In 2023, the newly minted cardinal Robert Prevost was asked by CNS about comments he made a decade earlier on “beliefs and practices that are at odds with the Gospel,” including abortion and the “homosexual lifestyle.” Had his views changed? Prevost responded—as is his wont—with nuance and balance: “I would say there’s been a development in the sense of the need for the Church to open and to be welcoming. And on that level, I think Pope Francis has made it very clear that he doesn’t want people to be excluded simply on the basis of choices that they make, whether it be lifestyle, work, way of dress, or whatever.” But then he hastened to add, “Doctrine hasn’t changed. And people haven’t said yet, ‘We’re looking for that kind of change.’”
It’s true that many people outside of the Church have clamored for dramatic changes to the Church’s sexual doctrines. But Pope Leo is right: Doctrine hasn’t changed, and it won’t change, because it can’t change—at least, not in the sense of becoming radically different. The faith “was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3), who in turn instructed others “not to teach any different doctrine” (1 Tim 1:3).
But as John Henry Newman observed, doctrine can and indeed must develop, becoming ever more expansive, nuanced, and refined. Might the Church gradually change on sexuality precisely along these developmental lines—an organic evolution not unlike the Church’s modern approach to usury? Might various changes in praxis—changes in pastoral approach, tone, and style—augur well for a development in theoria, with the former perhaps even conducing to the latter in the long run?
Catholic progressives relentlessly seek to push the Church in this direction. Consider just one prominent example, the National Catholic Reporter, which the local bishop has twice directed to drop the word “Catholic” from its masthead—the first time being in 1968, in large part for its “policy of crusading against the Church’s teachings on the transmission of human life.” In recent years, NCR has published articles resisting the Church’s ban on artificial birth control, defending a book on “the sacrament of same-sex marriage,” and promoting gender ideology.
Priests and even bishops have also long joined their voices to this lay crowd. Consider—again, as just one illustrative example—Bishop Franz-Josef Overbeck, a champion of Germany’s fraught “synodal way” amid a veritable collapse of the faith in that country. In 2019, Bishop Overbeck published an editorial titled “Let’s Overcome Prejudices! The Catholic Church Needs to Change Its View of Homosexuality”.
The same calls have echoed through the media in the wake of Pope Leo’s election. On The View, Sunny Hostin, describing herself as a “devout Catholic,” immediately framed Leo in terms of his 2012 comments on homosexuality: “I’m a little concerned about this choice for the LGBTQ+ community. . . . I think that Pope Francis certainly made great changes in terms of embracing the LGBTQ+ community and extending blessings to the community, and I hope that this pope doesn’t roll back the progress.”
This press for doctrinal evolution, as NCR’s history demonstrates, isn’t new. Instead, it first began to emerge during the sexual revolution, which overtook America in two distinct phases: first, a proto-revolution of the 1920s, when a massive market boom and the jazz age saw a rush of sexual liberation—however tame “flappers” may look today by comparison—and second, the sexual revolution proper of the 1950s and 60s, a Dionysian eruption of “free love” amid a broader revolt against social authority.
At the heart of this revolution was artificial birth control, especially the availability of the pill beginning in 1960. Contraception made possible a new social fabric separating sex from babies—the most sudden and dramatic change in sexual behavior in the West in two thousand years. Though the revolution would expand from there in various directions—the hook-up culture, gay marriage, pornography, the legalization of abortion, and most recently, the transgender movement—these tributaries ultimately flowed from, and were strengthened by, this cordoning off of sex from procreation in the average American family. Within two years of the pill’s approval, more than a million American women were taking it; today, 65 percent of women use some form of contraception, and nearly all women have used contraceptives at some point in their lives.
Christians, too, have for the most part capitulated to the revolution’s inner logic. Although contraception was universally forbidden by the Church since the earliest centuries, one by one, mainline Protestant denominations broke with the teaching, beginning with the Anglican Communion at the 1930 Lambeth Conference. Today, contraception and new technologies like IVF are widely taken for granted by most Christians as morally permissible, even pro-life.
