The Church's Hate Speech Problem

[@jetmaster2315]

I was recommended this guy from discord... This guy can explain the things I can't. God Bless you and keep doing Gods work!

[@Herghun]

What I really appreciate with Brian is that you finish his video with more peace.

[@David-lu4gq]

Lovin the profile pic Jedi. Deus Vult.

[@templar7242]

Were have you been brother

[@Frank-828]

Deus Vult ✝️

[@stymiedagain]

When accused of hate speech or being a hater, I usually respond “That’s just name-calling. It’s not an intelligent reasoned argument”.

[@FFunez]

Good response

[@beastvicious8672]

Feelings don't care about facts unfortunately. Those people don't even want to acknowledge a logical argument.

[@frb1808]

"Recklessly accusing people of hate speech simply because they disagree with you about something is the actual hate speech because it's an attempt to oppress that great gift of speech itself." Pretty much sums up everything. So well said.

[@paisley293]

The first way to deal with sophists is to pray, remembering that sin blinds the human intelect; it's like speaking to a dead person. So we need to pray for conversions, and then that God may grant them light for the mind, to see life the way God sees it, with an eternal purpose, followed by prayers for strength for the will, in order to act in a Godly way.

[@OMarceloPinto]

The Church has a bastion in Canada. I pray for you succeed in your path to spread the Gospel throughout your country and beyond. Regards from Brazil. Hail Holy Queen! God bless you.

[@salvemaria301]

Salve Maria, meu caro! Se Deus quiser, o Brasil será uma grande nação católica

[@MillwallMike]

Canada is nearly COMPLETELY ATHEIST! No bueno for TRUE catholics.

[@OMarceloPinto]

@@MillwallMike, actually it's quite the opposite. This really sounds like an invitation to a Catholic, what we call Mission. "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." I try to figure out what Saint Paul, Saint Augustine of Canterbury and Saint Francis Xavier would do. They wouldn't give up to announce the Gospel in a country of unbelievers. We must keep struggling. Hail Holy Queen! God bless you.

[@MNkno]

When one-on-one, I find that asking questions works better than attacking the other person. Your post on the family was emotionally difficult for me, as I have lost important parts of what was my family, yet in a one-on-one, I would ask "Where does this view leave people who are without family?" (and continue along that vein), instead of accusing you of hate. Our differences of opinion usually arise from having different experiences, standing in different social or economic positions, framing the issue differently, or even different inborn temperaments. If we use this gift of speech and communications, we can deepen our understanding of situations, instead of basking in outrage toward others.

[@physiocrat7143]

Those of us who for one reason or another have no family left have our parish as our family.

[@joan8862]

As someone whose family is partially broken, divorce in my case not my choice, I do not find the truth of the importance of family problematic. It hurts that mine failed and I wish I had done things differently, and it hurts to be faced with that truth, but I can't say that praise of the family unit is hateful in the face of my failed marriage. The fact remains- keeping families together and healthy is very important and my personal experience does not make that false. What makes people feel bad is that it forces them to face their own faults and failures which many do not want to do. It is hard. But then I turn to God and say, here I am, I messed up in my life and I repent - fix what you want to fix and have mercy on me, Lord.

[@rosarymanpio]

The further a society drifts from truth the more they will hate those that speak it- George Orwell

[@soulfuzz368]

Well said as usual I find a good way to talk to people who disagree with me is to ask lots of questions. Nobody likes to be lectured to by someone they disagree with, a well thought out question can expose contradictions and misplaced assumptions.

[@roisinpatriciagaffney4087]

Lots of people engage in semantics. There is objective Catholic moral teaching, and we were made to know, love, and serve God, and to act out our lives according to the truth. Pax Christi. ☘☘☘

[@GreeneMotionPictures]

Semantics are involved in all communication, how could you say anything without having a semantic basis for it? I don't understand why people use the write-off phrases "that's just semantics" or "playing semantics" -- it usually demonstrates a lack of semantic understanding regarding the word "semantic" itself. Semantics are inevitable. Otherwise you'd have no idea what you mean by any word you use, ever.

[@roisinpatriciagaffney4087]

@@GreeneMotionPictures Semantic/pedantic...you could be right. I could have said that to many people involve themselves with rhetoric/rhetorical questioning, instead of attempting to understand the One True Catholic and Apostolic faith. I'm humbled by your correction. Thank you. Pax Christi.

[@GreeneMotionPictures]

@@roisinpatriciagaffney4087 I find Catholicism as a system of faith to be very beautiful, but do not at present believe the ritual system or any one organization holds any such monopoly on universality, authority, or truth. At the risk of being pedantic, I find myself drawn to study many religions, especially Catholicism, despite not wishing to join them or believe their claims literally. I can agree that rhetorical approaches are rarely useful in religious conversations, when to me all of us are actually on the same side and at least most people appear to desire truth, especially in the face of pain, fear, and death. Often though two people of different beliefs resort quickly to rhetorical claims in order to "win" rather than to garner understanding in one another. Do others have to believe in the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican's singular authority as "the One True Catholic and Apostolic Faith" in order to attempt to understand it honestly, in your view? If not, how else would you recommend someone who is not a member of the Catholic Church attempt to understand it without being rhetorical?

[@roisinpatriciagaffney4087]

@@GreeneMotionPictures If you are seized by the beautiful in Catholicism, you will be lead to the good and the true. Remember there is one truth , Catholicism. Rethink, your eternal soul depends on it. This isn't rhetorical flourish. Pax Christi.

