Is “Love the sinner, hate the sin” insincere?
Lately, I’ve noticed that more and more people sneer at the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin”—particularly in the context of debates over same-sex marriage and religious liberty. For someone who thinks there is no way to hate someone’s behavior (especially when that behavior is associated with an “identity”) without despising the person as well, the expression can appear as little other than a disingenuous rhetorical ploy.
Well, we can take it for granted that there are plenty of people who fail to love the sinner. But the abuse of something does not take away its proper use, and hypocrisy condemns not the ideal but the person who uses it as a cloak for wickedness. So let’s look at what options are left to us if we reject “love the sinner, hate the sin.”
By that logic, I can do only one of two things. I can hate murder and therefore hate the murderer, or I can love the murderer, in which case I am bound to love his crime along with him. But I refuse to hate murderers just as I refuse to condone murder itself.
Similarly, this logic implies that I cannot love myself without loving every one of my thoughts, impulses and actions, and I cannot hate my vices without hating myself. But I know that I ought to love myself while recognizing that I do many things that are not good for me.
By their own reasoning, then, those who scorn hating the sin and loving the sinner convict themselves either of hatred (since their logic binds them to hate anyone who performs acts they consider evil) or of extraordinary self-righteousness (since, if they wish to avoid self-hatred, they must pretend they have never done anything wrong).
Actually, there is a third option: They simply have no awareness of a self beyond thought, feeling, desire and action, of the self Thomas More urges his friend the Duke of Norfolk to find in A Man for All Seasons:
I will not give in because I oppose it—I do—not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my appetites but I do—I! Is there no single sinew in the midst of this [grabbing his shoulder] that serves no appetite of Norfolk’s but is just Norfolk? There is! Give that some exercise, my lord!
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Ave Maria -
Jul. 28, 2016 9:07 PM ET USA
"Perhaps Pope Francis is saying that we are involved in a global struggle of good against evil, a struggle with principalities and power, a war against the Prince of this World. That is true, now and always." We are in spiritual warfare no doubt! Sometimes I forget about the power of prayer...I feel we need to invoke St Michael's prayer DAILY & REGULARLY against the traps & snares that are ALWAYS being set for us particularly as Catholics. Let us "PRAY WITHOUT CEASING", a good verse to remember
Posted by: Randal Mandock -
Jul. 27, 2016 11:00 PM ET USA
Allow me to distinguish the two sides: (1) Saracens versus (2) those who would not be Crusaders.
Posted by: feedback -
Jul. 27, 2016 7:40 PM ET USA
Very unfortunately, all recent Islamic acts of war were motivated by religion only.
Posted by: extremeCatholic -
Jul. 27, 2016 6:41 PM ET USA
When this comes up, I cite two reasons why the Catholic hierarchy denies the reality of the Islamic terror directed towards Christians. 1. We are stuck with "LG 16 Muslims...along with us...adore the one and merciful God." and cannot contradict it 2. We cannot hand a justification to Muslims to persecute vulnerable Christians in the Muslim world.
Posted by: polish.pinecone4371 -
Jul. 27, 2016 5:40 PM ET USA
He's signaling to Catholics that we're not going to take up arms AS CATHOLICS against ISIS. Obviously ISIS sees it as a religious war; he's trying to take the steam out of it. Like we tell our kids, "It takes two to fight." Now, should the NATIONS go after them? You betcha. Now where that leaves the Assyrian Christian groups in Iraq who have taken up arms against ISIS to defend themselves and their families, I don't know. I think they're doing the right thing since no one else is doing it.
Posted by: ElizabethD -
Jul. 27, 2016 12:10 PM ET USA
Can Pope Francis' remarks be interpreted as defining the beliefs of terrorists as something other than religion? The audience of such an assertion could be (first of all) secularists who tar all religion with the same brush. But religion is the name of a virtue. And terrorists cannot reasonably be said to be exercising that virtue. Another audience is Christians: as the leader of Christians, Pope Francis is clear that we are not to take up arms under banner of the Cross.
Posted by: garedawg -
Sep. 19, 2015 5:37 PM ET USA
The analogy I often use is that of a parent telling his kid not to play in the middle of the highway.
Posted by: james-w-anderson8230 -
Sep. 18, 2015 6:29 PM ET USA
Two observations: 1- When I started reading the article, I was expecting to find that the "BS" referred to something other than the expected acronym but that was not the case. 2- It may just be me, but I am still trying to understand what the article is saying. Maybe it needs the help of a good editor.
Posted by: meegan2136289 -
Sep. 16, 2015 11:06 PM ET USA
Didn't bother reading the article. "BS?" That's kind of vulgar. Please don't sink to the level of our so-called, "culture."