Bishop Barron Presents | D.C. Schindler - Catholicism and Liberalism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 май 2024
- Friends, Dr. D.C. Schindler is a Professor of Metaphysics and Anthropology at the John Paul Institute in Washington and I’d argue, is one of the greatest Catholic philosophers on the scene today. Over the course of our conversation, Professor Schindler and I discuss the different classes of liberalism and the genesis of these schools of thought and how they affected the society and culture of today.
---WATCH---
Subscribe to this Channel: bit.ly/3nL6bMU
Word on Fire Institute Channel: bit.ly/43jgnga
Word on Fire en Español Channel: bit.ly/2uFowjl
---WORD ON FIRE---
Word on Fire: www.wordonfire.org/
Word on Fire Institute: wordonfire.institute/
FREE Daily Gospel Reflections (English or Español): dailycatholicgospel.com/
---SOCIAL MEDIA---
Bishop Barron Instagram: bit.ly/2Sn2XgD
Bishop Barron Facebook: bit.ly/2Sltef5
Bishop Barron Twitter: bit.ly/2Hkz6yQ
Word on Fire Instagram: bit.ly/39sGNyZ
Word on Fire Facebook: bit.ly/2HmpPpW
Word on Fire Twitter: bit.ly/2UKO49h
Word on Fire en Español Instagram: bit.ly/38mqofD
Word on Fire en Español Facebook: bit.ly/2SlthaL
Word on Fire en Español Twitter: bit.ly/38n3VPt
---SUPPORT WORD ON FIRE---
Donate: www.wordonfire.org/donate/
Word on Fire Store: store.wordonfire.org/
Pray: bit.ly/2vqU7Ft
Dr. Schindler and the JPII Institute are true gifts from God ♥️
"The good in different ways manifests itself, it gives itself and we're obligated to bring our wills and our freedom in line with that." *- Bishop Barron*
The people who get hurt are the people who really care.
My favorite professor of all time! So happy for this discussion
Wow, he was a professor of yours? That must have been amazing! What a privilege
@@manlikeJoe1010 such a privilege! He is brilliant but also able to make really complex ideas understandable
@@meganphilip3752 Absolutely. That's one of the things I love about his books and online discussions 😁
Bravo to this most excellent conversation, so needed in this time we find ourselves.
Great talk. I was really impressed by the book The Politics of the Real. It is great to hear that its theme is getting wider recognition and influence. Thank you, bishop Barron! Greetings from Slovenia, Europe
Could listen all day and will definitely re-listen.
❤Thank you both! Truth, Beauty & Goodness for the Win. DCS👊🏻
Another great Bishop Barron conversation!
D.C. Schindler and the John Paul II Institute are doing such great work!
Thank you Bishop Baron for bringing Schindler on!
Great timing, I just started reading his essay Perfect Difference that New Polity printed in their Fall 2023 magazine. I’ve been loving what New Polity has been doing.
12:33
This was a thought provoking and delightful conversation, especially that last quote/quip: "I don't have the truth, the truth has me". Thank you Bishop.
What a beautiful conversation 💞🙏
Such a great and helpful conversation.
Hooray!!! Been waiting for this!
Fascinating discussion.
Fantastic insights, empowering for our daily challenges!
I'm 85 and I think this is a one in a million discussion.
I kept thinking of the song "Safety's just danger...out of place" by the great Catholic musician Harry Connick Jr from one of my all time favorite albums "She"
This was excellent - it helped me to see more clearly around the issue of why I so vehemently want people to see what I see as Truth and why it does not mean that I am just tyranical with "my truth". .... which brought Jesus and his disciples in mind, how masterful he was in helping people to see the Truth...... without debates, without emotional-intellectual overpowering! Amazing!
D.C. schindler made me a Christian with out ever once ever saying Jesus, Christ, or even incarnation.
Wow. Can you please share more? Thank you.
Enlightening conversations
honoured to listen to both👍🏻
What an interesting, informative and enlightening conversation, thank you.
