Right. This will be even shorter and sweeter than originally planned as I just inexplicably lost this entire post already when I went to post it last time!!!!
I want to shout out to all those in the Being Frank community who are in marriages where your spouse is a totally different culture/nationality to you. I have been reflecting on the beauty of “mixed culture marriages” these last few days after attending the wedding of two friends of mine from different cultures and backgrounds, and as I prepare to attend another one this coming weekend. I say the “beauty of mixed culture marriages” because I have quite a few examples of them in my peer group, and they’re all beautiful.
Stick with me here. 
Watching these friends of mine prepare to get married, I have witnessed a lot of conflict and disagreement – real culture shock at times. And, for an outside observer, it has often seemed that some of these differences would be insurmountable. But that is just my narrow perspective because, without fail, each of these culture dramas have been resolved by using the same tools that they will need to use to keep their marriage a successful and happy one – listening, compromise, love, patience and remembering that the culture of their spouse-to-be is part of why they love them.
It’s been inspiring for me to witness this – not only so that I can take some lessons for my own marriage, but also because I see married couples as the base building blocks of a strong society. Therefore, if we can see inter-racial harmony on a small scale (and we can!), then surely there is hope for the big scale?
So, my shout out goes like this: congratulations to all of you who, on a daily basis, overlook the differences between you and your spouse(-to-be) in favour of focusing on the fact that God has brought you together and that he/she is the person for you. Good on you, and thanks for setting an example of the rest of us!
James,
You’re welcome !
My wife is Bolivian and I’m 4th generation kiwi.
What’s more, when we married, she was Catholic and I Anglican.
What do you think of inter-religious marriages ?
God Bless
as I just inexplicably lost this entire post already when I went to post it last time!!!!
Oh dear. I recommend control-a,c on the comment to select the text and back it up into the clipboard. I find that simpler and faster than saving it into a text file, for example.
Hmm, perhaps I should extend my search for a suitable wife outside of the vegetable group to the animal and mineral groups as well…
Chris,
Good on you. I definitely know more inter-religious marriages than I do inter-racial ones!
Most of my comments above still apply – they can often be a model of how to work together on the things you have in common. However, sometimes I think that they don’t always turn out as rosy as one might like. But I respect anyone who sticks at it and works at the committment regardless of difference.
TTM,
I usually use an application like Blogdesk or Windows Live Writer, but I wasn’t this time (don’t know why actually). And so I paid the price.
The CTRL+A,C trick is a good one and one I often use on this site…just in case. 
Three Veg,
That might be a good idea. Be careful that you don’t find someone in the animal group who is a fan of consuming those in the vegetable group though!
Marrying into different races and cultures comes with much greater risk of uncommunicated expectations that are so implicit to one’s culture or pitfalls inherent to one’s racial relationships that they are not even thought of until they are right in your face.
Limitations in the ability to speak each other’s language is another major problem, it just adds further risk of the above and further frustration.
So my advice on the matter is that if you do go into such a marriage make sure that beforehand you search out as many hidden assumptions as you can and have built bridges to traverse the racial and linguistic gaps. And have your marital commitment be absolute.
The saying “love is not enough” rings very true.
As for inter-religious marriages I tend to discourage them as the Church always has. Note that doesn’t mean they are forbidden, however I believe that prudence should render inter-religious marriages the statistical minority.
There are a number of reasons for this, there are reasons to avoid inter-religious marriages and reasons to target intra-religious marriages. Intra-religious assumes a couple who are both committed and faithful to the same religion.
Some reasons off the top of my head.
Reasons to target intra-religious marriages:
1. The shared religion adds a formidable unifying factor that cannot be over-emphasised.
2. In terms of marrying a Catholic it is assured to be Sacramental and be treated Sacramentally.
3. The couple definitely share the same moral values meaning that a huge number of pitfalls are avoided. For instance in terms of Catholics then both are assured to be committed to living the Gospel of Life.
4. The parents are united in the incredibly important task of raising the Children in their shared religious and moral values.
