Religion does not supply an a priori unchanging objective a system of morality.

Your position, stated in the resolution, was that Religion doesn't supply an a priori unchanging moral system. I'm saying it does provide one, just not the one that Protestants who don't understand Christianity think it does. Your case wasn't that any specific moral principle is unchanging, but that an unchanging moral system doesn't exist at all. You're saying that now you believe one does exist, so I'm the confused one. Commandments are unchanging, but their interpretations and applications vary from age to age. Sodomy remains wrong, but what Sodomy actually means has changed a great deal in 4000 or so years, just as the works of mercy have taken on a different meaning in different social contexts throughout the 2000 years of Christian history. It's not any one specific teaching which forms the core of these beliefs, it's a larger moral framework from which specific, potentially fallible doctrines can be derived. The Church doesn't have the capacity to make the laws it might want on every issue, and even if it did some of those laws would be bad ones. But the basis for those laws: respect for life and the dignity of human people, care for the poor, love of neighbour, these form an unchanging system of ethics which has subsisted in authentic Christian thought from the time of the Apostles to the modern age. You seem to be confusing a system of ethics with unchanging uniformity on every issue across all time. You present a false dichotomy between historical uniformity and a total lack of objective morality. There is an objective moral code typified by religious values which exists independent of changes in societal norms. Much of what Christians believe about certain issues is unsettled, but the only reason Christians, especially Catholics, have the ability to reasonably discuss ethics without talking past one another is that they have a shared set of immutable values which have existed across time and which must be assented to if one wishes to call themselves a Catholic. Those values include: Love of God and love of neighbour (The Greatest Commandments) 1. Feed the hungry 2. Give drink to the thirsty 3. Clothe the naked 4. Shelter the homeless 5. Visit the imprisoned 6. Visit the sick 7. Bury the dead 1. Admonish the sinner 2. Instruct the ignorant 3. Counsel the doubtful 4. Comfort the sorrowful 5. Bear wrongs patiently 6. Forgive all injuries 7. Pray for the living and the deceased (The Corporal and Spiritual works of mercy) A love for the various virtues and gifts which come from God (The Cardinal Virtues, the Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Spirit, etc) These are the things that form a moral framework, not a disjoint series of laws and precepts. Moral reasoning doesn't come about from a checklist like the one that you find in the profile pages of debate.org, it comes from a deeply held set of values that inform every decision, and no group, philosophy, or institution does a better job of laying out and promoting those principles than religious bodies. Irrelevant side notes: Torture wasn't a punishment for heresy, it served the same purpose it did in the Roman Empire. Confession was usually a way for the convicted heretic to avoid being handed over to civil authorities because having recanted the heretic was allowed to live in normal society again. The Church doesn't defrock pastors who aid the poor or forbid political advocacy on social justice issues. I have no idea where that came from.