Has the Modern Church Blunted the Sharp Edge of the Gospel?

Church Teaching as a Living Organism

"Traditionalist" and "conservative" dissenters against recent Church teaching--that is, the teaching of the Church since Vatican II and especially Pope Francis's recent teaching--often claim that there are contradictions between the old and the new teaching.  If this is true, is this a problem?  Well, some Church teaching is intended as definitive and unchangeable, while other teaching is intended as reliable, but not necessarily as the definitive final word or as unchangeable.  A contradiction between an older non-definitive teaching and a newer non-definitive teaching is not necessarily a problem, because, by definition, non-definitive teaching can potentially change in various circumstances (new information comes to light, the Church gains a more advanced awareness of the implications of some idea, etc.).

A contradiction between an older definitive teaching and a newer definitive or non-definitive teaching, however, would be a serious problem for Catholic epistemology, because the Church guarantees the reliability of the Church's teaching.  (See here for a full explanation and case for this.)  She may sometimes teach us a provisional answer to a question that is subsequently replaced by a better or more complete answer, but she cannot require us to accept a position that we ought, in fact, to reject, which would be the case if newer binding, authoritative teaching contradicted older definitive teaching.  Traditionalist and conservative critics of newer teaching often allege contradictions between newer and older teachings, and this sometimes leads them to advocate a rebellion against more recent Church teaching that cannot be justified in a Catholic context.

But the critics cannot make good their claims of contradiction.  If examined carefully and thoroughly, it can be seen that all the teachings that can indeed appear contradictory on a surface reading (especially when one is encouraged by the arguments of critics trying to show contradictions) are not actually contradictory.  There is often a difference in tone or in emphasis.  There is sometimes a more nuanced or more developed teaching in contrast to an older, less nuanced and less developed teaching.  The doctrine of the Church is that the revelation of God has been deposited with the Church, and that deposit has not changed or been added to since the time of the apostles.  However, the Church, like an individual, grows over time in her awareness of the full meaning of what she has been given.  And the Holy Spirit guides her as she applies the one deposit of faith to very different circumstances she finds herself in in the world.  This means that while the fundamental truths of the faith are unchanging, the explications of all the implications of these truths, and the applications of them in the life of the Church, are constantly in flux, guided by the Holy Spirit.  Church teaching is thus like a living organism, which, while maintaining its fundamental foundation and plan all through its life, goes through many changes as it grows and develops and responds to its environment.  (See Dei Verbum, especially Chapter II, for the Church's own articulation of all of this.)  It is this reality that accounts for apparent discrepancies between older and newer teachings in the Church.  Seeing older and newer Church teaching as contradictory is analogous to a person who, not knowing the life cycle of some particular organism, mistakenly assigns an adult specimen and an immature specimen of that organism to different species.  More understanding of the nature of the species would clear up what is an understandable mistake based on more superficial appearances.

The classic expression of this idea of Church teaching as a living organism that develops and adapts is found in the Commonitory of St. Vincent of Lerins, who wrote way back in the 5th century:

[55.] The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled. 

[56.] In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits. 

[57.] For example: Our forefathers in the old time sowed wheat in the Church's field. It would be most unmeet and iniquitous if we, their descendants, instead of the genuine truth of grain, should reap the counterfeit error of tares. This rather should be the result — there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind — wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam, darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.  (St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, #55-57, hyperlinks removed. Translated by C.A. Heurtley. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.] Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm>)

Erick Ybarra Claims a Contradiction

Does the newer teaching of the Church contradict the older teaching of the Church regarding the salvation and the spiritual condition of non-Christians?  Erick Ybarra, a conservative critic of some of the Church's recent teachings, in a recent article, claims that it does.

Here is how he describes the modern teaching of the Church on this subject (hyperlinks in original):

The spirit of Assisi is the mentality which sees the one true God as fully revealed in the content of divine revelation as given by the Law, the Prophets, the Writings, and finally through Jesus Christ and His holy Apostles, but that God being He “who fills all” is revealed and manifested in partial ways in even the religious bodies who are not attendant to the Christian faith, and as a result, sees the one true religion, Catholicism, which has the full content of God’s revelation, and then a myriad of participations in that revelation in just about everyone and everything. Consequently, there is already this “partial communion” between all things, literally, and the Catholic Church. There is an interconnectedness, albeit imperfect, between the Christian faith as taught by the Catholic Church, and all the other religions of the world. Further, this entails that we should not think in terms of “right” versus “wrong” or “saved” versus “lost” or “you are in” versus “you are out”, but rather there is the fullness and the varied and pluralistic participations in the fullness. As many readers of mine are aware, Pope Francis even indicated that even atheists can be saved (went so far as to tell a young child his unbelieving father can be prayed to for intercession) . Bishop Robert Barron, even, who is also somehow considered to be a “conservative” voice in modern Catholicism (perhaps, relative to today’s rampant liberalism) is happy to expound on how, commensurate with the 2nd Vatican Council, the many non-Christian religions can partake of Christ, even stating atheists of “good will” who following their “conscience” can be saved.

Here is how the Church herself has described her own modern teaching on this subject:

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention. (Lumen Gentium #16, found on the Vatican website--footnotes removed) 

The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”, since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.  For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”; it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”. . . .  

. . . However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship” which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God. 

Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God, and which are part of what “the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures, and religions”. Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God. One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation.

22.  With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31). This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another'”. If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation. (Dominus Iesus, section VI, found on the Vatican website--footnotes removed)

So the basic idea is this:  God has accomplished salvation solely through Christ, and only those who are part of his redeemed people (the Church) can be saved.  However, there are those who, by grace, are seeking to follow God and yet who, through no fault of their own, are cut off from being part of the Church (they have not heard the gospel, etc.).  These can be saved, but their salvation is only through Christ and his Church, as they are connected to them by means of grace and their implicit faith.

Mr. Ybarra believes that this teaching of the Church is contrary to Scripture.  Here is how he explains this:

Although these powerful witnesses have, again and again, testified that this is perfectly consistent with the Christian faith, none of them have sufficiently demonstrated how. On the contrary, we are given every indication that they have departed from the “spirit of the Apostles”. When in Ephesus, St. Paul converted many pagans to Christ. In one instance, St. Luke records how the Gentile converts of Ephesus gathered up their books of magic together and “burned them in the sight of all” (Acts 19:19). So much for integration with their many “elements of sanctification” in their former beliefs and practices. In another event where St. Paul had performed a healing miracle, the people who saw this began to worship him saying, “the gods have come down to us in the likeness of men”! (Acts 14:11). See how St. Luke records the response of St. Paul and St. Barnabas: 

“But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, ‘Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them'” (ibid 14-16)

Mr. Ybarra notes that some have appealed to St. Paul's speech in Acts 17 to justify the modern attitude towards religious dialogue, but he points out that St. Paul called his hearers to repentance, as he says the modern teachers don't do.

In the many lectures by Catholic theologians since the 1960s, there has been this tendency to see in this passage a sort of justification for long-term dialogue with non-Christians, and even a certain kind of admission that non-Christian worshipers can be truly worshiping God in a way known to them as anti-Christian, but somehow Christ doing all the redemptive providing in the background. But notice that it is within the same public address that Paul nails down the binding law of faith and repentance on the people of Athens? And what is his rationale? The coming judgment. If only those Catholic clergy and theologians who love to cite Acts 17 for this elaborate reorientation of evangelism and dialogue would finish their addresses to non-Christians in the same way St. Paul did, then I think we’d have avoided the practical indifferentism that comes along with this emphasis. And it is this practical indifferentism that has come about since the 2nd Vatican Council, but particularly with the Pontificate of Pope Francis, who even stretches the notions already pushed by St John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Mr. Ybara goes on:

Notice how when certain Jews disbelieved the preaching of St. Paul, the latter reacted in a manner which is “unfitting” of today’s Catholic theologian: 

““It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46) 

Do you see how St. Paul instantly judged those who disbelieved the message? In today’s Catholic Church,  if it were anyone else besides an Apostle, they would be chastised for using such offensive and derogatory (and anti-semitic) language. And yet, it is precisely St. Paul who can say of the Israelites: 

“ Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.  For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” (Rom 10:1-2) 

And lest this is interpreted as somehow possible to be already so in the mind of St. Paul, he writes further down: 

” Because of unbelief they were broken off” (Rom 11:20) 

By today’s standards, St. Paul jumped the gun and judged on a matter that was outside of his capacity. We longer have the capacity to stand up and say the things which St. Paul did. What is that an indication of? Authentic development of doctrine? I can’t think of how anyone would even begin to defend that. 

Therefore, what is missing is the full expectation of doom and everlasting destruction for the person who does not respond with repentance and belief at the announcement of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

But Is There Really a Contradiction?

So in what way does the teaching of Scripture contradict modern Catholic teaching?  What do we learn from these quotations from the Scriptures?

“But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, ‘Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them'”

This passage of Scripture teaches us that idolatry is a great evil, and specifically that the worship of the Greek gods is a great evil.  And it teaches us that, at least in some cases, a good way to respond to it is to dramatically lament it and exhort people to turn away from it.  Does modern Catholic teaching deny any of this?  No.  Modern Catholic teaching does tend to emphasize the positive things found in other religions (Acts 17) and encourage Catholics to try to call attention to those things in dialogue, but it also teaches that there is great evil in false religion.

Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation.  (Dominus Iesus) 

But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.  (Lumen Gentium) 

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #843-844, found on the Vatican website--footnotes removed)

So, according to the Church, despite any good that can be found in other religions, despite any grace that might be working in the hearts of people of other religions, despite any connections that might legitimately be made between Christianity and other religions, other religions, insofar as they depart from Christian truth, still "depend on superstitions or other errors."  Oftentimes, members of these false religions are "deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator."  Other religions display the "limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them."  Are these statements not expressions of precisely the same principles we see exhibited in the Scriptural quotations Mr. Ybarra provides?  It does not appear that the modern Church has abandoned these ideas.

However, Mr. Ybarra has a point that ought to be acknowledged.  There is indeed a marked difference in tone between many portions of Scripture and the modern Catholic Church when this subject is addressed.  Modern Church teaching contains far more detailed nuance with regard to its evaluation of other religions and the people of other religions, and its tone is far more positive overall as it puts much greater emphasis on the positive aspects of other religions and other religious people.  Is this a contradiction of the "spirit of the apostles"?  Or, as the Church claims, do we have here an example of the Spirit guiding the Church to take the very same principles found in Scripture and to apply them in new ways to the very unique circumstances of our times?  Scripture teaches us that non-Christian religions contain error and evil, and that people ought to turn from them to the true and living God.  Scripture also teaches us that all human beings, including people of other religions, are made in the image of God and so deserve love and respect.  Love and respect include a willingness to avoid oversimplifying the other person, to listen to that person, to be careful to understand the complexity and nuances involved in the life and thinking of the other person.  Could it be that the modern Church is attempting to integrate and apply all of these Scriptural principles in a way appropriate to our own time?

Could it be that our world has changed between the time of the apostles and modern times?  Could it be that the culture of the modern westernized world is not the same in all respects as that of the ancient Roman Empire?  Could it be that the Church has had two thousand years to reflect on what Scripture has to say to us about other religions, people of other religions, people in general, how to interact with people, etc.?  Could it be that the differences in emphasis and tone are not signs of unfaithfulness to the original gospel but are rather examples of how the living organism of Church teaching grows through the centuries and is adapted to different times and places?  Why should we think that God wants us to imitate the exact tone of the apostles in the Book of Acts, instead of trying to live out the gospel preached by the apostles in a way appropriate to the growth of the Church through the ages and the peculiar cultural circumstances of our own times?

Jesus never taught, so far as we have any record of, that Gentiles could join the Church without being circumcised.  The Old Testament never addressed that subject.  The earliest Church did not hold that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised.  It took them some time even to believe that Gentiles should have the gospel preached to them.  But after a time, they were confronted with these questions, and they had to wrestle with them.  The result of this wrestling was the conclusion of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, where the Church concluded that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised.  No doubt this was an unexpected (and unwelcome) conclusion to many.  It struck an attitude towards Gentiles which, while it could be traced to principles in the Old Testament and to Jesus, could not find literal or explicit precedent in either, nor was it exactly the same as the approach taken by the Church prior to the council.  Did the Church, in the Jerusalem Council, abandon the earlier faith or corrupt it?  Or did the Spirit guide the Church to reflect more fully on the deposit of revelation given to her, leading her to alter her attitude and approach in order to apply the principles of Scripture and of Christ in a new way in order to address questions she hadn't really considered before?  Well, one could go either way, in terms of bare logic and consistency.  One's attitude towards the Jerusalem Council will be determined by one's attitude towards the authority and reliability of the Church's Magisterium.

And of course it is the same here.  Do we trust God's guidance of the Church through the Spirit?  Do we trust enough to consider that God is smarter than we are, and that he knows how to guide the Church into new questions and new territory through the ages, so that the teaching of the Church grows and is applied in appropriate ways, even when those ways are ways we could not have predicted and which are different than we might have guessed?  There is no contradiction here.  There is nothing for our reason to complain about and to use as proof that something is wrong.  But we naturally chafe at the different tone and emphasis, and we feel that something is wrong.  But what is more reliable?  Reason and the Church, or our inadequately-examined feelings and impressions?

Let's look at some of the other passages Mr. Ybarra alleges to be contradictory, at least "in spirit", to modern teaching.

In one instance, St. Luke records how the Gentile converts of Ephesus gathered up their books of magic together and “burned them in the sight of all” (Acts 19:19). So much for integration with their many “elements of sanctification” in their former beliefs and practices.

Does this event recorded by St. Luke contradict the idea that other religions sometimes have "elements of sanctification" in them?  No.  What this passage of Scripture clearly teaches is that magic is offensive to God and should be shunned, and that, at least in some cases, those who have formerly practiced magic might make an end of doing so by making a dramatic statement repudiating their former practices.  Modern Catholic teaching says nothing against this.

Here is modern Catholic teaching regarding magic, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.  (CCC #2117)

I don't get the impression from this that magic is now considered OK, or that the previous Scriptural condemnations of magic have been revoked.  But, yes, modern Church teaching would emphasize to us perhaps that people who might "practice magic" might be in very different places spiritually, depending on what they know, how much their will is involved, their cultural and personal background, etc.  This reflects nuances the Church has honed over the centuries and in modern times, but it doesn't contradict anything Scripture teaches.

““It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46) 

Do you see how St. Paul instantly judged those who disbelieved the message? In today’s Catholic Church,  if it were anyone else besides an Apostle, they would be chastised for using such offensive and derogatory (and anti-semitic) language. And yet, it is precisely St. Paul who can say of the Israelites: 

“ Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.  For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” (Rom 10:1-2) 

And lest this is interpreted as somehow possible to be already so in the mind of St. Paul, he writes further down: 

” Because of unbelief they were broken off” (Rom 11:20) 

By today’s standards, St. Paul jumped the gun and judged on a matter that was outside of his capacity. We longer have the capacity to stand up and say the things which St. Paul did. What is that an indication of? Authentic development of doctrine? I can’t think of how anyone would even begin to defend that. 

What do we learn from these Scripture passages?  St. Paul does indeed seem to judge the Jews in Rome harshly for rejecting his message.  Could it be that, in this particular situation, St. Paul knew the Jews had sufficient evidence to make their rejection of the gospel culpable, and he spoke to them accordingly?  Does this necessarily imply that every individual Jew in that synagogue at that time who didn't immediately embrace the gospel was in exactly the same spiritual condition?  Do we know that it didn't happen that, after St. Paul spoken on this occasion, a couple of Jews came up to him and said, "We really want to do the right thing here, but we are not yet convinced that Jesus is the Messiah.  There are some problems and objections we still have that are an obstacle to us accepting that idea.  Could we talk about them further?"  Do we know that, if this had happened, Paul would have said, "Get away from me, you unbelievers!  There is nothing more to discuss!"  Perhaps he would have spoken to them more gently, as they evidenced a different spirit from the majority in the synagogue.  Perhaps Paul's response to the majority was partly based on the specifics of how these Jews responded to him--not as genuinely confused but sincere God-seekers, but as those who were set in their ways and didn't want to hear the truth.  Do we know that all Jews in the entire world who didn't accept the gospel at that time were in exactly the same boat?  We might think that all error is culpable, but then we run across an Apollos (Acts 18), or those followers of John the Baptist (Acts 19).  In the first century, there were many eyewitnesses of Jesus's miracles, and the miracles of the apostles.  Could it be that the majority of the Jews of those days did have enough evidence to make them culpable for their refusal to accept Christ, and yet this doesn't necessarily imply that all people in all the world, in any circumstances, who don't immediately accept the gospel upon hearing it for the first time should be condemned as fully culpable and on their way to hell?  Does this text actually warrant us to draw that conclusion as a firm certainty, even in the face of the Spirit-guided teaching of the Church leading us otherwise?

The Scriptures teach us that the gospel of Christ is our salvation.  They teach that all people should accept the gospel, and that rejection of the gospel brings damnation.  They condemn the rejection of the gospel as a great evil.  Does the modern Church disagree?  No.  The Church today teaches all these things just as she did then.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" 

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: 

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: 

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."  (CCC #846-848, found on the Vatican website--indentation of quotations and footnotes removed)

Notice that the Church adds the nuance that there are people who have not, outwardly at least, accepted the gospel or come into the Church but who are not therefore damned because they are following the truth insofar as they know it.  These people are not truly rejecting either the gospel or the Church.  They are kept from both by factors outside of their control, and their spiritual condition is such that if they came to understand their need to become Christians or to join the Church they would do so.  Do the Scriptures deny this nuance?  No.  But they also do not emphasize it.  Why not?  Again, there may be all sorts of reasons.  It is not our place to condemn the teaching of the modern Church on the basis of our own private interpretation of an argument from silence.  Again, we are in many ways in a very different situation than the apostles were in in the Roman Empire of the first century.  Their culture was pre-Christian; ours is post-Christian to an increasing extent.  In some ways, I think it can be argued that the people of our culture have significantly greater barriers to their understanding of the Christian message than did many people of the first century, due to the attitude of many that they already know all about Christianity (even when they really don't), to the anti-Christian and even anti-rational Agnostic philosophical ideas current today that tend to deter the mind from being able to process truth claims, and to many other factors that might be mentioned.  Perhaps our world today needs a different approach than that which made the most sense in the first century.  Also, again, we cannot ignore the Church's doctrinal development over the centuries.  The apostles preached the gospel as necessary for salvation and they condemned its rejection.  The apostolic preaching recorded in Scripture tends to focus on the objective aspects of all of this and not so much on the subjective nuances that might be encountered in various individuals.  Perhaps the Church's appreciation of some of these nuances has grown through experience over the centuries, so that her approach to presenting the faith now has a more holistic character than it did in the times of the apostles.  Not that something fundamentally new has been added, but that the maturer preaching of the Church naturally and appropriately reflects the greater maturity brought about by her experience through the years.  We know this is the case in all sorts of areas.  The Church's dogmatic teaching has grown dramatically in explication and nuance since the first century.  She has learned to appropriate and develop philosophical systems (think St. Thomas Aquinas) that greatly enrich her understanding but which were hardly dreamt of in the first century.  Her understanding of the role of Mary and the saints and how we interact with them has grown over the centuries.  The Church has been enriched in so many areas through her experience, guided by the Holy Spirit.  Why not here also?

