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

This round has two things in it: philosophical debate about the nature of a moral system and (I think, irrelevant) side debate on individual acts and positions of Christians generally and the Catholic Church specifically. I'm going to talk about the meat of the round, the philosophy of it, first, and then get into the factual debate with whatever space I have left. Your arguments about morality all fall short because you don't seem to appreciate what a moral system actually is. It's a framework of values from which moral choices can be made, not a checklist of what's good and what isn't that is passed down unchanging from generation to generation. That was Saint Paul's problem with Jewish law - it was a legal code, but not a moral system. But religion, including Judaism, does provide a moral framework. It creates a set of values that allow a person to make decisions about a question on a checklist. The interpretation of the values (and therefore the decision) might change, but the framework which informs the decision never has. Christianity has been and remains about those things, and Christians are at their best when they remember the core values around which the religion was formed. I've explained this, I've even outlined, for Christians, where this framework can be derived, at least partially, but you have not responded. You didn't understand the argumentation or the proper definition of a moral system, and for this fatal flaw all the bickering about individual subjects fails, because it doesn't sufficiently analyse the larger picture. You also seem to have two other major logical flaws. You argue a lot from absence - "Jesus didn't say [blank]." Jesus also didn't say we were allowed to have cell phones, nation states, or the middle ages, but nobody runs around arguing that we should go back entirely to life in the Ancient Near East c. AD 30. You also make the error, like a lot of people, of mistaking a highly politicised group of people who don't authentically follow Christian values for responsible, valid Christian thought. If you want Christian theology, turn to theologians, not to Ted Haggart and the 700 Club. Authentic Church teaching, and even authentic biblical Protestantism, doesn't look like what we see from George Bush. Now, all of that said, I want to address some of your misconceptions before I sum up. First, Liberation Theology. I'm actually a theology student, and one of my areas of focus is Liberation Ethics. Liberation Theologians don't get in trouble for poverty advocacy. They get in trouble for supporting violent revolutions like the ones you were talking about and for deeply flawed Christology and other theological problems. Nobody has problems with responsible ministry, but heresy is still an issue. It's a theological problem that needs to be dealt with by theologians. I'm going to say that no Christian group or individual perfectly meets up to the ideals of the Faith. That's the point - it's about seeking good, not about thinking yourself a perfect person. When we make mistakes it becomes possible to recognise and fix them only with a concrete moral framework. Without one, it becomes impossible to judge what position was right or wrong, either then or now. In summation: Religion represents an ideal set of beliefs, and it holds to them no matter what. The consequences of those beliefs are different in different ages, and change greatly depending on time and circumstance, but the core beliefs from which all moral choices are made are eternal and unchanging, and these principles are never defined better than they are by religious bodies.