Catholic sexual morality - indefensible?

[Spirithound]

For example, the teaching implies (and indeed insists) that a married woman with children who has a medical condition that means she will certainly die if she falls pregnant again must not have a sterilization.

Just making sure…by referring to this tiny tiny subsection of the population, are you giving assent to Catholic sexual morality on the rest of us?

Now, are you speaking of an ectopic pregnancy? As I recall, it would be permissible to have the ectopic fallopian tube removed, since the death of the baby is not intended.

 

[Red_Beard]

“I’m far from convinced that the Catholic position on sexuality is defensible.”

I know that this is splitting hairs but claiming that something you disagree with is “indefensible” is either disregarding or insulting those who are defending it. Isn’t it quite enough to say that you disagree without insulting others?

“For example, the teaching implies (and indeed insists) that a married woman with children who has a medical condition that means she will certainly die if she falls pregnant again must not have a sterilization.”

Yes, it insists that mutilating yourself is bad.

“I’ve read Catholic “justifications” for this time and time again…the ends don’t justify the means…can’t separate procreative and unitive…etc.”

Are you hereby disregarding all of those arguments instead of answering them? Also, using “justifications” instead of “arguments” or “reasons” comes off as rather condescending. I’m not sure you intended this but it sounds like you are approaching this from the standpoint that the Church has made an arbitrary decision and is trying desperately to defend something it doesn’t believe in. Everyone should at least be reasonable enough to concede that the Church teaches what it teaches in this matter because it believes that this position is the will of God and, therefore, is best for God’s people.

“My view is that in these circumstances, surgical sterilization is not only acceptable, it’s commendable. Why not nfp or abstinence? Because these methods are more unreliable: people forget, get drunk, act irrationally (and even get raped by their husbands at times).”

So, as I understand it, your position is that people are stupid and therefore, they should be able to make the potentially irrevocable decision to mutilate there body now in order to sheild them from the making the irrevocable decision to have sex later. Personally, I think that sex is important. It is one of the most fundamentally important acts two people can participate in. As such, it has important consequences which people need to consider.

All in all, your position is nothing more than “the ends justify the means.” That’s not necessarily bad, but it is your position. I, and the Church, think that this is not a position that bears close scrutiny.

“I recoil in horror at the thought of someone in authority (e.g. a priest) encouraging any woman against this option for moral reasons.”

This is particularly emotional language. I’m glad that you are internally consistent in your positions, but I think that you are trying to use emotion rather than reason to defend your position here.

If the priest believes the Church’s teaching, he must behave as you describe. Your opinion does not constitute moral proof. If someone disagrees with it and says so, you “recoil in horror.”

A Catholic presumably believes that the Church was founded by Christ and is under His guidance. If so, they should listen to the Church. If not, they should probably go elsewhere. Either way, your horror really just comes down to a distaste for a competing opinion.

“So, am I a relativising, utilitarian monster?”

No, you have a belief that you apparently hold consistently. That doesn’t appear to be relativistic. No one says that you have to believe the Church’s position. In fact, the Catholic Church is one of the staunchest supporters of freedom.

“It’s the same here, but the Church can’t change it’s teaching - it’s stuck up the creek now having gone too far with this procreative/unitive notion, and the allied thought that every act must satisfy these natural criteria, rather than the marital attitude taken over a whole lifetime.”

See, I find this part to be particularly unreasonable and insulting. The Church teaches what it teaches because it believes it to be true, not because it has “talked itself into a corner.” Disagree if you like, but you are insulting when you question it’s motives and intentions without any support but your own opinions.

As for the view you express in and of itself, if I can have the proper marital attitude “over a whole lifetime,” in spite of particular acts to the contrary, why can’t I apply this to other sins? Can I have the proper attitude to life “over a whole lifetime,” in spite of a few abortions or murders? Can I have the propper attitude towards possessions “over a whole lifetime,” in spite of a few acts of theft?

Why do these unique views only apply to sex?

Sound moral principals must apply universally.

Again, you are free to believe what you want, but the Catholic Church is at least consistent.

“I prepare for an onslaught about my horrendous views.”

Your view isn’t horrendous at all. In fact, the only horror in this thread is that which you expressed at the thought of a priest daring to express the Church’s view. Apparently, only obedient priests are horrendous. Again, good play with the emotional appeal though, it should successfully colour the tone in which any opposing view is read.

