is interracial dating a sin..?

[Malleus_01]

If you can find a human being not created in the image and likeness of Almighty GOD then perhaps race would enter a catholic discussion. If anyone ever makes a statement about race to you - ask them to read Scripture

Genesis 1:27. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

Does that say anything about “Races”

Scripture goes on to say

1:28. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

It doesnt say for one race to rule over another race does it?

Ask them what these passages mean to them or what the Church Teaches about them. Make them justify their doctrine. Make them point out in theology the justification for their racism. They made the statement that it is a Sin. Make them prove it. The burden of Proof is on them , not you. They made the statement - tell them to substantiate it. And if they come up with something - let us know.

 

[ntisawesome]

Truly awful. Only the protestant sects teach that inter-racial marriage is a sin. Consider, Bob Jones University had a policy against interracial dating up until a few years ago!

This is a very harsh thing to say (and misleading). I’m sure you didn’t intend it to come across this way, but I can speak for most protestants and say they would be severely offended by this statement.

Surely you must mean: Only some of the protestant sects teach that inter-racial marriage is a sin…

 

[Malleus_01]

Mal:

BTW - I am of Irish Heritiage whose ancesters immigrated in the 1800’s and My Wife is a Naturalized Citizen who was born in Mexico. Our Children arre Bi Racial. But as you know - both Mexico and ireland have strong Catholic identities. And the Irish were presecuted when they first came to this country and the Mexicans are still being persecuted today.

The Sin lies in Intolerance.

Pax

 

[Apryl]

in the old testament, i believe they were prohibited from interracial marriages because back then if you are not a Jew, then you were a Gentile. and marrying a Gentile usually pulls them into the Gentile lifestyle and therefore abandoning God

but today, we don’t have this problem. many different cultures and races know and believe in God and the Church that Jesus has established is open to all

so no, its not a sin

Several people have mentioned the prohibition of non-Jews marrying Jews… can any one cite this prohibition?

Thanx

 

[Apryl]

Truly awful. Only the protestant sects teach that inter-racial marriage is a sin. Consider, Bob Jones University had a policy against interracial dating up until a few years ago!

This is a very harsh thing to say (and misleading). I’m sure you didn’t intend it to come across this way, but I can speak for most protestants and say they would be severely offended by this statement.

Surely you must mean: Only some of the protestant sects teach that inter-racial marriage is a sin…

What’s wrong with the statement? Rather than being defensivie, could you explain what is wrong with the comment as it was given originally?

 

[cathguy]

Truly awful. Only the protestant sects teach that inter-racial marriage is a sin. Consider, Bob Jones University had a policy against interracial dating up until a few years ago!

This is a very harsh thing to say (and misleading). I’m sure you didn’t intend it to come across this way, but I can speak for most protestants and say they would be severely offended by this statement.

Surely you must mean: Only some of the protestant sects teach that inter-racial marriage is a sin…

Well, I do apologize for any offense given. Really I do.

I am a traditional Catholic, and am not very ecumenical. I used to try to be, but it isn’t in my nature.

Here is where I was coming from:

I would read a new book that has come into print: “Rising Road.” It will show you exactly what protestant America was like for Catholic immigrants.

I would also read Luther on race and the Jews in specific, and Calvin, and Zwingli. Read these men on the topic of race. Read their followers on the topic of race and intermarriage and slavery.

The doctrine that inter-racial dating is a sin is a protestant doctrine. You can’t run from that. It is a fact. So too is the teaching that slavery is acceptable. It too was a protestant teaching.

Not a Catholic one.

See: christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html

Look, I am sorry if you took this as offensive. I really am.

Here is where I am coming from:

I struggle with Vatican II, but am a loyal Catholic and loyal to the Holy Father. I believe that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. I believe that protestantism has born disgusting fruits, including secularism, and that the battle to save Western Civilization began to be lost when the “reformers” managed to do their work.

The West is dying, because the West has abandoned true religion.

I know… I know…

I am sorry.

But I believe this to be true with all my heart.

I wish you nothing but peace.

Sorry I gave offense, and I ask for your prayers, and I will pray for you as well.

 

[Keystone28]

The Cajuns, for example,

Do you mean the Creole people?

 

[Wampa]

The only caveat I would add at this point (I am only about a chapter in) is that I think the author may have an agenda. She is a lawyer, and the subject of the book is marriage, and the underlying theme may be an argument for gay marriage. I am not ABSOLUTELY sure of this yet, but her intro. gave me pause.

