Welcoming sinners without compromising morals

  • Thread starter Thread starter vluvski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

vluvski

Guest
It seems to me that church officials often allow certain behaviors to go uncorrected in an effort to maintain a relationship with individuals engaging in that behavior.

How do we address these situations in such a way that the church is not forced to compromise the Truth in order to bring people to the Truth?

For example, my fiance and I went to an engaged encounter last weekend, and found that well over half of the couples were already living together. I was always under the impression that couples who were already living together were ineligible for Catholic marriage, yet it seems the priests advising these couples have chosen to ignore this rule in an effort to have them married in the Church.

Should we send them packing, let them get a civil marriage, and risk losing them to oblivion, or roll over and make the Church look bad when a higher percentage of Catholics come back needing divorces and annulments?

I’m very bothered by this!
 
Seems to me Jesus sought out the sinners, the weak and the flawed–even as His own disciples. He went into their midst, talked with them, ate with them, healed them and treated them with great compassion and love, and by so doing, drew them in. He asked them to show and declare their faith, to sin no more–knowing that many of them would fail at this. But he never rejected or humiliated anyone. Even when pointing out arrogance, hypocrisy or pride, he is never depicted as singling out anyone for public ridicule, but often resorted to parables to illustrate human failings. I think He is always the best example when we are wondering how to interact with those who vex us.
 
Island Oak:
Seems to me Jesus sought out the sinners, the weak and the flawed–even as His own disciples. He went into their midst, talked with them, ate with them, healed them and treated them with great compassion and love, and by so doing, drew them in. He asked them to show and declare their faith, to sin no more–knowing that many of them would fail at this. But he never rejected or humiliated anyone. Even when pointing out arrogance, hypocrisy or pride, he is never depicted as singling out anyone for public ridicule, but often resorted to parables to illustrate human failings. I think He is always the best example when we are wondering how to interact with those who vex us.
Yet Jesus did so without condoning their sin. Is it that impossible for the priest to say, “The Catholic Church is concerned for your welfare as a couple, and therefore strongly believes it is necessary for engaged couples to have separate addresses for the duration of their engagement. I cannot in good conscience marry a couple who has chosen this situation.”
I, for one, would consider opening my home to someone whose financial situation prevented him or her from finding somewhere else to stay. The only humiliation that could result is if the couple still refused to change their living arrangements.
Similarly, even though Jesus did nothing to humiliate the prostitute who was about to be stoned, she would have humiliated herself if she promptly returned to her corner to solicit more sex for money.
For me, it boils down to the fact that it is not loving to allow someone to go uncorrected. We’re supposed to let them do major damage to their marriage just so we don’t alienate them?
 
I married a non-Catholic Christian in the Church. We were living together before marriage. We were indifferent to religion at that time, but as I was a cradle Catholic my mother stood firm and INSISTED that if I wanted any help (financially) for my wedding, it MUST be in a Catholic Church. I didn’t really care enough to fight her. The priest did speak to my husband about being open to marriage and raising our children Catholic, and he agreed.

The wedding itself was beautiful, and the prayers left a deep impression on me, though I remained indifferent. After the birth of my first child, again at my mother’s insistance, we had him Baptized. Again, I was in awe of the beauty of the ceremony. By this time, I was becoming aware of hte treasures of grace that were available in the Church I had taken for granted and never really taken the time to study.

I didn’t need prodding for my other childen’s Baptism’s and by then had begun attending Church regularly, and making an effort to live my Faith.

To make a long story short … We have been married eight years. My husband converted in 2002. Through the patience and love of the Church, we have come to embrace and appreciate the teachings of the Church.

I am so grateful to my mother for her tough love, and to the Church for embracing us and trusting in God’s grace to enlighten and transform our darkened souls.

I shudder when I think what could have happened if we were “sent packing.”

Thank you Lord for Your Infinite Mercy.:bowdown:
 
Just as an aside to my previous post. Never did it seem that the Church CONDONED anything. It seemed more that she was giving us what she was ABLE without compromising. For instance, the Eucharist was NOT part of our marriage ceremony (as much as I wish I could do it over again differently). I am grateful that the Church was able to embrace us without compromising the Truth in any way. It was clear that concessions and allowances were being made. A “trying to work with us where we were” kind of attitude.

I don’t know how many of these scenarios end up in divorce or annulment. But It makes me think of Jesus healing the ten lepers. He knew only one would come back to thank Him, but that did not stop Him from giving the other nine the OPPORTUNITY to do so.

God bless!
 
well, “send them packing” was intentionally harsh to define the two extremes. If I thought this was the solution, I would have written my bishop a letter saying so. Instead, I chose to post on this forum to find out ideas for a happy medium.

I would prefer that the priest admonish each and every couple to re-examine their finances and their options to find some other arrangements until the wedding. Additionally, I would have the priest emphasize a renewed commitment to chastity during their engagement, regardless of mistakes made in the past.

