This is an excellent intro to Rene Girard's thought. What Bishop Baron could have added is this : From Girard and more contemporary Christian understanding, God did not demand Jesus' suffering (as per earlier thought such as C. S. Lewis writing about justification and atonement to satisfy God's anger at humanity for its sins) but rather allows Jesus to be scapegoated in order to EXPOSE scapegoating and related sins. Thus God confronts humanity for its evils (scapegoating, hate, resentments, violence) in order to forgive humanity and transform humanity inviting remorse, humility and change of heart and mind. The Resurrection of Jesus vindicates God's instruction to all who believe in it or , at least, consider the magnitude of such a revelation: admitting the truth of our sins, our inner demons, violence, prejudices, etc, can be transformed through compassion. It begins with compassion for Jesus' senseless suffering --because all violence toward all humanity is senseless and the result of selfishness, greed, lies, fear--all that contributes to scapegoating--and a willingness to turn to God to change our hearts, minds and our behaviors so that our actions reflect God's love and forgiveness and a desire to transform ourselves and the world to strive toward choices that the benefit the many, not the few, so all may live in peace and, for Christians and others who hold a belief in heaven, share in eternal life.
What seems absent from this is the Christian understanding that sin does deserve punishment. There is temporal punishment due to sin (if we are not purified by it in this life, but we die in a state of grace, that is why we would go to Purgatory). All have sinned and all therefore justly deserve to suffer punishment oriented to purifying and restoring order and Charity in us and our relationships. Christianity directs each of us to acknowledge OUR OWN personal sin and to do penance--not to scapegoat others but to acknowledge our own guilt, its consequences and our need for atonement. All deserve temporal punishment for sin except Jesus, Who has not sinned. We have a problem only He can solve: "sin" means offense against God, not only finite offenses against neighbor. Our sin (any sin) is an offense against God and is therefore in a particular and frightening sense, an infinite offense. Changing my behavior or thinking is ultimately totally insufficient to fix this (the belief that it could, is pelagianism)! Only God Himself is able to make the infinite atonement that can restore our justice and union with God. We should weep that we (I, myself) have made that necessary (do you weep that Jesus out of love for you was wounded for your offenses, which had separated you not only from your neighbor but from God's friendship? if not why not?), but we should not call Jesus' act of ultimate Charity, freely giving His life for us, senseless.
This finally clicked for me when I read the following passage from Kierkegaard: I will call the attention of the crowd to their own ruination. And if they don't want to see it willingly, I shall make them see it by fair means or foul. Please understand me--or, at least, do not misunderstand me. I do not intend to beat them (alas, one man cannot beat the crowd ); no, I will force them to beat me. Thus I actually compel them. For if they begin to beat me, they will probably pay attention; and if they kill me, they most definitely will pay attention, and I shall have won an absolute victory. They show me respect precisely by showing me that they don't respect me. Men are not so corrupt that they actually wish to do evil, but they are blinded, and don't really know what they are doing. It is all a matter of baiting them for decisive action. The rebellion of a crowd triumphs if one cedes the way, steps aside, so that it never comes to realize what it is doing. A crowd has no essential viewpoint; therefore if it happens to kill a man it is eo ipso halted; it pays heed and comes to its senses. He, who for purposes of reformation, opposes a man of power (a man who stands alone) must endeavor to make the mighty one fall, but he who more rightly turns round to combat the "crowd," from which all corruption issues, must seek his own fall. --Kierkegaard
Bishop Barron - probably the best and clearest explanation of Girard's major points (or many of them) that I have ever heard. Superb job I will be sharing over and over again with others. Thank you brother and bless you.
In his book I Saw Satan Fall Like Lightning, he wrote p. 164, that in a paradox of empathy, “the concern for victims has become a paradoxical competition of mimetic rivalries” in which “the victims most interesting to us are always those who allow us to condemn our neighbors”. When asked what he hoped for his ideas, René Girard in 2007 or so said he hoped they would help people realize they were scapegoaters (not scapegoats), and that if his insights ever became fashionable in academia that would be bad.
I would support your motion : ) Girard clearly has the profile of a Church Father. He definitely stands out in today's academic world and brought a sharp new insight on Christianity.
Thank you for this intro. I hope many will begin reading Girard. I did at an early age - it has been a wonderful confirmation of my faith, especially, thinking about the scapegoating I have seen. I had always wanted to thank him, but it took until October 2015 before I did write a letter, not knowing if there would ever be an answer - he was, after all, old. I also asked him one question - his thoughts about death? As I had a father who had passed away not long before that, I could not help asking. I never got an answer, and a month later he had passed away himself. In a way it was an answer for me.
Bravo, Bishop Barron! Thank you for covering this giant of a man. I wish you would have made explicit what his theory does to deconstruct much of what modern Christianity believes in terms of atonement theory. God most definitely does not demand the death of his son in payment for our sins. The violence comes from man alone.
YES! It is Christianity which demands the scapegoating of Jesus that it might project its own guilt feelings of separation from Judaism into hatred/violence onto the Jews and onto God perhaps for "CHOOSING" the Jews long before Jesus. We Christians, including Bishop Barron's early statements about the Jews in this video, carry some tint of this scapegoating hatred...perhaps a scapegoating hatred re-directed at the stranger/the other of our times in racism and xenophobia. Otherwise, how could so many of us Christians have voted for an openly outrageous leader who never expected to get elected? whomegod.wordpress.com
YES! When I first read Campbell (actually a transcript of his Moyers interviews), I was struck by how inadequate his comparative mythology approach was. He tries to make Judeo-Christianity into one more myth, one more expression of the monomyth, and then goes on to say over and over again that he has no idea why Judaism and Christianity consistently zigged where other religions zagged. The problem, of course, was that Judeo-Christianity are not just expressions of the same monomyth. They are inversions and subversions of it. The Hebrews took the same image of the woman and the snake and the tree which stood for wisdom and power in the myths of surrounding peoples, and they deliberately subverted it to stand for corruption. They took the image of the offerings of meat and grains, and deliberately subverted it to draw a connection between agriculture and empire. They consistently side with the slave, the underdog, and the scapegoat, because they have consistently been a subject, oppressed people. I'm not familiar with Girard, but his thesis sounds a lot like the Christian inversion of Nietzsche's master/slave morality. Nietzsche's basic thesis wasn't wrong per se... But where he speaks disapprovingly of those Jewish slaves inventing a slave religion where God is on the side of the slaves, Girard approves of it. I'm also reminded of Walter Wink's "Myth of Redemptive Violence" which inverts Nietzsche's thesis in a similar way. I'm guessing that Wink was influenced by Girard?