Protestants often accuse Catholics of contradicting Scripture by their teaching regarding the sinlessness of Mary.  "The Bible clearly says all have sinned," they argue.  "It nowhere says that Mary didn't."  Catholics respond (see here for an example of this argument) by pointing out that the Scripture's statements on this subject are general and do not necessarily imply that there is no exception to the rule for Mary due to her special circumstances in connection with the grace of Christ.  Scripture didn't address the specifics of Mary's case simply because these weren't a focus of thought, discussion, and preaching in the first century.  Over time, the Church developed her theology in this area, unpacking the implications of principles embedded in Scripture, Tradition, and her own historical experience.  Likewise, we find Scripture making strong and sweeping generalizations about those who reject Christ.  But are those texts meant to say that all people who have not yet accepted Christ are always in exactly the same spiritual condition?  Or is that a point the text simply doesn't address (or at least doesn't address as much), as the Scripture does not address the sinlessness of Mary?  Should we argue from general statements combined with silence to warrant the more specific conclusions in either case, and then accuse Catholic teaching of deceiving us when it shows us a different way?

Mr. Ybarra complains that we cannot speak now as St. Paul spoke then, that if we tried to do so we would be chastised.  But why should it be acceptable for us to speak now the same way it was acceptable to speak in the first century?  If Catholic theologians said today some of the things the pre-Nicene Fathers said about the Trinity, they would be censured, because orthodox Trinitarian language has been honed through the centuries.  We should not speak exactly like Christians of the first century, precisely because we are not Christians of the first century.  We are Christians of the twenty-first century.  And yet, is it the case that we cannot now speak boldly in response to error?  The quotations I provided above from various Church documents on the errors and evils of false religion use some pretty strong language.  I am not aware that the Church has forbidden all use of strong language.  Again, yes, there is certainly an encouragement for us to be more nuanced and positive, but the Church had not told us that every individual Christian in any kind of situation must speak exactly the same way.  Some situations, some conversations, may call for a gentler approach; other conversations may call for a stronger approach.  The Church doesn't tell us we must act like robots, never adapting our attitude or manner to the specifics of specific circumstances.  Lastly, we must remember to distinguish what the Church has authoritatively taught from tendencies of individual Catholic teachers.  It may be that some modern Catholic teachers have gone too far in emphasizing dialogue over confronting error.  The Church does not require us to imitate all the fads present or prevalent in the modern Church or in some segments of it.  We are not even required to follow all the personal tendencies or preferences of the bishops or of the Pope, when these are not presented to us as things intended to be binding on us.  We should follow the authoritative teachings of the Church, we should be influenced by the suggestions and encouragements of the Church, but within that we should also be our own persons and approach things in a way suitable to our own circumstances, personalities, and areas of focus, and we should not only pay attention to the teaching of the Church but we should use wisdom in living out that teaching in the context of the specific circumstances we find ourselves in.  This is going to result in some significant diversity in terms of tone, manner, emphasis, etc., for different people, and at different times and different places.  The Church certainly does not forbid such legitimate diversity.  But we must exercise such diversity not in conflict with, but in submission to, the teaching of the Church.

There are no doubt innumerable factors which influenced the apostles to say just what they said and to do just what they did.  In our day, likewise, many factors influence what we should do.  It is very dangerous for us to ignore the guidance of the Church in the application of Scripture (or earlier Church teaching) to our modern times, trying to make a one-to-one correspondence according to our own private interpretative efforts.  This is the same spirit that motivated the Protestant Reformation and has led to innumerable errors that all Catholics recognize as such.  Catholics know very well that God did not intend for us to interpret and apply Scripture or Tradition in contradiction to the teaching and guidance of the Church, but on the contrary within the context of that teaching and guidance.  If we do things our way and throw out God's way, why should we be surprised if we get led astray?  If a contradiction could truly be proved to reason, well, that would be a real objective problem.  But if it's simply a matter of private interpreters trying to make inferences from the "spirit of the text" or the "spirit of the earlier Tradition" to evaluate the "spirit of modern teaching" while ignoring the guidance of the Church, that's a very different matter.  But that's what we have here.  The solution is to abandon our semi-Protestant attitude and to adopt a fully and coherently Catholic approach to our reading of the Church's teachings.

For more on the subject of the salvation of non-Catholics, showing the consistency and continuity of past and present Church teaching, see here, here, and here.  For a couple of other examples of areas where conservative critics allege the modern Church to have contradicted earlier teachings--religious freedom and the death penalty-- see here and here.  Sometimes the best way to disprove claims of contradiction is simply to weave multiple teachings together into a coherent whole.  If this can be done, then the teachings can't be contradictory, for contradictory teachings cannot create a coherent whole.

Published on the feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus

ADDENDUM 5/18/20:  One other thing to add into the mix above.  My own reading of biblical eschatology suggests that the period of the "millennium" described in the Book of Revelation may refer to the period of "Christendom"--when God brought about the spread of the gospel in such a powerful way that the whole Roman Empire became Christian along with Western society in general.  As the gospel was preached to the nations by the early Church, God bound Satan, who had been deceiving the nations, so that the nations would be able to receive the light of the gospel.  Thus, we see the great missionary successes of those days.  But I have my suspicions that, over the past few hundred years (since about the time of the Protestant Reformation), we may be experiencing the time described in the Book of Revelation to come at the end of the thousand years, when Satan is released to deceive the nations once more.  Christendom has fallen.  The previous Western world that embraced Christ in those early centuries has become hardened against orthodoxy Christianity in many ways.  Just as before the preaching of the gospel by the early Church, St. Paul (in Acts 17:30) describes how God "winked" at the ignorance of the Gentiles as they were under a kind of veil of confusion, so it may be in these days that that veil has returned in some ways.  This may involve a kind of hardening of heart for many, but also along with it may have come a kind of cultural confusion that makes it hard even for people who, by grace, are seeking what is good and true to find the fullness of truth in the Church and her teaching.  The gospel doesn't penetrate as easily as it once did, in this "post-Christian" era.

There's a lot of nuance that could be fleshed out here.  I bring this up simply to add yet another factor to why the Church's attitude towards the unbelieving world may seem a bit different from that of the Church in earlier centuries.  There may be deeper reasons in God's plan of history behind why our modern world is the way it is and why it is different in some ways from how things have been in previous centuries.  The Spirit helps guide the Church to preach the gospel effectively in our own times.  Just something more to consider!

ADDENDUM 1/29/22:  We must also keep in mind that we have to consider the authorial intention when interpreting Scripture.  Scripture is without error, but only in those things that the authors of Scripture actually intend to affirm or teach.  "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures" (CCC #107, quoting Dei Verbum #11).

Discerning the authorial intention depends on interpreting Scripture in its full context--the immediate context of the passage, the context of the rest of the book the passage occurs in, the entirety of Scripture, the full Tradition of the Church, and, indeed, everything we know from both reason and revelation.  Sometimes the authorial intention is evident within the text itself, but sometimes it must be inferred by ruling out interpretations that would put the text in conflict with other known truths.  For example, if a passage of Scripture appears to be historical in character, we should default to reading it in a straightforwardly historical way, but we should consider alternative interpretations if we have conclusive reason to believe the historical reading cannot be correct.  Pope Leo XIII addressed this point of Scriptural interpretation in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus (section 15), where he exhorts biblical interpreters to carefully observe “the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.” That is, we should assume a straightforward interpretation when we can, but we are not necessarily locked into this if we have good reason to question it in specific cases.

The relevance of this for our current topic is that when we encounter the biblical authors making comments about the wickedness of those who reject the gospel or practice other objectively sinful activities, we have to ask what the authors are intending to assert as reliable teaching binding upon all.  Some, like Mr. Ybarra in his article discussed above, tend to interpret "harsh" or "judgmental" language about people found in Scripture as if it presents a doctrinal teaching at odds with modern Church teaching regarding possible mitigations of culpability for those engaged in objectively unethical acts or those with incorrect theological beliefs.  But, in addition to all the questions, qualifications, nuances, and observations I have made throughout this article, we must also ask whether a particular author intends for his judgments regarding the motives of particular people to be taken as authoritative doctrinal assertions binding on his hearers, or whether he is simply evaluating objective acts in accordance with certain assumptions regarding the subjective culpability of the people he is talking about without necessarily intending those assumptions to be a part of his binding teaching.