But from Pope St. Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae to the present, the Catholic Church has remained steadfast in her opposition to contraception—the only major Christian group to do so—even though the vast majority of Catholics, at least in America, align with their Protestant brethren in calling for its permissibility. And in sharp contrast to the revolution’s logic, it proposes a path of permanent union: Sex must come under the aegis of self-gift, and thus, any sexual activity outside of the marriage of a man and woman—both unitive and procreative—is inherently sinful, as is the intentional killing of any child that might result from it. These two visions of sexuality are equally total—and, though they both use the language of love, totally incompatible. Only one can win the day.
Here, in the face of this stark opposition, Catholic progressives ought to stop and consider whether they haven’t fallen into the dark side of Newman’s development thesis—namely, doctrinal corruption. Indeed, Pope Paul VI’s encyclical warns, prophetically, about the spiritual, moral, and social corruption that would flow from the acceptance of contraception. There can be good changes in the life of the Church, yes, but there can also be bad ones—false developments masquerading as authentic. Newman laid out no less than seven litmus tests to determine which was which, and the “development” of sexual doctrine to adopt the logic of the sexual revolution, while it arguably fails them all, at the very least, plainly fails the tests of conservation and continuity of principle. A true development, Newman argues, won’t reverse course but rather conserve it, and it won’t change its ethical principle, which is permanent, but rather continue it. The development of usury passes both tests: The Church still condemns usury, but has become more precise in its thinking. But the kind of change called for by progressives would undoubtedly be a reversal of course, an upheaval of principle. It would, in short, be a bad change, a false development, a moral corruption—ultimately, a calling evil good (Isa. 5:20).
If this movement is as pervasive and corrupting as it looks, why is it so tolerated? Is it because “people already know the Church’s sexual teachings, so we ought to focus on other things”? But the lived reality is that people don’t know them, or at least don’t know their gravity—and in any event, don’t much care to live by them. Or is it because “these are all private matters of conscience”? But since everything is connected, no sin is private—and as John Paul II reminded us, “As the family goes, so goes the nation, and so goes the whole world in which we live.” Could it be because “the Church has to get its own house in order first”? But the sexual abuse crisis resulted in some of the most rigorous institutional procedures around, and abuse cases have plummeted since their peak in the 1960s and 70s. Or is it because, ultimately, “the Church is behind the times”? But the actual signs of the times point to a deep misery sown by the revolution and an even deeper longing for eternal truth.
This is a moral crisis—in fact, the great moral crisis of our time—and the great moral opportunity. What if, rather than placating or ignoring or wishing away the progressive push, the Church simply began to resist it like never before? This sounds counterintuitive, especially in this hour of Catholicism contra mundum. But as Fulton Sheen emphasized in his last interview, this contrast between the Church and the world is precisely where the Church taps into her deepest identity. Think of David going to meet Goliath’s sword and spear and javelin with “the God of the armies of Israel” (1 Sam 17:45), or of Thomas More cleaving to his conscience in the Tower of London when everyone else had signed off on the king’s remarriage. Think of the blood of the martyrs, which is the “seed” of the Church.
Indeed, think of Christ, the Head of the Church himself, suffering and dying utterly alone for the salvation of the world. When the Church is weak, she is strong (2 Cor 12:10).
None of this is to say that the Church ought to make its sexual teachings center stage, or fall into a kind of Jansenist obsession with moral rigor at the expense of inclusion and accompaniment. Pope Leo is right that his predecessor inaugurated good and true developments; Francis reminded the Church to keep Christ at the heart of the faith, and to strive to meet people with mercy, where they are. But the progressive campaign to extend these developments into a corrupting change is quite literally a dead end, one that trades the Spirit of God sent to teach us everything (Jn 14:26) for the spirit of the age sent to teach us dissolution (Rom 12:2; Eph 2:1-2).
On May 16, Pope Leo remarked to the diplomatic corps that the family is “founded upon the stable union between a man and a woman,” reiterating the Church’s timeless teaching on sex and marriage. And he went even further: “Harmonious and peaceful civil society” can be built “above all by investing in the family.”
This message, not one of change, is timely—not only because it’s excitingly counter-cultural, especially to young people, but because it slakes a deep cultural thirst, behind closed doors, for goodness, truth, and beauty. Now isn’t the time to shrink from it timidly; on the contrary, it’s the time to own it boldly.
People’s souls—and the very soul of society—depend on it.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Maybe doctrine can’t change (doubtful), but it can be ignored and forgotten.
It can be ignored and forgotten if you’re fine with slapping God in the face.
God never lied to us when He gave us His doctrine.