Please report back after you have finished! I am close to buying this book, as I have long been interested in the story of Father Coyle, but I may pass if your suspicion ends up being true.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As other posters have said, it is certainly not a sin. My wife is Filipina, I am Caucasian of English, German, and Irish descent. Our three little ones are a buffet of a racial background. There is nothing wrong with dating someone of a different race. Different religion is another matter–a complex and potentially messy matter. My wife, again Filipina, was a Catholic like me so it was no problem.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Several people have mentioned the prohibition of non-Jews marrying Jews… can any one cite this prohibition?

Thanx

One place it’s mentioned is Joshua ch. 23

Take good heed to yourselves, therefore, to love the Lord you God. For if you turn back, and join the remnant of these nations left here among you, and make marriages with them, so that you marry their women and they yours, know assuredly that the Lord your God will not continue to drive out these nations before you, but they shall be a snare and a trap for you, a scourge on your sides, and thorns in your eyes, till you perish from off this good land which the Lord your God has given you. Joshua 23:11-13

Of course, the Israelites, being a stiff-necked people, did not obey. Solomon himself was most guilty of this, which caused the kingdom to split after his death.

Now King Solomon loved many foreign women: the daughter of Pharaoh, and Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the people of Israel, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods”; Solomon clung to these in love. He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not wholly true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father. 1 Kings 11 1-4

As has been pointed out, this admonition against intermarriage was for religious reasons - the foreign wives would get the Israelite husbands to worship idols and false gods, thereby turning away from God.

Like the dietary laws and other laws meant to set the Chosen People apart from other people, this admonition was abolished with the coming of the Messiah. Salvation is now for everyone, so there is no religious reason not to marry someone based on race. As St. Paul puts it, “God shows no partiality” Romans 2:11

(There are still the issues of age and obedience owed to parents in your case.)

 

[uther]

Sort of like me saying, 'In the May 14, 1989 issue of Time Magazine, it said that every one is going to go broke if they don’t each send me a check for $20 and it clears. ’

Time Magazine is reputable. Stating a date gives me saying it some credance. But it NEVER said that people needed to send any one a check, most of all not me!

But if I say it, and use the same reference (Time Magazine, May 14, 1989) repeatedly, and most of all, get some people who WANT to send me $20, those others will repeat it, without ever seeing this actual article.

I think you mis-read that article. The $20 cheques were supposed to be sent to me.

 

[Apryl]

I think you mis-read that article. The $20 cheques were supposed to be sent to me.

Eh.,, Right:thumbsup:

 

[cathguy]

Please report back after you have finished! I am close to buying this book, as I have long been interested in the story of Father Coyle, but I may pass if your suspicion ends up being true.

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.

 

[Bluegoat]

Well, I do apologize for any offense given. Really I do.

I am a traditional Catholic, and am not very ecumenical. I used to try to be, but it isn’t in my nature.

Here is where I was coming from:

I would read a new book that has come into print: “Rising Road.” It will show you exactly what protestant America was like for Catholic immigrants.

I would also read Luther on race and the Jews in specific, and Calvin, and Zwingli. Read these men on the topic of race. Read their followers on the topic of race and intermarriage and slavery.

The doctrine that inter-racial dating is a sin is a protestant doctrine. You can’t run from that. It is a fact. So too is the teaching that slavery is acceptable. It too was a protestant teaching.

Not a Catholic one.

See: christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html

Look, I am sorry if you took this as offensive. I really am.

Here is where I am coming from:

I struggle with Vatican II, but am a loyal Catholic and loyal to the Holy Father. I believe that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. I believe that protestantism has born disgusting fruits, including secularism, and that the battle to save Western Civilization began to be lost when the “reformers” managed to do their work.

The West is dying, because the West has abandoned true religion.

I know… I know…

I am sorry.

But I believe this to be true with all my heart.

I wish you nothing but peace.

Sorry I gave offense, and I ask for your prayers, and I will pray for you as well.

But there was also considerable prejudice by Catholics towards others during the times you mentioned. We could come up with lots of examples, but that does not mean that it was really part of Catholicism - even if in some cases it was taught by leaders in the CC as doctrine.

You are quite wrong though if you think that Catholics were not implicated in these larger societal attitudes. Recently a friend of mine adopted a child of another race - her traditional Catholic parents were horrified, and the OPs parents also seem to hold such views, even today.

Or consider the Residential Schools, some of which were run by Catholics, or some of the attitudes and actions of the Catholic Church toward Native Americans. Even within Catholicism there has been systematized bigotry.

