Earlier this month, Pope Francis criticized priests who seem to fixate exclusively on sexual sins:
One dimension of clericalism is the exclusive moral fixation on the sixth commandment. Once a Jesuit, a great Jesuit, told me to be careful in giving absolution, because the most serious sins are those that are more angelical: pride, arrogance, dominion… And the least serious are those that are less angelical, such as greed and lust. We focus on sex and then we do not give weight to social injustice, slander, gossip and lies. The Church today needs a profound conversion in this area.
A lot of Catholics, especially priests who are trying their hardest, were offended by the pope’s comments – particularly a comment right before this in which he seemed to mock “young priests all stiff in black cassocks and hats in the shape of the planet Saturn on their heads,” accusing them (apparently on the basis of their clerical attire) of rigidity, and saying “Behind all the rigid clericalism there are serious problems.”
But on his particular point about the place of sexuality morality, I think Pope Francis is right, and that he’s been misunderstood. The Catholics I’ve seen criticize him online for the comments seem to read him as (a) objecting to priests who preach the truth about human sexuality, (b) treating the Church’s sexual morality as no big deal, or (c) being tone-deaf on the sexual abuse crisis (which was caused in no small part by bishops and priests shrugging off sexual abuse as no big deal). But the pope is right: there are Catholics who seem to treat the worst sins one can commit as the sins of the flesh, and that’s just not something orthodox Christianity has ever taught.
C.S. Lewis made almost the exact same point in Mere Christianity, although I think Lewis’ explanation may be clearer. At the end of his chapter on sexuality morality, Lewis writes:
Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.
Later in the book, when he gets to pride, he comes back to this theme:
You may remember, when I was talking about sexual morality, I warned you that the centre of Christian morals did not lie there. Well, now, we have come to the centre. According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere flea bites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.
Both Pope Francis and C.S. Lewis are drawing on much older Christian (and particularly Catholic) theology, which holds that pride (as a spiritual sin) is worse than the sins of the body. For instance, in Dante’s Inferno, the levels of hell look like this:
Lust, in Dante’s schema, is the least awful of the mortal sins – the lustful are just past Limbo. Pride, on the other hand, is the sin of Lucifer himself, in the very pit of hell. And Dante is really just a poetic interpreter of St. Thomas Aquinas, who likewise argues that pride is the most serious sin of all.
What’s the big idea? Basically this: man is a spiritual animal. This means that sometimes when you sin, it’s because of your lower (animal) nature. You do things that an animal would do – eat or drink too much, indulge in inappropriate sexual behavior, etc. Because these sins are beneath our human nature, we naturally tend to feel shame about them, or at least we come away from them feeling a little gross and unclean, or hungover, or bloated. These sins are the most embarrassing, but perhaps for that reason, they’re the easiest to repent of. Even a great many nonreligious people have a natural remorse at these sins, and come away from the experiences wishing that they had behaved better.
On the other hand, pride is an angelic sin, which is to say, it’s the kind of sin that an angel could call into. Pride isn’t beneath us in the same way that gluttony or lust is. Instead, pride is our seeking something above us, or imagining ourselves as better than we really are. As a result, we’re often proud of being proud; or at least, we’re not ashamed of it, or we don’t recognize it at all. We often resent pride in others (particularly if we are ourselves proud), but we also often treat it as a trivial sin. Think about it this way: if a priest said “I struggle with pride,” would you feel uncomfortable as a congregant? Now imagine that instead he said, “I struggle with lust.” Which of those two admissions would make you more likely to squirm? Pride, by its very nature, tempts us to delight even in being tempted by pride; after all, it must be so hard being so amazing that you have to keep your ego in check, right? But in calling it an angelic sin, I’ve spoken too lightly of it. In truth, it’s the sin of the fallen angels. Pride is the chief demonic sin. Lewis again:
It is a terrible thing that the worst of all the vices can smuggle itself into the very centre of our religious life. But you can see why. The other, and less bad, vices come from the devil working on us through our animal nature. But this does not come through our animal nature at all It comes direct from Hell. It is purely spiritual: consequently it is far more subtle and deadly.
