No abstract

The article seeks to give an account of Christian virtue ethics. To this end, it first examines virtue and natural virtue ethics deriving from the Aristotelian tradition and its contemporary incarnation. It then considers Christian virtue ethics deriving from the following of Jesus the Christ, and compares and contrasts this virtue ethics with natural virtue ethics. It concludes by offering an account of virtues necessary to human flourishing in the contemporary world.

The New Natural Law Theory (NNLT) argues against the morality (and legality) of same sex-unions on the basis that homosexual (and non-reproductive heterosexual) acts are unnatural, unreasonable, and therefore immoral. In this paper, we explore and critique the foundational principles -biological and personal complementarity, their subcategories, and the interrelationship between them -that the NNLT uses to justify its claim. We propose alternative principles -orientation, personal, and genital-biological complementarity, with a distinct interrelationship -to argue that homosexual couples can engage in sexual acts that are natural, reasonable, and therefore moral. Our study clearly demonstrates that for the NNLT genital complementarity, a subcategory of biological complementarity, is the sine qua non for personal complementarity. In other words, personal complementarity within a sexual act is only possible if there is genital complementarity between male and female. We believe that the NNLT's foundational principles reflect too narrow an understanding of the human person and human sexuality. Instead, we propose ''holistic complementarity'' as the fully human integration of orientation, personal, and genital-biological complementarity. What defines a natural, reasonable, and moral sexual act is not genital complementarity as the foundational principle, but a dialectic between these three principles of complementarity.The New Natural Law Theory (NNLT) 1 argues against the morality (and legality) of same sex-unions on the basis that homosexual (and nonreproductive heterosexual) acts are unnatural, unreasonable, and therefore immoral. In this paper, we explore and critique the foundational principles that the NNLT uses to justify its claim, and propose alternative principles to argue that homosexual couples can engage in sexual acts that are natural, reasonable, and therefore moral. The paper develops in three cumulative sections. First, we present the core teaching of the NNLT, namely, heterosexual marriage is a basic human good and the only legitimate context for moral sexual acts. Second, we critique the foundational ethical principles the NNLT theorists employ to justify their claim that only heterosexual marital acts of a reproductive kind are moral. Third, we propose alternative ethical principles that lead to

Combined oral contraceptives (COC) have been demonstrated to have significant benefits for the treatment and prevention of disease. These medications also are associated with untoward health effects, and they may be directly contraceptive. Prescribers and users must compare and weigh the intended beneficial health effects against foreseeable but unintended possible adverse effects in their decisions to prescribe and use. Additionally, those who intend to abide by Catholic teachings must consider prohibitions against contraception. Ethical judgments concerning both health benefits and contraception are approached in this essay through an overview of the therapeutic, prophylactic, untoward, and contraceptive effects of COC and discussion of magisterial and traditional Catholic teachings from natural law. Discerning through the principle of double effect, proportionate reason, and evidence gathered from the sciences, medical and moral conclusions are drawn that we believe to be fully compliant with good medicine and Catholic teaching.

Hereditary breast ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is an autosomal dominant disease linked to mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in 90 percent of affected families. Female mutation carriers are highly susceptible to aggressive, often disseminated, usually fatal pelvic-abdominal carcinomatosis. This cancer risk can be markedly reduced by surgical removal of the internal gynecologic organs before the end of the fourth decade of life and by using estrogen-progestin formulations marketed for many years as combined oral contraceptives (COCs). Both risk-reducing methods are associated with unfavorable effects. Relying on the principle of double effect, this essay argues for the ethical justification of prophylactic surgery and the use of COC to reduce the risk of gynecologic cancer in HBOC syndrome mutation carriers. Summary: Hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome is an autosomal dominant disease linked to mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in most affected families. Female mutation carriers are highly susceptible to aggressive, often disseminated, usually fatal pelvic-abdominal carcinomatosis. This cancer risk can be markedly reduced by surgical removal of the internal gynecologic organs before the end of the fourth decade of life and by using estrogen-progestin formulations marketed for many years as combined oral contraceptives. Both riskreducing methods are associated with unfavorable effects. Relying on the principle of double effect, this essay argues for the ethical justification for those unfavorable effects.