Reasons to avoid inter-religious marriages:
1. The marriages is one where the couple cannot share a huge part of themselves, their religion. This is an inherent and significant disunity to the marriage.
2. For Catholics it may not even be a Sacrament if the other is unbaptised meaning that the Sacramental graces for marriage are not present.
3. The couple are not assured to be unified in their moral values, and even if they do there are not the same checks and balances in order to make sure that remains so. For instance a non-Catholic spouse is much more likely to lead a Catholic spouse into using contraception or some other evil even though at the outset they may have accepted the Catholic position. Committed Catholics can fall but there is much greater protection against this than a non-Catholic.
4. The parents cannot raise the children in religion together without contradicting their own religion. Therefore either the children grow up necessarily confused or only one parent raises the children in religion which means that the children grow up with the biggest two people in their life NOT sharing their basic religious beliefs and principles. This is a great lack in the child’s life, they deserve two parents raising them in their religion, morality etc.
Wow Universal, I would say there are a number of the “hidden assumptions” that you outline in post #5 inherent in post #6…
The parents cannot raise the children in religion together without contradicting their own religion.
For Christianity, Islam and Judaism I don’t think that’s actually true, although it might be true of the understanding of many Christians, Muslims and Jews !
this is a great lack in the child’s life, they deserve two parents raising them in their religion, morality etc.
Does that mean that if both parents were aetheists then it would be better for the children if they both stayed aetheists than if one became a Christian ? Ditto if one replaces aetheist with Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist or some other faith ?
Most practising members of a faith do tend to marry in the same faith. It’s those who don’t practice that are much more likely to marry someone outside their (nominal) faith. The stresses then come when one becomes more committed their faith and the other doesn’t. Does this mean that it’s better for the marriage if nominally faithfull spouses never grow in their faith ?
While I accept that the points Universal makes are very valid and that the difficulties of inter-religious marriages can be very real (as can intercultural marriages), I think marriage is mostly about loving the other and learning to grow together and to respect the other person despite our differences.
I think that any genuine faith that leads to a deeper relationship with God will enhance a marriage, even if it is by only one spouse and even if the faith of the spouses is different.
God Bless
[bemused sarcasm]
Yes, I don’t know what Universal in on about.
Why would a Catholic want to marry a Catholic?
What possible argument could be made to support the position that a person of a particular culture would want to spend their life another of the same culture without sounding judgmental or exclusive!!
[/bemused sarcasm]
It’s obvious Universal is talking about best probability of success, not exceptions to the rule.
Chris,
For Christianity, Islam and Judaism I don’t think that’s actually true, although it might be true of the understanding of many Christians, Muslims and Jews!
We’ve been down this road before, and from memory it didn’t end well for your theory. How can a Muslim and a Catholic teach their children about the nature of God and not contradict each other? Where would the whole Trinity thing fit in?
Mmm as a good Catholic girl dating a protestant
I can agree on some points with Universal. Psychology even shows marriages have a stronger chance of working the more in line your world views are, and no matter how much anyone tries to deny it, Catholics are really different from protestants. AS in the case with my guy, he would find it really hard it watch mum take the kids to Church and not fully particiapte in it, and have his kids see him not fully participating.
There is a lot of wisdom; love is amazing but there needs to be more than mushy feelings to see you through marriage. Having some forsight will definately help.
So make sure you work on conversion in this situation.
Just FYI, in recent surveys conducted in NZ and the US, researchers asked people if they thought shared religious belief was an important factor in a successful marriage.
In the States, 49% said yes, it’s important. Here, the number was just 21%. Don’t know what that means, really, but thought I’d pass it along.
How can a Muslim and a Catholic teach their children about the nature of God and not contradict each other?
By having an understanding of the two faiths which is not contradictory.
Where would the whole Trinity thing fit in?
There are lots of ways to derive the Trinity from the Qu’ran. eg
- The Qu’ran speaks of Allah in the plural.
- The Qu’ran lists the 99 names of God (99 is a very special multiple of 3).
- The Qu’ran says that the gospel is of divine origin and to be believed.
- The Trinity flows from the nature of Love (a lover, a belover and the fruit of their love).
