Pope explains why he is going to Assisi-III

[Fone_Bone_2001]

This is a pope who has never given the Church any reason not to trust him. Since his youth to this day, he has made significant contributions to the Church at every post he has ever held. He is more intelligent than most Catholics put together. He has a plan in mind that he is not sharing with all of us and he does not have to share with us. The Church does not owe us transparency. It’s a theocracy. We have to trust that a person like Pope Benedict, with a proven track record knows what he’s doing. This is not gurantee that he’s going to achieve the desired result. Even he does not know this. He only believes that this is worth trying and he knows why he believes this, but he has made it clear that he does not want to share it with us. We have to leave it at that.

As always, well said.

The God of Islam is the God of Israel and the God of Jesus Christ. The nature of God does not change, because people misunderstand him and his revealed truth or because they don’t have all of it.

The Church has explained, many times, the problems with Islam’s understanding of God. The problem is not that they have a false God. The problem is that they understand part of the whole. The Church has explained what parts they get right and which parts they are missing.

I couldn’t have said it better. I marvel at how many people can’t seem to grasp that.

It saddens me to see so much doubt and questioning regarding the Holy Father’s decisions, with Assisi and other things. If anything, it seems to me that this gathering at Assisi is a perfect example of Francis’ instruction to “preach the Gospel at all time, use words when necessary.” A safe and welcoming place, where holy men & women from every tradition can come together and work for the common goal of peace. Seems like a noble pursuit to me.

Thank you Br. Jay, for another series of enlightening and educational posts,
I learn so much from you!
God bless you!!

That’s exactly how I feel about it, too.

I think the key in answering people’s concerns in this case is to recognize the fact that objectively speaking, nothing sinful is being done. On a subjective level, there is the possibility of scandal, but we really don’t have the right to put ourselves up as judges of Pope Benedict’s decision in that regard. Objectively speaking, it’s simply true that nothing sinful is involved.

See, but this is what my logical mind doesn;t understand. If Jesus Christ is the final revelation of God per Church teaching, then how on earth can Islam come from the same God?

It’s actually quite logical.

Muslims intend to direct their prayers and worship to the same God that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendents worship. Therefore, the being receiving their worship and prayers is that God.

Do they misunderstand certain critically important things about Him? Yes, of course. But that doesn’t mean we don’t have the same God.

When the Qur’an states that God has no Son, it’s simply wrong. What is not true is that the God of Islam is clearly a different god because the Qur’an says He has no Son. Rather, the Qur’an is wrong about God on that matter.

See? It all comes down to the fact that Muslims explicitly and overtly intend that their worship and prayers go to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Jews don’t believe in the Trinity or the Incarnation either. Does that mean that they have a different god than we do? Of course not.

 

[OraLabora]

It’s actually quite logical.

Muslims intend to direct their prayers and worship to the same God that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendents worship. Therefore, the being receiving their worship and prayers is that God.

Do they misunderstand certain critically important things about Him? Yes, of course. But that doesn’t mean we don’t have the same God.

When the Qur’an states that God has no Son, it’s simply wrong. What is not true is that the God of Islam is clearly a different god because the Qur’an says He has no Son. Rather, the Qur’an is wrong about God on that matter.

See? It all comes down to the fact that Muslims explicitly and overtly intend that their worship and prayers go to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Jews don’t believe in the Trinity or the Incarnation either. Does that mean that they have a different god than we do? Of course not.

Indeed, and we also must remember that we are corruptible men, corruptible since the Fall in the Garden of Eden. Because of our fall, we are open to erroneous ideas, and with Free Will, sometimes we make the wrong choices. God did not create Islam, men did. God did not create Protestantism, men did, and by so doing, corrupted the deposit of faith that we received from God through Jesus and the apostles.

But it must be made abundantly clear that this corruption occurred hundreds of years ago. That was the sin. Being brought up a Protestant or Muslim is not in itself inherently sinful, and Muslims and Protestants can and do love God with all their hearts. And the Church teaches that through God’s infinite mercy and grace, there is a possibility that they may obtain eternal life and indeed also people who do not know God at all but instinctively through the Natural Law understand the moral Truth and carry it out to the best of their abilities. We also know that there are many Catholics who will not attain eternal life.

