Another part of a video series from Wordonfire.org. Bishop Barron will be commenting on subjects from modern day culture. For more visit www.wordonfire.org.
We should never murder anyone, which is to say, we should never kill unjustly. Killing an innocent child in his mother's womb is about the most unjust kind of killing I can imagine.
@IsaacFigNewtons It's not "an opinion." It's a claim grounded in the best of contemporary science. The embryo, even at the moment of conception, is human life. I'm basing this on the DNA of the embryo.
But it's well known that up to two week the zygote can fuse with another or can divide into two, which surely implies some nuance on what is meant by "human life" here.
I use to have a lax view of abortion until C.S. Lewis asked if Christ came to earth at the point of birth or conception. That changed everything for me.
I've read a lot of Lewis too. In fact, he is my sole reason for all my trips to Oxford and Belfast. Because I've read so much it all runs together but I'm fairly sure it is in "Mere Christianity".
Bishop Robert Barron : I do not believe in "hatred" for I read :" Has He struck Israel as He struck those who struck him? Or has He been slain according to the slaughter of those who were slain by him ? " Therefore hear this now, You who are given to pleasures, who dwell securely, who say in Your Heart, I Am, and there is no one else besides me !!! In measure by sending it away, You contended with it...
Villie Stephanov - your point is unclear, ... Bishop Barron is pointing out the problem of vilifying another person because that Person happens to disagree. He wrote this seven years ago, and this was before Jordan Peterson so effectively took on the same questions as he was vilified for disagreeing with a Human Rights commission on his refusal to agree that compelled speech should be legal. The rejection of a politically correct viewpoint quickly translated for him into a mass attack on him as a person whose respectful disagreement was then seen as “hatred”. The ideological agenda of a Marxist standpoint automatically condones such labelling when a person who disagrees thereby is a hater of the person they disagree with. Dave Rubin and Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro are young people who have contributed to the larger movement away from collective style thinking and they have left the artificial shield / barrier of the politically correct to argue that having a perspective is valid, and in fact not a character flaw, ... especially when there is respectful disagreement with a popular politically correct view.
Thanks Father for the commentary on the book, It struck me while you were explaining the struggles our president is going through on some levels dealing with abortion, is how we fail as christians when we dont pray everyday for our leaders in this country, that God would give them the conviction of truth, the grace and courage to change. God Bless you and your ministry
Such admirable wisdom. I’m not Catholic but it is enlightening listening to your videos. I also appreciate that you cover so many topics especially those that cover our everyday lives like something as simple yet complex as a book.
So lovely that you like Bishop Barron’s work. To be a Catholic is to take the greatest adventure in your life ... pointed toward the most unimaginable destination ... a unity with the source of infinite love.... a desire to become a Saint. Bishop Barron has made the world fall back in love with the pursuit of discovering the God who loves us, and wants to free us from our illusions. Wishing you all the best on your journey.
Thank you. That goes a long way toward explaining your animosity toward the church. If it means anything to you, I feel very sorry for the way you suffered. And I will pray for you. Can I just ask you this favor: don't project your justified anger at the jerks who abused you onto every Catholic.
Bishop Robert Barron - Amen to that. In Minneapolis we see the same problem of blame. One bad apple turns all of society of a certain background into the oppressors. The either / or in the public square seems to have become linked to “off-with-his-head” mentality that began this collective identity nightmare.
So you're telling me that your serious study of the faith ended when you were about 12. Suppose I went about, on the basis of my seventh-grade physics education, characterizing all of physics as so much nonsense. I understand why you're angry with the church, but friend that's exactly what you're doing with theology.
And the entire planet sometimes, ... as one book describes ... anti-Catholicism is an “acceptable prejudice”... many education systems have misled many to believe they leave educated. Don’t get me started.
Nonsense! Tell me honestly that the author of the theology of the body teaching was "puritanical"! And friend, the church is not a democracy, but rather a system based on revelation. Accordingly, the church can't "tolerate" the denial of God or the denial of the divinity of Jesus or the denial of the real presence. We're not a democratic debating society. In regard to the political order, which is something altogether different, John Paul was indeed a great defender of the democratic ideal.
Cal Girl I believe the only way a politician will be our answer is if he/she is guided by Christ himself. It's funny though how Christians/Catholic think that labels such as "Democratic" or "Republican" is not relevant but if I refuse to tell you my political affiliation but run on the ticket that I think abortion & gay marriage are wrong, and I believe in prayer in schools, would you assume that I am a Democrat or a Republican?
Because the child's right is the most fundamental: the right to life itself. I fully realize the great pain that mothers of unwanted children go through, but their discomfort, however intense, should not trump the baby's right to live.
Bishop you are a great thinker of our time. and thank you for your years of dedication to pronouncing the true word, with great topics of dialog in our times of confusion !!!!! for US THE LAY THINKERS!!! WE ALL HAVE VOICES OF GREAT NOISE AND NEED A CLEAR PATH TO ALWAYS RETURNING TO THE WAY!!! AND SAINTS OF 2000 YEARS NOT JUST YESTERDAY!!!
@DandAinTac In a word, you're agreeing with me! You agree that there are certain basic moral assumptions that are not, themselves, a matter for further debate. We came to recognize the objectivity of irreducible moral truths.
Do you really think that it was wise for the country to remain half-slave and half-free? Do you really think it was good policy to allow for "pluralism" on the issue? Prudential decisions are made within the context and on the basis of certain moral non-negotiables. Otherwise, our experiment in democracy collapses.
It might be good on certain issues that people don't really care about. Sometimes if states are allowed to explore what works best for their state, we can find the best solution for the whole country.