Excellent…….thank you BB
When beauty is degraded, all is nearly lost! Luckily the good is greater than all, so even our foolishness is always a moment from an insight into the good, which is itself beautiful. Ah, the awe! :)
11:18 "They were really dedicated to safety, these people." 🤣 The delivery! The "these people" bit! 🤣 This talk is such a feast 🤗 Onward...
What a wonderful discussion, and thanks for the references to Dame Iris Murduch, sure and you read her you know love is scary things.
Thanks for rich and engaging discussion
1:01:09
"Listen, I could talk to you all day..."
*WHY NOT!?*
Thankfully, the eternal can look after itself, and therefore these questions, however difficult, are not easily avoided.
Really appreciate this discussion.
Closer to the Vervaeke and Mcgilchrist discussion. Shindler is great
Vervaeke is creepy and bad this guy is way better
Thank you for a very in-depth conversation. Prof Schindler is clearly a deep, nuanced thinker and seems a generous person. I thought the comments on the Church's role in working against an extreme anti-woke backlash was very interesing and it would have been great to hear more about that. I also thought it was valuable that he acknowledged that the liberal system might be the most prudent thing in practice.
There were a few of things that troubled me though.
(1) I would like more on his differences with Integralism, to me there did not seem that much difference (I guess I need to read the book)
(2) In reflecting on the potential dangers of what is discussed here should we draw on the views of historians about Medieval Europe as well as of philosphers and those who engage with the ideas. I don't subscribe to the view that Medieval Europe was a completely intolerant dark age by any means, but I wonder, given the fallen nature of human beings, how association with the state might do more harm than good to the Church? I wonder about the temptation towards pride that is a danger in the best of human projects. Might this explain the hesitancy of those in the Church who have longer memories than the younger people who urge a more robust position?
(3) If people emphasise the culture of Christianity - either because they believe it to be true or because they see it as useful - how does this affect Christianity as a relationship between God and human beings? Clearly there is a lot I don't understand and should find out more about these myself, but I would love to hear something that might address these worries. Thank you
Word.
Finally!
Criticizes liberalism really well
It’s a description
As an occupational health and safety professional, I can say that two things drive the focus on safety. The first is lack of trust, whether that be in your equipment, your coworker or your employer. Secularism is so focussed on preservation of the self it not only drives people to question every thing they see and hear, but also not to trust the source of the information. As Christians we know through our faith that God is the absolute source of truth, and therefore we can trust in Him to guide us in the right direction through the teachings of the Church even when our fear tells us not to believe it.
The second thing that drives people to focus on what they think is safe is the liability risk, or the "blame game". The legal system is full of cases of individuals suing corporations, event organizers or others in authority because the individual has experienced an injury or feels they have been wronged in some fashion and that it was someone else's responsibility/fault that they experienced this (usually whoever has the biggest bank account).
Great content, thank you both... "metaphysical absolutes" Bp. Barron, that phrase is quite the oxymoron. Liberal modernity appears to be a transitional state that, for instance, upholds the rights of individuals because they are real and necessary behaviors, but the "metaphysical absolutes" that were ostensibly the source of this moral absolute authority is found wanting to the modern secular mind, even MIA. That this transitional state is volatile and unpleasant to old religious (but practical) notionalism is to be expected. This is an unsafe period in our history. Our understanding of our roots may be moving into a more historically accurate and stable Renaissance, although this is not certain. We may need to fall back onto the safe arms of religious mythology if we fail. Our evolution, language and writing favor the belief in the "metaphysical absolutes" we have seen in all world religions.
Okay , one more time from the top , but could you go deeper 😂. Thanks so much gentlemen.
Im ranking this discussion #1 on my Schindlers list
At 46:20, what does that mean? What is the mission? I am not a theologist or philosophist so I'm a little taken back by what exactly the action that one would take against the "extreme liberalism". I enjoy the conversation but as a layperson I find them pretty highfalutin and confusing. I wish more lay-directed language was used. And maybe that's impossible, and that's ok, I'm just struggling to get anything out of the conversation, and maybe that means I need to read more?
