Moral topics have a way of spawning passionate debate. Whether it is abortion, assisted suicide or same-sex unions, the response is often the same: strong emotion and heated arguments. This has long been the case, but the debate over issues like these takes on new significance today because of the consequences which may exist for those who seek to defend Catholic teaching, especially for issues of life and marriage.

One of the buzzwords we often hear in public discourse is “tolerance.” From an early age we are taught to be tolerant towards those different from us. Many professionals take classes on topics like “diversity” — all in the name of upholding the value of tolerance.

Properly understood, tolerance can be a very noble quality, especially in a multicultural society like our own. However, as is so often the case, what the word means on the surface and how it is actually employed, are often very different things.

As Christians we must be cautious to not accept a use of that term that would excuse or even justify sinful behavior.

Tolerance in a Christian sense, understands that people will not always agree, but that disagreement cannot be an excuse for showing disrespect or doing harm to another.

It in no way means that I must accept as true or right what someone else believes, it simply means that my disagreement must still recognize the basic dignity of the other person. It might also be recognition of something the Church sometimes calls “legitimate diversity.” In other words, the same belief legitimately expressed in different ways (such as receiving communion in either the hand or on the tongue — two approved ways of doing the same thing).

In moral theology, there is even what is known as “the principle of toleration.” This essentially says that even when I recognize something evil in society, I must still use good and proper means in order to correct that wrong — even if doing so does not immediately stop the wrong behavior. I may have to “tolerate” the wrong for a time in order to correct it appropriately.

It also means that I am not allowed to employ means which would in fact create a greater harm to society than it solves. There is a connection between this principle and another common moral principle, namely that we are not allowed to do evil so that good results — a good end does not justify using evil means.

At no time is the “principle of toleration” to be understood as an excuse to do nothing to correct evils in society nor is it to be understood as an acceptance of those evils.

This is where a Christian understanding of tolerance departs from the modern secular idea of tolerance so often preached today. Often the secular idea of tolerance does demand acceptance of sinful or evil behavior. Any non-acceptance or opposition is labeled as “intolerance” or “hate.”

Rather than being truly tolerant, this kind of “tolerance” becomes a nearly fascist demand for acceptance and conformity with a specific worldview. In other words, you are only deemed tolerant if you agree.

When this happens the obvious is missed: those demanding tolerance often become the most intolerant of all.

What is especially scary is how this may play out. Those who disagree must either conform or be punished. We see this happening already: laws protecting conscience being eroded so that those who disagree are forced to act as though they do agree or face punishment; people voicing opposition based on their faith being silenced for hate speech; laws being enacted protecting those involved in sinful behavior and punishing those upholding Christian truth.

As Christians, we are called to strike a delicate balance of confronting evil in the world while showing respect and love. We are called to a Christian understanding of tolerance without ever accepting sin.

Will we be tolerated for doing so?