Monsignor Glenn on race-mixing

[Perun]

A post from the Catholic Nationalists egroup:

The following quote against race-mixing is from Monsignor Glenn's
book Sociology, which was given a nihil obstat by the Censor Departus
of the Church and received an imprimatur from the Bishop of
Columbus. Monsignor Glenn was Professor of Philosophy and later
President of the College-Seminary of St. Charles Borromeo. The text
would presumably have been used in seminaries for the instruction of
priests-to-be.


"That there are lines between classes of people is a certainty that
may as well be acknowledged at once, and the color-line is one of
them. While it is entirely possible to ignore these lines, the social
effect of such action is seldom happy. Just as a member of the true
Church is earnestly dissuaded from marriage, by dispensation, with a
non-member, so should a member of one race be dissuaded from marriage with a person of another color. In marriages of either type there is a definite injustice done to children, there are almost inevitable misunderstandings between the parties themselves, and there is sure to be some friction between the families so gracelessly united."
(Sociology, p. 372)

[Prinz Eugen]

Even i'm heathen i prefer christian nationalists and racialists than neohippies newagers call themselves pagans.
We must support every effort like this and a congratulate this catholics for their beliefs!

[Ederico]

Great material Perun, when you are free you can post it in AveMelita.com.

I would like to join the Catholic Nationalists e-group, can I?

[Nerthus]

I think this is great. He makes a point about injustice being done to children through racemixing. I can but imagine how unfair it would be for a child to be born racially mixed, to be accepted by neither party and raised with an identity problem. I don't hate such children but pity them

I'd have to disagree though with the part about members and non-members of the Church. Unlike race, religion is neiter something biological nor something fix for the individual. One is not really born with a religious belief. I mean, some people convert when they realise the fact that their faith and their religion don't correspond. Others become atheist/agnostic as they have little or no faith. If, say two people are in love and their denominations differ, yet they still want to get married - one of them would eventually convert. Then the purpose of conversion would not really be faith but convenience.

[daspit]

I disagree that religion is something that can be easily abandoned or changed upon marriage. Religion is as much or more a source of a person's identity as citizenship or race.

Just as a European who married an American citizen might be reluctant to abandon their European citizenship and become American, so would a believing person of one religion be reluctant to convert to the religion of their spouse just for "convenience."

The potential for conflict there is great enough to justify caution in marrying a person of another religion.

[Ederico]

I would have to agree with daspit. Perhaps the fact that BM is German might influence her, being the Germans traditionally divided religiously. Or is this not so BM?

[Nerthus]

I disagree - and it has nothing to do with the fact that I am German. Love can lead, in part, to irrationality. Look at race mixing, it is happening nowadays not only despite religious differences, but also despite meta-ethnic/ethnic and other cultural ones.

Not to mention that, throughout history, religion has been turned to for convenience purposes many times (not just matrimonial ones) - either not to be expelled out of a country or to gain a nobility title for example. And nowadays religion doesn't play the same role as it did during other times. We are living modernisation. Churches aren't as filled with people anymore. There are many that are fascinated by other beliefs such as wicca or heathenism.

[Awar]

It's all nice and good, but I don't see what it has to do with christianity,
except for the fact that the man who wrote it is a monsignor.

I think nothing more than postcards painted by Hitler have to do with National-Socialism.

[Milesian]

Perun, does this opinion have a presence in the magistereum?

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Ederico Figallo

I would like to join the Catholic Nationalists e-group, can I?

I provided a link above. Not very active though. Stoptheneokahns is a far more active e-group. As its homepage explains:


This forum is for people who have no problem being politically incorrect with NO exceptions. The Moderator is a Traditional Roman Catholic who advocates a Belloc/ Chesterton "distributist economic system", cutting out the international banksters, is anti-zionist and believes in the principle of national soveriegnty...and that the white race has a right to survive without having to make apologies to anyone. Please don't bother us with any pro-Bush "Neo-kahn" pablum. If that's your bag..this is NOT the forum for you.
-Joe Fields-
Group Owner/Moderator

So yes, its a forum for politically incorrect Catholics.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Awar

It's all nice and good, but I don't see what it has to do with christianity,
except for the fact that the man who wrote it is a monsignor.

Actually what Monsingnor Glenn saids is very much in line with Biblical teachings. In the Old Testament especially, you see many verses condemning race-mixing. Not only that the major goal of Catholic Social Doctrine is to promote social stability and social organicism, and Glenn is pointing out correctly that race-mixing does not serve that purpose but actually undermines it. Not only that, but a patriotic devotion to one's people/nation/race has always been upheld as a virtue by the Catholic Church. One could even add the principle of subsidarity to the question, which has always been a key element of Catholic Social Doctrine as well.