- The Qu’ran describes Mary, Jesus and his disciples as Muslims.
There’s nothing in Islam which requires that one reject the Trinity.
All one is required to believe is that there is one God and that Muhammed is his prophet.
God Bless
Why stop there – they could have a polygamous Muslim marriage where the husband could marry a Buddhist, a New Ager, a Hindu and a Satanist, and they could raise wonderful family of little Chrislimhistduagerists.
There’s nothing in Islam which requires that one reject the Trinity.
All one is required to believe is that there is one God and that Muhammed is his prophet.
And remind me how I would share the responsibilities of parenting with my (imaginary) Muslim wife and bringing up my children in the Catholic faith if that’s what they would have to believe from their mother’s perspective.
I’m not as regimented on this as Universal, but recognise that having a Catholic wife, or at least a Christian wife, would make things quite a bit easier.
Scribe,
1. Catholics are already half way there. From the creed :
2. You are not obliged to believe that Muhammed is his prophet. But if your wife does and she teaches your children that then you’ll figure out sooner or later that believing someone to be a prophet (some of us think the Popes are, for example) is not in contradiction to the Catholic faith.
Naturally a Catholic wife might make life easier. Although, as this blog perhaps demonstrates, Catholics also have plenty of differences amongst ourselves
God Bless
The thread is of course about inter cultural marriages – though I suppose the argument which is hotting up is more interesting.
I want to say to Universal that you make excellent points in 5 and 6.
Culture is never an absolute (something all good liturgy committees and diocesan pastoral councils should realise!) and so cultural differences are never the last word on something. We can always go beyond our culture because our nature and our person is not a product of our culture – (even if our person is conditioned by our culture, it is so in a secondary way and is never determined by our culture).
Because of this, there is always a solution for communion beyond cultural differences. However, cultures indeed carry a lot of assumptions and codifications that are different one from another, so the task of getting to know and loving more and more someone from a different culture, of living with them, and sharing all of one’s life with them poses specific challenges. And the more we come to understand what those differences are, the more we can appreciate where the other is really coming from. (That the Polish aren’t rude for example, they are just direct, and the English aren’t dishonest for example, they are just polite!) Their intentions are personal, not cultural, but the way of expressing is often culturally conditioned.
Differences of religion are much more fundamental because they touch what is considered by each to be what is most profoundly true about REALITY. The more that picture differs, the more serious can become the confrontation. It is not insummountable, and love does carry people beyond even these differences, but practically there are serious consequences, especially for the raising of children, as it is normally one’s responsibility to help a child to fully and freely embrace what is most true for themselves, and if one differs on that fundamental point radically from one’s spouse – a stale mate can arise, unless one parent is prepared to say: well, I have no reason to believe that my religion is true in fact, so I will give way. This cannot happen for the Catholic but can pretty much for all the others. Though the Muslims are under the impression that their religion is divinely revealed and so there is a grave complication there. They will have a subjective certainty from that that can match the Christian, though its foundations are false, because the Koran is not an inspired text in fact and nor is Mohammed a true prophet of God (may he leave Purgatory soon).
We are in quite a different area with differences of religion, because it touches radically on the question of TRUTH, far more so than the question of culture does. And what is true in reality must measure what we judge to be true in our intellects. And the search for the truth is one of the most foundamental dimensions of the human person in terms of their coming to their full actualisation. It is not a secondary question, like what we eat, or the way we eat, or the time in the day that we have our main meal, or the way we say goodbye or hello to strangers, or the way we use physical contact to express affection, etc etc. which are much more culturally conditioned questions.
I am a protestant.
Chris Sullivan said this,
Naturally a Catholic wife might make life easier. Although, as this blog perhaps demonstrates, Catholics also have plenty of differences amongst ourselves
Unfortunately Chris, this blog shows that not only would it be unwise for catholics to marry muslims, but also to marry you.
Common ground is so important in a marriage.
Bless you
Chris himself shows that similar cultural types attract in reality.
He as an Anglican at the time married a Catholic. That’s pretty standard, even 100 years ago. It’s not a cultural or religious stretch. Ha, not unless Chris is heir to the English throne!! You’re not are you?
