Love is Love
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- Sponsor: www.thesaintma...
promo code: BRIANHOLDSWORTH for 10% off.
Support the channel by visiting brianholdswort...
Music generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
If you press someone for a coherent definition on what #love is, it usually follows a thread something like this: they’ll start by insisting that love is a feeling - it’s an intense attraction towards someone or something.
But there’s an array of problems and inconsistencies with this definition. The first is that, we don’t control our feelings or our moods. Today I might be in the mood to get up early, exercise, and be productive, but tomorrow, I may not feel like that. My feelings on the matter are inconsistent and therefore, incoherent. What I ought to do should be based one my reason.
And, we insist that love is a noble and even virtuous thing. But how can something so noble, be the by-product of something we have no control over?
How can we say that we admire someone for the extent of their love and be critical of someone who lacks love for their neighbor, when, if it’s only a feeling of intense attraction, neither can be held accountable for their surplus or deficit of this feeling?
If we’re going to insist on admiring or criticizing people for the amount of love that they exhibit, then we have to admit that there is a dimension of choice involved in what it means to love or not love. Because it is the choices and actions of others that we admire, not their mood swings.
The second problem with this definition, is that it leads to absurdities when applied in real life. For example, what do you call someone who has intense feelings of attraction to someone else who doesn’t reciprocate those feelings. Umm… a stalker.
It’s not an admirable thing when someone relentlessly expresses such intense feelings of infatuation when they aren’t mutual. Or on an even darker level, what about an adult who has intense feelings of physical attraction for children. I don’t know if society is actually this far gone yet, but I’d like to think that most of us wouldn’t call that love.
So, you might want to amend your definition to something like, intense feelings of attraction that are welcomed and reciprocated. But, we can still run into trouble here because what if a minor reciprocates intense feelings to an adult - like a student and a teacher. Is that love?
And don’t we all know someone who has been swept up in a very intense romance with someone that was also quite abusive? Relationships like that can hardly be described as a consequence of love, at least not the kind of love that is worthy of admiration.
The only definition that I’ve ever heard that I find satisfying in that it can be applied to all the various instances that we might, seriously, describe as love, just so happens to be the Catholic definition. According to it, love is willing the good of another.
#loveislove #catholicpride
Podcast Version: brianholdswort...
What is love? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.
I cannot read this without singing. Thank you 😂
I heard this comment 😳
lol
Hate this song
So yeah I read this singing it and now it’s stuck in my head. Thanks… not 😂
This was such a timely and wonderful video for me tonight. Not because of anything regarding same-sex relationships or the subject matter, but because I needed a reminder to use my reason instead of feelings. I was so grumpy today and I couldn't understand why I was refusing to clean my kitchen when a few days ago I felt motivated and got lots done. Listening to your video reminded me that doing the right thing isn't based on feelings of motivation. I'm determined to be more disciplined tomorrow! Thank you!
Remember to clean the crumbs out of the toaster, there's no love lost with that contraption. Blessings from an unusually sunny Scotland.
@@Rosshannah1695 still sunny in this part of Scotland!!! 👋
If you clean the glass door of your toaster oven, it'll change your disposition on life. Don't ask me why that happens, but it's a scientific fact.
Now I have to clean my kitchen. Good point in your take - great talk as well.
I'm asking for grace from God to enjoy each moment doing what needs to be done. Maybe try that.
My first instinct was to counter "Love is love" with: "God is love," following that statement up with "Love is willing the good of the other." I hadn't thought about the coherence aspect of it, but I will now. Good analogies, Brian. I will use them myself!
We had a campaign in Hungary with #GodIsLove as a response to the overflowing #LoveIsLove campaign. It worked pretty well: it was a visible pushback what cannot be negated or minimized.
I felt tempted to answer "... And potatoes are potatoes, but I don't see how that has to do with anything...". Hahahaha
@YAJUN YUAN simple. they're wrong. People not following the magisterium doesnt make the magisterium not the magisterium.
Also, leave the fake church founded by a woman (cringe) and join the real Church founded by God so you can go to Heaven.
@Gee Ling obviously you do not know the God shown in the OT. Try to learn. There's no point attacking that which you do not know.
@László Attila Dózsa
Az Isten Szeretet
Enjoy hearing your thoughts on this!
"Pride is Pride". Was my grandmother's reply
18 Pride goeth before destruction and an haughty spirit before a fall.
Go grandma!!! Great reply! 👍
"Water is water, go drink from the toilet"
Any parent worth his salt knows that love is NOT indifferent permissiveness .
Lust is not love and pride is not love.
Culture: "Love is Love"
Greeks: "Um, which Love are you talking about?"
Pope Francis in both doing love and being love authorised on 10 June 2021 or just after simultaneously with an absolute power love as keeping inseparability and qualitative equality; that is, covenant, non-presumed reciprocity, of mercy and justice in his Vatican State Secretariat of State criminal indictments of Cardinal Angelo Becciu and protest note to the Italian Government.
Pope Francis in both doing love and being love authorised on 10 June 2021 or just after simultaneously with an absolute power of authorisation love as the keeping or allowing of inseparability and qualitative equality, that is covenant, non-presumed reciprocity, of justice and mercy in his Vatican State criminal indictments of Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine others in their procreation gift roles for alleged embezzlement of charity donations within the family and a protest note to the Italian Government against an alleged unacceptable risk of fraud on identities of family members of male-female marriages need of union
Thanks for mentioning the "Catholic school pride flag" epidemic. I went to a Catholic elementary school for nine years, and am just now beginning to see how "Catholic" schools really need to up their game. AKA: stop trying to be public schools and practicing what they preach.
Not sure where youre from, but in Canada most Catholic schools are funded by the province, there are some private, but I will only refer to the public funded schools. Its super easy for politicians to score brownie points by going after them and encroach on Catholic beliefs. They implicitly threaten Catholic Schools' funding when they do this. Also schools here cant only hire Catholics who follow Catholic values. Secularism is rampant in Catholic schools.
