is interracial dating a sin..?

[chosen_people]

This will of course come as a shock, but the terms Jew and the term gentile do not refer to race - in as much as this discussion is focusing on Jews - you may want to check out canon 16 of the council of Elvira 309 c.e.

 

[cathguy]

This will of course come as a shock, but the terms Jew and the term gentile do not refer to race - in as much as this discussion is focusing on Jews - you may want to check out canon 16 of the council of Elvira 309 c.e.

Hello Chosen People! Thanks for this post:thumbsup:

No, it does NOT come as a shock. In this instance, speaking of Judaism, its not race… its religion… and thats the point.

This is a good challenge! Allow me to address it the best I can in the most charitable way possible. Please feel free to critique me.

I understand if you find it offensive that the Church has always taught that racial intermarriage is okay, but interfaith marriage was frowned on, and had penalties attached. I am sorry for this offense. Please bear with me as I explain.

First, lets state the canon:
Heretics shall not be joined in marriage with Catholic girls unless they accept the Catholic faith. Catholic girls may not marry Jews or heretics, because they cannot find a unity when the faithful and the unfaithful are joined. Parents who allow this to happen shall not commune for five years.

Tough stuff… but lets make sure we read this correctly.

What is a heretic? A heresy is “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”

So, we are speaking here of Christians who have corrupted the teachings of Christ. They are still Christians, but are not professing proper doctrine.

In the year 309 the Church said that to marry a Catholic girl, a man who professed a Christian heresy needed to accept the Catholic faith.

Why would the Church say such a thing?

Simple: children and salvation. The issue here is that the Church (in 309… the understanding has become developed… this is a VERY early council!) could not see a way in which salvation outside of faith in Christ (and baptism and the sacraments) was possible.

Married woman (in 309) would adopt the faith of the husband. He is head of the house.

Therefore, if a Catholic woman married a heretic, she was in danger of losing not just her salvation, but the salvation of her children.

This canon is there to try and save souls and protect Catholic faithful.

Here is the part you would find offensive:
“Catholic girls may not marry Jews or heretics, because they cannot find a unity when the faithful and the unfaithful are joined. Parents who allow this to happen shall not commune for five years.”

I say this before I say anything else. This canon is disciplinary and NOT doctrinal. It gives a penalty. Also, it does not forbid the girl from marrying or following her conscience. (this would be contrary to Church teaching) The parents are held accountable!

Now… lets take a look at this more closely.

Jews are not heretics. Jews are non-Christians. It took 2000 years of reflection on the New Testament data for the Church to come to way to understand the scriptural data in a way that indicated salvation for Jews could be hoped for. “Christ is the way and the truth and the life, and no one comes to the father except through Him.”

This understanding is not a change in doctrine per se. It isn’t a radical shift. It is a development.

Now, in 309 this development hadn’t happened yet. Not even close!

So, since Jews did not accept Christ, it would be very difficult for a pastoral Church to say “go ahead… marry a Jewish guy!” Again, the soul of the woman, and the children, would be at risk.

The penalty for such a thing?

The parents could not commune for five years.

What were the penalties not?

They were NOT burning at the stake.

They were NOT death.

There were NOT a denial of the converted right to life or liberty

And, this Canon is in no way the most prohibitive regarding marriage…

Parents whose kids married Pagans were not allowed to commune until their death.

Now, the understanding of all this has developed over time.

Read Augustine on the Jews.

Also I would recommend “Salvation is from the Jews” by Roy Shoeman.

Now… can I point something out gently?

One of my buddies at work is Jewish. He asked my wife if she had any Jewish friends. Marrying a Christian? No way! Why? The kids! The faith! Identity!

I see nothing wrong with his stand, and do not find it offensive that he wouldn’t AT ALL want his daughter (God willing he has one) marrying my son.

This isn’t mean. Its theological.

I want to see my grand-children in heaven someday (God willing I get there). Same for him. And he wants his grandkids to be Jews.

I posit there is nothing wrong with any of this at all. Does this mean we can’t be friends, neighbors, co-workers, buddies, simply because of deep religious differences?

I think in the USA we have a deeper understanding of religious toleration and practice than that. Perhaps that is what makes this country unique in the world.

Inter-racial dating is no problem. Inter-religious dating carries different implications. Salvation and children being the first and most serious concerns.

Peace!

I hope nothing I said here was offensive, and I apologize if so. I worked hard to not make it so.

 

[Hesychios]

Do you mean the Creole people?

No.

 

[chosen_people]

Hello Chosen People! Thanks for this post:thumbsup:

No, it does NOT come as a shock. In this instance, speaking of Judaism, its not race… its religion… and thats the point.

This is a good challenge! Allow me to address it the best I can in the most charitable way possible. Please feel free to critique me.

I understand if you find it offensive that the Church has always taught that racial intermarriage is okay, but interfaith marriage was frowned on, and had penalties attached. I am sorry for this offense. Please bear with me as I explain.