People’s marriages are aren’t extreme sociological “thought” experiments,
e.g. Muslim Iman marries Yale gender studies professor or Rabbi marries a Patagonian pantheist… let’s see what they can “learn”.
In reality people look for cultural similarity – it gives them the best chance to pay off a 20 year mortgage!
There’s nothing in Islam which requires that one reject the Trinity.”
“O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not “Trinity” : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.” (Koran, Surah 4:171, Women)
“Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.” (Koran, Sura 5:73, food)
Oops!
We really do need to pave that little path that goes around the mulberry bush. The track is getting terribly worn. Any takers for a working bee? Chris?
After being away during Lent I’ve noticed, Chris, that your comments are kinda like Shortland St. If you don’t watch it for a couple of months it only takes one episode before you realise that nothing’s changed.
You’re not in a Just War debate now Dr Ropata!
Interesting discussion;
I heard recently an interesting statistic on failures in marriages in the US. (but I missed the link to it! (If anyone has a link to this survey I would appreciate it)) As in NZ the divorce rate for Catholics is about the same as general population. (30-50%?).The interesting bit however was that Catholic couples who practiced NFP, attended Mass and reconciliation regularly and basically followed Catholic teaching had a divorce rate of 0.2% (or some such low figure)
It demonstrated to me the importance of God in a marriage. There really is a Trinity present between Husband and Wife and God that is very important and powerful.
A mixed marriage does not have the same sacramental grace and a mixed cultural marriage even less so. When married, two become one, but how can this be true when there is oil and water involved.
Of course there are good mixed marriages that may be the exception to the rule but if you are seeking a soul mate for life, your marriage has greater likelihood of success if you are truly one. I can testify to this in my own marriage (it became stronger when we both were Catholics)There is wisdom in the Church’s desire for both to be practicing Catholics in a marriage.
All,
I’d like to note that I never stated in my post that marrying between cultures (or between religions as the discussion has developed) would be easy – in fact, that was the whole point of my post: I have huge respect for those who can take on these more difficult situations and reall commit to love the other person and make their marriage work. Mad respect.
I’d also point out that while there are some documented difficulties/dangers in marrying someone from a different religion, there are also documented cases of the Catholic partner converting the other to the Faith. So there is that.
Moreover, I would say that this problem of marrying between religions would only be a concern for those who practice their faith: i.e. a depressingly small percentage of the actual number of those who tick the box on the census.
So, let’s all just remember that this is one of those situations where there are definitely two sides to the story, and one where there is very little black and white.
Carry on.
Sorry I’m late to this thread. But my marriage is a mixed-culture marriage. I am fifth generation NZer and my wife is second generation Singaporean Chinese. I was born a Catholic and she became a convert at the age of 29 (before we met). It’s true what James says, that it is not all easy. But then, that’s true of any marriage. The one thing I know I have had to watch is to not use my advantage in English to make fun of my wife. Her level of English is very good, but she still slips up at times and sometimes I have had to listen to a little angel in my head, as it were, to tell me to be big enough not to correct her.
Mac,
The passages you quote do not actually contradict the trinity.
Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word
This passage clearly states that Jesus is the Word of God and (later) a spirit proceeding from him. Compare with the first few verses of Genesis which also refer to his Word and his Spirit and the Trinity is in fact made plain in this passage if one reads it carefully, looking for its true meaning, rather than looking for quick and easy “proof passages” to supposedly prove Islam false.
“Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three;
That’s a true statement. Allah (God) is not the third person of the three. He is the unity of the three. The persons are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Sure, there are some hard passages to understand in the Holy Qu’ran (that is true of all sacred scriptures). We have many passages in our own bible which could be mis-interpreted to deny the divinity of Christ (eg “Cursed is he who hangs on a tree”). But these passages are difficult for a reason – to invite us to consider carefully their deep and hidden meaning and not to dismiss them or interpret them against the truth of the faith.
——–
the importance of God in a marriage. There really is a Trinity present between Husband and Wife and God that is very important and powerful.
