Hi! I am a Hindu and I am in love with a religious Catholic Girl. She initially demanded that I had to convert in order for her to even consider anything. Since I have strong belief in Hinduism, I refused and we parted. A few days later, she returned to me and agreed that our love for each other was strong enough to overcome that hurdle. Now we are dating and contemplating marriage.

I have a few questions:

1) Can we have a "Proper Church wedding" which is not just a civil union?

2) I understand that children resulting from such a marriage are required to be baptized and raised catholic. But is it allowed that they be imparted knowledge of Hinduism (as is my case)?

3) Is there anyone who entered a mixed matrimony and is happy? I have to ask this question as I have come across many posts of people who were sorry to enter such a union. I don't want to end up one of those.

Thanks very much,

Lambu ------------

-- Lambu (meeyaoon@yahoo.com), February 22, 2005

Answers

Hi Lambu,

1. From what I understand, a marriage between a non-catholic & a catholic will always be only a blessing ceremony. There will not be sacrament of matrimony. You cannot enter into a sacramental ceremony if you don't believe in it I guess. I could be wrong.

2. Yes, Catholics in such union are called upon by the church to raised the children as faithful catholics. There is nothing wrong in learning about Hinduism or any other major religion while being a catholic. If one is raised in strong faith as a Catholic, one will find the beauty of the revealed love of God through the Catholic Church.

3. I will not try to paint a rosy picture for a mix marriage. Its not going to be easy. In any marriage whether catholic or not, there is going to be a lot of give and take and also a lot of finding out of different value and beliefs concepts between two person. You should both enrol in Engagement Encounter if there is one available at your girlfriend's parish.

Just as some point of encouragement, I knew of a catholic priest who was raised by his Catholic mom and his Hindu father. He is a very good and eloquent priest who speaks highly of his mom and also greatly revered his father.

God bless.

-- Anthony Yong (ajyong@yahoo.com), February 22, 2005.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As a Hindu, you believe in the spiritual aspects of all life, and there is no condemnation for a Hindu if they decide to convert to Christianity.

I suggest reading books by Thomas Merton. He was a Trappist monk who was a very orthodox Catholic, but found spiritual alliances with the eastern religions.

He was able to articulate these very well and this theology showed that the Catholic Church embraces the same type of spirituality through Christianity.

He was able to state that Christ was the fulfillment of that human spirituality.

Something to research. You might find that the Catholic Church might indeed appeal to you. If it did, your problems is solved.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), February 22, 2005.

You might be interested too to read books written by Anthony De Mello titled - The Way to Love. He is an Indian Jesuits. He writes a lot of anecdotal short stories borrowed from the eastern religions to throw lights on our spiritual journey as a Catholic.

-- Anthony Yong (ajyong@yahoo.com), February 22, 2005.

http://www.spiritwalk.org/demello.htm#biography

-- Anthony Yong (ajyong@yahoo.com), February 22, 2005.

i don't think anyone should let come anything between love...certainly not religion...love is supreme to all religions...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 23, 2005.

i don't think anyone should let come anything between love... certainly not religion... love is supreme to all religions...

thats because, sdqa, emotivism IS your religion. any "love" that comes between a catholic and their faith isn't love at all, but rather a snare. But in your worship of wordly desires, sdqa, you label that desire as love and throw all things aside to acheive it. The only difference between your worship of emotivism and our worship of God is that OUR faith is a rational free choice and YOU are slave to your emotions.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 23, 2005.

sorry paul h,but your faith is exactly based on emotivism instead on a rational free choise,you believe things that there is practicly no proof for

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 23, 2005.

sdqa, gonna meet me on msn?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 23, 2005.

yeah sorry i was away and i totally forgot,i'm gonna add u

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 24, 2005.

what's your username on msn?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 24, 2005.

Dear Anthony and John,

Thanks for your insightful responses. I have not read the books you two have suggested but I have read similar writing by a couple of other authors.

I have also been trying to read Catechism of Catholic Church and have read the Apostles Creed (in detail). I do agree that in the spiritual aspect, Catholicism is very similar to Hinduism. What I can't accept is that "Jesus is the only Savior". I consider Jesus to be someone who was born on the earth to show a true path to God. But rest of the stories built around him being the only son of God are a bit difficult to digest for me. I apologize for going sideways from the topic. But being a Hindu I have always believed all humans to be the children of the same God. The God who does not distinguish whether or not I call him Jesus.

So these are my basic problems with Catholic Church. My beliefs in goodness of humanity are guided by Hinduism and hence I would never be able to embrace another faith.

sdqa, your responses are also highly appreciated and your philosophy is very similar to my understanding.

Thnaks very much,

Lambu

-- Lambu (meeyaoon@yahoo.com), February 24, 2005.

Dear Lambu,

I'm a Catholic who has been married to a Hindu guy for the past 9 years. Brief background: I was raised Catholic from childhood, but fell away from my religion and then stayed away for 25 years. It was during that hiatus that I met and married my wonderful Indian husband. I got married very late in life (early 40s) and it is a first marriage for both of us. We do not have any children.

To answer your first question about having "a proper church wedding", the answer is "yes, you can". My husband and I had a Validation of Marriage ceremony conducted by a Catholic priest. Before that could be arranged, we had to go through some marital counseling and fill out a lot of compatibility questionnaires and discuss our answers with the priest in charge. My husband has never been interested in converting to Catholicism, however, he agreed to this Catholic ceremony because he knew that I needed it in order to start receiving holy communion at the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't know if I can answer your second question properly (about whether you can instruct your future children about Hinduism). All I can say is that because Catholicism and Hinduism are two diametrically opposed belief systems, I'm sure this dual knowledge of religion would only confuse a child. For example, a Catholic instruction class would tell the child that he should only believe in one triune God, yet the Hindu belief system would tell the child that he has a pantheon of gods to believe in. Also Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is truly the son of God, whereas Hindus believe that Jesus is simply "a holy man". So if I were a child being fed these conflicting beliefs, I would be mighty confused! And of course there are other major differences as well that I won't list here, but trust me, there are tons of them based on numerous discussions my husband and I have had over the years.