@@Tttb95 That sounds horrible. My school was in California... So yeah I think that speaks for itself :(
@YAJUN YUAN which catholic is saying the gospels were written by someone else? The authors names are literally on the book. Unless youre getting confused with those who translated from its original languages. Because there are issues there
@YAJUN YUAN Brown had many fringe views and his argument relied solely on Scripture, which is not what the Church teaches. Scripture AND Tradition are important and valid.
So its no surprise really that when one looks at one and excludes the other, they dont get the whole picture. And if I recall, Brown never made any definitive statements he posed theories.
" 'Catholic' schools" "trying to be public schools" is consequentialism duopsony in utilitarian ethics. It follows from the family not requiring from these helpers of the family respect for what they consider to be their rights and simultaneously these helpers of the family not making the family aware of its identity and its role.
"love is love"
My response: "love isn't sex"
I believe in uncertainty that love includes sex that is keeping or allowing of covenant, non-presumed reciprocity of thinking procreation helper role gift within the family and having faith in meeting family members' identities need for union
@@oliverclark5604 what? You "believe in uncertainty that love includes sex"? Friendship is a form of love. So is giving to the poor. Neither of those include sex. We aren't just talking about marital love here.
@@realmless4193 Much of the comment is about sexual matters or issues. I chose to comment on the sexual matters or issues. C.S. Lewis in his "The Four Loves" has "Friendship" as one. Lewis, I believe as defined as in uncertainty, would have "giving to the poor" as "Caritas", the highest do-ing or be-ing of love.
@@oliverclark5604 they're trying to say "love is love" and they convey a message by attaching different meanings to both ends of the word. I am just making the meaning of the slogan explicit and saying it is wrong.
@@realmless4193 I put it: love is and does love as inseparable and qualitatively equal. "Higher vocation" of roman catholic consecrated celibates to male female marriage as taught by the roman catholic church (TTMHS, PCF, 1995, 35) is separated and qualitatively unequal. Who is setting a bad example? Who and or what caused this church role group to teach this and why? Is the greed of family members the cause? Is this greed for insurance and tax concessions?
Aquinas~ "Love is wishing the good of other as other." Love does not require reciprocation.
I think what he means is the possibility of conscious reciprocation. Meaning it has the possibility of being understood and accepted for what it is, and the possibility of being returned.
It can and must be covenant, non-presumed.
Pride is one of the deadly sins.
Love is not love. You do not love your child as you love your spouse, or your dad/mom the same as your spouse, your bestie the same as your child, cheesecake the same as your kid, and on and on. people just sound completely ridiculous.
But what is pride, as it pertains to sin?
Is civic pride sinful?
Is pride in one's country sinful?
Pride in one's achievements, or one's work?
Pride in you children, your spouse, or your family?
Is there a difference between these and pride in one's self?
@@trikebeatstrexnodiff What do you mean by "support them". I love LGBT people and I know God loves them, that's why I want them to change their ways and not stay the same. There's nothing supporting about letting people stay in sin.
As a second note, Love isn't in a grade. Different types of love don't mean different measures of love.
I love cheesecake is just an expression on how much you like cheesecake. I love you to a human such as a child and a spouse are the same. Spouses express that love in a different way aka giving of self to the other through intercourse. A mother might Express her love through giving herself to the child via hard work to provide for the child. Just my 2 cents...
Bingo.
The catholic doctrine states just that, people who feel attract to the same sex should stay in state of chastity. Now when we talk about chastity we also refers to the mind and thoughts not just physical.
I will comment in something you said before " I love all LG..people" and to say that shows that you don't see them as people you see them as a group who is cool to support. I'm not refer to me as " and heterosexual " when I meet somebody, I see the problem of postmodern society is the labels and identities, but in a context of God relationship with us humans that category doesn't exist, we are humans first, and humans are in some ways complex and sinful because we are weak, but we should never being allowed to be put in a sex category because that is minimizing HS and limiting us, after all we don't need sex to live, human race needs to create more humans or we will be extent, but as individuals we need water, food , sleep mainly, sex is very far away or should in our priorities. Of course in the hiperd sexualized American society that looks like an impossible, but it is not. Control of our basics instincts if what give us freedom, not the opposite, it was give us strength, no the opposite. There's an agenda behind the sexual revolution if the 60 but that is another topic.
Think that the most of the social problems that the world face today it would be fixed by chastity if the soul, body and mind.
I don't really get the point. Every slogan is inherently narrow and weak, but "love is love" comes in a certain context and meas something specific. It meas: the love of a gay couple is equal to the love present in a straight couple. It's love. It is, in fact "willing the good of another", not a different thing. Words are slogan, every single word reduces the complexity of things and concepts to its minimal significant form.
“I can’t say what a women is, I am not a biologist.” THE FIRST VICTIM IS THE TRUTH.
adult female human
"What is truth", Pilate is reported replying to Christ at his trial before Pilate. I believe in uncertainty that "truth" is the keeping or allowing of covenant, non-presumed reciprocity of justice and mercy. This keeping or allowing is presently evident in Pope Francis' authorisation simultaneously in justice and mercy on or just after 10 June 2021 of his Vatican State Secretariat of State's criminal indictments of Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine others for embezzlement of charity donations which trial is continuing presently and protest note to the Italian Government against an unacceptable risk of fraud on the keeping of union of identities in male-female marriages by the "Zan" anti-homophobia bill before the Italian Parliament (defeated in early November 2021) in both cases for not keeping or allowing this covenant, non-presumed reciprocity
The short bit on "pleasure for the sake of pleasure" is interesting. It makes me think about my own recreational activities. If I play sports for fun, I might gain better health. If I go out binge drinking with friends or do drugs, I'll suffer harm in the long run. Perhaps we shouldn't engage in activity for the sake of pleasure but for good, measuring our actions based on their consequences.
I believe in uncertainty that that is the difference between 'want' and 'will'
Did he say in same sex relationships there is no companionship? If i got that right, then that is fundamentally wrong, it has been proven that the companionship and even emotional intimacy is far more stronger among the same sex than in the others, and it is NOT related to sexual activities.
