• Origins of Catholic morality
• The Framework
• The ‘Development’ of Doctrine
• ‘Transubstantiation’ as an example
• Illogical leaps
• Boomer comments
• ‘Does anyone have any questions?’
• Heading home
• Conclusion

I had planned to mow the lawn last Thursday, but I changed my plan without hesitation upon seeing this advertisement that afternoon.

It was from our city’s Catholic Adult Faith Formation team concerning an educational opportunity for our three parishes. Jacob Kohlhaas, a professor of moral theology from Loras College, was slated to give a talk on “The Eclipse of Catholic ‘Pelvic Morality.’”

Because the title included a cheeky, dismissive term for Catholic sexual morality, I knew the talk was going to be a doozy. Besides, our Director of Adult Faith [De]formation routinely invites the most liberal speakers he can find on theology, liturgy, and politics.

This night’s speaker gave a presentation based on Pope Leo’s comments on an airplane interview given after visiting Equatorial Guinea on April 23, 2026. The pope addressed questions regarding the blessing of same-sex couples and his stance on so-called LGBTQ+ issues:

First of all, I think it’s very important that the unity or division of the church should not revolve around sexual matters. We tend to think that when the church is talking about morality that the only issue of morality is sexual. And in reality, I believe there are greater and more important issues such as justice, equality, freedom of men and women, freedom of religion that would all take priority before that particular issue.

§Origins of Catholic morality

So why do we tend to think morality deals in great part with sexual matters? Kohlhaas says it’s because that’s what we were taught.

He told us that Catholic morality was developed in the Middle Ages, primarily in monasteries. They had to keep order for obvious reasons, and then their rules about sexual discipline, developed for that purpose, ended up getting extended to the rest of us without regard to our different circumstances.

§The Framework

Jacob Kolhaas’s entire ungodly talk was built on the framework of a “hierarchy of truths.” This comes from a Vatican II document entitled Unitatis Redintegratio, also known as the decree on Ecumenism.

It states,

In ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians… should remember that there exists an order or “hierarchy” of truths within Catholic doctrine, insofar as they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.

The way Kohlhaas explained it was to think of it as three different tiers:

1. Who God is

   • Most important level, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation

2. Who we are

   • As a Church, including governance, etc.

3. What should we do about that?

   • Includes defining moral issues

These three tiers are ranked from highest to lowest. It doesn’t mean 2 and 3 are less important than 1, but that they are each derived from the previous tier.

Thus, Kohlhaas is able to mishandle the teaching popularized by Saint John Henry Cardinal Newman…

§The ‘Development’ of Doctrine

Since tier 3 truths are derived from tier 2 truths, which are derived from tier 1 truths, Kohlhaas says this is how we can develop or modify Church teaching.

The perverse reasoning Kohlhaas presented was that since we know God is merciful (tier 1), and if we are made for justice and freedom and equality — and in the modern age we now understand more about the human person and orientation (tier 2) — then there is room to “develop” (i.e., reverse) our teaching on sexual morality (tier 3).

Our Director of Adult Faith Deformation raised his hand to note that we know much more today about what a person is than the Church did centuries ago. (I thought, Tell that to Saint Thomas Aquinas or Boethius or Saint Augustine or other knuckle-dragging Christian philosophers in earlier times — Christian thinkers who were so ignorant, they didn’t even know “boys” and “girls” were mere social constructs.)

Here is something Kohlhaas strongly conveyed to his audience that stuck with them: If people can’t enjoy freedom, justice, and equality in society, then we shouldn’t be talking about their sexual behaviors. There are bigger fish to fry.

Without saying it directly, Kohlhaas gave the strong impression he has hopes that the Church will change her teachings on sexuality — the “pelvic issues” — because we can rethink these things in light of justice, freedom, past coercion, bigotry, circumstances, etc.

He brought up examples that are plainly not analogous, such as giving your teenage child rules that differ from what you gave him or her as a toddler. Rules change according to changing circumstances.