[@GreeneMotionPictures]

@@roisinpatriciagaffney4087 I'm seized by the beauty in every religion I have encountered. Should I then join all of them? How exactly do you know what my eternal soul depends on?

[@physiocrat7143]

If people start throwing insults, which is all too frequent these days, one way to respond is to ask them, politely, to explain how they came to their conclusion. Essentially, however, they have lost their argument.

[@daltonbyrne7578]

Proposal: Is it peoples lack of understanding that theoretically no one can ever think the same way they do, therefore they feel the need to disconnect from you and think you’re crazy/heretical? Therefore by theory, that person can never connect with anybody. My thoughts: this is either a selfish or narcissistic tendency in most people. The west has become so caught up in the self image that they forget simply, other people have differing viewpoints on theories or matters. Also, love your work Brian! You bring very wise and careful thought to most issues. This is much needed in our society today. I may not agree with one hundred percent of everything you speak on but that is o.k. Your thoughts have provoked new ideas and looking at things from different angles and I appreciate your work, keep it up.

[@wsburnett]

Good video. You used "disorder" incorrectly though. I correct this reading of the word's use in the Catechism in discussions in the lgbt community as well. It's hard to have a discussion or debate about a thought if we're not using words the same way. When the Catechism says homosexual acts are disordered, it doesn't mean "disordered" in a medical or psychological sense. It means in a moral sense drawn from natural law. In natural law everything, including every act, has a natural purpose or end. We know in the Church's formal understanding of the act of sex, the end it is ordered to two-fold: expressing mutual love and producing new life. Because same-sex sex can never produce life, it an act not ordered to its natural end. Therefore it is called, in the Catechism, disordered.

[@TheRealShrike]

This is a good clarification. I'm not a natural law proponent, so I disagree that everything has a (divinely ordered) purpose, but you have stated the point clearly. I'm more of a mind that god (if he exists) wants us to make our own purpose for things, ie, figure things out on our own. Sexual reproduction is actually an evolutionary accident, so it's hard to make a case that it is divinely ordered and written in stone. Humanity is still growing, changing, evolving.

[@Jessica-bp6lc]

@@TheRealShrike , so no one can commit a morally reprehensible sexual act, say, because they are figuring it out? In the pursuit of figuring out the purpose of a body, or hormones, anger, or desire, perhaps?

[@TheRealShrike]

@@Jessica-bp6lc That's a very long discussion. Depends on what you mean by "morally reprehensible?" Lots of circumstances to discuss and youtube probably isn't the best place for *ahem* THAT discussion.

[@Jessica-bp6lc]

@@TheRealShrike I agree. But it seems as though you are willing to agree that there ARE sexual acts that are morally reprehensible, wrong. Most people would agree, though there are those who don’t (they wouldn’t “personally do it” but to align with their beliefs about the world without hypocrisy then ascribe), that sexual acts with another person against their will is wrong. This shows there is at list one instance of order to the sexual act. The challenge then is, what is the next step of order and how far can we carry that out? Most people, Catholics included, would rather not...our desires can stop us from seeking truth. It was long thought that one could not take ones wife against her will, for instance...and the laws of man supported (sometimes still do) this notion. My point is that it is intrinsic to human desire and pleasure seeking, to fight against this order...but how far? And that is definitely up for debate. The Catholic Church teaches the only correct order is between one married man and woman with love and consent and an openness to life. How many people in the world do you think disagree with this???? Saying no, before marriage, saying no to contraception including barrier contraception, fighting attraction for inappropriate people (familial, extra marital, same sex). I don’t think there is an adult in the world who hasn’t struggled with any of this. Isn’t it amazing that people would say something is true though it goes against their personal desire? Anyway, my encouragement is to seek truth (not saying I know what it is) and be aware that personal desire does not always have ones best interest at heart...but this is often what the world prescribes because it is very easy to be charitable in understanding the suffering and struggles of another...but it is often very difficult to prescribe a true remedy.

[@TheRealShrike]

@@Jessica-bp6lc Consent between adults plays a considerable role in this topic. Your questions about prudential judgment and the gradation/tiers of actions holds for all acts in the moral realm, not just sexuality. Lying, stealing, sloth, greed, etc. I don't necessarily think humans need god to sort this business out. Jesus did not say much at all about human sexuality and, as such, we have to fill in the details ourselves with human reason. We also have to be willing to learn, change and adapt and accept that we now know more about the human experience and reality than Augustine in 400 and Aquinas ca. 1200. These two "doctors" of the Church are single-handedly responsible for all the catholic church's hangups with sex.

[@DrewMureiko]

I swear if Brian tried out to be Jesus in some later film, he would definitely have the look. Don’t take that in any negative sense. 😁 But seriously, your videos are terrific, thank you for what you do!

[@shane8037]

The Son of Man was a perfect human being and therefore, while we can't really know His race, we know He was not a ginger. An alternative argument would be that He didn't have a soul in the sense that we do, and therefore He must have been a ginger. 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

[@n1a316]

He’s white

[@pottingsoil]

Jesus was a short brown fella, partner

[@johnbrowne3950]

Jesus didn't have long hair like a girl. If he did it would be going against Scripture. 1Corinthians 11:14.

[@lucidlocomotive2014]

@@shane8037 he was Jewish it says so in the bible

[@RondelayAOK]

My background is philosophy, and I've found through experience that very few people past the age of 23 or 25 are willing to have serious discussions which challenge their beliefs---by then they are not willing to really be open and willing to reconsider their thinking. THIS is why radicals of all stripes are so keen to take charge of schools: get them while they're young and at a formative stage. Parents need to be alert to propagandizing teachers.