No he didn't say that. Companionship can be found in many relationships and is generally a good, his argument is that it is the sexual component of the same sex relationship that is the problem, not the care companionship part.
If the companionship is not related to sex, that's called being friends.
@@hamie7624 Agreed. It is perfectly normal for one to have friends of the same sex.
Your farming metaphor is broken.
In the one you used you used two examples; one man who does things the right way, and one man who does the wrong thing, the latter symbolizing gayness.
But why is that the one that is wrong? The metaphor is supposed to illustrate why the gay approach is wrong, but in your metaphor it can only do so by presupposing its wrongness. I.e. You assume that the gay position is wrong, then use that foregone conclusion to illustrate why it's wrong. It's circular reasoning. That's not how logic works.
For a more fitting metaphor, since it's a matter of bringing forth harvest or fruit - - The element of land fertilitet needs to be a factor. The skill of the farmer cannot be the sole differentiating factor, because we know from the existence of things like pregnancy through rape that metaphorical "fruit" can be brought forth, regardless of the cultivator's care or love, provided that the soil is fertile.
So consider two men of equal skill, one is a straight farmer and one is a gay one, they are both working their lands dilligently, with appropriate care. And yet neither will ever see fruit born from their labor.
In the gay farmer's case it might be because there are too many rocks, and there was never any chance of bringing forth fruit in the first place, while in the straight farmer's case, it might be because the soil has been corrupted in some way. Maybe poisoned, in ways that cannot be amended.
The end result at the end of the day is the same. No matter what they do, neither will have a harvest. The reasons are different, but the end result is the same.
So who has done wrong here?
Well, if the premise is that love is only valid if it includes the possibility of harvest, then both of them have done wrong. It was wrong to choose gay soil, and it was wrong to choose infertile soil. Because at the end of the day, neither can ever bring forth fruit, and that was the point.
If we give an exception to the guy who plantes in infertile soil, however, we demonstrate that it wasn't REALLY about the possibility of harvest to begin with. Because the end result would always be the same, yet here we are, validating one while condemning the other even though their performance regarding the proposed standard (the possibility of harvest) is exactly the same. That is, nonexistent in both their cases.
The favorization of one over the other is completely arbitrary when set up against the proposed standard. It is pure favoritism based on pre-concieved notions, born from your religious beliefs, and does not hold up under scrutiny of any sort of logical system.
It would be better to just be honest about that. You are entitled to your own personal beliefs. But just like with someone who believes in horiscopes, you are not in a position to pretend like yours is the one supported by honest, unbiased logic.
You started with the conclusion and worked backwards. That's not how logic or science works.
That is not how honesty works.
This metaphor only covers the sexual aspect of a couple and it is made to invalidate homosexuals only from that perspective: "if it can generate a child, it's good, if it can't, it's bad". This metaphor excludes all the other aspects that are in a relationship, such as the romantic and emotional love between the partners.
It's strange to me, that this so-called sophisticated time, in which we live in, doesn't seem to understand what natural and normal love is.
@Richard Fox if same sex love was natural then it would produce children naturally. After all words like homosexual or heterosexual or asexual have been used scientifically not to define attraction, but to define how offspring are made. For example an asexual plant doesn’t lack attraction to others because of it sexuality (but because it’s a plant). An asexual plant is called asexual because that’s how it creates offspring.
@Richard Fox why is that wrong
@Richard Fox why is beating up people in the street morally wrong?
@@thehungarywaffleinc.7775 That's a good point, because moral relativism is rampant and confusing, because people choose this way of thinking, in order to be so-called "special," than everyone else.
@Richard Fox why do those standards matter?
This might be your best video, in a long list of other fantastic, carefully considered and thought provoking videos.
Love is willing the good of another, so we do not actually love if we love someone “just the way they are” we are forgetting the good we need to will for them. None of us are so good that we do not need more good. Love is not sex, marital love includes sex, if it is only sex there is no love.
love as the keeping of the inseparability and qualitative equality of justice and mercy, as kept by Pope Francis, includes sex that is covenant, non-presumed reciprocity of procreation role process gift within the family and progress in meeting need of identities of family members for union.
GOD IS LOVE .
People need to have the courage to ask the questions “what is a woman” and “what is love”?
A woman is a woman. And love is love. Duh!
baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me no more
Or on this issue, what is marriage?
@@BrewMeister27 marriage is when tax cuts
🤮 the responses to this from worldly people
As Christians, we don't believe that "love is love". We believe that "God is Love".
love is love, cars are cars, birds are birds, using the target of a definition as the definition offers no insight. Its the reactive response of the lazy and juvenile.
Would you agree that heterosexual couples using birth control are guilty of the same error- providing each other only with the pleasurable part of sex, and not opening themselves up to the true good of creating a new life?
@Richard Fox How are your "I" identity and "we" role? Have you been groomed to purport to presume the inversion of your identity and your role? Have you been groomed by a diseased "familyist" family person for their families' economic advantage of tax and insurance as an emotionally and or psychologically vulnerable family member to purport to presume this inversion with a hidden as occult, incest connected as substitute mate, non- economic status inducement?
I think one could argue that heterosexual couples separating the procreative aspect from the pleasure (with the help of drugs or other methods) is different than sexual acts done alone or with the same sex, as the former can be adjusted to have both aspects while the latter can not. Different error, same result (at least in the procreation sense)
Yes. Love seeks the highest and best good for someone.
Like obay God.
Rebellion means pain ,delution and death.
Brian, your mistake is assuming people want to live by coherent and reasonable principles. Many people enjoy the freedom of picking a stance on each individual moral issue without regard for the logical implications of each choice, like a pro-life person that supports IVF. Principles pose a threat to this freedom and may require someone to take a stance they don't like.
Yes! And it's almost pointless to argue with people like this because they do not care if their arguments do not follow logical reasoning. They actually get really excited when you point this out, as if they celebrating their own lunacy!