In short, only God can know truly who is saved and who is damned. It therefore behooves us to treat men and women of good will, from all faith backgrounds, with dignity, respect, and courtesy and indeed to bestow upon them our Christian love and charity.

 

[JReducation]

Please remember what I said before. The Church did not arrive at this conclusion over night. This took several centuries of study.

Because of the antagonism between Christianity and Islam, it was not easy to sit down and have scholars from both sides talk like civil human beings in order to understand each other.

I explained that the Franciscans began this diologue with Francis himself and it continued for 800 years. The Church even created a Custory of The Holy Land, in which Pope Gregory IX supported Francis’ command not to try to convert the Muslims or Jews, but to bring them to the Gospel by mere presense of Gospel living and through the corproral works of mercy.

This softened the Muslims and gained their respect for the Franciscans, whom they consider to be Holy Men (Sufi). This opened the door for other scholars to askt hem questions and for them to ask us questions.

In the 1940s, it was finally Maximilian Kolbe who put the final seal of approval on Islam. He summed it up by saying: They worship the same God as we do. They have two problems: a) They are missing part of Revealed Truths and b) They have deformed many of the truthst they have received. However, continued Maximilian, their understanding of the nature of God and the attributes that they assign to the Godhead are exactly the same as those that Jews and Christians belief. Therefore, it is the same God. They don’t misunderstand the attributes of the Godhead, his role in human history nor do they misunderstand man’s ultimate goal. They don’t possess the post Apostolic revelations and the the few that they posess, they misunderstand and explain in such a manner that they are deformed.

In essence, St. Max concludes, Allah is God. They simply do not understand him. He dismisses the Q’Uran, because you can’t judge a faith by its book anymore than you can judge Catholicism by the bible. Maximilian and the other 800 year of Franciscan observation is that the Q’Uran contains elements of truth scattered throughout myths and misrepresentations. The elements of truth are key, because they do point to the God of Israel. Just because someone says that God told them to stand on their head, does not make it true, but it does not make their god a false God either.

The layman is saying, “The real God would not say those things; therefore, this is a false god.”

The Francsiscan scholar says, “The real God would not say those things: therefore, he never said it. This is a false conclusion on the part of the writer.” The failure is on the part of the writer, not on the part of God, which stands to reason, since these are not divinely inspired books, even though they contain SOME divine inspired truths.

With all of that information aboiut Islam gathered over 800 years of observation, dialogue and study not only by Franciscans, but by other scholars as well, in the 1950s the Church come around and says, “OHHHH, now we understand them better,” to put it in our language. That’s when the official statement is issued for all Catholics, that the Muslims are decendants of Abraham and do worship the Goid of Abraham as do Jews and Christians.

All of these men who worked on this for so many centuries, collectively, are much smarter than we are. Therefore, their conclusion is worthy of belief. Once the Church takes an official stand on this, it is no longer up for discussion. You can discuss it all you want and you’ll only end up frustrated, because the Church is not going to change that position unless these scholars come back with more information. It’s not worth our time to try to change the Church’s position and it’s certainly inappropriate for Catholics to say that an official position of the Church is wrong, because we know better than the Church. We don’t want to go there. That puts us in conflict with our own Church and it’s a conflict that we’re going to lose.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[OraLabora]

Please remember what I said before. The Church did not arrive at this conclusion over night. This took several centuries of study.

Because of the antagonism between Christianity and Islam, it was not easy to sit down and have scholars from both sides talk like civil human beings in order to understand each other.

I explained that the Franciscans began this diologue with Francis himself and it continued for 800 years. The Church even created a Custory of The Holy Land, in which Pope Gregory IX supported Francis’ command not to try to convert the Muslims or Jews, but to bring them to the Gospel by mere presense of Gospel living and through the corproral works of mercy.

This softened the Muslims and gained their respect for the Franciscans, whom they consider to be Holy Men (Sufi). This opened the door for other scholars to askt hem questions and for them to ask us questions.

