Can Catholic Doctrine Develop?

Catholicism is a tradition that has developed while maintaining that it remains faithful to the faith handed down from the apostles. The Church has developed its teaching on religious freedom, clarified its relationship with Judaism, and revised its teaching on the death penalty. At the same time, Catholic theology does not treat every change as legitimate doctrinal development. This raises an important question. When does a deeper understanding of Catholic teaching become legitimate development, and when does it become a contradiction of what the Church has previously taught?

Doctrinal Development

John Henry Newman provides an important framework for examining this question. Newman did not understand doctrinal development as simply replacing earlier teaching with something new. In An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, he argued that genuine development remains connected to the identity and principles of the Christian faith. He identified seven “notes” for distinguishing genuine developments from corruptions. These include preservation of type, continuity of principles, assimilative power, logical sequence, anticipation of its future, conservative action upon its past, and chronic continuance (Newman, 1878/1989). Development therefore does not mean that anything can be added to or removed from Catholic teaching without regard for what came before. It requires continuity that can be demonstrated.

This distinction is central to the question of doctrinal development. If every change were automatically considered development, the term would have little meaning. Newman specifically sought to distinguish genuine development from corruption. A development may become more explicit or more fully understood without losing the identity of the teaching from which it developed. The question is not simply whether a teaching has changed, but whether the change represents a development that remains connected to the principles and identity of the tradition.

The Second Vatican Council provides a direct theological basis for understanding how development occurs. Dei Verbum teaches that the Tradition handed down from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit and that there is growth in the Church’s understanding of the realities and words that have been handed down (Second Vatican Council, 1965a, §8). The Council identifies several means of this growth, including the contemplation and study of believers, a deeper understanding of spiritual realities through experience, and the preaching of those who have received the responsibility of teaching through episcopal succession.

This establishes doctrinal development as part of Catholic theology itself. The Church does not understand Tradition as something frozen at the moment it was first handed down. Dei Verbum describes a living Tradition in which the Church continues to grow in its understanding while remaining faithful to what it has received. The Council teaches that this growth moves the Church toward the fullness of divine truth as the centuries pass (Second Vatican Council, 1965a, §8).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes the same point. It teaches that, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, understanding of the realities and words of the heritage of faith can grow through the contemplation and study of believers, theological research, spiritual experience, and the preaching of the bishops (Catholic Church, 1997, §94). It then emphasizes that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium are closely connected and work together under the action of the same Holy Spirit (Catholic Church, 1997, §95).

This does not mean that individual experience can simply replace doctrine. Dei Verbum teaches that the authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether written or handed down, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church (Second Vatican Council, 1965a, §10). At the same time, Lumen Gentium teaches that the entire People of God participates in the Church’s supernatural sense of faith and that the faithful grow in their understanding of the faith under the guidance of the Magisterium (Second Vatican Council, 1964, §12).

That distinction matters. Lived experience does not automatically become doctrine. A Catholic who has an experience that conflicts with Church teaching cannot simply declare the teaching changed. But the experiences of Catholics are not irrelevant to theological reflection either. If the Church itself teaches that understanding can grow through the experience and study of believers, then lived reality is one of the things the Church must be capable of examining.

Examples of Doctrinal Development

The Church’s teaching on the death penalty provides a significant example. For centuries, Catholic teaching permitted capital punishment under certain circumstances. In 2018, the Catechism was revised to state that the death penalty is inadmissible. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith described the revision as being “in continuity with the preceding Magisterium” and as “a coherent development of Catholic doctrine” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2018).

The change did not begin with a new belief that human beings possess dignity. Catholic teaching had long affirmed human dignity. The Catechism teaches that the dignity of the human person is rooted in creation in the image and likeness of God (Catholic Church, 1997, §1700). What developed was the Church’s understanding of how that dignity should be applied to criminal punishment under modern circumstances.

This example does not settle every question about doctrinal development. Questions involving sexuality, marriage, contraception, abortion, and the roles of women involve different theological claims and must be examined on their own terms. The importance of the death penalty example is that it demonstrates that Catholic teaching can undergo a substantial change while the Church understands itself to remain in continuity with its tradition.

