Bishop Barron on Modernity and Morality

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

[@rhlogic]

You pullled off another great one, Father!

[@toakasi6425]

Thanks for sharing I appreciate & respect Roman catholiscisim 🏛️💒😍

[@sundevilification]

I have played piano almost 50 years and the late great Bill Evans, which I wholeheartedly agree said: I learned the fundamentals and keep going back when I play that I actually forget I am doing it. Jazz improvisation to the tee. Colorful via simplicity. Thanks Father.

[@BishopBarron]

Evil is not something substantive in itself. It is a lack of a good that ought to be present, like a cavity in a tooth. The devil, in himself, is altogether good in the measure that he has intellect, will, freedom, existence, etc. What's bad about him is a twisting or perverting of his will through a wicked choice.

[@BishopBarron]

Come on friend, modernity did not "discover" the person! Take a good long look at Aristotle's De Anima or Augustine's Confessions if you doubt me. What modernity tended to do was to make the subject central to epistemology.

[@rojodosh]

Wow. Just wow. So good.

[@tiffanysanchez9184]

Beautifully stated Bishop 💕

[@BensWorkshop]

Very good. Been thinking about that as family life. The correct ordering of things for the correct reasons is so important or else the family falls apart.

[@r0ntuber]

Bishop Barron, I appreciate your explanation of the difference in the philosophical mentalities that culture and the Church are predicated upon. Well said!

[@BishopBarron]

God bless you for that.

[@forresthenry9535]

Catholicism, if not the entire Judeo-Christian belief system appreciates what it truly means to be Transcendent and thus breaks the mold of the paganism of ancient Mesopotamia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas. For Christians, we believe that God is transcendent in the most absolute, purest form (meaning beyond the observable Universe). Which is why we worship God, the Ultimate Meaning of Reality, not a distant star cluster or evolutionary fluke.

[@forresthenry9535]

+Michael Montague It is in the Book of Exodus 3:14 when God speaks to Moses saying "I AM WHO I AM," in Hebrew it is translated into YHWH. It is in this statement God is saying that He is not the God of death, nor sky or contracts, cattle, the waters or harvest. In the Judeo-Christian tradition God is not a being, but Being itself.

[@olpossum5186]

to michael montague: when internet atheists like to dismissively refer to 'bronze age peasants', it always brings to mind the trend in our society of people having a certain reverence and respect for the "alternative" belief systems from different time periods and cultures, such as pre-contact native american culture, or certain styles of east asian culture, such as zen buddhism. while not believing in those systems themselves, atheists still have an appreciation of them above and beyond their own native culture, as if those other cultures were somehow "closer to nature" or "more in tune with the universe" or some such qualifier i wonder if people raised in modern east asian buddhist nations view their culture as originating from bronze age peasants, and find it boring and icky like you of your own culture, and that they should then abandon it and embrace the vacuous, materialist consumerism of the atheistic west that you seem fond of, an "alternative" system of belief to their own. while you may reject your culture's philosophical world view, you forget that all knowledge today is built upon what the 'bronze age peasants' in our past begin to first write down. do you scoff at modern algebra, calculus and trigonometry, or what about astronomy? because it was "bronze age peasants" that first began to seriously think about those concepts and write down their ideas to pass along to the future. modern, secular man rejects the moral wisdom of the ancients but still relies upon the knowledge of the ancients to provide him all the conveniences of modern life. modern science rose directly out of the church. if you think the church rejects science, you've been arguing against a straw man. instead of hundreds of thousands of years of lived, shared experience, distilled down into oral traditions that would be capable of being memorized so they could be passed down the generations; and then another 4 millennia of further written documentation from ancient greeks, the ancient hebrews, roman-era theologians, european theology and philosophy of the middle ages, the renaissance and enlightenment; all of that profound philosophical, abstract thinking and understanding on the nature of reality and the universe, which includes all of modern science, which only further demonstrates the veracity, the validity, the Truth of the judeo-christian worldview, instead of all that you reject it and instead latch on to some dude from the 19th or 20th century and say "boy, that one dude right there had it figured out", whether its marx, or nietzsche, or hitchens or dawkins. rubbish. bronze age peasants.... lets look at your current space age peasants and their great achievements, inventing plastic bags, and industrial pollution, and abortion on demand, and social media, and identity politics, and the soviet gulag, and the nazi concentration camp, and american idol, and andy warhol, and auto-tune for singers, and toilets as art, and a starbucks across the street from a starbucks, and the incel movement, and bondage porn, and chloroflorcarbons, and ddt, and lead in gasoline, and weaponized anthrax, and the columbine shooters, and the terror of the french revolution.....want me to keep going? there's the verifiable evidence you seek, but not evidence for the judeo-christian world view, but rather for own, which is pretty damning. the judeo-christian, western world view you reject is the world view of universal human rights, of universal human dignity, and the world view of modern science. why do atheists reject such things?