In the 1940s, it was finally Maximilian Kolbe who put the final seal of approval on Islam. He summed it up by saying: They worship the same God as we do. They have two problems: a) They are missing part of Revealed Truths and b) They have deformed many of the truthst they have received. However, continued Maximilian, their understanding of the nature of God and the attributes that they assign to the Godhead are exactly the same as those that Jews and Christians belief. Therefore, it is the same God. They don’t misunderstand the attributes of the Godhead, his role in human history nor do they misunderstand man’s ultimate goal. They don’t possess the post Apostolic revelations and the the few that they posess, they misunderstand and explain in such a manner that they are deformed.

In essence, St. Max concludes, Allah is God. They simply do not understand him. He dismisses the Q’Uran, because you can’t judge a faith by its book anymore than you can judge Catholicism by the bible. Maximilian and the other 800 year of Franciscan observation is that the Q’Uran contains elements of truth scattered throughout myths and misrepresentations. The elements of truth are key, because they do point to the God of Israel. Just because someone says that God told them to stand on their head, does not make it true, but it does not make their god a false God either.

The layman is saying, “The real God would not say those things; therefore, this is a false god.”

The Francsiscan scholar says, “The real God would not say those things: therefore, he never said it. This is a false conclusion on the part of the writer.” The failure is on the part of the writer, not on the part of God, which stands to reason, since these are not divinely inspired books, even though they contain SOME divine inspired truths.

With all of that information aboiut Islam gathered over 800 years of observation, dialogue and study not only by Franciscans, but by other scholars as well, in the 1950s the Church come around and says, “OHHHH, now we understand them better,” to put it in our language. That’s when the official statement is issued for all Catholics, that the Muslims are decendants of Abraham and do worship the Goid of Abraham as do Jews and Christians.

All of these men who worked on this for so many centuries, collectively, are much smarter than we are. Therefore, their conclusion is worthy of belief. Once the Church takes an official stand on this, it is no longer up for discussion. You can discuss it all you want and you’ll only end up frustrated, because the Church is not going to change that position unless these scholars come back with more information. It’s not worth our time to try to change the Church’s position and it’s certainly inappropriate for Catholics to say that an official position of the Church is wrong, because we know better than the Church. We don’t want to go there. That puts us in conflict with our own Church and it’s a conflict that we’re going to lose.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you Br. JR, for taking the time and effort to be a font of wisdom for us on these touchy subjects. Your posts should be required reading before anyone is allowed to blast our brothers and sisters of other faith traditions on this forum.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you Br. JR, for taking the time and effort to be a font of wisdom for us on these touchy subjects. Your posts should be required reading before anyone is allowed to blast our brothers and sisters of other faith traditions on this forum.

LOL

We’re starting a new fraternity in the southestern USA for celibate brothes and married men. I’m their formation director. So my stuff is required reading for them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[passer_by]

JReducation,

Would you be answering the post by Blessed_be_God in post #111? I was reading through the thread because I need help with a similar matter that I am discussing with some people right now.

I would like to know if you have an answer for him.

Thank you!

 

[passer_by]

All of these men who worked on this for so many centuries, collectively, are much smarter than we are. Therefore, their conclusion is worthy of belief. Once the Church takes an official stand on this, it is no longer up for discussion. You can discuss it all you want and you’ll only end up frustrated, because the Church is not going to change that position unless these scholars come back with more information. It’s not worth our time to try to change the Church’s position and it’s certainly inappropriate for Catholics to say that an official position of the Church is wrong, because we know better than the Church. We don’t want to go there. That puts us in conflict with our own Church and it’s a conflict that we’re going to lose.

But this smartness did not for-see events such as September 11? Killings in Pakistan, Egypt?

Islam to me is very similar to Protestantism. It has a book (a bit different in that this book has explicit errors) which it uses in a Sola Scriptura fashion.

Depending on the Imam, the teachings of the Quaran range from ultra violent toward other religious (including Christians) to love and peace. Neither position is right or wrong in Islam because it is a matter of interpretation.

Now whether the Holy see or thousand years of research understands this or not, there is a huge amount of Muslims who are hostile toward other faiths. For them, this hostility is dogmatic requirement and part of their faith as much as our dogmas and doctrines.

So would it not be more reasonable and an obligation to go and show them why their faith is unreasonable, Christianity is true and therefore why they should convert?

I am not sure if holding prayer sessions together with them or living among them is going to make a difference. There are Christians who live together with Muslims in Pakistan and Egypt but their own neighbors will sometimes come and murder them when the time is right. Who can blame them when their religious convictions clearly tell them it is the right thing for them to do?