And Protestants, like Catholics, were among those who fought in the civil rights movement, were part of the underground railroad, and fought against slavery in NA and in Europe.

There are a few groups who do teach these kind of bigotry even now, but they are fairly marginal.

If you find yourself unable to or uninterested in reading and learning about Protestant groups, it might be best to simply refrain from commenting on their beliefs. But perhaps some reading about Catholic history might be useful.

 

[choy]

Several people have mentioned the prohibition of non-Jews marrying Jews… can any one cite this prohibition?

Thanx

here’s the passage. i’ve included the other verses which makes it clear why God prohibits them from marrying of other races which is in verse 4

Deuteronomy 7:1-5

1 “When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, 2 and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them. 3 Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son. 4 For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the LORD will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly. 5 But thus you shall deal with them: you shall destroy their altars, and break down their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images, and burn their carved images with fire.

 

[cathguy]

But there was also considerable prejudice by Catholics towards others during the times you mentioned. We could come up with lots of examples, but that does not mean that it was really part of Catholicism - even if in some cases it was taught by leaders in the CC as doctrine.

I am sorry, but prejudice was never taught by leaders in the Catholic Church as doctrine.

This is just error on your part. Not even the anethma’s of Trent qualify.

You are quite wrong though if you think that Catholics were not implicated in these larger societal attitudes. Recently a friend of mine adopted a child of another race - her traditional Catholic parents were horrified, and the OPs parents also seem to hold such views, even today.

Those views are not Catholic views. In fact, they contradict Church teaching. The appearance of heretics has happened from the beginning.

You are correct, Catholics WERE implicated in these views.

Did you read the article I linked? The Pope condemned the slave trade and mistreatment of the Indians in the New World, and Catholic Spain essentially ignored him entirely. Plus ca change! The issue isn’t what Catholics did… its what the Church taught. Protestant leaders (the reformers) justified slavery and racism and a host of other things. The Magesterium of the Church did not. Here is the key difference to my mind… that of doctrine.

Or consider the Residential Schools, some of which were run by Catholics, or some of the attitudes and actions of the Catholic Church toward Native Americans. Even within Catholicism there has been systematized bigotry.

I would put the Church’s history educating people of color (in the US and throughout history) against any institution of the world of any stripe. I can tell you didn’t read the article (part of the larger book) I linked because many of these issues were dealt with there.

I recommend the book “Rising Road” for the history of Catholics in America. I am sorry, but you cannot defend the Protestant track record for how Catholics were treated in this country when they arrived here. It is not defensible.

And Protestants, like Catholics, were among those who fought in the civil rights movement, were part of the underground railroad, and fought against slavery in NA and in Europe.

Fair enough, but without the unified message of the true Church of Christ, teaching doctrine through the Magesterium, they fought each other in these arguments. No central authority results in a cacophony, each side claiming God as his own.

And the theological defenses of slavery were ALL protestant.

There are a few groups who do teach these kind of bigotry even now, but they are fairly marginal.

If you find yourself unable to or uninterested in reading and learning about Protestant groups, it might be best to simply refrain from commenting on their beliefs. But perhaps some reading about Catholic history might be useful.

This is funny. I have a Masters Degree in history and have studied religion at the graduate level.

Let me make a case here:

Protestantism has not born good fruits in the West. Quite the opposite.

In the 1500s the reformers caused massive social upheaval in Europe. In England, the property of the Church was confiscated, and education for the poor and needy suffered immensely. The history of scientific progress was actually stunted as the monasteries were closed.

On the mainland, the reformation led to Calvinist states that burned people at the stake with reckless abandon. Violent upheaval against constituted authority was the norm, and the modern nation state was born. This modern nation state (informed by secularism… another of the reformation’s fruits) led pretty much directly to the bloodiest century in human history (the 20th).

Here are some good books I recommend to you.

The History of Christendom by Warren Carroll (Ph.D. History Columbia - Founder of Christendom College)

How the Church built Western Civilization by Thomas Woods (Ph.D. History Columbia. Undergrad History at Harvard).

How the Reformation Happened: Hillaire Belloc

Triumph (more popular, less scholarly and meaty… but quite good) by H.W. Crocker.

Thats for starters.

Can’t very well refrain from posting on something I know a great deal about.

Look, I want to see you in heaven someday (God willing I get there). And if you are protestant you are at a material disadvantage for your salvation.

Peace!

