Is 2000 years considered short term, historically? In a Providential time frame it probably is but a second. Today's secular humanistic ideologies have not presented any challenges to Christianity and the Church that it hasn't withstood through the centuries. While the attitudes and arguments are modern to us, a review of history shows they are only recycled. I agree, Johnny, that modernity, however it's defined, resides inside the Church itself. That's because the "Catholic DNA" you coined is "human" DNA. And yet the Institution founded by Christ has outlasted every other human institution, or political ideology over time, despite our best efforts to subvert it. After thinking about it at length, I reluctantly was forced to give serious consideration to the passage..."and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Citing examples of an ongoing trends doesn't suggest "sneering". I might refer you to Robert George, Peter Kreeft, Donald Knuth all highly esteemed university professors from various disciplines who would likely recognize the same trends as what Father Barron is pointing out. The also serve as examples of some apologists who make the mistake of blanketing all academicians under the same umbrella.

Josh, I think your interpretation of Scripture should be revisited. There isn't anything in Christianity that says life should be joyless or bleak. Eastern philosophy and religions suggest a detachment from the world, as the natural order as seen as evil. Christianity embraces the world as good. Desire is good..it professes the dignity of humanity, the quest to be free. You seem to be confusing metaphor and the point of the message. "Pluck out your eye if it causes you to sin" isn't ment to be taken in a literal sense and Jesus's audience would have understood that. It means, if you are shackled by bad habits or addictions, remove the root cause. It ties into the greater lesson which you have seemed to ignore. " I you give life that you may have it more abundantly. "

Sorry, thank you for letting me know:-)

For your info Rick Andre B has been banned and is unable to post here. If you want to discuss this with him you will find him posting here

http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com

The left-wing academic culture just happens to not only educate our young, but be intimately linked with our media, entertainment industry, government, and corporations. They are not sitting sequestered away in some ivory tower, but are social engineers at their finest (or most poisonous, depending on your point of view).

If it did not take a major leap to get from Philemon to the idea that holding slaves was wrong, it is nevertheless noteworthy that early Christianity did not make such a leap. We are not aware that Paul made such a leap. Indeed, we are not aware that Jesus himself made such a leap, for we have nothing in the Gospels indicating explicitly that Jesus taught that slavery was inherently wrong -- perhaps he might have objected to it on the grounds that only the wealthy were likely to own slaves, and, insofar as we can tell, he does not seem to have cared much for wealthy people.

The idea that slavery was inherently wrong failed to take sufficiently strong root within Christianity to prevent the practice for living on for the better part of 2,000 years. What did take root, to some extent, was the idea that slaves should not be ill-treated -- although what constituted ill-treatment was a matter for debate. Surely a just God would not object to whipping a slave for running away, would he?

But Paul's argument is rooted in the dignity of the human person. But Jesus taught that we all have that dignity. So it does not take a major leap to get from Philemon to the idea that taking anyone as a slave is wrong. Still culture is strong. I think St Patrick of Ireland was the first to suggest slavery was immoral for anyone. Of course, he was a slave for a time.