In earlier periods in Church history, the tendency was for most Catholics--including bishops and Popes--to assume bad motives in those who held heretical teachings, engaged in schismatic behavior, followed certain immoral practices, etc., and so their teaching about heretics and schismatics and "immoral people" tended to lump objective evaluations of opinions and actions in with subjective assumptions regarding the spiritual or moral condition of those holding such opinions or engaging in such actions.  In more recent times, however, Church members and leaders have tended to see the conditions of people as potentially more complex and so have come to be slower to assume bad motives based on opinions and actions.  This shift in assumptions and attitude does not imply a contradiction between earlier and later Church teaching, because assumptions made about the subjective culpability of various people were not necessarily intended to be taken as definitive doctrine.  Even though it may not have been clearly or explicitly distinguished at the time, there was a distinction between objective evaluations of opinions and actions, as well as teaching about the state of those who engage in such actions willfully and knowingly, and assumptions regarding the subjective culpability of particular individuals or groups.  We must consider that the same thing might be said of the teaching found in Scripture.  Not every assumption made by an author in the course of his teaching needs to be considered a part of the definitive doctrine he is meaning to assert.  Some assumptions might be intended as authoritative but as non-definitive, subject to change based on further information, and some of them might not be intended as authoritative or binding at all.  We must always follow the Catholic rule and interpret Scripture in the context of, and not in conflict with, the living Tradition of the Church and the interpretations of the Magisterium.  It is a failure to do this which causes problems for people like Mr. Ybarra, who, feeling compelled to read Scripture in particular ways based on their own methods of interpretation and putting too little trust in the teaching of the Church, end up landing on interpretations that put them at odds with current Magisterial teaching.

ADDENDUM 3/28/24:  We should also note that, in addition to Scripture's criticism of various religious practices and individuals, there are also more positive elements.  We can think, for example, of the difference in tone that St. Paul used when preaching to pagan philosophers at the Aereopagus than he used in other circumstances where a stronger, more critical tone was adopted (Acts 17:15-34).  We can think of the depiction of the rabbi Gamaliel in Acts 5:34-40.  We can think of the scribe in Acts 12:32-34 who is presented in a positive light and to whom Jesus says he is not far from the Kingdom of God.  We can think of the contrast between God's harsh judgment of Nadab and Abihu in Numbers 10:1-3 and his leniency with the erroneous practices of the Israelites in 2 Chronicles 30:15-20, which seem to be due at least partly to the different attitudes of their hearts on the different occasions - and all the other occasions of God's different responses to people and their acts throughout Scripture in different circumstances.  I already mentioned in the article the examples of Apollos (Acts 18) and the followers of John the Baptist (Acts 19).  Scripture presents us with a lot of data which must be synthesized and applied with prudence to various circumstances and scenarios, and we must do this with the help of the Church's living Magisterium.

Dialogue on Sexuality and Gender

Doris, a lesbian Agnostic, is headed to the local Pride Parade.  As she is on her way, she spots Natasha and invites her to go as well.  She suspects she knows how Natasha, a Catholic, will respond, but she wants to see what she will say.

Doris:  Hey Natasha!

Natasha:  Oh, hey, Doris!  How are you?

Doris:  Fine, thanks.  I was just headed over to the Pride Parade.  Would you like to come?

Natasha:  I appreciate the invitation, but, to be honest, I'm not comfortable going to the parade.

Doris:  Why not?

Natasha:  Well, it's just that I'm concerned that part of the purpose of the parade is to celebrate certain things that go against my own beliefs, and so I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to go.

Doris:  You do realize, don't you, that the point of the parade is to celebrate LGBTQ+ people, to show support, love, and respect?  Is that against your beliefs?

Natasha:  No, certainly not.  If that was all it was, I would go in an instant.  My concern is that it appears to me that the parade is not only celebrating LGBTQ+ people, but also celebrating certain expressions of sexual practice that are contrary to my beliefs.  That's what keeps me from going.

Doris:  You say you respect and support LGBTQ+ people, but you really don't.  You refuse to accept us for who we are.  You tell us there is something wrong with us, something inferior about us, because we don't fit into your outdated stereotypes about what sexuality and sexual expression should be like.  You try to prevent us from having equal rights by advocating discrimination against us in marriage law and public accommodations.  You try to justify your LGBTQ+-phobia by appealing to your Scriptures, but you ignore those same Scriptures in other areas.  (For example, the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, but it also says eating crustaceans is wrong, and yet you don't care about that.)  How can you claim to respect us when you treat us with such hatred and bigotry and injustice?

Natasha:  Wow, you've put forward a lot of charges there!  Let me try to respond to them one at a time.  First of all, you say that because we Catholics believe that sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman is wrong, we therefore hate those who practice such activity, that we disrespect such people and think them inferior.  I am reminded of a quote from secularist author Austin Dacey:  "We do not respect people by accepting whatever they think and do, but by holding them to the same intellectual, moral, and legal standards we apply to ourselves."  There is a crucial distinction between respecting a person and accepting whatever they may choose to do as ethical.  We Catholics do not hate LGBTQ+ people; we simply believe that some of the philosophical ideas and ethical practices advocated by many in that community are wrong.

Doris:  But our sexual expressions and activities express who we really are.  Just as being a religious Jew involves praying at a synagogue, so being a lesbian involves being inclined to seek sex with females.  To attack the practices is to attack the persons.  I don't just choose, on some superficial level, to be attracted to and seek sexual union with females.  My inclinations in this area are a deep part of who I am.  When you say my actions in this area are wrong, you are saying there is something wrong with me, which is to hate and disrespect me.

Natasha:  Well, if you want to look at it that way, being Catholic is a deep and central part of who I am, and being Catholic involves accepting Catholic teaching, and Catholic teaching tells me that sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong.  But you say I am wrong to believe this.  So, by your standards, aren't you doing the very same thing to me that you claim I am doing to you?  Aren't you hating and disrespecting me by saying that something that is central to my personal identity is wrong?

Doris:  But you choose to be Catholic.  I don't choose to be a lesbian!

Natasha:  Do I choose to be a Catholic?  I'm a Catholic because I'm convinced Catholicism is true.  I can't just turn that on and off at will, any more than you can turn your sexual attractions on and off at will.  Sure, I choose to act on what I think the evidence says and to accept Catholicism.  Just as you choose to act on your sexual inclinations in your sexual practice.  But isn't the deeper point here that both of us consider these elements of our lives deep and central aspects of our personal identity?  Why should your "personal identity" be protected from all criticism while mine can be dismissed without the slightest consideration?

Doris:  But I'm not saying there is something wrong with you, like you're saying about me.  I'm only criticizing certain aspects of what you believe and how you act based on that.

Natasha:  And I am simply criticizing certain aspects of what you believe (sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is ethically OK) and how you act based on that (engaging in such sexual activity).

Doris:  But it's none of your business how I live my life!

Natasha:  It's my business to have an opinion on what other people think and do, just as you obviously have your own opinions about what Catholics think and do.  But the main point is this:  I can respect you as a person without agreeing with everything you think and do.  These are not incompatible things.  You are a human being made in the image of God, and so you have value that deserves respect.  And I respect you.

Doris:  But there's the problem right there!  You don't really respect me.  You respect some idea of me you have in your own imagination.  I don't believe that I am made in the image of God.  So you're just projecting your Catholic ideas on me and saying you respect me while you really just respect those ideas.

Natasha:  Well, do you respect me?

Doris:  Yes, as a person.

Natasha:  Why?

Doris:  Because you're a fellow human being.

Natasha:  Why does that make me worth respecting?

Doris:  Not because of some God whose image you are made in, certainly!  No, it's simply because we fellow human beings ought to stick to each other in this harsh and apparently meaningless universe.

Natasha:  So you don't respect me as a person made in the image of God.  Well then, I could say that you really don't respect me, because what I think I really am is a person made in the image of God.  What you really respect is not me but your own ideas about me, ideas that are contrary to my Catholics beliefs about myself.  So if the fact that I ground the basis of my respect for you in my own worldview beliefs means I don't really respect you, how can you say you really respect me when your basis for respecting me is just as grounded in your own worldview beliefs?

Doris:  OK, but what about how you Catholics seek to impose your beliefs upon me in the law?  You seek to prevent me from marrying whom I wish.  You seek to prevent the law from prohibiting public discrimination against me (for example, by supporting that cake baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding).  How is that respectful towards me?  How is that not hate and bigotry?

Natasha:  First of all, while the Catholic Church is quite clear regarding the unethical nature of sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage, things get less clear when we start talking about complex issues of public law.  The Catholic Church is clear that human societies, just like human individuals, should respect and follow the truth (which we believe to be found in its fullness in the Catholic faith) in all they do.  Our laws should reflect truth.  But how that plays out in terms of how public law should balance various competing concerns like liberty of conscience vs. prevention of discrimination, etc., is a much trickier business.  I'm hesitant to speak for the Catholic Church as a whole when it comes to specific legal cases.

But, having said that, I personally think that in the case of that cake baker, the law should allow him to refuse to make the cake.

Doris:  But that's public discrimination!