+CoryTheRaven I think you've got Girard wrong, but his thesis does have implications that lead to Nietzsche. Here's a brief expose he wrote about his work. www.firstthings.com/article/1996/04/002-are-the-gospels-mythical www.firstthings.com/article/2009/08/apocalypse-now
"For centuries to come". I hope the church (and Christianity in general) can survive that long in this aggressively secular ( and increasing anti-Christian) society.
Thanks, Bishop Barron. Looks like I'll have to buy a book written by Girard. You predict that Girard will become a Doctor of the Church so I'm intrigued enough to spend some money on a book.
Excellent overview! What I'm still unclear on is how mimetic desire leads to the scapegoating mechanism. I see both of them (mimetic desire and scapegoating) at work in our society today. Wondering, how exactly does one lead to the other.
Hello Father, loved your analysis on Rene Girard. I was thinking as an IR student, what are your opinions on Reinhold Niebuhr, the father of Christian Realism, which is the precursor to American school of IR realism
Could this 'scapegoating mechanism' be what all the study into 'cultural bias' or 'innate racism' really be at its root? There is just something about people continually telling me that I am 'racist' even if I don't 'know' that I am racist that just doesn't sit right. I grew up listening to my (french canadian) grandfather rail against the "irish" or the "polish" who had wronged him in one way or another...both of them being as white as white can get...So, to have the powers that be in the media and political realms now 'educating ' us on how no matter what is in your heart, if you are white you are racist. You have all the white privileged so see you are racist... then the research/tests that show 'white' is seen as 'good' and 'black' is bad...see we are all racist....seems like its missing something. The 'scapegoating mechanism you speak of here 'feels' more real, more likely, more true, more deep. Something that if IT were given as much thought, and invested in as heavily by those with the power of voice then we might actually get somewhere as a society. Then we could turn back to the truth and the life of Christ, ask for forgiveness, give forgiveness and move our world forward. But there is no money to be made in forgiveness. Just in keeping us divided and telling everyone who is to blame for all our troubles.
I first encountered Girard as a literary critic, in his interpretations of Oedipus and Shakespeare, and only recently appreciated the theological dimensions of his work. Also: sorry to be nitpick, but it's "Indiana University," never "University of Indiana."
I am new to your channel. I would really value further discussion about Girard. I just discovered him 2 weeks ago and I am captivated, obsessed, to understand him.
Try these five one-hour sessions - really 4 because no. 2 is not available: ruclips.net/video/g8Y8dVVV4To/видео.html There is a lot of material on RUclips on Girard
Hi Bishop Barron, I was listening to an old sermon of yours on the parable of the talents earlier, but there was something you mentioned but didn't explain: the way God (the master) is quite frightening in the parable. Doesn't this image support the non-believers' image of the angry, jealous, punitive God? And wasn't the scared servant proved right in being scared? I'm a faithful Catholic but I've never understood this. PS I've been a follower of yours and Word on Fire's for a few years now from here in the UK. Very many thanks and congratulations on all your successes. Please help evangelise the UK more! God bless.
There is the social and political function of all religious practice, exercised in _exoteric ritual_ , like e.g. the _human sacrifice_ in Hellenistic Carthage and pagan Germania - and there's the _esoteric mystery_ , experienced individually in personal revelation and mystical union. The punishment of revealing the mysteries of the ancient oracles to the uninitiated was death - and wherever pre-Christian cults hold out or are revived in one form or another, still is. To not just speak on behalf - like an oracle or a prophet - but to _personify_ a god in public is the ultimate political challenge and yet, had to be accomplished, _once_ to save man from deeming himself solely 'material' or a mere servant or _steward_ of the gods. Despite this unique _historical event_ , there are still links of common spiritual experience between 'world religions' that inspired Campbell's 'monomyth' as e.g. the passion of Christ is linked to the 'cosmic' days in a week, but there are also 'stages' and focus points, spread across the _space_ of the globe from the Orient to the Occident as if it were a look back into _time_ . Man isn't given all revelation at once, but piecemeal, according to his evolving ability to grasp it, involving human agency. _Roman_ Catholicism has a way to insist on the primacy of the origin of the Roman Empire among other apostolic sees, but the soul will be judged _individually_ against _catholicism_ in it's literal meaning, regardless of it's local, secular attachment that will be purged, e.g. with the dissolution of the body.
Christ, the Host, was Hostage on the Cross, God forgave Man in order to rescue Christ to Himself, "Father! Forgive them, for they know not what they do!" If you do not understand that aspect of His profound story, read the literature of the Prophet Samuel.
"Scape Goating" is certainly true, but so too is identifying real potential danger from other humans. The insidious enemy uses the guise of being a "scape goat" to enable greater access to the target. The difficulty for any society is when you can't tell one situation from the other.
I don't know much about Girard but I would like to know more, but from what I know so far I'm pretty skeptical about his mimetic desire theory. But when it comes to his thoughts on the scapegoating mechanism I think his 100% correct.