Yet he never explained how intrinsically evil acts can ever become something good or positive.

§‘Transubstantiation’ as an example

I had come across this before in articles posted to our Faith Formation website, so I was alarmed when Kohlhaas brought up transubstantiation in the context of the Development of Doctrine.

Kohlhaas said the word is not understood by modern ears. You’d have to be fluent in Greek or Aristotelian philosophical vocabulary, and since the average pew sitter doesn’t have that background, theologians (according to him) now prefer to use the term “Real Presence.”

“Real presence” is not a bad term as far as it goes, but this argument made me resolve to use the word “transubstantiation” even more.

I thought, Hey, you Boomers, your parents weren’t scholars, but they knew what transubstantiation meant. How? They were taught! How hard is this?

I came to realize that if we limit ourselves to saying “Real Presence,” one could pour all kinds of different meanings into it, such as the Lutheran idea that Jesus is truly present in the bread, or that Jesus is in the bread spiritually, or that his presence is signified by the bread.

But the term “transubstantiation” is needed to clarify the crucial truth of the matter. At the consecration of the Host during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Jesus is not made present in the bread, nor just spiritually present in it, nor merely signified by the bread. In fact, there is no more bread! — because there is a change (trans) of substance (substantiation). What used to be bread is no longer, but it is now become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord — even though the “accidents” (or sensible attributes, such as appearance, texture, taste, etc.) remain — because what something is is not always identical to how it appears to the senses.

When “transubstantiation” is carefully taught with the right terms and explanations, we preserve and lock-in the unchangeable dogma of what happens at Mass. If we limit ourselves to a more vague term that’s easier on the ears, like “the Real Presence,” it opens wide the doors of life-threatening heresy.

§Illogical leaps

Early in his presentation, Kohlhaas said the pope’s line of thinking as expressed in the on-flight interview is consistent with and follows Pope Francis’ controversial document Fiducia Supplicans a few years earlier, which allowed for spontaneous, informal Catholic blessings of same-sex couples.

Francis’ logic, explained Kohlhaas, is that all people can be blessed. At Mass, everyone present receives a blessing at the end, regardless of what sins they may have committed. They are not interrogated. So if one person can receive a blessing in one setting, and if a whole congregation can receive a blessing in another, then why can’t two people receive a blessing at the same time?

Such twisted reasoning makes sense to the uninformed listener who might mean well but can’t think critically. And a trusting person’s guard may be down anyway since we’re listening to a Catholic professor, who surely would never mislead us. He would never mislead us…right?

I wanted to hear Professor Kohlhaas’s full presentation in order to be fair, so even though he welcomed questions, I didn’t interrupt him. I didn’t say, “Should a priest agree, if asked, to give a blessing to a room full of KKK members who had plans later that night to burn a cross in someone’s front yard?”

Of course, it’s not a matter of how many people can be blessed in groupings. No one sees that as controversial. It’s a matter of conveying an approval or acceptance of grave sin, whether openly or behind the scenes.

Related to that, Kohlhaas mentioned in passing, “Leo has to speak for the institutional Church,” implying duplicity — with wink-wink, nudge-nudge permissiveness.

§Boomer comments

During in the talk, one gray-haired heavyset lady in dark-rimmed glasses raised her hand to make a comment. She said she was trying to teach these same principles to her eighth-grade Catholic religion class in 2016. Yet even after Pope Francis’ time as pope, and after this statement by Pope Leo, nothing has changed significantly. “It seems empty,” she said, as she bemoaned the lack of progress over the past 10 years.

I didn’t say anything, but I was annoyed and not surprised that we have local Catholic teachers who are closet material heretics and infiltrators, going back decades.

Later, a thin older lady identified herself as a convert from Lutheranism. She has been Catholic for three years. She said her understanding has always been that “a sin is a sin.” So her question was, “Who started calling some sins ‘mortal sins’?” — as if it were an unjustified distinction, or even that any sins might be considered acceptable.