Natasha:  Sure it is, in a sense.  But if the law forces bakers to bake cakes they cannot in good conscience bake, then that is discrimination against beliefs by the law itself.  So there's going to be discrimination somewhere.  The question is where.

Doris:  But it's hateful to support public discrimination.

Natasha:  Is it hateful to support discrimination against religious beliefs in the law?

Doris:  But the law wasn't forcing him to violate his religious beliefs.  It was merely making him avoid illegal discrimination.

Natasha:  But he couldn't avoid what you call "illegal discrimination" without violating his religious beliefs.

Doris:  But the law can't allow everything!  We have to put our foot down when it comes to beliefs and practices that harm others.  It's not hateful or bigoted to do that!

Natasha:  I agree.  I'm glad we agree that not all discrimination is hateful or bigoted.  When discrimination is necessary and warranted to protect things we ought to protect, then it can be a just thing to do.  We simply disagree about what would be the most just thing to do in this case.  I think that allowing cake bakers in such cases to refrain from baking cakes would cause less harm than forcing them to bake the cakes.

Doris:  But what about Catholic support for laws against gay marriage?

Natasha:  Well, according to the Catholic worldview, there is no such thing as gay marriage, for marriage was designed by God to be only between a man and a woman.  That is essential to its nature.  So the Catholic Church could never agree that the government should grant the title of marriage to a same-sex union.

Doris:  But who are you to determine for everyone what the true definition of marriage is?!

Natasha:  Look, if the law prohibits same-sex marriage, it will embrace some people's ideas about marriage and reject other people's ideas.  But notice that this is also true if the law allows same-sex marriage.  In either case, the law favors someone's definition of marriage over someone else's.

Doris:  But there is a big difference.  You are trying to stop some people from doing what they want, while we are simply trying to get the law to allow everyone to do what they want.

Natasha:  While in a sense I don't disagree with you there, I think that is a somewhat misleading and simplistic way of looking at it.  Both the proponents and the opponents of same-sex marriage are trying to shape the law to fit their ideas about what is true and just.  Both sides are ultimately trying to fashion society according to what they think it should be like.  And both sides are doing this in spite of the fact that there are other people in the society who don't want it to be the way they want it to be.  People are imposed upon by more than just laws that stop them from doing something specific.  People care about broader conditions of justice or injustice in society.  If society passes a law that is unjust, this is something that I consider harmful and worth changing even if it doesn't directly affect me--because I care about people and things beyond myself.    So do you.  My main point is this:  No matter what the law does with regard to same-sex marriage, or with regard to innumerable other issues, it will always be moving towards someone's ideals about what society should be like and moving away from the ideals of someone else.  There is no such thing as worldview-neutrality when it comes to civil law.

Doris:  What if the government simply got out of the marriage business altogether, and called the unions they used to call "marriage" by a different name?  Or what if they continued to call them marriages but they made it clear that they are using the word "marriage" to refer to something fundamentally different from what various religious groups might mean by "marriage" and that the institutions should be considered to be distinct?

Natasha:  Well, that would probably ease the concerns a bit, although I don't know if it would be the most helpful way forward overall, all things considered.  It's something to think about, at least.

Doris:  I want to shift gears a little bit here.  I see what you are saying about distinguishing between respect for persons and agreement regarding the truth or ethicality of ideas and actions.  But it seems to me obvious that your beliefs about sexuality are outdated.  They've been proven false by science.  Shouldn't you therefore stop judging people by them and seeking to impose them on people?  It is unethical to impose outdated, unscientific ideas on people.  It is harmful.

Natasha:  How do you think Catholic beliefs about sexuality have been proven false by science?

Doris:  Well, science, and our human experience in general, have shown that human nature is more complex than the old religious views have allowed.  We know now that homosexuality is not some kind of disorder.  It's part of the natural diversity of the human race. (We even see it in animals!)  Some people are oriented sexually more towards those of the same sex, some people are oriented towards those of the opposite sex, some people are oriented towards both, some towards neither, and in general there's a whole spectrum of forms in which human sexuality comes.  Homosexuality is not some kind of psychological disorder that can be cured.  It's an integral part of who some people are.  That's why respecting such people involves respecting their homosexuality.  You can't separate the two.

Natasha:  We could debate whether or not homosexuality could or should be classified as some kind of physiological or psychological "disorder."  But it's not important, because the Catholic position is not dependent on this issue.  There are aspects of human life that are completely "natural," in the sense that they are a normal part of human nature as it currently exists, and yet are still "disordered" in a deeper, metaphysical sense.  Take death, for example.  What could be more natural than death?  Obviously, it is not a disorder when people die.  It is the normal, universal experience of all (or almost all, if you take a Catholic point of view) human beings.  But yet at a deeper metaphysical level, one that takes into account not only the empirical sciences but the fundamental divine purpose and design of human beings, death is a terrible disorder.  Humans were not created originally to die.  Death entered the human race as a result of the Fall.  It is now a "natural" thing, but, at the deepest level, it is fundamentally unnatural.  The Fall not only brought death, but it led to a widespread disordering of human nature.  We are now subject to all kinds of disadvantages and corruptions we would not have been subject to before the Fall.  Catholic theology talks about "concupiscence"--the disordered desires of fallen human beings.  These are the desires that lead us into sin.  (That is, these are desires that, instead of being "ordered to" or inclining towards what is good, are "ordered to" or incline us to what is bad.  That is why they are called "dis-ordered.")  These desires are, on the biological level, quite normal, but they are anything but normal when we are talking about the original design and purpose of human beings.  Now please note that concupiscence in itself is not personal sin.  One is not responsible for one's disordered desires.  One can only be morally responsible for what is under the control of one's will.  It is choosing to act on a disordered desire and to therefore do something ethically wrong that involves personal sin and guilt.  So having homosexual inclinations is not a personal sin.  But acting on those inclinations and engaging in sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is a sin, at least objectively speaking.  (To be balanced, though, we should note that all characteristics persons have in the world, even in a fallen world, even those characteristics that carry with them the potential disadvantage of inclining people towards sin, should not be seen as all-negative.  All of these characteristics, including having homosexual inclinations, if submitted to the will of God, can express the uniquely valuable personalities of individual persons and can serve to benefit oneself, fellow human beings, and to glorify God.)

So I do not see any basis for your claim that the Catholic view of sexuality is contrary to anything we know from the natural sciences.  The natural sciences can determine lots of things about human sexuality, but it is not within the domain of the natural, empirical sciences to determine more fundamental metaphysical and philosophical truths about human nature and the divine design of that nature, or to determine which actions are ethical and which are not.  These are philosophical questions that transcend the natural sciences and can only be answered within the domains of philosophy and theology.

Doris:  But if homosexuality--and other forms of non-traditional sexual inclinations--are built into human nature, at least as it currently exists (in what you call a "fallen" state), then isn't it unethical for the Catholic Church to condemn such sexual activity?  The Church is asking for the impossible!  It's asking for people to suppress or even to throw away who they really are.  It is unjust to ask this of anybody.  And it's harmful.  The LGBTQ+ community tends to have a high rate of suicide, precisely, at least in part, because of these kinds of inhuman demands.  You can't ask people to reject their real selves.

Natasha:  I understand what you're saying here, and my first response is compassion.  We should certainly not underestimate how hard it is to live according to some of the Church's teachings.  And we should never underestimate the pain of those who do experience real disrespect, hatred, and bullying for being who they are.  We should help and love and support such people, and all people.  We do such a terrible job of understanding, loving, and respecting those who are different from us!  No doubt a substantial portion of the backlash the Church is experiencing from the LGBTQ+ community is justly deserved, as Catholics, and most others as well, have failed to live up to the love and respect required by the humanity of those who have struggled with things that have put them at odds with the larger society.

However, I cannot agree with you that Church teaching is unjust in this area.  In a sense, our entire human civilization is built upon the foundation of denial.  We are all fallen creatures.  Our desires are continually driving us to do things we know in our reason we ought not to do.  That's one reason life is so hard.  We must be constantly restraining ourselves from doing what we want, making ourselves do what we don't want to do, and in general going against and disciplining our human inclinations.  Different people struggle more with different things, whether because of their peculiar circumstances, their peculiar personality and psychological make-up, their particular physiology, or whatever.  It is notoriously difficult to get the mastery over our impulses and desires and to bring them into conformity with right reason.  That is precisely what ethics is all about.

Ethics asks hard things of all of us.  Sometimes it asks particularly hard things of some.  It calls some to be martyrs.  What could be more unnatural than allowing oneself to be killed, when simply saying a few words or performing a few external actions (denying the faith, burning some incense to the emperor) could preserve one's life?  I just watched A Man for All Seasons the other day, a movie about the life of Thomas More, who allowed himself to be beheaded simply because he would not agree to King Henry VIII being head of the Church of England and to his marriage to Anne Boleyn.  So many people tried so hard to get him to capitulate.  "All you have to do is just sign this piece of paper, no big deal."  But he allowed his head to get chopped off rather than do it.  I can't imagine what that was like, nor, I'm pretty sure, could anyone else who has not been in that situation.

Sometimes people have been called to endure torture, or long, cruel imprisonments, or other horrors, in order to preserve their ethical integrity.  Alcoholics have to go through a hard and painful process to avoid capitulating to their addiction to drink.  Some people are naturally belligerent, or get angry easily, or lack compassion, and they have to work hard to correct for these biases that would lead them into unjust actions.  Some married people find themselves attracted to another person, and they have to work hard to suppress their desires, which would lead them to do something that would harm their spouses and their children.