“However, I bet right now that I won’t see anything new”

The truth, like the God it reflects, is unchanging. Why would we need anything new?

continued…

 

[Red_Beard]

“Do mainstream Catholics take them seriously?”

Who cares? We are all sinners.

“I think a majority of Catholics would agree with me and would consider surgical options in this scenario.”

Are you really claiming that “more people agree with me” constitutes a moral proof?

“Of course, they’re wrong (by the tenets of their faith), but it’s not unusual for people to internalise contradictions away and live with them.”

Yep, they are wrong. I’m not sure I understand your point unless it is “more people agree with me so I win.”

If a person is irrational enough to internalize a contradiction to avoid thinking about it, then they are clearly too irrational to be depended upon in defense of a position on either side of that contradiction.

I don’t care in the least what any given person on the planet thinks. I care about what God thinks. And sense I have proven (to my own satisfaction) that my opinions can not be depended upon to be the same as God’s opinions, I have decided to trust the Church He gave us.

When you think about it, the Church takes quite an aggressive position. Either they are guided by the Holy Spirit and we can rely upon them in issues of Faith and Morals; or they are not and we cannot. There is no middle ground*.

(*Just as C.S. Lewis explains that Christ is either the Son of God or a lunatic, but he cannot possibly be just “a good man” or “a good teacher.”)

Belief in either of these two positions is reasonable. I hold the former to be true.

Others can do as they will. I just hope that they have the grace to do so honestly, respectfully, and, above all, rationally.

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[Roy5]

RED BEARD What about heretics?

I know that traditionalists will deny it, but the Church hasn't always taken the same precise view on reproductive as well as other matters. History indicates that at one time some Church Fathers, at least, taught that life began a certain amount of time after conception, e. g., 2 months.

But the real issue here, I presume, is authority. Do we have to accept everything the Church says in the arenas of faith and morals? That may be the position the Church takes, but there are many of us who would like to be conforming believers who have consciences that just don't let us follow the teachings of the Church at every point.

 People like me are dismissed as egotistical, accused of putting our own opinions over the infallible teachings of the Church. Say what you will, I was given a brain by God and I believe He intends for me to use it. I'm quite that his infinite love will save me from hell's inferno even if I sincerely hold an 'heretical view' or two because of my conscience.

 Come to think of it, I question hell's inferno, too. Eternal punishment simply doesn't do God justice. I'm sure He has more compassion than that. Too much literalism among Christians. Too much paganism and superstition as well.

 As a matter of fact, there are many doctrinal matters that I doubt. I've come to believe, after some years of study and thought, that most theology is a lot of speculation, that we live in a universe of billions of stars as big as our sun and, at best, we can only guess at what it's all about. That's why we're asked to walk by faith and not by sight. But faith is not to be confused with traveling with blinders on. You can have plenty of faith and confess plenty of ignorance and.or varying opinions when it comes to the majestic mysteries of life and this huge world we live in.

 

[HappyRevert]

RED BEARD What about heretics?

I know that traditionalists will deny it, but the Church hasn't always taken the same precise view on reproductive as well as other matters. History indicates that at one time some Church Fathers, at least, taught that life began a certain amount of time after conception, e. g., 2 months.

I may be mistaken, but I think you are taking that from St. Augustine’s writings that life began at about 2 months. However, he was only going off of what science told him at the time - which was a child wasn’t alive until it quickened (the mother could feel it). Now due to medical advances, we know that the tiny human is moving well before the mother feels it - and know that due to genetics the “tissue” is undoubtedly human.

If you are using that argument, it is a weak one because St. Augustine was simply going on current medical information, as is the Pope now. The church has always held that it is wrong to kill the innocent, but those in the middle ages simply didn’t know how precisely conception and growth occurred so had to use the science available to make a call when someone was “alive”. Now, thankfully we know that human life begins when the appropriate number of chromosomes come together to make a new unique person.

 

[PapaSquash]

An analogy would be: Noone thinks “Killing is wrong” is a basic moral truth without any qualification, as it leaves no room for self-defence or just war. So we qualify it to another statement, or redefine our notion of killing. It’s the same here, but the Church can’t change it’s teaching - it’s stuck up the creek now having gone too far with this procreative/unitive notion, and the allied thought that every act must satisfy these natural criteria, rather than the marital attitude taken over a whole lifetime.