+Moonlite Brite The point is that his ideas about the scapegoating mechanism are based in the mimetic theory. The mimetic desire is the underlying principle that leads to the scapegoating mechanism. In Girard's theory you cannot take one an reject the other. They make sense only if you take them together.
Jan Lukas I don't see why you can't accept one and reject another. To me that's like saying you have to accept the premise in order to accept the conclusion. And that doesn't make any sense to me. You can make sense of the scapegoating mechanism while still being skeptical of the mimetic theory. The problem I have with mimetic theory is that it's over-reaching, over-simplistic, and attempts to explain too much. v "The first point of criticism directed at Girard is that he is too ambitious. His initial plausible interpretations of mimetic psychology and anthropology are eventually transformed into a grandiose theoretical system that attempts to explain every aspect of human nature." www.iep.utm.edu/girard/
It's not like saying that you have to accept the premise, because mimetism is the very engine that moves the scapegoating mechanism. If you reject mimetism, you have to find another explanation for the scapegoating mechanism. I don't see that's really possible. But you could try. Most of criticism towards Girard, as far as I am aware, flows form a flawed understanding of Girard's theory. First to say that it is "too ambitious" says NOTHING about the truth or falseness of the theory. It's almost an ad-hominem fallacy. Over-reaching... that's not an acceptable critique in scientific terms. Over simplistic: that might be acceptable, but it must be explained. You can't just say that and don't justify it. Girard doesn't explain all aspects of human nature. That is not true because he himself acknowledges that not all desire is necessarily mimetic. What he says is that the human being is always conditioned in a way or another by his mimetic nature.
Jan Lukas "because mimetism is the very engine that moves the scapegoating mechanism." You keep saying that and yet I able to grasp the scapegoating mechanism while still be critical of the mimetic theory. "First to say that it is "too ambitious" says NOTHING about the truth or falseness of the theory. It's almost an ad-hominem fallacy. Over-reaching... that's not an acceptable critique in scientific terms. Over simplistic: that might be acceptable, but it must be explained. You can't just say that and don't justify it." Hmmm... are you aware of what an ad-hominem fallacy means? It's a personal attack against the person making the argument rather then critique of the argument itself. Saying that mimetic theory is too ambitious is not a personal attack against Girard. Furthermore, the reason why mimetic argument was called over-simplistic was already explained. You simply ignored the argument. "Girard doesn't explain all aspects of human nature. That is not true because he himself acknowledges that not all desire is necessarily mimetic. What he says is that the human being is always conditioned in a way or another by his mimetic nature." But that argument is self-defeating as you claimed that I can't accept Girard's scapegoating mechanism without the mimetic theory. You said that mimetic theory is engine that runs scapegoating mechanism. Sorry, the criticism stands, Girard mimetic theory attempts to explain too much.
"You keep saying that and yet I able to grasp the scapegoating mechanism while still be critical of the mimetic theory." Ok, so you grasp the scapegoating mechanism but you don't grasp the mimetic one. That's precisely the point. You don't get it. But that doesn't mean that the mimetic theory is not true. You probably don't get it because, as you said, you don't know much about Girard. In fact, the scapegoating mechanism can be explained ONLY through mimetic means. That's precisely the whole point about the scapegoating mechanism. It is unconscious because it is mimetic. You don't have an alternative explanation to explain why and how the scapegoating mechanism works. When you say that the theory is "too ambitious" you are making an ad-hominem argument because you are not judging the theory by itself, the content of it, but the intention of the creator of the theory. It is worse than ad-hominem, it is slyly and cowardly ad-hominem. I didn't ignore any argument when you said it is over-simplistic because that is not an argument. In fact what scares me is your willingness to judge Girard's theory while admitting that you don't know much about it. You are the self-defeating one, my friend. You judge what you ignore.
Would you characterize Buddhism as one more iteration of the monomyth? Modern secularism seems to be particularly sympathetic to the "blind tolerance" of modern Buddhist ideas.
I do agree with the first statement but what I question is why does man always see the negative aspects of even philosophy ( in this case ), why can't the 3rd party ( not scape goat because both the entities being watched, know someone or something is watching) be there to make the two viewed subjects see the negative, positive or equal aspects of both outcomes of the account?
Bishop Robert Barron Irgendwie freut mich das! Ich habe dort auch studiert. I am btw very glad to have found your channel (via Dave Rubin). Your videos are a pleasure to watch and helping me to adjust myself. I have never 'talked' to a bishop before and if I was being somehow impolite, I apologize. Thank you for answering to my comment and thank you for the work you are doing.
I may be getting this wrong. But it was in a way that Christ's death was a "failed" sacrifice in a way that it did not remain a sacrifice, but instead turned into a gift in the resurrection. So it is always began as a sacrifice, which then turns into gift, by God's power to forever give back and give again what was lost. We are not celebrating a death only, which would be the purely sacrificial logic, but instead a death that already has and always will turn into a victory. Thus requiring a sacrifice, not to accomplish a sacrifice per se, but instead an overturning of it.
Girard was all about "Christus Victor" theory, that Adam and Eve made humanity subject to the Devil during the fall, and that God, in order to redeem humanity, sent Christ as a "ransom" or "bait" so that the Devil, not knowing Christ couldn't die permanently, would kill him, and thus lose all right to humanity following the resurrection. Girard's idea that gospels were groundbreaking and different, because they showed, unlike all the other myths of the world, clearly innocent man that was slaughtered during passion. "The evangelical "good news" clearly affirms the innocence of the Victim, thus becoming, by attacking ignorance, the germ of the destruction of the sacrificial order on which rests the equilibrium of societies.". Girard thought about death and ressurrection of Christ as God's tool to destroy sacrifical system, destroy the bondage of the law, etc. If you google "Christus Victor" you will get more of that.