You people throw strawmans like you're guarding a cornfield
Forget about sex for a while and just ask yourself why lovers kiss, hug, and caress each other. No One does this merely to satisfy a sexual urge, and it doesn't lead to new life. Yet lovers do these things all the time, and if they ceased to do them, their absence would likely be thought a big problem. Why do old married couples who can't have children anymore still continue these behaviours? I think Mr. Holdsworth's definition of love is far too narrow and simplistic. The word love refers to romantic love, parental love, friendship, the whole ball. of wax, and sure, it also refers to what used to be called charity or caritas. These kinds of love aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
What's up Brian. Seeing as the pride flag like any symbol has many meanings, can there be a Catholic meaning for the flag? Is it possible, with the authority the Church has, even over symbols, that flying the flag could be good with a certain meaning, like "welcoming all persons"? If not, could you use the sources of morality given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to prove that flying the pride flag is necessarily morally evil?
The problem with saying "by flying the pride flag, we mean that we welcome all persons" is that that meaning is not what the pride flag is meant to convey, so it would just make those saying it look like fools.
It's ridiculous to determine the value of relationships on whether or not two people RESEMBLE a couple that can have children naturally.
Your whole point is that straight couples can have kids, which make them divinely good. But then a straight couple that can't have kids are still okay because they're a superficial copycat?
I want kids, but it's so rude to only value people by their ability or desire to have naturally conceived children.
They are confusing Agape Love with Lust.
One wonders why parish priests, bishops, cardinals and even popes can't speak like an unassuming, faithful layman. Further, there's no "hate", no loathing ad advertised by the narrative writers. Just a reasoned argument for Love's ultimate and time-honored definition. Well done Mr Holdsworth.
I just talked with an old friend I hadn’t heard from in years. Her & her husband & kids were very Catholic. Now she says they’ve quit practicing because “the Church doesn’t stand for anything anymore.”
That sounds really unfortunate. We are the church. It won't change by not practicing. We need to be there once these trends die--with the people who advocate them if that is what it takes. The people who hold these views aren't exactly practicing either.
Sad that they have given up and not willing to fight the good fight. Hopelessness can lead people into darkness.
Those who endure until the end are saved. Please remind them. Quitting right before you reach the finish line when you were winning is such a waste of previous time spent.
A role cannot "stand". I believe some honest very few in this role, including Pope Francis, are realising this and ceasing purporting presuming to be an identity that can "stand"
@YAJUN YUAN Are Catholic schools teaching the story of Genesis is a myth? I heard it myself in RCIA so I believe this could be true. That's one more reason why I don't trust this pope. How could he allow this?
Except there is no harm in a monogamous homosexual relationship, unlike the harm in using crystal meth.
Catholic school parents, please, please, PLEASE make your voices heard. Call your school boards, express what you feel about the ideologies that our children are being subjected to. Don't let it stay here in the comments. Call, email, write to your school boards and elected representatives.
Lmao just let kids be who they are.
@@Andyhoffman98 Identified by a false sense of love? Ok.
Is there a particular reason why sex is an important to loving relationships in the Catholic mindset (or just in general)? I'm not Catholic, so I need some understanding here. I've been in a relationship with my partner for 6 years now, and honestly haven't felt the need to have sex with them often. Love between partners can exist and flourish with or without sex in my personal opinion. And before any of you say so, our relationship is definitely more than a friendship, but we are friends and have a strong friendship and have grown together over the years. I would hopefully love to spend the rest of my life with my partner and possibly start a family with them one day. But as of right now, I am fine with simply speaking words of love, showing my love through actions, trying to do right by them, etc.
Another thing, I think there are some that are possibly taking the "love is love" slogan out of context, or simply thinking too long and hard about it or trying to misconstrue it for something it is not. It is a slogan, it is meant to be short and sweet, easily identifiable, and easy to catch on. There's no ulterior motive behind it, "love is love" is about how LGBTQ folks experience the capacity of love just the same as straight and cisgender folks do despite the whole of society's unwillingness to believe so and to look down and think that there is something inherently debase about these relationships. LGBTQ folks are also not living by an ideology, they are living as themselves. Let me ask you, are you as a straight person (assuming you the reader are straight) living by an ideology because of your straightness?
The saying contains meaning by implication. It's meant to convey the sense that love is not a choice as is the case with homosexuality in this context.
Good point
its not a sin to be gay
@@taylorrxd that’s not what this persons saying
@@taylorrxd It is if being gay includes acting on it without any remorse or repentance. In Christ, Andrew
@@Ezekiel336-16 it’s not “acting out” lmfao. it’s called love you should try it some time
Love is feeding the poor and poor mean all sort of attributes. If its the difficult to defined love then one does not know what love is.
You cannot define a word by merely repeating it
It is almost as if Love is being used as a weapon. I desperately hope I am wrong.
Unfortunately, you are right
As such, it is our duty to do otherwise
Love is used as a weapon.
Compassion too...
Trust in God, this is of most evill making but he'll do something good with it
I always say “love is sacrifice” “Love is willing the good of others.” Is even better… great job Catholic Church.
You get it, I don't know why so many Catholics, even ones higher up in the Church don't.
Unfortunately many higher ups in the Church are homosexual themselves.
@@joan8862 I think its helpful to remember that having same sex attraction is not a sin. But acting on it, and promoting it is. You can be attracted to the same sex or gender dysmorphic and be a good Catholic.
@@Tttb95 Right. You can't act on it and we must seek God's grace to live with our weaknesses and live chastely. We are all called to chastity.
@@Tttb95 "Catholic" is a do-ing role neither good nor bad. Family member be-ing identity can be good or bad in its conduct. The groomed same sex attraction is to purporting presuming inversion of do-ing role and be-ing identity. How do we help a person to submit to correction; that is, healing, of this groomed attempted inversion?
@@joan8862 If the family, if it "can and must" (CL, 40), requires of the homosexual person their respect for what they consider to be their rights; that would include not been born or drawn into gender dysmorphia, then simultaneously this person has exercised their right "to make the family aware of its identity ... and its role ..." (Pope St John Paul 11's exhortation CL, 1988, n.40)
Just curious do you believe birth control is sinful or that it's sinful for a couple to be child-free by choice?