They were saying that today truth depends on time, place and circumstance. The source of truth is the self. The measure of truth is the self's feelings. With the competing subjective truth the king of the hill has the power to determine which would be his truth. As Benedict ne Ratzinger said, "The relativists' impulses are totalitarian."
Please arrange for philosopher Conor Cunningham to be on the show. Please, please, please
'If you wish to learn and appreciate something worthwile, then love to be unknown and considered as nothing.' - Imitation of Christ.
Bishop Barron, just a humble request...how about a conversation with Archbishop Charles Chaput and the topic would be ..The Church leadership at present....I read the letter of Archbishop Chaput last December and it was the most SPIRITUALLY enlightening I ever read in these days of controversy where sinful is now called "irregular."
Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech.
Beautifully said and mostly ignored by those posing as liberals today.
Such an interesting discussion. Scandinavian countries are the most individualistic and least family dependent. They have generally benevolent overarching governments that provide for care of babies, children, and elders independent of the mother's feminine nurturing role. They have tax-funded healthcare and higher education supplanting the father's masculine providing role. As their birthrates are very low, it seems their societies will eventually find it difficult to find people paid to do these family roles. However, their heavy unionization (50-75% or so with a high percent of nonunionized workers also covered by union wages) is a major strength and something our country should imitate. Thank you for a great conversation. Also, that Christianity is about loving God, not safety, as we think of Jesus on the cross and the suffering of the saints and martyrs.
Really good!
Using political power to set the base axioms of society is a good way to start
Like Jesus said? 😅
More like make another country
@@Ericviking2019 like Constantine the great did
Highly mystifying: I don't recall a single explicit mention of Catholic Social Doctrine in the whole conversation...
Thanks for the discussion. I have a question (which arises from my own ignorance) - is it possible that if we always focus on the culture we may end up neglecting Christ? Especially in terms of our relationship with Christ in our faith? Did this ever happen in the Medieval societies mentioned? Maybe that doesn't make sense.
Yes, truth is known to all. But what does it take to reach it? Semantics can get in the way of reaching truth. Is the word "safe" just a superficial way of saying loving care? Let's dive deeper into truth and talk about what our collective minds, hearts, and souls desire. Let's find language that truly identifies with us as spiritual beings. ❤️ 🌼
The point about the good being given in relationships sounds a lot like Heidegger.
liberty, freedom ... have no meaning without seeking the truth in the same movement.
Liberty has no meaning without service to the truth. Freedom has no meaning when it is not freedom to live according to the truth known (the good).
Freedom is the freedom to make fresh the truth known ...
❤
💗🕊💗🕊💗🕊💗🕊💗
It seems we had tried this other way before, with disastrously bad results like burning alive people who stubbornly refuse to believe what we want them to believe, persecuting Jews and other religious minorities (small reminder: Catholics remain a religious minority in this country), restrictions against academic freedom and thus the freedom of scientific inquiry, and that horribly dangerous notion that the king can do no wrong (e g., the king who had tortured St Jan Nepomuk for not divulging the queen's confession, Hames VI of Scotland/James I of England, or -- in the modern world -- "der Führer hat immer recht," or "the leader is always right," an article of faith in Germany from 1933-1945).
Seems to me you believe alot of liberal propaganda 😂
Abusum non tollit usum.
What you are critiquing has nothing to do with what these two are exploring.
It might be a good critique of some integralists, but even they have pretty solid responses to this kind of dismissal.
If you haven't read and wrestled with the best arguments against your opinion, you have no right to dismiss those who disagree with you.
