There is Matthew 5:17 which states:  "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets.  I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

To fulfill what?  This statement of Our Lord clearly upholds the authority and principles of the Old Testament, including its most basic ideals including the nation, and the racial purity of each nation.  That such is a basic ideal of the Old Testament should be clear to all.

The way this is fulfilled in the New Testament is clearly by the choice of ROME as the New Israel and New Jerusalem.  Since Rome is Europe and Europe is Rome, therefore the racial purity of Old Israel so stridently upheld by the Old Testament becomes an equally emphatic commandment to the New Israel, Rome/Europe, to uphold its much greater and more divine status as the much greater New Chosen People of God.  When St. Paul said that we are all one in Christ Jesus, he also means that we are all now ROMANS or Europeans.  We are no longer this or that part of the Indo-European white race, but we are henceforth a UNIVERSAL Indo-European race:  the ROMANS/EUROPEANS to which all may belong IN SPIRIT as Europeanized part-white or non-white ROMANS/EUROPEANS.

But we Catholics are ALL Romans, which is also to say Europeans.  As the incarnate Christ brings us together spiritually, so humanity is also united by His unique and incomparable racial quality as a white European citizen of Eternal Rome, the Universal Empire.

One among the many priestly exhortations to uphold these great ideals of the Old Testament among Catholics is found in that great Papal Encyclical that praises to the skies the glories of race and nation, the magnificent Mit Brennender Sorge of our incomparable Pope, Pius XI of fond memory.  

Just to quote a little of that great encyclical:


"Nothing but ignorance and pride could blind one to the treasures hoarded in the Old Testament.
16. Whoever wishes to see banished from church and school the Biblical history and the wise doctrines of the Old Testament, blasphemes the name of God, blasphemes the Almighty's plan of salvation, and makes limited and narrow human thought the judge of God's designs over the history of the world: he denies his faith in the true Christ, such as He appeared in the flesh, the Christ who took His human nature from a people that was to crucify Him; and he understands nothing of that universal tragedy of the Son of God who to His torturer's sacrilege opposed the divine and priestly sacrifice of His redeeming death, and made the new alliance the goal of the old alliance, its realization and its crown.

34. No one would think of preventing young Germans establishing a true ethnical community in a noble love of freedom and loyalty to their country. … That is why we tell the young: Sing your hymns to freedom, but do not forget the freedom of the children of God.

42. Like other periods of the history of the Church, the present has ushered in a new ascension of interior purification, on the sole condition that the faithful show themselves proud enough in the confession of their faith in Christ, generous enough in suffering to face the oppressors of the Church with the strength of their faith and charity. … The day will come when the Te Deum of liberation will succeed to the premature hymns of the enemies of Christ: Te Deum of triumph and joy and gratitude, as the German people return to religion, bend the knee before Christ, and arming themselves against the enemies of God, again resume the task God has laid upon them."

And, of course when the dream of that last paragraph was so gloriously realised by the Invasion of the Soviet Union in June, 1941, the joy of the Catholic world then truly knew no bounds!  The Catholics were united as one and inspired by Fatima went forth shoulder-to-shoulder to battle the Jєωιѕн Bolshevik foe.


@Raoul76:  No need to become pornographic.  The Old Testament is not a "fantasy."  And the objection is to miscegenation.  Black and white MEN socializing together is FINE.  Catholics befriending the best of the Jєωs is also FINE.  How else are the best of the ex-Jєωs going to assmilate into our European Christian world?  And, once again, this has NOTHING to do with any pretence that the Jєωs aren't a very great people.  Clearly THEY ARE.  It's just that when the great ceases to be the good it sometimes becomes very bad indeed, and that is our horrible Jєωιѕн problem.

seems to me, you are trying to put a cover of strident Catholicism and the bible to cover your racism........

for record, I do support the old way of ethnic parishes, I think it preserves culture (esp since the USA is a cultural devoid, mainly of Protestant/Masonry), but at same time, should not be arrogant nor exclusive. In my area, we have a small chapel that is Korean, built by them and they have a Korean priest........nothing wrong (though of course, the NO/vernacular). Culturally, though, a preservative against the anti-Catholic American culture of obesity, and indifference.........wish there as a German parish or Celtic........
Over last few yrs, trying to learn more about the cutlure of my ancestors there in both camps......and reject this devoid American cutlure.......
Geramny and Scotland of course, "greatest when Catholic"

For this reason in almost all cases miscegenation between races is a mortal sin.