[@fionaa8813]

This is a perfect and intelligent reply.

[@jonathanswires1264]

I am a Jewish Catholic Christian, who has said, continues to say, and will always continue to say: The worldview of Judaism/Christianity is the greatest humanism that has ever existed and has massive behavioural, civilizational and moral implications. Let me elaborate it on this. All the morals that we take simply for granted were the result of- not just people being "nice"- but rather as a result of the Jewish/Christian worldview. All the horrendous evils that no longer exist (no more slavery; no more SATI system in India; no more human/child sacrifice; no more cannibalism; no more brutal and gruesome Gladiator games in the Colosseum in Rome...and many more), were abolished precisely because of a particular religious worldview: namely, the Jewish/Christian worldview, because it is about the beauty of creation, the creation of human beings in the "image and likeness of the One True God (something that was not self evident in the ancient pagan world); and the eschatological reality that Heaven and earth will be joined together and human beings have been destined for resurrection and everlasting communion with the Truine God. We as Catholic Christians, at our best, have implemented this reality , here and now, and anticipate it in the present, precisely because that's what the One True God has willed from all eternity and communicated this truth to human beings from the very beginning. But sadly we were enticed by idolatry (worshipping something that is NOT God), and sadly still continue to engage in false worship. It is precisely the Jewish/Christian worldview that took a stand against the oppression of the poor, and how they were neglected, by the wealthy, and the ill treatment of widows and orphans (read the Hebrew Bible and see how the Prophets of Ancient Israel, channeling the pathos of God, speak out against those things. Moreover, the 1st Century Christians in Ancient Rome were the ones who used to collect the unwanted babies from under the bridges and raised them as their own. It was precisely the early Christians who dethroned Ceasar by declaring the Jesus Christ is Lord!!! More to it. It is the Catholic Church who has built hospitals, homeless shelters, hospices, universities, schools, soup kitchens, homes for the dying; who are working with and visiting those in prison, etc. Here's the point I want to make: we are not doing these things because we are "nice people". Rather we are building for God's Kingdom, in anticipation of the eschatological reality: namely, when the One True God who grounds human dignity, who raised Jesus Christ from the dead, will remake and transform the whole cosmos and raise us human beings from the dead and give us new transfigured bodies, after the image of Jesus Christ. The whole world will be flooded with the knowledge, love, beauty, wisdom, justice, goodness, and glory of God. And human beings who have yes to his way of being will reign with him. The whole universe will be renewed. Injustices will be overturned!!! THERE WILL BE NO ECONOMIC INEQUALITY, INJUSTICE AND DISCRIMINATION, BECAUSE ALL THE WORLDS RESOURCES AND PROPERTIES, WHICH BELONGS TO GOD, WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO EACH AND EVERY SINGLE MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD FAIRLY. And those who have used finances and resources in ungodly ways which are repugnant to God's ways will be set right! They will be taken away, as the Magnificat says, and given to those who know how to use them for God's purpose!!! Heaven and earth will be joined together forever and ever!!!! And it is precisely this eschatological vision that energizes- and should energize- us to make it a reality in the present, in anticipation of the future. We as the Church (The mystical body of Jesus the Messiah of the Jews and of the whole world) have been, continue to be and will continue to be the extension of what God, in and through the Messiah Jesus, has done and wants to do for the entire cosmos, until his second appearing when the whole world will be judged once and for all!!! And I would like to conclude by stating the moral argument: IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST, OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES AND DUTIES DO NOT EXIST.