That’s very true Dei.
God Bless
You have got to be joking Chris.
If you were grasping at straws before, then #26 is grasping at thin air that looks like straws.
What absolute nonsense.
Your personal interpretations and distortions of the Koranic teachings are just as laughable and off-base as your personal interpretations of Catholic teaching documents are.
Chris,
you don’t need to prove the most extreme cases to prove a rule for the majority.
Most of us know nominal Christians married to nominal Muslims or nominal whatever, or one serious, one not, but you are arguing for the feasibility of two vigorously practicing members finding a plausible marriage and really, outside of TV, has anyone seen that?
Show me a Muslim fresh from the Hajj married to a daily-Mass Catholic, say, and I’ll consider your arguments as practical.
but you are arguing for the feasibility of two vigorously practicing members finding a plausible marriage and really, outside of TV, has anyone seen that?
Heck, I’ve never even seen it on TV. Maybe the producers don’t think anyone would believe it.
Chris,
so… “Say not ‘Trinity’: desist” isn’t actually saying not to call Allah a Trinity… and, “Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son” doesn’t actually mean Allah’s above having a son?
“This passage clearly states that Jesus is the Word of God and (later) a spirit proceeding from him.”
Yes, that would be the bit Mohammed got from the Nestorian priest. You’re reading your Christianity into it. I think it helps to remember that Mohammed got his ideas, at least initially, from his Nestorian priest friend. Of course there would be few things that resemble the Scriptures in the Qu’ran. It seems, from a quick googling, Muslims understand “Word of God” to mean “God’s mouthpiece”, that is, a prophet. A spirit proceeding from him could mean the same thing – that is, one who is sent by Allah. Similar language, different theology.
No, no, I still think the world’s religions can be reconciled…
Actually they have been.
It’s called “Oprahism”.
Well… the attempt to reconcile all world religions is pretty common. If I may quote from my blog:
Here’s an interesting article that was forwarded to me: Islam’s ‘Public Enemy #1′: Coptic priest Zakaria Botros fights fire with fire. Here’s a quote:
Yes, yes, but where is he on salvation by climate worship? 8(
==================
Botros shows it’s a bit tougher to adopt the condescending Christian-in-a-Christian-nation “ecumenical” style when you’re not a member of the dominant culture!
TTM,
There are Christians who understand the term “son of God” to mean “prophet” and they have a solid basis in scripture for their view.
That doesn’t mean that the New Testament use of “son of God” means only “prophet”.
God Bless
He he he he
My peples my peples my peples
It has haf been a longing time sinced I was has last been bosted on da being frankings plog. I was haf had founded da facebookings on da gombuters and was has been trying to be findings my sons at da hearts a flamable.
Anyways James Chames Hames.
You has haf remyned me of da tymes pefore I was had met my wives. I was about ahh eightin years of ages. I was sitting unda a gogonut tres when dere was a beautifulls ladies was had been walkked by. She was da most beautifullest ladies I was haf ever been sawed. Even from my own eyes. Every days she was had walkked by da same gognut tree at da same tyme (I cudnt belive it) and she would always have been gived me a smiles. She wasnt had been a Samoans ladies pecause da color of her shins was a white. I fink she was Eyerish or maybe jermans. Anyways I was has been finking of wat I cud doing to make her like me so I was had wroted her a sing. And da next tyme she was commed pass I was had playered her da song. It was a called “wats da buzz, tell me watsa happenin”.
Unfortunatly my eyes were a bit crosseyed pack then, and I was had been made a mistakement on who I was wooings. Long story cut in halve, I was singing to da chiefs daughters who was not been white or skinny, but dark and wholesome hehehehehe, dats the nice ways of putting it. Now she is like bigger den me, although ladies I am like at da binacle of my lyfe. Check out my facebook pagings my nammed is Pob Feala.
Anyways, I would like to taking dis otropunity to say wives, I has been loves you, and I would never do anyfing to embaress you, you are like da pupils in my eyes, da jam between my toes, I loves you my prettyfuls.