I remember this discussion coming up in an Orthodox forum, and a priest noted that most inter-racial relationships are mostly based on lust and not responsible love thats respectful of family and tradition.

So a Christian case against race-mixing can be made on so many levels.

[Perun]

Concerning mixed-faith marriages. Glenn is right that these can as much a source of conflict as mixed race marriages. Having grown up in a mixed faith family myself, I know this from personal experience. And trust me, it can get very ugly at times!

Although oddly enough the women I usually get along most with are usually not Catholic themselves. Talk about irony!

[daspit]

The Old Testament prohibitions against intermarriage with another "race," were not primarily concerned with ethnic purity, as they were with religious purity. The Hebrews were the only people who worshipped the one true God; the other nations surrounding them were polytheistic and hence idolators.

Intermarriage between religions leads to confusion, as noted in posts above, and often results in the children abandoning any faith. In the Old Testament context, though, the fear was that marriages between Hebrews and other peoples would create for the Hebrews a temptation to idolatry and a loss of faith in the one true God.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by daspit

The Old Testament prohibitions against intermarriage with another "race," were not primarily concerned with ethnic purity, as they were with religious purity. The Hebrews were the only people who worshipped the one true God; the other nations surrounding them were polytheistic and hence idolators.

Religious purity and ethnic purity were one and the same thing to the Hebrews. In fact you see this in many cases where marrying outside the faith equals marrying outside the race. Famous example is Northern Ireland, where marrying a non-Catholic(ie Protestant) more often than not equals marrying a non-Irishman.

Ethnic identity very often becomes heavily tied in with religious identity: you see this with Catholic peoples like the Irish, Italians, Spanish, French, Western Ukrainians, etc. Orthodox peoples like Serbs, Greeks, and Russians. And even Protestant peoples like the English.

A good book to read on this topic is Anthony D. Smith's Chosen Peoples: Sacred Sources of National Identity:


http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASI...371674-1967253

'Unto thy seed I have given this land.' From the moment of God's covenant with Abraham in the Old Testament, the idea that a people are chosen by God has had a central role in shaping national identity. Chosen Peoples argues powerfully that sacred belief remains central to national identity, even in an increasingly secular, globalized modern world. In this important new study, Anthony D. Smith goes in search of the deep Judeo-Christian roots of the many manifestations of national identity. This rich and timely contribution to current debates about nationalism explains the complex historical reasons behind often violent modern conflicts around issues of land, culture, religion, and politics. Tracing the development of individual nations over many centuries, it offers fascinating insights into the religious and cultural foundations of countries such as Great Britain, the United States, Israel, France, and Germany. The argument draws on a wide range of examples from historic landscapes in Ireland, Switzerland and Egypt, myths of Arthurian Britain, Holy Russia, and Byzantium, through memories of a 'Golden Age', to the modern commemoration of the 'Glorious Dead', and of victims of war.

[Nerthus]

Love and lust know no racial, cultural or spiritual limits. Rationality does.

But, fact is, as long as people will love and lust, we will see these kind of relationships. While a mixed-race relationship is harmful to one's people, a mixed-faith one is not IMO. At least not to the same extent, if ethnic homogenity is maintained for example.

If mixed-faith marriages are such a problem, one should also ask oneself this - should people of different nations be allowed to marry? Should people pertaining to different social classes be allowed to marry? Should people who hold different political orientations be allowed to marry? Should people who hold different beliefs in general be allowed to marry?

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

Love and lust know no racial, cultural or spiritual limits. Rationality does.

But, fact is, as long as people will love and lust, we will see these kind of relationships. While a mixed-race relationship is harmful to one's people, a mixed-faith one is not IMO. At least not to the same extent, if ethnic homogenity is maintained for example.

From a temporal point of view perhaps.
The implications for one's religion is another matter. Of course, if one is not that way spiritually inclined then it will be natural to see mixed faith marriages as less problematic than mixed race ones, since faith doesn't mean as much as blood to that person.

If mixed-faith marriages are such a problem, one should also ask oneself this - should people of different nations be allowed to marry? Should people pertaining to different social classes be allowed to marry? Should people who hold different political orientations be allowed to marry? Should people who hold different beliefs in general be allowed to marry?

Perhaps the best answer is straight from the Bible ( ) - "Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial"

[Perun]