I'm not so sure about that Bishop. Certainly in the modern world, at least as far back as the Enlightenment, slavery became a "moral non-negotiable" in all but the most callous states. But for thousands of years slavery was an accepted institution, in some cases, Rome as the premier example, the foundation on which society existed. Now we understand slavery as a violation of the God-given right to live and be who we are or better yet, who we want to be. However, that "peculiar institution" was, in fact, a way of life in the South and the morality of the time did not indict slave owners as evil people, but people of a culture that did not see the institution as Northerners did. I am not justifying the institution or making excuses for those who indulged in the practice, but I am defending a fact of life and the pluralism that existed from the time of our founding which some would have called Federalism in its most ideal form. Slavery as it was understood essentially ended at the close of the Roman era only to be replaced by an equally unsavory feudalistic system which itself evolved over time into a somewhat less onerous but equally disturbing (to our present day minds) caste system which stubbornly hangs around however subtle it may be in some countries, but not here. America's ladder of social distinction is made up of dollars, the great equalizer. Ancient slavery died of its own weight. Feudalism died as well. Modern slavery would have died too in its own time. Some scholars say its death was imminent in the antebellum South and that the Civil War was ultimately an entirely unnecessary and incredibly bloody war that ushered in freedom for the slaves perhaps five or ten years earlier than it would have if left to its own. That the country would have been divided forever is also questionable as not 52 years later we were involved in WWI and to think of it being fought by just the North or South rather than both is to deliberately ignore the ties that always bound us as one nation, especially when threatened. You say, "Prudential decisions are made within the context and on the basis of moral non-negotiables", but what you fail to take into account is the element of human nature in all decisions. You assume the innate goodness of man, many, me among them would disagree. Consider our plight if we elect people without morality in any sense of the word. They do exist and they do present convincing cases to the unthinking, the immoral and amoral. Today's Democrat Party is populated with just such people. Any people who can argue the evil of slavery while advocating and justifying the slaughter of the innocents are as devoid of the ability to make "Prudential decisions" as those slave owners who saw nothing wrong in denying human beings the rights they held so dear to themselves. To argue the evil of one as a source for the demise of our "experiment" and not the other makes no sense other than to condemn the former while giving a pass to the latter and expecting a "prudential" outcome. There will come a day, and I believe not so far in the future when Americans will look back on a period of time in their history that was infinitely more pernicious and evil than when we allowed and indeed in some quarters encouraged abortion. 400 years of slavery in so many ways pales by comparison.
@@pjfuscoonthenews1693 ++ The bible condones slavery and is accordingly immoral to its core. The current Republican President is the most immoral man in America, and still a favorite of the Republican Party and the God Fearing Evangelicals. The immorality of the gospel believing set is mind boggling.
PJ Fusco On The News - there is a misreading of the point about moral non-negotiables, and Bishop Barron never assumes any innate “goodness” in humans, for the source of Goodness is God himself, and Bishop Barron will be the first to recognize the realities of human corruption up and down the ages as he would say.
@onpahanvaan You were quite right to put "kills" in scare quotes, because you and everyone else know that amputation is not a matter of killing, that is to say, the taking of a human life.
@ajsatchwell An "old dessert book?" Do I discover thereby which kind of sundaes to serve? Sorry, I couldn't resist. I don't know why people think that the age and "locale" of a book should determine its quality. I mean, the Nichomachean Ethics was written in ancient Athens, and the Upanishads were composed in ancient India. So what? But to your point about God, God is the lord of life and death. You're not. Hence the difference.
Friend, I would take your argument seriously if you had even the foggiest notion of what Catholics actually believe. Please read some authentic Catholic books and stop trading in the crudest anti-Catholic propaganda.
Lol is Reading for many today leas difficult beyond the Twitter word count... ?,? but in all seriousness, Covid-19 has brought so many people to a place of reflective reading... perhaps the possibilities of thinking beyond propaganda will emerge... let us pray for many minds to be unlocked to Truth
Absolutely true, and prophetic considering the outlook of so many on the woke left in 2021. We are witnessing chaos as a result of critical theory/critical race theory.
Well, I'm not deluded about Obama. His public position on abortion is gravely wrong. Still, I think that there is a certain dis-ease in him about the issue. That's at least a sign of hope.
@tingtangs Who owns the child's body? The pro-choicers want to say that the child is essentially his mother's chattel slave. Hence the connection. On your logic, a murderer is a "slave" of the state if the state determines that he should be stopped.
@jontv I'm appealing to that consensus in regard to moral principles that the Catholic Church calls "the natural law." C.S. Lewis called it "the Tao" and recognized it trans-historically and trans-culturally. It is on display, as well, in the ten commandments: don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't lie, don't kill, etc. We shouldn't debate these matters, lest we slide into complete moral relativism.
I have to say I am a huge fan of these videos. I am an extremely "passionate" aethiest. But unrelated to that; it's great to see a youtube video where 99% of the comments are interesting/thoughtful.
I absolutely love your videos. Intelligent, current, thoughtful, and thought provoking. I cannot wait for your series coming out next fall. I want to take this moment to thank you for accepting Gods challenge to evangelize. You are doing an amazing job, and I hope you can help all the atheists, and others who are struggling to find something they are missing (that something being the God of Love).
Attempted to provide some commentary below, mostly around Bishop Barron’s engaging notes. For anyone chiming in... Thanks to Bishop Barron albeit he was writing here 7-10 years ago. We wish we came across his videos sooner as there is just so much to learn from him, even if you have been studying for decades! Many blessings to all. Let us pray for an end to the CoronaVirus.
In other words, objective moral values should never be denied to the point where they are being tossed about in debates and compromised for political gain.
I like your comments on this video. Your discussion about ends and means is a great point and immediately reminded me of Aristotle. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he talks about “deliberation” and he points out that we do not deliberate about “ends”, but rather about means as you said. For Aristotle, “ends” are found when we do metaphysics; they are apart of the essence or built into the nature of things. I agree, I Obama is conflicted on a lot of these issues, but I would love to see you do an interview with him. I think a conversation with you would help provide him some clarity.
I love how you can tackle a subject with truth and grace. In today's world it's so hard to engage with a person without using tribal instinct. I've been trying to read a book about Dietrich Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas because I think he has a powerful testimony, but since I've recently been learning about the Catholic Church, I've put up barriers in my mind so that when I read it, I feel myself criticizing some things in the book without even wanting to. I also have been grouping people in my mind when I see them post political things on social media. I hate it and I know it is illogical. Empathy is what I need most of all, but it I am losing it each and every day. How do I stop?