[@oursimplesustainablelife8432]

We'll said. Brother, I'm a non denominational pastor. You are my favorite Catholic apologist. I don't always agree with you, but much of the time I do. This is one of those times Well said sir.

[@danielgabalski2312]

One of the smartest guy on KZbin.

[@simplycj5460]

Great video, and I agree with everything you said. However, I think one of the main problems is that Americans have not been taught HOW to think, but rather WHAT to think. Many, if not most, were not taught in school how to form an argument. Attacking and accusing are the only tools they have.

[@ughlwtmechangerhisthabks8349]

I do not believe in the existence of the God, but there's something so nice, interesting and peaceful about listening to this guy. I really enjoy it. Lowkey I wish I could go back to believing.

[@LG-cu7kt]

I am isolating myself away from Society because 72 Million people are offended by almost anything and nothing.

[@УрошКалиниченко]

If I could ask, where does the 72 mean specifically for this??

[@LG-cu7kt]

@@УрошКалиниченко number of people who voted J Biden

[@УрошКалиниченко]

@@LG-cu7kt - ooooh, I see, I see. Are the dearly departed included in those, or not? 😂

[@richardbenitez7803]

L H - i sympathize but it depends where you are. From San Francisco.... i once took a train ride up into Canada. In the Winter. It was freezing. The Canadians were so low key and unencumbered compared to the big city. Gee. And the indigenous folks were mostly ... what’s happening .... if you are in canada ... i think you might be banging on your door to let yourself out of your own room.

[@drjanitor3747]

If it makes you feel better, half that 72 million are probably imaginary, or dead.

[@schechter01]

0:12-13 - Actually, most people aren't that rational. Rationality does not come naturally. It takes time & effort to acquire critical thinking skills, & discipline to apply them consistently. Also, let's be honest: Not everyone has the time or sufficient ability to gain such rationality & use it well. Rational human beings are necessarily a small (but scattered & often contentious, élite.

[@erikkr.r.m7380]

Its incredible how patient you are

[@ragelikecage4012]

Brian you're the bomb, thanks for the work you do :)

[@l0r3st0]

To not listen is a choice. Just don’t be rude about it. Don’t attack someone like they’re inferior to you. Whatever happened to open-mindedness, to growing one’s brain or heart? How can you judge an idea as bad without even hearing it. We are beyond feelings. We are intellectuals, we are better than our hatred. Love one another, tolerate one another. We all face difficulties in life. It’s in the Bible: bear with one another. Good video.

[@lindamartin6798]

Thank you, Brian! Prayers for you, your family, and your ministry work. God bless!

[@virnajohanna]

Thanks Brian, excellent video, God bless you for all the work you do for His Church, may the Holy Spirit keep guiding you. Blessings from Colombia

[@kristennereidy4879]

These are all great points. I think it's important to remember the Church's goal is the salvation of souls. I'm finding in this hyper passionate environment, silent prayer and peaceful actions might be a more effective way to evangelize.

[@miguelsemidei7619]

This is so true . If a person puts the title Dr in front of their name, we automatically assume this person has studied a lot , so what ever they say must be right. There is a said Dr KZbinr who manipulates things said by members of the church to cast a bad light on them and he is consistent on misconstruing the words spoken by the Pope . I don’t think this is very healthy for Catholics that don’t have a good foundation, it turns them away. So how is it possible that Dr says he is pro church when all he does is create confusion and division . Thanks for the video

[@marelucas]

If you don’t mind, who is the “Dr” you are referring to? I respect if you don’t want to mention them by name, though maybe it would help me better understand your point.

[@miguelsemidei7619]

@@marelucas I prefer not to bash anybody because I must respect their opinion . There are three main “catholic” you tubers that have really crossed the line in my opinion. I am just reaffirming what this video states , some people knowing mislead others to their own agenda using hate messages, but begin making the sign of the cross and praying the Our Gather in Latin . I don’t think those two types of messages belong in the same video .

[@zuzaninha]

💯 agree with you. I liked what The catholic talkshow tweeted about them some time ago: The trend of high-profile Catholics who worship Mammon in the form of "clicks" & "views" at the cost of propriety and good-will is a real issue and cause of division in the Church. (1/5) Just as an Instagram influencer may “use” their body for clicks, media outlets may “use” current events, too often, these types seem to only USE the Church, or "Tradition", as the Aristotelean accidental to their greater desire for recognition at any costs. (2/5) They set themselves up as their own little supra-ecclesial authority and have no compunction over setting up broadly drawn strawmen (e.g. "The Bishops") to burn down for the delight and further control over their algorithmically corralled digital audience. (3/5) In the same way the commoditization and weaponization of the news media has divided us politically, these types taken up the same modus and playbook for personal gain while dividing the Church. (4/5) Pretty sure that getting lots of "clicks and views" isn’t exculpatory and can’t be applied as reparation for calumny in purgatory, but then again we're not doctors... Non nobis Domine non nobis, Sed Nomini tuo da gloriam. (5/5)

[@miguelsemidei7619]

@@zuzaninha I once posted a comment on one of the Drs videos , asking why he enjoyed creating division in the church which obviously goes against church teachings and someone told me “it’s how he makes a living .” The more clicks and views, the more they get paid so greed may also be a factor , for them more so than truth. Controversy always sells more than good news.