The Second Vatican Council provides another important example. Dignitatis Humanae declared that the human person has a right to religious freedom and that people should be immune from coercion in religious matters, grounding this right in human dignity (Second Vatican Council, 1965b, §2). The document also states that the Council intended to develop the teaching of recent popes concerning the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society (Second Vatican Council, 1965b, §1). The Council therefore presented its teaching on religious freedom as a development that remained connected to Catholic tradition.

Nostra Aetate likewise represented an important development in the Church’s articulation of its relationship with Judaism. The declaration states that the Passion of Christ cannot be charged against all Jews, either those living at the time or Jews today, and rejects antisemitism and discrimination against Jews (Second Vatican Council, 1965c, §4). Again, the significance is not that the Church simply abandoned its previous tradition. Rather, the Council reconsidered how Scripture, theology, historical experience, and the dignity of another religious community should shape Catholic teaching.

These examples demonstrate that doctrinal development can involve more than clarification of terminology. The Church can arrive at a substantially different practical conclusion while claiming continuity with principles already present in the tradition.

LGBTQ+ Catholics

This question has become particularly important in contemporary Catholic discussions of sexuality and LGBTQ+ people. The Church’s current teaching includes specific claims about sexual complementarity, marriage, sexual activity, and the relationship between sexuality and procreation (Catholic Church, 1997, §§1601, 1643, 2357). At the same time, the Catechism teaches that people who experience homosexual tendencies must be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity and that unjust discrimination should be avoided (Catholic Church, 1997, §2358).

The question for doctrinal development is therefore not simply whether LGBTQ+ people possess dignity. Catholic teaching already says that they do. The deeper question is whether the Church’s understanding of sexuality, human relationships, marriage, family, vocation, and human flourishing has fully accounted for what is now known about sexual orientation and for the lived experiences of LGBTQ Catholics.

There is substantial disagreement among Catholic theologians and biblical scholars about these questions. The disagreement itself is important because it demonstrates that the theological discussion is not limited to a conflict between Catholic doctrine and secular culture. Catholic scholars have developed arguments from within Scripture, natural law, moral theology, and Catholic anthropology that challenge aspects of the current teaching.

Natural law is particularly important because Catholic sexual ethics relies heavily on it. The traditional natural-law argument connects sexual activity with human nature, complementarity, and procreation. Yet natural law is not simply a list of biological facts. It is a method of moral reasoning about human flourishing, human goods, and the purposes of human action. Scholars working within the natural-law tradition have therefore questioned whether biological reproduction can exhaust the moral meaning of sexuality.

Mark D. Jordan has examined the historical development of Catholic theological language concerning same-sex sexuality and the ways that later categories can be projected backward onto medieval thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas (Jordan, 1997). Craig A. Ford Jr. has argued that natural-law reasoning can be used to consider queer experience and social justice rather than treating natural law as a tradition with only one possible application (Ford, 2020). These arguments demonstrate that the natural-law tradition itself contains ongoing theological debate.

The Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research has gone further, publishing an interdisciplinary academic statement arguing that current Catholic teaching on same-sex relationships should be reconsidered in light of contemporary biblical scholarship, the human sciences, and the experience of people in faithful same-sex relationships (Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research, 2021). Its conclusions are not authoritative Catholic teaching. Its significance lies in the fact that the argument attempts to engage Catholic sources on Catholic theological grounds rather than simply dismissing the tradition.

Catholic history provides another source of complexity. The historical record includes people whose lives do not fit neatly into modern categories of sexuality or gender. This does not mean that historical figures should simply be relabeled as LGBTQ. It does mean that Catholic history contains more complicated experiences of embodiment, intimacy, gender expression, and spiritual authority than a simple heterosexual and gender-conforming narrative suggests.

The lives of contemporary Catholic priests make this particularly clear. Father Gregory Greiten, a priest of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, publicly identified himself as gay in 2017 while continuing his priestly ministry (Greiten, 2017). Father Aidan McAleenan similarly wrote about coming out as a gay Catholic priest while continuing his ministry in Oakland (McAleenan, 2024). Father Bryan Massingale has publicly described himself as a gay priest and theologian and has written about the experience of LGBTQ Catholics within the Church (Massingale, 2023).

These priests do not constitute evidence that Catholic doctrine has changed. Their lives demonstrate something different. They demonstrate that the people affected by Catholic teaching are not abstract examples. They are priests, theologians, pastors, parents, parishioners, and members of the same communities in which Catholic doctrine is lived.

