Reflections on Not Judging

Read more »

Reflections on Not Judging

Read more »

Reflections From Morning Readings

When Ahab saw Elijah, he said to him, “Is it you, you disturber of Israel?” He answered, “It is not I who disturb Israel, but you and your father’s house, by forsaking the commands of the Lord and you by following the Baals.  (1 Kings 18:17-18)

When people who seek to remake morality to make their own vices seem acceptable, they try to accuse the people standing up for the traditional morality of being disruptive to the moral order.

But in fact, it is not the defenders who seek to disrupt or impose.  It is those who disobey and try to impose their disobedience as the new normal who disturb the land.

These people who try to remake morality try to cast themselves as the aggrieved party, defending themselves from injustice. But they are in fact the aggressors, imposing and disrupting.  They are the ones who behave in the way they accuse us of acting.

Reflections From Morning Readings

When Ahab saw Elijah, he said to him, “Is it you, you disturber of Israel?” He answered, “It is not I who disturb Israel, but you and your father’s house, by forsaking the commands of the Lord and you by following the Baals.  (1 Kings 18:17-18)

When people who seek to remake morality to make their own vices seem acceptable, they try to accuse the people standing up for the traditional morality of being disruptive to the moral order.

But in fact, it is not the defenders who seek to disrupt or impose.  It is those who disobey and try to impose their disobedience as the new normal who disturb the land.

These people who try to remake morality try to cast themselves as the aggrieved party, defending themselves from injustice. But they are in fact the aggressors, imposing and disrupting.  They are the ones who behave in the way they accuse us of acting.

You Can Only Push So Far

Introduction

I'm sure A&E was caught by surprise by the huge backlash involving Phil Robertson and his comments on homosexuality.  They assumed people would agree with them in condemning his comments as "homophobic." Instead, they found that not only were a large portion of the viewing public not offended by his statements, they were in fact offended by the A&E suspension.

Those who were caught by surprise shouldn't be. While the case was an unexpected rallying point, the treatment of Christian moral teaching by political, cultural and media elites has been so hostile that it was only a matter of time before American Christians got so fed up that they would revolt.

What This Article Is Not

I don't intend this article to be a defense of Mr. Robertson. Nor do I intend it to be an apologia for the Christian position on homosexuality.  I don't intend to defend all forms of Christianity. Because I recognize Catholicism as the Church established by Christ, the positions I choose to defend come from Catholicism. When other denominations diverge from Catholicism, I feel no need to justify that position.

What this is article is about is the distorted way Christian moral teaching is portrayed.

The Hypocrisy Problem

One problem is that in America, the political, cultural and media elites have contempt for the Christian moral teaching that they run afoul of. They're perfectly happy to point out when conservative thought runs afoul Christianity... or when they think it runs afoul of Christianity. However, when the teaching of Christianity turns to things the elites practice or support, suddenly they are hostile and Christianity is "forcing" itself on others.

This is a case of hypocrisy of course. One can be consistent either by accepting the teaching of Christianity in all areas of life or one can say it has no say in any area. But if a person only permits Christianity in areas one agrees with and denied it the right to speak on position one disagrees with, it makes that person hypocritical. This is because the person only recognizes authority when it benefits them and ignores it when it does not.

The case of Pope Francis demonstrates this.  He has spoken about upholding Catholic moral and social teaching. But the elites only cite passages when it seems to agree with them... regardless of how out of context they have to take his statements.

The Honestly Problem

Another problem is the portrayal of Christian teaching.  Basically the Christian is represented as being ignorant, dishonest or holding malice because they hold to their moral beliefs which say some acts are never good. If a Christian thinks homosexual acts are sinful, it must mean the Christian hates homosexuals.

The problem is, the charge is false. The concern for another on the grounds that he or she is living in a way that leads to damnation is not an act of hatred or contempt. If we hated the sinner (and remember Christians know they themselves are sinners as well), we'd just ignore them satisfied with the thought they'd go to hell.

The Reaction

Christians get annoyed like other people of course. In this case we are annoyed because the Christians are being slandered. Our teachings are selectively cited, misrepresented and we are falsely accused of malice for our motives.