[@caelirose2699]

I hope this isn't about Dr. Taylor Marshall because he is one of the few Catholics out there speaking the truth.

[@nursingninja]

I like your definition of hate speech better than Facebook's.

[@costakeith9048]

As the Psalmist says, 'Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men. For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain. Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.' And, likewise, heed the wisdom of Solomon: 'The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.' If you do not hate the wicked, you are not a Christian, period.

[@richardbenitez7803]

I have looked at Glory and Shine web site. I’m assuming Brian’s web design company did the honors. The website is beautifully done. Easy to manage.

[@expukpuk]

Fortunately, we as Christians do not have to be afraid to hate - Jesus allows it under certain conditions. Praise the Lord!

[@edwardo737]

Indeed! We should hate sin, especially our own!!

[@ronnestman4696]

Your videos have become a must watch for me. I appreciate you so much Brian. God bless you and your family my friend.

[@moonlightwathcer]

The Gosoel has always been hated by the world. Evidence: the countless martyrs. Ave Maria!

[@nicholasguilbault3342]

I love how you developed your argument! Awesome video!!! I agree wholeheartedly!

[@michaelk969]

Everything you say about this is true. The problem is that you seem to assume that people seek the truth through dialog. Most people that oppose the teachings of the Church are sophists. They just want their will to be supreme, to just do whatever pleases them. There is no basis to dialog with them unless they first have some sort of conversion.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@Michael K 2 reasons I believe more people don't become Christians (and as always I...Could..Be..Wrong) 1. Very often we Christians (of whatever denomination/sect) are our own worst enemy. In that we sometimes do NOT act with Christian Love and Charity. 2. "It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." Invictus By William Henley ie I don't want there to be a God, because I want to do what I want to do.

[@laurants]

Alternate Title: A Message to Jack Dorsey

[@sahriestar]

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

[@willwalsh3436]

Brian is describing an ideal, but it is possible. However, it seems that reasoned debate is very difficult in online comment forums. This may be because so many people resort to the kind of sophistic tactics Brian describes, or because so few people are actually capable of reasoned debate. Every now and then you see an exchange of different opinions between highly articulate, well informed and honest people. More often than not they identify common ground and progress towards agreement, though not necessarily and not always. The anonymity and social distance provided by the internet clearly often tempts people to be provocative and insulting. I suspect that there are other factors about these media that limit or thwarts our ability to communicate constructively. The basic idea predates the internet and social media and was most famously stated by another Canadian convert to the Catholic Church, Marshall McLuhan.

[@waltb2967]

It is a great reason why we call it the cancel culture. Which is very oppressive.

[@jamesmondok8635]

You’re absolutely correct! Keep on keeping on!!! God bless you...Fr. James

[@angelaleithner]

As examples you bring the father-child relation and the doctor-patient- relation. In both times one is above the other. If this happens in a debate the other person can feel it, that his /her statement is not taken seriously and you feel "above" him/her. Therefore they feel disrespected, hated. If you realy would like to debate, you would estimate the ideas from the other one as much as yours and you should just want to offer your ideas, persuasions to him, like he /she should offer them to you and you both think about it. The basic for "hate" is disrespect and that is what they feel. You are not their dad and they are not your underage children.

[@luigibonini]

Please Brian, upload the audio of your videos as podcasts!

[@michaelverde4844]

Your ability to communicate is profound and articulate. I dug it.

[@hopehelmer7797]

So so good. I have so much respect for what you promote through this channel. May God bless you and your fam ❤️❤️❤️

[@SinoSene]

Goes both ways. Just because you don't like that your speech is diagnosed as hateful doesn't mean that it isn't.

[@1oxyoke]

I have yet to hear an example of hate speech. Would someone be so kind as to give me an example?

[@mch241]

Nice explanation. I think that sadly "hate callers" like that paradoxically exhibit more hate than the person they are accusing of hate...

[@LG-cu7kt]

Your reasonable approach to discuss ideas is indeed reasonable, but it is impossible to practice in the USA with democrats

[@УрошКалиниченко]

Well, maybe the Catholic Democrats. Ive found it in my experience, many Catholics who do vote dem, are more focused on economics, but are more socially conservative. Not all by any means, my goodness, no, but many, at least from my experience.

[@LG-cu7kt]

Not in my experience. The Catholic Dems are worse

[@УрошКалиниченко]

@@LG-cu7kt - oh, yikes.

[@Julius064]

@@УрошКалиниченко Maybe it depends on the area but still I have to echo L H's sentiment.

[@rlhjr4545]

My liberal friends (and I have many) do not care one whit about my faith-based viewpoints. They are largely atheists and agnostics, they consider holy scripture to be fairy tales, and vote predicated on their emotions and personal ideas about right and wrong. I pray for them, but aside from that, would it be better for me to "cancel" them from my life? I don't think so. Therefore I persevere, but rarely will I discuss politics with any of them.

[@billrussell569]

You are correct. Thank you for this insight. Unfortunately, 50% or more of America will not understand the basic idea of what you just said.

[@theobserver3753]

Ideas are great though they might be painful. We should always welcome them.

[@JFlower7]

You need to read Cynical Critical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay. I covers what you are talking about in all the "theories", including against the medical workers who dare to find something wrong with someone---after all that person might identify with that disability. Great read.

[@kichigaisensei]

Lovers of truth have already lost this battle. People are being destroyed for things they've said 30 years ago that were perfectly acceptable at the time, but have now been deemed wrongthink.

