NO problem. I understand. Hopefully you're not taking offense at the discussion. I'm not.
Yes, people have a right to self-govern, as long as man-made laws permitting things that are intrinsically evil are not promulgated. These are the five non-negotiables on the political horizon today that the Church considers intrinsic evil and will fight tooth and nail, regardless of the emerging majorities in favor:
Laws that permit contraception (or pornography, prostitution, adultery, homsexuality) are indeed in a different domain because an argument can be made that these activities do not necessarily violate rights, while banning these activities, no matter how unwise they are, will violate rights. The Church is aware that the distinction between unwise but permissible laws, and impossible laws, such as the above non-negotiables, exists, even though the line is hard to draw sometimes. Overall, we want laws that promote morality and uphold moral order, but we don't want draconian laws that cause resentment. Some things are binding on Catholics only, like the proverbial fish on Friday, and we cannot ask the civil governemnt to follow there. Laws that restrict contraception, pornography, blasphemy, adultery, divorce are on the wish list but we can live with a level of permissiveness we wouldn't have chosen ourselves.
More on contraception. At the present time, only the Catholic Church has a consistent teaching on contraception. The Orthodox, probably, don't disagree with us, but the Orthodox do not have a mechanism of developing a unified political doctrine similar to our papacy. The Protestants taught against contraception till the 30's, then without much debate or explanation stopped their opposition.
We recognize that corner cases exist where the use of a condom might prevent a greater sin. For example, if one is determined to commit a rape, he still might avoid a greater sin of transmitting a deadly infection if he uses a condom. The Church is of the opinion that the use of condoms is of value only after the horse is out of the barn. Therefore we teach that contraception is intrinsically evil, and the only way to progress is through a restoration of the standard of chastity.
The Church considers the rythm method the only one permissible when economic or genetic reasons exist to avoid pregnancy. It is different from artificial methods in that it utilizes the means of sexual life naturally ordained by God, who designed the woman to be periodically infertile.
Regarding inalienable rights, -- the US constitution is light years ahead of the contemporary French anti-clericalism that drove the French revolution. But it is still written from a position of a deist who believes in a clockmaker God who sets the life on earth in motion and does not interfere with it. The Catholic view on the free will is that is it in constant interaction with Divine Grace, which is outpoured from a everpresent loving God. Our freedom is then bracketed by Divine Law, which is summarized in the commandments to love God and love one another. To have laws against murder is not to deny freedom, and so to have a legal system that proclaims God's ownership of human life is not to deny freedom. In fact, when the libertarians maintain that individual rights bracket freedom, we agree with them; but we disagree that these rights can be bargained away by willing dealmakers. That is because these rights are God-given rather than man-asserted.
Real briefly, a few points. Thge Crusades were defensive operation against the expansion of Islam in the traditionally Christian Middle East and North Africa. The concrete grievance was the closing of routes of pilgrimage to the Holy Land. This is not to excuse the behavior of the Crusaders in all cases, but merely to point out that the Crusades do not necessarily negate the doctrin of Just War.
A good primer on Just War is, for example, The Just War Theory
There is probably more in your post that I am leaving unanswered, so feel free to reiterate your questions. I enjoy discussing these things and certainly take no offense.