"It seems" followed by some observations, and you inform him that he has no right to dismiss those . . . I don't see an opinion being put forward by David Braun. I see questions that need to be asked and I think legit based on the historic record. How do we bring back a Christ honoring culture while retaining the freedom of the individual? I am open to a creative future with safe guards against the abuses of the past. Maybe I am just too steeped in the classical liberal culture, but in my mind the failure is in the church. When the choice is offered people say No Thanks. If we did our job as Christians Jesus might look like an option one might choose. If enough people choose it (my very capitalistic way of thinking) then the culture changes. In terms of the church as I see it: if I did not have a prior connection I would never (apart from God's grace) choose to join the church. I have not found many compelling reasons (outside of Truth) - but, the Christians I meet, in general, just don't attract me - and I include myself in this category. So, please tell me to shut my mouth too since I have no right to this opinion (in your opinion, probably) but, to the average American the practical application is what matters and these speculations and theories are not well explained as to how the implementation would differ from the past. And, I am serious, tell me to shut my mouth, I thought I'd given up commenting for Lent, I guess not. @@Son-of-Sapia
@@ck1578 Ahh, excellent! It is good to find a commenter who cares about the truth more than their own opinions or experience.
You would like Schindler’s books, I think.
I recommend Freedom from Reality and Plato’s Critique of Impure Reason.
These books are, in part, the reason I’m Catholic. They are so wise and beautiful.
Catholics since 1509: "Oh dear, lots of people don't believe what I want them to, what can I do?"
Strawman assertions, such as yours, are just that-- assertions. They are not actual arguments. Internet trolls love to find solace in strawman assertions though, because they are simplistic and easy, though not accurate. I should know. I used to be an anti-Catholic troll.
Safety has always stemmed from protecting the innocent. Protecting other. Especially coming partially out of slavery, genocide, and imperialism we rightfully decided safety of the innocent and protection of a form of innate goodness was a good
It is a good indeed, but is it the highest good there is? Also the way you framed safety, I'd argue it would be more precise to call it love, and love and safety has some overlap, but sometimes love trumps safety, such as when someone puts their own lives in danger in order to protect another person they love.
I would like to see a discussion by a philosopher on the other end of the spectrum to come to an informed position, especially as conservatism has been corrupted by the politics of Trump, etc..
Conservatism is a sick joke at this stage in the West's decline.
I feel like there are so many better terms to describe current culture than "woke-ism." You can call it modern progressivism or post-feminim or something but "woke" is such a silly term.
Though very apt for a silly ideology, surely?
@@raymond7427 It just sounds very patronizing to me. Surely that's not the best way to persuade someone, you know?
The term has been foisted upon us. No one asked for it. Most sane people find woke philosophy as intolerant, insufferable, and incredibly dangerous.
Using “softer” terms just plays into their hands.
@@NorthwoodsWolfDon't you think it just reeks of contempt? I don't think you can ever win an argument by treating your opponent as if they're a child. The most likely outcome is getting them to hate you.
@@Carlos-ln8fd What's in a name? You don't seriously think words or reason can help them do you?
Distinguished Gents: A little too vague and cerebral for me. Dr. Schindler began to lose me when he couldn't define modern Liberalism (in 1 sentence). Peace.
The more I learn the less I know. 🥴
I don't know. I think young people today are influenced by living in a post-colonial/post-Jim Crow America. The relate any kind message about effort and objective good with racism and imperialism so they go to the logical opposite: "I'm right all the time and my comfort is the most important thing. Anyone who thinks the opposite is trying to oppress me." Of course, it's a terrible mindset, but we need to acknowledge it comes from a rejection of what they see as the ultimate evil (oppression). If we don't, I don't think anyone will listen. And, of course, that shift wouldn't have been possible with swift action from religious leaders.
That seems pretty accurate to a large subset of young people, but there are other large subsets who have a fundamentally different perspective, but I think the general principle overall that is dominant in all these groups is an unwillingness and aversion to the idea of submitting to an authority, because they are so used to phoney authorities, its hard for them to come to see that some authorities ought to be submitted to, such as reality, God, the church, or even just masters in a field (to a lesser degree). We value to highly our own personal opinions and have lost sight to the master/apprentice relationship that is so crucial, probably because people just got so worn out from fake masters and fake authorities that theyve shut their mind to even the real thing.
@@AjaxNixon yeah. that makes sense i think you're right.
Here we go. Blame the leaders.