@DandAinTac Okay, if you really believe that, then you must be open to a lively political debate concerning the rectitude of slavery. You must be willing to tolerate a political party that advocates the return of slavery. Also, you must be willing to allow the KKK into the political conversation, even as they call for a return to Jim Crow laws. You must be willing to accept a political candidate who says that man/boy love is a legitimate option. You've opened the door to moral chaos.
Bishop Robert Barron - yes, Moral Chaos or Ordering Morality to a politically correct standpoint that has decided what is moral and what can never be Moral, even scarier than moral chaos since destroying the old moral order is the goal of those who feel their politically correct opinions have been oppressed. Freedom of thought has been obliterated in exchange for some imposed moral order that is always shifting but always regulated by the good, as Nietzsche might describe: a spectre of Christianity gone mad, and a trophy of justified violence against anyone perceived to be an oppressor.
I identified as an atheist for a number of years for well thought reasons. It would take way too long to go into that. Today, I'm not sure how literally I take the idea of God. However, what has brought me back to an acceptance and, dare I say, worship of it is what you described. As I get older, I become more and more convinced that there are certain fundamental moral truths that must be recognized as such. I don't say this reductionistically, but God is the personification of our highest values. God is virtue itself, love itself, goodness itself, and for its own sake. I recognize the necessity of such an idea, so much so that I bow down to it. I must if my life is to have any consistent direction and meaning.
Father Barron, you're a highly intelligent and articulate person. I thoroughly enjoyed your analysis of Obama's book and the seeming-contradiction you identified. Where your presentation fell down a little for me, though, was in your apparant self-satisfaction at having identified an element of paradoxial doubt in Obama's words and demeanour. It is such doubt, such self-reflection that, to me, shows real moral and spiritual strength. Those who are certain are, by definition, wrong.
Fascinating to see this video is from 12 years ago! Fast forward to 2021 where moral ambiguity is the norm and we are living in a post truth society....and guess what’s happened....yep society and democracies are collapsing.....guess you were right there Bishop!
Interesting to hear your review more than a year after Obama left office. I wonder what your observations might be looking back on Obama's campaign, and eight years in office. Perhaps even his Senate run.
@Nonamearisto I agree, and hopefully this knowledge in him comes up to the surface before is too late for him and for America. That is my prayer intention.
@jontv If we are to avoid complete moral and societal chaos, we have to come to a consensus about the fundamental moral principles. They are a bit like the first principles of logic. If these become a matter for debate, then conversation itself is undermined. This is why Pope Benedict, and many others, are so concerned about the moral relativism that is so rampant in our society. Read the Pope's reflection on Pilate ("what is the truth?") in this regard.
Dave Rubin’s “Don’t Burn This Book”, with the intro by Jordan Peterson, who heralded the need for a secular return to examining The concept of Truth (not in a relative way, but in a way that leads us back to the psychological relevance of the Bible - the Logos, etc.) is certainly pushing back against Pontius Pilate’s “What is Truth” conundrum before the Word Made Flesh himself. Lots to ponder as society begins to wake-up during Covid19. Will think on this point more.
Hello Bishop Baron great so deep and perceptive review. How l wish you could make a video of this calibre about Zygmunt Bauman about the crisis of human values he envisages in our current historical situation which he simply terms liquid modernity. A comparative analysis with such a strong and gifted mind like yours would be very beautiful!!🙏🏽
Fr. Barron's respect for the MAN (not his morals) is what I respect the most about him. I have yet to study a politician more wrong on so many things than Barack Obama, but the Catholic Church teaches that God loved EVERYONE, including Obama, into existence, and it is for that reason that he still possesses an inherent worth and dignity that even his own questionable ethics cannot take away from him. Kudos to Fr. Barron. . . yet again!
As Thomas Aquinas said, God's providence extends to particulars. God presides over the whole of his creation. Sometimes we can see this providence in the meaningful confluence of events. So yes, I do think that God wanted me to read the book. Now mind you, that doesn't mean that God necessarily agrees with it!
Well said Bishop. You've raised an important issue here. Abortion is an ends/means issues and lets pray for justice for the unborn; the ultimate voiceless ones.
@pachoig "As a nominal Catholic myself, I'm glad to see a priest as philosophically acute as you. I wonder if I could meet one as you where ilive" -Majority of the priests and religious are smart and with deeper thought about life's lesson. It won't be hard to find one near your place. No matter how the modern media persecute them, their radiance will continue to light and guide us to the right path.
Well, it all hinges on what we consider the legal and moral status of the unborn child. Once you grant that even the unborn is a subject of rights, then you'd have to conclude that abortion is even more morally outrageous than slavery. In point of fact, I see a lot of similarities between the two issues: both turn on the question of whether one human being ever has the prerogative to control the life and destiny of another.
@jontv Jon, I just found this comment of yours, and I have to smile. You are so concerned about what the big, bad Catholic Church will do to those who disagree I mean, you act as if we still had any power! The real enemies--who make Torquemada look like a pussy cat--are Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. Those secular ideologues were far more dangerous to their enemies than the church ever was to its opponents. What would I do? I would argue with my opponents and try to convince them.
@chuckstar666 Well the whole point is that the fetus is indeed a living human being, and the foundation of the entire moral system is that the lives of innocents should not be taken. That's why we're so concerned about abortion. I'm not sure what part of this you find "absurd."
@badpanda84 Is slavery up for debate? How about the immorality of child sex abuse? Rape? The Congress should discuss whether that's good or bad? That all people are the subject of basic human rights? What if a political party formed itself around the conviction that only some people have rights? Should their position be a matter of debate?
Currently, and ironically “political power” has since 2010 has devolved into giving rights of violence to those who can show their politically correct norms have been violated. (ST). This extreme is shifting away from that slowly ...