What the bishop said about kids and advertising puts me in mind of the creation story. Adam & Eve were childlike in the ways of the world and yet God advertised the presence of the forbidden tree thus guaranteeing that Adam & Eve would go for it. Actually Adam was utterly indifferent to forbidden fruit until he saw that Eve had some - then he couldn't live without it. Then Cain waxed Abel for much the same reason and the rest is history.
I would say more: eve doesnt desire the fruit by her own. She follows an external suggestion. The text seems to suggest that she would not have eaten the fruit if the devil hadnt suggested it to her. There is a subtle triangular effect in eve's desire to eat the fruit. The devil, on the other hand, imitates God, for he wants to take the place of God in the human heart. He wants us to imitate him in his disobedience.
+Jan Lukas Right, but I wonder if there's a better interpretation of the story than the Sunday school version. It doesn't seem likely that Adam & Eve were intended to stay in the garden forever - for one thing they didn't learn how to make babies till they received the "forbidden" knowledge. It doesn't make sense for God to dangle the knowledge of good and evil before them if they weren't intended to take it. Another reason is that they received the knowledge of good as well as the knowledge of evil. It was a package deal - both or neither. Good and evil define each other - opposite sides of the same coin. Maybe the lesson Genesis is trying to teach us is that knowledge of evil is the price we pay for knowledge of good. Genesis 3:7 says that their eyes were opened when they took the fruit thus implying that their eyes were closed before they took the fruit. Are we supposed to believe that God intended humans to forever have their eyes closed with no knowledge of good? And since they did not yet have the knowledge of evil when they ate the fruit they were arguably incapable of sin.
+Tin Man So you are saying that what i said is just a sunday school version? I was just pointing out some mimetical aspects of the story of the fall of mankind. Thats all.
Buddhism identified it in another more roundbaout way. Christianity and Buddhism in a way, are mythology killers. Also Campbell was too simple. Mircea Eliade Identified this immediately as well.
I not convinced by this argument about Girard being a moder Church Father. This book which I tried of his are really unpleasant read. Girard in my perspective monomaniac man, seeing everywhere his main ideas. He also seems to be generic Christian, not tied to Roman Church be mind or soul, choosing it only by fact of being born in France, traditional catholic county. Also didn't have special esteame for Catholic Church in this part of his work that I read. Also, there is problem in thesis defense of Christianity. He said that Christianity unmasked scapegoat mechanism, but didn't he also do that? So, argument may go, Christianity is religion created by apostles who were girards of past, when they realize what really happens in killing Jesus and making additional story of Him being messiah and savior. I don't see any reason, why these version of story may be excluded by Girard thought. The point is that Christ is the only God that exists and only savior of mankind. Any other way of approaching this topic is wrong, maybe erroneous and ultimately futile. Christ is our only hope, not cultural theories of often doubtful worth. God have mercy on thy.
ZiemniakZKosmosu Hey, maybe you don't even hold that position from a year ago. But if you still care: That Girard could "discover" the mechanism maybe is a result of him living in a post-Christ world. Only because of the revelation of that mechanism through Christ Girard could see the mechanism. Not because of his own intellectual genius per se, but through the Christian culture being embedded into him. I'm not claiming this must be true, but maybe it opens a new perspective for you to look at your question. If you still care: What do you think?
it's not the Bible that unmasks the scapegoating mechanism, It's the crucifixion, in that the victim (Jesus) is not uniformly seen as guilty, but argued to be innocent by many, and affirmed to be innocent by the apostles. The situation is the same as the mythical one, but the killing of the victim does not bring unity or peace. The dynamic has failed. Christianity tells that the victim (Jesus) was innocent and thus abrogates the old myth in which the victim is guilty and thus brings people together against the one.
![Kumamoto Masters Japan 2024 | Gregoria Mariska Tunjung (INA) [5] vs. Akane Yamaguchi (JPN) [2] | F](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EIjZybhsWqA/mqdefault.jpg)
That moment when Bishop Barron says "Now, here's the thing"... You know something really good is coming.
yes
+Adriano Rodrigues I always thought it was when he says "okay, okay" and then pauses..
ChinAMAPutatoDragun That too lol.
A great wealth of knowledge, thanks Bishop, God bless!
Yes indeed!
This is an excellent intro to Rene Girard's thought. What Bishop Baron could have added is this : From Girard and more contemporary Christian understanding, God did not demand Jesus' suffering (as per earlier thought such as C. S. Lewis writing about justification and atonement to satisfy God's anger at humanity for its sins) but rather allows Jesus to be scapegoated in order to EXPOSE scapegoating and related sins. Thus God confronts humanity for its evils (scapegoating, hate, resentments, violence) in order to forgive humanity and transform humanity inviting remorse, humility and change of heart and mind. The Resurrection of Jesus vindicates God's instruction to all who believe in it or , at least, consider the magnitude of such a revelation: admitting the truth of our sins, our inner demons, violence, prejudices, etc, can be transformed through compassion. It begins with compassion for Jesus' senseless suffering --because all violence toward all humanity is senseless and the result of selfishness, greed, lies, fear--all that contributes to scapegoating--and a willingness to turn to God to change our hearts, minds and our behaviors so that our actions reflect God's love and forgiveness and a desire to transform ourselves and the world to strive toward choices that the benefit the many, not the few, so all may live in peace and, for Christians and others who hold a belief in heaven, share in eternal life.
Who are you referring to by saying 'we'?
