The phrase “love the sinner and hate the sin” is often presented as a compassionate, balanced moral principle—one that allows us to separate a person’s worth from their wrongful actions. Yet beneath this seemingly charitable distinction lies a dangerous form of passive aggression. By insisting that we love the person but secretly hate their very nature expressed through their actions, we create a toxic dynamic of denial, hidden hostility, and unacknowledged anger. This duality forces both the “lover” and the “sinner” into a state of repression and deceit: the former hides their true feelings behind a mask of conditional love, while the latter is compelled to suppress the natural emotional responses of hurt and anger, pretending the criticism is not personal when it painfully is. Rather than fostering genuine understanding or healing, “love the sinner and hate the sin” fuels bitterness, hypocrisy, and resentment. This essay will explore how this principle, far from being a simple moral guide, acts as a manifesto of passive aggression—one that ultimately damages relationships, corrodes trust, and deepens the divide between self and others.
If you love yourself and hate your sins, how can you feel angry or guilty or have any motivation to correct yourself when you are declaring that your sins are separate from you and have nothing to do with you? There are believers who feel free to sin, believing Jesus doesn't condemn them but condemns their sins, so they don't worry about the sins and leave it to Him to do that. They are an example of people who use a scapegoat to dump their sins on.
Suppose you are not supposed to hate sin and sinner alike, but you do. That is a sin. If you are to treat others as you would be treated — and Jesus said you are — then you are to go into denial about how you hate the sin and the sinner alike.
The hatred in one who pretends he doesn't hate is far worse than the hatred in one who admits it.
If somebody says they are a fool, you know this is not true. They are not summed up by any mistake they make or any wrong they do. But if you believe in sin that deserves and takes you to the everlasting punishment of Hell — mortal sin — then clearly you are to be summed up by your mortal sin. No wonder the Church says that if you commit a mortal sin, say masturbation, and do not repent, all the good you do will bring you no merit before God. He will not reward it, for He sees it as you trying to be good on your terms, not His. Mortal sin and hate go together.
Bizarrely, the world considers it great and noble to say, "He attacked me. But I would rather it was done to me than be the attacker." In other words, immorality is fine as long as it is not me who is doing it. Rather him degrading himself than me! It is another example of the hypocrisy of altruism.
If somebody writes a letter and asks you what you think of it, and you say it is a disgrace, rubbish, and rude, the person will say you are accusing him or her of being a disgrace, rubbish, and rude. After all, he or she knows that if you uphold "love the sinner and hate the sin," you see her or him as a sinner. The person will feel that your attack is personal—and the person will be angered. The person will not accept your excuse, "But I didn't say it about you, but about the letter." The person knows that it is his or her choices in producing the letter that are called disgrace, rubbish, and rude, so it is him or her who is being attacked. The attack might look indirect, but it is actually direct. His or her choices are being attacked. The wording you deployed makes it look indirect, but the meaning shows it is direct.
If you maintain you love the sinner, all you do is fuel the sinner's rage, for he or she feels pressured to pretend that you tell the truth when knowing that you do not. You provoke the person to hate and anger while hiding the provocation. Because it is hidden, you are telling him to pretend there is no hatred or anger aroused in him. You rig it to get him to subliminate or suppress them so that they will eat at him, cause ill health, and ignite temper and violent outbursts. "Love the sinner and hate the sin" is a manifesto of passive aggression. The sinner will be mad at your hypocrisy—and if he is to believe in "love the sinner and hate the sin," the sinner has to subliminate and try to repress that hate to the point that he cannot see it is there, though it is there. An angry sinner is bad enough without you banning him from admitting his anger is there and is part of him, which will only make it worse. "Love the sinner and hate the sin" only fuels the fire of hate.
What of you, then, the critic of the letter who hides a direct attack on the writer under the guise of hating the actions or condemning? You are a hypocrite. When you are on the receiving end of what you did to him, you will learn a lot. You will make yourself a person riddled with grudges but who pretends that the grudges are against what people have done, not what they are. When the writer of the letter accuses you of attacking her or him personally, you will accuse her or him of another sin—of not believing in loving the sinner and hating the sin. For believers, not believing that is the ultimate sin.
"Love the person and condemn the action" ruins your trust in morality and in others, for it is hypocrisy. When your trust is ruined, hate will come to you so easily and naturally.
This tells us that we can never understand how far from God and good evil is. Any view of evil we have will be watered down. It may not feel that way, but it is. We cannot care the way God cares. Our caring for another, no matter how deep, is idolatrous, for it is a mere imitation of how God cares. Thus, if we hate sins, it will never be the same as how God hates them. Our hate for sin masks hate for the sinner. Even if loving sinners and hating sins is achievable for God, we should be sceptical of humans who claim to do it—and especially so if it is achievable for God!
There is no doubt that if we think about what the principle of loving sinners and opposing their sins does, its incoherence becomes plain. We know by instinct that the principle is a lie. Trying to delude ourselves that Christianity, with its hatred of sin, is true cannot paper over this instinct.
"Love the sinner and hate the sin" is personal and hates the sinner. Admitting it opens the door to finding a solution for the hate and the misery it causes. Denying it only makes it worse and is an oblique way of increasing the danger to others posed by your hate of them for their sins.
BOOKS CONSULTED
BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, Friedrich Nietzsche, Penguin, London, 1990
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Veritas, London, 1995
ECUMENICAL JIHAD, Peter Kreeft, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1996
GOD IS NOT GREAT, THE CASE AGAINST RELIGION, Christopher Hitchens, Atlantic
Books, London, 2007
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch,
East Sussex, 1995
HOW DOES GOD LOVE ME? Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1996
MADAME GUYON, MARTYR OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, Phyllis Thompson, Hodder & Stoughton,
London, 1986
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stonyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans
Green and Co, London, 1912
OXFORD DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, Simon Blackburn, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 1996
PRACTICAL ETHICS, Peter Singer, Cambridge University Press, England, 1994
PSYCHOLOGY, George A Miller, Penguin, London, 1991
REASON AND BELIEF, Brand Blanschard, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1974
REASONS FOR HOPE, Ed Jeffrey A Mirus, Christendom College Press, Virginia, 1982
THE ATONEMENT: MYSTERY OF RECONCILIATION, Kevin McNamara, Archbishop of Dublin,
Veritas, Dublin, 1987
SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD, Jonathan Edwards, Sword of the Lord,
Murfreesboro, Tennessee, undated
THE BRIEF OF ST ANTHONY OF PADUA (Vol 44, No 4)
THE IMITATION OF CHRIST, Thomas A Kempis, Translated by Ronald Knox and Michael
Oakley, Universe, Burns & Oates, London, 1963
THE LIFE OF ALL LIVING, Fulton J Sheen, Image Books, New York, 1979
THE NEW WALK, Captain Reginald Wallis, The Christian Press, Pembridge Villas,
England, undated
THE PROBLEM OF PAIN, CS Lewis, Fontana, London, 1972
THE SATANIC BIBLE, Anton Szandor LaVey, Avon Books, New York, 1969
THE STUDENT’S CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates, London,
1961