How are you not seeing this? Saying the only thing you can be certain of is being uncertain about everything is a total contradiction to that very rule. Therefore you obviously CAN'T be only certain about uncertainty because if there be one arbitrary exception to the rule, why can't anything else be?
Watching this years later, this is an interesting video, and I mainly agree with Bishop Barron which is why I want to challenge the conclusion he comes to a little bit. While the absolute relativism that Bishop Barron rejects comes to a point of incoherence, there is still a need to debate ends as broadly as the Bishop defines them up to a point. We say it's wrong to take innocent life, fine, but there are mitigating circumstances in a world wounded by original sin. At the very least we have to debate to clarify general ends. The Catholic Church contributes greatly to our public lives by its counter cultural witness, it helps to put the brakes on liberal excesses. But the utopian impulses of Christianity when it's blithe to original sin and when it marries its utopianism to that of an optimistic liberal society is a dangerous and mercilessly intolerant combination. It's not the moral absolutism, but the latent political utopianism I sense that bugs me about Bishop Barron's position. All that said, I really like Bishop Barron's videos up to this day.
I think it is a sign of objectivity and balance when someone who critiques and argues against a particular person can still see the objective merits of that person. What greater obstacle could we have other than our own bias? Fr. Barron, thank you for your work.
I loved the book too! Rather than trying to guess what former President Obama was thinking, why not ask him directly? Who wouldn't love to see a discussion between the two of you!
GK Chesterton in his wonderful glib style described what you discuss here. I believe it was in "Orthodoxy" that he describes a world in which a man cannot decide what color he wants the world to be, and so ends up painting the same thing over and over in a different color. If we don't know where we're going, how do we decide a path to get there?
@wordonfirevideo 2. (continues) rights of individual, but those values are going to change over time and depending on what political questions they are being applied to.
You've got to make some distinctions here. Drinking alcohol is not intrinsically evil, and therefore, there is plenty of room for debate on the question of how to handle and control it. I think prohibition was a disaster. But holding human beings as chattel slaves? That's about as intrinsically evil as it gets--and therefore, it has to be absolutely opposed. The abolitionists weren't wrong! Denying black people their civil rights is intrinsically evil and hence must be opposed.
Since all life is precious, then why doesn't the Church put the same amount of energy in defending the environment, preventing war, stopping capital punishment etc. as it does with abortion... It's time to reprioritize..
@Shinigammininja You are right. The law of gravity for example is a natural law not open to compromise. Quantum Mechanics similarly a unchangeable law. There are true by virtue of observation. I fail to see how natural laws relate to this subject however.
Bravo! Interesting that he touched on abortion so often. I want to believe he thinks abortion is a moral evil, but I fear he has allowed his politics to overrule his morals. Very unfortunate.
Father Barron, this was excellent! Now, can we spell out these core, non-negotiable values? It seems we agree that we have the right to our own lives. Do we agree that our lives are not owned by the government and subject to its capricious laws? There is a far more greater moral value here. We (or God) owns our lives and what we do with these lives. What is slavery except the taking of our labor?
Last time I checked, it was very biblically minded people that saw the opposition to slavery as a moral absolute. And speaking of exerting one's will over the body of another: how about a mother resolving to kill her unborn child?
Replying 11 years later... this question still resonates today, yet the visual of a baby Alive, voiceless and yet destroyed is well portrayed in the film “Unplanned”. Abby’s story with PP has helped this generation to imagine the will of that child which is denied and silenced and yet exists. The first five minutes of that film explains the reality of today’s most acceptable and politically correct genocide in fact.
![Bishop Barron on “Silence” [Spoilers]](/img/n.gif)
We should never murder anyone, which is to say, we should never kill unjustly. Killing an innocent child in his mother's womb is about the most unjust kind of killing I can imagine.
Bishop Robert Barron ITS A S I N, “IF” you’re a Catholic. Or, as abortion gone the way of limbo???
So what do you think about the unjust killing if innocent Black men and boys...ON CAMERA...can you imagine ALL the killings NOT on camera!!!
Bishop Robert Barron but Obama is an advocate of abortion. He is a devil!
Bishop Robert Barron Obama is wolf in sheep’s clothing. He is one of satan’s followers
it also "kills" the mother and father and wider family of this child...through Guilt and Shame and fear....We do indeed reap what we sow....
@IsaacFigNewtons It's not "an opinion." It's a claim grounded in the best of contemporary science. The embryo, even at the moment of conception, is human life. I'm basing this on the DNA of the embryo.
But it's well known that up to two week the zygote can fuse with another or can divide into two, which surely implies some nuance on what is meant by "human life" here.
Lol I was 10 years old when this video came out. Oh How time flies.
I use to have a lax view of abortion until C.S. Lewis asked if Christ came to earth at the point of birth or conception. That changed everything for me.
I've read a lot of Lewis too. In fact, he is my sole reason for all my trips to Oxford and Belfast. Because I've read so much it all runs together but I'm fairly sure it is in "Mere Christianity".
Ann Chovey this is the most profound sentence I have ever read concerning abortion.
Love that!
Oh! That gave me pause! Truly a profound question! Thank you for sharing this gem from C.S. Lewis.
@@jon8004 99% of scientists even the atheists ones agree that Jesus existed, even freaking Dawkins agree he existed... Just fyi..
So honest and respectful disagreement is "hatred?"
Bishop Robert Barron : I do not believe in "hatred" for I read :" Has He struck Israel as He struck those who struck him? Or has He been slain according to the slaughter of those who were slain by him ? "
Therefore hear this now, You who are given to pleasures, who dwell securely, who say in Your Heart, I Am, and there is no one else besides me !!!
In measure by sending it away, You contended with it...