I won't put words into his mouth but at least the Catholic teaching is no to both. Using birth control - I'm assuming you mean hormonal birth control - isn't considered to be sinful in all situations. Likewise, it isn't dictated that a pair of people mustn't intentionally be child-free.
In my opinion Love is forgiving your child. Love is not forgiving your child only if they accept your transactional offer for forgiveness.
Love is most certainly not punishing your child and then punishing every other child ever born because of what your child did
You are saying that homosexual relationship are just for the sake of sex?
What do they add to basic companionship that is non-sexual? The answer is... sexual pleasure. Which begs the question, what good is that? If it is life-giving, it's obvious. If it's pleasure for the sake of pleasure, then it's self-indulgent hedonism.
You accuse them of hedonism just cause they can't have babies? That is kinda dumb, imagine having sex just for the sake of procreation in an heterosexual relationship or being labeled as hedonist. And there is people who don't even care about sex, companionship is something you can get out of a friend, if those said friends kiss each other regardless of sexual organs It is still companionship.
The equating of "love" with sex in our modern society is a good display of how profoundly sick our society has become. In this day and age, it's become impossible for two people of the same sex to have a deep love for one another, willing to do anything, even laying down their life for the other, feeling intense joy when they do something great or push beyond their limitations, and grieving deeply when you lose them, without people saying, "Oh, those two are gay." How myopic our society's view of the concept of love is. It makes my head shudder uncontrollably.
My Catholic school was similar in this way, however it embraces homosexual relationships because the religious order connected to it also actively embraced it. How so we reconcile religious communities teaching and promoting homosexuality as Catholicism?
You can’t reconcile it, the school and the religious order are in severe error and causing scandal. Worst, they are leading innocent children into sinful ideologies. Better a millstone around the neck… We can only pray and advocate for their conversion to truth.
I believe in uncertainty that this reconciliation is not possible. What is possible is simultaneous by helper of the family persons in procreation gift roles making the family aware of its identity and role and by the family requiring from all respect for what helpers of the family consider to be their rights.
The attempt at this reconciliation follows vulnerable members of families not requiring this respect and vulnerable helpers of the family not making this awareness since in both cases as emotionally and or psychologically vulnerable groomed by "familyist" family members for their families' economic advantage of tax and insurance with occult as hidden, incest connected as substitute mate, non-economic status inducements of "higher vocation" (Pope St John Paul 11's Council for the Family 'teaching' document: "The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education Within the Family", PCF, 1995, 35). Family members in their reason thinking or having faith feeling that they have this "higher [non-economic] vocation" whether as helper of families' consecrated celibates in the roman catholic role group (e.g. as teachers in catholic schools) or as helper of families' citizens in society (e.g. a scout group) claim tax exemption as charities and low insurance cost since "higher vocations" that reduce the fees they charge families for their services.
Cease treating "Catholicism" as a be-ing identity when it is a do-ing role.
Ok, quite a bit said there. Firstly we shouldnt assume what sexual practices people engage in regardless of their orientation. It's their business anyway. Secondly, responsible consenting adults engaged in monogamous intimate relationships are out of sight and harming no-one, so again- nobody's business. The Catholic position should be neither to encourage or discourage but to instruct on genuine responsibility in our relationships with each other. Condemnation will only alienate good people. Be aware of personal boundaries.
You gave me a thought! Seems like the best response to the meaningless 'love is love' cliche would be to say 'sin is also sin'! In Christ, Andrew
I believe in my uncertainty that it may be that you "can and must" (Pope St John Paul 2, CL, 1988, 40) exercise the cardinal virtue of "Prudence" (CCC 1806) against purporting presuming "a thought" can be given.
I believe in my uncertainty that "a thought" as a procreation role gift within the family in Christ and a family member be-ing in need of union of family members of valid and proper male female marriages' identities is such that only meeting this need can be 'given' as in "gave".
In my male-female marriage vows in God, Oliver
It seems the "love is love" meme is simply to make any form of attraction and affection equally, and therefore completely, valid. "Love is good....this is love...therefore this is good." It is wildly simplistic reasoning. What of adulterous love? A person may indeed love that other person, and the connection can be more than just sexual, but does it lead to abandonment of another, and / or the betrayal of another persons wife or husband and children? Is that OK because "love is love"? What of polygamy? "Love is Love"? Incest? "love is love"?
To declare "all is good, because all is love" is not an argument at all. It is only a demand that one not examine the matter further, suspend all discernment, and conform.
The minute I heard “what is a coherent definition of love” the first thing that came to mind immediately was 1 Corinthians 13.
@Richard Fox "it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right."
The discussion here essentially about what is wrong and what is right and who gets to determine that.
We say God decides that so we follow what God has commanded and willed.
@Richard Fox you’re confusing specific commandments and records of societal activities. Plenty of things are documented in the Bible that are clearly wrong, that doesn’t mean they’re advocated.
@Richard Fox watch this video to hopefully clear confusion about the whole stoning disobedient children at the city gates thing in the bible ua-cam.com/video/b7XHqQ3J6eg/v-deo.html
@Richard Fox
There is a difference between Moral laws, Ceremonial, and Civil laws.
@Richard Fox Ugh, just another unbeliever twisting God’s word for their own narrative. I’m so tired of this
Lust is NOT love... in fact its actually about our self and not another. But lust always seems to be confused with love that actually gives up what we want for the benefit of others.
Your point is truly a very tiny, tiny point. if you are HONEST you find that the human race would have died out eons ago without at least some element of which in my estimation is all perfectly normal, natural, healthy and good! 99.99% of men I would posit like, enjoy and celebrate the sexual aspect of their lives at least in the sense of enjoying it and being grateful for it! I think you will find that for most men both love and lust are all mixed up together and are pretty indivisible. Of course pure unadulterated lust without love in a physical union is actually something quite disgusting and really quite obscene!
I love strawberry cheesecake but I don't go to bed with it.
Not anymore.
“Love is love”
AKA pedophilia is ok
That’s where all this goes.
How does pope allow gay flag to fly from pole at catholic school
school board trustees make the decision after enough arm twisting by education ministry. Pope could preach and remind us. But even catholics want to get re-invited to cocktail parties.
