Following the controversy generated by Dr Connell's speech, his spokesman, Father John Dardis, clarified the Archbishop's views by stating that there was no suggestion that planned children were not infinitely loved by their parents.

Maybe. But the fact remains that Dr Connell did make a distinction between the relationship which exists between parents and planned children, and that between parents and children who are not planned. This is not the first time this idea has been aired. Mother Teresa of Calcutta expressed the view that there could not be real, unconditional love in families where contraception was practised.

It is clear from Dr Connell's text that he thinks there is something deficient in the human relationships between people who are not conducting their lives according to Catholic teaching. Elsewhere in this speech he said of couples practising contraception: "That disrespect towards God involves the couple in disrespect towards one another by introducing insincerity into their mutual love."

It is worth quoting again what he said about all planned children, and he did include those planned through contraception as well as born with the help of technologies like in vitro fertilisation.

He said: "A profound alteration in the relationship between parent and child may result when the child is no longer welcomed as a gift but produced as it were to order. Parental attitudes would thereby be affected, creating a sense of consumer ownership as well as a new anxiety to win and retain the child's affection.

"The child no longer belongs to the family in a personal sense if it is radically a product rather than a person. So much of parental ambition has been invested in the one or two children that a properly personal relationship becomes problematic."

He continued: "This attitude of parents conveys itself unconsciously to the child, who experiences resentment against a parentage based on power and may produce the kind of teenage revolt we know so well. No child can be happy as a product: the child will find no meaning in a life produced by technology."

The first thing that is obvious from his comments is his lack of understanding of how contraception actually works. There is an assumption that people using contraception can turn fertility on and off like a tap, while the reality for those planning their families is that contraception does, usually, prevent conception, but does nothing to produce children when the couple or individual wants them.

It seems unlikely that he has talked to the parents of children born through in vitro fertilisation, who are far more likely to regard them as miraculous gifts than any parent of a child born without the planning and anguish this entails. There is absolutely no evidence that a child born with the help of reproductive technology is any less happy than an unplanned child. Indeed, there is considerable evidence to the contrary.

A psychologist and criminologist, Dr Paul O'Mahony, carried out surveys of the prisoners in Mountjoy jail in 1986 and 1996. As well as confirming that the overwhelming majority came from a small number of deprived ghettoes in Dublin and were materially, socially and educationally disadvantaged, he found that they came from families which were far larger than the national average.

In 1986 the average number of children in the family a prisoner came from was eight, at a time when the average in the State as a whole was 2.2. In 1996 the average number of children in prisoner families was seven, compared with 1.8 for the rest of society. It is fair to assume that these large families were, on the whole, unplanned.

Commenting on his findings, Dr O'Mahony said: "Prisoners' lives tend to be ones of chaos. People in the working class and underclass tend to be at the beck and call of fate and factors beyond their control. They have no control over their work, or no work at all, they are living in the margins or the black market, and this is where children are not likely to be planned or cherished."

This passes from generation to generation. Where children grow up in disordered homes their sense of their own worth will be diminished; they are more likely to be involved in casual relationships; the girls are more likely to be teenage mothers. This is not to say that family planning per se solves these problems, but across society the planning of families tends to go with the taking of responsibility for one's own life.

When Dr Connell refers to the planned family of "the one or two children" there is an implicit contrast with, and nostalgia for, the large families of the past. These were not necessarily good for the children, especially when resources were scarce, Dr O'Mahony points out.

"One of the strongest findings in research is that height is linked, not to genetics, but to birth order. The middle-ranking children in large families get least resources."

Dr Sean Freyne, a theologian in Trinity College, agrees. "It was not idyllic. The leanbh gach bliain approach of years ago often involved violence. Children often meant misery rather than a gift. There are problems now, and there were problems then."

"Women above all are dishonoured" by contraception, Dr Connell said, adding: "Contraception has deprived women of a fundamental protection for their feminine personal dignity."

" `Feminine' according to whom?" asked Gina Menzies, a theologian. "Women are defined by men and a male hierarchy, defined as mothers. They are far more dishonoured by rape and violence than by contraception."

As with unhappy children and family planning, there is no evidential link between contraception and disrespect for women - and children. In the 19th century, before reliable contraception was available, adult and child prostitution and child labour were rife. This is still the case today in countries like the Philippines which are far from promoting contraception. They are the product of poverty and social inequality, not contraception.

Historically prostitution has particularly flourished with colonialism, where large numbers of male soldiers and civil servants with disposable incomes lived side by side with very poor people. A modern version of this can be seen when the Celtic Tiger enriches some while leaving others prey to poverty and drugs.

Dr Connell did raise issues which are of fundamental importance to humanity, and the church is right to speak out on questions of ethics in human progress. How do we reconcile the development of science and technology with ethical concerns and human dignity?

His answer is that we do so by ensuring it complies with the will of God. But God only communicates this will through human beings; according to Dr Connell, through those in the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately there are other claimants, in other churches and religions, to special insights into the will of God. For those of us unable to choose any of them, the dilemma remains.

Like the issues of individual human behaviour, the ethical use of science and technology raises questions of economic power and social control. Most scientific developments take place hidden from society, under the sponsorship of corporations which have no motive except profit.

An ethic for the challenges of the 21st century will have to address the question of how people can exercise responsibility for their own lives and for those of other people, including those not yet born.