The Catholic Rejection of Proportionalism
The Roman Catholic Church explicitly rejects proportionalism—the view that the morality of an action depends solely on whether its good consequences outweigh its harmful ones. Catholic teaching instead maintains that certain actions are intrinsically wrong regardless of intention or circumstance. Benedict XVI has stated publicly that proportionalism is incompatible with Catholic doctrine because it can imply that even gravely harmful acts might be justified by sufficient benefits.
Intention, Action, and the Classical Tradition
Aristotle and later Aquinas argued that people act wrongly because they perceive some good in what they choose—whether pleasure, advantage, or relief. This does not mean that the act itself is good or morally neutral, only that the agent’s motivation always involves some perceived benefit. Thus, intention always includes a component the agent interprets as desirable, even when the action itself is objectively harmful or immoral in a given moral system.
From the Thomistic perspective, moral wrongdoing is rooted in a kind of misjudgment or self-deception: the agent mistakes a partial or lesser good for a greater one. This view focuses on how human agents err, not on whether the act itself may still be called gravely wrong.
The Question of “Loving the Sinner and Hating the Sin”
The Church holds that one can condemn an action as intrinsically wrong while affirming the dignity of the person who performs it. Critics argue, however, that this distinction is difficult to sustain in practice because actions reflect aspects of character, motivation, and value. If a doctrine treats certain actions as completely intolerable or morally disordered, critics contend that emotional and social attitudes toward the person performing them are likely to be affected, even if the doctrine formally distinguishes between the person and the act.
The conceptual challenge is that moral evaluation commonly involves interpretation of intent, character, and habit. To many critics, this makes separating person and action psychologically and socially difficult, even if one accepts it as a theoretical principle. They argue that failing to acknowledge this difficulty may lead to confusion or unintended harm.
Moral Absolutism and the Risk of Overjudgment
Where doctrines classify certain actions as gravely or intrinsically wrong, critics worry that this can lead to judging those who perform such actions too harshly, especially when intentions, circumstances, or psychological factors are not fully considered. They argue that moral absolutism may encourage viewing wrongdoing as wholly incompatible with positive moral traits, even when human motivation is often mixed or flawed.
The “Unforgivable Sin” and Final Rejection of Moral Good
Christian scripture contains passages about a “sin against the Holy Spirit” that cannot be forgiven. Some theologians interpret this as describing a final and deliberate rejection of moral truth or divine good. Critics argue that such interpretations can create the impression that a person’s moral condition can become wholly corrupt or beyond recovery, which seems to conflict with classical views that people always pursue some perceived good.
Plantinga and Objective Moral Horror
Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued that some evils—such as atrocities committed in concentration camps—are objectively horrifying and cannot be fully explained within naturalism. In his view, these evils are horrifying partly because they represent a radical inversion of what is objectively good, understood in relation to God as the source of goodness.
This position reflects a longstanding Christian claim: some acts are intrinsically and profoundly disordered, regardless of the agent’s intentions or subjective perspective.
The Privation Theory of Evil and Its Practical Tensions
Traditional Christian theology understands evil as a privation—a lack of a due good—rather than as an independent force. For example, hatred is seen as a distortion or deficiency of love rather than a power opposed to it. Critics argue that, while coherent as a metaphysical theory, this framework does not always match the psychological experience of harm, suffering, or destructive emotions. People often experience hatred, cruelty, and suffering as active forces, not merely as the absence of good.
This raises a practical concern: if a doctrine describes evil as a mere privation yet speaks of resisting evil in strong, active terms, there may be a gap between theological theory and lived moral experience. Critics argue that this gap can create confusion or encourage severe attitudes toward wrongdoing despite the theory’s nuanced metaphysics.
The Emotional Reality of Hate and Moral Appraisal
Regardless of metaphysical definitions, emotions such as hatred, fear, or revulsion operate psychologically as powerful motivating forces. Critics argue that moral teachings must take seriously how people experience these emotions. If a doctrine strongly condemns an action as intrinsically disordered, people may find it difficult in practice to fully separate condemnation of actions from attitudes toward the person performing them.
Concerns About Proportionalism and Moral Absolutism
Proportionalism attempts to evaluate actions by weighing their expected harms and benefits. Catholic teaching rejects this because it fears it could justify immoral acts. Critics counter that rejecting proportionalism entirely may obscure important distinctions in intent, circumstance, and psychological complexity—elements central to human moral reasoning.
They argue that the refusal to acknowledge these factors risks oversimplifying moral life and may create moral expectations that do not fully reflect how human motivation and responsibility work.
Conclusion
The debate between proportionalism and moral absolutism reveals deep tensions within moral theology:
between intention and action,
between metaphysical theory and psychological reality,
between condemning wrongdoing and respecting the dignity of the wrongdoer.
Critics maintain that doctrines such as “love the sinner, hate the sin” are difficult to apply consistently because moral judgment inevitably involves interpretation of character and motivation. They argue that moral systems must account for the complexity of human psychology and the mixed nature of human motivations if they are to avoid inadvertently promoting harshness, misunderstanding, or moral oversimplification.
APPENDIX - STANDARD MORALITY IS NOT ANY "PURER" THAN PROPORTIONALISM
If an act can be intrinsically and can be treated as totally evil, and if intention always includes a perceived good, then condemning the act in that fashion collapses into condemning the person as disordered or as an evil force.
The Church says evil was not made by God - it is a lack of a good that he wants there and is not there. This privation theory unavoidably fuels hatred because emotions treat evil as a force not just a lack. You experience evil done to you as part of the person who harms you. Love the sinner and hate the sin? - that is far from convincing.
Yet Alvin Plantinga wrote, “The premise is that there is real and objectively horrifying evil in the world. Examples would be certain sorts of appalling evil characteristic of Nazi concentration camps: guards found pleasure in devising tortures, making mothers decide which of their children would go to the gas chambers and which would be spared; small children were hanged, dying (because of their light weight) a slow and agonizing death; victims were taunted with the claim that no one would ever know their fate and how they were treated…Naturalism does not have the resources to accommodate or explain this fact [the existence of objective evil] about these states of affairs. From a naturalistic point of view, about all one can say is that we do hate them; but this is far short of seeing them as intrinsically horrifying. How can we understand this intrinsically horrifying character?…A good answer (and one for which it is hard to think of an alternative) is that this evil consists in defying God, the source of all that is good and just, and the first being of the universe. What is horrifying here is not merely going against God’s will, but consciously choosing to invert the true scale of values" (The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, p. 326).