Valid points. Thank You! From Orthodox Christian +
I am shocked that a Catholic school would put up such a flag, let alone that there may a trend toward such which is widespread. I wondered where Brian found the photo, but according to other comments, it may not be entirely rare. Something wrong here...!
Oh oh.... here we go
Reclaim the rainbow 🌈 as a symbol of hope and peace!!!!!!!
Love is not love…there is real love…which is unconditional love
And there is the other kind of love ….conditional love….or fake love
Yes, "real presence" love in the keeping or allowing of the inseparability and qualitative equality; that is, covenant, non-presumed reciprocity, of valid and proper eucharist do-ing role and valid and proper marriage be-ing identities.
For example, what I believe in my uncertainty what Pope Francis was and did in mercy and justice on or just after 10 June 2021 in his simultaneous authorisations with an absolute power of authorisation of his Vatican State Secretariat of State's criminal indictments of Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine others on allegations of embezzlement in their procreation helper of the family ensuring roles within the family of tax exempt charity donations and protest note to the Italian Government against an unacceptable risk of fraud on insuring identities of family members of valid and proper male female marriages in need of union by the "Zan" anti-homophobia bill before the Italian State Parliament.
when they say "love is love" what they actually mean is "lust is lust" don't let them fool you
When I say "love is love" I mean "love is love", I don't mean anything else.
@@finnlewis2528 what??
Couldn't agree more, people often confuse love for lust, a very twisted world we're living in.
@@jamestempleton553 🤥🤥
@@AnarchoAngel I believe in uncertainty that I can and must add after "is" "and does" love in mercy and justice as Pope Francis on or just after 10 June 2021 is and does in the criminal case of Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine others for not keeping or allowing "does", that is role, and the protest note to the Italian Government against an unacceptable risk of not keeping or allowing "is", that is identity
13:21 you do realize that the infertile couple and the gay couple are both examples of the first farmer who did everything right but because something was missing through no fault of his own, his work did not bear fruit.
It's not the fault of the infertile couple that love each other that one or both are infertile, and they engage in coitus in full knowledge that their act will not produce offspring.
Similarly, it is not the fault of the gay couple that love each other that they are missing a vagina and ovaries, and they engage in coitus in full knowledge that their act will not produce offspring.
They are both examples of farmer #1.
The infertile couple is like a farmer using bad seed. The gay couple is like a farmer planting pebbles. They are not the same.
@@markpugner9716 yeah, I see what you're saying. With gay couples aka the farmer planting pebbles, it's a non-starter. You know beforehand no offspring will come from the relationship, whereas the infertile couple or the farmer planting bad seed doesn't know beforehand that nothing will come of it.
The thing is, functionally, bad seeds and pebbles are identical. What good is it to distinguish the two if at the end of the day, what you plant will not grow and bear fruit. The farmer planting bad seeds might as well be planting pebbles.
@@g07denslicer At least with the "bad seeds" (or in the actual case, issues with a woman's egg supply or a man's sperm production), there can still be a chance that it works. A farmer could say "oh these seeds aren't great but I have nothing else" and hope that there is still some crop. The farmer wouldn't say "I have no seeds so I'll plant pebbles".
What is love? Baby don't hurt me... don't hurt me...
So I want to know, what do you think about two men having sex AND being able to produce offspring because modern 'medicine' is taking us there. I know how you think about it, because you probably have the same feelings as I do, but can you talk about? Because I'd like to hear someone else talk about the immorality of this. I get so sick of no one actually talking about it. It's just like yup, Bob and Tom paid some lady to give them a baby, isn't that lovely?
I think the Catholic Church is pretty clear on it's views of reproductive technology. Though I do recommend the book Them Before Us, if you want a quality and moving example of the problem here. Might make you feel less crazy to hear you are not alone.
Trent Horn just talked about this yesterday.
Thanks for the replies!
Read Corrinthians. Love doesnt mean accept evil. ..love the person not the sin. Follow Jesus in this..He cast out demons and to the person showed compassion then saying sin no more.
It's correct. *Love* is love. S*d*my is not love. They're literally different words for a reason. Conflating self-sacrificial devotion and merely physical sensations is absurd
Okay, my refutation is squarely aimed at the idea that the only real definition of Love is to will the good of other people. If you didn't mean it quite as literally as all that, then please ignore.
I disagree that the definition of Love is simply willing the good of another. I can (and should) will the good of people I dislike, just as much as I will the good of those I like. But, for instance, I don't think anyone's girlfriend/wife would be delighted to hear their partner loves them in the same way, to the same degree, as their partner loves his least-favourite people! There must be a reason for that. But if we claim that there is only one kind of true love, that all other ideas of it are untrue, then there should be no issue there.
And if Love is just willing the good of others, surely we must will everyone the same degree of goodness and, therefore- going by that definition of love- we wouldn't be allowed any 'especial' loving relationships, (as I and many people like to believe we have in romantic relationships) since it would be a moral imperative to love ALL equally. That seems... a shame. Say what you will but I think there's something wonderful about the idea of 'soul mates'.
What of appreciative love? Eros and agape are not the same, although they can and do relate. I don't see how a beatific vision would ever be possible if appreciative love (which is exactly what Eros is, at its best) isn't really a true definition of love at all. How then would we ever celebrate or glorify? I DO agree that love isn't just an emotion. But surely appreciative love isn't just a feeling, either? I can see, quite rationally, how my favourite people have numerous good qualities- everything from physical beauty to kindness- and this can be beheld quite logically without it having to be witnessed via an emotional state.
Furthermore, surely 'good' means 'that which is most lovable'? So if love is JUST to will the good of others, when you do this for them, you're ultimately willing that they too shall will the good for others (if that is the definition of what goodness is in its entirety, this is the fate you've just willed for them). But if there's no appreciative love, if love is just charity and has no other attributes like enjoyment or approval, then what, in this endless merry-go-round of giving, is actually being gifted? It's pass-the-parcel, but nobody actually receives anything. So I'm not saying agape/charity is unimportant or not a central part of what love is... but I certainly wouldn't claim it IS the very definition of all of what Love is. An important part, yes but clearly not the full picture.