@@outofoblivionproductions4015 adults should take responsibility for their own bad ideas for sure and not merely be reactionary, but I think the context helps to atleast understand how people justify their worldview, even if its fallacious
@@AjaxNixon Upon WHAT EXACTLY are you basing your claim to authority? Might is right?
Minute 43:36. I am that American.
Alex O’Connor and Michael Knowles talk about this
Joseph de mistre
The last statement is strange. If there is only one truth and we’re wooing our fellow man to be captured by it as well, we are necessarily putting forward a vision over and against theirs.
Yeah, well, at the end of the day it's all about competing metaphysical truth claims.
Choosing "safety" over beauty -- it is as though we were all traumatized.
By the images we see in our games and on the news?
The martyrs saw worse, yet did not long for safety.
Is it the way violence is framed, when God is taken out of the picture?
... all modern “progressive” movements, share the core project & fundamental assumptions of The Enlightenment.
Is it possible to have a systematic exposition of the understanding of the remedy towards the true way?
Yeah to go back to dark ages.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”
(Hannah Arendt, ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’)
… for as long as humankind exist, there is no running away from authority, & its converse, obedience/compliance.
Authority & obedience are part of the structure of life.
The real issue has not been the obliteration of authority, which is impossible - but on who, how, when, and what purpose, the authority will be exercise.
… for the public good or health, or really for the privilege of a few, at the expense of all others & the world.
Dear Bishop, on a unrelated topic but in light of the coming Easter celebrations, I was reading a meditation in The Way Of The Cross ( Benedict XV1) concerning the very first station (our Lord in front of Pilate).
We know that Jesus, in order to fulfill his mission HAD to go to the cross (😔) and ‘the crowd’ are calling out frequently “Let him be crucified “
Even Benedict notes that this crowd is not ‘utterly evil’.
My point, please forgive my ignorance, is to what extent might a case be made that this ‘crowd’ were actually supporters of our Lord and were committed to Jesus’s mission.
I didn’t know how to contact you about this and thought I’d just piggyback on your latest RUclips post ( which I haven’t watched yet btw).
Anyway, in your opinion, is there room for a thesis on this topic? I did theology degree in another life )when I was a better catholic (I think) and this particular episode in the first station has always niggled at me. Is it worth investigating or have I completely misread the text and go back to playing Bach suites on my guitar?
Hmm…decisions, decisions 🤔
It is easy for anyone with a Machiavellian talent to do so, to work up a crowd to fever-pitch such that it becomes feral like a wolf-pack. Even soldiers at war engage in atrocities they later regret. A good example of this is the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam War in 1968. There is no real vision of a higher good involved in any of this. It is simply awful, brutal and tragic like the crucifying of Jesus Christ. I have little doubt that many who encouraged Jesus' crucifixion later regretted it.
So the execution of Jesus was a profound spiritual event, a spiritual war between Caesarism or the power of the State and the gospel of love. The religious men of Christ's day as represented by the Sanhedrin were also in bed with the State.
A difficult figure like Jesus who chased the money-changers out of the Temple was a threat to the comfort zone of the high priests so to have him silenced once and for all restored equilibrium to status quo, the world of getting and spending and whoring. It wasn't that Jesus HAD to be crucified (as you put it) but that his execution was inevitable given the secular order and shadow side of man. To scapegoat someone is to have them bear our own darkness and sin in a kind of perverse self-flattery.
We stand convicted. We bear the mark of Cain. Contrary to the liberal or Rousseauist vision of man, we are far from perfect or perfectible. We are liars and murderers! We will never improve or uplift ourselves admiring our reflected image in the false lights of utopian philosophies. If this sounds rather harsh, then read the history of the French Revolution or the Spanish Civil War.
Jesus also stood convicted before Pilate but he was innocent, the sacrificial lamb, the one who was to shed his blood and end his life forgiving his tormentors. "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." These words reveal the truth that we do not fully know ourselves, that we are shrouded in darkness and ignorance. And as Christians we believe that only the light of Christ can dispel man's shadow, his sin and darkness.
