Homosexual Marriage and Interracial Marriage

[JoyintheCross]

My mom is having a discussion with a gay friend on facebook who makes the claim that interracial marriage was ONCE condemned by the catholic church, called inherently evil, just as homosexual marriage is condemned as inherently evil.

I have looked and looked, but can find no evidence of church dogma either supporting or denying his claim. Is there any evidence out there to disregard his claim that the catholic church once opposed interracial marriage. I am suspecting that this friend of my mom’s got his information from a biased source.

So does anyone know where I might find unbiased evidence that the Church at no time supported interracial marriage? I also suspect that this friend of mom misunderstands the difference between dogma and opinion.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

My mom is having a discussion with a gay friend on facebook who makes the claim that interracial marriage was ONCE condemned by the catholic church, called inherently evil, just as homosexual marriage is condemned as inherently evil.

I have looked and looked, but can find no evidence of church dogma either supporting or denying his claim. Is there any evidence out there to disregard his claim that the catholic church once opposed interracial marriage. I am suspecting that this friend of my mom’s got his information from a biased source.

So does anyone know where I might find unbiased evidence that the Church at no time supported interracial marriage? I also suspect that this friend of mom misunderstands the difference between dogma and opinion.

Historically the Church has a problem with “Mixed Faith” marriages. (Mixed Marriage)

Some people confuse this with interracial marriage. The Church has never condemned interracial marriages.

 

[Digitonomy]

Some people confuse this with interracial marriage. The Church has never condemned interracial marriages.

It’s conceivable that they were discouraged in areas where Catholic churches were segregated, but the burden of evidence would be on the person making such a claim.

 

[on_the_hill]

It’s conceivable that they were discouraged in areas where Catholic churches were segregated, but the burden of evidence would be on the person making such a claim.

Where were Catholic churches segregated?

 

[Rhubarb]

Religious reasons were used to argue against mixed-race marriages. I don’t recall any official from the Catholic Church - in fact I think Catholic bishops supported Lovings in Lovings v. Virginia.

 

[PJH_74]

Religious reasons were used to argue against mixed-race marriages. I don’t recall any official from the Catholic Church - in fact I think Catholic bishops supported Lovings in Lovings v. Virginia.

I believe this to be correct. There were certainly churches and individuals that used the Bible to justify slavery and the separation of races. I don’t know that the Catholic church ever formally took such a position, but it’s entirely possible parts of the clergy held sympathetic beliefs.

Another thing to consider is that there is the “Church” as in the Catholic church and “church” as in general Christianity. Members of the “church” certainly held such beliefs and it’s easy to honestly lose the distinction.

 

[QuestLove]

My mom is having a discussion with a gay friend on facebook who makes the claim that interracial marriage was ONCE condemned by the catholic church, called inherently evil, just as homosexual marriage is condemned as inherently evil.

I have looked and looked, but can find no evidence of church dogma either supporting or denying his claim. Is there any evidence out there to disregard his claim that the catholic church once opposed interracial marriage. I am suspecting that this friend of my mom’s got his information from a biased source.

So does anyone know where I might find unbiased evidence that the Church at no time supported interracial marriage? I also suspect that this friend of mom misunderstands the difference between dogma and opinion.

I think your mother’s friend is wrong. The Catholic Church seems to have been on the right side of the issue on interracial marriage and has been consistent in its views.
quora.com/How-has-the-Catholic-churchs-views-on-interracial-marriages-changed-over-the-years

Your friend may be referring to other denominations. Unfortunately, there were some denominations that refused to ( and some still refuse to even to this day) perform interracial marriages or to allow mixed couples to partake in worship.

 

[Tomdstone]

I don’t see why there should be any problem with interracial marriages.

 

[Allegra]

I don’t think the Church has ever discouraged interracial marriage.

 

[Elizium23]

Here is what your friend may not understand about the distinction between interracial marriage and the redefinition of marriage.

The Catholic Church is not “against” same-sex “marriage”, she simply believes it to be impossible. A man and a woman, whatever their race, are capable of becoming “one flesh” as they complete the marital embrace, in a way that homosexuals are completely incapable thanks to their anatomical design. There is nothing inherent about race which might be a diriment impediment to marriage in the same way.

Do not buy into your friend’s lies that the civil-rights movement has anything in common with the homosexual “rights” movement. Dr. King in particular never would have condoned anything happening now, and there are many African-Americans who are offended by the abhorrent suggestion that they should take up this cause.

 

[Digitonomy]

Where were Catholic churches segregated?

I haven’t come across a very good source for the history of segregation in the Church in America, but I occasionally stumble upon tidbits like this one:

But there have been changes inside, too. Worshippers like Bomar once were restricted to seats in the balcony. Like many religious entities, the Roman Catholic Church has a spotty record of race relations. Blacks began attending the all-white St. Mary’s in 1886, but they were segregated in the choir loft.