[@shashikamanoj1160]

Truth by nature is exclusive. So everyone who is in the pursuit of truth should be ready to be offended and to risk of being offensive

[@xiomarablanco6516]

Right and clear. “He who doesn’t discipline his children hates them”

[@cartoonringo]

lmao me getting a seventh day adventist ad for this video

[@declan4986]

Rip dude

[@ellesalvalaggio9037]

Thank you 🙏🏻

[@citizensnid3490]

He’s very rational... people not always rational all the time...

[@GSpotter63]

One cannot determine what is hate speech by gaging the reaction of those who hear it. Why? Because even the truth is offensive to those who don't want to hear it....It is only from the intention of the speaker that one can ascertain if the words are truly hateful. Any societee that would hold the speaker of possible truth responsible for the emotional outcry of those who don't want to hear it is doomed to failure....

[@djm4z]

Could someone please tell me what the song is in his intro? 🙏🏼

[@RevolutionDrummer47]

Really good way of thinking for turning hate speech on its head. If only logic has a foundation in all conversations.

[@nerdanalog1707]

I defend freedom of speech, even freedom to blaspheme. This is what Charlie Hebdo stands for, and well unfortunately, in 2015, we all saw what the conclusion to the idea of "hate speech" led to. Being offended isn't reason enough to censorship, because there are no limits to being offended. This isn't to say though that there are some limits to speech: inciting violence, fraud, defamation...

[@alphaomega238]

Charlie Hebdo was/is a bunch of pornographers. There is nothing redeeming about their "speech". To mock another person's deeply cherished beliefs, even if those beliefs are seriously deficient, truly is inciting hatred. Anti-obscenity laws are needed.

[@nerdanalog1707]

@@alphaomega238 Wow! "To mock another person's deeply cherished beliefs (...) truly is inciting hatred"... really? So I guess it's not ok to mock politics either, as those can be viewed as "deeply cherished beliefs"? Telling US Americans that their country isn't "great" and not really "free" through caricature could also be viewed as "inciting hatred". Where does a "deeply cherished belief" start or end? Can this be determined by law? Or is it just a matter of opinion and how you were culturally raised? "Anti-obscenity laws are needed", have you gone to a gothic medieval church? Have you seen how Hell is depicted? Well, I guess that should be judged by "anti-obscenity laws"... And who is to judge what is obscene, and what is not? I find it obscene to see a 4 year old child with a gun in his hands, should this be reported, and what are your "obscenity laws" going to do about this? What is or isn't obscene varies through time and with culture. And with the "woke culture" on the rise, and the SJW, sorry but I won't leave them the possibility to censor my thoughts, opinions, or speech. I believe in freedom of speech, no matter how tasteless or offending it may be. And I find it dangerous that anyone should think one can claim moral high ground and ask to censor political satire, caricatures, any form of art... But a word of advice friend, don't ever go to the Louvre or for that matter any museum or church in the "old" continent, you could be really offended at what some consider art...

[@alphaomega238]

Indeed, how do we define pornography? Are you saying that it is undefinable? The destructive effects that it is having on society are there for anyone to see who is willing to look.

[@Mike-qc8xd]

I hope you're not speaking just to your accuser they don't care.

[@danielshannon8831]

Thanks Brian.

[@vixtex]

Thank you. A rational voice.

[@einarabelc5]

Genius!!! Using 1984's double talk against them.

[@divinemercy3740]

Exactly right. I like to call the intolerance to a different viewpoint and called hate speech as tolitarian.

[@theobserver3753]

Instead of giving relevant arguments I noticed protestants would rather just make accusations based on conspiracies like the Pope is the Antichrist or that the Church was made by Emperor Constantine etc. If we would just grow up and discuss these things like adults we would make greater progress and finding truth would be a lot easier. We're men of God after all and should act as such.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@The Observer "Instead of giving relevant arguments I noticed protestants would rather just make accusations based on conspiracies like the Pope is the Antichrist or that the Church was made by Emperor Constantine etc." I am a Protestant, what you say is sometimes true. It used to be *A Lot more prevalent than today. OTOH I also see Catholic's who call me a heretic and I am bound for the fires of hell. This also used to be A Lot more prevalent than today. Something I've been saying for awhile now. "Just because someone is (insert group here) does not prevent them from being 1. A Jerk, 2. Dumber Than Dirt, 3. Both. When we get to Heaven a lot of people are going to be Very Surprised at who is there. * I think one reason it is not as prevalent today is Roe v Wade. Catholics and Protestants found themselves on picket lines or Pro-Life rallies and discovered (SHOCKING NEWS ALERT! :-)) the other side were actually Christians.

[@thehussarsjacobitess85]

Great video! It's hateful to assume my disagreement is hate. 😝 a little jokey, yes, but I am also serious. Pax!

[@kimfleury]

3 Hail Marys for you 🌹🌹🌹🙏🏻📿

[@Molotov49]

Sometimes you encounter such horrible ideas in the discourse today that you have to just call it hate speech and move on and not waste your time seriously engaging with it.

[@leekflower1]

I thought you were going to talk about how Christians often respond with similar vitriol and in so doing forfeit their witness.

[@siglan6148]

I rarely see practicing Christians match the vitriol of the left

[@RondelayAOK]

this is a danger; human frailty, and you're smart to note the challenge it poses

[@canadadelendaest8687]

This entire video is an argument for why people elected Trump in 2016.....