On your third question (about whether anyone in a mixed marriage is happy), this is what I have to say based on my own personal experience. Often I feel sad that my husband and I are unable to share one faith together. Obviously when I married him, I didn't think about it very much or else I would have married a Catholic. To refresh your memory, I was not even practicing a religion back when I dated and married him. But about 4 years into our marriage, I had a "religious awakening" and started attending the Catholic Church again. Things were really rough for a while after that because my husband was feeling a bit threatened by my new-found faith; he liked it better when I was "secular". It took him several years to get somewhat comfortable with my new church-going lifestyle.

Honestly, my religious belief system sometimes serves as a source of irritation to my husband because he just doesn't relate to most of it. As a Hindu, he's very superstitious and I am probably the least superstitious person on the face of the planet; this is most likely because The Bible tells us not to follow superstition. That difference alone causes constant conflict between myself and his parents. For the most part, my husband respects the fact that I'm not superstitious and he doesn't try to force me to do superstitious things; but with his parents, it's another story. They're always getting annoyed because I won't do certain things that reflect their secular lifestyle. His mother gets mad because she thinks that I'm hurling a personal slam against her, when in reality I'm just trying to be faithful to my religious beliefs.

Most of the time, my husband and I are happy together as a couple, but there is always that religious gap that cannot be bridged and there is always the loneliness that comes from not being able to share my faith with him. When Christmas comes, he's thrilled to open the presents and he enjoys looking at the lights on the tree, but he can't share the true meaning of what that day actually means to me as a Christian. So as much as I love him, I would feel much more connected to him if we could be strong in one faith together.

From what I've seen, my husband's parents are extremely controlling, and frankly, if we had kids, I'm pretty sure our marriage would have ended by now! I can guarantee you that there would've been a constant battle with my husband teamed up with his parents all fighting against me concerning which religion our kids would be brought up in. My husband is a strong believer in "raise them with both religions and let them make up their own minds" and his parents would simply object vehemently to any connection with Christianity whatsoever. I don't mean to sound depressing, but I'm just being honest. So if you love your girlfriend and you are determined to marry her, just be prepared for some very bumpy roads ahead, possibly moreso with your parents than with yourself!

I have a question for you: If your girlfriend is a practicing Catholic (the emphasis being on "practicing"), why is she interested in marrying a Hindu? If it's because she loves you and she thinks that "love conquers all", perhaps she needs to rethink that. Maybe you should show her this post and the two of you can have a lively discussion. You seem like a compassionate and reasonable guy, which is probably why she cares about you.

Good luck in whatever you do, but please don't go into this blindly. I know that Hindus (especially Indian parents), as well as Catholics, frown on divorce!

P.S. -- For all those wondering what made me marry a Hindu when I have a Catholic background. Here's the shocker: Most Indian men I've known actually possess more "Christian" values (in the way of morals) than most men from Christian backgrounds that I had dated. It was my husband's strong moral character that attracted me to him.

-- Patience (nospam@idelete.it), February 26, 2005.

I have also been trying to read Catechism of Catholic Church and have read the Apostles Creed (in detail). I do agree that in the spiritual aspect, Catholicism is very similar to Hinduism. What I can't accept is that "Jesus is the only Savior". I consider Jesus to be someone who was born on the earth to show a true path to God. But rest of the stories built around him being the only son of God are a bit difficult to digest for me. I apologize for going sideways from the topic. But being a Hindu I have always believed all humans to be the children of the same God. The God who does not distinguish whether or not I call him Jesus.

[i agree with you completely]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 26, 2005.

to oliver: anarchy_inthe_bedroom@hotmail.com,it's actually jerry's email,but i use it also sometimes and mine is full

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 26, 2005.

Patience, I just want to tell you that your message was one of the best (of thoudands) that I have ever read at this forum. You poured out your heart, clearly and convincingly listing many important factors that people need to consider when they are considering marrying someone of another faith.

I thank God for successfully "tempting" you to return to the Catholic Church. He did the same for me.

-- (friend@of.all), February 26, 2005.

Dear Patience, I can't tell you in words how much your message meant to me. Your message was true to the core. Your message has helped me to get my thoughts together. I have almost made up my mind. I just have a little more thinking to do.

On a different note, I suggest that you read a few of the previous replies to my questions. You will find suggestions that Catholicism and Hinduism share a lot in their spiritual aspects. Only difference is that Catholics like to call Jesus as the only Savior while Hindus only respect Jesus as a Messiah (but not God).

It is true that hindus worship many Gods. But only ignorant people separate one God from another. Most of Hindus believe that there is only one God. All those different names ultimately refer to the Same Supernatural Power in the end (ask your husband about the holy trinity of Hindus).

Thanks very much nevertheless,

Lambu

-- Lambu (meeyaoon@yahoo.com), February 26, 2005.

"But only ignorant people separate one God from another. Most of Hindus believe that there is only one God. All those different names ultimately refer to the Same Supernatural Power in the end."

I understand this concept, but it does not even stand up to a simple philisophical test, let alone any religious understand of God.

Suppose there is religion A that believes in god A.

Suppose there is religion B that believes in god B.

You contend that god A equals god B.

Now, let's suppose that god A is in direct disagreement with god B (as understood in their respective religions, which according to these relativistic views, are all equal.)

Then, how can god A equal god B?

This religious relativism simply does not hold water. The mere notion of all gods being one in the same is simply ridiculous.

Tim Kirschenheiter

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), February 27, 2005.

Lambu,

I hope my message to you didn't hurt your feelings. I know I hit at least one raw nerve because you responded similarly to my husband when he and I discuss the topic of God. Bluntness and honesty are my high points (although sometimes it gets me in trouble), so I am telling it like it is. Well, at least now you have some food for thought from someone who knows firsthand about the mixed marriage experience. If you have any questions for me, feel free to ask. Once again, "good luck" to you.

