The following is only a note on the morality of contraception according to Catholic Teaching. It is not an essay on all aspects of the problem and ethical –pastoral approaches to concrete cases for which one must have recourse to well-recognised sound Catholic authors or treatises dealing with these issues.

In our understanding of the morality of contraception and abortion, we need to recognise the difference between contraception and abortion. The former concerns the prevention of conception while the latter concerns termination of life that has begun. Catholic moral teaching while recognising the difference between the two, rejects the direct contraceptive acts and direct abortion.

We know the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae, (July25, 1968) restated the official Catholic teaching on contraception amidst controversy. Pope Paul VI continues the clear teaching of Pius XI (Casti Connubii, 1930) on contraception: “Any use of marriage, whatever, in the exercise of which the act is deprived through human industry of its natural power of procreating life, violates the law of God and of nature” (Health Care Ethics by Ashley and Rourkey, Missouri, St Louis, 1978. p.267). Pius XII continued this tradition but he also recognised the licitness of the use of the sterile period of the menstrual cycle for marital intercourse for regulating or controlling conception when there are serious medical, eugenic, economic, or social reasons. According to the teaching of the Church this method is a legitimate expression of responsible parenthood and is called natural family planning (NFP).

The Encyclical Humanae Vitae dealing with the whole area of marriage and human sexuality focuses specifically on contraception and its morality. It recognises the concept of responsible parenthood through the use of the sterile period as recognised by Pius XII. It rejects as unethical all methods of direct contraception even though widely used today including in our country. Pope Paul VI continues the explicit teaching of Pius XI and Pius XII. In continuity of that tradition he responds to the question of artificial contraception in the face of contemporary challenges and threats to marriage, family and human sexuality, especially marital sexuality.

Here we consider the morality of direct contraceptive acts and sterilisation, a radical form of contraception. Catholic ethics teaches that direct contraceptive acts that frustrate the natural purpose of the marital generative acts is morally an intrinsic disorder and hence unacceptable. It means that direct sterilisation of man or woman, temporary or permanent, that is to say, any procedure by which sterility is directly and deliberately induced violates the purpose of the marital act and is ethically unacceptable. Similarly “all acts are forbidden which stop the natural effect of any marriage act whether done before the act or during it, or after it is over.”(Humanae vitae, n.14). Traditional Catholic morality does not consider exception to this unless subjectively one is ignorant of the moral illicitness of the prohibition (a case of inculpable ignorance). It is significant to note that Casti Connubii of Pius XI of 1930 rejects as absolutely wrong any eugenic theory to justify sterilisation.

Indirect sterilisation: Sterility may result as merely side effect when therapeutic procedures are adopted e.g. removal of cancerous ovaries or tubes. Their direct purpose is treatment of a diseased organ resulting in sterility. Here sterilisation is said to be indirect. Humanae vitae puts it in the following way: “What is allowed is therapy for diseases of the body even though it may result in preventing procreation. It is allowed only if the consequence is not directly willed.” (n.15). Resulting sterility is unavoidable and is unintentional side effect. In traditional Catholic morality, the principle used in such cases is called the principle of double effect. In this approach the Church affirms the principle that one can never use an evil means to achieve a good end. A good end does not justify the use of evil means.

Concerning the matter of indirect sterilisation, the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Facilities directive, n. 20 (U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Conference) states : “Procedures that induce sterility whether permanent or temporary are permitted when: (a) They are immediately directed to the cure, diminution, or prevention of a serious pathological condition and are not directly contraceptive (that is, contraception is not the purpose); and (b) a simpler treatment is not reasonably available . Hence, for example, oophorectomy or irradiation of the ovaries may be allowed in treating carcinoma of the breast and metastasis therefrom;” (cf. Ashley O’Rourke, Health Care Ethics, St Louis, Missouri, 1978, p. 281).

In such cases the principle of double effect is used according to the conditions: 1) “the action, considered by itself and independently of its effects, must not be morally evil. 2) The evil effect must not be the means of producing the good effect. 3) The evil effect is sincerely not intended, but merely tolerated. 4) There must be a proportionate reason for performing the action, in spite of its evil consequences.” (Gerald Kelly S.J, Medico-Moral Problems, Missouri Catholic Hospital Association, 1958, pp. 13-14).

The teaching of Humanae vitae wants to protect the value of human integrity of conjugal act as expression of conjugal love with openness to life. In a world of contraceptive culture, Pope Paul VI affirms in a prophetic way the dignity and value of the inseparable union of love and procreative openness to transmission of life of the conjugal or marital act as belonging to the objective moral order. Direct contraceptive acts either sterilisation or procedures that induce sterility purposely violate this moral structure of the conjugal act. Catholic Health care facilities have to be faithful to this teaching of the Church.