What seems absent from this is the Christian understanding that sin does deserve punishment. There is temporal punishment due to sin (if we are not purified by it in this life, but we die in a state of grace, that is why we would go to Purgatory). All have sinned and all therefore justly deserve to suffer punishment oriented to purifying and restoring order and Charity in us and our relationships. Christianity directs each of us to acknowledge OUR OWN personal sin and to do penance--not to scapegoat others but to acknowledge our own guilt, its consequences and our need for atonement. All deserve temporal punishment for sin except Jesus, Who has not sinned. We have a problem only He can solve: "sin" means offense against God, not only finite offenses against neighbor. Our sin (any sin) is an offense against God and is therefore in a particular and frightening sense, an infinite offense. Changing my behavior or thinking is ultimately totally insufficient to fix this (the belief that it could, is pelagianism)! Only God Himself is able to make the infinite atonement that can restore our justice and union with God. We should weep that we (I, myself) have made that necessary (do you weep that Jesus out of love for you was wounded for your offenses, which had separated you not only from your neighbor but from God's friendship? if not why not?), but we should not call Jesus' act of ultimate Charity, freely giving His life for us, senseless.
I think it’s really weird you only study commentary on the gospels but not the actual gospels then pick which ones you like.
James DiLuzio, how beautifully written!
@@sarahloffler THANKS, SARAH! I hope you are well and thriving amidst the challenges of today! Good to hear from you. god bless!
I owe a huge debt to René Girard. This is how I came back to Christ. I love your explanation as well, Bishop Barron.
How did he exactly bring you back to Christ?
Thank you for this tribute. It was Girard and you who helped renew my faith.
This finally clicked for me when I read the following passage from Kierkegaard:
I will call the attention of the crowd to their own ruination. And if they don't want to see it willingly, I shall make them see it by fair means or foul. Please understand me--or, at least, do not misunderstand me. I do not intend to beat them (alas, one man cannot beat the crowd ); no, I will force them to beat me. Thus I actually compel them. For if they begin to beat me, they will probably pay attention; and if they kill me, they most definitely will pay attention, and I shall have won an absolute victory.
They show me respect precisely by showing me that they don't respect me. Men are not so corrupt that they actually wish to do evil, but they are blinded, and don't really know what they are doing. It is all a matter of baiting them for decisive action.
The rebellion of a crowd triumphs if one cedes the way, steps aside, so that it never comes to realize what it is doing. A crowd has no essential viewpoint; therefore if it happens to kill a man it is eo ipso halted; it pays heed and comes to its senses.
He, who for purposes of reformation, opposes a man of power (a man who stands alone) must endeavor to make the mighty one fall, but he who more rightly turns round to combat the "crowd," from which all corruption issues, must seek his own fall.
--Kierkegaard
Bishop Barron - probably the best and clearest explanation of Girard's major points (or many of them) that I have ever heard. Superb job I will be sharing over and over again with others. Thank you brother and bless you.
I started reading his book "I saw Satan fall like lightning". Brilliant read so far, i must finish it.
In his book I Saw Satan Fall Like Lightning, he wrote p. 164, that in a paradox of empathy, “the concern for victims has become a paradoxical competition of mimetic rivalries” in which “the victims most interesting to us are always those who allow us to condemn our neighbors”.
When asked what he hoped for his ideas, René Girard in 2007 or so said he hoped they would help people realize they were scapegoaters (not scapegoats), and that if his insights ever became fashionable in academia that would be bad.
Thank you for this learned and insightful sermon Bishop Barron. 'Peace be with you'
Brilliant intro to Girardian thought - many thanks Bishop Barron!
I would support your motion : ) Girard clearly has the profile of a Church Father. He definitely stands out in today's academic world and brought a sharp new insight on Christianity.
Thank you for this intro. I hope many will begin reading Girard. I did at an early age - it has been a wonderful confirmation of my faith, especially, thinking about the scapegoating I have seen. I had always wanted to thank him, but it took until October 2015 before I did write a letter, not knowing if there would ever be an answer - he was, after all, old. I also asked him one question - his thoughts about death? As I had a father who had passed away not long before that, I could not help asking. I never got an answer, and a month later he had passed away himself. In a way it was an answer for me.
Wow a powerful and profound 10 minutes. Bishop Barron does it again!
Currently reading Wanting: The Power of Mimetic Desire in Everyday Life as an introduction to Rene Girard.
You knocked it out of the ballpark with this one my friend!
I read Gerrard in college. The only non-philosophy class that had reading that I kept a book from.
Thank you so much for this video. Girard has tugged on my heartstrings a lot.
Great summary/intro. I recently read “I See Satan Fall Like Lightning” and I loved it. It was my first book by Girard.
I'm not even Christian and I subscribed. ❤️🙏🤯
What a a great speaker.
would very much appreciate the bishop revisiting girard in light of all that has happened in the culture since this was published in 2016.
Bravo, Bishop Barron! Thank you for covering this giant of a man. I wish you would have made explicit what his theory does to deconstruct much of what modern Christianity believes in terms of atonement theory. God most definitely does not demand the death of his son in payment for our sins. The violence comes from man alone.
YES! It is Christianity which demands the scapegoating of Jesus that it might project its own guilt feelings of separation from Judaism into hatred/violence onto the Jews and onto God perhaps for "CHOOSING" the Jews long before Jesus.
We Christians, including Bishop Barron's early statements about the Jews in this video, carry some tint of this scapegoating hatred...perhaps a scapegoating hatred re-directed at the stranger/the other of our times in racism and xenophobia. Otherwise, how could so many of us Christians have voted for an openly outrageous leader who never expected to get elected? whomegod.wordpress.com
Brilliant, Thank you!
This is great insight and very helpful
YES! When I first read Campbell (actually a transcript of his Moyers interviews), I was struck by how inadequate his comparative mythology approach was. He tries to make Judeo-Christianity into one more myth, one more expression of the monomyth, and then goes on to say over and over again that he has no idea why Judaism and Christianity consistently zigged where other religions zagged. The problem, of course, was that Judeo-Christianity are not just expressions of the same monomyth. They are inversions and subversions of it. The Hebrews took the same image of the woman and the snake and the tree which stood for wisdom and power in the myths of surrounding peoples, and they deliberately subverted it to stand for corruption. They took the image of the offerings of meat and grains, and deliberately subverted it to draw a connection between agriculture and empire. They consistently side with the slave, the underdog, and the scapegoat, because they have consistently been a subject, oppressed people.