Beace peples
Chris,
right, and again we come back to the “inspiration of the Scriptures” issue. For the fundamentalist who has no authority but himself to determine the inspired status of the Scriptures, he also has no authority but himself to interpret it infallibly. Which I think is why poorclear’s post #14 in eW’s thread sometime ago is still applicable here – we must always take into account Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Magisterium for authoritative guidance, as reason demands, and not on subjective feelings (which has so far been demonstrated to be particularly unreliable).
Reason can establish (by looking at circumstantial evidence, the Scriptures purely as historical documents first, and also the extra-Biblical writings) that Christ established a Church, and this Church who wrote the Scriptures is the basis for determining its inspired status and canonicity. Which is why we defer to the same Church to interpret it infallibly, although of course the interpretation harmonizes with both faith and reason more perfectly than any human means.
We have already seen that the same Church that has established the canonicity of (and in part authored) the Scriptures has, according to poorclear’s post #41 in eW’s thread the week (how history repeats!), attached an anathema on subjectively attributing an authoritative status on texts such as the Qu’ran.
Now, that having been established (and I assume you do submit to infallibility of the anathema proclamation), there’s no real reason to presume (as there is for the Sacred Scripture) harmony or continuity within the text of the Qu’ran. It could at once deny the Trinity and son-ship of Christ, as it does, and claim Jesus to be the Word and spirit proceeding from Allah, which is only contradictory in the Christian sense. It being a human text which includes the Scriptures as a source, of course it is going to deny one thing while using another term in a contradictory sense that is divorced from its original context as found in the Sacred Scripture.
TTM,
I’d be carefull of using the Captive Women scripture against the Qu’ran. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Our own scriptures have something similar :
See http://www.utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/vol1n1/v1n1elma.htm for a discussion of the Jewish interpretation of this Torah passage.
As the Qu’ran says that the gospels are of divine origin then I think it’s perfectly legitimate to refer to them as an essential tool to unlocking the meaning of the Qu’ran. As those gospels establish a Magisterial Authority for proper interpretation then it follows that the teachings of that Magisterium ought to be applied to understand difficult passages in the Qu’ran. One can arrive at this conclusion simply by starting with the Qu’ran and following it through.
“When I am lifted up, I will draw all men to myself”.
God Bless
Actually, I’ve come across that passage before while I was browsing through some of the “Bible is evil” websites. It challenged my faith, as did a few others, but I did manage to find a few sources that explained this.
I don’t have the sources at the moment, but from what I can remember, it acted to ensure best possible outcome given the time and circumstance.
In the Old Testament, the law could only be prescribed to the extent that it would be heeded by the chosen people in their hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8). As has been demonstrated in the case of slavery and the Inquisition discussed recently, the Holy Spirit works to make lemonade when man gives Him lemon. This means the passage worked within in the spirit of the period, and in the wider societal context in which it was found. It’s likely that warfare in such a period and context ordinarily involved mindless pillaging and rape, which the law tames by prescribing measures which:
1. Prohibit immediate intercourse, and allow time for rational faculties to reexamine the choice within the period over 30 days (which, when you think about it, is quite a long time), during which other measures are also taken to enable this.
2. Take away temptations (thus clearing the head and reasoning faculties) by shaving the head and cutting the nails.
3. Allowing for mourning of her parents within the house thus fostering empathy (again, for the 30-day period)
4. Require a marital ceremony, and bestowing of equal privileges that comes with this (and Aquinas mentions that this would only apply to the captives from “other nations with whom they could lawfully marry, or to the case when the captive woman was willing to be converted to the faith and worship of God.”, Summa 1181)
It’s not perfect, of course, because of the hardness of heart in men during this period. Now, though, Christ’s teachings supersede this as God’s fullest revelation. Thank God for that.
I may be showing my ignorance of Islam here, but taking a slave and making her your wife seems a little different to having a sex-slave – “you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not treat her as a slave”
Chris,
you wrote: “As the Qu’ran says that the gospels are of divine origin then I think it’s perfectly legitimate to refer to them as an essential tool to unlocking the meaning of the Qu’ran… One can arrive at this conclusion simply by starting with the Qu’ran and following it through.”
