The Church Cannot “Walk Back” Reality

In my last article, Falsifying Reality: Dante, Truth, and Gender Identity, a Catholic commenter named Todd Flowerday made a claim that deserves closer attention. During a discussion about the origins of transgender identity—whether it comes from God or not—Flowerday wrote:

Because the science of human embryology isn’t totally settled. The human genome has been mapped, yes, but we don’t know the full interplay with endocrinology or environmental factors in the womb. It would seem that sexual identity isn’t a choice but a fact of each person. The Church is imprudent to rush to conclusions on a matter that has only surfaced as a likely created reality in the past half-century.

It may well be that a future Magisterium will have to walk it back, as they’ve done for cosmology, women’s rights, and a few other things.

Notice the pattern. The argument begins with speculation: “it would seem.” It then shifts to inevitability: “a future Magisterium will have to walk it back.” Finally, it invokes a false precedent: “as they’ve done for…other things.” In short, speculation about future understanding becomes a prediction of doctrinal reversal, and selective historical references serve as supposed precedent.

Those familiar with Catholic theology—especially the development of doctrine—will recognize that this line of reasoning lacks foundation. The Church cannot affirm transgender ideology without abandoning core elements of her theological anthropology, sacramental theology, and doctrine of creation. Appeals to future “walk backs” confuse doctrinal development with doctrinal contradiction.

Development vs. Reversal

Authentic doctrinal development in Catholic theology rests on three foundational and non-negotiable principles. An authentic development:

Deepens theological understanding
Clarifies theological implications
Preserves continuity with prior teaching

By contrast, a reversal does the opposite. It:

Contradicts prior teaching
Rejects earlier doctrine

The key to authentic development lies in continuity. Any true development must remain in organic continuity with what came before and cannot contradict it. Development builds upon prior teaching; it does not dismantle it.

Church history provides clear examples: the articulation of the Trinity, the clarification of Christological doctrine, and refinements in moral theology. In each case, the Church drew out what was already implicit in revelation rather than replacing earlier beliefs.

In short, development unfolds what is implicit; it does not negate what is explicit.

Why Galileo Is Not a Parallel

Some argue: “The Church changed on cosmology; therefore it will inevitably change its teaching on the human person and transgenderism.” That comparison fails on several levels.

First, cosmology belongs to empirical science; the Church has never defined a particular cosmological model as dogma. Second, shifts in cosmological understanding do not alter theological anthropology. The structure of the universe and the nature of the human person occupy different doctrinal categories.

In the Galileo case, the Church corrected prudential judgments about scientific matters, not doctrines about human nature or the meaning of the body. Revising a scientific assessment differs fundamentally from revising theological anthropology.

Why Gender Ideology Is Different

Gender ideology operates on an entirely different theological level because it touches the nature of the human person as understood in the doctrine of creation. Scripture teaches—and Christ affirms—that God created humanity male and female (Genesis 5:2; Mark 10:6). This claim grounds the Church’s understanding of human embodiment as meaningful, not incidental.

Gender ideology also raises questions about the unity of body and soul by treating sexed embodiment as secondary or revisable rather than constitutive of the person. In addition, it conflicts with sacramental theology, which understands marriage as a male–female union and sees nuptial symbolism woven throughout salvation history.

To affirm gender ideology would require the Church to revise core teachings on creation, theological anthropology, and sacramentality.

The Category Error

Flowerday assumes that past “changes” in the Church imply inevitable doctrinal reversals on transgenderism. That assumption confuses categories. Many of the examples people cite involve prudential judgments or disciplinary matters, not dogmatic teaching.

Moreover, not every change qualifies as doctrinal development, and not every development amounts to a reversal. Authentic development preserves continuity with prior teaching, whereas reversal contradicts it. Treating all change as the same obscures these crucial distinctions.

Final Thought… The Door That Cannot Close

The Church has room to adjust prudential judgments, refine pastoral practice, and deepen her language. But she cannot affirm a theological contradiction. She cannot declare the body meaningless without abandoning the faith she received.

A Church that denies the givenness of the body would no longer proclaim the full meaning of the Incarnation. Christianity rests on the truth that the Word became flesh, not that flesh becomes whatever the will declares. That reality sets limits no development can overturn.

The Church does not need perfect scientific knowledge to proclaim what revelation already makes clear: the human body is not an accident to decode, but a gift to receive.