For the same reason, Pride can often be used to beat down the simpler vices. Teachers, in fact, often appeal to a boy’s Pride, or, as they call it, his self-respect, to make him behave decently: many a man has overcome cowardice, or lust, or ill-temper by learning to think that they are beneath his dignity—that is, by Pride. The devil laughs. He is perfectly content to see you becoming chaste and brave and self-con trolled provided, all the time, he is setting up in you the Dictatorship of Pride—just as he would be quite content to see your chilblains cured if he was allowed, in return, to give you cancer. For Pride is spiritual cancer: it eats up the very possibility of love, or contentment, or even common sense.
And it’s here that we finally see precisely why (even if we don’t like hearing it) it’s good for Pope Francis and C.S. Lewis and Dante to tell us that pride is deadlier and more dangerous than lust. If we think of the Christian life as primarily one of bodily or sexual purity, Christ is strangely absent from the picture. We become the gladiators alone in the arena, fighting off temptation, white-knuckling our way through difficulties, and in the end, we might feel either very good about ourselves (by having succeeded) or spiritually crushed (by having failed). We can quickly fall into pride with ourselves, or despair, that Christianity is too difficult. The whole thing seems unfair. Why should God call us to virtue, and then make it so difficult?
In contrast, if we recognize that the greatest threat to our happiness and our salvation is our pride, then our struggles and even our falls can become occasions of humility that draw us closer to God. No longer is it a mystery that God should let us struggle and fail, and realize (over and over and over again) that we can’t succeed on our own. Even in allowing us to fall, God is helping to cure us of the deadliest sin of all, pride. And if our response to a fall is to continually turn back to Jesus Christ, we can lose the battle and still (through God’s grace and mercy) win the war. St. Josemaria puts it like this:
If you leaf through the holy Scripture, you will discover constant references to the mercy of God. Mercy fills the earth. It extends to all his children, and is “all around us.” It “watches over me.” It “extends to the heavens” to help us, and has been continually “confirmed”. God in taking care of us as a loving father looks on us in his mercy — a mercy that is “tender”, welcome as “rain-clouds”. The life of Jesus Christ is a summary and compendium of the story of divine mercy […]
What security should be ours in considering the mercy of the Lord! “He has but to cry for redress, and I, the ever merciful, will listen to him.” It is an invitation, a promise that he will not fail to fulfil. “Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” The enemies of our sanctification will be rendered powerless if the mercy of God goes before us. And if through our own fault and human weakness we should fall, the Lord comes to our aid and raises us up. “You had learned to avoid negligence, to flee from arrogance, to grow in piety, not to be a prisoner of worldly matters, to prefer the eternal to the passing. But since human weakness cannot maintain a steady pace in such a slippery world, the good doctor has prescribed remedies for not getting lost and the merciful judge has not led you to despair of pardon.”
Of course, none of this means that we should trivialize lust or any other sin of the flesh. Many of the greatest evils in the world, like abortion, flow directly from a cultural embrace of sexual sin, and of an insane plan to try to create a world willed with sex without consequences. As I’ve said before, this is a good deal of the backstory to the sexual abuse scandal in the Church. I, for one, am happy that so many orthodox priests are courageous enough to tell the truth about these sins. But we do need to avoid giving the impression that sexual sins are uniquely bad. As bad as they are, spiritual sins are worse. As Lewis says, “a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.”
Sexual sins are a gateway into the greater spiritual sins. Abortion for example, may start with inappropriate appeasement of our sexual appetites; however, dealing with an unwanted child as a unanticipated consequence quickly blossoms into asserting one’s own supposed well being over that of the child, even to the point of blinding one’s self to their being another human being with their own right to life.