Tim K.,

I strongly agree with your post and you explained yourself in a very clear way. I hope this doesn't get us too far off the path of this thread, but here's a great article that deals with the topic of "Do We All Worship the Same God?" I don't think I need to add to it because it's beautifully written "as is". Check it out.

-- Patience (nospam@idelete.it), February 27, 2005.

God warns us that we should not be mis-yoked in any partnership. There are obvious reasons for this.

You would be considered a non-believer, and it is bound to become a problem at some point in time if your girl is a true believer.

A true Cristian would never want to raise her children any other way7 but in pointing them to Jesus.

Hinduism denies Jesus His rightful place as Lord over all.

The good news for you is that the Catholic Church has a funny way of ignoring what the Scriptures say. They will find a way to make your union okay.

Then when it falls apart--there is always the annullment route....who cares how many lives are ruined by then? The children will deal with it just like all the children deal with it these days. Heck--there are more blended and broken families then there are healthy ones anyway.

-- (anon@anon.com), February 27, 2005.

ANON,
Watch what you say: ''news for you is that the Catholic Church has a funny way of ignoring what the Scriptures say.''

Totally wrong. The Bible is the written record of God's Holy Word produced and certified by the Catholic Church in the first place. She can't ''ignore'' what was first written by the holy apostles who brought her to the world.

In today's case, a mixed marriage; all she declares is that marriage between a non-believer and a Catholic is considered perfectly valid and binding. She has not called it an ideal, nor is it a sin. It's just a valid union, capable of producing new souls for Christ. The scripture WARNS-- but doesn't damn anybody-- the faithful, for joining unequally. But it never says that ''yoke'' can't be valid. Nor that it will it necessarily end in disaster.

A great saint of the early Church, Saint Augustine-- had a saintly Catholic mother, MONICA-- and his pagan father, Patricius. She and Patricius were honestly married in Holy Matrimony, by the Church. This unequal union in marriage gave Christianity one of humankind's most brlliant minds, and as faithful a Christian as ever lived-- Augustine. And, by the grace of God, Monica through constant PRAYER and great faith procured the conversion of her pagan HUSBAND, too; before the end of his life. We recognize in her --Saint Monica, one of God's truly heroic souls. She helped bring her son out of his sinful youth into the Church, to rank among her greatest saints; and the eternal salvation of her husband as well. --We can easily see that her unequal ''yoke'' with Patricius was a marriage made in heaven. God will always love the souls who are faithful in this life. And He can make ANY matrimony blessed and fruitful.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.

That's all nice Eugene,

But here is what God has actually revealed about mis-yoked partnerships:

Do Not Be Yoked With Unbelievers...

2 Cor 6:14-18

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?

What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God.

As God has said:

“I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

“Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.”

“I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”

***************************

You gonna argue with God, Eugene?? Could it be any clearer??

-- (anon@anon.com), February 27, 2005.

It isn't clear to YOU. That's a fact.

You're an opponent of the Church of the apostles. You show it first by worshipping at the feet of your Bible. We have been taught to worship Jesus Christ, not our private applications of each verse of scripture.

Let me say it once more: [This] scripture WARNS-- but doesn't damn anybody-- or the faithful, for joining unequally. --It never says that ''yoke'' can't be valid; nor that it will it necessarily end in disaster.'' How come you ignored these obvious points? Because you worship private interpretation; your own.

Read 2nd Peter 1 :19, on private interpretations.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.

Eugene,

We know that God can work all things out for the good of those who love Him. But assuming that we can ignore this warning and that God will simply work it out for you--simply denies the most essential part of our faith--which is obedience.

If one is already married to an unbeliever before they become born- again--then the Scriptures instruct that if the unbeliever wants to stay--we shouldn't separate or divorce., but at the same time--we are told if the unbeliever wants to go--let him go.

There is little support for the idea that God approves marrying an unbeliever. It is a human notion and brings with it much heartache and trouble.

Of course, God can use anything to bring about new faith..but on the whole, God says do not be mis-yoked!

-- (anon@anon.com), February 27, 2005.

Italics off

-- (anon@anon.com), February 27, 2005.

Well, now-- that is a more reasonable statement. You see; I can't claim it's just FINE; marry as we please, because it makes no difference to God. I only say there can be a a valid, fruitful marriage, if the Christian is truly FAITHFUL. Accepting the unequal yoke (you see, I agree it's UNEQUAL, I don't claim it's ideal) --accepting the challenge of this unequal yoke requires HEROIC faith. For this to be a holy union of two souls, God must give the CHRISTIAN extraordinary graces. The unbeliever brings only limited, human virtue to the marriage; not spiritual value. But with God's help the marriage may even lead to the conversion of an unbeliever. Saint Monica was an excellent example.

Naturally, Monica doesn't impress you. You're into Sola Scriptura. And you haven't concealed your anti-Catholic feelings. But if you pray and come here with good will; possibly you'll understand in time. I don't think you've given God a real chance yet.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.

You are confused Eugene,

I do not reject God or His Holy revelation to us. I just reject Catholic interpretation.

The point is, the Catholic priest should not be in the business of marrying mis-yoked couples. He should be doing everything in his power to reject those kinds of unions--because God says not to partner with unbelievers.

-- (anon@anon.com), February 27, 2005.

"I do not reject God or His Holy revelation to us. I just reject Catholic interpretation."

God's Holy Revelation, the Bible is a Catholic work, meant to accompany Apostolic tradition. This was believed and basically went unchallenged for 1500 years. So did God reveal new truths to those early Protestant "reformers?"

Tim Kirschenheiter

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), February 27, 2005.

Dear Tim,

There is a huge difference between the Apostolic church and the early believers--and what eventually became the Roman Catholic Church.