Three years later, Catholic leaders decided to build blacks their own church in Norfolk, St. Joseph’s, near where Scope stands today. When it was razed in 1961, orders came to reunite the congregations, spurring white flight from St. Mary’s.

The very existence of an organization like the Knights of Peter Claver suggests that blacks probably had trouble finding acceptance in the Knights of Columbus. The K of C may be a quasi-independent organization, but my experience has always been that Knights are eager for leadership from clergy to help channel their considerable energy. It’s hard to imagine segregationist attitude prevailing without at least tacit approval from the clergy.

 

[Digitonomy]

Where were Catholic churches segregated?

I haven’t come across a very good source for the history of segregation in the Church in America, but I occasionally stumble upon tidbits like this one:

But there have been changes inside, too. Worshippers like Bomar once were restricted to seats in the balcony. Like many religious entities, the Roman Catholic Church has a spotty record of race relations. Blacks began attending the all-white St. Mary’s in 1886, but they were segregated in the choir loft.

Three years later, Catholic leaders decided to build blacks their own church in Norfolk, St. Joseph’s, near where Scope stands today. When it was razed in 1961, orders came to reunite the congregations, spurring white flight from St. Mary’s.

The very existence of an organization like the Knights of Peter Claver suggests that blacks probably had trouble finding acceptance in the Knights of Columbus. The K of C may be a quasi-independent organization, but my experience has always been that Knights are eager for leadership from clergy to help channel their considerable energy. It’s hard to imagine segregationist attitude prevailing without at least tacit approval from the clergy.

 

[powerofk]

I haven’t come across a very good source for the history of segregation in the Church in America, but I occasionally stumble upon tidbits like this one:The very existence of an organization like the Knights of Peter Claver suggests that blacks probably had trouble finding acceptance in the Knights of Columbus. The K of C may be a quasi-independent organization, but my experience has always been that Knights are eager for leadership from clergy to help channel their considerable energy. It’s hard to imagine segregationist attitude prevailing without at least tacit approval from the clergy.

Right. Unfortunately, what’s happened over the years is not so much segregation as a policy in the Church Herself, but people in the Church having a segregationist attitude. And it wasn’t restricted to White/Black/Latino/Asian either. Italians weren’t often welcome in Irish parishes. Irish weren’t welcome in Polish parishes. Polish weren’t welcome in German parishes. And so on. The Church in the US was fractured along ethnic lines just as much as racial lines. But here’s the difference - it was against Church teaching. There were KofC councils in the early to mid 1900s which were segregated. This doesn’t mean it was a policy of the KofC - it was a policy of the individual councils.

 

[mek42]

Could the friend have been referring to Deuteronomy 7:1-3?

 

[JoyintheCross]

Thanks for the replies. Just as I suspected, his statement is likely a misconception.

 

[shockerfan]

One other point that some might consider small, but I find very important. I would never use the word “homosexual” right in front of the word “marriage”. I teach classes at my parish, and I use the phrase “same sex unions”, or “homosexual unions”. As Elizium23 put it, same sex marriage is impossible, which is why they used quotations in the phrase: same sex “marriage”.

My personal preference will be to only use the word “marriage” when referring to one man and one woman (which also assumes the man and woman were not transexuals)

 

[Digitonomy]

Right. Unfortunately, what’s happened over the years is not so much segregation as a policy in the Church Herself, but people in the Church having a segregationist attitude. And it wasn’t restricted to White/Black/Latino/Asian either. Italians weren’t often welcome in Irish parishes. Irish weren’t welcome in Polish parishes. Polish weren’t welcome in German parishes. And so on. The Church in the US was fractured along ethnic lines just as much as racial lines.

So if you have segregationist parishioners, and presumably drawn from them, some segregationist priests, it is certainly conceivable as I said that interracial marriages were discouraged in some of those areas.

powerofk:

But here’s the difference - it was against Church teaching.

Was there an actual teaching against it, or was it just a practice that more enlightened minds found distasteful?

 

[Captain_America]

The church hasn’t been opposed to interracial marriage.

By the way, the whole “interracial marriage” “problem” is an American invention. The church is older than American bugaboos.

I would take any religious pronouncements made by gays with an ounce of salt.

And the woman should tell the gay fellow that there’s no such thing as “homosexual marriage,” marriage is about intergenerational development, notably children.

 

[Elizium23]

So if you have segregationist parishioners, and presumably drawn from them, some segregationist priests, it is certainly conceivable as I said that interracial marriages were discouraged in some of those areas.Was there an actual teaching against it, or was it just a practice that more enlightened minds found distasteful?

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[Digitonomy]

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

If it were as simple as that, no one would ever have forbidden interracial marriage. In fact it’s ironic that you should bring it back to the original thread topic, as that same verse is used by proponents of same sex marriage.