I would also add that attachment to sexual sins engenders self-centeredness to the extent that one becomes indifferent to the human casualties, all for the sake of seeking momentary and turbulent sexual gratification.
Great comment: “In contrast, if we recognize that the greatest threat to our happiness and our salvation is our pride, then our struggles and even our falls can become occasions of humility that draw us closer to God. No longer is it a mystery that God should let us struggle and fail, and realize (over and over and over again) that we can’t succeed on our own. Even in allowing us to fall, God is helping to cure us of the deadliest sin of all, pride. And if our response to a fall is to continually turn back to Jesus Christ, we can lose the battle and still (through God’s grace and mercy) win the war.”
Although, personally, I think all sin, even the human/animal sins do begin with pride, can lead to lies and can lead to betrayal – which is at the bottom level of hell – unless we turn back to God.
Over on Facebook, one person noted that a lot of priests don’t preach on sexual issues at all, or water them down. That’s a good point, so to make it clear what I am and am not saying, I thought it might help to add my reply to her here: “You’re right that there are priests who sidestep or water down the sexual ethic of the Church, but there are others who exaggerate its centrality and gravity. And these two extremes feed off each other – seeing the other’s error pushes them further into their own.”
Where are these “priests who exaggerate the centrality and gravity of the Church’s sexual ethic”? I’ve listened to and read millions of words from thousands of priests over several decades in several countries, and I’ve never once heard a priest do this.
Considering how broadly, quickly and perversely the sexual revolution has exploded into the culture, the response is feeble and even accommodating by comparison.
When I reverted back to the faith (2015) I have to admit that if there is one theme I encountered was that those sins aren’t that important.
I struggle with MB… and I had priests telling me in confession that it’s okay to receive the Eucharist even if I didn’t confess that sin.
With respects to homilies I think I’ve only heard the topic preached some 3 or 4 times.
From my own experience… delving into this type of sin does lead to others. For one: wrath. I can’t explain why. But I don’t find myself more given to wrath.
I’ve been there. Had priests act like it was nothing, and dismiss it. They act like every confessor is on Martin Luther level line of rebelling. I really wish they take the gloves off and be Shepherds again.
I’m not convinced this isn’t Pope Francis sending insults in the direction of actual faithful Catholics. Also, sodomites are on level 8 in that image.
Can’t wait for someone to denounce me as prideful because I call sin, sin. What a time to be an actual Catholic.
From my own experience… delving into this type of sin does lead to others. For one: wrath. I can’t explain why. But I don’t find myself more given to wrath.
I’ve found that, too. I guess it’s because, if we become accustomed to quick and easy gratification in one area (sexual desires, in this instance), we come to expect it in other areas as well, and become frustrated and angry if that doesn’t happen.
“On his particular point about the place of sexuality morality, I think Pope Francis is right, and that he’s been misunderstood.” I think you are defending the theology of the “ranking” of sin very well. But you are missing the point…because you have missed the Pope’s point. His point is that there is “exclusive moral fixation on the sixth commandment.” I think the Pope makes a straw man argument here. Please tell me where and when since Vatican II priests have overemphasized the sixth commandment? Has it happened? Of course. But not to the extent that you could cite it as “the problem.” I think that your theology is sound, but that you are misguided in defending the Pope on this.
I think you’re entirely correct. This is nothing but a straw man utilized to push a globalist social/political agenda. – – I cannot recall a priest ever talking about sexual sin in any homily I’ve heard over the last 40 years.
Leave the Church please. Your Qanon buffoonery goes against everything the Christian faith stands for.
Where are these “priests who exaggerate the centrality and gravity of the Church’s sexual ethic”? I’ve listened to and read millions of words from thousands of priests over several decades in several countries, and I’ve never once heard a priest do this.
