When is sin not sin? When you love sin more...

... than you love truth and holiness. Of course, sin remains sin, even when we call it something else, praise it, spin it, make excuses for it, or demand that entire societies celebrate it. "Sin is present in human history," the Catechism matter-of-factly states, "any attempt to ignore it or to give this dark reality other names would be futile." You can trust me on this one, because I can say, without pride or embellishment, that I know a bit about sin. I speak from experience and from this real perspective: I am a sinner. Nay, "I am the foremost of sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15).

All of that to discuss a column that I read a couple of weeks ago, after which I considered writing a far too long and extensive response to, but have now returned to with more modest goals (although, frankly, I'm something of a novice in the modesty department). The column is titled, "Love the sinner. Period." (Aug. 12, 2010), and it was written by Kate Childs Graham for the National "Catholic" Reporter as one of the "Young Voices" columns. Graham has clearly imbibed deeply from the NCR well, demonstrating a lack of logic, an absence of theological grounding, and an allergic aversion to the Church's moral doctrine that surely—alas!—warm the hearts of Chittister, McBrien, and Co.

I'll try to make this quick (yeah, right), but be mindful that, as Orestes Brownson noted, "Truth is one and invariable, but error is variable and manifold", and so often requires much time and effort to reveal and correct. Here goes:

Those of you who are regular readers of the ‘Young Voices’ column know that we tackle some fairly controversial topics here. More often than not, the comment section fills up quickly with thoughts from those who agree with the columns and those who disagree. This lively debate is what keeps me going. I love that Catholics of every stripe come to this virtual space to support, to challenge, to discover how we can be a better church.

Well, I'm mostly here to challenge. But that's only because you get nearly everything wrong. Not to worry: I'll back that up with facts, arguments, quotes, and other exotic creatures rarely seen in NCR offices.

I can’t pretend, though, that some of the less-than-positive comments don’t bother me. I know that in putting my life out there, I should be open to all sorts of criticism. And I am, to an extent. However, recently I’ve been wrestling with a common theme among these negative comments: Love the sinner, hate the sin.

I'm not privy to what has been said about Graham regarding her past columns (which I've not read), so I will move on.

At first glance, the phrase makes perfect sense. It gives us an “out” for loving all the time. It lets me love someone like Rush Limbaugh while simultaneously hating my perception of his sins. It allows me to say things like, “Oh, I love them as people, I just hate what they do or what they stand for,” and feel OK about it. I’m just loving the sinner and hating the sin. That love trumps hate, right?

I think she meant, "while simultaneously hating what I perceive to be his sins," unless she actually does hate her perception of his sins (do they have editors over at NCR?). Regardless, part of the problem is already obvious. Her sense of "hate" and "love" resonates with both flippancy and highly charged emotion. But loving sinners (especially those we don't know) and hating sin (especially those we've never committed) has little to do with emotion and nearly everything to do with objective attitudes and courses of action. Thus, love is not essentially defined by what I feel toward this or that person, but by seeking the good for them (to the extent I am able to do so), which ultimately means desiring that they find and know the greatest Good, that is, God.

Since God deserves our love, worship, and gratitude, it follows that anything which harms or destroys that proper love is to be rejected, even hated. "To sin," wrote St. Anselm, "is nothing else than not to render to God His due." This is captured rather poignantly by St. Paul, who wrote, "I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me" (Rom. 7:15-17). Note that he distinguishes between himself and the sin he commits; man is not made for sin—which is the deprivation and rejection of what is good and holy—but for supernatural life and Triune love. Yet we, in choosing sin, must take responsibility for it. We must hate sin: "Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good" (Rom. 12:9). The objective, true value of every person is rooted in their dignity as creatures made in the image and likeness of God, yet everyone who sins (all of us!) attacks who we are and rejects who we are meant to be, "sons of God" and "partakers of the divine nature." Put bluntly, sin is both a rejection of God and a rejection of his loving plan for us. Hold that thought.

Then, I started to wonder why we need to hate at all. Certainly, Jesus didn’t teach that. Jesus was all about love. Love God. Love our neighbors. And on one occasion he even said to his followers, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” And not one of them threw a stone at the woman who had been accused of adultery. They all were with sin. We all are with sin.

