The various recent interviews and op-eds by Pope Francis—and the subsequent misinterpretations thereof—have given me reason to ponder a pair of related questions. Would a practicing and unrepentant sinner be welcomed into the Church? And also, what does it mean to welcome a sinner?
There are several ways in which we can welcome a person. We can, for example, invite him to come attend Mass with us or invite him to an outing (say, a Church picnic). One need not be a Catholic to do either of these things [1], nor really to recognize them as forms of being made welcome. Indeed, for those who are already Catholics, it is a grave sin to deliberately miss Mass on Sundays.
Let’s therefore consider a hypothetical: suppose that a Catholic in good standing falls in with a bad crowd. Suppose he begins to engage in some sin, and suppose that he decides not to repent of it. He would (or at least should) then still be welcomed at Mass, since to deliberately miss Mass would be another grave sin. Therefore, if he is discouraged from attending Mass by the pastor or the lay people, they are participating in the sin of missing Mass.
There is another form of welcome, which is to rephrase our question as “would this person who is unrepentant of his grave sins be welcome to receive the sacraments (in particular Communion)?” The answer to this questions is “no, he would not.” As pertaining to the sacraments in general, this is because the Church tries to respect where a person is on his faith journey, whether he himself does or not.
For example, according to the formula for Baptism, the person [2] to be baptized is asked if he will reject sin and Satan, to which he must reply “I am.” If the person is unrepentant of a sin, then he has no intention of attempting to avoid that particular sin—and thus “sin and Satan”–in the future, so his response would be a lie. The Church would rather not put a person in a position in which he has to lie, so she would therefore withhold baptism [3] until the catechumen desires to be really free form sin.
Of course, it’s not baptism that typically gets attention when asking whether the Church is “welcoming.” The charge is rarely against withholding baptism, but rather over (the threat of) denying Communion to certain people or groups. In the Eucharist, we receive Jesus Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. He’s really present to us there, physically and in person. It is for this reason that Saint Paul warns us that
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. ” (1 Corinthians 11:26-29).
In the context of that same chapter we see some examples of what it means to eat and drink “unworthily.” It can mean the rejection of the Faith, or it can mean being in any other state of mortal (grave) sin. Eating the consecrated Host or drinking from the cup in this state of unworthiness—whether because of sin or because of disbelief—makes us guilty of the body and blood of Christ, so that we eat and drink judgment on ourselves. This possible consequence inspires a holy fear in men so that they would often approach communion in a state of trembling—or, more often, not approach tit at all. This is the reason why the Church has made reception of the Eucharist at least once annually one of her precepts: without that precept in place, many Catholics would (and did) simply not take Communion. Suffice it to say that it would not be an act of welcome to knowingly permit a person in such a state of unworthiness to partake of Communion.
There is a third kind of “welcome” which we can give as a Church. Perhaps a better way of saying this is that there is a duty to love the sinner while hating his sin [4]. One way of showing this love is to help the sinner overcome his sin. Thus, instructing the ignorant and admonishing sinners are spiritual works of mercy—that is, these things are true acts of love for the ignorant and for the sinner. We actually find that it is the duty of the prophets to warn sinner of their sin (see Ezekiel 33:7-9), and that this duty is then given to the members of the Church by nature of our baptism.
I add this as a kind of welcome, because the ultimate goal and destination for the Church is not this earth but rather heaven. In a sense, then, when we welcome a person into our community we are welcoming them into heaven [5]. This is something which we are meant to do for all people (see the concluding passages of Matthew, Mark, or Luke’s Gospels). But a part of going to heaven means giving up our sins. Saint Paul makes this clear in his letter to the Romans:
“What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it? Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection. e know that our old self was crucified with him, so that our sinful body might be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin.
For a dead person has been absolved from sin. If, then, we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. We know that Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has power over him. As to his death, he died to sin once and for all; as to his life, he lives for God. Consequently, you too must think of yourselves as (being) dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus. Therefore, sin must not reign over your mortal bodies so that you obey their desires. And do not present the parts of your bodies to sin as weapons for wickedness, but present yourselves to God as raised from the dead to life and the parts of your bodies to God as weapons for righteousness. For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not!” (Romans 6:1-15).
Now, with what has been said in mind, we can return to the original question—would a sinner be welcomed by the Church? The answer is and must be “yes,” because in the final measure all of us are sinners, even the few who are also saints. Part of that welcome includes counsel for the doubtful, instruction for the ignorant, and admonishment for the obstinate sinner: a call to repentance for past sins, and help in overcoming current ones. However, a sinner ought not be allowed to partake of the sacraments if he remains obstinate in and unrepentant of his sins. For him, no amount of welcome will make him feel at home in the Church.
—-Footnotes—-
[1] Of course, a non-Catholic is unlikely to invite somebody to attend Mass.
[2] Or, as is often the case, when the person to be baptized is an infant, his parents and godparents are asked this, and are also asked if they are prepared to help the child to do this.