So I think conversion is definitely necessary. The Pope and other who make policies don’t have to live in Egypt where the attacks take place. These people who attack are honestly very religious. They love their Islamic faith. If they aren’t shown why their faith is not true, they have no reason to stop persecuting us.

 

[AntiqueCatholic]

With all due respect, and in charity, I’ve been married to a Protestant for the last 23 years. I can assure you that while what you suggest may seem “refreshing” a cocktail party, it won’t go one inch towards improving life in community, and in fact will lead to animosity that will be very damaging.

And yes, I learned this through the school of hard knocks. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, accomplished nothing by it except rancor. Took a long time to heal that.

I wasn’t talking about about people married to Protestants. Converting someone after marrying them is like trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. I don’t think Catholics should marry outside their religion because one is starting out with a potentially big stumbling block before you’ve even left the starting gate, so to speak.

I wouldn’t marry someone outside my religion, as I’ve read, on this forum and elsewhere, that there could be consequences down the line e.g. the in-laws putting pressure on either spouse re. the religion of the children, being shunned by members of either religion, a man getting turning 40 and suddenly getting more religious, up to the point of kidnapping the kids, etc.

To return to the topic, sort of: If someone gets mad when you calmly state your relgious beliefs to them, while stating the Church’s position on theirs, then that’s their problem. There’s something about ‘wiping the dust off your feet and moving on’ in the Bible, I think. Some people want to listen and some don’t.

Note: I don’t make a habit of confronting people (much ) but reasoned debate hurts no one. Except people’s pride if they can’t answer an argument and get mad, I guess.

 

[passer_by]

I wasn’t talking about about people married to Protestants. Converting someone after marrying them is like trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. I don’t think Catholics should marry outside their religion because one is starting out with a potentially big stumbling block before you’ve even left the starting gate, so to speak.

I wouldn’t marry someone outside my religion, as I’ve read, on this forum and elsewhere, that there could be consequences down the line e.g. the in-laws putting pressure on either spouse re. the religion of the children, being shunned by members of either religion, a man getting turning 40 and suddenly getting more religious, up to the point of kidnapping the kids, etc.

To return to the topic, sort of: If someone gets mad when you calmly state your relgious beliefs to them, while stating the Church’s position on theirs, then that’s their problem. There’s something about ‘wiping the dust off your feet and moving on’ in the Bible, I think. Some people want to listen and some don’t.

Note: I don’t make a habit of confronting people (much ) but reasoned debate hurts no one. Except people’s pride if they can’t answer an argument and get mad, I guess.

Have to agree. Marrying someone from a different belief is considered problematic for a valid reason. While its not immoral in many religions, any elder would agree that it can cause a lot of problems. A bit of common sense I would think.

I also agree that seeking conversion is the best approach. Not everyone can certainly do it. It requires a lot of work and prayer. But it can be done, has been done and some of the converted have gone on to become saints.

 

[TrueLight]

But this smartness did not for-see events such as September 11? Killings in Pakistan, Egypt?

Islam to me is very similar to Protestantism. It has a book (a bit different in that this book has explicit errors) which it uses in a Sola Scriptura fashion.

Islam is not similar to Protestantism.

 

[passer_by]

Islam is not similar to Protestantism.

Sorry!

I meant to say in terms of operation. Protestants operate on Sola Scriptura while Islam operates on Sola Koran.

The weakness of both positions is that the books can be interpreted in many different ways.

Protestantism is also different because it does use a book that is the revealed word of God as opposed to the Koran.

But the way it operates has the same fundamental error. I could ask different Protestants about a passage in the Bible and I can get multiple interpretations. I can ask about a violent passage in the Koran from 10 different Imams and get 10 different answers.

That is what I meant to say.

In the present day, places like Pakistan, Egypt and other middle eastern countries have Imams who hold the view that violence is ok against other religions.

I just think JReducation was being insensitive to the facts and sufferings of most of us who have to put up with it by saying we just need to pray with them and get along. The fact of the matter is that the Muslims who persecute are very religious people who have a deep religious conviction that it must be done. It would be similar to people of our faith that stand up against same sex unions.