Villie Stephanov - your point is unclear, ... Bishop Barron is pointing out the problem of vilifying another person because that Person happens to disagree. He wrote this seven years ago, and this was before Jordan Peterson so effectively took on the same questions as he was vilified for disagreeing with a Human Rights commission on his refusal to agree that compelled speech should be legal. The rejection of a politically correct viewpoint quickly translated for him into a mass attack on him as a person whose respectful disagreement was then seen as “hatred”. The ideological agenda of a Marxist standpoint automatically condones such labelling when a person who disagrees thereby is a hater of the person they disagree with. Dave Rubin and Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro are young people who have contributed to the larger movement away from collective style thinking and they have left the artificial shield / barrier of the politically correct to argue that having a perspective is valid, and in fact not a character flaw, ... especially when there is respectful disagreement with a popular politically correct view.
@@secretariesofdivinemercy5343 any totalitarian Communist/ Fascist/ Socialist states have killed dissent, if not the dissenters.
Thanks Father for the commentary on the book, It struck me while you were explaining the struggles our president is going through on some levels dealing with abortion, is how we fail as christians when we dont pray everyday for our leaders in this country, that God would give them the conviction of truth, the grace and courage to change. God Bless you and your ministry
I'd love to see both Bishop Barron and former President Obama sit down and discuss the issues!!
Such admirable wisdom. I’m not Catholic but it is enlightening listening to your videos. I also appreciate that you cover so many topics especially those that cover our everyday lives like something as simple yet complex as a book.
So lovely that you like Bishop Barron’s work. To be a Catholic is to take the greatest adventure in your life ... pointed toward the most unimaginable destination ... a unity with the source of infinite love.... a desire to become a Saint. Bishop Barron has made the world fall back in love with the pursuit of discovering the God who loves us, and wants to free us from our illusions. Wishing you all the best on your journey.
You know it's been planted when the comment starts off with, "l'm not a Catholic but".
Thank you. That goes a long way toward explaining your animosity toward the church. If it means anything to you, I feel very sorry for the way you suffered. And I will pray for you. Can I just ask you this favor: don't project your justified anger at the jerks who abused you onto every Catholic.
Bishop Robert Barron - Amen to that. In Minneapolis we see the same problem of blame. One bad apple turns all of society of a certain background into the oppressors. The either / or in the public square seems to have become linked to “off-with-his-head” mentality that began this collective identity nightmare.
So you're telling me that your serious study of the faith ended when you were about 12. Suppose I went about, on the basis of my seventh-grade physics education, characterizing all of physics as so much nonsense. I understand why you're angry with the church, but friend that's exactly what you're doing with theology.
And the entire planet sometimes, ... as one book describes ... anti-Catholicism is an “acceptable prejudice”... many education systems have misled many to believe they leave educated. Don’t get me started.
Find a concrete way, today, to love someone else. Then make love the foundation of your whole life. You won't be lost.
C.S. Lewis writes a lovely book about The Four Loves.
Love with how much Clarity he speaks! Thanks Bishop Barron!
Nonsense! Tell me honestly that the author of the theology of the body teaching was "puritanical"! And friend, the church is not a democracy, but rather a system based on revelation. Accordingly, the church can't "tolerate" the denial of God or the denial of the divinity of Jesus or the denial of the real presence. We're not a democratic debating society. In regard to the political order, which is something altogether different, John Paul was indeed a great defender of the democratic ideal.
Bishop Robert Barron
A wise priest once told me..we are not Democratic, we are not Republican..we are Catholic!
CalGirl20 : True. But then Francis continue with :'But God is not one :)"
Scientific Naturalism You need to watch some John Lennox (author of "God's Undertaker) and open your mind.
Cal Girl I believe the only way a politician will be our answer is if he/she is guided by Christ himself. It's funny though how Christians/Catholic think that labels such as "Democratic" or "Republican" is not relevant but if I refuse to tell you my political affiliation but run on the ticket that I think abortion & gay marriage are wrong, and I believe in prayer in schools, would you assume that I am a Democrat or a Republican?
If it is all in Obamas book . he is only a child of Hawaiin islands .
Wow Bishop Barron never ceases to amaze me with his insights, this video has given me food for tought
Because the child's right is the most fundamental: the right to life itself. I fully realize the great pain that mothers of unwanted children go through, but their discomfort, however intense, should not trump the baby's right to live.
That claim is easier to defend morally than in law…
Bishop Barron hits the nail on the head every single time! I truly enjoy his intellectual talks.
By listening to you I am beginning to understand things the right way!!! Thank you Bishop! God bless you
Oh Lord! Don’t drink the koolaid!
Incredible wisdom and teaching
Bishop you are a great thinker of our time. and thank you for your years of dedication to pronouncing the true word, with great topics of dialog in our times of confusion !!!!! for US THE LAY THINKERS!!! WE ALL HAVE VOICES OF GREAT NOISE AND NEED A CLEAR PATH TO ALWAYS RETURNING TO THE WAY!!! AND SAINTS OF 2000 YEARS NOT JUST YESTERDAY!!!
@DandAinTac In a word, you're agreeing with me! You agree that there are certain basic moral assumptions that are not, themselves, a matter for further debate. We came to recognize the objectivity of irreducible moral truths.
Do you really think that it was wise for the country to remain half-slave and half-free? Do you really think it was good policy to allow for "pluralism" on the issue? Prudential decisions are made within the context and on the basis of certain moral non-negotiables. Otherwise, our experiment in democracy collapses.
It might be good on certain issues that people don't really care about. Sometimes if states are allowed to explore what works best for their state, we can find the best solution for the whole country.
I'm not so sure about that Bishop. Certainly in the modern world, at least as far back as the Enlightenment, slavery became a "moral non-negotiable" in all but the most callous states. But for thousands of years slavery was an accepted institution, in some cases, Rome as the premier example, the foundation on which society existed. Now we understand slavery as a violation of the God-given right to live and be who we are or better yet, who we want to be. However, that "peculiar institution" was, in fact, a way of life in the South and the morality of the time did not indict slave owners as evil people, but people of a culture that did not see the institution as Northerners did. I am not justifying the institution or making excuses for those who indulged in the practice, but I am defending a fact of life and the pluralism that existed from the time of our founding which some would have called Federalism in its most ideal form.
