The following are extracts from a post on Catholic World Report by Dr. Samuel Gregg: See the whole article here:
This is “the notion that the person who comes to faith works to conform his life and free choices closer to God in a step-by-step manner rather than simply leaping from his original conversion to somehow realizing instantly the perfection to which Christ calls us”
If certain acts are intrinsically evil, then the law of gradualness cannot mean acceptance or tolerance of such acts at any point of our often difficult journey towards the full embrace of truth.
That’s why John Paul II specified in Familiaris Consortio that the law of gradualness is “not a gradualness of law” (FC 34)—as if it’s somehow acceptable to freely choose intrinsically evil acts along the way on the basis that, at some yet-to-be-determined point, we’ll recognize the need to stop making such choices.
This has been invoked by some prelates as a basis for legitimizing access to communion for someone who is, objectively-speaking, in a state of mortal sin but who believes, in conscience, that he is not. Conscience is certainly binding.
“…the well-formed conscience will know that there is never a good reason for someone to engage in an intrinsically evil act…
“… our conscience can never justify what reason itself tells us to be an intrinsically evil act such as torture or genocide. If we, however, conclude that an act of torture or genocide is acceptable, that’s a sure sign that either our conscience is in a state of invincible ignorance or severely malformed, or that we haven’t engaged in an honest discernment of the truth.