I'm not familiar with Girard, but his thesis sounds a lot like the Christian inversion of Nietzsche's master/slave morality. Nietzsche's basic thesis wasn't wrong per se... But where he speaks disapprovingly of those Jewish slaves inventing a slave religion where God is on the side of the slaves, Girard approves of it. I'm also reminded of Walter Wink's "Myth of Redemptive Violence" which inverts Nietzsche's thesis in a similar way. I'm guessing that Wink was influenced by Girard?
+CoryTheRaven I think you've got Girard wrong, but his thesis does have implications that lead to Nietzsche. Here's a brief expose he wrote about his work.
www.firstthings.com/article/1996/04/002-are-the-gospels-mythical
www.firstthings.com/article/2009/08/apocalypse-now
Priceless.
"For centuries to come". I hope the church (and Christianity in general) can survive that long in this aggressively secular ( and increasing anti-Christian) society.
Lots of truth here. Thanks
Great analysis Bishop Barron- Girard was a great thinker
Thanks, Bishop Barron. Looks like I'll have to buy a book written by Girard. You predict that Girard will become a Doctor of the Church so I'm intrigued enough to spend some money on a book.
Ah, Mimetic desire in action!
Thank you, Bishop Barron. Gotta read the lottery.
And Girard unique way of understanding Christianity
Excellent overview! What I'm still unclear on is how mimetic desire leads to the scapegoating mechanism. I see both of them (mimetic desire and scapegoating) at work in our society today. Wondering, how exactly does one lead to the other.
Hello Father, loved your analysis on Rene Girard. I was thinking as an IR student, what are your opinions on Reinhold Niebuhr, the father of Christian Realism, which is the precursor to American school of IR realism
Could this 'scapegoating mechanism' be what all the study into 'cultural bias' or 'innate racism' really be at its root? There is just something about people continually telling me that I am 'racist' even if I don't 'know' that I am racist that just doesn't sit right. I grew up listening to my (french canadian) grandfather rail against the "irish" or the "polish" who had wronged him in one way or another...both of them being as white as white can get...So, to have the powers that be in the media and political realms now 'educating ' us on how no matter what is in your heart, if you are white you are racist. You have all the white privileged so see you are racist... then the research/tests that show 'white' is seen as 'good' and 'black' is bad...see we are all racist....seems like its missing something. The 'scapegoating mechanism you speak of here 'feels' more real, more likely, more true, more deep. Something that if IT were given as much thought, and invested in as heavily by those with the power of voice then we might actually get somewhere as a society. Then we could turn back to the truth and the life of Christ, ask for forgiveness, give forgiveness and move our world forward. But there is no money to be made in forgiveness. Just in keeping us divided and telling everyone who is to blame for all our troubles.
I cannot understand why Girard's thought is not taught in universities across the world. This is groundbreaking.
I first encountered Girard as a literary critic, in his interpretations of Oedipus and Shakespeare, and only recently appreciated the theological dimensions of his work. Also: sorry to be nitpick, but it's "Indiana University," never "University of Indiana."
I am new to your channel.
I would really value further discussion about Girard. I just discovered him 2 weeks ago and I am captivated, obsessed, to understand him.
Try these five one-hour sessions - really 4 because no. 2 is not available: ruclips.net/video/g8Y8dVVV4To/видео.html
There is a lot of material on RUclips on Girard
@@lesliecunliffe4450 your right!
Thank you.
Bishop, can you give us a little summary of the work of Germain Grisez? I'd like to know more about his concept of the Kingdom of God.
buenísimo..!!
And if there was one book to read by Rene Girard what would that be?
+David Krause there is one called "I see satan fall like lightning".
In my opinion Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World is his best book.
“Christianity is the deconstruction of the monomyth.”
Scapegoating: reminds me of Shirley Jackson and her short story, "The Lottery"
Feel compelled to let you know it's Indiana University not the University of Indiana. Thank you
It is called ENVY
Hi Bishop Barron, I was listening to an old sermon of yours on the parable of the talents earlier, but there was something you mentioned but didn't explain: the way God (the master) is quite frightening in the parable. Doesn't this image support the non-believers' image of the angry, jealous, punitive God? And wasn't the scared servant proved right in being scared? I'm a faithful Catholic but I've never understood this. PS I've been a follower of yours and Word on Fire's for a few years now from here in the UK. Very many thanks and congratulations on all your successes. Please help evangelise the UK more! God bless.
Sorry, just got to this part of the video. He already said it.
"The Lottery " is free online.
The Scapegoat Mechanism seems linked to Jung's Projection of the Shadow.
There is the social and political function of all religious practice, exercised in _exoteric ritual_ , like e.g. the _human sacrifice_ in Hellenistic Carthage and pagan Germania - and there's the _esoteric mystery_ , experienced individually in personal revelation and mystical union.
The punishment of revealing the mysteries of the ancient oracles to the uninitiated was death - and wherever pre-Christian cults hold out or are revived in one form or another, still is.
To not just speak on behalf - like an oracle or a prophet - but to _personify_ a god in public is the ultimate political challenge and yet, had to be accomplished, _once_ to save man from deeming himself solely 'material' or a mere servant or _steward_ of the gods.
Despite this unique _historical event_ , there are still links of common spiritual experience between 'world religions' that inspired Campbell's 'monomyth' as e.g. the passion of Christ is linked to the 'cosmic' days in a week, but there are also 'stages' and focus points, spread across the _space_ of the globe from the Orient to the Occident as if it were a look back into _time_ .
Man isn't given all revelation at once, but piecemeal, according to his evolving ability to grasp it, involving human agency.