Bach suites on guitar is a good idea whatever the answer! Great to come across another classical guitarist watching this video!
@@raymond7427 Thank you Bishop . Some food for thought.
I love and respect Bishop Baron, but this conversation is lost on me. I'm 65 yrs. old and have seen a lot. Liberalism? as opposed to what?? Conservatism?? I think these conversations have been taken completely out of context. But I'm willing to listen.
Ponder these things in your heart.
Don’t tell me for whom I should vote.
They’re discussing the evolution of classical liberal philosophy, not political parties.
I bristle at remarks agaist liberals and wonder why so many varieties are included.
Not conservatism, that would just be the other side of the same coin, part of the modern dichotomy itself. They are trying to think about the deeper universality that was lost post reformation, the harm it's done, and what can we do prudentially to restore it.
A prominent element of wokeism is the deliberate corruption of language to distort truth. It is the deliberate violation of what Romano Guardini calls the “honor” of truth and what he associates with purity of spirit when he writes it in his book “The Lord”:
"Purity of mind is related to truth. That spirit is pure in which distinctions are made and boundaries are maintained; the one who calls the big big and the small small; who never turns yes into no and no into yes; who separates good and evil by the unconditional either/or that stands between them. This is not to say that [ purity of truth means ] good is already done and evil is avoided, but something much earlier: that good is never called evil and evil is never called good. The purity of the spirit lies where its first movement arises, where it behaves in relation to being and ought. It is that first sense of being right, where the words are established ever and ever again in their true meaning, where the relationships are put right, and the boundaries are cleared. The spirit becomes unclean through deceit. He does not yet become unclean - as a spirit, and in the ultimate sense - when he does evil, as long as he knows and inwardly admits that it is evil; But yes, if he calls evil good. He does not become unclean - as a spirit in the sense that pollutes his roots and confuses his essence - when he lies, as long as his conscience still strikes him; But yes, if he obscures the sense of truth. The mind does not yet become unclean when it errs, misunderstands facts, misunderstands concepts, makes mistakes in judgment, uses words incorrectly or confuses images - but it does when it no longer has the will to see what is; when it no longer cares about the clarity of the concept; when it no longer feels responsible in Der his judgment before the eternal standards; when it no longer knows that the honor of the truth is his own honor; when it pollutes the meaning of words, which is also the meaning of things and existing, and when it deprives images of their nobility and severity."
[ From: Romano Guardini, "Der Herr", p.605 f.; my translation ]
👀👀👀
Comment for traction
I really want to understand this but it is over my head.
Me too
This is nothing compared to St Thomas Aquinas's 'Essence and Being.' For the first time, I read a book that was completely beyond me. 😂
I'm a practicing Roman Catholic. 63. Both Bishop Barron (I've never seen a bishop more in search of a Cardinal's hat) and Professor Schindler know exactly what they're doing here, and that makes their disingenuousness even worse. I was privileged enough to study philosophy under John Rawls, who really was one of our greatest (American) philosophers; Professor Schindler is not. He wrote that "Liberalism is a philosophy of politics, NOT a theory of metaphysics." Liberalism seeks to provide for what Aristotle called "mere life", i.e., peace at home and abroad, the greatest economic prosperity for the greatest number of people, etc., and is based on a point of view of Justice. It conceives of politics without reference to a metaphysics or the soul. So when Professor Schindler talks about this "separating us from reality"; he means from his and the bishop's reality.... the "reality of God". The last person you'd want to talk about a classical philosophy entirely BASED on the absence of metaphysics... is a professor of metaphysics. And both of these men are smart enough to know this. They're are making an intentionally pseudo-intellectual "argument".
People with ulterior motives (like you) always accuse others of having them.
You have been entirely misguided, Gerard. The Rawls quote that "liberalism is a philosophy of politics NOT a theory of metaphysics", is frankly ridiculous. One's political outlook is dictated by one's fundamental metaphysical stance on reality. Thus philosophy of politics is enfolded within one's metaphysical stance on reality. Therefore liberalism cannot be thought of as outside/separate drom metaphysics
@@reginaclaire4680 My "ulterior motive" is that I wish to remain living in a "liberal democracy", not a theocracy, which is these guys' "ulterior" motive.
