Can the Catholic Church change her mind and teachings about sexual morality? Is it finally time to listen to progressives and abolish the ascetic elements of Christian morality, bringing Catholicism in line with the rest of the world, which reduces love to eroticism?
These questions have engendered intense debate since the Second Vatican Council. Unlike his predecessors, Pope Francis softened the Church’s sexual teachings, ostensibly to ease their burden on the faithful. His exhortation Amoris laetitia appears to allow Catholics in invalid and adulterous marriages to receive the Eucharist, in obvious conflict with Jesus’ instruction on divorce. And Fiducia supplicans, which sanctioned the blessing of same-sex couples, was an incipient ratification of the LGBT agenda.
These contentious issues will soon take center stage as the Synodal Study Groups issue their final reports this coming December. Will the Synod further embolden those demanding change in the Church’s teaching on same-sex relations and other matters?
In its preliminary report, the study group on controversial issues—including sexual morality—signaled its preference for a “paradigm shift” that prioritizes personal experience, discernment, and “contextual fidelity” to the Gospel, over a set of “pre-packaged” objective norms.
In its second interim report issued last week, the group continued to talk about a “paradigm shift … in continuity with Vatican II” and labeled homosexuality as an “emerging issue” rather than a controversial one. But there were few clues about their specific recommendations. The danger of this prospective heterodoxy is the marginalization of universal moral norms, such as the proscription against artificial reproduction, that have deep ontological and anthropological roots.
How will Pope Leo respond to this study group’s final report if it calls for a major modification of the Church’s moral principles?
There is certainly some cause for concern. During an interview with Crux published in September, Pope Leo intimated that a change in the Church’s sexual teachings might be possible, once there is a transformation in attitude: “I think we have to change attitudes before we even think about changing what the Church says about any given question.” By leaving that door open to doctrinal flexibility, the pope has encouraged a complacent optimism among those seeking emancipation from the Church’s moral tradition.
He should have clarified that such doctrinal revision is impossible. These doctrines are not contingent on the shifting sands of public opinion or the vagaries of personal experience. Rather, they are based on the eternal order of truth and values. The Church’s moral precepts are rooted in the truth that human nature is immutable; that marriage, defined as a one-flesh union between a man and a woman, is indissoluble; and that the conjugal act, which must be confined to marriage, means not only love but also the potential fruitfulness of new life.
These basic doctrines have their foundation in the Sixth and Ninth Commandments and in other key texts of Sacred Scripture (such as Mt.19:1-12; Mt.5:27-28; Mk. 10:1-12; 1 Cor. 6:9; and Gen 1-3). As moral theologian Germain Grisez pointed out, for centuries, the Catholic faithful, from popes to bishops to laity, scrupulously adhered to these timeless orthodoxies. Theologians and catechists taught these doctrines throughout the Church. And when faithful Christians bond together in this sort of communion, they possess an inerrant charism of truth.
According to Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen gentium), “the universal body of the faithful … cannot be mistaken in belief,” because there is a “supernatural sense of faith [that] expresses the consent of all in matters of faith and morals” (¶12).
Some of these teachings have also been expressed in papal encyclicals such as Castii conubii and Humanae vitae. Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae vitae, which represents an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, insists that all sexual acts must be generative in kind. Any attempt to modify these ancient moral creeds by favoring sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage will threaten the integrity of this encyclical and challenge the whole web of closely related doctrines on sex, gender, and human nature that support that teaching.
Those seeking to sweep away that set of doctrines apparently overlook the fact that revelation was completed in the works and words of Jesus Christ. They must also dismiss the key instructions of the Vatican II document, Dei Verbum (¶7): “whatever He has revealed for the salvation of all nations should last forever in its integrity and be handed on to all generations.” These words echo Jesus’ commission to his disciples: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations … teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt. 28:19-20). His command assumes that the truth of the revealed Word transcends the boundaries of culture, space, and time.
Given the continued drive within the Church to normalize homosexual relations, Jesus’ teaching on God’s plan for conjugal love is particularly apposite. In his answer to the Pharisees on the permissibility of divorce, Jesus makes a crystal clear reference to the order of creation, proclaiming that marriage has always been a one-flesh union between a man and woman. That union is made possible because of the predetermined duality of man and woman, for “he who made them from the beginning made them male and female” (Matt 19:4).
