Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Relationships and Religion
The Dangers of Gradual Accommodation (Winking at Sin)

The Dangers of Gradual Accommodation (Winking at Sin)

Last updated on: October 17, 2026 at 7:01 pm by Dennis Knapp

0 Comments

The Dangers of Gradual Accommodation (Winking at Sin) 2026-10-17T19:01:42-06:00 Dennis Knapp

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Image created by author using AI.

Recently, the “law of gradualness” resurfaced during the opening of a weeklong, closed-door Vatican meeting assessing the implementation of Amoris Laetitia. Of particular interest was how the Church ministers to those in “difficult family situations,” including divorced and civilly remarried Catholics. Sister Helen Alford, president of the Vatican’s social sciences academy, appealed to the bishops to consider the principle when applying Church law:

When social situations are turbulent and changing quickly, it can be necessary to find new ways of putting together both the objective demands of the law and the law of gradualness that many experience.

Her appeal brought to mind Jesus’ encounter with the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11)—what we might today describe as a “difficult family situation.” In this encounter, we see how Jesus approaches sin, mercy, and repentance. Christ refuses to condemn the woman, but He does not excuse her conduct. His mercy includes a command: “Go, and do not sin again.”

Of course, conversion rarely occurs instantaneously. People struggle, fail, repent, and begin again. But what happens when the process of conversion becomes an acceptable substitute for conversion itself?

The danger is not gradualness itself, but gradualness detached from its destination: conformity to God’s will.

What the Law of Gradualness Actually Teaches

An excellent resource for understanding the “law of gradualness” is St. John Paul II’s 1981 apostolic exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, particularly paragraph 34. Here, the saint draws a crucial distinction between the law of gradualness and the gradualness of the law.

Under the law of gradualness, a person:

Progressively grows toward obedience.
Recognizes that moral standards remain unchanged.
Cooperates with God’s grace in pursuing holiness.

Conversely, under the mistaken notion of gradualness of the law, a person:

Views moral obligations as changeable according to circumstances.
Treats moral standards as negotiable.
Relaxes moral obligations when obedience becomes difficult.

The Church recognizes how difficult overcoming sinful habits can be and acknowledges that genuine conversion may involve repeated failures. However, recognizing that conformity to God’s commandments takes time does not remove the obligation to obey them.

Pope Francis reaffirmed this understanding of gradualness in Amoris Laetitia 295, stating:

For the law is itself a gift of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception; it can be followed with the help of grace…

Therefore, the law of gradualness describes a person’s progress toward obedience, not a progressive relaxation of what obedience requires.

The First Danger: Confusing Struggle with Acceptance

Consider the distinction between someone struggling against sin and someone making peace with it.

Person A (Sarah): She recognizes her conduct as sinful, sincerely repents, and intends to change, but sometimes fails.
Person B (James): He recognizes his conduct as sinful but has decided to continue indefinitely.

Both Sarah and James deserve compassion and pastoral care. However, their dispositions toward repentance differ significantly. Sarah demonstrates the contrition described in the Catechism, while James, as presented, lacks a genuine purpose of amendment. Paragraph 1451 states:

Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is ‘sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again.

To reiterate, a purpose of amendment—the resolution not to sin again—does not require a guarantee of future perfection. It does, however, require a genuine intention to turn away from sin.

Furthermore, we must acknowledge that ignorance, habit, fear, and other circumstances may diminish personal culpability. Pastors must consider these factors without presuming to know the state of someone’s soul.

This raises an important question for those who advocate accompanying someone like James along his chosen path: At what point does accompanying someone struggling against sin become reassuring someone who has decided to remain in it?

The Second Danger: Allowing Difficult Circumstances to Redefine Moral Obligations

Returning to St. John Paul II, we find a warning in Veritatis Splendor 103 against treating God’s commandments as ideals that must be adjusted to what individuals believe they can realistically accomplish. He writes:

Only in the mystery of Christ’s Redemption do we discover the ‘concrete’ possibilities of man.

It would be a very serious error to conclude… that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an ‘ideal’ which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a ‘balancing of the goods in question’. But what are the ‘concrete possibilities of man’? And of which man are we speaking? Of man dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ? This is what is at stake: the reality of Christ’s redemption.