Another person, after hearing that Pope Benedict XVI wrote of homosexuality as “disordered” and “intrinsically evil,” and after a brief discussion about the conclusions of Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae (regarding contraception), asked incredulously, “When a pope writes these things, don’t people proofread it or question it before it’s published?”

I took notes, but I stayed silent. Until…

§‘Does anyone have any questions?’

I was first to raise my hand when Jacob Kohlhaas opened the floor to general questions and comments.

“I wanted to ask, since I’m concerned about you being a Catholic professor — am I correct in my impression that you are okay with homosexual activity, fornication, and masturbation?”

(He had previously asked an absurd rhetorical question about whether we should allow two opposite-sex couples to marry if they’ve ever committed fornication or masturbation.)

He would not answer yes and no. Instead, he reiterated vague platitudes about focusing on what is possible instead of lists of forbidden things. He wanted to focus on ensuring freedom and justice and equity. Whatever that means.

Another man in the audience tried to help me understand that concept — that what’s the point of regulating sex acts if we don’t have freedom and equality?

I said, “If someone lives in the most oppressive environment ever, under a tyrannical regime, does that mean he is unable to choose to avoid mortal sin?”

“Is anyone here even Catholic?” I went on. “Do you guys not care what the Church teaches in its Tradition, in its catechisms, in its timeless truths?”

Kohlhaas said I can’t just go by what catechisms say, but I have to learn history.

To turn the tables on me, he added, “It sounds like you’re the one who disagrees with the pope — that doesn’t seem very Catholic, does it?”

“That’s not how it works,” I responded. “I’m talking about Catholic teaching, centuries upon centuries of Catholic Tradition, distilled in catechisms and papal documents and the common teaching of the Church. Whatever the pope says on an airplane to reporters — that doesn’t make it Catholic teaching!”

I continued, “It sounds like you’re making light of sexual sins. But these things are material for mortal sin. We’re talking about eternal hell. It’s not a light matter. In fact, the Blessed Virgin told the Fatima kids in Portugal that more souls go to hell for sins of the flesh than anything else!”

Kohlhaas opened his mouth, about to reply to that point, but I interrupted him.

“I know — we’re not bound to private revelation” — he nodded in agreement; that’s what he was going to say. “I guess we can ignore Church-approved apparitions. But are we to think we’re bound by answers to reporters on an airplane?”

“Well, I can see we’re at an impasse,” he said.

“I know,” I said.

Our Adult Faith Deformation Director stood up to indicate time is up and to thank the speaker for coming out.

Kohlhaas received polite applause. I turned to finish the rest of my free beer they had served us, and I noticed the odd-looking couple at my table had already left. No trace of them. I think I made them uncomfortable enough to leave.

As we were all shuffling our way out of the room for the night, I stopped and reached out to shake the speaker’s hand.

“I didn’t mean to sound disrespectful to you. I know you were invited here. It’s just that it bothers me when you say these things, and knowing you’re teaching our students and potential seminary students.”

We got into it a bit more, one-on-one.

When I again mentioned the teachings found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in so many words he criticized me for being formulaic and rigid. He gave an example from the CCC that said masturbation is a sin, but that it also said if you’re young or have a strong force of habit, your culpability is mitigated to the point it’s not a huge deal.

“I know the passage you’re talking about,” I said, “but don’t you realize that these extenuating circumstances are built into the age-old definition of mortal sin? For something to be considered mortal sin, (1) it must be grave matter, (2) you must know it’s grave matter, and (3) you must freely choose to commit it. If there’s something compelling you to do something wrong, like someone who threatens to kill you if you don’t rob a bank for them, then that’s not mortal sin. So these ‘exceptions’ are baked into the ‘rigid’ definitions that the Church has always taught!”

He was reaching for his belongings so he could leave. He quickly brought up slavery as an example of the Church changing her teachings.