An analogy would be: as long as I usually prefer to take my wife to bed, the odd hooker every now and then doesn’t mean I’m unfaithful?

 

[Red_Beard]

“RED BEARD What about heretics?”

They can be very entertaining.

“… life began a certain amount of time after conception”

I believe this has been sufficiently answered, let me know if you disagree. Suffice it to say that the Church has never changed an official teaching on issues of faith or morals.

“But the real issue here, I presume, is authority. Do we have to accept everything the Church says in the arenas of faith and morals?”

No, you are free to reject it. It just isn’t rational to reject it and still call yourself Catholic.

“That may be the position the Church takes, but there are many of us who would like to be conforming believers who have consciences that just don’t let us follow the teachings of the Church at every point.”

I would echo the Church in encouraging you to follow your conscience first. If your conscience leads you to believe that the Church’s teachings do not reflect the will of God , the only reasonable thing to do is to search for the religion that is, or perhaps found a new one.

“People like me are dismissed as egotistical, accused of putting our own opinions over the infallible teachings of the Church.”

I think you are wrong, you think I’m wrong. That’s enough to have a decent conversation or debate. I haven’t the slightest idea if you are egotistical or not.

“You Say what you will, I was given a brain by God and I believe He intends for me to use it.”

The easiest way to know if you are properly using your reason is to examine whether or not your position is reasonable.

“I’m quite [sure] that his infinite love will save me from hell’s inferno even if I sincerely hold an ‘heretical view’ or two because of my conscience.”

You are probably right on this point, though at some point we are responsible for how we form our consciences.

“Come to think of it, I question hell’s inferno, too. Eternal punishment simply doesn’t do God justice. I’m sure He has more compassion than that. Too much literalism among Christians. Too much paganism and superstition as well.”

Ok, so you reject the traditional beliefs of every Christian creed. I get it.

“As a matter of fact, there are many doctrinal matters that I doubt. I’ve come to believe, after some years of study and thought, that most theology is a lot of speculation”

Ok, so you don’t believe the positions of the Catholic Church. I get it. )

I just don’t get your point.

The Church makes a central claim: “Christ founded us to unerringly guide people to him.” It is either true or it is false. If you believe it is true, you respect the authority that you are professing to be unerring. If you believe it is false, you rightly reject the authority that you profess is fallible.

Both are reasonable positions. What is unreasonable, is to profess that it is false (as you have proclaimed here) and yet to still profess union with that Church (by calling yourself Catholic, professing the Nicean Creed, or receiving the Eucharist, etc.). This is akin to saying, “I firmly believe that the opposite of what I believe is true.” It is clearly unreasonable, but that doesn’t stop people from proclaiming it boldly. You are left, therefore, in either an unreasonable position or a dishonest one.

I may have to dig up my copy of Mere Christianity as I am apparently not explaining this very well.

What I really don’t get is why people insist on discussing the accidental attributes of an argument or position rather than the intrinsic attributes of arguments of a position. Do they just like talking in circles?

The only interesting part of the discussion happens when we both know that we disagree and we start talking about the disagreement.

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[ChristIsLord]

i see no problem with contraception, it came into “vogue” after the industrial revolution and population explosions. not to mention under a capitalist system with rampant inflation, increasing housing, oil costs that are increasing much faster than peoples pay, large families are ill-advised.

sure at a time when people barely lived past 40 and mortality of your children was 50% at best and children were needed to help till the fields sure no need for contraception. but when you’re living on 40K a year with housing alone costing you 30K 8 kids is a recipe for disaster.

within a marriage, contraception is fine imo, it enables the married people to enjoy sex without the risk of pregnancy especially if the couple has experienced deaths of children shortly after birth and chronic miscarriages.

once during confession a priest cut me off and said “what you and your wife do in the bedroom is your business”, i thought it was great advice. the church like the government doesn’t belong in peoples bedrooms.

 

[selylidne]

I may be mistaken, but I think you are taking that from St. Augustine’s writings that life began at about 2 months. However, he was only going off of what science told him at the time - which was a child wasn’t alive until it quickened (the mother could feel it). Now due to medical advances, we know that the tiny human is moving well before the mother feels it - and know that due to genetics the “tissue” is undoubtedly human.

