. BTW you generalized homosexuals by the ones you know in your area. I got to know a couple because one thing we had in common is we all absolutely love guns.
Can we have that video where you make your argument?
@S B Animals sometimes have homosexual sex, 'in nature' as you say - Bononos, for instance. You say your position is self evident, but I'm not sure I see it. Where is the harm?
Another fantastic video, Bishop Barron. And I'm someone who is pretty okay with gay marriage. And yet still, I can appreciate how articulate you are and how you can break a topic down in a way that I only used to hear in college classrooms by professors with PHDs in psychology or philosophy. What you say is exactly true. We've reached a point that we can no longer identify or even discuss anything "immoral" lest we be slapped with the intolerance label. And yes, very true that what the masses claim to support is not always a good thing. Thank you for yet another thought provoking video.
Lol what do you mean “pretty okay” with gay marriage?
Its a difficult argument between what is morally acceptable and what is acceptable to the Church and to God. What is acceptable to God is really all I care about. I am sure happy that I am not gay but I have met my share of them and my heart does go out to them and their struggle to be accepted and to make the right decisions.
Buffalo Rick - and how do you know what is acceptable to God, if there is a God.
@@landyn3052 There is a God and I am quite sure Jesus would say to go down there. They have to go back out for sure. I am in agreement with the Canadian who has the book out. The pilot flew it into the ocean
In short, the church says no gay marriages , the end
It would be best to understand the arguments behind it. The video clearly states how bad it is to simplify arguments because, this day and age, people tend to assume the worst in the opposition to gay "marriage"!
@Onuigbo kenneth guy this comment is a year old
@Onuigbo kenneth i mean she isn't going to respond because her original comment is very old
You either accept the word of God or reject it.
It's not a democratic vote.
Polls are not a compass of moral rectitude, it is simply a statistical tool to gauge political sentiment. The Bishop wants to merge political sentiment with moral judgement. Our founding fathers warned against this very ideology. Here is an example: while it may be morally repugnant for some to sentence any prisoner to death, for others the political calculus of a death sentence is justified for the preservation of order in a civil society regardless of its moral implications.. Life is complicated, it is often shades of gray and not black or white. Jesus knew that when he acknowledged the political power of Caesar.
If you don't Like gay marriage, don't marry a gay Person. It is Not your Business.
Exactly
Marriage is literally a religious rituals. If you don't want to follow religion which (among many things) consists sets of rules and laws set by God. And you can do whatever you want with your life that's your choice (you'll get punished in afterlife tho) but coming back trying to seek validation from the same religion you disobeyed and try to even justify your actions is the problem. And it is one of the reason Christianity became so corrupted
BS
@@andreasgrund8330 Everybody lives in a society so one's action may not directly affect other people but it will affect the society which in turn will affect the other person (especially an action the affect an important institution of the society like marriage). A family is an important unit in any society. Keeping it strong and original is a basic necessity for the survival & well-being of the society.
SECULAR marriage is a different thing to sacramental marriage. Proponents of SSM are talking about the secular concept - they are not requiring the Church to change its doctrines: the Church is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The sacred is the Church's province - but if it crosses the boundary into the secular world, then it will need good secular arguments to be heard. And in this cause, if it tries to use scientifically defunct arguments about the welfare of children or natural law, then it will be met with the minimum of a wry eye.
It is truly pathetic to hear bishops, priests and laity fulminating that their SECULAR edicts and dogmas have no currency in the republic of letters.
limitattitude
Yes, exactly, and it's a pretty darn low-down thing to do IMO. At least be honest about your motives!
I’m dutch and same sex marriage has been accepted here by the majority of people. I even saw an interview with a gay couple where one of the two was a reverend. And guess what: it does nothing bad to society. Homosexuals deserve the same rights as anyone else.
I may disagree with Bishop Barron on this subject...but I have to say it is an eloquently put argument.
He presents no argument at all against gay marriage. He sets up some straw-man bad, or at least non-moral, arguments for gay marriage and pushes them over.