I don't get this. Never heard of such a thing. In which cases is it not a mortal sin, in your view?

Quote from: brotherfrancis75

For this reason in almost all cases miscegenation between races is a mortal sin.

I don't get this. Never heard of such a thing. In which cases is it not a mortal sin, in your view?

Mr. guitarplucker,

I am glad that you have the strong morality to approach this difficult topic with a healthy Catholic sense of right and wrong.  It makes far more Catholic common sense to ask your question about when could miscegenation not be a mortal sin than to adopt the opposite scandalous view that it simply couldn't be such a grave sin. The latter mentality indicates such a feeble moral sense as to be alien to the sensus catholicus of our entire long and glorious Roman history.

First, it is possible that the breeding together of different stocks can bring out the best qualities of those stocks with greater clarity than before.  The great example of this in our history would be the Normans.  However, as you no doubt have noticed already, this isn't actually miscegenation but simply the bringing together of the best racial stock of a pre-existing race, in this case our own white European Roman race.  The Normans are an excellent example of the intentional breeding of a more superior racial stock.

Perhaps the best example of outright miscegenation that may have been morally justified was probably the large-scale racial mixing between Spaniards and native Indians in Mexico after Mexico had been extremely devastated by imported new diseases from Europe that wiped out most of the native population there.  In that situation either the Spaniards had to reinforce the native Indian population by breeding with them or else Spanish Mexico would have been so decimated that the colony would almost certainly have simply collapsed and been taken over by other European powers that presumably would have then brought in large numbers of Negro slaves to populate the territory.

It's also true that some races mix much better than some other races.  In general among all the non-white races the American Indians have mixed best with Europeans with much the best results in racial and genetic terms.  So in general as white Europeans our part-white mestizo racial relations have much the closest and best relationships with us and in the Americas those with some American Indian ancestry often can and do rise racially to become genuine "white folk."  That doesn't mean that European families aren't free to avoid marrying them if they wish, but it does mean that such people can and do pass over into our white European race so that miscegenation is no longer any valid concern for them.  A similar relative racial compatibility also applies to many Siberian peoples as well as to the Lapps of northern Scandinavia who are also racially similar to the American Indians.

In a somewhat similar way, Nordics often see the more swarthy South Europeans as non-whites who can not be married without violating the moral laws against miscegenation.  Like with the most Europeanized ex-mestizos, although many such Southern Europeans may seem to appear non-white to some, they are in fact entirely within our race and no question of miscegenation should arise concerning them either.  Again, many Nordics may object to Nordics marrying them, but miscegenation has nothing to do with it.  Like it or not, the claim that South Europeans are descended from the ancient Roman non-white slaves is completely false and is only another gimmick to indulge the democratic dementia of our decadent contemporaries.  The racial origins of the Southern Europeans are actually well-understood and have nothing to do with any non-white elements.

Basically such concerns are the desire of Nordics to be more aristocratic, not more white European.  But, although some whites no doubt are of more aristocratic racial stock than various other white Europeans, again, this has nothing at all to do with miscegenation and no moral laws against race-mixing can then apply.  The dilution of our aristocratic lineages is also usually wrong, but it isn't miscegenation.  To repeat, it's important that we not confuse the healthy desire of Europeans to marry other Europeans of the best possible breeding quality with the separate problem of actual miscegenation.

By now presumably some of our readers are having to run for their smelling salts if they haven't already passed out dead away.  Some will be yelling for our heads about now and claiming vociferously that my words here can have nothing to do with Roman Catholicism.  They are badly confusing Roman Catholicism with Jesuitism, two religions that are not truly compatible.  They are substituting the most Judaized elements of the Jesuit Order for our own healthy Roman Catholic aristocracy and peasantry.  Because the ideas against race-mixing that I am presenting here are ABSOLUTELY the age-old attitudes and morals of our historic Catholic NOBILITY and PEASANTRY, perhaps best exemplified by the Benedictine and Franciscan Orders.  Although many Jesuits have not agreed, it is those Jesuits who have been the subversives who have sneaked in alien ideas about race into our white European Catholic world, essentially from the degenerate and heavily Judaized Ottoman Empire and later from lunatic ghettos of the heretic Russian Empire.