The challenge to "do the right thing" is surely the biggest and hardest challenge human beings face in this life.  The Church--or, to be more accurate, God--calls on homosexuals, and those inclined to other forms of unethical sexual expression, to live in a way contrary to their natural tendencies.  We mustn't underestimate how hard this can be.  And yet I see no objective reason to conclude that this is something a good God would not ask of his creatures.  God is the chief good.  All other goods shrivel into nothing in comparison to him, or they resolve into him.  Being with him forever is an infinite treasure that is worth all the hardship this life can bring on us and far more.  God has allowed evil to exist in this universe, not because he likes evil or because he cannot stop it, but because he knows that allowing it will lead to a greater good.  He has allowed sin and death, and all that follow them, to enter into this world.  He has allowed his creatures to suffer.  But he is not only all-powerful, but all-good and all-benevolent.  He knows that the way of suffering is ultimately the way of eternal life and happiness.  He blazed that path himself before us.  In order to open the path to heaven for us, Christ himself, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, lived a human life, endured human hardships, and suffered and died.  Then he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.  He calls us to follow him, both into his death and into his resurrection.  This is what we are all called to, though it takes different forms for different people.  For homosexuals, part of this calling may involve a hard and painful struggle against what seems so good and natural.  It may lead to a lifestyle which can be very difficult and lonely.  But it is worth it.  God is worth it.  It will pay off in the end.  All God asks of any of us is that we choose to follow him.  We may not always do it very well, but he keeps offering us his grace.  We simply have to choose to keep getting up and trying to go forward, knowing that he is with us and that it is worth it.  And, of course, there are consolations along the way, but these will take different forms with different people.

Homosexuals are not called to deny who they truly are.  They are called, like all of us, to discipline their passions and their actions in order to learn how to better become who they were truly created to be.  And they will succeed in the end if they keep choosing to go forward.  And even along the way, for many of them, there may be ways to make life go more smoothly.  All of us, as their brothers and sisters, should strive to help them along their journey, to help them make that journey successfully, and to help make the journey itself as smooth as possible.

Doris:  Are you quite through with your sermon yet?

Natasha:  Sorry, there's just so much to say!

Doris:  I noticed.  Look, I see the points that you are making.  I'll admit, your position seems more understandable to me than it did before this conversation.  I guess that's a benefit of healthy dialogue.  But how can you know it is right to ask LGBTQ+ people to live according to these difficult Catholic standards?

Natasha:  Well, it all comes down to the question of truth, doesn't it?  Is Catholicism true or not?  If it is, then the teachings of the Church are not just human teachings, but they come from God himself, our Creator, the one who knows and understands everything, who is all-good and benevolent, and who is the source of the objective moral law.  So if Catholicism is true, if we want to get reality right and live our lives appropriately and successfully, we have to look at things from the Catholic point of view and live according to that.  On the other hand, if Catholicism is not true, then it is not from God.  Its teachings are merely the teachings of some human beings, and so there is no reason why we should take them as normative for us.

Doris:  Darn it!  I see your point, but I was hoping for some neutral way to resolve this, some way that could bypass religious disputes.

Natasha:  Then you were hoping for something that cannot exist.  There is no neutrality in ethics.  Ethics is nothing other than applied worldviews.  Therefore, the question of truth will always be paramount.  There is no getting around it.  When a person claims to be neutral, beware!  They either lack self-awareness to recognize the role their own beliefs play in their views and other-awareness to recognize that others don't share their beliefs, or they are self-aware and other-aware and wish to use neutrality to smuggle in their views as the default position without having to argue for them.  To be blunt, I think that such smuggling--whether intentional or unintentional--has played a large role in the conversion of public opinion to thinking there is nothing wrong with non-heterosexual sexual activity.  Our culture has become largely Agnostic in matters of religion and philosophy, but we mistake our Agnosticism for neutrality.  So the case for the ethicality of homosexual acts makes a lot of sense to us, and we think it's proved its case, when really it's just begged the question by assuming that the alternative views are false without any real argument.  We believe in the ethicality of homosexuality mostly because of our unexamined feelings rather than because of a thorough investigation of all relevant evidence, empirical and philosophical and theological.  As we've seen in this conversation, there is no real way to prove that homosexual sexual activity is ethical without starting by assuming that Catholicism is not true.  It cannot be proved scientifically or ethically in a non-question-begging sort of way.  We try to side-step the religious truth claims and go straight for the ethical conclusion we want, but, if we are both honest and aware, we must admit that we can only do this by begging the question, by assuming what has to be proved, by avoiding the real underlying issues.

Doris:  Well, maybe.  Before we move on though, what about the objection I raised about you Christians picking and choosing from your Scriptures?  The Bible condemns homosexuality, but it also condemns eating lobsters, and yet Catholics eat lobsters.  Doesn't that show that it's not the Bible that is leading you to reject homosexuality but your own preferences?  And isn't that bigotry?

Natasha:  In the Catholic tradition, and in the Christian tradition in general, there is a distinction to be made between different commands found in the Law of Moses in the Old Testament.  Some of those laws were intended to apply to all places and times (we call these "moral" laws), while others were intended to apply only to ancient Israel (the "ceremonial" and the "judicial" laws).  The Christian dispensation in the New Testament abrogated the latter but not the former.  Moral prohibitions regarding homosexuality fall into the "moral" category, because they are an aspect of God's original and universal design for human beings in terms of humans being created male and female, the purpose of sexuality, the nature of marriage, etc.  The prohibition to eat crustaceans is part of the "ceremonial" category of laws.  There are good biblical reasons for these categorizations which I won't go into right now, as it would take us too far afield from our topic of conversation.  I will add, though, that we Catholics believe that the Bible is to be interpreted within the context of the Catholic Tradition and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as he leads the Church and the Church's official teachers (the "Magisterium").  And the Church has interpreted the prohibition on homosexual sexual activity as a command of general morality and the prohibition on crustaceans as an abrogated ceremonial rule.  So, in short, there is no arbitrary picking and choosing going on.  Our position here is a consistent aspect of our overall tradition.

Doris:  Hmm, interesting.  I guess I didn't realize all of that.  But, if you've still got time and you don't mind switching gears one more time, I've got one other issue I'd like to bring up.

Natasha:  What's that?

Doris:  Well, it's the T in LGBTQ+.  I saw that the Church just came out with a document in which they defend the traditional view of sex and gender as binary, and they reject the experience and identity of transgender people.

Natasha:  Do you notice how your description of the Church's position begs the question?

Doris:  What?  By saying that they reject the experience and identity of transgender people?  But they do!  Transgender people have found by their own experience, now confirmed by science, that sex and gender are not binary.  Sex is not just about outward anatomy.  It involves genetics.  It involves physiology and psychology.  Sex and gender are not just one thing; they are a combination of lots of factors, and humans don't really experience these things in a purely binary way.  They experience "maleness" and "femaleness" along a spectrum.  The old binary way of thinking is simply inadequate to address what people have always known (but not always understood) from human experience and what we now know from science, which has validated the intuitions of people who didn't fit the norm but who previously had no way of making an objective case for themselves.  Gender is not just about biological characteristics; it's really about how people feel and identify themselves.  One can have a biological sex that is traditionally "male" and yet in terms of personal identity and feeling be "female," and vice versa.

Natasha:  No doubt you are correct that there is a lot of diversity in terms of how different individuals experience their "maleness" and "femaleness."  So-called "feminists" have been spending a lot of time and energy over the past several decades trying to break down cultural stereotypes about male and female characteristics and behavior.  There is indeed a kind of spectrum when it comes to the characteristics of individual males and females.  You are also correct in pointing out that there are a number of factors involved in how we think about what constitutes biological sex.  There are anatomical characteristics, chromosomal characteristics, other physiological characteristics, etc.  If you recall your basic science in this area, we typically talk about "primary" and "secondary" sex characteristics--"primary" characteristics referring to reproductive anatomy and "secondary" characteristics referring to things like facial hair, relative body strength, body shape, etc.  However, your analysis is a bit question-begging because you fail to recognize that science and personal experience cannot by themselves determine ultimately how we should think about gender and sex if we do not also involve in our discussion a consideration of the deeper philosophical issues.  It's just as it was in our discussion about homosexuality.

Consider an imaginary transgender person: Bob.  At birth, due to his male anatomy, male chromosomes, etc., he was classified as a male.  But later on, he came to feel more and more uncomfortable psychologically with his male identity and eventually came to the conclusion that his real personal identity was female, even though his observable primary and secondary sex characteristics remained within the boundaries of the traditional "male" classification.  So Bob decided he was truly female, and became Bobette.  Let's look at two possible positions (among others) from which we could describe Bob/Bobette's situation and condition.

1. In the Catholic view, sex and gender were designed by God with reference to the overall purpose of human sexuality and gender relations.  Humans were created male and female in connection to God's intention that males and females would marry and form a household.  Sex was designed to exist within the marriage relationship in order to facilitate bonding and affection between the spouses, helping to solidify a secure household, and in order to allow procreation to occur so that children can be born and raised within the household.  In this view, "gender" and "sex" are inherently interrelated, and one cannot divorce the two.  A person is male in gender if they are male in terms of biological sex.  A person is female in gender if they are female in terms of biological sex.