 

[redrosetea]

correct me if this is in the wrong area but i just wana know is interracial dating a sin…? im a 15 year old boy i just wanna know is it a sin.? my family says it is but it doesnt say anywhere in the bible it is please tell me if is or isnt thanks

No it isn’t a sin…We are to love one another regardless of race, or color, or even creed

 

[Bluegoat]

I am sorry, but prejudice was never taught by leaders in the Catholic Church as doctrine.

This is just error on your part. Not even the anethma’s of Trent qualify.

Those views are not Catholic views. In fact, they contradict Church teaching. The appearance of heretics has happened from the beginning.

You are correct, Catholics WERE implicated in these views.

Did you read the article I linked? The Pope condemned the slave trade and mistreatment of the Indians in the New World, and Catholic Spain essentially ignored him entirely. Plus ca change! The issue isn’t what Catholics did… its what the Church taught. Protestant leaders (the reformers) justified slavery and racism and a host of other things. The Magesterium of the Church did not. Here is the key difference to my mind… that of doctrine.

I would put the Church’s history educating people of color (in the US and throughout history) against any institution of the world of any stripe. I can tell you didn’t read the article (part of the larger book) I linked because many of these issues were dealt with there.

I recommend the book “Rising Road” for the history of Catholics in America. I am sorry, but you cannot defend the Protestant track record for how Catholics were treated in this country when they arrived here. It is not defensible.

Fair enough, but without the unified message of the true Church of Christ, teaching doctrine through the Magesterium, they fought each other in these arguments. No central authority results in a cacophony, each side claiming God as his own.

And the theological defenses of slavery were ALL protestant.

This is funny. I have a Masters Degree in history and have studied religion at the graduate level.

Let me make a case here:

Protestantism has not born good fruits in the West. Quite the opposite.

In the 1500s the reformers caused massive social upheaval in Europe. In England, the property of the Church was confiscated, and education for the poor and needy suffered immensely. The history of scientific progress was actually stunted as the monasteries were closed.

On the mainland, the reformation led to Calvinist states that burned people at the stake with reckless abandon. Violent upheaval against constituted authority was the norm, and the modern nation state was born. This modern nation state (informed by secularism… another of the reformation’s fruits) led pretty much directly to the bloodiest century in human history (the 20th).

Here are some good books I recommend to you.

The History of Christendom by Warren Carroll (Ph.D. History Columbia - Founder of Christendom College)

How the Church built Western Civilization by Thomas Woods (Ph.D. History Columbia. Undergrad History at Harvard).

How the Reformation Happened: Hillaire Belloc

Triumph (more popular, less scholarly and meaty… but quite good) by H.W. Crocker.

Thats for starters.

Can’t very well refrain from posting on something I know a great deal about.

Look, I want to see you in heaven someday (God willing I get there). And if you are protestant you are at a material disadvantage for your salvation.

Peace!

I think I was clear that the Catholic church hasn’t ever taught, officially, that bigotry was ok.

Perhaps the misunderstanding is because I used the word “leaders”. I wasn’t thinking of the highest levels, but even down to the lowest levels of authority. If the local parish priest or even a Bishop taught, or lived, according to such views, than people believed that to be the teaching of the Church, because those were their conduits for learning what the Church taught. Is the CC itself responsible for that? Yes and no, I think. Not in the sense that those views really belonged to the organization. But yes in the sense that a commander is responsible for the actions of his troops. Even a lowly parish priest or a friar is a representative of the Church to the laypeople. And of course most of the time, those are the people actually able to materially affect individual’s lives in a bad, or good, way.

I don’t think I made any attempt to defend Protestant treatment of Catholics in the New World, or in Northern Europe. Of course there were also Protestants burned by Catholics, which is also very wrong and sad. My Protestant French ancestors were forced to flee France to escape persecution. (My Catholic ancestors were abused by Protestants too, so I’m not biased in that sense.)

I think though you have made some logical errors in your comparisons. You accuse Protestants of abuse when, strictly speaking, it was governments composed of Protestants (in some cases, not all I realize.) But you excuse Catholic nations who were in a similar situation since it was not the Church being abusive. Now, the comparison is not identical because the relation between nation and church was not identical, but one could argue that in some ways the Catholic Church actually had more powers to enforce their views on Catholic governments than Protestant ones did.

And secondly, to say that Protestants all count as bigots because some groups were bigoted, and so they were fighting against one another, unlike the Catholics, is silly. It is just the same as a Muslim making the same argument and including Catholics. You would say - “but the Catholic Church never taught that.” And the Muslim answers - “that doesn’t matter, you Christians have no over-riding authority, some of you are bigots and there is no one to speak for all of you. Therefore it is correct to saw Christianity is bigoted.”