[@trioan3500]

The one who is ever so beyond even to that which we may imagine or think are Beyonding, Transcending-or not at all We can never truly know and thats the beauty of the mystery of God We can say what we may say We may add whatever we may add But it can never be enough to cover God in His Greatness

[@MrLlurati]

Hi Father Barron, you continue to bless us with your knowledge and understanding of the Church. It sounds like what you are criticizing in this video is something like moral relativism. I saw a clip of your new series that is coming out on the New Evangelization where you discuss Nietzsche and the "who cares" culture, which I am also very critical of. AGain, thank you so much for these videos. You are changing a lot of lives and I will pray for you and your ministry. God Bless

[@kiaa11]

Amazing! Thank you and God bless you! ❤️

[@FDRPR09]

In resume, Modernity and post-modernity are just ego centrism of the person which leads to relativity, atheism, agnosticism, etc.

[@FDRPR09]

That all of that is wrong and irrational without any base of logic what so ever

[@nathanc9866]

Geek Rican Z As an Agnostic, I don’t really see why it is so irrational.

[@BishopBarron]

I wouldn't disagree with a thing you say here. To defend classical aesthetics is not to say, tout court, that classical style is the only legitimate one. It is to stand against a sheer subjectivism and sentimentalism in regard to art.

[@jessewallace12able]

I agree. If one follows the reason of Sartre or Nietzsche to its end, and takes it seriously, one finds : ho-hum. IMO life without God is boring.

[@bilbobaggins5815]

Leo - what is your favprite Kierkegaard work?

[@Javier-il1xi]

Nietzsche said that the world without God is a bleak, boring and painful place. Nietzsche was extremely worried about how modernity killed God and was looking for a solution.

[@foxmulder6695]

Nietzche's problem is that the death of god was a tragedy because it was the ultimate ideal of every individual. He knew that in the world without god, many people wouldn't be able to find an ideal within themselves that was strong enough to replace the one that was destroyed. So he predicted, along with many others like Dostoyevsky, that most would turn to pathological forms of nationalism or populism, or even the scientific principal, falling prey to ideologies left and right.

[@solidbloke]

Fox Mulder scary how that is becoming true. Left and right at each others throats.

[@Bayo106]

the truth isnt very exciting. The bible and other 'good books' make promises that have never been shown to be true/real

[@zsizsi66]

That was wonderful. Been watching for ages; first time commenting. Abandoning Aristotelianism and Aquinas has been the Enemy's greatest victory. Thank you for putting this in terms I can now tell my two daughters. God Bless.

[@davelipsiea1553]

Fr Barron is brilliant.

[@nelsonrodriguez6815]

SO POWERFUL EXPLANATION VIDEO...THANKS BUSHOP ROBERT BARON..YOU TEACH ME PRAY AND HOW TO DEFEND OUR BELIEF ..OUR VALUES IN INTELECTUAL WAY..WITH TECHERS..STUDENTS..ETC.....PLEASE..MAKE THIS TOPIC..THIS KIND VIDEO IN SPANISH...WE NEED IT...GOD BLESS ALL YOUR TEAM

[@kattula76]

This is one of your best videos Father Barron although all of the other ones are very good, but this one is extremely wonderful and important. Thank you, keep up the good work and God bless.

[@TheMarioBros]

On another note, there is something distinctly Aristotelian in Nietzsche. He's very concerned with excellence, and often praises the Greeks against contemporary rule-based Kantians and utilitarians. To reduce his view to the mere assertion of will is pretty consistent with his legacy (and so what you say about his effect on contemporary thought is spot-on,) but it doesn't do Nietzsche himself justice.

[@1976Bryan]

Fr. Barron, I am absolutely hooked on your videos. Although we do not always reach the same conclusions, I recognize your teaching as a tremendous blessing. I hope at some point (perhaps you have done so somewhere else) address how one ascertains finality. It seems that if we do not agree on the finality, or purpose, of an act, then we're not going to agree on the moral assignment. Do we look to the Biblical tradition? The Church (which seems divided)? Personal revelation?