In a phrase packed with philosophical density, he declares that these two persons “are no longer two, but one” (Matt 19:6). By natural design, only a man and a woman can achieve a higher unity by becoming a complete and permanent gift for the other. Indissolubility, the Creator’s plan for humanity “from the beginning,” lies at the heart and center of every marital union.
And this plan is disrupted by adultery, divorce and remarriage, sex outside of marriage, and non-heterosexual unions. Fidelity to Revelation and to the Second Vatican Council clearly requires the preservation of these sacred doctrines that have already been confused and compromised by both Amoris laetitia and Fiducia supplicans.
Some moral theologians have argued that it is time to “untie the knots” Humanae Vitae has created in Catholic morality by its insistence that contraception is an intrinsic evil. Fortunately, Pope Francis did not listen to these dissident voices. Every pope should insist that Christianity cannot be reconciled with secular society’s facile validation of sexual liberation. He must affirm that the Church cannot fall into error when it properly teaches these sacred doctrines of faith and morals that are necessary for eternal salvation.
In the current social milieu, changes in attitude about sexual mores do not foster the conditions for a revision in Church teaching, for they can only mean the endorsement of a thinly veiled hedonism. Catholicism must remain centered on asceticism and on a moral vision that flows from the words of Jesus Christ, because they are “the universal source of all saving truth” (Dei Verbum, ¶7).
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.
Another Manchurian Pope.
It’s not over till the fat lady sings.
That may be true at Wrigley Field but Christ has already sang,
The Church hierarchs in these synods (and those behind the synods…) would prefer that the faithful listen to them rather than read the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Fathers of the Church:
Romans 1:26-27
New International Version
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
New International Version
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
SAINT EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA
“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).
SAINT CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
“All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians” (Exhortation to the Greeks 2 [A.D. 190]).
SAINT BASI THE GREAT
“He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers” (Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).
SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
“[Certain men in church] come in gazing about at the beauty of women; others curious about the blooming youth of boys. After this, do you not marvel that [lightning] bolts are not launched [from heaven], and all these things are not plucked up from their foundations? For worthy both of thunderbolts and hell are the things that are done; but God, who is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forbears awhile his wrath, calling you to repentance and amendment” (Homilies on Matthew 3:3 [A.D. 391]).
“All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26–27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases” (Homilies on Romans 4 [A.D. 391]).
“[The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men” (ibid.).
SAINT AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO
“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).
TERTULLIAN
“[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities” (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).
SAINT JUSTIN MARTYR (the first recognized philosopher of the Christian era)
“[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. . . . And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27 [A.D. 151]).
THE DIDACHE
“You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born” (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]).
Why are you quoting from the NIV? That version of the Holy Bible is not used in the Catholic Church or approved for Catholics.
The one thing that has frightened me since this synodal rubbish started, is how quickly it is replacing the word CATHOLIC!
From the second interim report, we have read: “An update from an expert panel on ‘controversial doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues’ said its final document will clarify the current paradigm shift in the Church following the Second Vatican Council and the ’emerging synodal experience.’ It will include “procedural” proposals for the paradigm shift, such as how to conduct conversation in the Spirit, and how to manage cognitive, emotional, and cultural ‘resistance’ to the shift.”
Yea, verily, but for some semblance of balance, non-amnesiacs still remember:
…the authentic 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops (a real synod!) convened to guard against “divergent interpretations” of the Council; and remember the follow-up action on the synod’s request for a Catechism (1992); and remember the related encyclical on Natural Law and moral absolutes about which the Church is “neither the author nor the arbiter” (Veritatis Splendor, 1993), and which the encyclical “explicitly” incorporates directly and for the first time into the Magisterium of the perennial Catholic Church; and regarding the “hermeneutics of continuity’ versus a too-novel “paradigm shift” in moral theology and in the Constitution of the Church (the Council’s Lumen Gentium)…remember that this rupture is a lazy misappropriation from the distinct natural sciences (Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” 1962)–an agenda opposed to all that is steadfast(!) and easily branded as “rigid, bigoted, fixistic, and backwardist.” Another novel-ist, the Honore de Balzac, reminds us that “bureaucracy is a giant mechanism operated by pigmies.”
Also back in 1985, Benedict XVI (remember him?) recalled that “a council [and a synod] is what the Church DOES, not what the Church IS” (The Ratzinger Report). But, in the 1990s, a very different and secularist and multi-tasking guru pontificated thusly: “it all depends on what the meaning of the word is, is!”
So, about balance and authenticity in “managing resistance” to today’s paradigm shift (theological-transgenderism?)–when all of the cardinals are assembled by Pope Leo XIV in January 2026…who will manage the managers?
