Edward Feser is a popular Roman Catholic professor of philosophy and an Analytical Thomist, who has made a forcible, chapter long argument (worthy of a professional philosopher) that using contraceptives is immoral.

In response Fentiman delves into natural law, with some metaphysics, in arguing the opposite, with 13 counter-arguments.  He also goes into pleasure not being wholly subordinate to procreation, the effects of Adam’s curse on nature and our bodies, the ethics of the greater good, partial fulfillment, natural and artifical contraceptives provided of nature and the issues of temptation, self-denial and how Christ denied Himself continually (quoting reformed theologians).

Herein you will also find intriguing material on the philosophy of sex and family.  Enjoy and increase in “the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” (Eph. 4:12-13)  Below the link are some of the article’s conclusions:

Fentiman, Travis – ‘Using Contraceptives may be in Accord with Natural Law & Scripture: a Response to Feser’  (RBO, 2025)

“(1)…  Even if conception be contravened in certain instances, this is not necessarily contra-acting the design of one’s faculty and intention for procreation generally.

(2) Numerous counter-examples prove Feser’s syllogism invalid, including counter-acting deliberately chosen, essential bodily functions for some greater good.
…

(4) Feser’s (right) allowance for destroying and surgically removing one’s organs for a higher good, from the greater to the lesser, allows contra-acting them in the realization of their natural ends, which hence is not inherently wrong.
…

(8)…  Hence, so contra-acting, which is not inherently wrong, is right when it results in greater human flourishing, which could not occur (or would not best occur) except through this means…
…

(10) Aiming at a higher good and partially fulfilling it so far as one morally can (though it necessarily involve a partial counter-acting of an essential, facultative end) is good and is not an immoral deficiency.

(11)…  God set Adam in the garden to improve even pure-nature itself.
…

(13) Feser’s syllogism, while true for God, yet, it appears, cannot account for: (1) how simultaneous natural and positive laws differently bear upon man, (2) temptation or (3) self-denial, (4) including with respect to our Christ.”