Since his beloved and never-erring church endorses companionate (i.e., where-procreation-is-impossible) marriage between 2 opposite-sex persons, provided they never married before or paid that same church to cancel ("annul", even though today 60% of RC "annulments" are mere feel-good appendages to civil divorces taking place 1 year or more after marriage) their previous marriage, he needs to present a moral argument distinguishing such a marriage from a marriage of 2 same-sex persons, or else he has to admit that his church's condemnation of gay marriage has no moral basis. Of course, he does neither.
But he does complain that those condemning gay marriage are dismissed as bigots. No, in his case, he must be dismissed as a hypocrite. There's a moral distinction there - but why should it matter to the gay couple whose marriage he and the all-holy Roman Pontiff agree in condemning?
Brilliantly stated
Well he is maybe navigating toward the default position of liberal bishops : you can celebrate your union in a civil union but don't call it marriage. But he should not be so condescending about it, given that the RCC has been stomping on any such idea since forever: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Fr Barron is a very fair-minded thinker. In this video he discusses how we ALL talk past each other on today's moral issues, instead of actually arguing/ discussing. Regardless on which side of the gay marriage argument you fall, we can at least agree on this. We need to really THINK and really TALK and really LISTEN. He makes many fair points.
Fr. Barron is a Catholic Priest, he represents the Catholic Church to the best of his ability. So do not be surprised or critical that he doesn't support gay marriage arguments in his video.
Marriage is just marriage. Gay people have been around since the beginning of time. It's so sad the Bible locks Christians into thinkn homosexuality is evil thus making it a choice not something ur born with. The Bible teaches us to have compassion and empathy of other born ailments disabilities etc. Yet ur born gay which is a small fraction of the grand human total ur screwed. In Russia ur killed they don't play around. Terrible. Now I was the biggest homophob until just a few years ago. I was struggling in Christianity and started exploring Taoism and Hinduism. They teach we grow outta the universe not put here by a diety. Everything the universe is u are. We all are simply the universe observing itself. They beauty is the uniqueness of each observer its infinitely different spice of life as it would be boring if we all the same like deer. Then u value each person as a unique universe observer apart of the whole. I was watching local news one day and they brought up gay pride parade happening in town. They showed some drag and creative costumes. Normally I'd ve turning the channel but this time I experienced pride. The gay experience is unique theyr boldness in attire is cool. I was proud of living in a state and country where it was ok for them to parade. It looked packed and a total party. I felt shame about the flat out hate I had for 45+ years of my life. Their contribution to the human condition is legitimate should be accepted and value as we should gender races and cultures. And since heterosexuals at this point get divorced 50% of time we got no business owning the sanctity of marriage.
Thank you Father, this was a great, common sense approach to the issue. I think the real issue is society has lost its sense of sin. Offending God is not something people are afraid to do at their own peril. This country was founded on Christian principles and in no way, shape or form did the founders ever contemplate this nonsense. Our society is sick. Some posters incorrectly believe a secular society has the power to institutionalize sinful and until recently criminal behavior. The offense one poster took to equating dropping the bomb and gay marriage is laughable, they just don't get it. Your observation of the sentimentality of the issue is accurate. While we must live and respect all people we can not bless sin. The background music with this issue really is to ultimately label the Word of God as hate speech, start taxing churches and shut down people of faith. I can't wait until the pendulum swings back to the right payback is gonna be swift and sweet. The vast majority of Americans still hold deep traditional values. We need more leadership from clergy and brave politicians. We the people are sick of the left, they are killing this once great nation. God bless you. God save America.
The country was put together largely by Deists, not specifically Christians.
@RoxanneDrew Those principles are not Christian in origin. They, like all fundamental morals, were developed as society grew. Religions then appropriate these values and sometimes adhere to them.
yeah the US was built on slavery and slaughter of Native Americans, not built on Christian values. The founding fathers were slave-owners, and yet we hold ourselves to their centuries-old words and thoughts.
@@erinhorocholyn8668 you are another nutjob. Watch the defeat in November. You probably have TDS. Get your Valium ready for 2024. Lol.