Angelus Silesius (c. 1624 – 1677), one of my favourite of the Catholic mystics, had some germane advice here:
Which is to say, one is enjoined to tolerate and even transcend differences in others without passing judgement (so long as its mutual).
Why would I seek to '
punish' people for adopting different living arrangements from me and following another set of sexual norms than my own? The mindset espoused is just alien to my sensibilities. Christ did not walk around Judea dishing out '
punishments' to all and sundry.
Quite the opposite, he fraternized openly with the unclean, sinners, tax-collectors, prostitutes and a Samaritan woman who - let's not forget - appeared to be practising a first century version of "
open marriage" herself:
The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.)...
Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come back." The woman answered him, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the man you are now living with is not your husband. What you have said is true!"
The woman said to him, "Sir, I see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem."...
Just then his disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you want?” or, “Why are you speaking with her?”
(John 4:4–42)
In
John 4:4-42, Jesus ignores three codes of behavior. He initiates a conversation with a foreigner belonging to a religion Jews deemed a heresy, Samaritanism. This foreigner is also a woman and men were not expected to speak in public with women they weren't married to, or bring scandal upon themselves. Third, she is a sexually profligate woman in the eyes of her contemporaries. Her surprise is included in the narrative:
“How can you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?” (
John 4:9). As one scholar notes: "
Jesus not only speaks with her but also enters into a prolonged dialogue, a dialogue which recognizes and honors her thirst for religious truth".
Did he "
punish" her for having had five husbands (or extra-marital relationships that Jesus was tongue-in-cheek referring to as husbands) and now living with a man she wasn't married to?
No, he opened a friendly dialogue with her and exchanged his perspective for hers - meeting her where she was at, without judgementalism even if he did personally (as a Jew) disapprove of her sexual predilections. And she was impressed that he was so tolerant of her and didn't run away repulsed as many Jewish men of that time would have from a fornicating Samaritan woman.
It's
their life and
their family, not mine. So long as they take good care of their kids, make sure that they are loved and cherished, have a great education etc., who am I to judge? I can think of a whole lot worse environments to be brought up in, such as one parent being an abusive partner. Among the biblical patriarchs, the children of King David were brought up amidst his multiple wives, concubines and harem of lovelies. Yet we don't seem to judge him so harshly.
We are told in scripture by St. Paul, "
What business of mine is it to judge those outside the church?" (
1 Corinthians 5:12), and yet here, I find the kind of judgement on others that we are told should be left to an individual's own conscience before God:
"For why should my freedom be determined by someone else’s conscience?"
(1 Corinthians 10:29)
"Let every one be definite in his own convictions. The faith you have, have as your own conviction before God. Let us therefore stop turning critical eyes on one another. If we must be critical, let us be critical of our own conduct and see that we do nothing to make a brother stumble or fall"
(Romans 14:1-23)
Jesus invited his listeners to "
judge for yourselves what is right" (
Luke 12:57). People in open marriages are doing just that, even though I may not personally deem their lifestyle to be moral according to my own convictions, and they are not (so far as I can tell) interfering with the right of Christians to practise our strict marital monogamy. For that reason, I have no interest in concerning myself with their private sex lives, nor do I think I have any God-given business in doing so.