“Yes, Yes; No, No” or the gradualness of the law – theological commentary

The term “gradualness of the law”—used by some in discussions about morality, including conjugal ethics—is not entirely new. Already in 1980, John Paul II spoke out against it, with the conviction that the progress (gradualness) of human growth should not be confused with the “gradualness of the law,” “as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations” (John Paul II, Homily at the Close of the Sixth Synod of Bishops, Oct. 25, 1980, 8).

The “gradualness of the law” represents a progressive morality, adapted to people’s attitudes and opinions, here and now. Its supporters use it mainly in the field of sexuality, but they do not apply, for example, to the commandment “Thou shalt not steal.” Sexual relations are a relative “form of communication” and, as such, should not be judged in the light of the immutable laws of human nature, of which they in fact deny the existence.

Regarding marriage, the “gradualness of the law” would be justified from the following point of view: There is a variety of bonds—heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, monogamous—; and people can live each of these relations and still be in harmony with the God revealed in Jesus Christ, even though the ideal is the stable monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, open to life. Such views are accompanied by talk about mercy, which is contrasted with the commandments. Sometimes, they attempt to support the “gradualness of the law” with quotes from Scripture, for example with Jesus’ words: “Woe to you scholars of the law! You impose on people burdens hard to carry, but you yourselves do not lift one finger to touch them!” (Lk 11:46). Yet, when we take the whole Gospel and the Tradition of the Church in their entirety, the “gradualness of the law” is irreconcilable with them. Indeed, the hypocritical discipline is one thing, and calling a spade a spade is another, including when we call a sin a sin.

The law inherent in the nature of creatures and God's revelation is not progressive, and the aim of the human adventure is not to go through successive incarnations, but to make responsible choices before God and before men. Mercy, on the other hand, as Christ revealed it to us, is not the "gradual" blurring of God’s will, but its proclamation "in season and out of season," even at the price of one’s life, as good for each person.