[@kimlevesque6103]

Excellent!

[@AngelusAnimus]

Of course you didn’t mean it with hatred. To say a way of life or behavior is disordered is not intrinsically “hate speech”. But I do believe we as a Church have lost our empathy. Imagine yourself on the other end of someone calling you “disordered”... does that sound at all like an invitation to a dialogue of ideas for the benefit of both parties? No. It sounds like a conclusion, not a discussion. Now, I’m not saying “water down” the Gospel. But I am saying that Truth spoken without Charity (including not understanding the second and third order effects of our words) is bound to cause more division and animosity on both sides. So yeah, tell them what you need to tell them, but let’s not pretend like it’s a discussion where both sides are supposed to come away changed. You’re out to convert them, and you’re not looking for compromise or a middle ground, and deep down, they know it. That’s why it can and does come off as hateful, because in communicating a truth (especially one where compromise is not an option), we failed to communicate the love. The Church’s problem with Hate Speech, is as much the Church’s problem as it is society’s. We gotta own our part in it too. Because you may be calm, clear and rational, but it’s possible to be all of those things without a single shred of charity. And more importantly, its possible to be all of those things while also being demeaning, dismissive and passively hurtful (which, intentional or not, is hateful for its lack of charity). What’s more, you’re not the only voice; there are plenty of our baptized brother and sisters who can’t muster much beyond screaming hellfire and damnation. So before we go throwing that ball back over the fence and saying “you’re not being rational”, I think its fair to examine whether what we’ve said and how we’ve said it was in the spirit of Charity as much as Truth. If it wasn’t, then we failed, not them. That’s our burden, not theirs.

[@joeowens6180]

Well, I am not sure how you got from A to Z in that (rapidly delivered) little speech. As far as "dialogue" is concerned, my own principle is that of Aristotle by way of Aquinas. The first necessity in any argument is AGREEMENT ON A MAJORY PREMISE. Then comes the "but," then the conclusion demonstrated by informed reason. Now if it happens that the two parties cannot agree on a mutually satisfactory starting point, then it is best to shake the hand of the opponent and move along elsewhere, because it is pointless even to begin.

[@here_we_go_again2571]

Well-said Brian, well-said! :)

[@totonow6955]

What to do when the parent uses sophistry and abuse through speech onto their children in an angry screaming manner that looks to the child like nothing more than pure hate?

[@danieljoyce6199]

Obey them before it comes to argument

[@dirigoelectric]

Where are all of these rational human beings you elude to? Theyre quite rare now.

[@coldforgedcowboy]

Nicely said Brian!

[@DoctorFrogger]

I don't think we should call refusal to engage with a different opinion "hate speech" like you suggest Brian. Hate speech already has a meaning and it doesn't include oversensitive defensiveness.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

I didn't argue for that at all.

[@DoctorFrogger]

@@BrianHoldsworth Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I'm going off what you said here: "Recklessly accusing people of hate speech because they disagree with you is the actual hate speech because it is an attempt to oppress speech itself." That oppression of speech, I call a refusal to engage (meaningfully) with disagreement. Now I agree this response is not good, but I would not call it hate speech. The "hatred of speech" you also mentioned is a good label for this, but not hate speech.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

@@DoctorFrogger Refusal to engage is a withdrawal from something and is everyone's right. Suppression of speech is the active injurious efforts upon someone else's rights in contempt of them and the gift of speech itself. They are very different.

[@DoctorFrogger]

@@BrianHoldsworth I may have been imprecise in my language "refusal to engage," let's just stick with what you said Brian -- active efforts to shut down someone else's speech by making reckless accusations of misconduct. My point is that those efforts should not necessarily be called hate speech, because that already means something else. It seems to me that hate speech is more serious than hating someone for what they said: it is hating them for who they are.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

@@DoctorFrogger The challenge with accusations of hate speech, as it's currently understood, is that there is no objective way to determine if an instance is hate speech because hatred is a hidden motive. And because it's hidden, a thousand other explanations are equally as possible. So either it's a useless concept that should never be invoked for how imprecise, inflammatory, and legally ambiguous it is, and therefore easily coopted for means of oppression, or we can find an objective understanding of it. My definition shifts away from the former to the latter and yes, I agree it's a departure from a dangerous and tyrannical understanding.

[@mikkis668]

Excellent! Good logical reasoning.

[@joanl.7543]

Not everyone has equal right to be offended. Those in the inter-sectional groups get heard and promoted; those who buck the system´s ideas of ¨victimhood¨ may be offended to any degree with no consequence. Just try to express your offense at some blasphemy or abusive content against Christ or Christianity. You will probably be laughed at.

[@HolyKhaaaaan]

I'm ashamed of the fact that I live in a country where the health of a person has in many facets become a partisan, tribal issue.

[@rev.jon2277]

Well, as usual. People like Pope Francis solution would always be "walking together" or in camino insieme in Italian

[@sahriestar]

So much more relevant given the climate this week

[@danielfortier2629]

I totally agree!!!

[@joehinojosa8314]

Does this Guy USE a Teleprompter?

[@angelicdoctor8016]

yes - reminds me of Bishop Barron's commentary with Brandon Vogt: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3mllmSeeMplmLs

[@matthewhui3332]

Solid.

[@andreacuppoletti3907]

Man this is so cool, thank you

[@userscnamesux775]

Dear Sir if your thoughts aren't based on the Word of God in the scriptures of the Bible, then they don't mean anything. The leading Religious leaders of Jesus time, hated him & tried to kill him multiple times & Jesus stated that this would happen to His followers. Friends with God, & an enemy of the World.