Here we go with the crappy Christology. In fact, Jesus said, "If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” As Luke Timothy Johnson notes in his commentary on the Gospel of Luke, “the language here is very strong,” for the Greek word used for hate—misein—“is the opposite of ‘love’ (agapao)…” Yet Jesus wasn't telling his disciples to reject their families and friends in a spasm of emotion, but to rightly prioritize the goods in their lives, with God being the highest Good to which all other goods—including all relationships—are oriented.

Besides, Jesus' hatred of sin—that is, complete rejection and denunciation of sin—is obvious in many places in the Gospels. "If your right eye causes you to sin," he said in the Sermon on the Mount, "pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29). "Woe to the world for temptations to sin!" he exclaimed, "For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation comes!" (Matt. 18:7). He repeatedly exposes, names, and denounces sin and evil, as when he denounces "evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander." Why did Jesus warn of these sinful actions? Because, "These are what defile a man" (Matt. 15:19-20), and thus separate him from the holy Father. "You brood of vipers!", Jesus says, "how can you speak good, when you are evil?" (Matt. 12:34), and he repeatedly warns of judgment that will separate for eternity unrepentant men from God: "So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth" (Matt. 13:49-50; cf. Jn. 3:19-20).

As for the woman caught in adultery, there is a key distinction to be made between recognizing sinful behavior in others and responding wrongly to it (as in, "two wrongs do not a right make"). Does Graham believe that adultery is alright, even agreeable? If she thinks otherwise, has she then "thrown stones"? No, it wasn’t just that the scribes and Pharisees were sinners; it was the fact that Jesus had exposed their unjust and sinful use of the woman as a pawn in their effort to trap him. “He recognizes that,” observed Fr. Raymond Brown, “although they are zealous for the word of the Law, they are not interested in the purpose of the Law…” Beaten at their own game, the accusers melted away. “The two were left alone,” wrote St. Augustine in a memorable description, “the wretched woman and Mercy.” Everyone, including the woman herself, knew she was guilty of a grave sin. But there is a world of difference between saying, "Adultery is a grave sin" and urging someone to stone an adulterer to death! So, yes, we are all with sin. But doesn't that very statement mean we recognize sin, which in turn involves an appraisal of what needs to be rejected—that is, hated—in order for us to be restored to grace and life? Hold that thought as well.

So, I did a little research and it turns out that the phrase is actually attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, who encouraged his followers to “love the sinner and not the sin” in regards to their oppressors. He said it to stave off more violence. And I do not believe that he ever intended for the phrase to perpetrate as much violence as it has. When we start hating, whether it is a person or an action, we stop recognizing the dignity in the other person, which makes it easy to oppress them.

The earlier errors are further compounded, with further appendices added. Let's start with this: Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum. That is from a certain St. Augustine of Hippo (bishop, saint, Church father and Doctor, etc.). Translated, it says, "Love the sinner and hate the sin." It is from his Letter 211, one of his most famous epistles, written around 424 to the prioress of a convent. It comes in the context of his reflection of Matthew 18:15-20, where Jesus told the disciples how to handle obstinate sinners: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother" (Matt.18:15). While Augustine wrote the following in the context of a religious community, it is certainly appropriate in other settings as well:

And do not think that in thus informing upon one another you are guilty of malevolence. For the truth rather is, that you are not guiltless if by keeping silence you allow sisters to perish, whom you may correct by giving information of their faults. For if your sister had a wound on her person which she wished to conceal through fear of the surgeon's lance, would it not be cruel if you kept silence about it, and true compassion if you made it known? How much more, then, are you bound to make known her sin, that she may not suffer more fatally from a neglected spiritual wound. But before she is pointed out to others as witnesses by whom she may be convicted if she deny the charge, the offender ought to be brought before the prioress, if after admonition she has refused to be corrected, so that by her being in this way more privately rebuked, the fault which she has committed may not become known to all the others. If, however, she then deny the charge, then others must be employed to observe her conduct after the denial, so that now before the whole sisterhood she may not be accused by one witness, but convicted by two or three. When convicted of the fault, it is her duty to submit to the corrective discipline which may be appointed by the prioress or the prior. If she refuse to submit to this, and does not go away from you of her own accord, let her be expelled from your society. For this is not done cruelly but mercifully, to protect very many from perishing through infection of the plague with which one has been stricken. Moreover, what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons and hatred of the sin, in observing, forbidding, reporting, proving, and punishing of all other faults. But if any one among you has gone on into so great sin as to receive secretly from any man letters or gifts of any description, let her be pardoned and prayed for if she confess this of her own accord. (emphasis added)

We've learned at least one thing: Ghandi was more familiar with Augustine than are the writers and editors of NCR.