And all you've just done is to commit a Philosophy 101 fundamental error in logic. It's called petitio principii ("begging the question"); you've simply made an invalid assumption, and "therefore" concluded from that invalid assumption (and the channel's admin who gave you that delightful "highlight" knows that's what you did, there again making my original point). You're "assuming" a metaphysics to begin with, and there are plenty of philosophies and Weltanschauungen which do NOT assume a metaphysics of any kind at all. Peace be with you.
@@gerardmcgorian7070 Nice try, but wrong again, Gerard. There is no such thing as a philosophy with no metaphysical stance. There's no such thing as no metaphysics, there's just good or bad metaphysics. This is philosophy 101, Gerard
"What previously had been granted to us by God...and [we] recreate it through OUR terms..." (found at around 36mins into the video, if you want to hear accurate quote). You might want to put that one on repeat until you get just what that means (e.g. why it's not a continuation of God's terms but a self to theo conflated ownership of dictum; not a true authority granted in the power of the Holy Spirit).
And, just to note, you're still pitting "liberalism" (i.e. Liberals in their "woke" state) against the Church. Not cool. However, I do understand that you are still wrestling with the equilibrium between these two concepts (i.e. "wokeism" in social justice and the divergent Protestant Ethic adopted by contemporary Catholicism) and need to put it into terms in order to reckon them. That can be done without pitting one against the other. How is that done, you ask? Well, you can understand, first and foremost, that we live in a "free" society where "freedom" is defined as the loose toothpaste that need not be shoved back into a tube. Your control and domination over the toothpaste is not "God's Will" for the love of Leviathan. Your domination is over the flock allotted to you in God's Church (a Church that was, from the beginning, supposed to understand the errors of the OT as pointed out by Christ and through the Apostles).
Once you understand those, you may have hope in finding the Golden Mean; how Christ was able to say, "Give to Casaer what belongs to Casaer". We all have to have the freedom to choose Christ or to not choose Christ. That means there must be a secondary region where Christ is not.
That's not a lordship over all society nor can it be.
If you work against what Christ says to do then you are in error and not in step with Christ or the path He left.
god doesn't do my work , i have to do it.
Strangely, you cannot draw breath without God.
@@raymond7427lol, so true
All due respect, but didn't the Pope recently tell Joe Biden that he was a good Catholic and that the Pope understood that a Catholic politician had to respond to ALL the people he represents? This even though Biden votes for and openly supports abortion? So does a governor, I would think. So which is correct?
Of course, Biden said this, I didn't hear the Pope say it.
So you are advocating for removing self-determination to impose faith-based beliefs. Faith is not coerced, it is chosen.
Wrong again. There is no such thing as "self-determination" so it wouldn't even make sense to replace it (even if it were possible) with 'coerced faith' (which is also not a thing).🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
You guys need to have Bradley Lewis on if you want to talk about political philosophy. He's so much better than DC Schindler. Schindler doesn't understand either the Medieval or Modern tradition and frequently confuses himself with word games.
"Doesn't understand the medieval or modern tradition"😂🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@manlikeJoe1010 lol your just gonna have to trust me. I read all this stuff as preparation for my PhD and I regularly teach it to undergraduates. There's a reason Schindler and the John Paul II Institute just aren't taken very seriously in the Catholic philosophical community.
@@smashandburn1 You have no doctorate and you don't teach anybody. That is clear from the sheer ignorance of Church history and basic philosophy demonstrated in your previous comments. I doubt you even hold an undergraduate qualification. Provide at least 5 examples, with written evidence, of where Schindler isn't taken seriously in the Catholic philosophical community. Name these other Catholic philosophers who don't take him seriously.