I just feel like we’re doing these couples a huge disservice by turning a blind eye and sometimes even telling them not to feel guilty for their living situation.
 
I think we may have crossed posts, please read my second post.

I agree that a priest telling couples something other than what the Church teaches is not a solution. :tsktsk: Thank God that was not the case in my situation.
 
40.png
vluvski:
well, “send them packing” was intentionally harsh to define the two extremes. If I thought this was the solution, I would have written my bishop a letter saying so. Instead, I chose to post on this forum to find out ideas for a happy medium.

I would prefer that the priest admonish each and every couple to re-examine their finances and their options to find some other arrangements until the wedding. Additionally, I would have the priest emphasize a renewed commitment to chastity during their engagement, regardless of mistakes made in the past.

I just feel like we’re doing these couples a huge disservice by turning a blind eye and sometimes even telling them not to feel guilty for their living situation.
While we are marriage sponsor couples, our Pastor addresses couples cohabitating directly. Basically as I understand his approach, he calls them into his office and discusses the Church teaching and wants them to go home and pray about it and discuss it together. After they have had time to reflect, he meets with them again and asks them what they have learned and their ideas if they have any on resolvig the issue. Sometimes he says that one party moves back home until the marriage. However, sometimes that is not possible. In both cases, he tells them that he wants them (assuming both are Catholic) to prepare of Confession and after Confession be prepared to live as brother and sister until after the marriage. I don’t know if he makes this a requirement or uses his persuasive ability but as far as I know, all couples agree to abide by this arrangement.

But I do know this, his pastoral style is very much “woman at the well” as he talks to them where they are on their faith journey. He says that his job is to find ways to bring them closer to Jesus and not push them away.
 
40.png
vluvski:
It seems to me that church officials often allow certain behaviors to go uncorrected in an effort to maintain a relationship with individuals engaging in that behavior.
Jesus was willing to lose every single one of his followers if they failed to accept his teaching on the Eucharist.
40.png
vluvski:
How do we address these situations in such a way that the church is not forced to compromise the Truth in order to bring people to the Truth?
Hate the sin. Love the sinner. Loving the sinner includes correction with knowledge, truth, and charity. The current avenue of ignoring the truth not only compromises truth but shows an unwillingness to be concerned about those suffering from the effects of sin.
40.png
vluvski:
For example, my fiance and I went to an engaged encounter last weekend, and found that well over half of the couples were already living together. I was always under the impression that couples who were already living together were ineligible for Catholic marriage, yet it seems the priests advising these couples have chosen to ignore this rule in an effort to have them married in the Church.
They sure have. I wouldn’t. That is why my wife and I are decided against doing engaged encounter talks. We will not compromise the Truth. It does potentially serious damage to souls, especially those seeking a lifelong committment in marriage.
40.png
vluvski:
Should we send them packing, let them get a civil marriage, and risk losing them to oblivion, or roll over and make the Church look bad when a higher percentage of Catholics come back needing divorces and annulments?

I’m very bothered by this!
It is not the Church that would send them packing. They would decide whether to pack or not. They could always choose to fix what is wrong and then get married in the Church. Many would not. They would pack. However, some wouldn’t pack. They would be examples of the Holy Spirit and Christ’s kingdom working in the world.

I think the greater damage is doing what we are now. Giving scores of people the illusion of salvation while being in grave sin (living together, using contraception etc.). If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything. If parts of the church fall for anything, many souls will fall as well. It’s a terrible tragedy.
 
Island Oak:
He asked them to show and declare their faith, to sin no more–knowing that many of them would fail at this.
That’s the part that is lacking today. Proper instruction and the speaking of Truth.
Island Oak:
But he never rejected or humiliated anyone. Even when pointing out arrogance, hypocrisy or pride, he is never depicted as singling out anyone for public ridicule, but often resorted to parables to illustrate human failings.
Except of course here:

From Mathew 23:

IEight Woes
13"(N)But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, (O)because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
14"**Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because (P)you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]

15"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one (Q)proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of (R)hell as yourselves.

16"Woe to you, (S)blind guides, who say, ‘(T)Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.’

17"You fools and blind men! (U)Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?

18"And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.’

19"You blind men, (V)which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering?

20"Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it.

21"And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who (W)dwells within it.

22"And whoever swears by heaven, (X)swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.

23"(Y)Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

24"You (Z)blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

25"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For (AA)you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.

26"You blind Pharisee, first (AB)clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.

27"(AC)Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.

28"So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29"(AD)Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,

30and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’

31"So you testify against yourselves, that you (AE)are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

32"Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.

33"You serpents, (AF)you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of (AG)hell?

34"(AH)Therefore, behold, (AI)I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will (AJ)scourge in your synagogues, and (AK)persecute from city to city,

35so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous (AL)Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the (AM)son of Berechiah, whom (AN)you murdered between the temple and the altar.