Anyhow, to write, "When we start hating, whether it is a person or an action, we stop recognizing the dignity in the other person, which makes it easy to oppress them," is to again misunderstand or misrepresent the righteous hatred of sin, which is not, being righteous, ever intended to harm the sinner. After all, the one who truly loves the sinner—that is, desires and wills the good for them—will not seek to harm the sinner, but will hate and attack what really threatens and harms the sinner. Analogously, the treatment for cancer can render the patient weak, sick, and anguished, yet no one (as far as I know) says, "When we start chemotherapy, we show how much we hate the patient because the treatment causes them pain." The cleansing of sin is painful, and those who resist such cleansing will perceive it to be an attack on them, precisely because they cling to and desire the sin! The Catechism is especially instructive on this point:

Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind's origins. Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc. Only in the knowledge of God's plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another. (par. 387)

Think of sin as an illicit drug (which, in a certain way, it is), and think of what most drug abusers do when they are confronted with the actual or threatened loss of their fix: they are angry, they play the victim card, they blame others, they claim to be misunderstood and maltreated. And so forth. Which brings us to the real nub of the issue with Graham, who writes:

On homosexuality, the hierarchy of the Catholic church has espoused a “love the sinner, hate the sin” stance. To some, this stance may seem benevolent. To me, a member of the queer community, it isn’t compassionate in the least. When someone says, “I love you as a lesbian, just not your sin of ‘homosexual activity,’” all I can hear is “I don’t love who you are, and I hate what you do.” And, whether or not I believe that my relationship with my partner is a sin (I don’t), it hurts. My sexuality, though it doesn’t define me as a person, is an integral part of who I am. You can’t separate it from me. The hate for my so-called sin leads to hatred for me. Because that so-called sin is me.

This is one of the most clumsy and embarrassing exercises in smoke and mirrors I've seen since, well, the last time I read something in NCR. So, yes, we are all sinners, etc., etc., but Graham's sin—homosexual acts, apparently, by her own admission—are not a sin. Why? Because she says so. Oh. Um. Wait a second. Perhaps she fails to see that those she has lambasted for being hateful could just as well say, "Hey, when you denounce my sin of 'hatred,' all I hear is, 'I don't love who you are, and I hate what you do. My hatred, although it doesn't define me, is an integral part of who I am." And so forth. After all, if she can simply wave a willful wand and do away with Church teaching about homosexual acts ("acts of grave depravity" and "intrinsically disordered" according to CCC, 2357), well, goodness, why stop there?

This says it all: "The hate for my so-called sin leads to hatred for me." It's a completely false statement, but she has so completely personalized and embraced the sin, she has abdicated her capacity to assent to moral authority (both magisterial and of natural law) and to objectively recognize and name sin—that is, those actions and attitudes contrary to the will and character of God. "There are only two kinds of men," noted Pascal in his Pensées, "the righteous who believe themselves sinners; the rest, sinners, who believe themselves righteous." The headline to her essay is also a smokescreen, for this is not really the plea of a sinner for love and mercy, but a demand that others love the sin she insists is not sin at all. Bluntly, she demands we agree with her and disagree with the Church. Like the heroin addict, she thinks that those who would take away the needle are full of hate and seek only to destroy her. But the heroin addict is not heroin, even if he has completely given himself over to the poison. The "so-called sin" is not her, even if she has chosen to conform herself to its image rather than, in the words of Pope John Paul II, "become who you are"—a son or daughter of God, conformed to the mind of Christ, thinking with mind of the Church, living in the light of the Gospel.

I know that it will be an insurmountable task for all of us to agree on the pressing moral issues of our day. All I ask is that we stop the hate and start doing what Jesus taught us. Let’s stop casting stones and start loving our whole neighbor, not just the parts we like or think are free of sin. Certainly, we still need to hold each other accountable for our missteps, whatever they may be. We just can’t hate those missteps. Loving isn’t easy, but it is what we are called to do. Let’s love the sinner and leave it at that.

 But that, as we've already seen, is not what Scripture says. "Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good" (Rom. 12:9). Genuine love is demonstrated in the hatred of what is evil and in holding on to what is good. God so loved the world. Period? No, of course not:

... that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God (Jn. 3:16-21).