Slavery as it was understood essentially ended at the close of the Roman era only to be replaced by an equally unsavory feudalistic system which itself evolved over time into a somewhat less onerous but equally disturbing (to our present day minds) caste system which stubbornly hangs around however subtle it may be in some countries, but not here. America's ladder of social distinction is made up of dollars, the great equalizer.
Ancient slavery died of its own weight. Feudalism died as well. Modern slavery would have died too in its own time. Some scholars say its death was imminent in the antebellum South and that the Civil War was ultimately an entirely unnecessary and incredibly bloody war that ushered in freedom for the slaves perhaps five or ten years earlier than it would have if left to its own. That the country would have been divided forever is also questionable as not 52 years later we were involved in WWI and to think of it being fought by just the North or South rather than both is to deliberately ignore the ties that always bound us as one nation, especially when threatened.
You say, "Prudential decisions are made within the context and on the basis of moral non-negotiables", but what you fail to take into account is the element of human nature in all decisions. You assume the innate goodness of man, many, me among them would disagree. Consider our plight if we elect people without morality in any sense of the word. They do exist and they do present convincing cases to the unthinking, the immoral and amoral. Today's Democrat Party is populated with just such people. Any people who can argue the evil of slavery while advocating and justifying the slaughter of the innocents are as devoid of the ability to make "Prudential decisions" as those slave owners who saw nothing wrong in denying human beings the rights they held so dear to themselves. To argue the evil of one as a source for the demise of our "experiment" and not the other makes no sense other than to condemn the former while giving a pass to the latter and expecting a "prudential" outcome. There will come a day, and I believe not so far in the future when Americans will look back on a period of time in their history that was infinitely more pernicious and evil than when we allowed and indeed in some quarters encouraged abortion. 400 years of slavery in so many ways pales by comparison.
@@pjfuscoonthenews1693 ++ The bible condones slavery and is accordingly immoral to its core. The current Republican President is the most immoral man in America, and still a favorite of the Republican Party and the God Fearing Evangelicals. The immorality of the gospel believing set is mind boggling.
You don’t even make sense. You sound like a troglodyte.
PJ Fusco On The News - there is a misreading of the point about moral non-negotiables, and Bishop Barron never assumes any innate “goodness” in humans, for the source of Goodness is God himself, and Bishop Barron will be the first to recognize the realities of human corruption up and down the ages as he would say.
@onpahanvaan You were quite right to put "kills" in scare quotes, because you and everyone else know that amputation is not a matter of killing, that is to say, the taking of a human life.
The clarity with which you speak about these issues is great.
@ajsatchwell An "old dessert book?" Do I discover thereby which kind of sundaes to serve? Sorry, I couldn't resist. I don't know why people think that the age and "locale" of a book should determine its quality. I mean, the Nichomachean Ethics was written in ancient Athens, and the Upanishads were composed in ancient India. So what? But to your point about God, God is the lord of life and death. You're not. Hence the difference.
Bishop Robert Barron - haha... sundaes
Friend, I would take your argument seriously if you had even the foggiest notion of what Catholics actually believe. Please read some authentic Catholic books and stop trading in the crudest anti-Catholic propaganda.
Lol is Reading for many today leas difficult beyond the Twitter word count... ?,? but in all seriousness, Covid-19 has brought so many people to a place of reflective reading... perhaps the possibilities of thinking beyond propaganda will emerge... let us pray for many minds to be unlocked to Truth
Yeah...sure! ONCE Catholics support tRump ..a devout racist...you can't claim any rational thinking...how absurd...
Yes. That is a great point you make. Thank you for this review and your insightful thoughts.
Thank you, beautiful, and creative, bless you
Classic analysis Bishop Barron!
Amen Father.
Spiritually Beautiful God bless us all amen.
Absolutely true, and prophetic considering the outlook of so many on the woke left in 2021. We are witnessing chaos as a result of critical theory/critical race theory.
Well, I'm not deluded about Obama. His public position on abortion is gravely wrong. Still, I think that there is a certain dis-ease in him about the issue. That's at least a sign of hope.
ALL of his positions are EVIL. He was a puppet president.
Hypocrisy
@tingtangs Who owns the child's body? The pro-choicers want to say that the child is essentially his mother's chattel slave. Hence the connection. On your logic, a murderer is a "slave" of the state if the state determines that he should be stopped.
@jontv I'm appealing to that consensus in regard to moral principles that the Catholic Church calls "the natural law." C.S. Lewis called it "the Tao" and recognized it trans-historically and trans-culturally. It is on display, as well, in the ten commandments: don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't lie, don't kill, etc. We shouldn't debate these matters, lest we slide into complete moral relativism.
Well said.
3:13 that gave me goosebumps! He is right and we are seeing it play out!
Excellent commentary.
Great comment Bishop, I could not say it better.
Fantastic video, Father.
I have to say I am a huge fan of these videos. I am an extremely "passionate" aethiest. But unrelated to that; it's great to see a youtube video where 99% of the comments are interesting/thoughtful.
Wow you nailed it Bishop so true 👍🏻
Wow! an amazing way to turn arguments around.
Brilliant!!!🙏🏼❤️🙏🏼
I absolutely love your videos. Intelligent, current, thoughtful, and thought provoking. I cannot wait for your series coming out next fall.
I want to take this moment to thank you for accepting Gods challenge to evangelize. You are doing an amazing job, and I hope you can help all the atheists, and others who are struggling to find something they are missing (that something being the God of Love).
And in America, here we are in 2023! You are prescient, Bishop!
Attempted to provide some commentary below, mostly around Bishop Barron’s engaging notes. For anyone chiming in... Thanks to Bishop Barron albeit he was writing here 7-10 years ago. We wish we came across his videos sooner as there is just so much to learn from him, even if you have been studying for decades! Many blessings to all. Let us pray for an end to the CoronaVirus.
very well articulated.
In other words, objective moral values should never be denied to the point where they are being tossed about in debates and compromised for political gain.