I think this springs from a tendency to understand Protestantism as one movement. Sometimes I think it would be better to get rid of the word Protestant, which often obscures more than it helps. It’s a bit like someone from the OC thinking of Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons as essentially the same thing.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I think this springs from a tendency to understand Protestantism as one movement. Sometimes I think it would be better to get rid of the word Protestant, which often obscures more than it helps. It’s a bit like someone from the OC thinking of Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons as essentially the same thing.

Yes, protestantism is one big mass of schisms, quibbles over this and that, disagreements, personality clashes, and politics. That’s what happens when you abandon the one true faith with its divinely inspired authority and decide you know better than Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Pride goes before a fall. There are protestant churches devoted solely to hate - like the Westboro Baptist Church that has sunk so low as to picket at fallen soldiers’ funerals with signs that say disgusting things like “Fag Troops” and “Thank God for IED’s” You’d never see a Catholic Church doing that.

 

[cathguy]

I think though you have made some logical errors in your comparisons. You accuse Protestants of abuse when, strictly speaking, it was governments composed of Protestants (in some cases, not all I realize.) But you excuse Catholic nations who were in a similar situation since it was not the Church being abusive.

Fair enough. I cede this point.

Catholic nations that did things contrary to the gospel should not be let off the hook.

Now, the comparison is not identical because the relation between nation and church was not identical, but one could argue that in some ways the Catholic Church actually had more powers to enforce their views on Catholic governments than Protestant ones did.

Not really. Protestant theocracies had local authorities that functioned with autonomy much like a mini-Pope. Protestant princes had no hierarchical authority to check their power. That is one of the big reasons we such abuses after (and during) the reformation.

Lets say I am King of Catholic England and I want to go to war with Catholic France because I know that a) I can win and b) I could significantly increase the power of my realm by taking some land on the Continent. I could also use the dagger this would place at the King of France’s throat to get a favorable marriage for some of my nobles (this is just a hypothetical… not actually saying this occurred exactly… but close!)

Now, who do I have to deal with if I want to do this? The Pope. Now war was a reality before the reformation. Popes even waged them. But heres the thing: there was a check on the power of the state. The King of England just couldn’t declare war on France for the heck of it… before the Reformation. The Pope was there.

This overarching authority, over and above the nation state, was a check on the power of the state and helped secure blessings of liberty for many on the Continent. More than many protestant historians (who wrote the books in English speaking countries for centuries) ever cared to admit.

The loss of the unified Catholic Church was a tragedy for Christendom.

And secondly, to say that Protestants all count as bigots because some groups were bigoted, and so they were fighting against one another, unlike the Catholics, is silly.

Agreed. This is because I phrased my point inartfully and I apologize.

Protestant leaders (the reformers) were, by and large, bigots (14th century). They were much worse than their Catholic counterparts as a rule, and certainly WAY worse than the Magesterium, which did not teach hate. (Read Luther on the Jews for one example).

Later, a great many great Protestants stood for truth and equality. The Quakers, Wesley, etc. etc. I overstated my case. I apologize.

It is just the same as a Muslim making the same argument and including Catholics. You would say - “but the Catholic Church never taught that.” And the Muslim answers - “that doesn’t matter, you Christians have no over-riding authority, some of you are bigots and there is no one to speak for all of you. Therefore it is correct to saw Christianity is bigoted.”

Well… not really. The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, and the Pope (the Successor of Peter) is rightfully the head of the entire Christian Church. Even if protestants don’t want to admit it, they are imperfectly united to the Church by virtue of their baptism. Therefore, they are, in a way, under the Pope’s guidance even if they deny it.

I think the way they listen to him when he speaks (even if they yell and scream at him) is proof of his real spiritual authority.

The Successor of Peter is the earthly head of Christ’s Church. He speaks for all Christians. The buck stops there.

I think this springs from a tendency to understand Protestantism as one movement. Sometimes I think it would be better to get rid of the word Protestant, which often obscures more than it helps. It’s a bit like someone from the OC thinking of Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons as essentially the same thing.

I think there are three main streams of Christianity, and they are Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. You could simplify this further and say that there are two: Apostolic Christianity (based on the successors of the Apostles) and the Protestants.

That is really all there is.

The other stuff is just internal divisions.

But your point is well taken.

Again, I apologize for offending you.

Peace!