How Much Sexual Sin Is Okay?

In the course of the question-and-answer session given on August 5 to Jesuits in Portugal and published last week, Pope Francis spoke about his pastoral approach to those who suffer from same-sex attractions. One of the Jesuits, who works with university students—many “who identify as homosexuals”—asked him the following:

They feel that they are an active part of the Church, but they often do not see in doctrine their way of living affectivity, and they do not see the call to chastity as a personal call to celibacy, but rather as an imposition. Since they are virtuous in other areas of their lives, and know the doctrine, can we say that they are all in error, because they do not feel, in conscience, that their relationships are sinful? And how can we act pastorally so that these people feel, in their way of life, called by God to a healthy affective life that produces fruit? Should we recognize that their relationships can open up and give seeds of true Christian love, such as the good they can accomplish, the response they can give to the Lord?

The question is posed in terms of doctrine conflicting with emotions, imposing itself in tyrannical fashion on those who feel they are doing the right thing.

Pope Francis’s answer hits on three key points.

First, Francis repeatedly emphasizes that all are invited: “Everyone, everyone, everyone. In other words, the door is open to everyone, everyone has their own space in the Church.” And, a bit later: “So, everyone is invited. This is the point.”

Secondly, the pontiff discusses emphasis in the Church on sexual sins:

But what I don’t like at all, in general, is that we look at the so-called “sin of the flesh” with a magnifying glass, just as we have done for so long for the Sixth Commandment. If you exploited workers, if you lied or cheated, it didn’t matter, and instead sins below the waist were relevant.

Finally, Francis asks, “How will each person live it out? We help people live so that they can occupy that place with maturity, and this applies to all kinds of people.” And then this remark:

And the most appropriate pastoral attitude for each person must be applied. We must not be superficial and naïve, forcing people into things and behaviors for which they are not yet mature, or are not capable. It takes a lot of sensitivity and creativity to accompany people spiritually and pastorally.

This takes us back to the controversies over chapter 8 of Pope Francis’s much discussed 2016 apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL), which prompted discussions of similar notions, especially regarding those in irregular marital situations. The approach: since the moral demands of the Church can be difficult for some people, allowances have to made as they work through those challenges. Thus, it is pastorally insensitive (even naïve!) to expect, say, a couple who are not in the bond of matrimony (perhaps they entered into a civilly recognized marriage after a divorce) to refrain from sexual relations. In the words of AL, pastors must “avoid a cold bureaucratic morality in dealing with more sensitive issues” (312).

The recent remarks by Pope Francis bring up the same controversies as the statement in AL that it “is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being” (304). In other words, situations can dictate what is “right” or “wrong” when it comes to morality. What is objectively sinful (homosexual acts, sex outside matrimony) might be allowable, it seems, if those involved are not yet mature enough or capable of ceasing such acts. And besides, people fixate too much on sexual sins!

As many have pointed out, such an approach to morality and Church doctrine seems discordant with what Pope St. John Paul II articulated, at length and with much precision, in his 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor. In fact, there are several pitfalls we have to watch out for when we consider these matters.

First, if we want to create “a kind of double status of moral truth” because of “circumstances and the situation,” we’ll simply be wrong; this approach would permit someone to practice “in good conscience what is qualified as intrinsically evil by the moral law.” When such an approach is taken, “an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium” (Veritatis Splendor 56). This is a form of situational ethics, which usually denies that there is such a thing as “intrinsic evil.”

Secondly, the difficulty of any situation can never be an excuse for a Christian to disobey the commandments. “Certainly,” John Paul insisted, “maintaining a harmony between freedom and truth occasionally demands uncommon sacrifices, and must be won at a high price: it can even involve martyrdom.” But temptation and sin can be overcome and avoided because of God’s aid and grace. “Keeping God’s law in particular situations can be difficult, extremely difficult, but it is never impossible. This is the constant teaching of the Church’s tradition.” No exception is given here, precisely because exceptions are contrary to the coherent logic of the moral law and the reality of God’s loving grace: “His commandments are not burdensome (cf. 1 John 5:3); his yoke is easy and his burden light (cf. Matt. 11:30)” (Veritatis Splendor 102). Do we believe in the power of sanctifying grace, or are we going to settle for cheap grace?

Finally, the Church’s teaching on morality is not an “ideal,” which we can adapt and proportion according to our specific situation. To believe so is to undermine “the reality of Christ’s redemption”! As John Paul explains, in what is a powerful rebuttal of supposedly sophisticated and caring pastoral approaches that deny that we can do all things through Christ, who strengthens us (Phil 4:13),

in this context, appropriate allowance is made both for God’s mercy towards the sinner who converts and for the understanding of human weakness. Such understanding never means compromising and falsifying the standard of good and evil in order to adapt it to particular circumstances. It is quite human for the sinner to acknowledge his weakness and to ask mercy for his failings; what is unacceptable is the attitude of one who makes his own weakness the criterion of the truth about the good, so that he can feel self-justified, without even the need to have recourse to God and his mercy (Veritatis Splendor 104).

So, yes, all are invited. Praise God! We are all sinners, and we are saved by God’s grace. But that invitation is a call to forgiveness for those who repent, redemption for those who confess their sins, and the strength to overcome temptation and sin for those who cooperate with God’s divine initiative and power. That is the way forward, as that is the truth taught by Christ and his Church. Let us move, then, deeper into the heart of Divine Love, for the glory of God and the salvation of our souls.

---

Image credit: Winston Vargas via Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0.