I like your comments on this video. Your discussion about ends and means is a great point and immediately reminded me of Aristotle. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he talks about “deliberation” and he points out that we do not deliberate about “ends”, but rather about means as you said. For Aristotle, “ends” are found when we do metaphysics; they are apart of the essence or built into the nature of things. I agree, I Obama is conflicted on a lot of these issues, but I would love to see you do an interview with him. I think a conversation with you would help provide him some clarity.
I love how you can tackle a subject with truth and grace. In today's world it's so hard to engage with a person without using tribal instinct. I've been trying to read a book about Dietrich Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas because I think he has a powerful testimony, but since I've recently been learning about the Catholic Church, I've put up barriers in my mind so that when I read it, I feel myself criticizing some things in the book without even wanting to. I also have been grouping people in my mind when I see them post political things on social media. I hate it and I know it is illogical. Empathy is what I need most of all, but it I am losing it each and every day. How do I stop?
Friend, all I can tell you is that your study needs a lot more supervision!
@DandAinTac Okay, if you really believe that, then you must be open to a lively political debate concerning the rectitude of slavery. You must be willing to tolerate a political party that advocates the return of slavery. Also, you must be willing to allow the KKK into the political conversation, even as they call for a return to Jim Crow laws. You must be willing to accept a political candidate who says that man/boy love is a legitimate option. You've opened the door to moral chaos.
Bishop Robert Barron - yes, Moral Chaos or Ordering Morality to a politically correct standpoint that has decided what is moral and what can never be Moral, even scarier than moral chaos since destroying the old moral order is the goal of those who feel their politically correct opinions have been oppressed. Freedom of thought has been obliterated in exchange for some imposed moral order that is always shifting but always regulated by the good, as Nietzsche might describe: a spectre of Christianity gone mad, and a trophy of justified violence against anyone perceived to be an oppressor.
Based 2011 Bishop Barron
I identified as an atheist for a number of years for well thought reasons. It would take way too long to go into that. Today, I'm not sure how literally I take the idea of God. However, what has brought me back to an acceptance and, dare I say, worship of it is what you described. As I get older, I become more and more convinced that there are certain fundamental moral truths that must be recognized as such. I don't say this reductionistically, but God is the personification of our highest values. God is virtue itself, love itself, goodness itself, and for its own sake. I recognize the necessity of such an idea, so much so that I bow down to it. I must if my life is to have any consistent direction and meaning.
I recommended it to the person who said that the unborn were not "sentient." I think it proves the folly of that position pretty well.
Very insightful father. 5 stars for you :)
Excellent.
Father Barron, you're a highly intelligent and articulate person. I thoroughly enjoyed your analysis of Obama's book and the seeming-contradiction you identified. Where your presentation fell down a little for me, though, was in your apparant self-satisfaction at having identified an element of paradoxial doubt in Obama's words and demeanour. It is such doubt, such self-reflection that, to me, shows real moral and spiritual strength. Those who are certain are, by definition, wrong.
Fascinating to see this video is from 12 years ago! Fast forward to 2021 where moral ambiguity is the norm and we are living in a post truth society....and guess what’s happened....yep society and democracies are collapsing.....guess you were right there Bishop!
I like Bishop Robert Barron.
Interesting to hear your review more than a year after Obama left office. I wonder what your observations might be looking back on Obama's campaign, and eight years in office. Perhaps even his Senate run.
Absolutely incredible Father. Thank you.
Interesting point of view.
Thanks great short review of a basic moral principle applied to a really democratic society in Obama's book
@Nonamearisto I agree, and hopefully this knowledge in him comes up to the surface before is too late for him and for America. That is my prayer intention.
Well, I'm sure that explanation is very satisfying to the kids!
@jontv If we are to avoid complete moral and societal chaos, we have to come to a consensus about the fundamental moral principles. They are a bit like the first principles of logic. If these become a matter for debate, then conversation itself is undermined. This is why Pope Benedict, and many others, are so concerned about the moral relativism that is so rampant in our society. Read the Pope's reflection on Pilate ("what is the truth?") in this regard.
Dave Rubin’s “Don’t Burn This Book”, with the intro by Jordan Peterson, who heralded the need for a secular return to examining The concept of Truth (not in a relative way, but in a way that leads us back to the psychological relevance of the Bible - the Logos, etc.) is certainly pushing back against Pontius Pilate’s “What is Truth” conundrum before the Word Made Flesh himself. Lots to ponder as society begins to wake-up during Covid19. Will think on this point more.
@jontv I'm doing the latter. Everyone seeks God, either consciously or unconsciously.
That's so clear. Thanks Fr. Barron. We have moved from "do the ends justify the means?" to are the ends justifiable? -Blessings - Rene
This should be played on TV as a political ad. Everyone needs to see this before they vote.
Hello Bishop Baron great so deep and perceptive review. How l wish you could make a video of this calibre about Zygmunt Bauman about the crisis of human values he envisages in our current historical situation which he simply terms liquid modernity. A comparative analysis with such a strong and gifted mind like yours would be very beautiful!!🙏🏽
My "books to read" list gets longer and longer each day!
I agree. There ARE absolutes. How can we survive without absolute truth and morality.
I agree with Bishop Robert Barron that moral truth is not subject to change by humans. Moral truth is authored by God...
Fr. Barron's respect for the MAN (not his morals) is what I respect the most about him. I have yet to study a politician more wrong on so many things than Barack Obama, but the Catholic Church teaches that God loved EVERYONE, including Obama, into existence, and it is for that reason that he still possesses an inherent worth and dignity that even his own questionable ethics cannot take away from him. Kudos to Fr. Barron. . . yet again!
Thank you, that's where I say "no" too!
Then why should I listen to you? Do you see what I mean: you can't have it both ways.
Are you certain of that?!
As Thomas Aquinas said, God's providence extends to particulars. God presides over the whole of his creation. Sometimes we can see this providence in the meaningful confluence of events. So yes, I do think that God wanted me to read the book. Now mind you, that doesn't mean that God necessarily agrees with it!