Christ has redeemed us! This means that he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence. And if redeemed man still sins, this is not due to an imperfection of Christ’s redemptive act, but to man’s will not to avail himself of the grace which flows from that act. God’s command is of course proportioned to man’s capabilities; but to the capabilities of the man to whom the Holy Spirit has been given; of the man who, though he has fallen into sin, can always obtain pardon and enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Here, St. John Paul II distinguishes between a commandment that remains binding despite the difficulty of obeying it and an ideal that we may indefinitely postpone whenever obedience becomes burdensome.

Difficult circumstances may affect our ability to fulfill an obligation, but they do not, by themselves, change the obligation itself.

The Third Danger: Forgetting That Grace Makes Obedience Possible

But what of the claim that something within us may make it impossible to keep God’s commandments? For an answer, let us turn to the Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter 11, where the council fathers reject the claim that God’s commandments are impossible for the justified to observe. The Council states:

For God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, both admonishes thee to do what thou art able, and to pray for what thou art not able (to do), and aids thee that thou mayest be able; whose commandments are not heavy; whose yoke is sweet and whose burthen light. For, whoso are the sons of God, love Christ; but they who love him, keep his commandments, as Himself testifies; which, assuredly, with the divine help, they can do.

God, therefore, calls Christians to do what they can, seek divine assistance, and trust that His grace enables obedience. He does not command the impossible. Veritatis Splendor 102 reaffirms this teaching:

Keeping God’s law in particular situations can be difficult, extremely difficult, but it is never impossible.

Returning to those in irregular or difficult situations, we must acknowledge several important considerations:

Habit may diminish freedom.
Fear may affect culpability.
Concern for children may create complicated moral and practical circumstances.

However, none of these considerations establishes that God’s commandments are impossible to obey.

The danger arises when pastoral accompaniment begins treating continued disobedience as the only realistic option rather than helping someone cooperate with the grace necessary for conversion. Gradualness presupposes the possibility of transformation. Otherwise, no meaningful destination exists toward which the person can progress.

The Fourth Danger: When Pastoral Exceptions Become Practical Norms

At the beginning of this piece, I referenced the closed-door Vatican meeting assessing the implementation of Amoris Laetitia. While only those in attendance know the full details of the discussions, those familiar with AL know how widely its implementation has varied. Consider, for example, the contrasting approaches of the Buenos Aires and Philadelphia guidelines concerning sacramental admission for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

Such divergent approaches have understandably generated confusion. Dioceses affirm the same moral doctrines yet communicate substantially different sacramental expectations. Consequently, ordinary Catholics must rely on their local pastors, trusting that their judgments faithfully reflect Church teaching. Confusion only deepens when different priests offer seemingly contradictory guidance on the same moral and sacramental questions.

Trust in pastoral judgment does not eliminate the Church’s responsibility to ensure that pastoral practice faithfully communicates its moral teaching.

Final Thoughts: Go, and Sin No More

Let us conclude where we began: Christ’s encounter with the woman caught in adultery. In this encounter, Christ showed mercy, but His mercy also called her to conversion.

The Church recognizes that moral growth occurs gradually, but God’s commandments remain binding. Difficult circumstances may diminish personal culpability without making prohibited conduct permissible. Furthermore, God’s grace makes obedience possible, even when obedience proves difficult. As Christ demonstrated, pastoral accompaniment must encourage repentance rather than normalize continued disobedience.

Authentic gradualness rests in Christian hope. It does not demand immediate perfection, nor does it abandon those struggling against sin. Rather, it recognizes that conversion is both possible and necessary.

The question remains: Conversion to what? If gradualness has no destination, what exactly are we progressing toward?

Thank you!

If you liked this article, please leave your comments below. I am very interested in your opinion on this topic.

Read The Latin Right’s other writing here.

Please visit my Facebook page and IM your questions (and follow my page) or topics for articles you would like covered.

Relationships and Religion

Previous Post

October 9, 2026

Amoris Laetitia Deserves a Better Defence

What did the Israelites worship while Moses was on Mount Sinai?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A golden calf A statue of Moses A bronze snake The ark