That distinction matters when considering the relationship between doctrine and experience. The people whose lives are affected by Catholic teaching are also capable of contributing to theological reflection about that teaching.

Scripture and Sexuality

Biblical scholarship raises similar questions. The biblical passages traditionally used in discussions of homosexuality were written in cultures that did not possess the modern concept of sexual orientation. Scholars disagree about what particular passages such as Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1 refer to and whether they can legitimately be applied to contemporary, consensual, lifelong same-sex relationships.

The word arsenokoitai, which appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, is especially debated. It is an uncommon Greek term, and scholars disagree over precisely what practices it describes. Some translations treat it as referring broadly to male same-sex sexual activity, while other scholarship has examined whether the term may refer to particular forms of exploitation and sexual behavior (Cook, 2019). The debate demonstrates why translating a single ancient term into a modern sexual category is not straightforward.

The story of Sodom raises a similar issue. Genesis 19 has traditionally been used in discussions of homosexuality, but Ezekiel 16:49–50 describes the sins of Sodom in terms of pride, excess food, prosperous ease, failure to help the poor and needy, haughtiness, and other wrongdoing. The biblical tradition therefore contains more than one description of Sodom’s wrongdoing.

Other biblical texts raise different questions about belonging and human relationships. The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 presents a person whose body and social status placed them outside conventional categories of gender and religious belonging. Yet Philip baptizes the eunuch after the eunuch asks what prevents baptism. Isaiah 56 similarly presents eunuchs who fear exclusion from the community and promises them a place within God’s house. These passages do not establish a modern LGBTQ theology by themselves, but they complicate the assumption that biblical belonging always depends upon conformity to ordinary social categories.

Ruth and Naomi and David and Jonathan have likewise generated different interpretations. Their relationships cannot responsibly be labeled with modern sexual identities simply because they involve intense same-sex affection. At the same time, Scripture preserves relationships between people of the same sex that are described through extraordinary language of love, loyalty, covenant, grief, and belonging. A queer reading of these passages does not have to prove that Ruth and Naomi or David and Jonathan were homosexual. It can instead ask what Scripture reveals about the variety of relationships through which human beings experience covenant, family, loyalty, and love.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s What Is Man? places biblical anthropology within its historical and cultural contexts and recognizes that biblical texts concerning sexuality must be understood in relation to the world in which they were written (Pontifical Biblical Commission, 2019, §§185–188). This matters because the modern concept of sexual orientation cannot simply be inserted into ancient texts without examining what those texts actually addressed.

A doctrinal reconsideration of homosexuality therefore requires more than finding one Bible verse that appears supportive or unsupportive. It requires sustained engagement with biblical scholarship, historical context, natural law, human sexuality, and the relationship between ancient categories and modern understandings.

Contraception

Contraception raises another difficult question. Catholic teaching holds that the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act are inseparably connected (Paul VI, 1968, §12; Catholic Church, 1997, §§2363, 2366). The Church therefore rejects artificial contraception as a legitimate means of regulating births while permitting natural family planning under certain circumstances.

The problem becomes more complicated when the question moves from abstract sexual ethics to public health. Condoms are not merely contraceptive devices. Correct and consistent condom use reduces the risk of HIV and several other sexually transmitted infections and can also reduce the risk of pregnancy (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024a, 2024b; World Health Organization, 2025).

Abstinence is one method of avoiding pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, but people do not all remain abstinent. Research has found limited evidence for the effectiveness of abstinence-only education and stronger evidence for comprehensive risk-reduction approaches that provide accurate information about contraception and sexual health (Chin et al., 2012; Santelli et al., 2006).

This creates a genuine moral question for Catholic theology. If the Church considers the prevention of disease, unintended pregnancy, family stability, and human flourishing to be genuine goods, how should those goods be weighed against its teaching concerning the procreative meaning of sexuality?

Catholic teaching already recognizes the concept of responsible parenthood. Humanae Vitae discusses circumstances in which spouses may have serious reasons for spacing births, including physical, psychological, and external circumstances (Paul VI, 1968, §10). The Church permits natural family planning in these circumstances while maintaining that artificial contraception is morally prohibited.