So, in this view, Bob is a male, even if he feels strongly that he is a female.  He is male in gender because his biological sex is male.  He does not have the option of choosing a gender identity contrary to or unrelated to his biological sex, for that is simply contrary to the reality of what sex and gender are in God's design.

2. In an Atheistic or Naturalistic view, human nature has evolved without any divine design.  It therefore has no objective purpose, no functions it is designed to fulfill.  In this case, there is no divine mandate with regard to how we ought to define "male" and "female" (just as there is no divine mandate as to how we ought to define "marriage").  Historically, we've used these terms in connection with biological sexual characteristics connected especially to reproduction, but perhaps there is no reason why we must continue to do so.  If we find that we value a person's subjective feelings related to personal identity more than we care about objective biological sex characteristics, we might decide to define our gender in relation to the former rather than the latter.  Even if we are anatomically and physiologically male, we might choose to think of ourselves as "female" because this better suits our psychological disposition and inclinations.  Why shouldn't we?  Again, there is no divine mandate in the matter.

In this context, Bobette is a female, despite her physiological "male" characteristics, because "female" is the gender which best aligns with her sense of personal identity.

Now here's my main point:  Notice that both the Catholic and the transgenderist Atheistic viewpoint can accept all the same scientific data.  There is nothing in the scientific data by itself which determines whether we are dealing with Bob or Bobette.  That determination must be made at a deeper, philosophical and theological level.  It is wrapped up in questions of how we "ought" to think about gender and sex, which are bound up with questions about the possible intentions or lack thereof of God our Creator, etc.  In other words, the question of how we ought to think about gender cannot be answered without answering deeper questions about the truth claims of various worldviews.  If Catholicism is true, then God defines the purpose of gender, and we must think according to what he has told us.  If Atheism is true, then God is obviously irrelevant.  There is no divine mandate, and so it falls to us to define our ideas of gender according to our own preferences.  So should we define gender in terms of God's design or only in terms of our own preferences?  It depends on which worldview beliefs are really true.  Once again, as we saw in our discussion about homosexuality, there is no religiously neutral way through this issue, and to try to settle this issue one way or the other purely on the basis of our own feelings or desires or the empirical sciences will necessarily involve begging the question.

Doris:  But what about people who don't fit the "normal" mold--people who have "intersex" characteristics, such as anatomical males who have XX instead of XY?  Or true "hermaphrodites," who have both male and female physiological characteristics?  Or people who are anatomically and physiologically mostly male or female but whose brain physiology conforms to the opposite sex?

Natasha:  The Church has clearly taught that gender cannot be separated from "biological sex."  She has not, as of yet, so far as I can see, given much explicit or specific teaching on exactly what constitutes "biological sex," particularly with regard to which biological characteristics we should look to to define the essence of a person's biological male or female status.  But I think we can make some plausible inferences by considering the theological definitions of "male" and "female."  I think we probably ought to distinguish between people who are "intersex" in a scientific sense - that is, those who have physiological or genetic or other types of deviations from the ordinary characteristics of males or females, what these days are called DSDs ("disorders of sexual development") - and people who are "intersex" in a theological or philosophical sense.  The latter category would seem to be more narrow than the former category.  There are people who have biological sexual abnormalities who can still fully fulfill the essential role of male or female in terms of the theological/philosophical definitions of these roles, as I laid them out earlier.  For example, if a person has a body oriented towards playing a particular role in reproduction - say, a male role - but has an abnormality in their chromosomes or their brain physiology, this does not interfere with their ability to fulfill the essential theological definition of what it means to be "male."  They can, in principle, join with a female in marriage, form a household, procreate, and raise children.  Therefore, I think it likely we should see such a person as falling within the spectrum of the essential "male" category.  So it would seem we should see a person's "biological sex" as bound up with the orientation of the body in relation to playing a particular role in reproduction rather than with other sorts of biological characteristics, even if those other characteristics are an ordinary part of how "male" or "female" are typically expressed.  These other sorts of physical or psychological abnormalities don't alter the ability of a person to fulfill the essential functions of either the "male" or the "female" role.  And I say "the orientation of the body towards playing a particular role in reproduction" rather than simply "reproductive ability" because even if in some cases a male is prevented from producing sperm, or a female is prevented from having viable eggs or from carrying a child, I would say that they are still male and female if their bodies are oriented in design towards these things, even if some aspects of the "machinery" are not functioning properly (just as a refrigerator is still a refrigerator even if its motor is broken; it does not thereby become a toaster or something else, because it is still oriented in its design to be a refrigerator).  That would be why, it would seem, that in the Bible, for example, infertile individuals (like Abraham's wife Sarah) are still described as being male or female.

On the other hand, it does appear that there are people out there whose "intersex" condition is so pronounced in the phenotype that the design of their bodies really is ambiguous to some degree in terms of their biological sex, including with regard to the orientation of their bodies towards playing a particular role in reproduction.  In such a case, there is a genuine difficulty in figuring out how to categorize them in terms of sex and gender.  To my knowledge, the Church has not addressed this question specifically (in terms of how to categorize various kinds of intersex individuals), and I am not an expert on how this has been dealt with in the history of medicine.  But the existence of "outliers" does not change the basic definition of "male" and "female," just as the existence of gray does not change the basic definition of black and white.  We cannot use the existence of gray to justify defining a clearly black thing as a white thing, or vice versa.  In the Catholic view, God created humans to be male and female.  But we are in a fallen condition, and in this condition there is departure from the ideal in the human race.  For example, the human norm is clearly to have two arms and two legs.  But some people are born without some of these limbs.  The existence of such "abnormalities" does not change the basic definition of what is "normal" in the design of the human body.  Similarly, the existence of ambiguous sexual characteristics in genuinely intersex individuals (even "theologically intersex" individuals) does not alter the basic design of the human race as male and female, nor does it alter the divine definitions of "male" and "female."  If we see an animal at a distance and cannot tell if it is a cat or a dog, that doesn't imply that we have no idea what a cat or a dog is.  It just means we have difficulty in this particular case in applying our categories of "cat" and "dog" to this particular animal.

It is empirically evident, as well as theologically and philosophically true, that the human race exists within a basic male-female biological sexual binary, in spite of the fact that individual ("intersex") cases exist which, to some degree, blur the empirical lines of that ordinary binary.  And the fact that there is a genuine spectrum of behaviors and characteristics, and even feelings of personal identity, within these binary categories, does not erase the fact of the binary nature of the categories.  For example, the fact that you have some females who seem, at least in our culture, more "girly," while other females have a more "tomboyish" look and set of behavioral characteristics, does not erase the fact that both of these sorts of individuals exist within a clear, empirical "female" biological category, with clear sex characteristics oriented towards playing a certain role in reproduction, etc.

The binary male-female distinction and the connection of this distinction to reproductive function is part of the divine design of the human race, according to the Catholic worldview.  Therefore, if Catholicism is true, we ought to evaluate and categorize what we encounter in the empirical world according to that metaphysical framework.  On the other hand, if Catholicism is false, we will have to have some other metaphysical framework from which to evaluate and categorize the empirical data.  The main argument, then, is not really with regard to the empirical data, but with regard to which metaphysical framework we ought to adopt, and this is a question that has to be resolved by appealing not just to the empirical data but also to the domains of philosophy and theology.  Should the gender of individuals be determined by their subjective feelings of personal identity, or by their observable biological sex characteristics?  That is primarily a philosophical and theological question, not an empirical or scientific one, and so it will be answered differently depending on the philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the question.

Doris:  But what if Bobette feels strongly that she is a female?  What if this is very important to her?  Who are you to tell her she can't define herself according to her own feelings and desires?!

Natasha:  Again, much empathy is called for.  I won't launch into another speech about that.  But, again, as we try to be compassionate and sympathetic, it must be reiterated that we all have to live according to reality, whether we like it or not, however hard that might be.  We don't get to decide what reality is like based on how we would like reality to be.  The first step is to find out what is really true, and to choose to live in accordance with that.  That is the honest thing to do.  If that means we have to do something really hard, then we must choose to do the right thing in spite of the trial.  If the Catholic worldview is the truth, then we are assured that if we follow the truth, we will find it in the end to be eminently satisfying.  But we may have to fight some hard battles before we can fully appreciate this in our actual experience.  Some of us may not attain to such appreciation until after this life.

One other thing:  You ask who I am to evaluate Bob according to my own ideas rather than according to his.  But we've discussed this previously when we were talking about homosexuality.  We all must think according to our own ideas and views.  I can sympathize with Bob's views, I can try to respect his views and respect his freedom to hold those views and live according to them as much as reasonably possible, but I can't stop thinking to be true what I actually think to be true and instead think as Bob thinks.  Nor can Bob stop thinking what he really thinks and start thinking what I think.  We are only going to think alike and view the situation alike if one of us is convinced of the other side's point of view and converts to it.  Apart from such conversion, we are going to think differently and evaluate differently.  It is not disrespectful for Bob to evaluate the world he lives in and the characters who inhabit that world, including me, according to his best reading of the evidence.  Nor is it disrespectful for me to do the same.  Nor is it possible for either of us to do otherwise.