36"Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon (AO)this generation**
 
40.png
Ana:
I married a non-Catholic Christian in the Church. We were living together before marriage. We were indifferent to religion at that time, but as I was a cradle Catholic my mother stood firm and INSISTED that if I wanted any help (financially) for my wedding, it MUST be in a Catholic Church. I didn’t really care enough to fight her. The priest did speak to my husband about being open to marriage and raising our children Catholic, and he agreed.

The wedding itself was beautiful, and the prayers left a deep impression on me, though I remained indifferent. After the birth of my first child, again at my mother’s insistance, we had him Baptized. Again, I was in awe of the beauty of the ceremony. By this time, I was becoming aware of hte treasures of grace that were available in the Church I had taken for granted and never really taken the time to study.

I didn’t need prodding for my other childen’s Baptism’s and by then had begun attending Church regularly, and making an effort to live my Faith.

To make a long story short … We have been married eight years. My husband converted in 2002. Through the patience and love of the Church, we have come to embrace and appreciate the teachings of the Church.

I am so grateful to my mother for her tough love, and to the Church for embracing us and trusting in God’s grace to enlighten and transform our darkened souls.

I shudder when I think what could have happened if we were “sent packing.”

Thank you Lord for Your Infinite Mercy.:bowdown:
For every 1 of your terrific story, there are 50 of Catholic couples that are contracepting and/or are divorced.
 
40.png
vluvski:
It seems to me that church officials often allow certain behaviors to go uncorrected in an effort to maintain a relationship with individuals engaging in that behavior.

How do we address these situations in such a way that the church is not forced to compromise the Truth in order to bring people to the Truth?

For example, my fiance and I went to an engaged encounter last weekend, and found that well over half of the couples were already living together. I was always under the impression that couples who were already living together were ineligible for Catholic marriage, yet it seems the priests advising these couples have chosen to ignore this rule in an effort to have them married in the Church.

Should we send them packing, let them get a civil marriage, and risk losing them to oblivion, or roll over and make the Church look bad when a higher percentage of Catholics come back needing divorces and annulments?

I’m very bothered by this!
Truly a teachable moment.
 
I was particularly upset to learn that the only older couple was also living together, the woman having already been married once (I assume she, in RCIA, has a valid decree of nullity.), and the man a former Jesuit! :tsktsk:

Shouldn’t we expect more of someone who ought to know better, especially when there are children involved and an example is being set?
 
Jesus also told his disciples to teach a town his message, and if they did not listen, to move on, brush the dust off their feet, and leave the town.

He DIDN’T say linger and condone their behavior, or hide them from the truth.

The Priest hiding the truth from these people only serves to potentially do eternal damage to their souls.
 
40.png
Brad:
For every 1 of your terrific story, there are 50 of Catholic couples that are contracepting and/or are divorced.
By denying these fifty (assuming these numbers are accurate) the OPPORTUNITY to be a member of Christ’s Church would help … how?:confused:

And if the fifty were going to be lost anyway, how would it help by “sending packing” the couple that would have made it?

As I mentioned in a previous post. Although Christ knew only one of the ten lepers would return to thank Him, he still gave the other nine the OPPORTUNITY to do so.

Scripture speaks of God seperating the wheat from the chaff, not us.

I am not sure how the list of rebukes Jesus gave to the Pharisees, applies to this situation. He differentiates between sinners (whom He came to save) and Pharisees (who in their own righteousness didn’t need Him). In this instance we are speaking of sinners, so the list seems a little off topic, but maybe I am reading it wrong.

God bless!
 
I agree that priest’s should not MISREPRESENT the teaching of the Church. But the Church should reach out to these couples wherever they can without compromising the Truth.

Obviously a couple living in sin should not receive the Eucharist, and it should not be part of the wedding ceremony.

But the concept of of telling someone to “stop sinning” than come back to Church, is equivalent to telling someone to heal themselves before they go to the doctor.

I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but I need the graces and Sacraments of the Church to overcome sin.
 
40.png
HappyCatholic01:
Jesus also told his disciples to teach a town his message, and if they did not listen, to move on, brush the dust off their feet, and leave the town.

He DIDN’T say linger and condone their behavior, or hide them from the truth.
/QUOTE]

The Church is not going “to the towns” in this situation. The couples have come TO THE CHURCH. How else are they to come except as they are?
 
I can’t believe the arrogance and pride of those that suggest to send these couples packing. I hope our good Lord judges you more mercifully than you judge others. Although, Scripture says this isn’t the case.

As if the treasure is YOURS to give.:mad:

I
 
I didn’t advocate to send them packing.

I DO advocate telling the truth of God.

Why is that a problem? If the Church isn’t supposed to do that, they might as well close their doors and shut down.
 
Not all Catholic couples that live together before marriage are having sex. They could be in two different beds and rooms etc. Why do people always assume that they are living in sin?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top