First, lets state the canon:
Heretics shall not be joined in marriage with Catholic girls unless they accept the Catholic faith. Catholic girls may not marry Jews or heretics, because they cannot find a unity when the faithful and the unfaithful are joined. Parents who allow this to happen shall not commune for five years.

Tough stuff… but lets make sure we read this correctly.

What is a heretic? A heresy is “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”

So, we are speaking here of Christians who have corrupted the teachings of Christ. They are still Christians, but are not professing proper doctrine.

In the year 309 the Church said that to marry a Catholic girl, a man who professed a Christian heresy needed to accept the Catholic faith.

Why would the Church say such a thing?

Simple: children and salvation. The issue here is that the Church (in 309… the understanding has become developed… this is a VERY early council!) could not see a way in which salvation outside of faith in Christ (and baptism and the sacraments) was possible.

Married woman (in 309) would adopt the faith of the husband. He is head of the house.

Therefore, if a Catholic woman married a heretic, she was in danger of losing not just her salvation, but the salvation of her children.

This canon is there to try and save souls and protect Catholic faithful.

Here is the part you would find offensive:
“Catholic girls may not marry Jews or heretics, because they cannot find a unity when the faithful and the unfaithful are joined. Parents who allow this to happen shall not commune for five years.”

I say this before I say anything else. This canon is disciplinary and NOT doctrinal. It gives a penalty. Also, it does not forbid the girl from marrying or following her conscience. (this would be contrary to Church teaching) The parents are held accountable!

Now… lets take a look at this more closely.

Jews are not heretics. Jews are non-Christians. It took 2000 years of reflection on the New Testament data for the Church to come to way to understand the scriptural data in a way that indicated salvation for Jews could be hoped for. “Christ is the way and the truth and the life, and no one comes to the father except through Him.”

This understanding is not a change in doctrine per se. It isn’t a radical shift. It is a development.

Now, in 309 this development hadn’t happened yet. Not even close!

So, since Jews did not accept Christ, it would be very difficult for a pastoral Church to say “go ahead… marry a Jewish guy!” Again, the soul of the woman, and the children, would be at risk.

.

I posit there is nothing wrong with any of this at all. Does this mean we can’t be friends, neighbors, co-workers, buddies, simply because of deep religious differences?

I think in the USA we have a deeper understanding of religious toleration and practice than that. Perhaps that is what makes this country unique in the world.

Inter-racial dating is no problem. Inter-religious dating carries different implications. Salvation and children being the first and most serious concerns.

Peace!

I hope nothing I said here was offensive, and I apologize if so. I worked hard to not make it so.

Jews are not just a religion but a people, a nation.

There is no prohibition in Judaism on inter-racial marriage between Jews.

Judaism is just as strident as Catholicism against inter-marriage but not because the offspring will not be going to heaven (Judaism believes that it is easier for the gentile than for the Jew to get into the world to come - and any child born of a Jewish mother is Jewish) rather it is to preserve our eternal covenant with God - the concepts of God and Torah and Messiah, concepts not yet fully realized and understood, from the Jewish perspective, by other religions aspiring toward ethical monotheism.

It is my understanding that Jews today living in Christian countries freely intermingle with non Jews both at work and socially.

I believe that the 21 century will present a new unique problem for Jews and Judaism, not because of Jewish assimilation into non Jewish society, but because of growing sections of non Jewish society wishing to assimilate into Judaism.

 

[dixieagle]

Not finished yet. 30% of the way through.

The book is VERY well written.

I was in tears as she explained the beauty and ritual of the traditional latin Mass. Really moving.

Her knowledge of history and of the case is encyclopedic. This woman is a heck of a researcher. If she’s not a Catholic, she may be the most careful researcher and communicator I have read regarding the faith.

Outside the intro., no hint of any agenda. I have the Kindle so I only paid 9 bucks, and the first 30% alone was worth the price of admission.

I REALLY thank you for recommending this title to me. I love to read.

When I get to end, if she ends up making a case for same sex marriage, I will be annoyed yes… I will even write her a respectful letter taking her to task for trying to use Fr. Coyle’s legacy for a cause he would not have endorsed.

However, I am beginning to think she won’t do this. Fr. Coyle is presented as exactly what he was: a tireless and fearless defender of the faith who at times, it seems, needed be reigned in (gently) by his Bishop who felt discretion was the better part of valor when dealing with the Klan and their ilk. Fr. Coyle was a lion. He wrote beautifully, called the hate-mongers on the carpet, and was a very effective champion of the faith.

Given the fact that she has already presented Coyle as he was, I think her historical skills are very solid.

Still, she is an attorney. She may have an axe to grind. I don’t know.

The book is DEFINITELY worth it. Just what I have read so far is most impressive.

I’m so glad you have found the book worthwhile. The first I heard of it was when I read the article in our Catholic newspaper last week; not having grown up here, I had never before heard of Fr. Coyle. I may well have to get the book myself now!