[3] The Exception is the case of an extreme emergency. Hopefully none of us will face that exception. In that extreme case, baptism is removed from its typical rite, and so the person does not directly promise to reject sin and Satan, though this rejection is still implied by the baptism.
[4] A partial translation of Saint Augustines’ phrase, Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum which is literally “With love of mankind and hatred of sins.”
[5] See, for example, Dr Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth.
10 thoughts on “Welcoming Sinners”
Some food for thought.
The first admonition of Jesus’ public ministry in both Matthew and Mark is “repent.” How far should we go to welcome the unrepentant – e.g., those who have no intention of reforming their immoral behavior or who openly mock the doctrines of the faith?
Hypothetical: A baptized member of the Church is living in sin, publicly, with his father’s wife. He has neither desire nor inclination to reform his behavior. Should he be welcome to remain a part of the Catholic community? Not according to St. Paul. He says of this situation: “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” 1 Cor. 5:13.
Hypothetical: A person explicitly and publicly rejects established Church doctrine, yet wants to remain in the Church, all the while attempting to get others to accept his false doctrines. Should this person be welcomed? Not according to St. John. He says: “Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome him is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person.” 2 John 1:10-11
Certainly food for thought and a good counterpoint. I think the key phrase is here: “A person explicitly and publicly rejects established Church doctrine, yet wants to remain in the Church, all the while attempting to get others to accept his false doctrines.” To the extent that a person is just sticking around to do this, his welcome wears out quickly. To the extent that he is merely struggling with some doctrine, on the other hand, or failing to live up to a moral precept, he should still be welcomed. Both people need prayers (don’t we all), but only one desires to actually be in the Church.
Sorry, it was late and I was tired. The conclusion I meant to place here is that quite a few people fall in between these two states. There are those who struggle with some particular sin while calling it a sin–i think most people can arguably fall into this category for at least some kind of sin. Then there are those who struggle with a doctrine of the faith or some moral precept in the sense of not agreeing with it or not really understanding, but desiring to at least learn more, and desiring to be able to accept it if it is true. Arguably, these are unrepentant sinners, though they are of the sort who say with Saint Augustine “Lord, make me chaste, but not yet.” Next are the (lite) moral relativists, who don’t believe a doctrine is true “for them,” or “for everyone,” but who are content to see the Church continue to teach it, and for Catholics to continue to believe it. There are few of these, but they do exist. They may not believe, for example, that fornication is a sin, and thus they feel there is nothing to repent of when they fornicate–but they also won’t try to convince the Faithful that fornication is a good thing which all people ought to do. Then there are the moral relativists who are a bit more aggressive–they are the same as the moral relativist lite, but without the contentment to have all Catholics believe as the Church teaches. They may or may not respect the Church’s right to teach morality (or theology, for that matter). For them, Catholics are not bound to believe anything in particular, either, and certainly not to believe everything which the Church teaches as true. And so on down to the reactionary sinners, the ones who call evil good and good evil as a knee-jerk reaction: “If the Church teaches that this is bad, then it must be good, and vice versa.”
Note that one can be sinner and even an obstinate and unrepentant one without making a full break from the Church on everything, and without “attempting to get others to accept… false doctrines.” Furthermore, we can’t always tell when a person who is an apparently unrepentant sinner actually is unrepentant, since the mere act of repeating a sin doesn’t mean that the sinner in question does not repent or desire to repent. James may just be here to troll, but he does at least get that one thing right (even if the comment itself is a combination ad hominem and straw-man massacre): we can’t ultimately know a person’s intentions unless he makes those clear, and then we have to know whether his clarity is also honest (and so on). Sin is, alas, addictive in a way.
” James may just be here to troll …”
It’s called drive-by theology. Peace.
Yes, but when you grow up your mommy and daddy won’t take you to Mass with them anymore. That means that you may not have anybody to sit with during Mass. I know it’s a long way off for you, but the day will come when you get to sit all by yourself. And after you try that a few times, you realize that it’s not such a bad thing to have friends to sit with you. You my even appreciate an invitation from somebody in the parish to join them for Mass, even if you already go on your own. Someday when you grow up, you’ll see what I mean.
I know that the previous commenter is a troll and all, but this seems a little over the top.
Troll? What troll? Do you mean that kid who was commenting earlier?
I’m pretty sure it’s a troll, As such, he needs a strict starvation diet–doctor’s orders. Don’t feed the troll.
He’s obviously a child. How else can you explain his general ignorance and lack of reasoning? I’ll grant that he’s a pretty smart little boy, and knows a couple of big words. His parents must be proud of his grades in school, if grades mean anything anymore. But his comment is obviously child-ish, as if he doesn’t understand adult interactions, or adult responsibilities. He’s a bright little lad, but he’s never had to sit alone at Mass in a new parish. His parents have always taken him, so he’s always had them to sit with; why else would he not understand the concept of inviting somebody to Mass or even inviting a regular parishioner to join him at Mass?
Doctor, shmoctor. Troll’s gotta eat.