[@rachealbrimberry8918]

the best commentary on existentialism is Maritain's " Existence and existent". I really like the way he draws his reader in, and dare I say his female readers, when being ever the Frenchman, he mentions about dressmaking and thus fashion on the first page?

[@AdmiralPrice]

I completely agree with your assessment on modern morality. The Qur'an talks about the mentality of the person who follows only his own desire. "Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah ? Then will you not be reminded? And they say, "There is not but our worldly life; we die and live, and nothing destroys us except time." And they have of that no knowledge; they are only assuming." I find it interesting how close catholic and orthodox Muslim theology really are.

[@bobbolondz4211]

+AdmiralPrice Do they say all that before or after they behead the person?

[@AdmiralPrice]

Bob Bolondz Usually after, while holding the bloody knife over the cadaver and between shouts of "Death to America!!!"

[@TheCsegovia]

I love John Lennox, he is arguably the best Christian apologist out there. But none compare to the brilliance and fervor of Fr. Barron

[@BishopBarron]

Quite right. And that's precisely why I am so sympathetic to much of the postmodern movement.

[@RepresentingRodina]

Great video, as always. Thank you very much for your ministry here at Word on Fire.

[@dynamic9016]

Very insightful.

[@marcusdrope6994]

Father Barron your brilliant!

[@BishopBarron]

By reason.

[@isaihisaih2024]

wow i like it...sometimes i have to play your video again and again to understand and do some research..there are so many learnings in just 11minutes!

[@johnandrez]

It comes off to those of us gay and lesbian moderns that both the Fathers and the Schoolmen are in the business of defending the Church's status quo (or in the case of the earliest Fathers, defending that of Jewish morality) rather than an exploring an authentically Christian interpretation of sexuality. I look forward to your videos. I have always appreciated your videos and writings and do support you, despite my speaking out on this one issue. Pray for me and for my brothers and sisters.

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

word of mouth based on the apostolic witness (Acts 2:42 - "They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers."). The living breathing apostles transmitted the faith both orally and in writing, the tradition they had inherited from Temple and synagogue became the communal tradition of the people which also became authoritative. The "breaking of the bread" and "the prayers" refers to the very sacraments you have

[@TheCsegovia]

Estoy de acuerdo! El Padre Barron es un gran comunicador y es mi héroe personal en muchos sentidos, necesitamos a mas personas para llevar el catolicismo a nuestros hermanos de la lengua española, especialmente con recientes encuestas que descubren que los hispanos están dejando el catolicismo y abrazando el protestantismo.

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

For example, St. Irenaeus records in his "Against Heresies", ""Matthew also published a gospel in writing among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter & Paul were preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome. But after their death, Mark, the disciple & interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing what Peter used to preach. And Luke, Paul's associate, also set down in a book the gospel that Paul used to preach. Later, John, the Lord's disciple--the one who lay on his

[@danipar7388]

Definetely the best one

[@BishopBarron]

God wills in accord with his own goodness. That's why his will, though uncaused, is anything but arbitrary. And God gave us freedom, but he didn't, and doesn't, determine the exercise of that freedom.

[@johnandrez]

What I find, Father Barron, is that despite the emotionalism and modern approach to morality which you've spoken out against in your video, the instinctive gut reaction which many other gay and lesbian Christians including myself have, is the idea that the Catholic Church alone, is capable of rightly determining by both tradition and Scripture what the formal structures and final causes of a given phenomenon are. (continued...)

[@EctothermalPuppy]

Thank you!!

[@rosawisteria]

Super interesting. This way of thought rubbed me the wrong way at first…. But I’m coming around to it now

[@Diego-hv4de]

Excelente video!! Muchas Gracias

[@johnandrez]

Despite what you may believe, there are a great many gay and lesbian Catholics who do live deeply spiritual lives and struggle to find their place in the Church. Though the Eucharist should never be a place for disunity and therefore protest, the recent fiasco at St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC is an example of this deep desire. Though there is much emotionalist and "modern" polemics in the current culture wars, (continued...)