The question becomes even more significant when contraception is considered as part of responsible parenthood. Preventing an unintended pregnancy can prevent serious economic hardship, reduce the number of children born into circumstances in which their parents cannot adequately provide for them, and reduce some of the circumstances associated with later poverty. The Turnaway Study found that women denied wanted abortions experienced greater economic hardship and were more likely to live below the federal poverty level, while children born after abortion denial were more likely to live in poverty (Foster et al., 2018). These findings demonstrate that reproductive decisions have consequences extending beyond the individual sexual act.

The moral goods involved can include preventing disease, avoiding unintended pregnancies, protecting existing children, maintaining family stability, reducing poverty, and preventing circumstances in which children may experience serious economic or family hardship. Those goods do not currently change Catholic teaching on artificial contraception. They do, however, raise the question of whether the Church’s understanding of responsible parenthood could develop to recognize them more fully.

A development of Catholic moral theology would therefore require more than demonstrating that contraception sometimes produces beneficial consequences. It would require reconsidering whether the moral meaning of sexual intercourse is exhausted by the traditional understanding of the relationship between the unitive and procreative dimensions. It would ask whether responsible use of contraception could be understood as compatible with the goods the Church already recognizes, including responsible parenthood, fidelity, care for children, and human flourishing.

Abortion and Civil Law

Abortion presents an even more difficult case because Catholic teaching considers unborn human life to possess moral status from conception. The Catechism states that human life must be respected and protected from the moment of conception and describes direct abortion as gravely contrary to the moral law (Catholic Church, 1997, §§2270–2271). Evangelium Vitae similarly teaches that direct abortion is gravely immoral (John Paul II, 1995, §62).

Yet the consequences of abortion laws create questions that Catholic moral theology cannot avoid. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, states have adopted a range of abortion bans and restrictions. Research following those changes has documented significant effects on pregnancy and infant outcomes.

A 2025 study in JAMA found that states adopting complete or six-week abortion bans experienced higher-than-expected infant mortality after the bans took effect. The researchers estimated 478 excess infant deaths across the 14 states included in the analysis during the period studied, with larger increases among infants with congenital anomalies and among Black infants (Gemmill et al., 2025).

Other research has examined the effects on women who are denied abortions. The Turnaway Study found greater economic hardship among women denied wanted abortions, including substantially higher rates of poverty. It also found differences in health and family outcomes between women who received wanted abortions and those who were denied them (Foster et al., 2018).

Research involving physicians has documented another problem. A qualitative study of 54 obstetrician-gynecologists practicing in states with abortion bans found that physicians reported delays in care, difficulty determining when medical exceptions applied, restrictions on counseling, and concern about legal consequences (Sabbath et al., 2024). A 2026 national study likewise examined moral distress and clinical constraints among obstetrician-gynecologists practicing under different state abortion laws (Sabbath et al., 2026).

These consequences matter to Catholic moral theology because the Church’s moral tradition does not treat the circumstances surrounding an act as irrelevant. The Catechism states that the morality of human acts depends on the object chosen, the intention, and the circumstances, while maintaining that some acts cannot be justified by a good intention (Catholic Church, 1997, §§1750–1756). This distinction becomes significant in difficult pregnancy cases because not every medical treatment that results in the death of a fetus is understood within Catholic moral theology as a direct abortion. The moral analysis can depend on the intention, the procedure, and the relationship between the intended good and the unintended consequence.

The distinction between moral law and civil law is equally important. Catholic teaching does not simply equate every moral prohibition with a requirement that every possible violation be criminalized. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated in 1974 that “the law is not obliged to sanction everything” and recognized a distinction between moral law and civil law (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1974, §22). John Paul II later wrote in Evangelium Vitae that the purpose of civil law is “different and more limited in scope than that of the moral law,” even while arguing that the right to life is among the rights that civil law has a responsibility to protect (John Paul II, 1995, §§71–73).

This does not mean the Catholic Church supports legal abortion. It does not. The Church explicitly teaches that civil law should protect unborn human life. The distinction means that Catholic moral theology already recognizes that moral law and civil law operate differently. Not every moral failure becomes a criminal offense, and questions about penalties, enforcement, medical exceptions, poverty, healthcare, and social support can involve prudential judgments even when the underlying moral principle is held firmly.