So my above words are a reasonably ACCURATE description of our historic and traditional Roman Catholic views on miscegenation and its various complexities as they affect we Catholics.  The false advocacy of miscegenation by many contemporary Catholics is only an alien import first brought into Christendom by worldly Jesuits, false ideas that were mostly taken from the hideously degenerate Ottoman Empire and later from Russia.

Our own Catholic religion has no problem admitting that the Incarnation is a harmony between BOTH the spiritual and material worlds and that therefore as Catholic human beings we are not simply disembodied angels without moral obligations towards the natural and material hierarchies of Creation.  As human beings, we are BOTH souls and bodies united into one unique person.  We are NOT pure spirits without the genetics or racial biology inherent to our human physiology.

The Incarnation is also MATERIAL and TEMPORAL.  It unites Eternity AND TIME.  As human beings we also have HUMAN BIOLOGY.  And that human biology is also temporal and therefore particular and specific within the MATERIAL Creation of space and time.  These particularities are RACIAL and GENETIC and were given to us direct from the Hand of God at the time of Creation.

To respect the work of the Lord is humble gratitude.  To intentionally destroy the unified and hierarchic human race that God has made is most truly and seriously a most grave MORTAL SIN.

As the Old Testament so clearly teaches us, under almost all circuмstances MISCEGENATION IS MORTAL SIN.

Quote from: guitarplucker

Quote from: brotherfrancis75

For this reason in almost all cases miscegenation between races is a mortal sin.

I don't get this. Never heard of such a thing. In which cases is it not a mortal sin, in your view?

More to the point, where is this formally written (Cathecism, Bull,etc).??????

Among Catholics these racial barriers have mostly been juridically composed of REGULATIONS within our religious hierarchy and State institutions.  In that way we have respected the strictures of the Old Testament while also respecting the personal liberty of Catholics.  For example, the Franciscans did not allow any Catholics to receive membership in the Franciscan Order until at least five generations or more of their ancestors had been within the faith.  That quite effectively excluded non-whites from the Franciscan Order but maintained a reasonable flexibility towards assimilated part-whites who either were "practically white Europeans" or by our Catholic spiritual standards already so.  Another standard Catholic method was that our Roman educational institutions regularly excluded Jєωs and Negroes from our Roman schools as a matter of course.  By not having entrance into our schools, Jєωs and Negroes were effectively excluded from mainstream Catholic institutions generally.

Another example is that our Church only objected to racial hatred, not to anti-miscegenation laws by Catholic and Protestant States.  For example, in Fascist Italy not a sound was to be heard in the Catholic Church objecting to the Italian anti-miscegenation laws of 1938.  Hatred and violence against Jєωs and other racial groups was strictly rejected by Catholics, but keeping the races reasonably apart was not objected to.  Rejection of miscegenation by the Catholic State, as in Italy and Germany between the World Wars, was not then found to be any reason for serious opposition by the Catholic Church.

Another example might be how Catholics saw the Jim Crow laws of Southern Protestant state governments.  Those laws were felt to be too materialistic and rigid, but the more moderate segregation laws of Louisiana were not felt to be objectionable.  The racial customs and traditions of Louisiana are a good example of how we Catholics have historically approached the issue of race under very difficult racial conditions.  From Louisiana we can also see that, some dangerous Jesuits aside, miscegenation has not been a respectable part of our mainstream Catholic heritage.

As for Catholic preaching and more formal Church actions towards racial issues, this can in general be seen in our Catholic attitude towards the Old Testament.  Rejection of the vigourous devotion to race and nation contained therein has normally been rejected throughout our history as another resurgence of the heresies of Marcion of Sinope.  The Old Testament is part and parcel of our historic preaching and morality and rejection of it is a sure sign of heresy!

Heaven forbid that Catholics should walk in the footsteps of the arch-heretic Marcion or share that great heretics contempt for the wisdom of the Word of God contained in our Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.

For the sake of brevity I will quote the accurate Young's Literal Translation of Matthew 5:17  :

"'Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets -- I did not come to throw down, but to fulfil"

Because we are Catholics we have followed this Old Testament law and the prophets with flexibility and compassion, but we have followed them nonetheless.

A more formal written statement?  "Thou shalt honor thy father and mother."  Including the racial and biological inheritance they have passed down to us!

 


 

A more formal written statement?  "Thou shalt honor thy father and mother."  Including the racial and biological inheritance they have passed down to us!

