Here’s a useful summary of one basic issue involved in current religious disputes over sex and whatnot: The Ecstatic Heresy. Basically, the question is whether God is personal and can do concrete things, or an indescribable ultimate principle that can’t tell us anything definite. The former view is better for ordinary believers, because it means religion can tell them something definite, while the latter is better for religious professionals, at least from a strictly occupational standpoint. Making God completely indefinite makes it hard to argue about what He wants, so it facilitates smooth administration. It makes the professionals themselves the highest possible authorities in religious matters. There’s no way to appeal over their heads to a God who has never said anything. The view of God as essentially unknowable also facilitates social advancement, because it’s easy to enlist an utterly indefinite God in the service of whatever cause is currently esteemed.
A limitation of the piece is that it takes a Protestant view that tends to oppose the authority of reason to the authority of scripture. Catholics tend to put less emphasis on the bare word of scripture and more on reason as well as tradition. Grace completes and does not replace or abolish nature. For example, Catholic morality, including Catholic sexual morality, is thought to be a matter of natural law and is thus based on reason and not simply on inscrutable biblical commands. I agree with that view, by the way. One of the reasons I became Catholic is that it seemed odd and in need of a good explanation that an aged celibate should be the only person whose public pronouncements on sex reflected much knowledge of the subject. It was one of the things that made me think they were on to something.