[@VQuiZ11]

Say what you said to Brian Eno, or indeed any jazz musician ever. The act of creation and expansion is the essence of art itself.

[@arnoldkim5135]

Wow, this might be the most philisophical subject I've heard from Bishop Barron in his recent video. Very deep. Very thoughtful.

[@undertheheavens]

Just a comment from the "Journal" of Raissa Maritain: "Art is an intellectual virtue which permits the soul to impress a sensible and spiritual human imprint on a given material; strictly speaking, it is the faculty of creating a new form, an original being, capable in its turn of moving a human soul...Artistic creation does not imitate God's creation, it continues it...Merely to imitate, in the sense of copying nature, is to be outside the pale of art."

[@BishopBarron]

Friend, forgive me for smiling--but your posting is the surest possible sign that you believe in objective truth. Otherwise, you wouldn't be taking a strong position and striving to convince others that you're right.

[@BeatMasterPhil]

Hey Andy, Formal & Final Causality is discovered by the use of the intellect & good reason. It (truth) isn't something we impose on reality, but something we discover--which is one item that modernity is very confused about right now. In regards to the speech act, its very much part of the final cause to communicate something, but it is not communication for communication's sake. If it is to be coherent & intelligible then it should say something true about reality, no matter how insignificant

[@LoneMonk1]

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." What does this mean? It sounds to me like God is telling Jeremiah that essence proceeds existence. God knew all of creation even before anything was created or existed. How can Satre possibly be correct? Is it logical to conclude that if God knew us before we were created in the womb that somehow, deep down inside, we must also know him? If we truly know God, how can the atheist rage against God and all of his creation?

[@villiestephanov984]

LoneMonk1 : the human heart is most deceiptive - that is exactly what it means: " and it grew up to the host of heaven and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground and trampled them . It even exalted himself ( He) as the Prince of the host and by Him ( 💘) - the daily sacrifices were talking away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. " I was exceedingly angry with the nations @ ease.. for I was a little angry and they helped - but with evil intent ". Now when the Multitudes saw "it", they marveled @ Matthew and glorified God who has given such power to 9 men. ...👎🤗

[@joshuakralicek3598]

I've come across *some* scientific journals that discuss contemporary science and explore the academic integrity of them in terms of philosophy and epistemology, but they usually have scattered opinions. Science that bears in mind the four causes (as science ought to in best order) is developing again. The current scientific method is built off of what has been viewed as philosophical and rhetorical fallacy since antiquity, and Aristotle would be challenging these supposed modern successes.

[@CentreLine2]

When you talk about art, that's quite a large subject and canapé term. If you include music in that and favouring the classical, in your judgement, are you being excluding to Jazz Music, or any other world indigenous genres? In many arts, it combines improvisation with understanding of history and theory alike to reveal the artistic process. I hear what you're saying, though I can't imagine you've practiced art on such a level to make such a sweeping statement. I'm curious.

[@MicaleAntonio]

Father Barron, what do you make of Kierkegaard's work on this topic? This quote lays it out nicely: "Science and scholarship want to teach that becoming objective is the way. Christianity teaches that the way is to become subjective, to become a subject." This theme is repeated in all of his works in some form; it's arguably the central point of his entire authorship. I do think K is talking about spiritual existence whereas N and JPS may be referring more to temporal existence. Any thoughts?

[@jontv7350]

The breakdown in communication is this: while I agree that we can & should make ethical judgments, I don't see the validity or advantage in asserting that they are objective or absolute. Moral/ethical arguments are essentially evaluative. When you evaluate something, you must explain and defend your criteria. I can give good criteria for my ethical judgments. I believe that is all that's possible, or necessary, to do. Nobody who finds this lacking will be swayed by claims of moral objectivity.

[@WrongTimeline]

Interesting to see where you see the change occuring. I've been looking at The Supreme Courts' work on privacy and then the new prosperity 1960+ (mirroring the 1920's) as the points of change, and you're back centuries earlier.