Just because we know people with these attractions, it does not mean we would think twice about opposing same sex unions. In the case of Muslims, even though they might know us, at some point they have to give in to the call of their Imams and religion.

I didn’t mean to go to a banned discussion.

 

[TrueLight]

I didn’t mean to go to a banned discussion.

You didn’t.

All I’m saying is if one is vehemently against Assisi, one is eventually going to vehemently criticize the actions of the Holy Father and you’re going to eventually get in trouble.

 

[passer_by]

You didn’t.

All I’m saying is if one is vehemently against Assisi, one is eventually going to vehemently criticize the actions of the Holy Father and you’re going to eventually get in trouble.

Ok I see what you are saying now.

But JReducation can simply produce evidence to support his claim that one cannot disagree with this type of decision by the Holy father. No need to ban anyone I would think.

I dont see why it would be a big deal to criticize too. Assissi seems like a policy decision. This sort of criticism happens all the time. Some people complain that the Pope doesn’t do enough to prevent sex abuse scandals or that the Pope doesn’t visit their country that much or pope doesn’t do enough to stop persecution of Christians in Islamic countries bla bla bla.

So why is assissi policy so special? Its not like people who don’t like assissi are disagreeing to something the Pope is teaching.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Islam to me is very similar to Protestantism. It has a book (a bit different in that this book has explicit errors) which it uses in a Sola Scriptura fashion.

Islam is not sola scriptura for the Quran, in fact the hadiths are considered just as necessary for Islam is the Quran. THe Quran is their holy book, but the Hadiths explain it. Now no one knows which Hadiths have the right interpretation.

However, I’ve heard this of Islam. The more recent (as in the latest chronologically written) always takes precedence over an older verse, if there is ever a conflict. The chronologically earlier verses are all about peace, the chronologically later verses are all about war.

 

[passer_by]

Islam is not sola scriptura for the Quran, in fact the hadiths are considered just as necessary for Islam is the Quran. THe Quran is their holy book, but the Hadiths explain it. Now no one knows which Hadiths have the right interpretation.

However, I’ve heard this of Islam. The more recent (as in the latest chronologically written) always takes precedence over an older verse, if there is ever a conflict. The chronologically earlier verses are all about peace, the chronologically later verses are all about war.

You are right.

So this would just make Islam Sola (Quran + Hadith).

The rules like chronology and precedence are also just an interpretation method by different Imams. One Imam could just go and say the last part is what counts.

I think what I want to say is that Islam has no authority to claim one interpretation as true. That is what I mean to say is similar to Protestantism.

 

[OraLabora]

Have to agree. Marrying someone from a different belief is considered problematic for a valid reason. While its not immoral in many religions, any elder would agree that it can cause a lot of problems. A bit of common sense I would think.

I also agree that seeking conversion is the best approach. Not everyone can certainly do it. It requires a lot of work and prayer. But it can be done, has been done and some of the converted have gone on to become saints.

Well my friend it is what it is. I married her and I love her and she loves me, and it’s been 23 years and in fact I’ve known her for 34 years (college sweetheart).

The level of maturity when we married is different from what it is now. Somehow we manage to make it work. Never felt any pressure to convert. And vice-versa. But I did feel pressure to regain my faith when I lost it for a good number of years. Not to convert to hers, but to regain mine. Which I did. In short, it worked out pretty well.

The Church does allow us to marry Protestants and I don’t think she expects us to convert them. That’s good enough for me, and I don’t think it is fair game to make your statement on a thread on which a Catholic married to a Protestant have a pretty good marriage. In fact it is rather insulting, like criticizing Brother Roger and Taizé.

 

[JReducation]

I just think JReducation was being insensitive to the facts and sufferings of most of us who have to put up with it by saying we just need to pray with them and get along. The fact of the matter is that the Muslims who persecute are very religious people who have a deep religious conviction that it must be done. It would be similar to people of our faith that stand up against same sex unions. .

I’m not insensitive at all. Neither I, nor the Church, believes that religion should ever be used as an excuse to do harm. If you read the writings and speechs of Popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, they have made many statements against terrorism and for religious freedom for all people. This does not exlude the Christians who are persecuted in the Middle East, China, Korea, and other parts of Asia and Africa.