@@smashandburn1 Cite at least 5 examples with written evidence from other Catholic philosophers of note criticising Schindler's views as not worth taking seriously
@@manlikeJoe1010 sorry, I just don't have the time to devote that kind of energy to RUclips comments. If you're in the community, you know.
@mary pinakat. scientific method which is more robust for predicting future doesn't use god or faith philosophy
But it doesn’t answer the big questions like who am I? Why am I here? What should I do? Purpose? Etc
Predicting the future? In what sense? What scientific method that can predict the future?
@@raymond7427 like what day the next eclipse is on
Glad to see M Pinaket still following and responding. I hadn’t seen any of your comments lately.
I’ll have to watch this several times to get the sense
of it.
Sherry
Great conversation! But it seems that in comparison with Dr. Schindler, bishop Barron appears to be a more clear and profound philosopher.
Bishop Barron is a great communicator and a formidable intellect, but make no mistake, Dr. Schindler is very much a profound thinker and has worked through and internalized a prolific amount of philosophy. Not only that, but his perception and insights demonstrate a concern for getting beyond superficial analysis. People accord him high esteem for very good reason.
Yes, communicator and philosopher are not identically the same job...
No, a Catholic vision of politics does not constitute a monarchy. It’s boring at this point to keep hearing such a thing. . . .
The idea of representative government is that people, acting together as a genuine community, organize themselves freely for the good. The Founders did believe in genuine, metaphysical good. They did not believe that politics was the organization of reality. They were not woke.
So sad to see otherwise intelligent individuals being duped by the past 100 years of history.
The American Dugin.
I often wonder, what ever happened church dogma? It seemed to work once, when people were less educated, and people had a fear of church authority. Today - Over intellectualising and high end theological discussion, will not bring people back to the R C Church. The church needs to simply act, and practice what they preach, and do "what it says on the tin" and people will come flocking back in droves. Sadly, the past actions of the church - child sex abuse - celibacy that only works for some priests (let's be honest) - church wealth and opulence etc etc ..... leaves people feeling very mistrustful and alone.
Not much about God or the Bible in this talk.
Galatians 13:3
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us."
Jesus Christ says faith is worthless as a mustard seed,
when it comes to telling mountains to move,
with expectations of obedience.
Shall we pretend God would put the new wine of Jesus Christ in the old Jew wineskin? God made Mormons so Christians would know how Jews feel?
God & Faith have a perfect record of doing nothing, so we have the sayings, God helps those helping themselves & nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital.
It is by God & Faith, The only sign given is that of Jonah.
Jonah 1:15-17 KJV
So they took up Jonah (he offered to help) and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging. Then the men feared the LORD exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice (perhaps his family & friends, or a goat, who's to know?) unto the LORD, and made vows.
It Is by faith Jonah was picked up and tossed overboard, being mindless, he asked for it.
What audacity, what gall, to suppose a deity, so unworthy, theologians & sacred text exist? Are we all to give a pass to this suggestion?
It is by faith in God we have Jonah.
It is by faith in God we forget Moses was the world's worst navigator, leading as if travel were done with one foot in The Garden of Eden?
We are now mocked:
As per your question about safety, It is because coerced faith isn't faith. That violence isn't a Good. Violence, shunning, removal of resources, putting social pressures on those you disagree with morally is NOT a benefit to faith. You are setting up the justifications for over taking secular governments for the Catholic church & the Catholic church administering the law. That is a dangerous pattern of catholics who justified over taking governments for violence & removing self-determination from those you disagree with, in order to coerce compliance with the Catholic faith. That is not faith. That is evil. Your statement love is not safe includes a belief that you may commit violence in the name of procuring the faith, imposing it & regulating humanity. You are dangerous & governments should understand what you are doing & arguing for: Catholic political rule. You are flirting with advocating for the church to determine secular Law which is a political statement.
You are using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
Thanks for demonstrating that you understood nothing in this conversation 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Philosophy isn't evidence
No, it's a discipline. You're right
What’s your evidence for that claim?
Trust the Science! lololololol
That's a philosophical statement; that presupposes a particular philosophical notion of evidence. Well done.