Quenching a smoking flax...

[Ignatius21]

Here's a practical sort of question.

I've been pondering the pastoral matters, of how to deal with people who are living in sin, but have not fallen away entirely...and example...

I spoke with someone recently about his conversion to Orthodoxy. He was converted by his wife, who'd grown up Orthodox. Before she was his wife, she was his girlfriend of course, and they were living together. He had no real church background, and she wasn't practicing her faith at the time. He didn't need to point this out, but they clearly were living far outside the bounds of Christian morality in terms of sex and relationships.

When they got engaged, she wanted to be married in the Orthodox Church. I don't know any specifics, but I do know that they did marital counseling with her family's home priest. They were married in the Church, and not long after, he sought baptism. And ever since, they've been consistent churchgoers and are raising their children in the Church. He remarked that he feels as though he owes much to the patience and dedication of that priest.

So here's my question...it strikes me as "wrong" somehow, that a priest would effectively allow a couple to continue living in a sinful manner while preparing for marriage. On the other hand, working with an agnostic and a barely-there Orthodox, he could very well have simply driven them off to another church or a drive-through wedding chapel, had he insisted that they change before coming to him. Perhaps he saw that their end goal was marriage, and that it was better to gently guide them into it, than to drop the hammer?

I'm really not sure what to make of it. It can go too far either way. One extreme leads to free license to do whatever you like, so long as you keep coming to Church once in a while. The other extreme lays heavy burdens on people and makes the Church into a hospital for those already healed.

What do y'all think?

 

[rusmeister]

We can hardly judge that situation. Maybe the priest explained the necessity of Christian morality and they agreed to abstain for a couple of months?
We don't know what the priest said to them, or what they agreed to.
It would be cruel and wrong, though, (generally speaking) to pretend that Christian morality is other than what it is, that we need not strive toward the ideal, and/or that falling away from it doesn't break our relationship with God.
The right thing would be to tell them what is going to be expected of them. And in a context of whether they believe that the Church teaches the Truth; has authority to teach them or not. They can't join in communion if they don't accept that.

 

[E.C.]

God works in mysterious ways

When people get married the husband and wife become each others salvation (or so I'm told); this just proves it.

And also, sure, they may have been, as my dad likes to say, "living in sin", but we don't know their exact circumstances that lead them to that point. What matters now, is that they are married, they've presumably repented (I know I'd give them benefit of the doubt) and now they are raising their kids in the Church. I say Hallelujah!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My good friend, who is Catholic, has a brother-in-law who is a super high-maintenance guy with a Darwin obsession and who is a very super liberal democrat as well as very confrontational. When my friend, Bruce, and his wife, Helen, were considering visiting Bob, the atheist guy, and his then-girlfriend, they didn't go through with it. He invited them but they told him they didn't want their son to see their sinful living situation because they felt it was a subtle type of endorsement if they went to the home.

I told Bruce that if he said these things to Bob, he risked alienating the couple even further from Catholicism, etc. Bruce agreed but Helen, his wife, didn't. She told Bob those things and then Bob went off the deep end about Catholicism being a judgmental, hypocritical, holier-than-thou religion of snobs, Pharisees, etc.

These kinds of situations are HARD!

Jesus visited the homes of sinners with the hope that they'd amend their way of life. It's hard to know, but I think when we take the moral high ground super staunch road, depending on the situation, it can end up worse than ever. But we also can't just cave to every sort of sin and act as if it's no big woop?

Tough, man.

 

[ArmyMatt]

maybe they needed, for finanical reasons at the time, stay together and part of the counseling was that they needed to abstain. whatever happened, it seems it brought forth good fruit.

 

[Soderquj]

Church into a hospital for those already healed.

Who of us are completely healed. For myself it will be a life long journey!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well, I don't presume to judge the priest, or the couple. As was said, one can't know the situation. It does sound from the outcome that the priest used a lot of wisdom. Isn't that what they are there for?

I will say this ... I moved across the country to marry my then-fiancée. (Now husband) Due to practical considerations, we did live under the same room for a few months while we went through the required pastoral counseling and planned the wedding. Separate bedrooms. And it wasn't an ideal situation. There was certainly temptation. But we did "wait until marriage". Our pastor kept us pretty strictly accountable during that time, which probably made the difference. I didn't want to have to look him in the eye at our next meeting and admit failure, and I absolutely knew he would ask, so under his counsel, we didn't fail. It's certainly possible that your friend's priest handled their situation in a similar manner.

I just don't like to make assumptions based on situations like that.

But the end result sure sounds like however it was handled, it was with wisdom.

 

[GoingByzantine]

The fact they are raising their kids to love God, and are both active in the church community is a positive sign. So many saints started as sinners, yet they finally recognized God's calling and went on to do great things. It sounds like your friends are doing the same.

 

[buzuxi02]

I spoke with someone recently about his conversion to Orthodoxy. He was converted by his wife, who'd grown up Orthodox. Before she was his wife, she was his girlfriend of course, and they were living together. He had no real church background, and she wasn't practicing her faith at the time. He didn't need to point this out, but they clearly were living far outside the bounds of Christian morality in terms of sex and relationships.

The problem is that Christian culture has melded in with the secular modern culture. Infact the secular modern values are the successors to Christian culture. The question is what to do in a culture where the adherents aren't really devoted Christians any longer.
Basically the situation is dealt with 'better late than never'.

When they got engaged, she wanted to be married in the Orthodox Church. I don't know any specifics, but I do know that they did marital counseling with her family's home priest. They were married in the Church, and not long after, he sought baptism.

Are you saying they were married in the Church even though one spouse did not have a Christian baptism in a heterodox confession of any kind? That would be a serious abuse.

So here's my question...it strikes me as "wrong" somehow, that a priest would effectively allow a couple to continue living in a sinful manner while preparing for marriage. On the other hand, working with an agnostic and a barely-there Orthodox, he could very well have simply driven them off to another church or a drive-through wedding chapel, had he insisted that they change before coming to him. Perhaps he saw that their end goal was marriage, and that it was better to gently guide them into it, than to drop the hammer?

Its simply a crapshoot as to whether the adherent will repent or rebel further. Its simply a gamble. Also the laity in general have accepted the non-conventional relations as we are all products of our environment. Elder Ephraim of St Anthony's was criticized by a faction of laity from Chicago for telling those married in a civil secular ceremonies to refrain from relations until they had the Church marriage. The laity considered civil and church marriage to be one and the same and slandered the monks for telling the spouse to 'seperate' from their significant other.

I'm really not sure what to make of it. It can go too far either way. One extreme leads to free license to do whatever you like, so long as you keep coming to Church once in a while. The other extreme lays heavy burdens on people and makes the Church into a hospital for those already healed.

The situation will become more complicated going forward. It will get a lot worse before it gets better. And that's only 'IF' it ever gets better.