You kid yourself if you think that the Roman Catholic religion gave us the Scriptures.

While it may be true that a Roman Catholic council approved the books in the canon, in fact, the Bible was written by God-inspired prophets and apostles. These books were well known and already accepted even as they were being written.

I don't disagree that the early church--especially the apostles themselves gave us the New Testament--but I argue that the early church was not Roman Catholic.

-- (anon@anon.com), February 27, 2005.

Anon,

When did the early Christian Church cease to exist?

Also, when did the Catholic Church begin?

If you insist that they are different, then there must de distinct periods in which they existed, right?

YOU are kidding YOURSELF by insisting that they are separate entities.

Tim Kirschenheiter

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), February 27, 2005.

Tim,

God said that His church cannot be divided. I believe God. Yet, at the same time--we can see that the earthly church becgan dividing even in Paul's day.

Corruption and false teachings have been dividing the earthly establishment from the begining.

Roman Catholicism is the merging of Christianity (some sects) with the state of Rome during the time of Constatine. It is merely a division in itself.

People were wise to the problem. But these things happened gradually and were responded to gradually. The first real clear protest in history shows up in the great schism of about 1,000 A.D. This is when the Christian church divided into Eastern and Western Orthodoxy.

But there were quieter protests all along. Even though we don't really see anything big again until the timer of Luther, there were protests all along. Roman rule was changing the face of the church.

The good news is that Jesus protected us from any real division by keeping us as a mystery *in* Him. We are *His Body* of true believers. We are *not* of this world, so we are not caught up in any one earthly establishment. We are universal (catholic) in that we can be found all over the world. You can know us by our fruit : )

-- (anon@anon.com), February 27, 2005.

I asked 3 simple questions. You chose to answer one of them (incorrectly by the way). Please answer the other two if you can.

Tim

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), February 27, 2005.

Because you can't recognize the answer Tim, does not mean that I didn't answer you.

For one thing--I see only two questions.

You asked, When did the Christian Church cease to exist..and...when did the Catholic church begin?

Depending on how one understands the word catholic and just *what* one thinks is the church--the answer cannot be simple.

I think the word catholic means universal--not Roman religion. Therefore--that catholic church has existed since the time of pentecost.

I answered that the Roman Catholic Church began around the time of Constatine, though the Roman church didn't officially take the word catholic for itself until it was resisting Luther.

The Christian church is still in existence, it was not wiped out by Catholicism or any other sort of religion. The Christian church of Jesus Christ is His true Body of faithful believers.

-- (anon@anon.com), February 27, 2005.

>"we can see that the earthly church becgan dividing even in Paul's day"

A: We can? Where? Paul wrote "being diligent to preserve the UNITY of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is ONE body and ONE Spirit, just as also you were called in ONE hope of your calling; ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism, ONE God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all." (Eph 4:3-6) Paul didn't seem to be aware of this division you speak of.

> "Corruption and false teachings have been dividing the earthly establishment from the begining."

A: No. Corruption and false teaching have been separating individuals FROM the Church established by Christ from the beginning. This does not divide the Church. It merely separates some individuals from that unified Church. The Church however, continues to teach the fullness of truth in unity after such individuals leave, just as it did before.

> "Roman Catholicism is the merging of Christianity (some sects) with the state of Rome during the time of Constatine. It is merely a division in itself."

A: Rubbish! The Holy Catholic Church had exactly the same structure, the same doctrinal truths, the same moral teaching, the same seven sacraments, and the same Sacrifice of the Mass that it had for the three centuries of its history before Constantine came on the scene. The Christian Church of the day also maintained the same name it had already used for 300 years - the Holy Catholic Church. There was no other, not before Constantine and not after him. The Popes who shepherded that same Church after the time of Constantine were in the sdame line of succession as the thirty or so Popes who preceded him. We owe Constantine a debt of Gratitude for legalizing Catholicism, but no new church began during His reign as emperor. The Holy Catholic Church was still the Holy Catholic Church, as it will be until the end of time.

> "The first real clear protest in history shows up in the great schism of about 1,000 A.D. This is when the Christian church divided into Eastern and Western Orthodoxy."

A: No. This is when the newly formed Orthodox Church separated from the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Holy Catholic Church. The Catholic Church remained united, just as it had been for 1,000 years.

Even though we don't really see anything big again until the timer of Luther, there were protests all along. Roman rule was changing the face of the church.

A: Roman rule?? The Roman Empire had fallen less then 200 years after Constantine. By the time of Luther's rebellion there had been no "Roman rule" of anything on earth for over 1,000 years. And prior to that, pagan Rome had been the violent persecutor of the Catholic Church, not the ruler of it. Or by "Roman rule" do you really mean "Catholic rule?. In which case I must ask - who would you expect to rule over the Catholic Church, if not the Catholic Church??

> "The good news is that Jesus protected us from any real division by keeping us as a mystery *in* Him. We are *His Body* of true believers."

A: That's a nice fuzzy thought, but let's get real. Thousands of manmade denominations who cannot agree with one another on a single doctrinal issue. If that isn't "real division", what is? It just isn't honest to view the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism, and then to say "well yes, the Protesant churches are in an ungodly state of confusion, but you see WE are not divided because WE are not members of any of those churches". I've got news for you. If you are not a member of any of "those" churches, you are just one more new denomination. Division breeds division. That's the ongoing history of Protestantism.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 27, 2005.

Anon let a major slip-up pass here: ''God said that His church cannot be divided. --I believe God.''

And right off, the bottom drops out------------------ -------- Ooops! ''Yet, at the same time --we can see that the earthly church began dividing even in Paul's day.''

Hmmmm. You believe God; but He turned out to be wrong? You believe God's promise that His Church will be the same Church till the end of the world. HE SAID SO.

But He couldn't foresee that his Church would fall apart. (Except, of course-- For your Bible Belt church.) Does God ever turn out correct?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.