I could not disagree more with the Holy Father. Three things:
1. From the perspective of eternity, one mortal sin is no better or worse than another. You can’t be deader than dead.
2. The reason for the focus on sexual sins in the past 50 years is the sexual revolution. These are the sins that the “world” has recently re-defined as a positive good and many (most?) Catholics have accepted that falsehood. The world (and many Catholics) are obsessed with forcing the Church to abandon it teachings on sexual morality. Were this not the case, the Church would not be as focused on sexual sin. This is where the battle is in our time, we did not choose it, it has been forced upon us.
3. Based on his actions and words, it is clear that Pope Francis wants to broker some kind of compromise with the sexual revolution. He seems willing to modify the Church’s teaching to accomplish that. See, the acceptance of adultery in Amoris Laetitia and his promotion of actively homosexual clerics and those who are open to changing the Church’s teaching on both contraception and homosexuality.
Two more points:
1. Pope Francis’ words and attitude toward those who accept the Church’s teaching on sexual morality and believe it is important for all Catholics to do likewise are soaked with contempt, ridicule, and loathing. These things are not signs of the Holy Spirit.
2. Pope Francis judges the hearts of these people with gross generalizations that in fact are rarely true. I know many Catholics, including priests, who are drawn to a more traditional style of dress and/or Liturgy. It is calumny to imply that they must be mentally ill or psychologically disturbed. It is certainly uncharitable.
BXVI – Your words speak truth to the depth of a like-minded heart. May God bless you abundantly.
Your words hit truth at the bottom of a heart. May God bless you abundantly.
1. The Church’s (ie, Christ’s) teachings on sexual morality have been incessantly and persistently attacked both from within and without since the 1960s. The reason the Church seems (to some) to be overly focused on these issues is because they are the issues of our time, and it is the area where Satan’s attack has been most persistent and most damaging in the last half century. The battle has been brought to us, we did not ask for it. Demonizing and belittling those Catholics who dare to say “no” to the sexual revolution’s poison is part of the capitulation that seems to be underway.
2. It has become clear for anyone with eyes to see that the primary theological objective of the current pontificate has been to eviscerate the Church’s perennial teaching that some acts – particularly sexual sins such as contraception, adultery, fornication and homosexual acts – are always wrong no matter the circumstances (ie, “intrinsically evil”) as a means of brokering peace with the sexual revolution. This was always the main objective of the Martini crowd, of which Jorge Bergoglio was a member. This was the entire point of Amoris Laetitia and it is why the JPII Institute had to be destroyed, with its orthodox moral theologians fired and their replacements being men who support contraception in “some circumstances” and who say that some homosexual unions are in fact good.
3. The calumnious denigration of all who hold to what was taught by the Church up until yesterday is uncharitable and part of a strategy to essentially make them “un-persons” within the Church. I do not doubt for a moment that Pope Francis deeply despises such people – as he constantly reminds us – but frankly I feel very strongly that this attitude comes from the Evil One.
And I would add that the current sexual revolution is the swamp that breads characters like Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein. The Me Too movement, in a curious way, is a vindication of Natural Law on a secular level.
I find most of what PF says to be INADMISSIBLE. 😏
If the sins of the flesh come way below the sin of pride, then why did Our Lady of Fatima say that most souls go to Hell because of the sins of the flesh? Maybe it is not so much that it is more serious than pride, but rather because sexual sins are easier to commit because of the raw gratification that they produce.
It must be asked: Which is more prevalent: priests and prelates who harp on the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, or priests and prelates who actively undermine or even openly reject the Church’s teaching on sexual morality?
I read some years ago I zenit I think that a priest retired who had spent many years hearing confession in Rome. He could speak many languages and so was disposed to hear confessions of the pilgrims that came to Rome. He said in an interview that basically it comes down to this, “For men it’s the sin of lust and for women it’s pride”.
So do men have it easier?
Even if the Church did strongly emphasize the sin of lust…. where else in our world is that counterbalance to rampant oversexualization?