The use of religion as an excuse to do harm is one of the oldest evils in the world. It was used by Christians and non-Christians alike . . . always for political reasons hidden under a vanear of religion. There is never a justification for this. However, the fact that people use religion as a cover for violence does not make religion an evil. The choices people make are evil. It’s very unfortunate that human beings often make use of something that has the potential for good to do evil.

Just as Islam should never be used as an excuse for violence, neither should Christianity. If we look around the world, we see many hate crimes in the name of religion. They are morally objectionable.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[passer_by]

I’m not insensitive at all. Neither I, nor the Church, believes that religion should ever be used as an excuse to do harm. If you read the writings and speechs of Popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, they have made many statements against terrorism and for religious freedom for all people. This does not exlude the Christians who are persecuted in the Middle East, China, Korea, and other parts of Asia and Africa.

**The use of religion as an excuse to do harm is one of the oldest evils in the world. It was used by Christians and non-Christians alike . . . always for political reasons hidden under a vanear of religion. There is never a justification for this. **However, the fact that people use religion as a cover for violence does not make religion an evil. The choices people make are evil. It’s very unfortunate that human beings often make use of something that has the potential for good to do evil.

Just as Islam should never be used as an excuse for violence, neither should Christianity. If we look around the world, we see many hate crimes in the name of religion. They are morally objectionable.

I think you are ignoring what I said.

Islam is not using violence as an excuse for political gain. It so happens that their religion allows for violence under certain interpretations of the Koran. You can tell them that is wrong because according to Catholicism, it is wrong.

But according to their superiors (Imams), who they treat like their Bishops (or even Popes) violence is allowed. For you to tell them that it is a wrong interpretation is not going to help. They don’t question their superiors like you don’t question yours.

So either you tell them why their entire faith is not reasonable and Christianity is the true faith or you aren’t really accomplishing anything by asking us to get along with them. They are as religious as you and me. Their religion just happens to command them with a duty to use even violence to convert infidels.

If you think I am lying and making all this up, come visit Pakistan and then tell me that you still think its all just for political gain.

 

[passer_by]

Well my friend it is what it is. I married her and I love her and she loves me, and it’s been 23 years and in fact I’ve known her for 34 years (college sweetheart).

The level of maturity when we married is different from what it is now. Somehow we manage to make it work. Never felt any pressure to convert. And vice-versa. But I did feel pressure to regain my faith when I lost it for a good number of years. Not to convert to hers, but to regain mine. Which I did. In short, it worked out pretty well.

The Church does allow us to marry Protestants and I don’t think she expects us to convert them. That’s good enough for me, and I don’t think it is fair game to make your statement on a thread on which a Catholic married to a Protestant have a pretty good marriage. In fact it is rather insulting, like criticizing Brother Roger and Taizé.

Sorry my friend, I did not mean to insult you. What I said before was actually not directed at you specifically either.

I merely stated a truth that even the Catholic church accepts. It is not encouraged to marry a non-Catholic. Why? Because it doesn’t work most of the time.

This doesn’t mean that it is always going to end up in failure. If that were the case, then the church WONT allow those marriages to begin with. What all this means is that before marriage, one has to think twice.

Your case was an exception that it worked out. In general, it doesn’t work out for most people.

 

[OraLabora]

Sorry my friend, I did not mean to insult you. What I said before was actually not directed at you specifically either.

I merely stated a truth that even the Catholic church accepts. It is not encouraged to marry a non-Catholic. Why? Because it doesn’t work most of the time.

This doesn’t mean that it is always going to end up in failure. If that were the case, then the church WONT allow those marriages to begin with. What all this means is that before marriage, one has to think twice.

Your case was an exception that it worked out. In general, it doesn’t work out for most people.

Well it worked out for my mother (Catholic) and father (Anglican) as well, married in 1956; my father died in 1970, and they were crazy about each other until the day he died. My father took his task seriously; to be married in the Church, he had to assent to the kids being brought up Catholic. When my mother was unwell, it was he who took me to Mass, and he only once allowed me to set foot in an Anglican church, for the wedding of my step-sister (he was a widower when he met my mother).

Now it’s the other way around, I am Catholic and my wife is Anglican. We really have a lot in common, religion-wise, including bad music in our parishes