_Roman_ Catholicism has a way to insist on the primacy of the origin of the Roman Empire among other apostolic sees, but the soul will be judged _individually_ against _catholicism_ in it's literal meaning, regardless of it's local, secular attachment that will be purged, e.g. with the dissolution of the body.
René Girard - not to be confused with Remi Gaillard
Christ, the Host, was Hostage on the Cross, God forgave Man in order to rescue Christ to Himself, "Father! Forgive them, for they know not what they do!" If you do not understand that aspect of His profound story, read the literature of the Prophet Samuel.
Let's make sure that the UN Enemy State Clause can't mean anything in a Girardian sense.
"Scape Goating" is certainly true, but so too is identifying real potential danger from other humans. The insidious enemy uses the guise of being a "scape goat" to enable greater access to the target. The difficulty for any society is when you can't tell one situation from the other.
I don't know much about Girard but I would like to know more, but from what I know so far I'm pretty skeptical about his mimetic desire theory. But when it comes to his thoughts on the scapegoating mechanism I think his 100% correct.
+Moonlite Brite The point is that his ideas about the scapegoating mechanism are based in the mimetic theory. The mimetic desire is the underlying principle that leads to the scapegoating mechanism. In Girard's theory you cannot take one an reject the other. They make sense only if you take them together.
Jan Lukas I don't see why you can't accept one and reject another. To me that's like saying you have to accept the premise in order to accept the conclusion. And that doesn't make any sense to me. You can make sense of the scapegoating mechanism while still being skeptical of the mimetic theory.
The problem I have with mimetic theory is that it's over-reaching, over-simplistic, and attempts to explain too much. v
"The first point of criticism directed at Girard is that he is too ambitious. His initial plausible interpretations of mimetic psychology and anthropology are eventually transformed into a grandiose theoretical system that attempts to explain every aspect of human nature."
www.iep.utm.edu/girard/
It's not like saying that you have to accept the premise, because mimetism is the very engine that moves the scapegoating mechanism. If you reject mimetism, you have to find another explanation for the scapegoating mechanism. I don't see that's really possible. But you could try.
Most of criticism towards Girard, as far as I am aware, flows form a flawed understanding of Girard's theory. First to say that it is "too ambitious" says NOTHING about the truth or falseness of the theory. It's almost an ad-hominem fallacy. Over-reaching... that's not an acceptable critique in scientific terms. Over simplistic: that might be acceptable, but it must be explained. You can't just say that and don't justify it.
Girard doesn't explain all aspects of human nature. That is not true because he himself acknowledges that not all desire is necessarily mimetic. What he says is that the human being is always conditioned in a way or another by his mimetic nature.
Jan Lukas "because mimetism is the very engine that moves the scapegoating mechanism."
You keep saying that and yet I able to grasp the scapegoating mechanism while still be critical of the mimetic theory.
"First to say that it is "too ambitious" says NOTHING about the truth or falseness of the theory. It's almost an ad-hominem fallacy. Over-reaching... that's not an acceptable critique in scientific terms. Over simplistic: that might be acceptable, but it must be explained. You can't just say that and don't justify it."
Hmmm... are you aware of what an ad-hominem fallacy means? It's a personal attack against the person making the argument rather then critique of the argument itself. Saying that mimetic theory is too ambitious is not a personal attack against Girard. Furthermore, the reason why mimetic argument was called over-simplistic was already explained. You simply ignored the argument.
"Girard doesn't explain all aspects of human nature. That is not true because he himself acknowledges that not all desire is necessarily mimetic. What he says is that the human being is always conditioned in a way or another by his mimetic nature."
But that argument is self-defeating as you claimed that I can't accept Girard's scapegoating mechanism without the mimetic theory. You said that mimetic theory is engine that runs scapegoating mechanism. Sorry, the criticism stands, Girard mimetic theory attempts to explain too much.
"You keep saying that and yet I able to grasp the scapegoating mechanism while still be critical of the mimetic theory."
Ok, so you grasp the scapegoating mechanism but you don't grasp the mimetic one. That's precisely the point. You don't get it. But that doesn't mean that the mimetic theory is not true.
You probably don't get it because, as you said, you don't know much about Girard.
In fact, the scapegoating mechanism can be explained ONLY through mimetic means. That's precisely the whole point about the scapegoating mechanism. It is unconscious because it is mimetic.
You don't have an alternative explanation to explain why and how the scapegoating mechanism works.
When you say that the theory is "too ambitious" you are making an ad-hominem argument because you are not judging the theory by itself, the content of it, but the intention of the creator of the theory. It is worse than ad-hominem, it is slyly and cowardly ad-hominem.
I didn't ignore any argument when you said it is over-simplistic because that is not an argument. In fact what scares me is your willingness to judge Girard's theory while admitting that you don't know much about it.
You are the self-defeating one, my friend. You judge what you ignore.
Covetousness is what we called it when I used to run the block in the bronx, back when Moses was a boy.
Would you characterize Buddhism as one more iteration of the monomyth? Modern secularism seems to be particularly sympathetic to the "blind tolerance" of modern Buddhist ideas.
I do agree with the first statement but what I question is why does man always see the negative aspects of even philosophy ( in this case ), why can't the 3rd party ( not scape goat because both the entities being watched, know someone or something is watching) be there to make the two viewed subjects see the negative, positive or equal aspects of both outcomes of the account?
Mr. Barron, do you speak German? I was surprised when you mentioned the term 'Gemütlichkeit'.
Felix Rubér Ja, Ich kann ein bischen Deutsch sprechen.
Bishop Robert Barron That's pretty amazing. May I ask why? Alles Gute aus Deutschland, Felix
Felix Rubér Ich habe Deutsch in Freiburg in Breisgau studiert.