“No, the Church never taught that it is a righteous thing for someone to own another person like property, as if they were nothing more than property, like a car or a pencil.” (He then insisted I was wrong and need to learn my history.) “It also depends on what we mean by slavery. If someone is in prison, or back in the day owed a large personal debt, it’s not inherently evil to compel them to work it off.” I wasn’t boned up on the topic of slavery and the Church (here’s a good concise article on it I found later), but he was using it to justify changing sexual morality.

I wanted to make one more point. “By the way, what is it we can possibly learn to justify sins such as sodomy?”

“Well,” he said, “in Paul’s day, as far as he understood, most people were straight and some others were perverts. But now we have a greater understanding of sexual orientation.”

“Orientation? You can look at anyone’s body and see what their ‘orientation’ is,” I countered. “It’s obvious. We can see how someone is built, what goes where, and therefore how they are oriented. But what you mean by a homosexual ‘orientation’ is actually a disordered attraction as a result of the Fall. We are all fallen and disordered in our own way, plagued by concupiscence, thanks to Original Sin. But we are called to repentance and to overcome our disorders in Christ!”

Someone else interrupted to thank him personally for coming out, along with sharing other pleasantries. The professor was obviously turning his back toward me to discourage me from returning to conversation. After a minute, I interrupted my interrupter in order to wave and say, “Hey, I’ll let you go. Thanks for coming out” (which I immediately realized was untrue; I was not thankful he came out. But I was trying to think of something nice to say). He thanked me, and then I left.

§Heading home

In the car on my way home, I was jittery inside from the confrontation. But I did not regret my words or actions. I had gotten a little animated, but not uncontrolled or angry or vicious in my arguments.

Sometimes you have to call people out, especially when they cause public scandal in a Catholic setting.

The good news — and I could have mentioned this to you from the start — is that there were only 12 people in attendance including the speaker. I’m glad there weren’t more people there to hear the man’s filthy teaching, but I know from experience in this town that many of the local Catholics have already absorbed that same spirit of permissiveness and false liberality.

Several years ago I was at a Catholic meeting at one of the local parishes, and a prominent church woman was aghast that I believed (in agreement with Benedict XVI) gay men should not become priests. She knew of “very good” gay priests. To show how open-minded she was, she said she knows straight priests (locally!) who have relations with women, so what should we do with them? She was done with me when I quickly said they shouldn’t be priests either, that they should be laicized if they don’t repent!

§Conclusion

There is more I can say, but I want to conclude with this:

I knew, and know, that after this conversation, I would have to pray many rosaries — multiple ones a day — to bring me down. While I was sincerely well-intentioned, I know there are potential temptations to obsess about after this kind of confrontation, to think of what I should have said, to wonder what he thought about it later, to become prideful in how I reacted, to become overly indignant that I was literally the only person present with a Catholic view, to let it bother me in all kinds of ways.

The rosary is the perfect weapon — the perfect tool — to return peace to the soul, to regain composure, to do a spiritual reset; to remember that we are not in charge, not responsible for changing hearts and minds, but only to be a witness and leave the rest to God, to let the Holy Spirit do his job.

The Blessed Virgin was docile to the Holy Spirit, always obedient, always humble, suffering in holiness. We need her to pray with us and for us, just as she did when the Church was preparing for the decent of the Holy Spirit at that first miraculous Pentecost of the Church age. And there’s no better way to call upon her than to recite the Angelic Salutation — God’s own words — that inaugurated the Lord’s initial coming.

I wanted to share my recounting of this event here so I don’t forget the details, so I can look back on it later in case I can learn more from it then.

Maybe there’s something you can learn from it as well.

Pray for me. I’ll pray for you.

(Pictured above is my ring rosary. Saint Padre Pio famously said, “The Rosary is the weapon for these times.” I always have a good rosary in my pocket, but I consider this one my “conceal carry weapon,” perfect for praying decades throughout the day as needed without drawing undue attention.)