That distinction creates space for a developed Catholic approach to abortion without abandoning the Church’s belief in the value of unborn life. A Catholic ethic can ask not only how unborn children are protected but also how pregnant women are supported, how poverty affects reproductive decisions, how medical uncertainty should be handled, how healthcare providers should respond to emergencies, and what social obligations exist toward children and families after birth.

The Church’s 1974 declaration itself points toward this broader responsibility. It calls for addressing the conditions that make pregnancy difficult and for support for families, unmarried mothers, children, and adoption (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1974, §§23–26). The moral question therefore extends beyond whether abortion is permitted. It includes what a society owes to women and children before and after birth.

The common good therefore becomes part of the discussion. A Catholic approach to abortion can treat protection of unborn life and care for pregnant women as connected moral concerns. The difficult work is determining how those goods should be protected in actual circumstances.

Women and Authority

The same principle applies to women’s roles in the Church. Catholic tradition contains longstanding distinctions between sacramental ministry, theological authority, pastoral leadership, governance, and the ordinary participation of the laity. Lumen Gentium teaches that lay Catholics participate in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and kingly functions and that their gifts and ministries should be recognized and supported (Second Vatican Council, 1964, §§30–31).

Catholic teaching currently holds that the Church does not have authority to confer priestly ordination on women. John Paul II stated this definitively in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith subsequently affirmed that the teaching requires definitive assent (John Paul II, 1994; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1995).

The question of women and authority is therefore broader than whether women can be ordained. It includes who can teach theology, who can exercise pastoral authority, who can participate in governance, whose theological scholarship receives institutional recognition, and how the Church understands the relationship between sacramental office and other forms of authority.

Catholic history contains women who exercised substantial theological and spiritual authority, including Hildegard of Bingen, Teresa of Ávila, Catherine of Siena, and Thérèse of Lisieux. Their influence demonstrates that Catholic authority has never been expressed through ordination alone.

The theological question is whether the Church’s understanding of authority itself can develop. A future development concerning women could involve greater recognition of women’s theological authority, broader participation in governance, expanded pastoral responsibilities, or a further development in how the Church understands the relationship between sacramental office and leadership.

The Future of Development

Across these issues, the same question emerges. What happens when new knowledge or lived experience exposes limits in an older theological framework?

Catholicism already has a method for addressing that question. Dei Verbum recognizes that understanding develops. Newman provides criteria for distinguishing development from corruption. Lumen Gentium recognizes the role of the whole People of God. The Magisterium remains responsible for authentic teaching, but it does not operate independently of Scripture, Tradition, theological scholarship, spiritual experience, or the lives of the faithful.

The Church’s current synodal process provides an example of this method in practice. Study Group 9’s 2026 report addresses how emerging doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical questions can be approached through listening, attention to reality, shared learning, and multiple areas of expertise (General Secretariat of the Synod, 2026). The report does not establish new doctrine on the issues discussed. It does, however, demonstrate that listening to experience and engaging different forms of knowledge can be part of the Church’s process of theological discernment.

That approach does not mean that doctrine is determined by majority opinion or cultural change. It means that doctrine is not developed in a vacuum.

Many of the questions facing Catholic moral theology today could not have been formulated in exactly the same way in previous centuries. The Church now has scientific knowledge about sexual orientation that ancient theologians did not possess. It has medical knowledge about pregnancy, fetal development, maternal health, contraception, sexually transmitted infections, and genetic conditions that previous generations did not possess. It has historical knowledge about the development of biblical interpretation and Catholic moral categories that earlier theologians could not have accessed.

New knowledge does not automatically overturn revelation. It can, however, change the questions the Church is capable of asking.

That is the central case for doctrinal development. The argument is not that tradition is wrong because the modern world is different. The argument is that fidelity to tradition may require the Church to examine whether it has understood the tradition as fully as possible in light of everything the Church now knows.

This is particularly important for LGBTQ+ theology. The Church now has access to historical scholarship, modern psychology and biology, biblical scholarship, the testimony of LGBTQ Catholics, and the experience of Catholic clergy who themselves identify as gay. None of these sources independently determines doctrine. Together, they create a body of knowledge and lived experience that theology can examine.

The same is true of contraception. Modern medicine makes it possible to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, to control fertility, to manage serious medical conditions, and to plan families with a degree of precision that previous generations did not possess. If the Church believes that responsible parenthood is a genuine moral good, then those realities belong in the theological conversation.