So when this attack on Robertson happened, when Christian teaching is portrayed as something it is not, Christians justly get angry.  It's not that Phil Robertson is a person of great significance.  It's that he said what was true and he was reviled for saying it.

You Can Only Push So Far

Introduction

I'm sure A&E was caught by surprise by the huge backlash involving Phil Robertson and his comments on homosexuality.  They assumed people would agree with them in condemning his comments as "homophobic." Instead, they found that not only were a large portion of the viewing public not offended by his statements, they were in fact offended by the A&E suspension.

Those who were caught by surprise shouldn't be. While the case was an unexpected rallying point, the treatment of Christian moral teaching by political, cultural and media elites has been so hostile that it was only a matter of time before American Christians got so fed up that they would revolt.

What This Article Is Not

I don't intend this article to be a defense of Mr. Robertson. Nor do I intend it to be an apologia for the Christian position on homosexuality.  I don't intend to defend all forms of Christianity. Because I recognize Catholicism as the Church established by Christ, the positions I choose to defend come from Catholicism. When other denominations diverge from Catholicism, I feel no need to justify that position.

What this is article is about is the distorted way Christian moral teaching is portrayed.

The Hypocrisy Problem

One problem is that in America, the political, cultural and media elites have contempt for the Christian moral teaching that they run afoul of. They're perfectly happy to point out when conservative thought runs afoul Christianity... or when they think it runs afoul of Christianity. However, when the teaching of Christianity turns to things the elites practice or support, suddenly they are hostile and Christianity is "forcing" itself on others.

This is a case of hypocrisy of course. One can be consistent either by accepting the teaching of Christianity in all areas of life or one can say it has no say in any area. But if a person only permits Christianity in areas one agrees with and denied it the right to speak on position one disagrees with, it makes that person hypocritical. This is because the person only recognizes authority when it benefits them and ignores it when it does not.

The case of Pope Francis demonstrates this.  He has spoken about upholding Catholic moral and social teaching. But the elites only cite passages when it seems to agree with them... regardless of how out of context they have to take his statements.

The Honestly Problem

Another problem is the portrayal of Christian teaching.  Basically the Christian is represented as being ignorant, dishonest or holding malice because they hold to their moral beliefs which say some acts are never good. If a Christian thinks homosexual acts are sinful, it must mean the Christian hates homosexuals.

The problem is, the charge is false. The concern for another on the grounds that he or she is living in a way that leads to damnation is not an act of hatred or contempt. If we hated the sinner (and remember Christians know they themselves are sinners as well), we'd just ignore them satisfied with the thought they'd go to hell.

The Reaction

Christians get annoyed like other people of course. In this case we are annoyed because the Christians are being slandered. Our teachings are selectively cited, misrepresented and we are falsely accused of malice for our motives.

So when this attack on Robertson happened, when Christian teaching is portrayed as something it is not, Christians justly get angry.  It's not that Phil Robertson is a person of great significance.  It's that he said what was true and he was reviled for saying it.

Implications of the Phil Robertson Incident

Read more »

Implications of the Phil Robertson Incident

Read more »

Tablet Thoughts: Ugly Past History

What are we to make of ugly history? When we see the claimed barbarism of medieval Europe or the like, there are events in religious history which seems appalling by the standard of the 21st century.

It's mainly a problem because certain people try to attack the belief in God or the Catholic Church on the grounds that in the past, they didn't act like civilized 21st century human beings.

Such attackers assume that if God truly had revelations for His people or if He had established the Catholic Church,  then they should act like civilized 21st century human beings.

The problem with that argument is to make it is to answer it. They weren't civilized 21st century cultures. However, they were the cultures from which we gained our moral knowledge.

What is forgotten is that God doesn't just infuse knowledge into people which they instinctively follow. Instead, He gives His revelations to people who exist in time and in a certain culture. This time and culture has its own vicious customs that are contrary to God's will.

Now we believe that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, but that does not mean that how Christ's teaching was to be applied was fully recognized in AD 100. Understandings of how to be Christian in a time of persecution would have different emphasis than in a time when it was legalized for example.

God, in His love and patience, works with each generation. What is true remains true, and where vicious customs run in conflict with God's will, He makes use of His prophets (before Christ) or His Church (after His ascension) to direct that generation back to Him.