[@edwardo737]

Amen. How easily we forget how Jesus actually conducted himself, how he was received and the ramifications. For example, how often do we hear from other Christians “oh my that’s causing division” when Jesus caused division every single place he went.

[@polemeros]

Dude, your civil rationality train left the station a long time ago. Your church, and our country, is imploding and "reason" plays little part in it. Read your Aristotle: rhetoric rules.

[@edwardo737]

Would you mind expanding on your comment? And you say “your church” .. are you Catholic or religious at all?

[@aarb2010]

the real problem is the confusion between intelligence and wisdom. When you are offering wisdom trough speech, people would take it as an insult of their own intelligence. Wisdom is capacity Intelligence is an atribute, you cannot change your intelligence same as you cannot change skin color but you can grow on wisdom like you can learn any new skill, making an argument can be thought of as a kind of racism of others intelligence if this confusion is present

[@vivacristorey8302]

Great video. Keep up the good work!

[@Marontyne]

Wait. Is this a Church's response to Hate Speech or responding to Hate Speech within the Church itself? The title made me think it was the latter, but it sounded like you venting about an interaction you had with someone outside the church that disagrees with your beliefs. That's par for the course. Blessed are the marginalized. What I didn't understand was that you were accused of hating a human person (or group of people) based only on a neutral argument, but then you respond to it publicly accusing people who do this of hating speech itself. OK? Sounds a little hypocritical. Plus, none of this helps me to see hate speech within the church itself (if it is there) or know how to communicate lovingly with those that only hear hatred. It's difficult for people to 1) separate the ideas someone has from the person presenting them, 2) to see an individual as an individual rather than just a smaller part of a group that they see as a threat, and 3) find a way to see the world through another person's eyes. Speech is only one way to say, "I love you."

[@TheRealShrike]

Brian, you have definitely assembled a lovely pitchfork mob here of charitable and loving people in your comments section. You should be so proud of your channel. Read though them...this is what Catholics are like?

[@BrianHoldsworth]

Not at all. My audience is predominantly younger males which doesn't represent a complete picture of Catholic culture by any stretch and besides taking mere anecdotal experience and casting a judgment upon an entire group of people is the very first instinct of the worst kinds of bigotry.

[@TheRealShrike]

@@BrianHoldsworth Do you really want me to do a statistical analysis of your comment section? I'm not casting judgment on your entire fanbase. Merely making an observation about the ones who comment. I'm stating a fact. Younger males indeed... fan boys with minimal life experience who soak up the conservative bile and spit out common tripe about the leftist positions. I used to think that way. I'm a former conservative. I know the game. Pitchforks is what I see here. And a complete strawman of the positions of educated, open-minded liberals. I challenge you to bring someone you disagree with onto your show and have a collegial debate. Someone who would honestly and charitably yet firmly provide pushback to your opinions. Someone who would force you to bring your A-game. I think a perfect choice would be the leader singer of Hawk Nelson who just de-converted, Jon Steingard. He's an extremely nice person. Please consider it.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

@@TheRealShrike I, sincerely, invite you to notice a trend in your comments. You make a habit of trying to position yourself as the one who is educated, sophisticated, and informed and that others, if they disagree with you, must be ignorant, backwards, unrefined, and uneducated. You might agree, that people who posses admirable traits, rarely, if ever, feel the need to announce that fact. For example, I have a friend who is a phenomenal musician. But you will never hear him brag about that fact. If he cares at all about whether or not people know it, he knows that, eventually, they will find out when they hear him play. He doesn't have to brag about it to compensate for an unnecessary insecurity. That's because when you actually possess virtues, you aren't insecure about making sure others know it. The person who feels the need to tell other people about how they are better than others is usually the one who is insecure about the fact that they are _not_ better than others in this regard. If they were, it would be a matter of simply being virtuous to the point of not _needing_ to tell people to make sure they know. It would just be obvious to them and if it wasn't, the individual in possession of such gifts would not be so self-conscious about it that they have to *make sure* every knows. In the context of debate, it's also fallacious because you're resorting to ad-hominems which is a _very_ strong indication that you're out of arguments and in order to salvage your rhetorical position, you go low.

[@TheRealShrike]

@@BrianHoldsworth To which of my comments are you referring? My pitchfork mob comment, I presume? That's not "going low" and and it's not an ad hominem. It's an observation that your channel is bringing out the worst in people and not the best. You're tossing red meat to hungry tigers. I don't see Christian charity coming out of your comments section. That's not entirely your fault. But I think your crowd could use a little more Easter Sunday and a lot less Good Friday. I'm not out of arguments, as you put forth. But you have a habit of completely ignoring my entire argument and then talking about something else entirely. I want to go back to my challenge. I think you should bring someone on your show to debate. Not for your sake, but to educate your audience that non-catholics, atheists, and 'bad' catholics like me are not terrible people. To win us back (which should be the desire of all good catholics) will take a lot of work and channels that constantly chastise us won't do the trick.

[@MYMINDism]

This is a poor argument based on who your opponents are, You are behaving like a certain minority in 1930s Germany trying to argue your point to someone who ain't interested in your point

[@alphaomega238]

So if you are not interested in his points, why are you watching his videos, and commenting on them?