Music, movies, sitcoms, advertisements, clothing…. Everything appears to be in the same march.
Chaste behavior is vigorously mocked. The general opinion being that not giving into that desire is detrimental to your mental health.
The Church can’t fall into that same march because though a person may temporarily satisfy an urge it leaves them hollow on the inside (and confused) when the purpose for satiating that desire was simply for your own sense of pleasure.
Not actually commenting on the content of the post itself, but I wanted to mention that the contact page of this site appears to be broken. I was intending on sending an email but am unable to as a consequence if it seemingly being broke.
I appreciate this site, by the way.
On the one hand, our sexual drives are extremely powerful and it’s easy to see where there can be less than malice and full consent of the will. On the other, they are persistent, recurring and often unrelenting especially when indulged and habitualized. Even with the best intent, it’s extremely difficult to master our own bodies. Consistent failure hopefully leads us to rely and trust in God’s grace to win the battle, but it can also lead many to despair. Isn’t the attempt to instead justify and normalize bad behavior just a form of despair?
Two other observations:
If you asked an exorcist what avenue does satan use to get to people he’d probably say sexual sins.
and if I hear the Lord correctly those destined to hell are evil doers AND those who lead others to sin. I cannot think of another sin like that of porn, adultery, fornication, that involves one person leading another to sin. And I dont think that St Thomas or Dante had a clue about the extent that the internet/television could bring people to lead others to sin. Not a clue.
Two other observations:
If you ask an exorcist what avenue does satan use to get to people he’d probably say sexual sins.
Also, if I hear the Lord correctly those destined to hell are evil doers AND those who lead others to sin. I cannot think of another sin like that of porn, adultery, fornication, sodomy, that involves one person leading another to sin. (does pride usually lead another to sin?) And I dont think that St Thomas or Dante had a lot of insight about the extent that the internet/television/books could bring people to lead others to sin. With that said, I suppose Dante did write that Paulo and Francesca did read about the adultery of Geneviere and Lancelot and then acted on their desires. Dante could see the power of ‘media’ I suppose.
I know Jesus talked about sexual sins, for instance with the prostitute and the woman at the well. Perhaps, what Pope Francis is advocating is we go back to the early Christian model where our actions converted an entire nation.
I think it is wrong to say that sexual sins do not have a unique status.
The children of Fatima, commenting on their revelations from Mary, said, “More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason.”
The reason so many people go to Hell for sexual sins is not because they are so evil but because they are so pleasurable. Having sex is far more enjoyable than gossiping. Therefore the temptation to do that and justify it is greater.
While it is correct to say that the center of Christian ethics is not sexual virtue, it is a big part of it. The Church of Christ is compared to a bride after all.
In our culture that lauds sexual immorality, I think (at least on the surface) that the Holy Father’s words were imprudent, with all due live and respect for Pope Francis.
All sin is bad. Who among us is worthy to cast the first stone?
It is very true to say that pride will not so easily lead to repentance as sexual sin.
Pride led to God’s wrath in Number16,17. Great wrath of a similar league to when the people of Israel worshiped the golden calf.
But, in all this, it is repentance which matters most. David was not a particularly virtuous man but he was more humble before God than Saul. David was a man after God’s heart – yet his sin was a sexual one of some extreme.
Francis is a pope of the people, a humble man who tries to embrace mankind, with all its faults. He has his faults – just like the rest of us – but I think he is a man after God’s heart.
Ironic that ‘traditionalist’ Catholics should be so much against their pope. Could that possibly be pride?
Anthony,
One of the major problems I have with Francis is where you see humility, I see a total lack of that virtue in him. Nor would I ever call him a man of the people. It’s just not there in his pontificate, nor was it in his homeland of Argentina. Has he embraced the bishops who asked him to answer the dubia? Or has he ignored them like a petulant child? What about young people who happen to love the Latin Mass, with what words did he embrace them? He has been caught lying several times in relation to the sexual abuse scandals in the Church.