Of course in each generation, the men and women sin. Sometimes it is in disobedience. Sometimes it is mistaking customs for God's teaching (see Matthew 12 for example). Humanity remains sinful. Popes were not protected from error when it comes to the civil administration of the Papal States.

This distinction is not special pleading. There are actions committed by members of the Church in past ages that strike us as troubling when we look at them from hundreds of years later.

But what we forget is that the development of our understanding of morality comes from the teaching which Christ gave His Church applied to new discoveries.

For example, the teaching of treatment of  peoples developed from the encounters with people in the New World and how colonizers treated them.

Unfortunately,  many assume that the mistreatment comes from the direct command of the Church in a fallacy of the undistributed middle: assuming that because some colonizers mistreated nations mistreated natives and because those colonizers were Catholic it means Catholicism caused the mistreatment. (The fact that colonizers mistreated and colonizers were Catholic does not show Catholicism was the cause -- A is part of B and A is part of C does not mean C must be part of B).

This is why we can say that even though there are sinful Catholics (even among those in authority), that does not justify claiming the Church does evil in her binding teaching. When they do evil, they act against what the Church teaches in regards to faith and morals.

The point of this reflection is to remind both Catholics and non-Catholics that the behavior of sinners in the Church and the old customs  or law enforcement of a more violent time do not mean the doctrine and moral teaching was a part of that behavior.

Tablet Thoughts: Ugly Past History

What are we to make of ugly history? When we see the claimed barbarism of medieval Europe or the like, there are events in religious history which seems appalling by the standard of the 21st century.

It's mainly a problem because certain people try to attack the belief in God or the Catholic Church on the grounds that in the past, they didn't act like civilized 21st century human beings.

Such attackers assume that if God truly had revelations for His people or if He had established the Catholic Church,  then they should act like civilized 21st century human beings.

The problem with that argument is to make it is to answer it. They weren't civilized 21st century cultures. However, they were the cultures from which we gained our moral knowledge.

What is forgotten is that God doesn't just infuse knowledge into people which they instinctively follow. Instead, He gives His revelations to people who exist in time and in a certain culture. This time and culture has its own vicious customs that are contrary to God's will.

Now we believe that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, but that does not mean that how Christ's teaching was to be applied was fully recognized in AD 100. Understandings of how to be Christian in a time of persecution would have different emphasis than in a time when it was legalized for example.

God, in His love and patience, works with each generation. What is true remains true, and where vicious customs run in conflict with God's will, He makes use of His prophets (before Christ) or His Church (after His ascension) to direct that generation back to Him.

Of course in each generation, the men and women sin. Sometimes it is in disobedience. Sometimes it is mistaking customs for God's teaching (see Matthew 12 for example). Humanity remains sinful. Popes were not protected from error when it comes to the civil administration of the Papal States.

This distinction is not special pleading. There are actions committed by members of the Church in past ages that strike us as troubling when we look at them from hundreds of years later.

But what we forget is that the development of our understanding of morality comes from the teaching which Christ gave His Church applied to new discoveries.

For example, the teaching of treatment of  peoples developed from the encounters with people in the New World and how colonizers treated them.

Unfortunately,  many assume that the mistreatment comes from the direct command of the Church in a fallacy of the undistributed middle: assuming that because some colonizers mistreated nations mistreated natives and because those colonizers were Catholic it means Catholicism caused the mistreatment. (The fact that colonizers mistreated and colonizers were Catholic does not show Catholicism was the cause -- A is part of B and A is part of C does not mean C must be part of B).

This is why we can say that even though there are sinful Catholics (even among those in authority), that does not justify claiming the Church does evil in her binding teaching. When they do evil, they act against what the Church teaches in regards to faith and morals.

The point of this reflection is to remind both Catholics and non-Catholics that the behavior of sinners in the Church and the old customs  or law enforcement of a more violent time do not mean the doctrine and moral teaching was a part of that behavior.

Tutu's Tragedy: Denial of God's Authority in Favor of Error

Yesterday, Archbishop Tutu stated "I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place," and "I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this."