I think when people say 'love is love', they mean that 'to romantically appreciate the good in people is itself a good thing, and so why judge it?' You might disagree with that. But I don't believe that it's a slogan brought out by people wishing to duck an intellectual exchange of ideas! Not sure how many people, believers, catholic, atheist or otherwise, EVER really engage in that sort of debate these days. And yes, it's a simplistic slogan. But so are many things the laymen of the Church say in relation to their faith. 'God is Love' is often said by people who have never really explored in depth what that means.
Yes, as you can guess, I'm pro- LGBTQ rights. Heterosexual and theist though I am. But, even though you disagree with that stance, I hope my argument here makes sense to you and I commend you for articulating your perspective.
Sorry for going on a bit. I'm incapable of writing anything short.
There is no such thing as progress in religion. Change is only progress when it is in the right direction. If one already has the truth change is not progress. It is departure from-the truth. The Church began with the true version of religion. Christ Himself taught it. The Church has been teaching it ever since. Departure from its teaching constitutes departure from the truth. It constitutes a false version of religion. Christ Himself has told us what those things are that God expects of us. His version cannot be improved upon.
- Fr. Gordon Knight - Rational Theology
Great content.
You can reply ironically to 'Love is love': Lust is love
"Society isn't that far gone"? Yes, it is. "Love is love" has since the 60s applied to pedophiles and sexual predators.
"Is love a crime?" was a question asked by Gabriel Matzneff in 1976 in the newspaper Le Monde (the French equivalent to the NYT). Matzneff is an author who won literary prizes, and his books all deal with the same subject matter : his "loving" relationships with children.
This question appeared as an open letter in which he argued that "love" has no age limit. It was signed by famous intellectuals and politicians, like Sartre or De Beauvoir.
Speaking of De Beauvoir, before she became known as a famous "feminist" and "intellectual", she had been kicked out of the French school system because she had been identified as a groomer, was sleeping with students and then sent them off to Sartre. Schools in France are still named after both them.
Today, in North America, NAMBLA has become a joke, but people should look into the MAPs movement, a notable successor, not afraid to proclaim their "love" and attraction for the youngest.
To them "love is love".
Just watch for push to lower the age of consent.
Inevitable.
Thanks for the warning, Nerd Analog
@@hobbiton64 What priests have a reputation for is in the main caused by "familyist" family persons grooming them with a non-economic status inducement for these familyists' families economic tax and insurance advantages. No wonder so used these priests act out including by sexual abuse.
This was so well done, thanks for the truth.
What about a gay couple who raise children? In your analogy, tending the environment which has been abandoned by its original owner. That seems almost more noble and more Christian than tending your own garden
Furthermore...isn't there a particular type of companionship you share with your wife? Isn't it more tender and vulnerable than what you have with your friends? Couldn't a gay couple share that?
"What about a gay couple who raise children?"
Go look at the abuse rates involving gays, you might learn something.
Just like how a farm needs a farmer, a child needs a mother and father
Children need a mother and father.
And no, two men sodomizing eachother is not the same as the love of a man and wife.
@@MikeyJMJ so what would we expect from children raised by gay parents? From what I can tell, they don't suffer ill effects. Especially if the choice is a gay couple or foster care
@BVale It's said to single mothers too, but the ones saying it are xalled terrible names like conservative, alt-right, fundy because feminism says a woman doesn't need a man. Studies show children woth a mother and a father in the home do better all around. People today want to do what makes them feel good only, and ignore the consequences.
Rephrased “ love is the unselfish embracing of all that is good for another”.
Love is the bond that allows distinct persons to stay distinct from each other while share an essential unity in the relationship between those distinct persons, and that is only achieved by self sacrifice, willing the good of the other, that's how the Most Holy Trinity is essentially, that's why we say God is Love, because his very being is that perfect self sacrificial love between persons that will the good of the other person, and that allows a loving relationship that unites those distinct persons essentially.
"Love is Love" is a tautology. If love itself isn't defined with certain qualifications and parameters, then the phrase is absolutely meaningless.
That is as quality and quantity having their inseparability and qualitative equality kept or allowed in justice and mercy as Pope Francis is and did on 10 June 2021 or just after simultaneously in the criminal case of Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine others for not keeping or allowing "does" if as alleged embezzlement of helper of the family in their "doing" roles procreation gift charity donations within the family, that is role, and the protest note to the Italian Government against an unacceptable risk of not keeping or allowing "is", that is, identity need of union of family members of male female marriages by the "Zan" anti-homophobia bill before the Italian Parliament
Your analogy of the farm fields is helpful to me. I'll borrow it in future debates.
"Love is love" is a tautology, which is a logical fallacy.
English is deficient in distinguishing various kinds of love.
The Japanese word for the love between husband and wife is "ai," pronounced like English,"I." It means "working in harmony towards the common goal [the continuation and well-being of the family]."
As always, 3 Aves for you 🌹🌹🌹🙏🏻
Very interesting argument! If the same-sex response is "we can have children in the same accepted ways that infertile couples do (invitro fertilization, surrogacy)", how do you distinguish this from the unique good resulting from male-female marriages?
It has to do with your definition of love as working for the good of the other, and what this good would be uniquely defined as in a sexual context: children etc. Given the field metaphor, they would be working towards the same harvest the land is created for, but using extra fertilizer. Thoughts?
If by "the unique good resulting from male-female marriages", we mean the ability to conceive, both in-vitro fertilisation separate the act of procreation from the act of sexual union. Sure, a heterosexual man could masturbate, fertilise his wife's eggs in a test tube, and then have them placed inside her, or a pair of gay men can hire a woman to bear one the child of one of them, or two women could acquire semen from another man, but none of those are the same as doing "the real thing"
Love without truth is licentiousness, truth without love is cruelty. Love can be ordered or disordered. It is properly ordered through its object. The object of love must be proper, the reason for love must be proper, and love must be sacrificial. Homosexuality does not fit these parameters
Those who love lust, call lust love.
Love is sacrifice.
Love is God, and without him, we can only sin and destroy.