It’s our loss too, when we ignore and forget that doctrine.
I have the freedom to ignore the owner’s manual that came with my truck but I know what the consequences will be
If you ever picked the wrong nozzle at the gas pump and filled your gas-run vehicle with diesel you know what I mean. There are rules for a reason .
Don’t misunderstand me: I didn’t say that I ignored or forgot it and/or support changing it (or “developing” it). I’m just pointing out reality. Humanae Vitae was DOA when it was released, and if Pope Leo gets around to an encyclical condemning fornication and shaking up (doubtful) in an encyclical, it too will be DOA as well.
.
And no, I do not at all believe the Church has been steadfast in her opposition to contraception. There are no NFP only physicians in our area. At most, a couple of NFP-sympathetic ones who won’t bother a person overly much about “It’s your third baby; you sure you don’t want a tube tie or IUD?” Our diocesan website has scant information on NFP, and despite the Bishop wanting to provide more “services than events,” there is no local Diocesan employee who teaches it, and no one to provide CME credits to any local physician who wants training. And there hasn’t been in the 30 years I’ve been a convert to the Catholic Faith.
And not for my lack of trying either so many years ago during my brief tenure of teaching NFP. The clergy (including the then-Bishop) insisted it was a matter of “personal conscience.”
MrsHess: I apologize. I had the wrong impression that you were undermining doctrine. Thank you for your struggles in teaching the truth.
Take it from a former atheist. We often do forget or overlook a principle that delayed my conversion years ago because I constantly encountered Catholics unable to grasp this fundamental. God can neither be a fool nor incompetent. He did not abandon the peoples of the past. He endows us, as well as those of the past, with sufficient natural law knowledge to seek the good, even if many bishops might take refuge in a vague reference to an unspecified conscience because they are too cowardly to confront human vanity.
We read: “Doctrine hasn’t changed, and it won’t change, because it can’t change—at least, not in the sense of becoming radically different.” The ploy today is NOT even to change doctrine, but to mouth the words of while rendering even the idea of doctrine as dysfunctional when contradicted by “pastoral” practice.
Getting in front of “walking [or whatever] together”…
TWO POINTS and a Summary:
FIRST, St. Pope John Paul II belled the cat when he elevated the natural law and moral absolutes as explicitly (!) part of the Magisterium. An encyclical, no less: VERITATIS SPLENDOR (1993):
“Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents the central theme of this encyclical and which today is being restated with the authority of the Successor of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but also for the whole of society, with the REAFFIRMATION OF THE UNIVERSALITY AND IMMUTABILITY OF THE MORAL COMMANDMENTS [italics], particularly those which prohibit always and without exception INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACTS [italics]” (n. 115).
“A separation [!], or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [not moral judgment] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [‘thou shalt not…’]” (n. 56). “The Church is no way [!] the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm” (n. 95).
SECOND: At the 1948 LAMBETH Conference, the defeated minority who earlier had fought the Anglican compromise to the end (1930), told it like it is:
“It is, to say the least, suspicious that the age in which contraception has won its way is not one which has been conspicuously successful in managing its sexual life. Is it possible that, by claiming the right to manipulate his physical processes in this manner, man may, without knowing it, be stepping over the boundary between the world of Christian marriage and what one might call the world of Aphrodite, the world of sterile eroticism?” (Cited in Wright, “Reflections on the Third Anniversary of a Controverted Encyclical,” St. Louis: Central Bureau Press, 1971).
SUMMARY: Philosophically, the non-demonstrable first principle of non-contradiction; and theologically the role of reason in the “universal call to holiness”…And, both versus backing in (so to speak) to double-speak and whatever.
The idealist’s thought does not truly recognise the principle of identity and, as a result, neither the principle of non-contradiction nor that of the excluded middle (emphasis added). For the idealist, no absolute affirmations can be made; there are no eternal truths. This is because the foundation of idealism—despite its often categorical assertions—is a profound and underlying scepticism. That scepticism arises from an inner rupture: the break between the mind’s natural realist orientation and the turn inward that defines modern idealism. Yet this scepticism is often masked by emphatic, ungrounded affirmations—dogmatic in tone but lacking true foundations. In a curious reversal, the idealist sees dogmatism precisely in what is, in fact, the grounded certainty of the realist.