Such a statement reflects what happens when we forget the aim of Christianity and reduce it to being nothing more than a social action NGO by focusing solely on the immediate physical needs of individuals. 

The Christian is called to know, love and serve God. Christ makes obedience to His commandments a sign of loving Him (see John 14:15). Since His Church and His scriptures say that homosexual acts are wrong, the Christian is called to avoid those acts and to speak out to make others aware of the dangers of the path they are on (See Ezekiel 33:1-20). If we are silent, the sinner will die in his sins and we will be held accountable.

Tutu, by his statement, has effectively rejected the God who is goodness and love unless God will change His teaching to conform with Tutu's will. I'm sure he's being over rhetorical in saying he (like many Anglicans) rejects the Christian teaching on homosexuality, denying it is from God, but the problem is his rhetoric is a denial of God in one way or another.

Since the Scriptures and the Church do teach that homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong, Tutu is either:

1. denying that God is good or
2. denying that Scripture does authoritatively teach truth about how we are to behave.

In other words, Tutu either rejects God explicitly or rejects the authority of teachings he dislikes even when Christianity believes it comes from God.

Now, acts of violence against people on account of their sexual orientation (which seems to be the basis of his statement) is of course condemned and the acts of violence described in the article of course fall under that condemnation.  For example, the Catholic Church teaches:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, emphasis added)

However, the unjust actions some people perform against individuals with a same sex attraction disorder do not take away the fact that actions which are intrinsically wrong may never be justified.

That's the problem.  "Homophobia" is a pejorative label which seeks to vilify anyone who believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.  It is used to equate Christians who try to live as God commands with the barbaric thugs who actually kill or harm people.  It's like saying that all Muslims are terrorists based on the actions of some Muslim radicals.  Muslims can rightly be appalled by the immorality of the West without being terrorists and Christians can oppose homosexual acts as sinful without supporting violence against people with homosexual attraction.

So with Tutu, he uses the appeal to emotion to link apartheid and belief that homosexuality is wrong – basically claiming (without proof) that belief that homosexual acts are sinful have the same motivation as the appalling racism of apartheid.  But if the Christian teaching comes from God, then Tutu is indeed rejecting God… either by repudiating Him directly or by denying the authority of His Scriptures and Church.

Tutu's Tragedy: Denial of God's Authority in Favor of Error

Yesterday, Archbishop Tutu stated "I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place," and "I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this."

Such a statement reflects what happens when we forget the aim of Christianity and reduce it to being nothing more than a social action NGO by focusing solely on the immediate physical needs of individuals. 

The Christian is called to know, love and serve God. Christ makes obedience to His commandments a sign of loving Him (see John 14:15). Since His Church and His scriptures say that homosexual acts are wrong, the Christian is called to avoid those acts and to speak out to make others aware of the dangers of the path they are on (See Ezekiel 33:1-20). If we are silent, the sinner will die in his sins and we will be held accountable.

Tutu, by his statement, has effectively rejected the God who is goodness and love unless God will change His teaching to conform with Tutu's will. I'm sure he's being over rhetorical in saying he (like many Anglicans) rejects the Christian teaching on homosexuality, denying it is from God, but the problem is his rhetoric is a denial of God in one way or another.

Since the Scriptures and the Church do teach that homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong, Tutu is either:

1. denying that God is good or
2. denying that Scripture does authoritatively teach truth about how we are to behave.

In other words, Tutu either rejects God explicitly or rejects the authority of teachings he dislikes even when Christianity believes it comes from God.

Now, acts of violence against people on account of their sexual orientation (which seems to be the basis of his statement) is of course condemned and the acts of violence described in the article of course fall under that condemnation.  For example, the Catholic Church teaches:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, emphasis added)

However, the unjust actions some people perform against individuals with a same sex attraction disorder do not take away the fact that actions which are intrinsically wrong may never be justified.

That's the problem.  "Homophobia" is a pejorative label which seeks to vilify anyone who believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.  It is used to equate Christians who try to live as God commands with the barbaric thugs who actually kill or harm people.  It's like saying that all Muslims are terrorists based on the actions of some Muslim radicals.  Muslims can rightly be appalled by the immorality of the West without being terrorists and Christians can oppose homosexual acts as sinful without supporting violence against people with homosexual attraction.