This is a masterclass in logic. Aristotle would be proud.
Great video Brian!
Asking in a spirit of fun-- doesn't the sentence "I am that I am" have similar problems? What makes this description of God not a tautology in the same way?
For the Legion of Mary (LOM) and the St Vincent de Paul Society in the keeping/allowing in uncertainty of belief of the inseparability and qualitative equality of ensuring and insuring, the recognised/usual part for the LOM is in the insuring of spiritual identity progress in being and for the V de P is in the ensuring of doing physical processes.
The Sancta Maria LOM Praesidium, Indooroopilly, Brisbane, Australia presided over by its President, Mary Mahony, until c.2000 kept/allowed inseparability and qualitative equality of ensuring the physical doing and insuring the spiritual being (This keeping/allowing is witnessed to by her written signed reference for me, dated 16 September 1993, addressed to the Prefect of the Pope’s Congregation for Catholic Education, Cardinal Pio Laghi).
This keeping/allowing by the Indooroopilly LOM was a reference point for me.
Please can you keep unity with me by your consideration/thinking of/about (cf. Mary at Lk 1:29, 34) and having faith (cf. Mary at Lk 1:38) in keeping/allowing their inseparability and qualitative equality in uncertainty of your belief (cf. Mary at Lk 1:45 and Matthew 1:24).
This brings me back to the talk of Fr. Mike Schmitz about love. Thank you for also taking on this largely overused or misused slogan to promote or justify the validity of LGBTQ relationships. 👍
Love Father Mike ❣️🙏🏼👍🏼✝️🤷🕊️🕊️
I am grateful for the church and her teachings. Grateful for the correction. even with him regular relationships you find if there is no true commitment to Will the good that it does not work. as a young person, and then a little bit later into adulthood, and during all of this craziness, I once fell into this belief. oddly enough though in 2013 I worried about the church and how these type of beliefs would affect specifically the Catholic Church. I am sad at what I see.
Love does love as well as is love. Keeping or allowing this inseparability and qualitative equality of doing and being as this love is an exercise of the cardinal virtue of prudence. "Prudence ... guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure" (CCC. 1806), including in guiding courage. A rule guiding exercise of courage is proportionality of ends to means and of good to be achieved to risk taken in this achieving. Measure in international economics became possible from the establishment of the League of Nations after WW1 when population being and food supplies doing in the developing countries were found to have "just about paripassu rate of growth".
Do you mean slogans like Weak Catholics become Protestants...and strong Protestants become Catholic....or No salvation ouside the Catholic Church....or ....Catholicism teaches as the NT church did
Love is for like: "You take someone part of yourself. And when you are willing to give something to someone. You will like to give, and don't ask anything back." now I will also thx to Brian take this to. "You want to do something good to another." Love this topic ❣️
You explained the church is teaching beautifully. I have long understood why homosexual sexual relationships are wrong. And perhaps fortunately, I have not had to argue my position with a non-Catholic. However, if I Ever had to argue my position with a non-Catholic, and I suspect that the best I could do is explain why Catholics believe as they believe. I doubt my argument could ever gain traction with non-Catholics. That is because the large majority of even protestants do not value the procreative role of marriage. While they do believe in reserving sexual relations for the institution of marriage, they do not always and sometimes never believe the purpose of marriage is to procreate. What I would really love to hear discussed is how we as Catholics are to express our love to the LGBTQ community. Currently I just treat my LGBTQ friends with his much love and friendship as anyone else. When I teach my children on how to interact, I just remind them that these are also children of God and we must act with love and kindness. But what are Catholics supposed to do in situations like a gay Wedding? I get that I am not making too much sense here.
So spot on!
Honestly, I wish people would catch on already.
Your thought processes are expressed in a clean liner way that is easy for the listener to understand. I appreciate your simple break down of love and its application towards a homosexual relationship. Nice video. You speak with conviction for the truth regardless of whether or not it is in line with mainstream ideology. God bless you for that.
Syllogisms, truisms, and tautologies. Oh the sophistication and sophistry of modernity
or of a twisted tradition of "higher vocation" from an opinion not given by God of St Paul reported at 1Cor7:25-34 that Pope Francis has taken in his identity a stand against from 19 March 2013, Feast of St Joseph, in plain language by keeping the inseparability and qualitative equality of his identity as a valid and proper member of a family of valid and proper marriage in Christ as a consecrated celibate roman catholic Jesuit Order religious priest and his role as a helper of the family.
Been reading Pope JP II's book "Love and Responsibility". Very much ties into what you spoke of. I recommend it to anyone for helping them with their relationships/marriage!
Pursues to call it lgbtq, Stops Video 🤦♂️
No, "love" is not love. Love is in the will (as any Catholic should have learned) and someone can choose to love what is good or choose to love what is evil. Not the same. Not even close.
I believe in my uncertainty that one cannot choose evil but on sexual matters one can be drawn by grooming with an occult as hidden, incest connected as substitute mate, non-economic status inducement into purporting presuming inversion of "we" do-ing and "I" be-ing as evil as for example is/are the "Legion" in Mark 5:9: "My [not our] name is Legion; for we [not I] are many".
For me in my believing in my uncertainty the will does not have Love "in" it.
Love as keeping or allowing in uncertainty of belief inseparability and qualitative equality; that is, covenant, non-presumed reciprocity, of do-ing and be-ing is exercise of "will".
An example is Pope Francis from his election starting the Feast of St Joseph 19 March 2012 in his homily for that Sunday Mass up to 10 June 2021 or just after simultaneously authorising with absolute power his Vatican State Secretariat of State's:
1. indictments of Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine others on alleged embezzlement in their helper of the family roles of charity donations within the family;
2. protest note to the Italian Government against an unacceptable risk of fraud on family member identities in need of union in male-female marriages.
3:24 In other words, it's a tautology that lacks explanation
6:30 and now, just one year later, society attacks Sound of Freedom
Simple saying for simple folk made simple by the encroachment of socialism over the past 50 years or more. Produces folk who think why worry someone in a suit will always tell me what I need to say, think and do.