Is an Unrepentant Sinner a "Christian"?

[mcc804]

I was having a conversation with a family member. I made some comment about those who are living in sin not being Christian. My family member stated emphatically that a person such as that is still a Christian. I am having a problem with this definition. My understanding is that a person might be a fallen away Christian, but not a Christian, as in one in good standing. If a person is living in sin (in this case adultery, concubinage) with unresolved previous marriages on both sides of the equation … how can these individuals be called “Christians” ?

One additional wrinkle, one of the two parties involved was baptised and raised Catholic. Then left the church and married into a Protestant family, in a Protestant ceremony. Then divorced and married another Protestant (same thing)., then began a relationship with a co-worker, left his second wife, divorced second wife, and ultimately moved in with and is still living with the woman who was his co-worker. He has not repented of his sin. He has not stopped living with this woman. He has not reconciled his two previous marriages.

Is this man a “Christian” ? My understanding is that by being called a Christian it means one who not only believes that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, but that we are followers of Christ. Christ told sinners at table time and again, to repent of their sins and follow him.

I’m not talking about the fact that we all sin even after coming to Christ. I’m talking about not repenting, not going to Confession, not making things right, continuing the sinful behavior.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, he remains a Christian, even if he sins seriously and fail to live the Christian life, simply because the seal of baptism is indelible. That is why he would be welcomed back into the Church via the Sacrament of Reconciliation, rather than a repeat of the Sacrament of Baptism.

 

[EasterJoy]

" Far deeper objections may be felt-and have been expressed- against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: “Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?” or “May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?” Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every amiable quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

  The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said-so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully-"Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?" 

  They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A "nice" meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) 

  A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose. 

  Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. 

  It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served. 

  We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian."

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

C.S. Lewis is right to use the broader definition, because of course a catechumen is a Christian, too, even before baptism. It is fair, however, to say that someone who does not at least desire baptism is not yet a Christian, since the necessity of baptism is a central tenet of the faith of all believers.

 

[2HeartsSlave]

We become Christians at our baptism. And there ain’t nothin’ that can change it! The phrase “indelible mark” has been used to describe the effect of baptism on the soul. So even if a Christian renounces or abandons his Faith or takes up the practice of another, he remains a Christian in God’s eyes even if he denies it himself. Ya can’t “wash it off”

 

[2HeartsSlave]

We become Christians at our baptism. And there ain’t nothin’ that can change it! The phrase “indelible mark” has been used to describe the effect of baptism on the soul. So even if a Christian renounces or abandons his Faith or takes up the practice of another, he remains a Christian in God’s eyes even if he denies it himself. Ya can’t “wash it off”

Of course there are those lovely words like heretic, schismatic and apostate that can be thrown out there! Just sayin’!

 

[1ke]

how can these individuals be called “Christians” ?

We are Christian by virtue of our baptism. A baptized person is a Christian-- a member of God’s family, a member of the Church-- whether or not they are living a sinful life.

I think you have been influenced by protestant definitions of “Christian” which does not reflect the Catholic understanding of being incorporated into the body of Christ in a real, sacramental way that can never be erased.

Is this man a “Christian” ?

Yes. He is baptized.

My understanding is that by being called a Christian it means one who not only believes that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, but that we are followers of Christ.

Yes, most definitely influenced by a protestant understanding of “Christian” apart from the visible Church and the sacramental life.

Christ told sinners at table time and again, to repent of their sins and follow him.

Yes, he certainly did.

I’m talking about not repenting, not going to Confession, not making things right, continuing the sinful behavior.

That makes you a Christian who is not in a state of grace.

 

[Moore11]

Of course he is is Christian. But he may be a Christian in danger of Hell.

 

[Regina_Love]

I always understood Christian, to mean “A follower of Jesus the Christ.” It’s more a verb, than a noun. So a person living in continual mortal sin would no longer be a Christian, but they could still be a baptised Catholic.

 

[EasterJoy]

I always understood Christian, to mean “A follower of Jesus the Christ.” It’s more a verb, than a noun. So a person living in continual mortal sin would no longer be a Christian, but they could still be a baptised Catholic.

Baptism is an indelible mark. You can’t wear it off…and baptism makes you a Christian.

 

[DebChris]

Baptism is an indelible mark. You can’t wear it off…and baptism makes you a Christian.