And the best way one can do that is by marrying a sibling.

 :scratchchin:

I was merely pointing out that not necessarily all of one's genetic descendents will be purely white. They will still be descendents.

The point was to say people can place a legitimate value on the genetic heritage of their progeny without being Darwinians.

Your comment is irrelevant.

I've enjoyed reading some of your viewpoints, brotherfrancis, but you're wrong about miscegenation in itself being a mortal sin or a sin of any kind. You must be. When and where has it been defined and condemned by the Church? Your justifications for this claim have been quite elliptical. Regarding the fourth commandment, I've never read even a mere commentary that said the Law requires us to preserve our race, let alone a magisterial statement of any kind.

I'm rightly diffident about this topic because it is a severe one and therefore not so pleasant to discuss among charitable Catholics.  I don't want to pretend that some aspects of life are not harsh and the traditional Catholic opposition against miscegenation reflects one of the harsher aspects of nature.  That any such harsh realities exist is due to sin, not to Holy Mother Church.

The more compassionate approach to miscegenation is to emphasise our Catholic respect for the Old Testament and ideally that ought to be enough for us.  But since some wish sharper precision, I'll somewhat gently move in that direction.  In Catholicism we take the natural law with the greatest seriousness, unlike the enemies of Catholicism.  Natural law is the bedrock of our Roman Law and the denial of natural law implies a denial of Roman law and order more generally.

Up until the French Revolution practically all non-white people (also humans to leave no doubt about this) in Catholic and Protestant Europe, since there had been any sort of Europe of any description, had virtually all of them been SLAVES.  Slaves were NOT legally allowed to marry non-slaves and that very much meant that in Europe non-whites quite simply DID NOT marry white Europeans AT ALL in any instance, period.  It simply was not done.

Many Catholic Popes owned slaves, including non-white slaves.  Any interracial hybrids of those non-white slaves were INVARIABLY referred to by Catholics as MONSTERS and MONSTROSITIES.  Is this vivid enough for us or must we go on?  All interracial marriage in Christian Europe before the French Revolution was a CRIME because non-whites in Europe were slaves and marrying non-white slaves was always and invariably CRIMINAL and universally held to be utterly and inarguably something MONSTROUS.

Therefore in terms of our own historic Roman Law marrying non-whites (then meaning non-white slaves) was a GRAVE CRIME against Christian society and the Christian State that was universally held to be an act of wanton MONSTROUSNESS.  The only Europeans who differed from this respectable knowledge were JACOBINS.  Nobody else even thought of disputing such a time-honored and universally agreed upon elementary fact of NATURAL LAW.  If one thought otherwise, obviously and beyond any doubt one was a revolutionary JACOBIN to be seized by the police and preferably taken to the local place of execution to be properly dispatched forthwith.  Such weird persons were OBVIOUSLY a danger to Church and State, were probably plotting the murder of all kings, priests and aristocrats and were to be dealt with to the FULL measure of the Roman Law.  This proper response to the Jacobin advocates of race-mixing also went by the proud name of the "Catholic Counter-Revolution."

Why do our readers imagine that the liberals/Marxists are so terribly opposed to the Catholic Restoration that so successfully annihilated the Jacobins?  It was because the ENTIRE Jacobin Program, including race-mixing, was then effectively dealt with IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS!  Race-mixers, along with every other variety of Jacobin, were sent to Devil's Island, cast into the deepest darkest dungeons or hung by the neck until deceased.  THAT was the standard Roman Catholic view of interracial marriage before the mid-19th Century!  Sex between the races was an essentially MONSTROUS activity restricted in Christian Europe to the most disreputable dens of iniquity in London.  Among respectable Europeans that was the sort of scandalous behavior only engaged in by ENGLISHMEN.

It was known to be the sort of disgusting thing that MUSLIMS would do.  And then probably in some hideously barbarous and outlandish place like Turkey.  Certainly not in any God-fearing Roman Catholic part of Europe.  (As for the loose morals of Jesuits and their slave-traders, why do we suppose they were suppressed so severely?  Their moral reputation was low.)

Please accept my apologies for my blunt language.  Beyond gentler and more polite references to the Old Testament, the above is how our ROMAN LAW dealt actually and factually with miscegenation.  The quotes and juridical references were primarily on the Roman Law statute books dealing with SLAVERY and the CRIMES thereof.