No Eugene,

I believe God when He said that His church could not be divided. It is not divided. That is how I know that the Catholic religion is not His church. That is how I know that no church on earth is His church. They are all part of division, all of them!

There is something bigger than us at work here. Jesus church is a mystery, hidden in Him.

-- (anon@anon.com), February 27, 2005.

There is something bigger than us at work here. Jesus church is a mystery, hidden in Him.

That answer is a cop out because you simply refuse to take the blinders off your eyes. Because you can't seem to see that these divided churches you speak of, originated from the Catholic Church and continue to splinter.

Just believe. Truth is not to be found, everything is lost. The Apostles handed what they had been taught, off to imcompetent fools and hell has prevailed. There is no Ground and Pillar of Truth. The Holy Spirit couldn't do His job and lead us into all Truths.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 27, 2005.

If Jesus' Church is a mystery, hidden in Him.----------------- Show us what passage in the Bible told you that.

Don't hesitate; you believe all truth is there; get us the Bible chapter and verse; saying the Church is ''hidden''.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.

BACK TO YOUR QUESTION: "Can a Hindu marry a Catholic Girl and be happy ?" Yes a Hindu can marry a Catholic Girl and be happy.

If you truly care for this lady, and it sounds like you do, the more important question to ask is "Can a Catholic Girl mary a Hindu and be happy."

According to your posting, whe is already compromising he beliefs for you. Is that what you really want?

FOR HER SAKE. There is a class the Catholic Church offers called RCIA. It is the class you would take if you were to convert, though do not have too. I would advise you to go to HER church, ask to take the RCIA with the understanding that you will probably NOT convert. This would serve two purposes. 1) You would learn about her faith and why she does what she does. 2) It would show her you care enough about her to learn more about her.

May all things be a source of peace to you two,

Davis

-- davis (davishgray@aol.com), February 28, 2005.

For you, Eugene,

Ephesians 3:2-6

Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 28, 2005.

Hey--Look there. Is that our old Catholic-baiter ''faith'' of little faith?

What is it about that verse? It shows Paul's reasons for rejecting the Judaizing element of the early Church. Many old Christians kept insisting a Catholic had to accept circumcision and other conditions of the Mosaic Law. Paul told these people that he, an apostle had insights which he received by a private revelation and that was why he spoke with such authority AGAINST these men. Not meaning there was a secret or hidden aspect of the Christian Church at large.

We are also taught in Acts how Paul learned what the Mystical Body of Christ is. Our Holy Church; every member in communion and serving the Head of the Mystical Body, Jesus Christ the Lord. We were NEVER taught by any apostle that souls independent and autonomous calling themselves ''believers'' had membership in any way in the Mystical Body. Not by Saint Paul or any apostle. The Catholic Church ALONE is sum total of these members. Other sects, unfortunately are in heresy, outside.

I've disputed this hotly here with many non- Catholics, even just a week ago with David --who signs his name ''non-Catholic.'' They are mistaken.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.

faith, arent you banned? or are you on probation for good behavior?

but at any rate, what paul the apostle says is that gentiles can be a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church... and somehow you have jumped through hoops to turn this into saying that we're all members of some ambiguous body that can't decide on a single issue except that catholics arent allowed? what a load of fertilizer, if you ask me.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 28, 2005.

Eugene,

Can't you see that the church is hidden in Christ? We are His Body.

Ephesians 5:29-33

After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church– for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery–but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Col. 1:24-27

Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness– the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 28, 2005.

Hi paul,

I have always behaved myself : )

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 28, 2005.

Davis,

Thanks very much for your encouraging reply. I also want to thank Anthony, John and Patience for their insightful responses. I have gotten the answeres to my questions from you all and I have finally talked in detail with Girlfriend.

Both of us have agreed that we care about each other so much that we don't want to hurt each other. She said that she would always feel a void in her life if her childhood dream of having Sacrament of Matrimony for her marriage was not realized. She always wanted me to convert so that she could receive holy communion with me. (none of these dreams can be realized with me). She however was willing to let go of these wishes for my sake. I didn't think it was fair. Now we will only exist as friends who wished each other Good Luck for future.

I am not sure if it was the right decision. I hope heartache from a break-up would save us a lifetime of battles.

Lambu

-- (meeyaoon@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.

You never were so wrong, Faithie. I don't want to have you chewing the carpets here all over again. Just don't offer opinions here about the Church. There's no point in discussing it with you. You don't know what you're talking about; and for myself, I'd rather not give you a free platform. Ciao, God bless you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.

Eugene.,

It's not me who makes you uncomfortable. It's not me that you run from. It is this pure Scripture that you run from--but cannot ignore...You asked for Scripture that said that the church was a hidden mystery--and so I gave it to you.

Ephesians 3:2-6

Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 5:29-33

After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church– for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery–but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Col. 1:24-27

Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness– the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 28, 2005.

Took you a lifetime, and you're still backing into hell. Tough Lady. --Ciao.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.

Your inability to respond with anything just proves that I am right!

I mean, how can you argue with Scripture anyway?

You can't!

Your personal attacks of me only make you look foolish.

This is really between you and God.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 28, 2005.

Who are you kidding faith. Every Catholic here knows Eugene has the ability to easily refute your interpretations of those verses. He is one of the best apologists here. Just drop it please.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 28, 2005.

Anyways, they really aren't all that tough to understand when looking at them from a Catholic perspective.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 28, 2005.

lol! apologist? Eugene?

You are kidding, I am sure....

Stop it!

My side is aching from rotflmao....

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 28, 2005.

....And who said they were tough to understand?

Those verses would only be tough to understand if you start out denying the clear revelation in the first place and then try to work in backwards.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 28, 2005.

Those verses would only be tough to understand if you start out denying the clear revelation in the first place and then try to work in backwards.

Translation: Those verses would only be tough to understand if you start denying the clear revelation given to the Catholic Church in the first place and then trying to work it yourself, backwords.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 28, 2005.

