Literature DB >> 30082996

The Moral Nature and Practice of Natural Family Planning versus Contraception.

Brian Mullady1, Lester Ruppersberger2.   

Abstract

The morality of contraception has not always been clear to many Catholics. Although the popes have been clear in their teaching that it is a grave evil, many theologians, priests, and Catholics either deny this teaching or, at least, are skeptical as to its truth. Many health-care providers seem unclear concerning the evil of this practice also. Many do not seem interested in discovering the possible good moral fruits of the practice of natural family planning. To understand the essential evil of contraception and how it differs from natural family planning in both theory and practice first requires a clear delineation of the sources for determining Catholic moral action. These are the object, circumstances, and intention. Each is objectively determined by the relationship of the act in question to an objective human nature which can be discovered by reason alone. To be good, all three of these factors must conform to human nature. The sexual act is evil while using artificial pills or devices to preclude birth and no circumstances or intention can justify one in doing such use. This not only denies children, but also precludes total self-giving love from being expressed in such an act. It has the further result of introducing self-fulfillment as the primary value into the most important natural act of all, the one which leads to human life. Natural family planning is not a form of contraception and so it is objectively completely different in its moral nature. The human decision to refrain from the sexual act is not contraception. When undertaken in the right circumstances and for the right intention, natural family planning is an objective cooperation with the justice due to the Creator in the transmission of life and not a denial of his rights. A physician who would assist in the performance of the sexual act in which the possibility of birth is excluded by prescribing some artificial means to preclude birth would be cooperating with the evil of contraception. One could not do this with a correct conscience.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Humanae Vitae; contraception; ethics; moral determinants; natural family planning; pregnancy

Year:  2013        PMID: 30082996      PMCID: PMC6027004          DOI: 10.1179/0024363913Z.00000000031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Linacre Q        ISSN: 0024-3639


  5 in total

1.  Analysis of risk factors associated with uterine perforation by intrauterine devices.

Authors:  E Caliskan; N Oztürk; B O Dilbaz; S Dilbaz
Journal:  Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 1.848

Review 2.  Cervical cancer and use of hormonal contraceptives: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jennifer S Smith; Jane Green; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Paul Appleby; Julian Peto; Martyn Plummer; Silvia Franceschi; Valerie Beral
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2003-04-05       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  IUD use and the risk of ectopic pregnancy: a meta-analysis of case-control studies.

Authors:  X Xiong; P Buekens; E Wollast
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 3.375

4.  Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chris Kahlenborn; Francesmary Modugno; Douglas M Potter; Walter B Severs
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 7.616

5.  Hormonal contraception and risk of sexually transmitted disease acquisition: results from a prospective study.

Authors:  J M Baeten; P M Nyange; B A Richardson; L Lavreys; B Chohan; H L Martin; K Mandaliya; J O Ndinya-Achola; J J Bwayo; J K Kreiss
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 8.661

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.