Their lifestyle at the moment denies their membership in Body of Christ, but that in no way removes them from the Body.
The sin, illness of one member of the body, harms the whole Body., so we pray for one another. Our prayer must begin with ourselves since none is immune to sin. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Scripture says that even “the righteous man sins seven times a day.” Every Sunday we pray the Confiteor asking forgiveness from one another for the sins we have committed. Jesus did say to remove the plank from our own eye before removing the splinter from the eye of our brother.
If we pray the rosary, we add the Fatima prayer at the end of each decade asking that Jesus “lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of His mercy.”

 

[1ke]

I always understood Christian, to mean “A follower of Jesus the Christ.” It’s more a verb, than a noun. So a person living in continual mortal sin would no longer be a Christian, but they could still be a baptised Catholic.

That position is at odds with Catholic doctrine.

 

[Andre1000]

Christian is only a word, it depends how you define this word.

 

[1ke]

Christian is only a word, it depends how you define this word.

It is not up to us to define it. The Church has done so, and the Church is the one with the authority to do so. And not only to define it but moreso to explain the reality of it. It is not arbirtrary, it is a result of the sacramental economy.

 

[EasterJoy]

Christian is only a word, it depends how you define this word.

Sure, there is a degree to which what I say will always mean what you take it to mean as much as what I meant when I said it, but if you take that too far, you render definitive language impossible! You’re going to fall in to absurdities such as “it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”

There is a good reason to have a definition of “Christian” such as C.S. Lewis had, rather than the one the OP is advocating.

 

[Moore11]

“it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”
.

I thought that exact thing when I read his post. Bill Clinton!!!

Words mean things. You can go ahead and try to tell a judge that you have a different definition of murder than he does. You will lose.

 

[mcc804]

Okay, I can understand once a baptised Catholic always a baptised Catholic. And I guess in this situation, if individual were to repent, he could go to Confession and be absolved from his acts of informal (or formal?) heresy Note: he and his first wife were married by her father who was a Protestant minister of a Fundamentalist group. Said individual has spent several decades attending Protestant church services(i.e., marrying outside the Church twice), although not the marriages themselves would have to be reconciled before he could receive Communion? And this says nothing about the concubinage, or the girlfriend’s previous marriages ?

I would normally not waste my time on this. It’s just that one whole side of the family is “Catholic” in name only, okay they’re baptised Catholic. And there is just this wholesale blindness with regard to family members marrying outside the Church, living together, etc. etc. And an embracing of the individual I was talking about to begin with: “Oh, so-and-so is probably going to marry (g-friend) soon and she is SO good for him! She loves him so much!”

The fact that this would be a third marriage outside the Church.
Okay, whatever.

I do pray for the dozens of relatives living outside the Church and Christ’s Teachings … that they are reconciled before they die. I truly want that to happen.

 

[EasterJoy]

Okay, I can understand once a baptised Catholic always a baptised Catholic. And I guess in this situation, if individual were to repent, he could go to Confession and be absolved from his acts of informal (or formal?) heresy Note: he and his first wife were married by her father who was a Protestant minister of a Fundamentalist group. Said individual has spent several decades attending Protestant church services(i.e., marrying outside the Church twice), although not the marriages themselves would have to be reconciled before he could receive Communion? And this says nothing about the concubinage, or the girlfriend’s previous marriages ?

I would normally not waste my time on this. It’s just that one whole side of the family is “Catholic” in name only, okay they’re baptised Catholic. And there is just this wholesale blindness with regard to family members marrying outside the Church, living together, etc. etc. And an embracing of the individual I was talking about to begin with: “Oh, so-and-so is probably going to marry (g-friend) soon and she is SO good for him! She loves him so much!”

The fact that this would be a third marriage outside the Church.
Okay, whatever.

I do pray for the dozens of relatives living outside the Church and Christ’s Teachings … that they are reconciled before they die. I truly want that to happen.

After two bad marriages–which may very well have been invalid–I hope you can forgive other people in the family for hoping he gets it right this time. And if they’re living together, I hope you’d also see marriage as a step in the right direction, too.

When a person goes to confession, whether it is after a week or a decade or fifty years, he confesses all of his serious sins. If he is really contrite and wants to come back, though, Heaven doesn’t just “allow” it. There is nothing grudging about the mercy of God! When a sinner repents, Heaven throws a party:* I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance*. Luke 15:7

You might want to reflect on the story of the Prodigal Son, and what it was that the elder brother had wrong. Why did he put his father in the position of having to go outside and plead with him? Think about that, because if (and let us hope when) this relative of yours come back, you need to be ready not just to welcome him back, but to welcome him back with unrestrained rejoicing, because it will be a great day.