Christ took the Scribes and the Pharisees to task in His woes in Matthew 23 because they preached but they did not practice. He also denounced their practice of Corban in Mark 7. It is the progressive modernists in their attempt to divide practice and teaching who are acting like modern Scribes and Pharisees.
What if? indeed.
Let’s remember one fact: Satan has always been and will always be unrelenting in his attack against Christ and His Church. And, note too, that Satan has operatives WITHIN the Church. Don’t ever let down your guard.
Interesting that the New Testament does not speak of “inclusion and accompaniment” towards those who give themselves to false teaching, to sexual perversion, or, on the part of God Himself in the Book of Revelation, even to lukewarmness.
Catholic progressives. There’s a ridiculous oxymoron for you if there ever was one!
“Doctrine hasn’t changed. And people haven’t said yet, ‘We’re looking for that kind of change.’”
So when enough people say, “we’re looking for that kind of change”, doctrine will change?
This is counterfeit synod speak. We cannot transform Christ, The Word of Perfect Divine Eternal Love incarnate, Christ’s Transforms us, if we desire to repent , serve our Penance, accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy, and believe The Good News.
“Penance, Penance, Penance.”
The vision of Tuy affirms both The Unity of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Who Proceeds From Both The Father and His Only Begotten Son, and thus affirms the Papacy. Those who deny The Unity of The Holy Ghost, by claiming members of The Catholic Church can change Christ’s teaching in regards to sexual morality, have ipso facto separated themselves from The One Body of Christ, and have become part of a counterfeit church that in denying The Unity of The Holy Ghost, deny The Divinity Of The Most Holy Blessed Trinity, and are thus anathema.
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD) has replaced Catholic faith among at least 85% of baptized Catholics, most of whom have lapsed in practice. Sexual morality? Doctrine? LOL. The “moralistic” component of MTD only feebly means “be nice and fair” to others. It’s “live and let live” and “do what makes you feel happy” in our new fallen age of MTD. God does not make harsh demands on people; in fact, God is barely there in the background.
The Catholic Church is in a death spiral because the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of baptized Catholics, don’t believe the Church offers anything meaningful, worthwhile, or value-positive in life. People are adopting their own self-curated spiritualities for navigating life. Parishes are Baby Boomer Sunday social Jesus clubs for those who are into that sort of thing. Lots of Catholics have checked out of church membership, and the bishops and priests and catechists don’t know what to do about it.
“People haven’t said yet: ‘This is what we want.’”
Wow. Is that the new pontiff’s standard? Truth = What people want?
That is a PR signal for: “We are really not serious.”
This is PR signal for we are not really Catholic. We declare what is Good, which is anti Christ, anti Filioque, and anti Papacy.
But then he hastened to add, “Doctrine hasn’t changed. And people haven’t said yet, ‘We’re looking for that kind of change’” (Becklo). Nevertheless, that’s the essence, the primary issue the Church suffers from: A finessed, hypocritical mindset that allows for full entrance into Church and sacraments for those whose life is antithetical to Catholic doctrine – while deceitfully claiming nothing has doctrinally changed.
This is precisely the proposition embedded in the mind of the Church by Pope Francis and his supporters [explain Fr James Martin SJ, Fr Marko Rupnik, Bishop Georg Bätzing, Archbishop Paglia and his successor Msgr Pegoraro, Cdls McElroy and Hollerich to name just a handful] – which Pope Leo XIV has consistently embraced by claiming he is a supporter of Francis I. Contrary to the support of Francis’ predecessors Benedict XVI, John Paul II. A kindly face means nothing unless it’s supported with a heart that embraces the permanent truths espoused by Benedict [don’t delude yourself in believing Leo will take Cdl Burke to heed and reverse the desultory policy against the ancient Latin liturgy] and John Paul.
Jorge Bergoglio, having denied as a Cardinal , God’s Universal Call to Holiness, and thus our Call to be Temples of The Holy Ghost in all our relationships makes this fact clear and undeniable:
Jorge Bergoglio’s “refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him“, was evident, prior to his election to the Papacy, thus his election to The Papacy was not valid, and thus he had no authority in Christ Church having become a schismatic prior to his invalid election to The Papacy.
And the man recently elected to the Papacy who affirms the counterfeit magisterium of the anti Unity of The Holy Ghost, and thus anti Filioque, and thus anti Papacy counterfeit magisterium that serves in contradiction to Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ.