[@MYMINDism]

I like him, I have pointed out that this is a poor argument, no ill will By that implication, only positive comments are required zero disagreement, just yes men, actually proving his point about the hate speech problem plus I listened to his points and said that those who are against the church ain't interested in arguing for free speech

[@alphaomega238]

Ah, I misunderstood the context of your remarks. Apologies

[@michaelaguilera6908]

Sweeeeet beard 🧔

[@chriscall8600]

Can someone please eradicate these fake prophets infesting the world with their rubbish declarations and conspiracies.😇

[@tulliusagrippa5752]

Neutral incarnate world??? Is that sophistry or simple stupidity? In no sense can the world be said to be incarnate.

[@bandie9101]

i reported this vid as hate speech... nooo just kidding :) very right speech!

[@TheRealShrike]

I don't think you're guilty of hate speech, I think you're guilty of ignorant speech. All competing ideas do not have equal value.the church's position on homosexuality is based on a bronze age understanding of medical science and human sexuality. Jesus didn't preach at all about homosexuality and you have to seriously consider that the church has gotten it wrong. The main difference between people like you and me is that I look at all the evidence and then draw conclusions.You look at the church teaching and then try to make all the evidence awkwardly fit into that framework.

[@35snarf]

Do you believe that Jesus is God, i.e. are you a Christian?

[@TheRealShrike]

@@35snarf Depends on the day. Belief is not easy. It waxes and wanes. Currently waning.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

So what evidence has been brought forward over the past generation that created this shift? There was no new empirical evidence, just rhetoric about being born this way. There isn't even any good speculative philosophical arguments about it. Any basic observation of the biology of sex will tell you that our anatomy is for a particular function - the parts fit together a certain way. Sex in excess of its function or in a way that is contrary to the obvious anatomical purpose creates numerous health afflictions. And now that the dust has settled and some research has been done on the genetic side of this, they found that there is no genetic reason that people are same-sex attracted. In 75% of the cases, it's mostly nurture... not nature.

[@TheRealShrike]

@@BrianHoldsworth Brian, this statement of yours is just plain false: "There was no new empirical evidence, just rhetoric about being born this way." It may be true that a scientific "smoking gun" identifier has not been found for the origins of homosexuality yet, but science has clearly shown that sex and gender are on a spectrum. Here's one resource among thousands. massivesci.com/articles/sex-gender-intersex-transgender-identity-discrimination-title-ix/ You keep talking about sex in terms of natural law and an object's "function." Who put you in charge of the functions? What, pray tell, is the function of a mouth? It can be use for many, many things. Many parts have more than one function. And if you go the natural law route, you have to account for the common incidence of homosexuality in animals. And humans are animals. And why are you so concerned about what happens in other people's bedrooms? As for this line of yours: "Any basic observation of the biology of sex will tell you that our anatomy is for a particular function - the parts fit together a certain way." I would just like to offer that the parts fit together in a thousand different ways. :) The dust has not settled, as you put it. We're just getting started. Science is just getting started on this issue. You demonstrate a misunderstanding of the scientific method. More research is needed. And you are completely misrepresenting the science, which has found that sex and gender are on a spectrum. They are most certainly NOT binary. The twin studies that have been done are inconclusive. And even if (and this is a BIG if) we do learn that nurture plays more of a role, so what? Will the church use that to blame mothers for producing defectively gay sons the way that scientists in the 40's and 50's falsely blamed mothers who were "too cold and unloving" for producing autistic children? That type of thinking is myopic and close-minded. There really isn't even a clear parallel between modern and ancient thinking on homosexuality. But the bigger picture is that you focusing on one teensy narrow question of "what causes homosexuality" instead of looking at far larger question of "to what extent is human sexuality a broad spectrum?" Many Christians will point to Romans on this topic. One of my favorite commenters, Sarah, at "Unbelievable with Justin Brierly" podcast writes, "Most scholars agree that Paul would have been aware of three same-sex practices found in pagan culture: pederasty (an older man with a prepubescent boy), prostitution (where a man sells himself to be the passive recipient in a same-sex act), and slave prostitution (where a slave-owner rents out his slaves for sexual acts). *There is no evidence that Paul was aware of committed consensual same-sex relations between adults that is presumed in same-sex marriage today." * www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/5094194130388272804/6013933695542358474# Paul condemned homosexual acts because largely in the ancient world they were used (as the Romans did) to dominate someone. There was no concept of a committed equal relationship. So it's not a fair comparison. Commenter Jim over at Patheos asks us: When you ask Christians about slavery in the bible they say, "It was a different time!" Asked about homosexuality in the bible they say "It's still evil!" Why is this? www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2019/07/silver-bullet-arguments-against-christianity/#comment-4560280919

[@BrianHoldsworth]

@@TheRealShrike I'm afraid that the burden of proof on your assertions is a little more demanding than that. You act as though homosexuality was a recent discovery or even the acceptance of it is a recent discovery. It could be argued that acceptance is the true bronze age theory (but actually iron age would be more accurate) since works like Plato's Symposium describe it as a normal part of life. Instances of a thing don't prove it's normalcy. If you want to say that it isn't disordered, then you have to have some concept of what is ordered and then you have to assert that the thing is good and healthy and not the contrary. Since you discard natural law, you have no way of doing that. Mere scientific observation of instances of gender or sexual ambiguity don't prove that it's normal or good any more than instances of depression prove that it's good and indicative of a normal, healthy, functioning psychology. If you're going to assert that there's either something good about it or nothing wrong with it, you have to do more than account for the fact that it exists. No such evidence has ever been offered.