Well said Bishop. You've raised an important issue here. Abortion is an ends/means issues and lets pray for justice for the unborn; the ultimate voiceless ones.
Letx just pray that some day men will accept the fact that they aren't entitled to have sex when ever how ever and with whomever they want.
Bishop Barron for president!
@pachoig
"As a nominal Catholic myself, I'm glad to see a priest as philosophically acute as you. I wonder if I could meet one as you where ilive"
-Majority of the priests and religious are smart and with deeper thought about life's lesson. It won't be hard to find one near your place. No matter how the modern media persecute them, their radiance will continue to light and guide us to the right path.
Well, it all hinges on what we consider the legal and moral status of the unborn child. Once you grant that even the unborn is a subject of rights, then you'd have to conclude that abortion is even more morally outrageous than slavery. In point of fact, I see a lot of similarities between the two issues: both turn on the question of whether one human being ever has the prerogative to control the life and destiny of another.
@IsaacFigNewtons Because it's the taking of an innocent human life.
@jontv Jon, I just found this comment of yours, and I have to smile. You are so concerned about what the big, bad Catholic Church will do to those who disagree I mean, you act as if we still had any power! The real enemies--who make Torquemada look like a pussy cat--are Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. Those secular ideologues were far more dangerous to their enemies than the church ever was to its opponents. What would I do? I would argue with my opponents and try to convince them.
@chuckstar666 Well the whole point is that the fetus is indeed a living human being, and the foundation of the entire moral system is that the lives of innocents should not be taken. That's why we're so concerned about abortion. I'm not sure what part of this you find "absurd."
@badpanda84 Is slavery up for debate? How about the immorality of child sex abuse? Rape? The Congress should discuss whether that's good or bad? That all people are the subject of basic human rights? What if a political party formed itself around the conviction that only some people have rights? Should their position be a matter of debate?
Currently, and ironically “political power” has since 2010 has devolved into giving rights of violence to those who can show their politically correct norms have been violated. (ST). This extreme is shifting away from that slowly ...
How are you not seeing this?
Saying the only thing you can be certain of is being uncertain about everything is a total contradiction to that very rule. Therefore you obviously CAN'T be only certain about uncertainty because if there be one arbitrary exception to the rule, why can't anything else be?
Watching this years later, this is an interesting video, and I mainly agree with Bishop Barron which is why I want to challenge the conclusion he comes to a little bit. While the absolute relativism that Bishop Barron rejects comes to a point of incoherence, there is still a need to debate ends as broadly as the Bishop defines them up to a point. We say it's wrong to take innocent life, fine, but there are mitigating circumstances in a world wounded by original sin. At the very least we have to debate to clarify general ends.
The Catholic Church contributes greatly to our public lives by its counter cultural witness, it helps to put the brakes on liberal excesses. But the utopian impulses of Christianity when it's blithe to original sin and when it marries its utopianism to that of an optimistic liberal society is a dangerous and mercilessly intolerant combination.
It's not the moral absolutism, but the latent political utopianism I sense that bugs me about Bishop Barron's position.
All that said, I really like Bishop Barron's videos up to this day.
Yes absolute truths, God
I think it is a sign of objectivity and balance when someone who critiques and argues against a particular person can still see the objective merits of that person. What greater obstacle could we have other than our own bias? Fr. Barron, thank you for your work.
Father Barron, do a video on the Church teaching about contraception and homosexuality...please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Years.
I loved the book too! Rather than trying to guess what former President Obama was thinking, why not ask him directly? Who wouldn't love to see a discussion between the two of you!
GK Chesterton in his wonderful glib style described what you discuss here. I believe it was in "Orthodoxy" that he describes a world in which a man cannot decide what color he wants the world to be, and so ends up painting the same thing over and over in a different color. If we don't know where we're going, how do we decide a path to get there?
@wordonfirevideo
2.
(continues) rights of individual, but those values are going to change over time and depending on what political questions they are being applied to.
You've got to make some distinctions here. Drinking alcohol is not intrinsically evil, and therefore, there is plenty of room for debate on the question of how to handle and control it. I think prohibition was a disaster. But holding human beings as chattel slaves? That's about as intrinsically evil as it gets--and therefore, it has to be absolutely opposed. The abolitionists weren't wrong! Denying black people their civil rights is intrinsically evil and hence must be opposed.
Absolutely brilliant psychological connection to Obama's contradiction and his shiftiness over the abortion issue
Since all life is precious, then why doesn't the Church put the same amount of energy in defending the environment, preventing war, stopping capital punishment etc. as it does with abortion... It's time to reprioritize..
The ends in america that should not be debated ... life, liberty and pursuit of happiness rights, equality before law and bill of rights.
@Shinigammininja You are right. The law of gravity for example is a natural law not open to compromise. Quantum Mechanics similarly a unchangeable law. There are true by virtue of observation. I fail to see how natural laws relate to this subject however.
Bravo! Interesting that he touched on abortion so often. I want to believe he thinks abortion is a moral evil, but I fear he has allowed his politics to overrule his morals. Very unfortunate.
Obama is a political whore who has now turned to prostitution
Father Barron, this was excellent! Now, can we spell out these core, non-negotiable values? It seems we agree that we have the right to our own lives. Do we agree that our lives are not owned by the government and subject to its capricious laws? There is a far more greater moral value here. We (or God) owns our lives and what we do with these lives. What is slavery except the taking of our labor?
Last time I checked, it was very biblically minded people that saw the opposition to slavery as a moral absolute. And speaking of exerting one's will over the body of another: how about a mother resolving to kill her unborn child?
Replying 11 years later... this question still resonates today, yet the visual of a baby Alive, voiceless and yet destroyed is well portrayed in the film “Unplanned”. Abby’s story with PP has helped this generation to imagine the will of that child which is denied and silenced and yet exists. The first five minutes of that film explains the reality of today’s most acceptable and politically correct genocide in fact.