If you want your relatives to reconcile before they die, dare to look forward to it!

PS It is possible to have a marriage to a non-Catholic Christian convalidated without the Protestant becoming a Catholic. If she converts, though, she will go to confession before her confirmation, too, to absolve the sins she has committed since baptism. The convalidation will require that the Church find that both parties are free to marry, which includes finding that they have no prior valid marriages to persons who are still living.

 

[mcc804]

Oh, yes, obviously if the party in question ever indicated that he wanted to come back to the Catholic faith that would be an amazing and happy day and especially for God and the Saints in Heaven!

As it stands, this was just a hypothetical situation. This person is not a practicing Catholic and has not expressed any interest in returning to the Catholic Church. The last I heard, he hasn’t been attending any church services, Protestant or otherwise, in years. Neither he or his girlfriend are currently interested in doing anything but what they have been doing. I’m assuming unless I hear otherwise, that any talk of getting married has absolutely nothing to do with marrying in the Catholic Church.

Of course, the relative who is hoping for a happy 3rd marriage, is apparently hoping this one will be THE ONE, that will make all her family member’s dreams come true. Her own mother was married 4 times. So, she’s operating from a very basic, worldly ideal of true romantic love with no hassle about God and His Commandments. I’m not sure that her hopes for her families’ happiness have much to do with their ultimate salvation. I mean, sure, she’d probably support that as well, if that’s what would make them happy. But the point here is to support whatever they want to do no matter what it is.

 

[EasterJoy]

Oh, yes, obviously if the party in question ever indicated that he wanted to come back to the Catholic faith that would be an amazing and happy day and especially for God and the Saints in Heaven!

As it stands, this was just a hypothetical situation. This person is not a practicing Catholic and has not expressed any interest in returning to the Catholic Church. The last I heard, he hasn’t been attending any church services, Protestant or otherwise, in years. Neither he or his girlfriend are currently interested in doing anything but what they have been doing. I’m assuming unless I hear otherwise, that any talk of getting married has absolutely nothing to do with marrying in the Catholic Church.

Of course, the relative who is hoping for a happy 3rd marriage, is apparently hoping this one will be THE ONE, that will make all her family member’s dreams come true. Her own mother was married 4 times. So, she’s operating from a very basic, worldly ideal of true romantic love with no hassle about God and His Commandments. I’m not sure that her hopes for her families’ happiness have much to do with their ultimate salvation. I mean, sure, she’d probably support that as well, if that’s what would make them happy. But the point here is to support whatever they want to do no matter what it is.

Perhaps you need to think about this in terms of what avenues are and are not open to you in terms of evangelization.

The point is not to support whatever they do no matter what it is, but there is a sense in which it is part of our work on this earth to accept that no one is under any obligation to do what we think is best for them. They’ll stand before God for the decisions they made for themselves, and we will stand before God, not for the decisions that others made that were not ours to make. We will be judged on whether we did our best to make the right decision more or less likely for someone else. That is a path that we travel with guidance from the hand of the Holy Spirit, not something that is “by the rule book”. The rule book is fine, but we have to be aware what the pitfalls are when we rely more on rules than on God. Even the rules are there to aim us back to God, not an end in themselves.

The letter of James was written by a very practical bishop, indeed, and it is well worth reading. His letter includes these passages:

*Be patient, therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. You too must be patient. Make your hearts firm, because the coming of the Lord is at hand. Do not complain, brothers, about one another, that you may not be judged. Behold, the Judge is standing before the gates. Take as an example of hardship and patience, brothers, the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord…

Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful. Elijah was a human being like us; yet he prayed earnestly that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain upon the land. Then he prayed again, and the sky gave rain and the earth produced its fruit.

My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.*
James 5:7-10, 16-20

You are in a difficult place, but this is where there are great works to be done. Try to get beyond your scandal at the situation–do not complain, brothers, about one another, that you may not be judged–and rather look for ways to be put at God’s disposal for the reclamation of any who stray–take as an example of hardship and patience, brothers, the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.

Hang in there, and may the Lord always be your help!