[@travvistodd6016]

"I truly rejoice that you are collecting your various pieces of artillery into one battery, for the destruction of our enemies. Their arrogant notes of triumph have been very hard to bear, and have been borne by Catholics quite long enough" - John Henry Newman

[@BishopBarron]

(Cont.) And Jon, one can hardly stress this subjectivism enough when discussing a thinker like Descartes who brought everything, including God, before the bar of his own subjective consciousness for adjudication, or Hegel, who literally thought that God came to self-consciousness through his own (Hegel's own) consciousness, or Sartre, who claimed that his own freedom utterly determined the meaning of his life, or Nietzsche, who thought that will stood beyond good and evil.

[@BishopBarron]

Oh give me a break! I was just trying to burst the balloon of your self-regard.. Friend, I take science very seriously indeed. In point of fact, the findings of contemporary physics and astronomy massively support a theistic vision of the universe.

[@elzbietahapsburska3711]

1) Fr. Barron, if you're reading this, I have a question that is a bit off topic, but I don't know where to ask it. I was watching your Catholicism series with my youth group yesterday, the third movie about "God." While a lot of it helped to clarify things, some of it was, sorry to say, very confusing. I don't understand the Catholic concept of evil as you put it at all. I was raised Catholic and taught that the devil is the source of evil, that it is a physical entity . . .

[@MobiusCoin]

But Picasso's revelation, his great insight into his art is when he rejected the mere imitation of nature. “It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.” Vasari may have seen art in terms of the pursuit of an specific end, the perfect emulation of creation. But I think the modern artist, especially since the advent of photography. must go another way. What else is there to explore when technology, by its physical definition, can do it better?

[@BeatMasterPhil]

And to go even further, if we destroy the formal and final cause, we undermine the physical sciences themselves. It becomes simply a way to say that "X" has happened after "Y" a 100 times, but that doesn't mean that a unicorn won't pop into being on time 101. In other words, there becomes no actual connection between "X" and "Y".

[@mr.iankp.5734]

It would seem appropriate to call the past couple or few centuries “The Age of the Self”.

[@EctothermalPuppy]

I keep hearing Fr. Barron referencing Aquinas in his videos. There's a ton of book out there and I'm not sure where to start. Anyone have any suggestions for a beginner on readings of Aquinas? Sorry to post this here, but I figured someone might have a recommendation. Thanks.

[@harrisoneinhorn2711]

And I do not want to defend everything Nietzsche said, but since many Christians, in their laziness, have made Nietzsche a poster boy for all that is terrible in modern thought, (without ever having read them I will add), I would like to mention that Nietzsche also said that the ability of a great man to laugh at his accomplishments was of the most important signs of the Ubermensch. And I say that the world could do for a little more careless magnanimity.

[@johnstewart7025]

The final cause -- I think there may be one, but it is a matter of faith. I just read Lucretius for the first time, and he is both fascinated by the sense that nothing comes from nothing and that the universe must be unbelievably old. On the other hand, he believed the world was "running down" as it were and deteriorating. Entropy?

[@mauryravel2694]

Yes, I have verifiable, robust, and compelling evidence that skepticism is useful for making accurate predictions. Indeed, all of science is based upon rational skepticism and it is clearly the single most successful and accurately predictive method of inquiry ever devised by humans. No other method even approaches its utility in making predictions about the Universe. The essence of science is skepticism and I am a skeptic about every data point and every theory. (contd)

[@ClassicPhilosophyFTW]

I know only what I have been taught at school about science; it is a very powerful tool, and I have great respect for it. But just because Aristotle was wrong in one area doesn't mean he is wrong full stop. What does science have to do with the discussion? Aristotle is primarily known for his philosophy, not science. Therefore I fail to see why I need an extensive grounding in any discipline to contribute to debate.

[@absw6129]

I have studied critical theory in the context of litterature. I'd be curious to hear some opinions on Structuralism. Structuralism, rather than looking at each piece of art in isolation, takes a look at the underlying principles that govern, for example, short stories. It sounds to me like this is what Father Barron is doing when he is describing art before modernity as taking steps towards a type of final causality.

[@rachealbrimberry8918]

so why can't I enjoy the beauty of a tree, the shade it provides, the way the leaves move in a breeze, but also understand that tree on a deeper level? as in the photosynthesis that occurs in the leaves, basically a "sugar manufacturing plant" that creates all food that we eat on the planet. Additonally, in more detail, to classify leaves into C-4, C-3, or CAM the 3 biochemical mechanisms to fix Carbon (C)?