If you are using that argument, it is a weak one because St. Augustine was simply going on current medical information, as is the Pope now. The church has always held that it is wrong to kill the innocent, but those in the middle ages simply didn’t know how precisely conception and growth occurred so had to use the science available to make a call when someone was “alive”. Now, thankfully we know that human life begins when the appropriate number of chromosomes come together to make a new unique person.

I was under the impression that, although medieval theologians thought a fetus was not ensouled until some time after birth, they still held that it was mortal sin to kill the as-yet-soulless fetus. That is, they always taught that abortion was always wrong.

 

[Red_Beard]

the church like the government doesn’t belong in peoples bedrooms.

That’s a great sentiment. Now, if only we could keep God out of our bedrooms…

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[Red_Beard]

I was under the impression that, although medieval theologians thought a fetus was not ensouled until some time after birth, they still held that it was mortal sin to kill the as-yet-soulless fetus. That is, they always taught that abortion was always wrong.

Thanks for bringing this up. This is an important point to understand. When life begins is a matter of science. Science has indisputably shown that it is the moment of conception. No one knew this 200 years ago. Even so, as you pointed out rightly, the Church has ALWAYS stated that abortion is wrong, even if they couldn’t state definitively that a soul was present.

The Church never has and never will change a position in a matter of faith and morals. Where it to do so, it would be definitive proof that it is not guided by the Holy Spirit.

Those positions can be strengthened though, as we learn more. Before it stated, “we don’t know when life begins, so we don’t know at what precise moment a soul is present, but abortion is wrong.” Now it states, “Science has shown us precisely when life begins, so now we know precisely when there is a soul. Yeay science! Abortion is still wrong.”

It is not a change in position, it is a deepening in understanding that is always in harmony with all previous teachings.

Isn’t God’s guidance of the Church amazing?

I love being Catholic!

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[Red_Beard]

…large families are ill-advised.

Why is it that in all of these conversations, everyone assumes that the frequency of sex is a constant?

We seem to be so brainwashed by our culture that the possibility of abstaining for 7-10 days a month is anathema to us.

What?!? A whole week without sex?! That’s just crazy talk!

NFP is every bit as effective as contraception. If you have a good reason for a small family, there is a licit way to achieve that end.

The desire or need for a small family is no more a sound justification for contraception than it is a sound justification for abortion or infanticide. The act must be able to stand on it’s own to be a moral act.

Let’s all say it together now, “The ends don’t justify the means.”

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[ChristIsLord]

NFP is every bit as effective as contraception. If you have a good reason for a small family, there is a licit way to achieve that end.

The desire or need for a small family is no more a sound justification for contraception than it is a sound justification for abortion or infanticide. The act must be able to stand on it’s own to be a moral act.

Let’s all say it together now, “The ends don’t justify the means.”

God bless,

Red Beard

that’s nonsense, the rythm method is proven to be far less reliable than conventional ABC by every secular study. the only ones who claim it is “every bit as effective” are catholic studies.

not to mention the only differences are very miniscule or even non-existant. if you’re using the rythm method to avoid pregnancy then you are contracepting, i see no reason why a barrier makes any difference at all, it’s the exact same intent.

after the death of our son at one day old and three miscarriages in a row afterword, i seriously doubt god wants us to keep on “going for it”, my wife will lose her mind with one more miscarriage. we’re contracepting for good and my wife is catholic and has no issue with it.

 

[john_ennis]

.

if you’re using the rythm method to avoid pregnancy then you are contracepting,

Sorry to butt in.

Avoiding pregnancy is not the sin. Critics of NFP often say what you said. The sin is in desecrating the sex act and making it only about pleasure.

When you abstain, you are not desecrating the act. When you have sex at a time you believe to be an infertile period, you are not desecrating the act; you are subjecting yourself to limits on procreation which God implemented.

Does anybody say that single people who are saving themselves for marriage, and are therefore abstaining, are “contracepting?”

Peace
John

 

[john_ennis]

BTW, why are people referring to NFP as “rhythm method?”

The methods available for the last couple of decades aren’t the old “rhythm method”; not to mention that they enable a women to know precisely when she ovulates.

Peace.
John

 

[john_ennis]

It’s so cool how the evolution of this thread to discussion of the purpose of sex (including ABC, NFP, etc.) so relates to the original point, about the Catholic philosophy of sex.