Bishop Robert Barron Irgendwie freut mich das! Ich habe dort auch studiert. I am btw very glad to have found your channel (via Dave Rubin). Your videos are a pleasure to watch and helping me to adjust myself. I have never 'talked' to a bishop before and if I was being somehow impolite, I apologize. Thank you for answering to my comment and thank you for the work you are doing.
Interesting.
"Here's the move."
How is Girard's theory reconciled with the sacrificial nature of Christ's death and of the Eucharist?
I may be getting this wrong. But it was in a way that Christ's death was a "failed" sacrifice in a way that it did not remain a sacrifice, but instead turned into a gift in the resurrection. So it is always began as a sacrifice, which then turns into gift, by God's power to forever give back and give again what was lost. We are not celebrating a death only, which would be the purely sacrificial logic, but instead a death that already has and always will turn into a victory. Thus requiring a sacrifice, not to accomplish a sacrifice per se, but instead an overturning of it.
Girard was all about "Christus Victor" theory, that Adam and Eve made humanity subject to the Devil during the fall, and that God, in order to redeem humanity, sent Christ as a "ransom" or "bait" so that the Devil, not knowing Christ couldn't die permanently, would kill him, and thus lose all right to humanity following the resurrection.
Girard's idea that gospels were groundbreaking and different, because they showed, unlike all the other myths of the world, clearly innocent man that was slaughtered during passion.
"The evangelical "good news" clearly affirms the innocence of the Victim, thus becoming, by attacking ignorance, the germ of the destruction of the sacrificial order on which rests the equilibrium of societies.".
Girard thought about death and ressurrection of Christ as God's tool to destroy sacrifical system, destroy the bondage of the law, etc. If you google "Christus Victor" you will get more of that.
What the bishop said about kids and advertising puts me in mind of the creation story. Adam & Eve were childlike in the ways of the world and yet God advertised the presence of the forbidden tree thus guaranteeing that Adam & Eve would go for it. Actually Adam was utterly indifferent to forbidden fruit until he saw that Eve had some - then he couldn't live without it. Then Cain waxed Abel for much the same reason and the rest is history.
I would say more: eve doesnt desire the fruit by her own. She follows an external suggestion. The text seems to suggest that she would not have eaten the fruit if the devil hadnt suggested it to her. There is a subtle triangular effect in eve's desire to eat the fruit. The devil, on the other hand, imitates God, for he wants to take the place of God in the human heart. He wants us to imitate him in his disobedience.
+Jan Lukas Right, but I wonder if there's a better interpretation of the story than the Sunday school version. It doesn't seem likely that Adam & Eve were intended to stay in the garden forever - for one thing they didn't learn how to make babies till they received the "forbidden" knowledge. It doesn't make sense for God to dangle the knowledge of good and evil before them if they weren't intended to take it. Another reason is that they received the knowledge of good as well as the knowledge of evil. It was a package deal - both or neither. Good and evil define each other - opposite sides of the same coin. Maybe the lesson Genesis is trying to teach us is that knowledge of evil is the price we pay for knowledge of good. Genesis 3:7 says that their eyes were opened when they took the fruit thus implying that their eyes were closed before they took the fruit. Are we supposed to believe that God intended humans to forever have their eyes closed with no knowledge of good? And since they did not yet have the knowledge of evil when they ate the fruit they were arguably incapable of sin.
+Tin Man So you are saying that what i said is just a sunday school version? I was just pointing out some mimetical aspects of the story of the fall of mankind. Thats all.
+Jan Lukas I know. It's just a though - a rather good one too I believe.
+Tin Man I think you go too far in many statements.
A big fish swims upstream . Girard was the big fish .
Buddhism identified it in another more roundbaout way. Christianity and Buddhism in a way, are mythology killers. Also Campbell was too simple. Mircea Eliade Identified this immediately as well.
I not convinced by this argument about Girard being a moder Church Father. This book which I tried of his are really unpleasant read. Girard in my perspective monomaniac man, seeing everywhere his main ideas. He also seems to be generic Christian, not tied to Roman Church be mind or soul, choosing it only by fact of being born in France, traditional catholic county. Also didn't have special esteame for Catholic Church in this part of his work that I read.
Also, there is problem in thesis defense of Christianity. He said that Christianity unmasked scapegoat mechanism, but didn't he also do that? So, argument may go, Christianity is religion created by apostles who were girards of past, when they realize what really happens in killing Jesus and making additional story of Him being messiah and savior. I don't see any reason, why these version of story may be excluded by Girard thought.
The point is that Christ is the only God that exists and only savior of mankind. Any other way of approaching this topic is wrong, maybe erroneous and ultimately futile. Christ is our only hope, not cultural theories of often doubtful worth.
God have mercy on thy.
ZiemniakZKosmosu Hey, maybe you don't even hold that position from a year ago. But if you still care:
That Girard could "discover" the mechanism maybe is a result of him living in a post-Christ world. Only because of the revelation of that mechanism through Christ Girard could see the mechanism. Not because of his own intellectual genius per se, but through the Christian culture being embedded into him.
I'm not claiming this must be true, but maybe it opens a new perspective for you to look at your question.
If you still care: What do you think?
1:31 neitzche said it plainly the master and slave morality. The pope's and priest's over the sheepish followers.
Cowardly avoidance of a very real issue right here. Does Truth mean nothing for these people?
treating mythology as fact, or history is the primal mistake
it's not the Bible that unmasks the scapegoating mechanism, It's the crucifixion, in that the victim (Jesus) is not uniformly seen as guilty, but argued to be innocent by many, and affirmed to be innocent by the apostles. The situation is the same as the mythical one, but the killing of the victim does not bring unity or peace. The dynamic has failed. Christianity tells that the victim (Jesus) was innocent and thus abrogates the old myth in which the victim is guilty and thus brings people together against the one.