The same is true of abortion. Catholic teaching about unborn life cannot simply be separated from what happens to women, children, physicians, families, and communities when abortion is restricted. Protecting unborn life and responding to the realities of pregnancy are connected moral questions.

And the same is true of women. Catholic history demonstrates that women have exercised theological, spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral authority in ways that cannot be reduced to their sacramental status.

None of these arguments proves that Catholic doctrine should change in a particular direction. They establish that there are serious theological questions that cannot be answered simply by repeating that the Church has always taught something.

In fact, “the Church has always taught this” is precisely the kind of claim that Newman’s theory of development requires the Church to examine carefully. What exactly has always been taught? In what form? For what reasons? With what underlying principles? How did the teaching develop historically? Which elements belong to apostolic revelation, and which belong to later theological explanation or application? Does a proposed development preserve the type, principles, and identity of the earlier teaching?

Those are harder questions than simply asking whether something is traditional or modern.

Conclusion

Catholic doctrine can develop. Catholic history and the Church’s own theological documents make that clear. The harder question is how the Church determines whether a particular development remains faithful to the tradition. That question cannot be answered simply by appealing to the age of a teaching or repeating that the Church has “always taught” something. It requires examining how teachings developed, what principles underlie them, and how those principles should be understood in light of the Church’s growing knowledge.

Newman’s understanding of development provides an important framework for this work. Authentic development does not simply abandon what came before; it preserves the identity of the tradition while allowing its principles to be understood more fully. Vatican II similarly recognizes that the Church’s understanding of the faith can grow through theological study, spiritual experience, and reflection on human life. If the Church’s understanding can develop, then difficult moral questions should remain open to careful theological inquiry rather than being treated as permanently exhausted.

Future theological work should therefore examine contested teachings with greater historical and doctrinal precision. Questions surrounding LGBTQ+ relationships, contraception, abortion, and women’s authority should be studied through Scripture, Tradition, natural law, historical scholarship, scientific knowledge, moral theology, and lived experience. This does not require assuming in advance that every teaching must change. It requires asking whether existing formulations adequately express the principles they were intended to protect, particularly when new knowledge about human beings and human relationships challenges earlier assumptions.

This examination also requires distinguishing more carefully between apostolic revelation and later historical, philosophical, cultural, or theological developments. Rather than asking only, “What has the Church always taught?” theology should ask: What exactly has been taught, in what form, and for what reasons? What assumptions shaped that teaching? How has it developed? Which elements are essential to the tradition, and which may represent historical applications of deeper principles? Most importantly, would a proposed development preserve the type, principles, continuity, and identity of the faith?

These questions require continued discussion within the Church. Theologians, clergy, scholars, and lay Catholics should have opportunities to engage difficult questions honestly without treating inquiry itself as a rejection of tradition. Lived experience should not replace doctrine, but doctrine should not be examined without attention to the real human lives affected by it. A living tradition requires both continuity with the past and serious engagement with the present.

The task ahead, then, is not to choose between tradition and change. It is to determine what fidelity to tradition requires as the Church’s understanding of Scripture, human nature, history, science, and moral responsibility develops. Catholic theology should neither abandon tradition nor treat it as immune from examination. It should return to the tradition continually, examine it honestly, and ask whether its deeper principles are being faithfully understood and applied.

If Catholic tradition is living rather than static, then development is not a departure from fidelity to tradition. It is one of the responsibilities of preserving that tradition faithfully. The future of Catholic theology should therefore involve not abandoning what has been received, but returning to it continually, examining it in light of new knowledge and experience, and asking what deeper fidelity might require.

Figure 1. Column XLVI of the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵃ), containing Isaiah 56:1–12. Source: Israel Museum, Jerusalem.

