Change is not the enemy of theological truth but its companion

https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/change-not-enemy-theological-truth-its-companion MGB:
The key question in moral theology, which the review and likely the theologians cited ignored, is who is the beneficiary of natural law? The evolution of this question, which is the ultimate in theology, is how our concept of God has evolved. For that, you need Hegel and Theodicy (which could be renamed TheOdyssey for its mythical implications) The punishing God of the Old Testament is replaced by Jesus, who identifies with and as a Man, as well as being divine. 

Our understanding of Jesus has evolved. The view in Hebrews (whose authorship is not known - my guess is Peter) is likely the source of St. Anselm's view of Jesus as bloody sacrifice to a Father whose Justice must be satisfied. That view is abhorrent to many in the current generation. The Nones simply fled the Church, where many still hold that view. The modern view (or at least my view) from a look at both the Synoptic and Johnian text is that the Crucifixion was and is a vision quest that culminated in the call to God of abandonment,, This is completed by drinking the fruit of the vine (I thirst), which the Last Supper says will only happen in the Father's kingdom. The alternative view can only be that Jesus sinned by consuming the fruit of the vine and that Emily Litella wrote the Gospels (Never mind).

For the purposes of moral theology, the new understanding of the sacrifice of Jesus is in his teaching that he is gentle and humble of heart. His yoke is easy and his burden light. Translated into ethics, that means that whatever moral law there is must come from an understanding of man, not God, and that the moral law is for this world, not the next. No impossible choices to please God are necessary.

This turns our sexual teaching on its head, as well as the teaching on late term abortion when the fetus has no chance of surviving until birth (so it has no interest in not being aborted for the sake of his mother's health) or that of the cancer patient who will die horribly and seeks a compassionate end.  Homosexuals need not stay pure to satisfy a divine demand for chastity, although avoiding promiscuity is still very current, not just because of HIV but because it tears at the soul.

Contraception is complicated. Evolving doctrine is that it is a symptom of inequality and poverty rather than (or in addition to) being an evil in and of itself, as Caritas in Veritate makes clear. In a more humanist morality (which can include both modern science and Jeremy Bentham's good for the greatest number), the woman who needs sterilization because she has congestive heart failure so that pregnancy would kill her can undertake the procedure and still have a sex life. The answer for most people, however, on both contraception and abortion is to end poverty by fighting for a just family wage (which is more than a living wage and the fight for $15).

At some point, we must also ask how the schosticist moral law came about. The answer must be in the ontology of those who promulgated it, which brings us to the question of eunuchs, some of whom are born this way and some who chose it. Of course, the reality is both. While the modern clergy is said to be half homosexual (although this will decline with gay marriage), we can no longer assume that the other side is hetrosexual. It is more likely that they are asexuals who personally shrink back from adult sexual relatedness to either gender (and who are more prone to pederasty due to their absent sexual development).

Asexuals in the clergy consider their state of life as holy and set apart, rather than outside the norm or as Benedict would say in his non-PC way, objectively disordered). They believe gives them a superior view of human sexuality. It also is the key to understanding the resistance to the ordination of women and the married of all gender identities. There is no natural law reason not to do so and every reason to proceed to clean our moral house.

Humane Vitae has shown that this view is distorted, not privileged. Modern media showed what had previously been hidden to most before modern communication. Most never had access to papal encyclicals and their wider circulation showed how out of touch they had always been. An aspect of this distance from reality is the view of women as unclean which comes, not from the Gospels, but from the Neoplatonism which St. Augustine brought to Catholic doctrine, leading to Sacred Continence.  There has been no evolution of sexual doctrine - it was mere hidden from view. Now that it stands naked before the world, like the emperor of childhood stories.

Historicism is not needed, merely history. This yields better fruit than a simple review of theologians that most have never heard of (outside of Fr. Curran) in an analysis which is truly inside baseball.