Am I wrong to write that in every age, it is from the laity that reform comes? St. John Paull II said that the world is more willing listen to witness than to teachers. As one who survived growing up in the 60s and 70’s and coming back to the faith in the 80’s, I am almost ready to witness what I have suffered but I think I could debate someone on these hot button issues. I was born for such a time as this.
But doctrine to be known must be taught!
Y’all do realize that contraception has been around since ancient times? It was noticed as a pastoral problem in 14th C Italy. Condoms were invented in 1600. By the 18th C, the French were contracepting with enough “success” to affect demographic statistics. Contraception was a hot topic in Victorian England. Europe passed the demographic transition point in 1870. It didn’t start with the Pill, which was simply a neater, simpler and more effective technique. If Paul VI had shown why contraception was wrong, the way John Paul II did, he might have gotten a better reception. Or not.
Besides being more effective and simpler, hormonal contraception pills are taken by the woman vs male prophylactic contraception.
But yes, contraception in some form has been around for a long time.
To give the Devil his due, the Kahun Papyrus (around 1850 BC) and the Ebers Papyrus (1550 BC) contain some of the earliest written accounts of birth control methods.
IOW, if Paul VI could have shown that non-contracepting was a gift which led to another gift, people would have been more likely to stop acting the way they’d been acting for centuries? I doubt it. Sure, we received JPII’s body-theology without Catholic theologians from the Catholic University of America adverting dissent through the NYT. But JPII’s efforts also failed to influence practice. Then Francis came and ‘walked’ with the peripheral people if you catch the gist. Call me cynical. I think your last sentence is true.
the estrogen espc, from the Pill is in the water supply; the chemicals do not break down
In 1994 JPII wrote Ordinatio Sacredotalis stating that ” I declare that the church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and this judgement is to be definitively held by all the church faithful “.
This hasn’t stopped the synod from discussing women’s ordination or the bishop in Australia who publicly supported women’s ordination being promoted.
Dogmas and doctrines are already being ignored or bypassed.
The Pope should recall/remove any bishop who permits discussion of the ordination of women by any priest in his diocese. It goes without saying that the Pope needs to recall/remove any bishop who does the same. The worst assault on Church teaching happens when those charged with the teaching authority stand by and do nothing when Church teachings are assailed.
Agreed. And that policy should also be applied to any priest or bishop who encourages, supports, defends, or excuses homosexuality.
Catholic progressives. There is no such thing. “Doctrine hasn’t changed. And people haven’t said yet, ‘We’re looking for that kind of change.’” Yes they have! Surely Pope Leo knows a few German bishops, et al. Wake up! Time to rule. Quo vadis? Where are you going Leo? Castle Gandalfo does not need Gandalf and gondolas. The Catholic Church needs clarity, courage and conviction. Stop appointing apostates to the episcopacy. Use Canon Law to clean up abuse cases. Stop the charade of Synodaling. You know it’s bogus. Just say we should listen to each other and stop wasting time and money. Correct the heteropraxy promulgated by Franciscus. Clean up the weaponized ambiguity of Amoralist Laetitia and Sfiducia Supplicans. This could be done in a week.
This can be done by one statement simply by stating this is not authentic Catholic Doctrine and that it is anathema.
https://www.catechism.cc/articles/Pope-Paul-IV-Ex-Apostolatus-Officio.htm
“Pope Francis has made it very clear that he doesn’t want people to be excluded simply on the basis of choices that they make, whether it be lifestyle, work, way of dress, or whatever.” It would be very disturbing if the “newly minted” Pope Leo really thinks this way as well. If the un-repented choice to kill a child, to defile the body, to defraud the worker, etc., does not lead to exclusion from communion in the Church, then morality has no meaning. Moreover, linking fundamental choices of life and death with such vagaries as “lifestyle, work, way of dress, or whatever” trivializes what it means to be a Christian OR a pagan. Why do we even need to be concerned about the teachings of such a Church?
It does not take a Church doctrine to affirm that marriage (between a man and a woman) and family constitute the bedrock of society. Here, let me quote the words of Senator Jeremiah Denton:
“The FAMILY is the ENGINE that drives CIVILIZATION. Throughout history, those cultures that have failed to found their rules and attitudes of society on the central importance of the family unit have decaued and disintegrated.”