Anybody else see the irony in Faith's e-mail address?

(faith01@MYWAY.com)

Tim Kirschenheiter

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), February 28, 2005.

What in the world is going on here? "Faith" was banned ages ago. Why aren't her messages being deleted? Has this become a NON- Catholic forum, in which Catholic-bashers hold sway?

-- (coriolanus@lordstown.com), March 01, 2005.

I will pray for your peace. I know it hurts now, but in the long run you will find out that neither one of you would have truly been at peace with this union. It does sound like you two have the foundation of a deep friendship some people will not know.

FOR YOU: Oh God, lead us from the unreal to the Real. Oh God, lead us from darkness to light. Oh God, lead us from death to immortality. Shanti, Shanti, Shanti unto all. Oh Lord God almighty, may there be peace in celestial regions. May there be peace on Earth. May the waters be appeasing. May herbs be wholesome, and may trees and plants bring peace to all. May all beneficent beings bring peace to us. May thy Vedic Law propagate peace all through the world. May all things be a source of peace to us. And may thy peace itself, bestow peace on all and may that peace come to me also.

FOR HER: "The Prayer of Saint Francis" Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred ... let me sow love Where there is injury ... pardon Where there is doubt ... faith Where there is despair ... hope Where there is darkness ... light Where there is sadness ... joy Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek To be consoled ... as to console To be understood ... as to understand, To be loved ... as to love For it is in giving ... that we receive, It is in pardoning ... that we are pardoned, It is in dying ... that we are born to eternal life

~Amen~

-- Davis (Hello@There.com), March 01, 2005.

If you consider Scripture to be an affront on Catholicism, if you consider posting Scripture to be Catholic bashing, then I suppose Faith is guilty, because she definately posted much of God's Word to you.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 01, 2005.

If you consider Scripture to be an affront on Catholicism, if you consider posting Scripture to be Catholic bashing,

how could quoting the scripture that was compiled by the catholic church be an affront to us? remember, we produced the bible in about 390 AD so any scripture you quote to us is there because catholics put it in your hands.

then I suppose Faith is guilty, because she definately posted much of God's Word to you.

faith posted four or five verses which are about various subjects which she doesnt even understand. as i pointed out, the first verse is about gentiles being allowed to worship... not about some mysterious body of believers that all of a sudden showed up with no mention by Christ. no thanks, i'll believe in the church that Christ repeatedly speaks about rather than the church that faith created by personal twisting of the apostle paul's letters.

consequently, quoting scripture is not why anyone doesnt want to take the time to refute faiths post. its because no matter how much time and effort you spend showing faith the truth, she responds with the ever so original line... "no its not." of what use is it to discuss something with someone who hardly even reads what you write before posting more dribble.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 01, 2005.

We love the Holy Bible. We also know what Saint Peter warned the Church of:

No prophesy of scripture is made by private interpretation,'' (2Pet 1:20) and ''Their latter state (that of Faith, Anon, heretics) has become worse for them than the former (their ancestors being Catholics) For it were better for them not to have known the way of justice than having known it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. For, what that true proverb says has happened to them, ''A dog returns to his vomit, a sow even after washing wallows in the mire.'' (2Pet 2 :21- 22)

This ''latter state'' we read of is, when YOU and every heretic didn't have faith at all-- Then you were baptised and redeemed. Afterward, you and every heretic turned away from the ''holy command''-- and that was: ''If he hears not the Church, let him be to you as the heathen and the publican.''

Or; as Paul said, ''. . . There are some who trouble you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel of heaven shall preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you; Let him be anathema (Gal 1 :7-8-9)

Paul says ''other than that which we have preached to you,'' and he means --we--the Church of the apostles-- or, the Catholic Church. (And that makes your sects anathema.) Heretics who are actually descendents of faithful Catholics, ''turned away from the holy command'' of the apostles. The whole world knows this. When ya coming back???

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 01, 2005.

...by private interpretation was meant exactly what the Catholic church does and what the Jehovah Witnesses do, and the Mormons etc...

There is no room for any study or understanding. You are simply told what to believe--like it or not. If you don't agree--then you are excommuncated.

If anyone disagrees with you--ban them!

Yet Jesus calls us to know the Scriptures and he holds us individually responsible.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 01, 2005.

There is no room for any study or understanding.

there's plenty of room for study AND understanding. but of what use is it to hand a five year old a calculus book and expect them to get the concepts right? in the same way, of what use is it to hand the bible to spiritual amatuers and expect them to come up with any reasonable sort of interpretation, much less one that agrees with each other?

if you actually read what is being typed when we're not diddling away time answering these feeble and basic misconceptions on scripture in the church, we spend alot of time discussing subtle nuances of the faith. THAT, faith, is why you detract and were therefore banned from this forum. because you draw us away from the mission of this forum, which is to promote catholic understanding and study. some GUESTS are appreciated, they do their best to respect the church and to ask honest and advanced questions. others who repeatedly drag every topic back to stupid, basic, and trivial complaints against the church are not so wanted... even if they are respectful in their asking over the long haul it is still a waist of time. especially because everything that you have said has been answered many many times over in the archives. do your homework. read up in the archives on various subjects before you ask. we dont like rehashing the basics again and again.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 01, 2005.

Wrong again. Jesus commanded His holy apostles to teach all nations everything that he'd taught them. Not YOU-- His apostles.

''You are simply told what to believe-- like it or not. If you don't agree--then you are excommuncated.''

We have to believe everything God reveals, faith. It's called F A I T H --! We ARE TOLD-- to ''believe, like it or not.'' BY THE APOSTLES.

You & every heretic chose not to believe UNLESS you ''like'' it. That's not FAITH.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 01, 2005.

What does any of this have to do with the origional question?

You two are so hell bent on proving your point that you are starting to sound "un-Christian". None of this helps Lambu, and if he ever considered converting, I'm sure he's recondisering his decision now.