This pontificate has been a disaster. Francis makes Leo X and Alexander VI appear to be fantastic Popes.
Ditto. Ditto those who do not have courage of conviction to counter this pontificaste’s BS. Another site asks: Where is Catholic Answers on the Amazonian Synod? Those guys are spineless.
Perhaps you have too many Latins? Time for an American, or a Scandinavian or a British pope?
Since according to Francis, there is nothing “magical” about the convocation of the cardinals – presumably his word for “spiritual” – it must be just a matter of making a choice on the basis of factions or practicalities?
But then he also says “God is not a magician”, which of course begs the question of what exactly he thinks God is, and what kind of “magic” he is referring to?
Reading his comments to the African jesuits he seems to identify more as a member of his order than anything else.
Such is the nature of fraternities.
To the original question, “Do Catholics over-emphasize sexual sins?” The answer is a resounding No. Other than the occasional mention of the sin of looking at porn, I NEVER hear any priest even dare to mention any of the myriad of sexual sins. Its simply too dangerous in this age. So I dont know where Pope Francis is coming from, other than building a strawman argument for other purposes, possibly to damage orthodox priests. Who knows – but from where I sit, sexual sins are never mentioned from the pulpit. No priest dares to preach about homosexuality, pre-marital sex, adultery, lust, etc.
Whether you’re in the second circle of hell or the ninth, you’re still in hell.
It’s very easy for a priest to preach about pride or social justice – no one will be offended by such preaching and you can easily do so without swimming against the tide. It’s much harder to preach about sexual morality, because people become quickly defensive and defiant.
In a society in which sexual immorality is a major problem and leads to even greater problems (like divorce, abortion, sexual abuse and trafficking), it would be wrong *not* to focus on morality. Certainly it’s not the only problem, but it’s a huge one today. Chastising people who do so is just irresponsible.
I agree with this article and I do appreciate when people try to give our holy father the benefit of the doubt and interpret his words in the most orthodox light.
My own experience as a convert is that this metaphor is useful: the sexual sins are the very “brightest objects” in the night sky of sin. When you’re committing them, they are all you can see. They dominate your idea of sin and your confessions. If you persist in these sins unapologetically, you tend to avoid confession at all, and they obscure your view completely (i.e., you refuse to see the night at all and see it as day). But when you do succeed in eliminating these sins and these bright lights disappear, suddenly you can see all these thousands of tiny pinpricks of light of other sins you hadn’t even noticed! I remember wondering what people even confessed if they didn’t have sexual sins. Now that those are gone, I find all kinds of other things to confess.
My experience is that the further you go on the spiritual journey or narrow path, the more you see these other sins. But those who refuse to deal with or repudiate sexual sins (which I have heard from those in my Familia group and my own kids’ CCE teachers, who say it’s none of the church’s business to tell them not to do anything) are nowhere near even starting on the spiritual path. The truth is that the rejection of the Church’s teaching in this area is not the sin of unchastity, it is Pride. So that’s the confusion I see from the bishops and the Pope. And so the sexual sins become a gateway to and a bulwark for pride in defiance to the Church.
“But we do need to avoid giving the impression that sexual sins are uniquely bad. As bad as they are, spiritual sins are worse.”
How are sexual sins not spiritual? Seems as if Descartes has arisen in such thought.
Short answer: no, Roman Catholics probably under-emphasize sexual sin for the simple reason that it is RC doctrine that a few phrases from a priest can absolve the sinner. This of course trivializes sin in the mind of the sinner and makes a mere ritual of the true and earnest repentance that is necessary to receive God’s forgiveness.
A background to the epidemic of sexual sin and abuse by clergy is clearly the belief, of those who have any at all, that they may “forgive” each other with a few incantations.
If such things stink in the nose’s of sinful humans, they must truly be an abomination in the Heavenlies