No, you’ve got the principle wrong again. Looking at subjective feelings was bad enough, but now you’re looking at a book that falls under the anathema to determine the inspired status of the Scriptures.
We do not start presuming a supernatural status on any text, even the gospels, let alone the Qu’ran. Thus, we cannot depend on the authority of the Qu’ran (to do so is to fall under the anathema, by the way – see poorclear’s post [linked]).
The only starting point available to us (and to reason) is the historical reality of the Church established by Christ upon St. Peter.
“As those gospels establish a Magisterial Authority for proper interpretation then it follows that the teachings of that Magisterium ought to be applied to understand difficult passages in the Qu’ran.”
Yes, and the teaching of the Magisterium is that the Qu’ran is not an inspired book. See this principle applied to the Qu’ran in post #37.
TTM,
You present a good approach, an approach which is also worth applying to similar passages in the Holy Qu’ran, in order to see that they are not as barbaric as might first be thought.
I don’t think Christ’s teachings superseed this passage at all because a closer examination of the Torah reveals that it is actually teaching against concubinage of captives (”because you “violated” her” makes clear the practice described is considered a violation).
Christ interpreted the Torah to make clear that it was not in favour of polygamy (”from the beginning this was not so”).
The idea that “hardness of hearts” requires the limitation of evil when people are not yet ready to practice moral perfection also has applications today (eg the condom argument).
God Bless
Chris,
you wrote: “You present a good approach, an approach which is also worth applying to similar passages in the Holy Qu’ran, in order to see that they are not as barbaric as might first be thought.”
Such as this one from the same article quoted in post #33?
“Holy Qu’ran,”
your previous reason for calling Qu’ran was that you thought it inspired. Now that that has been proven not to be the case, why do you continue with this?
“The idea that “hardness of hearts” requires the limitation of evil when people are not yet ready to practice moral perfection also has applications today (eg the condom argument).”
But not at the expense of the primary principle as, again, outlined by poorclear in the #14 (I presume the definite article would be enough for everyone by now!). The Holy Spirit works only within the framework established by Christ – not infallibly on our subjective feelings, which you have canonized in the past (in contradiction to the Magisterial anathema pronouncement).
TTM,
Hadith are not quotations from the Holy Qu’ran. They are oral interpretations passed down.
I think that the Qu’ran is of divine inspiration, although not in the technical Catholic canonical sense.
God Bless
“I think that the Qu’ran is of divine inspiration”
Chris, you can’t hold this belief and claim to be in unity with the Catholic Church.
ONLY Sacred Scripture can be rightly said to be divinely inspired.
NOTHING else ever can make that claim.
The Koran is NOT of divine inspiration, any more than the latest issue of the Woman’s Day is.
Max,
Is the diary of St. Faustina Kowalska divinely inspired ?
Are the accounts of Mary at Fatima divinely inspired ?
I think they are, but, as I said of the Holy Qu’ran, not in the technical Catholic canonical sense.
God Bless
So are you really trying to tell us that God inspired Mohamed to write a book which contains major distortions and lies about who He is, who His Son was, and that is totally contradictory to the Sacred Scriptures that He gave to His Church?
I don’t think so buddy.
Whatever is said about the Muslim holy book, could you guys at least spell it correctly (in its Latin-letter transliteration)??
qur’an
NOT
qu’ran
!!
jj “linguistic nanny” retires to the corner again
Well, our culture knows the book as the Koran, despite others attempts to adopt an arabic or phonetic spelling.
In any event, the Koran is NOT holy.
Hang on; I handwrote a copy of John’s gospel a few months ago.
Wow, man. I’m inspired ‘cos I copied the word of God. Anything I write from here on I claim as inspired by God.
Quite silly really, isn’t it.
It reminds me of a song: yeah, qu-ran ran, yeah the qu-ran ran, yeah the qu-ran ran, the qu-ran ran ran the qu-ran ran. But who ran the qu-ran? Who cares for the carers? (to which left wingers chime in with a compulsory sympathetic mmmmmmmmnnnn.) And who prophesied Mohammed?