From the article:”Pope Leo intimated that a change in the Church’s sexual teachings might be possible, once there is a transformation in attitude: ‘I think we have to change attitudes before we even think about changing what the Church says about any given question.’”
So, there we have it- a Catholic Church where the tail wags the dog. Some of us want to put the Vatican and its wayward bishops on notice. It’s Christ who intends for the Church to evangelize the culture and not the other way around. I’m more than happy to follow a Savior who wasn’t afraid to speak the Truth boldly even if it meant getting murdered for it.
Just because Catholic sexual morality “cannot change,” does not mean it won’t be relegated to a dusty, pious observance (rather like Ember Days) and then die out altogether.
Not once was the issue of contraception brought up during either my RCIA (rebranded to OCIA) or pre-cana. That was thirty years ago. I can count on one hand the number of times the issue has been brought up from the pulpit–and that includes at NFP conventions. There are no NFP services or physicians in my Diocese (very scant information on the Diocesan website) and it isn’t as if we don’t have Catholic physicians (including ob/gyns) in the area.
I can’t help but wonder if all these new converts the Church is getting these days are being introduced to Catholic sexual morality in any meaningful fashion.
It is simply a non-issue.
About retaining formal teachings intact on paper, but then in practice relegating them to the dustbin of history, back in 1993 St. John Paul II exposed the current gambit, and even “explicitly” incorporated the Natural Law and moral absolutes directly into the Magisterium (what’ that?):
“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’ [no longer a ‘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…]” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 56).
The author writes: “He should have clarified that such doctrinal revision is impossible. . . These doctrines . . .are based on the eternal order of truth and values.” Well said, but it seems to me that a church whose supreme earthly leader has to be corrected by a professor of management practice is in deep trouble. But perhaps I am merely stating what has been obvious for quite some time.
The progressives within the Church are relentless in their desire to conform God to the world….on the other hand traditionalist within the Church are merciless accepting apostates whom have been misled by the progressive church back into the Church. Apostates desiring to return to the Church are simply on the road that St Augustine paved for future generations.
The Church might never change a syllable of its sexual doctrine on paper, but it has already changed in practice. Recently, an openly gay man received the sacrament of Confirmation. His sponsor? His “husband.” If I saw the accompanying photograph correctly, standing prayerfully nearby was none other than Father [sic] James Martin, SJ. Are we supposed to believe that this gentleman was given the sacrament in order to strengthen him to live according to the teachings of the Faith, or merely as an affirmation of how he apparently is already living? Does that question even need to be asked?
“I think we have to change attitudes before we even think about changing what the Church says about any given question” (Leo XVI at Crux cited here by Spinello). Whereas historically, the proposition should be, the Church must pronounce what is revealed by Christ and the Apostles before we even think about changing attitudes. Therein is the illogical thought process that is actually declaring a Church of the people rather than the Church instituted by Christ, his Mystical Body.
I would add Cdl Ratzinger’s Doctrinal commentary on John Paul’s Fides et Ratio, particularly proposition one and two. 1 address the Deposit of Faith, 2, any a posteriori declaration directed related to proposition 2. Herein is the grey area when intrinsic evils killing, understood as murder [prohibition of abortion is a proposition 2 mandate], false witness, divorce, homosexuality are declared intrinsic evils, – although in practice there may be exceptions. Killing is not always murder.
It comes down to Francis and his supporters making exception the rule. The priest is recommended by Pope Francis to act as a tribunal in himself nullifying sacramental marriages on the basis of his private discernment/judgment. The issue of homosexuality, that it is clearly held as grave sin by Christ and the disciples cannot be declared acceptable based on the amiability of the relationship. It was, is, and will forever remain an abomination.
An excellent essay by a faithful Catholic scholar.
Apostate hierarchs in the Catholic establishment want what their spokesman Eminence Parolin calls a “paradigm shift.” This is their euphemism for shifting away from Jesus as King, and shifting…to them instead.
Theirs above is a new contribution to the art of “selling short.”
Since they are apostates, as evidenced by their prominent co-disbeliever Eminence Kasper (who teaches to deny the resurrection of Jesus, etc, etc), and their sodomy-obsessed co-disbelievers Eminence Hollerich SJ and Eminence McElroy (etc, etc, etc) they are fit to be confronted and rejected, because they are outlaws, and to use the description coined by Fr. Robert Imbelli, their apostasy amounts to nothing more than a new cult: the pathological worship of a “De-Capitated Body of Christ.”