Doris:  But what if Bobette comes to you and presents herself to you, identifying herself as female.  Are you going to ignore her own self-identification and impose yours instead as you interact with her?

Natasha:  If in general a person comes to me and requires me to think or act according to what I actually believe to be false, I am not going to go along with this.  It is no disrespect to maintain one's own beliefs and principles even when someone strongly wants you to abandon them and adopt his own instead.  Imagine a parallel case:  Let's say that, as a Catholic, I decide that since my own understanding of myself and my value is rooted in my being made in the image of God, I am from now on going to require people to address me as "Natasha, she who is made in the image of God."  But an Atheist friend of mine objects, saying that he doesn't believe in God and so cannot refer to me in this fashion without betraying his own beliefs and principles.  Is he being disrespectful towards me?

Doris:  No, because what you are asking is absurd!  You're imposing your own beliefs on him!  Besides, you're identifying yourself in too cumbersome a manner.

Natasha:  Well, if Bob comes to me and tells me that the only way I can respect him is to speak in such a way as to indicate that I believe him to be female when in fact I don't believe him to be female, how is that any different?

Doris:  Hmmm . . .

Natasha:  However, I do think that respect for a person means trying to accommodate their own preferred self-expression as much as reasonably possible.  I should not try to pick fights, but should instead go out of my way to bend to my friend's desires and what he finds important, insofar as I can do so without compromising my ethical integrity.  So let's imagine that a person comes to me and introduces herself as Francine, referring to herself with feminine pronouns.  Perhaps I wonder, based on appearance, voice, etc., if she is transgender.  Perhaps I even have other reasons to suspect that she is.  I'm not going to raise an issue over it.  I will accept her own presentation of herself and use her own pronouns, taking her word for who she is, unless I have some strong reason to do otherwise.  Likewise, if someone comes to me and identifies themself as intersex or asexual, and asks me to use gender-neutral pronouns to refer to them--well, it's not my business to pry into this person's personal life more than they wish to share, and so, as long as I have no strong reason to do otherwise, I'll accept their characterization of themself and use their desired pronouns.  Perhaps there are people in the world whose intersex condition is so pronounced and ambiguous that they ought to be categorized as asexual.  But even if I think all people ought in some way to be categorized as either male or female, I do not need to determine how to categorize this particular person, and so I can adopt a gender-agnostic and therefore gender-neutral attitude towards them in my use of pronouns, etc.  I think we are called both to honesty and to charity, and we must balance these in our interactions with others as best we can.

Doris:  An idea just occurred to me.  Perhaps this could bring our two positions a little closer together, or help them avoid clashing so much.  Since we use "male" and "female" to refer to a person's inner identity rather than necessarily to particular physiological features related to biological sex and reproduction, and you Catholics (and others like you) use "male" and "female" to refer to those biological features, perhaps we can say that we are really comparing apples and oranges here.  Perhaps we're not really talking about the same thing at all, just using the same words.  If that's the case, then perhaps we wouldn't have to disagree about the meanings of the words.

Natasha:  Hmm, an interesting idea.  So, for example, the word "male" simply means something different when a Catholic uses it and when a transgenderist uses it?

Doris:  Exactly.

Natasha:  Perhaps we could slightly alter the words to make the difference clear.  So just for the sake of this conversation, let's call the Catholic idea of male "c-male" and the transgenderist idea "t-male".  Now, going back to using our example of Bob/Bobette, I could say that Bob/Bobette is, at the same time, both "c-male" and "t-female", so there would be no conflict with my own viewpoint.  I could affirm what you want to say without giving up what I think I need to say.

A question occurs to me at this point:  If transgenderists are using the terms "male" and "female" so entirely differently, what do the words even mean?  What do they refer to?  What does Bob/Bobette even mean when he/she says that he/she is "female," since he/she is no longer talking about what most people in history would have meant by that word?  It's like if someone said, "You know, we've always defined a 'cat' as a four-legged quadruped, carnivorous, etc.  Maybe that's too narrow.  I think that 'cat' should be freed from the restriction of that definition.  In fact, I feel that I myself am actually a cat, even though I'm not four-legged, etc."  What does it even mean for this person to say he is a "cat"?  What is a "cat," if it no longer refers to the thing it always referred to before?

Doris:  Well, I don't know about the cat, but with "male" and "female", the words often refer to feelings and inclinations and states of mind having to do with personal identity.

Natasha:  But that doesn't really answer my question.  What characteristics, exactly, are referred to by "male" and "female" in the transgenderist view?

Doris:  I don't know if there's an objective answer to that question.  People are different.  There's a lot of diversity.

Natasha:  And now that you've divorced the classic sex and gender terminology from physiology and reproduction, what words are you going to use to replace them?  After all, no matter how you want to use the terms "male" and "female," you still have to deal with the biological facts regarding physiology, reproduction, etc.  Those don't just go away because you've expanded the meaning of your words.

Doris:  Yes, that's true.  I'm not sure how our language will develop in that area.  All of this is still very new.  But what about my idea of distinguishing the meaning of the terms as Catholics use them vs. the way the LGBTQ+ community uses them?

Natasha:  I don't know.  It sounds like it could have potential.

Doris:  Yeah, I don't know either.  It seems too easy in a way.  I think there may be something more at stake in this conflict than just different terminology.  What we want is to declare freedom from old forms, from old categories, and expand beyond them, while you want to limit all of us to those old categories.  I wonder if this difference can be solved merely by defining our terms.

Natasha:  Also, a lot of trans-inclined people want not only to identify as the opposite gender, but they want to alter their bodies in order to make them as much like the opposite sex as they can as a part of trying to affirm their identity as the opposite gender.  Males will take hormones to make their bodies more feminine, and vice versa.  Quite a few go so far as to surgically alter their bodies.  So if a male who identifies as a woman or as female wants to alter his body in order to make it more female, doesn't that indicate that, at least to some degree, he still defines "male" and "female" or "woman" and "man" the historic way?  He knows that "females" or "women" have certain hormonal and bodily characteristics, and he wants to try to conform his body to those characteristics.  If it were possible, he would probably go all the way and make his body completely female.  He seems still to be thinking of "male" and "female," "woman" and "man" as connected to biological sex characteristics.  So perhaps we can't read this situation simply as people coming up with completely diverse meanings of words like "male" or "woman," but rather, at least in part, and at least for some, as an attempt of people to claim that they are, in fact, the opposite sex, in something closer to the historic sense of what that means.  If that is so, then we won't solve this controversy simply by adjusting our terminology.  There is a real dispute over whether particular people are male or female given at least a related sense of those terms.  And beyond this, of course, there are philosophical and ideological goals that are incompatible, as you point out.  We Catholics believe that God designed human beings in two objective sexes, male and female, and wants us to identify ourselves with the sex in which we were created, while transgender ideology seems to want to fight against those categories philosophically and replace them with different ways of thinking.  In light of all of this, I doubt that simply adjusting our terminology is going to resolve all our disagreements.  But perhaps, in some cases, it might help ease tensions to some degree.  I don't know.

Doris:  Yes, you're probably right.  Well, I've really got to go now, or I'm going to miss the parade.  But I appreciate you taking the time and effort to respond to my concerns.  I admit that our talk has made me realize that some of these issues may be more complex than I have tended to give credit for, and you've reminded me that I have to try to understand where people are coming from even if I don't like their point of view.

Natasha:  Likewise, Doris.  Dialogues like these are so important.  We must start by seeing each other as people, as fellow human beings.  We must never divorce our disagreements from our common humanity, and we must always cultivate not only critical thinking but also empathy in our attitude and in all our interactions.  Perhaps, if we were to do so, we would find these controversies to be less intractable than we typically do, and we would also be able to live together more effectively in the meantime while we keep trying to sort it all out.

For more, see the various articles hyperlinked throughout the dialogue, as well as my earlier post on transgenderism.  See also my more general post on male and female, the body, and human sexuality.  Also, see here for the Catholic Catechism's overview of the Sixth Commandment, which deals with human sexuality.  See here for the recent statement from the Catholic Church's Congregation for Catholic Education on transgenderism, and see here for a very helpful piece from the USCCB (the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) where they have put together quotations that express the Church's teaching on these issues.

Published on the feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus

ADDENDUM 6/14/21:  I recently read an article encouraging people in the Church to get over simply condemning as unethical homosexual sexual relationships and instead focus attention on creatively thinking about how those with same-sex attraction might go forward positively in their life in the Church, particularly how those who cannot find fulfillment by entering into heterosexual marriage might develop other kinds of relationships.  Thinking creatively and positively about these things seems to be a very worthy and much-needed endeavor.  I also listened recently to a podcast from Jesuitical in which Catholic author Eve Tushnet was interviewed.  She spoke about how same-sex attraction need not be seen as purely a negative thing--a difficulty to bear up under--but also as something put into one's life by God that can lead to positive blessings.  This is true of all things in our lives, for all aspects of life are under the providence of God, and even those things that we do not want serve a purpose in our lives and can be a means of our growth and an aid to our service and living out of our callings in the world.  If this is true with every other aspect of life, why not with same-sex attraction as well?  Some very worthwhile things to think about here.

ADDENDUM 7/15/24:  Last April, the Church published a document which includes within it a brief summary of the Church's current teaching on transgender-related issues (it's a small part of a larger, broader document on human dignity).  You can find it here.