LAMBU: I apologize for the infintile comments of my "Catholic Brothern". Not all Catholic act the way they do...some of us act like Christians.

-- A Catholic Christian (are_you_kidding@me.com), March 01, 2005.

What was the Origoinial question? Didn't Lambu get enough answers?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 01, 2005.

That is why, paul, that the Scriptures tell us we should not study alone. That we should study as a church, as a body of believers. We should come together as a group as well as reading the Scriptures for ourselves on an individual basis. Jesus says, "Have you not read?" or, "For it is written!" Jesus fully expected His hearers in His day to be aware of what was written. He expected that they have read it for themselves.

In the book of Acts, they had Bible studies and readings in each other's homes.

Eugene is wrong when he thinks that jesus only commisioned the original twelve apostles to preach the word and know the Scriptures. He expects all of His disciples to know the Scriptures and study with others.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 01, 2005.

The scriptures NEVER tell us we ''should not study alone. That we should study as a church,'' That is your self-serving idea. ''Study'' for the sake of private interpretation is forbidden by the scriptures (2Pet 1:20). REAL study as a Church means study IN the true Church; not without her help and correction. Your ''body of believers'' is a false church. All you receive in it is erroneous Bible ''scholarship'' (not study) and misguided fellowship.

I'm glad you brought up this subject, so that your idolatry can be exposed. You and your sects worship at the feet of the Bible. That is NOT what the Holy Bible was written for. You have it for your sole rule of faith; which is idolatry without the Church of the apostles to keep you in the truth. Bibliolatry is the adoration of erroneous chapter and verse-- with no attention to the Holy Spirit.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 01, 2005.

Acts 8:30-35

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture: “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth.”

The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

**********************************************

May I point out that this Phillip was not the apostle Phillip. Therefore, two people were studying the Scriptures together. One evangelist and one new believer...who was washed new by the Scriptures.

Acts 8:1-8

On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison. Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went. Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there. When the crowds heard Philip and saw the miraculous signs he did, they all paid close attention to what he said. With shrieks, evil spirits came out of many, and many paralytics and cripples were healed. So there was great joy in that city.

-- (anon@anon.com), March 01, 2005.

The word that they learned from the Apostles. All of us on this site are preaching the Word, but very few of us are Priests, so what is your point?

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 01, 2005.

''unless someone explains it to me? --two people were studying the Scriptures together. (One CATHOLIC evangelist) and one new believer...who was washed and became a Catholic. Very true!

''New persecution broke out against the CATHOLIC church at Jerusalem, --and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried (Saint Stephen --a Catholic saint, anon.) --and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the Catholic Church.'' Saul became Saint Paul; whose feast is celebrated together with Saint Peter's on the same day for almost 2,000 years now. Both pillars of the Catholic faith. Peter was our first POPE.

This is all basic Catholicism, anon. Just as the Holy Bible is ours by conduct of the Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit. An incontrovertible fact.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 01, 2005.

Dear Catholic Christian (are_you_kidding@me.com),

You are absolutely right in questioning. I just can't understand why all these people are fighting (what is that they gain from it). I appreciate all the reasonable responses that I got and thanks to them and a few personal discussions I managed to get out of my dilemma.

Davis,

I want to thank you once again. I greatly appreciate the Vedic prayer you wrote for me. I wish there were more people as evolved as you are... and then I won't have to make that difficult and painful decision.

Lambu

-- Lambu (meeyaoon@yahoo.com), March 02, 2005.

Sorry lambu, but it only takes one ant-Catholic to hijack this thread and send it in disarray.

Please don't be upset with the Catholics here for defending our faith against the bashers. It was never our intention but it does happen when non-catholics are free to roam these threads.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), March 02, 2005.

Eugene,

Are you suppose to be adding words to Scripture?

Acts 8:1-8

On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison. Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went. Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there. When the crowds heard Philip and saw the miraculous signs he did, they all paid close attention to what he said. With shrieks, evil spirits came out of many, and many paralytics and cripples were healed. So there was great joy in that city.

Phillip was an evangelist of the Word of God as taught by Jesus and the apostles. Many people are evangelists in the same way--following jesus and the apostles. But we are not Roman Catholics. Neither was Phillip or Paul for that matter.

My point in giving that verse was two-fold. It shows that people had in their possession, the Scriptures--and they were reading them. In that verse, God reveals that He wants us to read them together--to rightly understand., but that there would be times when we are reading them alone. People were expected to know the Scriptures.

I also find it very revealing that the Eunoch came to faith in Jesus Christ from reading Isaiah with a Christian friend [who was not an apostle or priest].

-- (anon@anon.com), March 02, 2005.

I didn't ADD a word. You were given the truth about WHO those saints in the scripture were. Since it isn't taught you in your meeting house. There they believe those holy persons all had protestant leanings, or anti-Catholic sentiments, like yours. You NEEDED my ''Catholic'' clauses to inform yourself about the early Church.

Make it a point to check the epistle to the Romans, Chapter 1, verse :8 -- Where the catholic faithful of that city are being addressed by Saint Paul. Open your eyes to the original Church of the apostles as it existed in the days of Caesar. That Catholic Roman community called by Paul famous throughout the world for their FAITH--

Is still in Rome; where they were then! They never changed churches. In fact, tombs of Catholic saints filled the catacombs of that city; starting from day one. --------->>> It's in Rome you see countless monuments and churches dating back to Paul's day. ALL CATHOLIC, just as your own ancestors are Catholics. (I can't help it if your Catholic ancestors aren't mentioned by name in the scriptures. But they were still in the first Church.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 02, 2005.

Lambu, you are entirely welcome. I studied many Christian and non- Christian religions during my spiritual journey. Himduism in very interesting, but I have a hard time excepting the cast system; though a I do appreciate your quest for peace in ALL things, living and not living ... kind of resembles the 3 pillers of the Budha but I always fround Budhaism a very self-centered peace. When I looked at Christianity, I researched the different faith groups, I found the Catholics to be the only one who have held true to the teachings of the Early Fathers.