The twofold purpose of sex held by Catholics is the only philosophy I’ve heard yet that is consistent and reasonable. Every other nice-sounding philosophy falls apart when examined with regard to hypotheticals.

peace.
John

 

[Spirithound]

that’s nonsense, the rythm method is proven to be far less reliable than conventional ABC by every secular study.

That’s why we don’t use the “rhythm method” anymore.

 

[Red_Beard]

"that’s nonsense, the rythm method is proven to be far
less reliable than conventional ABC by every secular study.”

This is absolutely true. This is why no one has used the rhythm method for years.

NFP is not the rhythm method. Please see CCL (ccli.org/) for more information.

“if you’re using the rythm method to avoid pregnancy then
you are contracepting, i see no reason why a barrier makes any
difference at all, it’s the exact same intent.”

The intent of avoiding pregnancy for serious reasons is not sinful. The act of abstaining from sex is not sinful. The act of distorting the sexual act is sinful.

The best analogy I’ve heard was from my wife. If you are obese, there is nothing wrong with the intent of loosing weight. You can go about this in various ways. NFP is like dieting (abstaining from food when it is not prudent to partake). Contraception is like bulimia (partaking of food when it is not prudent to partake and then purging in a distorted attempt to avoid the consequences of your actions).

Surely we can agree that there is a difference between bulimia and dieting.

I am very sorry to hear of the death of your 4 children. We will keep your family in our prayers. I would encourage you to consider though, that it is not just a choice between contraception and pain. You should check out the CCL’s website.

God bless,

Red Beard

PS - this is a great forum. I’m sorry if I’m redundant as so many are coming forward and answering before I get a chance. You guys rock!

 

[losh14]

The defense you’re looking for seems to be one of consequentialism - what good comes of this, what harm comes of that? Catholicism is often deontological. The means are what is desired, not necessarily the outcome. We often judge objective good by how one lives rather than what one achieves. Where Catholicism is consequentialist - concerned with causing good or bad outcomes - you may not agree with what we see as harm.

Firstly the idea that sexual activity ought to always be ‘open to life’ is frankly ridiculous.

You correctly identify that Catholicism holds that sexual activity is intended for procreation and unity. If these are its intended uses, we can justifiably oppose others as being unnatural - abuse, control, manipulation, lust, selfish pleasuring, prostitution. If procreation is not a purpose of sexuality, then what is?

Contraception seems to be harmless and in good sense if one does not want to cause overpopulation.

We believe contraception to be harmful by showing disdain for the Creator’s intended purpose, and for offending God by disregarding what He has taught us. If you don’t believe in God, or don’t care about offending Him, or don’t think He’d find offense, or don’t think He’s intended sex to be for procreation, then contraception seems harmless.

If overpopulation is an evil that we wish to prevent, we should require a 100% guarantee of no procreation - namely abstinence (which has been shown to fail only once). Certainly we as human beings are capable of abstaining from sexual activity, and given the choice between short-term pleasure (if sex is neither intended for procreation nor for love) and long-term devastation, rationally we should be willing to give up pleasure.

But what is the real possibility of overpopulation compared against the real danger of depravity and sexual perversion?

‘The natural end of the genitals is procreation’ so what? Why shouldn’t I act against a natural end, where is the harm? Where is the loss of good?

The “loss of good” is the loss of the person’s soul - Rev. 21:8. If you don’t believe in the Bible, consider at least the loss of the person’s innocence, the change in the person’s disposition towards the opposite sex, and the emotional baggage that comes with it. Consider also the damage that occurs to the person’s partners.

Why should I respect every basic good in every act?

If you aren’t respecting good, what are you respecting?

But for me it is hard to accept that objectively a physical act is somehow and act of love as if the two are somehow bound – tied together in the very laws of the universe.

Before I saw my error and gave up sex at 22 (and waited until I was 27 and married to have sex again), I noticed that sex works to form a bond between people. Objectively it is a physical act in the same way that objectively tears rid the body of saline fluids and a hug shares body warmth. But we are not objective creatures. Subjectively, tears indicate strong emotion and the sight of a person crying often moves us to embrace them. Hugging a crying person makes no physical sense - they aren’t signaling the need for warmth, just a ridding of excess fluids, right?