"The Lord is loving unto man, and swift to pardon, but slow to punish," wrote St. Cyril of Jerusalem. "Let no man therefore despair of his own salvation." Amen and amen.

UPDATE: A couple of folks have asked for more information about responding to arguments made in defense of, or in favor of, homosexuality. One of the best article-length responses is this excellent essay by moral theologian, Dr. Mark Lowery (University of Dallas):



Also see, on Ignatius Insight:

• Sexual Orientation and the Catholic Church | Dr. Charles E. Rice
• Contraception and Homosexuality: The Sterile Link of Separation | Dr. Raymond Dennehy
• Privacy, the Courts, and the Culture of Death | An Interview with Dr. Janet E. Smith
• Human Sexuality and the Catholic Church | Donald P. Asci
• The Truth About Conscience | John F. Kippley

Comments

[twitter.com/PrayingTheMass]

St. Augustine in a memorable description, “the wretched woman and Mercy.”

Having found the Latin text (PL 35, 1650 [PDF]), I see that it is as I suspected... a wonderful play on words: "Relicti sunt duo, misera et misericordia."

Another good post, Carl.

[Sawyer]

Excellent commentary and criticism, exposing the facile and erroneous thinking pitifully presented by the NCR author as an attempt to do theology.

[David K. Monroe]

Her essay is so frustratingly inconsistent and dishonest. "'Love the sinner, hate the sin' is wrong because if you don't love my sin you don't love me. Oh, and by the way, what you call 'my sin' isn't 'sin' anyway, so I'm totally OK."

So what she's really saying is not, "love the sinner", but rather, "stop calling things 'sin.' Unless it's something Rush Limbaugh says. You know, really BAD stuff like that.

[Dan Deeny]

I've always been troubled by Jesus' telling us we have to hate these people to be his disciples. Palestine can be hot, dry, and dusty. Maybe Jesus was having a bad day? That's my thought.
Look, Ms. Graham is probably a nice young lady who thinks we should all be nice to each other. Nothing wrong with that!

[joe]

Well done piece!

One observation on "Perhaps she fails to see that those she has lambasted for being hateful could just as well say, 'Hey, when you denounce my sin of 'hatred,' all I hear is, 'I don't love who you are, and I hate what you do. My hatred, although it doesn't define me, is an integral part of who I am."

I believe there does need to be a more coherent response to gays on the question of how closely sexuality is tied to identity and how that all plays out. A tendency to hate, or a tendency to gambling or drinking, is not as fundamental an aspect of 'identity' as sexual orientation.

[Laura]

I find it interesting that homosexuals define themselves by their behavior all the time ("it's an integral part of who I am"), but when we separate the behavior from the person and say that we love the person but we call the behavior sin, they accuse us of defining them by their behavior and hating them for it. I agree with Joe about the more coherent response on the close tie between sexuality and identity. Great post, Carl. Thank you for a great response to the characteristic sloppy thinking of all those in our culture, in the Church and out of it, who refuse to recognize what sin is.

[Tantumblogo]

Exceedingly well done. A scholarly deconstruction of a Childish exercise in selfishness and rejection of the Truth Christ has revealed through His Church.

[Carl E. Olson]

Thanks for the kind comments. Great catch, David. Re: homosexuality, I've added some links. My focus in the post was not on homosexuality; it just so happens that is the issue confounding Graham. My interest was in the reality of sin and how we often find ways of spinning it or even proclaiming it good and necessary.

Maybe Jesus was having a bad day? That's my thought.

Uh, no. Jesus' basic point is that our love and commitment for God should be such that our love for even family seems hateful in comparison. In other words, our love for God must not only be first, it needs to consume our entire life. This, in turn, won't destroy right relationships, but will fill them with even more love and holiness, purifying them of selfishness, sinfulness, and insecurities. His remark was make while he was on his journey up to Jerusalem (something Luke focuses on at length) to undergo the Passion, and it is made to disciples and followers who weren't fully committed, or didn't have the proper understanding of what it meant to follow him and to take up the cross. When Jesus told Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!”, it appears he is being unfair, even hateful. But his next words are essential: “You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men” (Matt. 16:23). Anything hindering us from loving God is to renounced; anyone who insists on taking the place of God in our lives must be rebuffed. Far from having a bad day, Jesus pointed out the way to have and pursue a good and holy life.

[Dan Deeny]

Carl,
Thank you for your response. Very interesting comment. So, how would you have handled the Cathars?