So with Tutu, he uses the appeal to emotion to link apartheid and belief that homosexuality is wrong – basically claiming (without proof) that belief that homosexual acts are sinful have the same motivation as the appalling racism of apartheid.  But if the Christian teaching comes from God, then Tutu is indeed rejecting God… either by repudiating Him directly or by denying the authority of His Scriptures and Church.

The Church Can Never Change To What Today's Society Demands

Read more »

The Church Can Never Change To What Today's Society Demands

Read more »

Thought for the Day: Inconsistent and Illogical Denial of Absolutes

Ever notice how some people claim there are no moral absolutes, but reject a claim that some things (like racism, genocide, rape or murder) can ever be justified?  The problem is these two positions are absolutely contradictory.  To say that there are no moral absolutes is to say that nothing is wrong all the time.  But to say that some things are always wrong means there is something about an action itself which makes it wrong regardless of the circumstances.

If we can know it is always wrong, it means we can look at understanding what it is about the act that makes it wrong and apply it to understand moral standards on our obligations to other persons.

That means those activists who stand up for a cause against injustice, yet deny morality when it comes to their own behavior are behaving inconsistently.  After all, they are insisting others follow absolutes while they will not follow absolutes in their own lives.

To put it in a syllogism:

• If [no Moral absolutes exist], then [everything is permissible]. (if A then B)
• Not [everything is permissible] (Not B)
• Therefore not [no moral absolutes exist].  (Therefore Not A)

Since "not [no moral absolutes exist]" is another way of saying that moral values DO exist (the negative is required to keep the syllogism consistent) we have a syllogism where the premises are true and the argument is valid.  It means the statement "moral absolutes exist" is proven to be true.

Christianity, in particular Catholicism, offers explanations on why the moral obligations must be drawn where they are.  If a person should happen to reject these explanations, they are obligated to offer their own explanation as to why the line should be drawn differently.

But because they can neither create the justification for a different dividing line, nor refute the Christian arguments of morality, the usual result is to just go ahead with the illogical claim that there are no moral absolutes.

Thought for the Day: Inconsistent and Illogical Denial of Absolutes

Ever notice how some people claim there are no moral absolutes, but reject a claim that some things (like racism, genocide, rape or murder) can ever be justified?  The problem is these two positions are absolutely contradictory.  To say that there are no moral absolutes is to say that nothing is wrong all the time.  But to say that some things are always wrong means there is something about an action itself which makes it wrong regardless of the circumstances.

If we can know it is always wrong, it means we can look at understanding what it is about the act that makes it wrong and apply it to understand moral standards on our obligations to other persons.

That means those activists who stand up for a cause against injustice, yet deny morality when it comes to their own behavior are behaving inconsistently.  After all, they are insisting others follow absolutes while they will not follow absolutes in their own lives.

To put it in a syllogism:

• If [no Moral absolutes exist], then [everything is permissible]. (if A then B)
• Not [everything is permissible] (Not B)
• Therefore not [no moral absolutes exist].  (Therefore Not A)

Since "not [no moral absolutes exist]" is another way of saying that moral values DO exist (the negative is required to keep the syllogism consistent) we have a syllogism where the premises are true and the argument is valid.  It means the statement "moral absolutes exist" is proven to be true.

Christianity, in particular Catholicism, offers explanations on why the moral obligations must be drawn where they are.  If a person should happen to reject these explanations, they are obligated to offer their own explanation as to why the line should be drawn differently.

But because they can neither create the justification for a different dividing line, nor refute the Christian arguments of morality, the usual result is to just go ahead with the illogical claim that there are no moral absolutes.

Hypocrisy or the Lowest Common Denominator? Dangers in Selectively Denying Moral Norms

The area of moral teaching in which Christians seem to be most hated is the area of sexuality.  Persons who act on certain inclinations become angry when told that those sexual acts are evil.  Christians are called hateful and judgmental people because they say that certain acts are always wrong.  Now, while there can be people who say they are wrong in a grossly inappropriate way (The Westboro Baptists come to mind), the badly expressed message does not take away from the fact that certain acts are wrong.