Subjectively, sex is a promise, a connection, a bridge, unless we defeat that emotional mechanism. But why fight our emotions for the sake of pleasure? If pleasure is that worth it, why bother finding someone else whose emotions might get in the way?

How can a purely physical act objectively cause an emotion? Cannot actors kiss one another without feeling love? Then why cannot actors engage in intercourse without feeling love?

You don’t exactly sound like a considerate lover here. How can a purely physical act cause emotion? Because we’re emotional beings and we live subjectively first and objectively second. Our emotions are wired to our bodies, otherwise, why does one get more of an emotional high out of kissing than out of just being around a person?

Are you an objective being who views your experience through a detached lens, or are you subjective being aware of what you are thinking, feeling and looking for? Actors can kiss one another without feeling love, as can drunken revilers make out at Mardi Gras without feeling anything other than a buzz. As for intercourse, what sort of movies are you watching where the love scenes aren’t acted out? Besides, that’s acting, and this is real life. If you were to have sex with someone and say “Sorry, baby, I’m only acting”, what do you think the response would be?

Perhaps subjectively most of the time this is not possible, but it does not follow that it is never possible.

Normally, humans need to breathe to survive, but it does not follow that it is never possible for a human to survive for a time without breathing. Why suffocate yourself though? Likewise, why deprive your life of your emotions? Is sex worth that much to you?

Has no one noticed that virtually no respectable secular contemporary philosophers maintain a Catholic view of sexual morality? Surely this cannot purely because they have ‘hardened their hearts’

Apparantly you’ve noticed, but what are these respectable secular contemporary philosophers attempting to prove? What is their ultimate good to advance?

The Catholic Church advances Catholic faith and morality. If one wishes to advance individualism, liberalism, utilitarianism, utopianism, “free love”, or positive rationalism, one will not conclude sexual moraes on par with the Catholic Church.

Have you noticed, though, that Catholic sexual morality does not allow one to do as they might wish, but instead requires them to do as they should?

 

[Contarini]

The more I look into the philosophical justification for Catholic sexual morality the more I realise Catholic morality is based upon perhaps indefensible foundations.

Actually your post indicates that you are starting from premises that render Catholic morality indefensible. The question is whether your premises are sound in the first place.

Firstly the idea that sexual activity ought to always be ‘open to life’ is frankly ridiculous. What possible reason could anyone have for suggesting that contraception is immoral, whom does it harm?

The spouses who practice it, if the Catholic doctrine is true. You are starting from the assumption that there must be a utilitarian, secular standard of “harm” by which a moral teaching can be measured, when a Christian ethic is going to posit all sorts of harms that may not seem like harms to a secular person.

What good does it destroy?

The good of marriage, if the purpose of marriage is to form a unique kind of loving union which can serve not only to further the spiritual and personal development of the spouses but can provide the basis for child-rearing and serve as a basic building block of society.

It seems that this basic principle is indefensible unless one appeals to some fallacious medieval relic of a teleology.

And here we have it. You start from the assumption that teleology is “fallacious.” Why? Why dismiss it? You don’t argue against it or take it seriously. So why should anyone take your argument seriously? You aren’t making a serious argument at all–just sneering at something you choose to regard as outdated without actually examining it.

So don’t give us this bunk about having looked for defenses of the Catholic doctrine. You haven’t even begun to look or you certainly wouldn’t be using “medieval” as a pejorative adjective, for one thing.

The second doctrine concerning sex, that it is unitive perhaps is more convincing. But for me it is hard to accept that objectively a physical act is somehow and act of love as if the two are somehow bound – tied together in the very laws of the universe.

Why? Do you think that only the immaterial matters or is real?

All purely physical acts (it seems) only subjectively create emotions. How can a purely physical act objectively cause an emotion?

Love is not an “emotion,” at least in the modern sentimental sense. The point is not that physical acts objectively cause an emotion, but that they objectively cause the embodied human beings who engage in them to stand in a certain relation to one another.

I like Catholic sexual morality, but it genuinley seems unjustifiable. Has no one noticed that virtually no respectable secular contemporary philosophers maintain a Catholic view of sexual morality?

Why on earth would they, if they don’t accept orthodox Christian premises about the purpose of human life?

I don’t like some aspects of Catholic sexual morality (more precisely, I find its consequences inconvenient, particularly in this respect, and in fact I don’t obey the prohibition of birth control), but I can’t fault its rationality.

Edwin