Gray Matters - Mark Lowery

The Radical Fundamental Option Theory
A new spin on an old error

I haven't heard the word "sin" used in a homily for a long time.

That's partly the result of a dangerous theory at work in various quarters of the Church today. It's called the "fundamental option" theory by revisionist theologians, and it's named after that mysterious place inside ourselves where we make a basic choice for or against God. They take this fine idea and add to it a pernicious error: that our concrete acts don't really affect that inner choice for God. According to these theologians, the only way you could commit a "mortal" sin is if you really intended to hate God and calculated to destroy your relationship with Him. So, they argue, it's okay to make some "mistakes," even some big mistakes, so long as you are not intentionally turning away from God.

But I thought there were certain "big mistakes" that automatically destroyed one's relationship with God.

That's a great definition of mortal sin. According to the Catholic tradition, a mortal sin, done knowingly and freely, is an indication to you that at the very core of your being a terrible thing has happened. You've turned away from God. It's crucial to realize that this happens at the core of your being, and you can still be saying to yourself, "Oh, but I don't mean to offend God." But the fact of the matter is that your actions betrayed you. Deep down you're not loving God and you are quite willing to offend Him. Say, for example, a wife commits adultery and then says to her husband, "Honey, I didn't mean to hurt you." Well, maybe she didn't mean to hurt her husband, but she did hurt him. By being unfaithful, she seriously damaged their marriage. And she can't rationalize her way around that fact by making a display of "sincerity." But that's exactly what the revisionist theologians are doing with the radical fundamental option theory. Their scheme allows anyone to rationalize his way out of being guilty for just about any mortal sin you can imagine. As long as you "mean well," as long as you're "sincere," you can't lose. You can contracept, commit adultery, and do all sorts of mortally sinful deeds and you'll still be acceptable to God because you have made a "fundamental option" to love Him.

Jane Fonda said, "How can I be wrong when I'm so sincere?" Are you saying that some Catholic theologians have fallen for this same cop-out?

Yes, and unfortunately some of them are very influential. Here's what a textbook widely used in seminaries and college courses says: "So when we are asked, 'Is this a mortal sin?' we need to be cautious. We begin to explore questions such as these: 'In this action, and as a result of this action, is your relationship with God and neighbor still alive?' 'Are you in fact still trying to love and to serve?'" (Richard Gula, Reason Informed by Faith [New York: Paulist Press, 1989], 114). The problem is, who decides what is and what isn't a response to divine love? In the radical fundamental option theory and other modern revisionist theories, like "proportionalism," each individual ends up as the arbiter of right and wrong. But in the Catholic tradition you know in advance that certain acts constitute mortal sins, if done knowingly and freely. You don't have the burden of trying to reinvent the moral wheel. In other words, you don't have to be, you aren't supposed to try to be, God! That's what Pope John Paul II reminds us of in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. Being truly free means aligning your life, your decisions, your actions with the truth.

Please explain what you mean by the term "radical" fundamental option theory.

The Pope made clear that Scripture and Tradition attest to the idea that there is a deep core aspect of the self, the Bible calls it the "heart", where we make a fundamental choice for, or against, God. It's just like in human relationships: If you're in love with someone, that love exists at your very core. But the depth of your love isn't fully articulated at the surface level where your day-to-day actions take place. You might say that it's the fundamental attitude you have toward the person you're in love with, even if your actions and words may not express that love and even if they contradict that love. So the idea itself of a "fundamental option" is a rather helpful one. But when theologians drive a wedge between the core and the realm of action, then a great idea has been wrecked. That's why I refer to the condemned version of this theory, the erroneous version, as the "radical" version of the theory.

Tell me more about these different "levels" of the self.