The anger and hostility directed against Christians is accompanied by some rather bad reasoning.  The argument that if people choose to live in a certain way, nobody should tell them otherwise.  In other words, we are not allowed to have moral judgments on these activities.

Then these individuals get furious when you employ a reductio ad absurdum and apply that argument to other moral issues which they do find offensive.

That anger is revealing though.  It shows that the individual does recognize that certain things are wrong.  That individual just refuses to accept that their own behaviors can be part of the group [Things that are morally wrong].  Basically, it means "Other people do evil things, not me."

The problem is, those "other people" can often use the same arguments to justify their own deplorable acts.  For example, the same arguments used to justify homosexual "marriage" can also be used to justify incestuous marriage and polygamy: free and mutual consent between people who profess some level of affection for each other.  That isn't hypothetical, by the way.  I've personally encountered proponents of "polyamory" relationships who get offended when people say it is immoral, using the same arguments the proponents of homosexual relationships – and the same demand not to be judged.  These proponents got extremely angry when I pointed out that the concept of "polyamorous marriage" is an oxymoron.

Yet the fact that advocates of homosexual "marriage" do get offended when a Catholic Bishop makes that comparison shows that these advocates do think these things are wrong.  So, essentially, that means they believe a moral line exists.  Otherwise, when the comparison with polyamory and consensual incestuous relationships came up, they'd probably just shrug and say, "So what?"  Their anger then just want to draw the line differently, including their own preference in the list of "acceptable behavior."  People don't normally get offended when their beliefs are compared to something which doesn't offend them after all.

But that leads to the question of who draws the line?  Either there is a line to be drawn, or else we have no choice but to accept the lowest common denominator.  Take Pedophilia for example.  NAMBLA argues that the modern age of consent laws are artificial and that consensual relationships can exist between adults and children.  Most people find the existence of this group as well as their proposals horrific, but they use the same arguments that are used to justify other sexual activities condemned by Christian moral teaching.  They merely add the condition that the age of consent should be lower than 18 and invoke the ancient Greeks and Romans to justify their views.

It also demands a justification for drawing a different line.  If people want to say absolutes exist, but want to include homosexual acts as morally acceptable, they need to show how their absolute is justified while other consensual relationships are not.  Otherwise they become guilty of what they accuse Christians of: forcing their own view of morality on others.  In other words, why draw the line HERE and not THERE?

Actually, when it comes to showing justification for an absolute, Christianity has the advantage – and not from saying "God says so," either.  The belief in marriage as a lifelong exclusive relationship between a man and a woman which is open to the possibility of having and raising children has the biological data (pregnancy comes from sex) and sociological data showing the family as the foundation of a society and that societies with strong family ties also tended to have strong societies.

Eliminating the elements of lifelong, exclusive and being open to the possibility of having and raising children makes stopping at "gay marriage" an arbitrary decision by who is in charge.  That's the irony of it all.  Those people who get offended at this reductio ad absurdum have contradicted themselves.  By drawing the line at "gay marriage" but going no further is to make an arbitrary imposition – which is what they have accused Christians of in the traditional view of marriage.

This is the problem with "selective morality."  If a person demands that the traditional understanding of marriage be set aside in the case of one preference, then it leads one to ask, "Who has the authority to determine where the law may be redrawn and where the new absolute lies?"  Why should it be drawn to only include "homosexual marriage" and not incestuous marriages or polyamorous relationships?  Why should the age of consent be 18 instead of 15 or even 11?  After all, we can point to a time in the past when such things were seen as acceptable?  Of course we can also point to times when slavery and torture and other things we condemn today were considered acceptable, so maybe it's not always such a good idea to point to the morals of the past indiscriminately… it opens up the doors to the reductio ad absurdum.

You can see the problem which those who would change morality tend to avoid.  People don't want to permit things they believe are wrong, but they want to justify their own wrong by making themselves the "victim," claiming that the people who say their own vice is wrong are "judgmental" and "hate-filled" people.  But then they can't explain why others can't take their same principles and demand to have them applied in a way that goes even further than they want to go.

It's quite clear.  Without a rational basis for why a limit should be drawn (a basis Christian moral teaching does possess), one is forced to choose between hypocrisy and the lowest common denominator.