My Wish for you is peace in all you do.

May the God of the Universe bless you and your fiancee.

-- Davis (Hello@There.com), March 02, 2005.

Eugene, you are a crack-up! I'm rotflmao again!!

Thanks for the belly-ache!

-- (anon@anon.com), March 03, 2005.

Lambu, i don't know if you are still reading this thread, but i wanted to add my thoughts. I am an adult convert to Catholicism (baptized 2 years ago) about to be engaged to a Hindu man.

It's important for you to know that many theologians within the Church do consider a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic to be a sacrament for the Catholic party, the same as a marriage between two Catholics. After all, that's why the Church requires a dispensation when a Catholic marries a non-Catholic - when the dispensation is granted, the marriage will be sacramental when it's conducted. There's some discussion of that viewpoint in the Catholic Encyclopedia online. So if that's one of your girlfriend's major concerns, she doesn't need to worry about that - she can have a sacramental marriage.

Children from a mixed marriage are not 'required' to be baptized and raised Catholic. This has changed quite a lot since Vatican II; whereas before the non-Catholic party was required to promise that they wouldn't interfere with the children's upbringing as Catholics, now it's the Catholic party that has to promise to 'do everything in their power' to have the children raised as Catholics. That doesn't mean they have to be baptized as infants, etc etc etc. In fact, while i plan to raise my children in the Church, i don't want to have them baptized when they are babies - i got so much meaning and grace from being baptized as an adult that i want to wait until they can remember and enjoy the experience to have them baptized. YOur children can absolutely learn about Hinduism while they're growing up - my children certainly will, and i believe that many of the values of Hindu traditions (such as respect for parents) are shared with Catholic teachings.

I definitely recommend you try to attend RCIA as was mentioned in a previous post - you don't have to want to convert to learn as much as you can about your partner's faith. And i'd also like to share that my partner loves to come to Mass with me - he participates in many of the songs and blessings, and finds it a beautiful, special, peaceful space to pray and meditate and feel God's love - even more than the (one) temple here in our city in America. Have you been to a Mass with your partner? Go with an open heart and mind; you may enjoy it, especially if you don't feel pressure to convert.

As far as (3) goes, although my partner and I are not married yet, we are very, very happy together. We have been aware of our religious difference since before we met in person, and have talked about them throughout our relationship. I think if you go into a relationship with a strong awareness of the challenges, and are prepared to work on and discuss them frequently, it's more likely to succeed.

-- steph (zemeros_flegyas@hotmail.com), March 07, 2005.

Hi, Steph.

many theologians within the Church do consider a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic to be a sacrament for the Catholic party, the same as a marriage between two Catholics.

It doesn't really matter what "many theologians" say about this, if the Holy See says otherwise, as I believe it does within Canon Law. The following two canons at least imply that a sacramental (as opposed to a "natural") marriage is covenanted only between two Christians:

Canon 1055 §1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

Canon 1134 From a valid marriage there arises between the spouses a bond which of its own nature is permanent and exclusive. Moreover, in Christian marriage the spouses are by a special sacrament strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and the dignity of their state.

Steph, one of your future plans is very unwise and surely cannot be pleasing to God. Here's what you said:

while i plan to raise my children in the Church, i don't want to have them baptized when they are babies - i got so much meaning and grace from being baptized as an adult that i want to wait until they can remember and enjoy the experience to have them baptized.

This is extremely imprudent. The only way for the kids to be properly disposed to be "raised in the Church" is for them to be baptized before you raise them! By failing to baptize them, you would leave them in a state of original sin, in which they lack sanctifying grace, in which they are less prepared to resist temptations, in which they are in danger of being unable to spend eternity in heaven, in which they are not adopted children of God, in which they are not members of the Church, and in which they are not eligible to receive Holy Communion or any other sacrament. Surely you will choose to be wise and not to deprive your children in these ways, I hope.

-- (coriolanus@lordstown.com), March 07, 2005.

Dear Lambu, I sympathize with you and patience so much. I am a catholic male dating a hindu girl and we have been contemplating marriage. We have been together for four years and have had our share of ups and downs regarding religious beliefs. I was attracted at first by her strong christian-like moral values which many hindus have I believe and we do love each other and care for each other.

The relationship has been kept a secret from her father and sister living with her for all the four years. But her other siblings who live separate from her know about meand, although they seem to like me, are either indifferent or do not approve of us being together due to our cultural and religious differences.

I am strong in my catholic faith and she is strong in her hindu faith and she does not want to convert. I feel the same void that you all have spoken of in not being able to share my faith with her since she does not share my beliefs. She said she is willing to baptize to marry me but not convert. I think there are signs of a power struggle between us regarding the religious life of our children if we were to marry.

I do love this girl and I understand the problem you've been faced with very well. There is no easy solution when issues like these arise. My only suggestion is the seek council as you have been with an open mind and heart and speak to God about it with an open heart as well.

-- kijana (kijanaking@gmail.com), March 15, 2005.

Dear Kijana:
I am sure you must be a Catholic of East Indian heritage, seems by your name. That's great!

I have a wonderful Catholic friend who is Indian, too. She was born in Delhi; and educated in Ireland. Her name is Sita --and she's a classical musician. She played great organ music in our wedding, when my wife and I were married. Sita is a saintly Catholic; and your fiance might yet become one; if given a chance. I think you'd have to get her away from her family's influence first. PRAY; don't just go around in circles. God is more than able to convert your girl- friend, but you must pray for her; and pray with your tears, your heart, with great faith.

Try prayers before the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Kijana. He can transform your life! He can transform HER life if you love Him and pray with unwavering faith. Do it for her! Ask Him for HER SAKE; not just for your earthly happiness. She may be a holier woman than my friend Sita some day, by God's grace. Pray!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.