[@johnandrez]

... which may challenge my current position. But I can no longer hold to the idea that procreation is the sole or even primary cause of the sexual impulse. "It is not good for man to be alone." Loneliness and solitude is a reason why God introduced our first parents to one another and though he later blesses them and commands them to be fruitful, I cannot think of a reason (other than the force of tradition and the natural conservatism of religious institutions) why the Church (continued...)

[@1Costello11]

Even granting the existence of final causes, why should we believe that they ground moral obligation? Final causality and formal causality go hand in hand: Aristotle says the form of something gives it its nature or essence which in turn determines that thing's immanent purpose or function. But where does the moral obligation to perform this purpose or end come from? A pair of scissors that can't cut isn't 'good' because it can't fulfill its function, but no one claims it's being immoral.

[@samuelbarber8716]

Tell me, before we proceed further, please give me some indication of how much contemporary science you know. Have you had a course in biology? Even an introductory course? How about chemistry? Physics? And how much mathematics do you know? If we are to discuss anything at all, I need to know how grounded you are in contemporary science and mathematics.

[@elzbietahapsburska3711]

Actually, that was very helpful! Thanks. That's something I get stuck on when discussing faith. Moral relativists will say "but that's your truth," and I don't feel that I can say with humility that it isn't, but I think your comment will help me respond to that :D XD Thanks again :D

[@TheLongSummer]

I would rather say that the formal cause would be the communication; the essence of language being to make intelligible expressions for others to understand. "communicare" in Latin means "to make common". The formal cause would then be the words, or the phonemes. To lie would then be to go against the formal cause, the essence of the language, whereas the truth would be the final cause. And again this is based on nobody's standards it is for each and everyone to seek according to his capacities.

[@TJB5]

Ha! Please. Malick's TO THE WONDER is sublime. Bardem's priest character is particularly interesting. Reminiscent of DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST.

[@VQuiZ11]

Texture and the exploration of tonal palettes weren't explored seriously until the early twentieth century. Odd meter and off time not until classical composers began exploring world music around the same time. Claiming classical superiority is to condemn the Karlheinz Stockhausen's and Erik Satie's, and actually the entire advent of rock culture and electronic music culture. Of course I'm approaching this from a musical standpoint because I'm a musician, but you get the point.

[@j_shelby_damnwird]

Great stuff, thanks

[@mkaeterna9161]

Hi Robert, I'm a big fan of your videos in general, but I greatly disagree with your stance on the relationship between Christianity and existentialism. I think Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky both show that there can be a profound synergy between the two. To define yourself, rationally, honestly, and courageously is precisely to hear the voice of God in your heart.

[@GreeneyedApe]

Although it was very brief in the video, I think you misinterpreted Sartre's statement here. In my understanding, his notion that "Existence precedes essence" means that our ultimate meaning, value or "essence" is determined by what we actually do in life, how we live. What we do, not what we want, as you say in the video.

[@jontv7350]

As with any philosophical movement, the people who launched modernism are not necessarily the final word on it. Of course subjectivism is important to modernity, and of course this is neither a wholly good nor wholly bad thing. Later on, I think modernists and post-modernists came to recognize and critique the limitations of subjectivity quite effectively. The problem is that it's inescapable.

[@jontv7350]

So it's not just the perspective that matters, but how it's applied. That's where I think illusions of objectivity really run aground. You tell people their morals are objectively right and they have a tendency to believe that any moral reaction they have is in accordance with the will of God. It's a blunt object that can be used as a weapon in the wrong hands. Of course it's not just that, for me. If I believed objective morality were rational and useful to ANYONE, I wouldn't oppose it.

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

Puerile assertions. Joseph Smith ALWAYS maintained that ONLY HE had seen these tablets that had been delivered by the angel Moroni (I always found that name ironic, imagining the root to be 'moron'). He had been sued in open court in New York and discovered to be a liar (he maintained at one point that he knew biblical Hebrew and Greek, when a professor of Hebrew and Greek was summoned as a witness and Mr. Smith was given a text to translate, when pressed, he admitted that he could not). He

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works." (vs. 18-22).