It's a helpful construct for understanding both human relationships and analogously our relationship with God. The two levels have fancy names: the "transcendental" level is the core part of the self, and the "categorical level" is the day-to-day surface part. Imagine the experience of someone falling in love with you, but not you with them (or vice-versa). It's a delicate situation, to say the least. The other person might ask you what you don't like about him or her, what he or she might do to change. You respond that it doesn't have to do with that level of things (the categorical level). It's something deeper down that can't be expressed (the transcendental level). It works the other way around too. If you try to explain why you really love someone, you could list all sorts of interesting things on the surface level (looks, charm, good sense of humor, compatibility, intelligence, etc.), but notice that none of those things allow a clear insight into the love itself, which lies much deeper. The surface level manifests the deeper level, but is distinct from it. The theory helps explain all sorts of interesting phenomena about you and God. For example, it explains why a person in a state of mortal sin can't easily express why he turned from God so effortlessly, any more than Adam and Eve had a good answer when they committed the first mortal sin in the Garden. It's called the "mystery of iniquity." It also explains why someone in the state of grace ordinarily doesn't fall into mortal sin easily. This is at the core level where you are grafted onto God and your day-to-day acts will flow from that fundamental option. Finally, it helps us to see the importance of regular examination of conscience and regular reception of the sacrament of reconciliation: Our access point to what is going on at the core level is our day-to-day action, so it's important to be vigilant toward that action, always watching for signs that something might be awry in our deep friendship with God.

Has the radical version of this theory been condemned by the Church?

It is unequivocally stated in Veritatis Splendor to be incompatible with the Church's understanding of sin. The Church's clear teaching also appeared as early as 1975 in Persona Humana (Declaration on Sexual Ethics): "There are those who go as far as to affirm that mortal sin, which causes separation from God, only exists in the formal refusal directly opposed to God's call, or in that selfishness which completely and deliberately closes itself to the love of neighbor. A person therefore sins mortally not only when his action comes from direct contempt for love of God and neighbor, but also when he consciously and freely, for whatever reason, chooses something which is seriously disordered. For in this choice, as has been said above, there is already included contempt for the divine commandment: the person turns himself away from God and loses charity" (#10).

How can a priest even think about using the radical theory in pastoral practice?

It's tempting, because it has the appearance of compassion. Imagine a practicing homosexual man asking a priest if he can still consider himself Catholic. The man says that he feels a deep love for God, and can't understand why God would not want him to receive the Eucharist, much less how God could ever condemn him, especially given his sincere effort to lead a good life. The priest could be very tempted, especially if trained with some of the texts mentioned earlier, to tell the man that due to the complexity of his situation (a strong homosexual drive) and due to his sincerity, he need not worry. After all, God is a loving God.

Well, that does at least sound compassionate.

Maybe, but in reality it's a false compassion that in the end makes life more miserable than ever for such a man. He can never be truly free until he is working towards aligning himself with the truth, which always, for all of us, involves great moral challenge. True compassion would be calling a spade a spade, and then speaking the Church's language of forgiveness, and Christ's patience with all of us. (Remember the 7 times 70 text in the Gospel?) Just as the radical theory is tempting for priests to use, it's tempting for lay people as well. It's virtually the same scenario. Imagine a contracepting couple, or a businessman doing shady business dealings. It's easy to convince yourself that God won't damn you to hell because, after all, you're "doing the best you can in a tough situation" and because you're "sincere." Interestingly, in such situations an individual can even become more "sincere" than ever as a defense against the mortal sin that's begging to be recognized and forgiven.

This sounds like the Protestant notion that a Christian's personal sins won't jeopardize his salvation.

That's not far-fetched at all. The Protestant heresy that Christians can't lose their salvation is just a rehash of an error that has manifested itself again in the radical fundamental option theory. It's a variation on an old theme. Instead of talking about man's depravity, radical theorists use the psychologized secular equivalent, "complexity." And instead of faith alone, they substitute "sincerity" and "tolerance." According to either error, salvation doesn't depend on one's moral actions but on how sincere one is.

My friends will tell me I'm being "intolerant" if I say what you're saying. They'll say it's "narrow" and "old-fashioned."

Actually, they're the ones who are intolerant. Tell them they're not being open-minded enough to consider the possibility that God really has built the natural moral law into the universe, and the possibility that He reveals this law to us through reason and revelation, and that He gives us the grace to live in accord with it. It may be old-fashioned but it's not narrow. They're being narrow-minded, having fallen for the secular dogma that sincerity and self-esteem are all that's needed. In recognizing the truth, you are the one who's open to the truth and humble, not arrogant, in recognizing it.