Often, I encounter the notion that, if one isn't an essentialistic naive realist, then, one must necessarily be a nominalistic, radically deconstructive post-modernist. Similarly, if one doesn't employ coercive positive laws, both ecclesiastical & public, when harmonizing human value-realizations to divine & natural laws, then, one must necessarily be an antinomian.

In the first misconception, though, we only abandon a naive realism to embrace a critical realism. 
We share the same theory of truth but, apparently, different theories of knowledge. In the second misconception, again, we can share the same moral realism or theory of moral truth, only differing in our approach to moral knowledge, methodologically. Furthermore, when one advocates noncoercive, soft power approaches, like pastoral accomodations, over legalistic disciplines & codes, that reflects -not a disagreement in moral judgments, but- only a disagreement in prudential judgments, not relativism or situation ethics.