They counsel (per their representative speaker Eminence Kasper) that Catholics “probably don’t need to believe” in the things they themselves reject in the Gospels and the New Testament. And in the place of Jesus and his apostles, they offer themselves as “substitutes.”
These men must be enchanted with their own reflection, which in psychology, is considered pathological.
And not to miss a chance to touch on the Pontiff Leo, he (unintentionally or not) let his paradigm-shift-knickers show in his recent rambling interview with the wandering scribes of Crux, when asked about changing Church teaching about sexual morality, etc, blurting out that (from memory here, but words absolutely similar to the exact) “I do not see this happening soon, we must first change attitudes.” So much for the integrity of the faith in the man who presently sits in the chair of St. Peter.
“Can the Catholic Church change her mind and teachings about sexual morality? ”
******
Nope. But Catholics who should know better can.
It is impossible for The Church to change its teachings on this issue and as to normalize or accept either homosexual or heterosexual deviant behavior. That said, The Church also has the responsibility to reach out to all of those who are struggling with their flawed sexuality. It is all of us that need to reach out to sinners and bring them back to the Graces of Christ. There is so much sexual disfunction in our world today that has been somewhat nominalized by society and has been driven by Satin himself.
It’s very difficult to reach out to people with the goal of changing infallible Church teaching, especially when clergy such as Father James Martin appear to be accompanying them.
Nobody said Evangelism was easy, as for Fr. Martin, those are his sins.
Richard Spinello claim’s that Catholic sexual teaching is immovable in every formulation mistakes immutability of truth for immutability of doctrinal articulation, a confusion St. John Henry Newman dismantled in “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.” Newman shows that authentic development preserves identity while allowing real growth, refinement, and even reversal of inadequate non-definitive formulations. Doctrinal development is not rupture but organic unfolding, judged by his famous “notes of genuine development.” Vatican II adopts precisely this logic: the Church grows “in understanding of the realities and the words handed on” (Dei Verbum 8), and reforms what is historically conditioned so that the Gospel may speak more faithfully to the present. Pope Benedict XVI called this the “hermeneutic of reform in continuity”—continuity of substance, change in expression and application.
Spinello’s assertion that every aspect of past sexual doctrine is forever unchangeable is not fidelity but theological fossilization. Vatican II explicitly teaches that moral doctrine must read “the signs of the times” (Gaudium et Spes (GS) 4), attend to “the dignity of the human person” (GS 12), and integrate developments in anthropology, psychology, and relationality (GS 52). Moral truth is stable; its pastoral and conceptual articulation is not.
Moreover, reducing contemporary discernment to “hedonism” is a caricature. Vatican II insists that conscience is the “most secret core” of the person (GS 16), not a threat to truth but its privileged interior encounter. Newman called conscience the “aboriginal Vicar of Christ.” To treat evolving pastoral judgment as capitulation is to mistrust both.
Fear-mongering about “paradigm shifts” ignores Benedict’s point: authentic reform purifies distortions and deepens fidelity. “Amoris Laetitia” and “Fiducia Supplicans” do not abolish doctrine but apply perennial truths to complex realities, precisely what Vatican II mandates.
The Church cannot contradict Revelation; but it must continually discern how Revelation speaks. To deny this is not tradition, it is fossilized traditionalism, which, as Newman warned, is simply the dead faith of the living.
Homosexual activity is an abomination before God. Any discussion to legalize such behavior should be categorized as a mortal sin.
What do we do now? Surely God has a plan; we are to obey Gods law; man, is seeking to change that. Who and what do we stand up against? If we are called to Sainthood and Martyrdom what are we standing for? The truth and lies lines written through distortion by men is blurring. It’s coming to a point that in order to be faithful to the blessed Trinity, we are being lead to a point of rejecting the church as it is morphing within a society that is all but at rock bottom, yet trying to dig deeper into depravity.
https://svdp-houston.org/divine-will-prayer-cenacle-2 – Rays of Light- Rainbows of Peace cenacle of Divine Will – Houston – how the past can be repaired and renewed – to be in the Divine Will – holy, peaceful – such a hope filled trust in The Lord – seems that is what the recent Popes too have been trying to convey which often gets misunderstood .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmXlantJuA4 – how holiness in Divine Will can be powerful enough to influence even generations !
The good news around us , such as how young college students are more interested in Catholic faith – to hope , there would be more such good news ! FIAT !