[@mmmail1969]

could you please list your formal qualifications and scholarly experience on these general areas, so that I and others may compare your standing in the general field with that of Fr Barron's? Thank you and I look forward to viewing your academic credentials/experience soon.

[@apologiacristiana]

Tienes Toda la razón, yo por ejemplo junto con un compañero solíamos traducir y subtitular vídeos, El los traducía y yo los subtitulaba, pero ahora el no lo ha vuelto hacer y no tengo quien siga traduciéndolos para compartirlos :/

[@beefking69er]

Not pantheistically co-existent, just omnipresent.

[@elzbietahapsburska3711]

2) . . . While saying that "the final cause of language is truth" would be placing an emphasis on something eternal, something beyond pragmatism. I think both are valid statements, but they are a comment on the value system of the person that makes them, or at least on the culture they live in. Our culture has rejected objective morality for fear of tyranny (that morality will be dictated by those in power), but in its place we have raised up efficiency, leading to a selfish "me culture."

[@sapinahg4126]

♥️🙋bisop morning

[@BishopBarron]

His goodness is the same as his being, which is unconditioned. Nothing at all contingent about it. Your argument is like saying a man who planted a tree from which another man, a hundred years later, hanged himself is responsible for the hanging.

[@captainwasabi13]

not sure what you mean. do you want classical books? or books on classical thinking? or classical books on classical thinking?

[@beefking69er]

Their otiose critiques have not restored the degradation of society.

[@OldSchopenhauer]

I don't exactly understand how you scoff at the metaphysical on some of your comments yet rely on Kantian metaphysics in another. I might have misunderstood something and you could clarify.

[@ShugoCH]

But isn't it the postmodern movement that relies so much on relativism, especially moral relativism? Isn't it modernism / modernity that acknowledges the existence of "truth"?

[@daledheyalef]

didn't heraclitus also maintain that reality was in a constant state of flux? it's not only a modern idea

[@bobbolondz4211]

+daledheyalef He was probably just spitballing.

[@perun814]

Dostoyevsky and Nieatsche,..the prophets of modernity

[@samuelbarber8716]

May I suggest to those who are really interested in this, as opposed to being fearful that contemporary physics might destroy their belief systems, read any of the new books on cosmology? Also, KZbin is filled with absolutely splendid lectures on the new physics. None of this is easy stuff. It's at the bleeding edge of contemporary science. But even if it's difficult, and even if there are gaps in our understanding, that's no reason to invoke any of the untold "gods" invented by humans.

[@franciscoromualdez2805]

I am wondering, doesn't Pope John Paul II's personalistic approach to morality try to take a "modern" or less classical approach (without discounting these) by looking at questions of morality from a personalistic point of view. I am not fluent in his very deep theology, so I amy be quite wrong in my understanding, but I found his approach unique.

[@diesel5355]

John Lennox got me back into religion, but this guy got me back into Catholicism.

[@BishopBarron]

So Jackson Pollock is clearly better than Michelangelo?! In the same way that Einstein is more correct than Copernicus? Henry Moore is clearly better than Rodin in the same way that Georges LeMaitre is more correct than Newton? Come on, man.

[@mauryravel2694]

(contd) Religionists, on the other hand, are skeptical ONLY about the religions of OTHER people. That is one of my most fascinating observations about religionists, supernaturalists, the superstitious, and the like. All are highly skeptical of OTHER views but NEVER skeptical about their own. Why might that be? Could it be that they have a double, or triple, standard about what constitutes verifiable, robust, compelling evidence? I'd bet on it.

[@dsydebot]

How many books, Father, would you say you have in your library?

[@andyflattery]

Reminds me lot of some of Allen Bloom's writing in "The Closing of the American Mind." Can anyone recommend any further reading on this topic?

[@ClassicPhilosophyFTW]

I know. the four elements right? earth, fire water and air. But I don't think he was right about that in any case. he DOES say though that all things are composites of form + matter, which is true. BTW do you think that the only way we determine truths about the world is through observation? just wondering.