⸻

References

Catholic Church. (1997). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd ed.). Libreria Editrice Vaticana. https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024a, January 19). Condom use: An overview. https://www.cdc.gov/condom-use/

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024b, April 24). Preventing HIV with condoms. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/condoms.html

Chin, H. B., Sipe, T. A., Elder, R., Mercer, S. L., Chattopadhyay, S. K., Jacob, V., Wethington, H. R., Kirby, D., Elliston, D. B., Griffith, M., Chuke, S. O., Briss, S. C., Ericksen, I., Galbraith, J. S., Herbst, J. H., Johnson, R. L., Kraft, J. M., Noar, S. M., Romero, L. M., & Santelli, J. (2012). The effectiveness of group-based comprehensive risk-reduction and abstinence education interventions to prevent or reduce the risk of adolescent pregnancy, HIV, and sexually transmitted infections. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42(3), 272–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.11.006

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (1995). Responsum ad propositum dubium concerning the teaching contained in “Ordinatio sacerdotalis.” https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (2018, August 1). Letter to the bishops regarding the new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20180801_lettera-vescovi-penadimorte_en.html

Cook, J. G. (2019). Malakoi and arsenokoitai: In defence of Tertullian’s translation. New Testament Studies, 65(3), 332–352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688519000121

Ford, C. A., Jr. (2020, January 21). A natural law for queer and racial justice. Canopy Forum. https://canopyforum.org/2020/01/21/a-natural-law-for-queer-and-racial-justice-by-craig-ford/

Foster, D. G., Biggs, M. A., Ralph, L., Gerdts, C., Roberts, S., & Glymour, M. M. (2018). Socioeconomic outcomes of women who receive and women who are denied wanted abortions in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 108(3), 407–413. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304247

Gemmill, A., Franks, A. M., Anjur-Dietrich, S., Ozinsky, A., Arbour, D., Stuart, E. A., Ben-Michael, E., Feller, A., & Bell, S. O. (2025). US abortion bans and infant mortality. JAMA, 333(15), 1315–1323. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.28517

General Secretariat of the Synod. (2026, May 5). Theological criteria and synodal methodologies for shared discernment of emerging doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues. Synod of Bishops. https://www.synod.va/en/the-synodal-process/phase-3-the-implementation/the-study-groups/final-reports/group-9.html

Greiten, G. (2017, December 18). Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay. National Catholic Reporter. https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/guest-voices/parish-priest-breaks-silence-shares-he-gay

John Paul II. (1994, May 22). Ordinatio sacerdotalis. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html

John Paul II. (1995, March 25). Evangelium vitae. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

Jordan, M. D. (1997). The silence of Sodom: Homosexuality in modern Catholicism. University of Chicago Press.

Massingale, B. N. (2023, May 8). I dream of a Catholic Church that celebrates and embraces LGBTQ people. Outreach. https://outreach.faith/2023/05/i-dream-of-a-catholic-church-that-celebrates-and-embraces-lgbtq-people/

McAleenan, A. (2024, May 9). I’m a Catholic priest. When I came out as gay, my parishioners applauded. Outreach. https://outreach.faith/2024/05/im-a-catholic-priest-when-i-came-out-as-gay-my-parishioners-applauded/

Newman, J. H. (1989). An essay on the development of Christian doctrine. University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1845; substantially revised 1878.) https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268158088/an-essay-on-the-development-of-christian-doctrine/

Paul VI. (1968, July 25). Humanae vitae. https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

Pontifical Biblical Commission. (2019). What is man? An itinerary of biblical anthropology. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_doc_20190619_uomo-itinerario-antropologia-biblica_en.html

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (1974, November 18). Declaration on procured abortion. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

Sabbath, E. L., Brennan, T. P., Chalem, A., McTernan, M. L., Arora, K. S., & Buchbinder, M. (2026). State abortion laws and moral distress in a national sample of obstetrician-gynecologists. JAMA Network Open, 9(7), e2626232. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.26232

Sabbath, E. L., McKetchnie, S. M., Arora, K. S., & Buchbinder, M. (2024). US obstetrician-gynecologists’ perceived impacts of post-Dobbs v Jackson state abortion bans. JAMA Network Open, 7(1), e2352109. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.52109

Santelli, J., Ott, M. A., Lyon, M., Rogers, J., Summers, D., & Schleifer, R. (2006). Abstinence and abstinence-only education. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.10.006

Second Vatican Council. (1964, November 21). Lumen gentium. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Second Vatican Council. (1965a, November 18). Dei verbum. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Second Vatican Council. (1965b, December 7). Dignitatis humanae. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

Second Vatican Council. (1965c, October 28). Nostra aetate. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research. (2021). Christian ethics of same-sex relationships: An academic statement. https://www.wijngaardsinstitute.com/christian-ethics-same-sex-relationships-academic-statement/

World Health Organization. (2025, February 14). Condoms. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/condoms