What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well you have to compare apples to apples. The reason why we believe sex should remain in its natural element is because it is such a sacred act. That's what sets it apart from your other examples.

Not when we're considering an argument that establishes the moral status of some act.  By your stated argument....beating the shit out of people with my fist -should also- be a sacred act, and it's also the "pure and authentic self" of my fists.  Special pleading doesn't work...if it's truth you're looking to find. Either you find your own explanation convincing or you don't......

-Yes, the story sounds horrible to us now... as 21st century Americans. But you have to remember that it was written thousands of years ago. Different time, different culture, different style of writing, different way of explaining things, and different language. Perhaps to the people of the time it made the most sense to understand it that way. Either way, nothing about Church teaching condones murdering someone for contracepting. So rest assured, there's no need for concern.  

When did you turn into a moral subjectivist...was that before or after you turned into a moral utilitarian..and before or after you argued -against- moral subjectivism and moral utility - asserting moral objectivism?  My concern isn;t that god or any catholic will ever kill me for having used a condom,though It may well be a justifiable fear...check out your much more -currently- zealous muslim buddies and what they get up to. My concern is that your religion has subverted both your ability to reason, and your moral composition. Not just yours....many, many people. And that's a recipe for bad shit....again, take a look at your muslim coreligionists.

-I meant that it is an important point in the realm of Catholic morality. I meant no disrespect to you. I know you disagree, and that's fine. 

-and that being the case...they -really- fucked that one up with a story about god killing a man for refusing to bust a nut in his sister-in-law, don't you think?

As a point of interest, they actually told it the way that they did because of jewish custom, or purportedly so..in any rate, at the time. It was his duty to impregnate her. The penalty for failure was to be shunned, to be shamed..not killed. The spilling of the seed on the ground was what got him executed by the almighty. This was law they were establishing...they didn't mean it figuratively. This is also a well attested catholic position......and explanation for the narrative. Your constant retreat to allegory does not...and I've commented upon -why- numerous times, rescue the moral status of the narrative. The villain of a story is no less villainous for having been fictional. Hanibal Lector, is a bad man, a description of a bad man, an example of what it means to be a bad man -regardless of his being a character in a book. I would contend that your god, both literally and allegorically, both in the OT and the NT..is a "bad man"..a description of a "bad man", and an example of what it means to -be- a "bad man". It's not his fault...it's just how he was written, but you -are- responsible for whatever insight and integrity you wish to approach the subject with.

"Catholic morality", is, to me, a bit like jumbo shrimp and sanitary landfills. Everyone uses the word, but no one has any. Only "Catholic fealty".