<p> <p>&nbsp / </p> </p> <p align="left">People with disabilities are a minority group who has suffered disadvantage especially in the workplace. They currently enjoy Constitutional and legislative protection in a democratic South Africa.</p>

<p> <p>&nbsp / </p> </p> <p align="left">People with disabilities are a minority group who has suffered disadvantage especially in the workplace. They currently enjoy Constitutional and legislative protection in a democratic South Africa.</p>

Magister Legum - LLM / People with disabilities are a minority group who has suffered disadvantage especially in the workplace. They currently enjoy Constitutional and legislative protection in a democratic South Africa. / South Africa

Dans ses documents officiels, le Magistère de l’Église catholique qualifie souvent la contraception artificielle intraconjugale d’acte intrinsèquement mauvais. Le recours à cette notion semble considérer la nature biologique comme l’index impératif d’une norme morale sans autre considération. De quoi dépend alors la moralité d’un acte ? Une technique, prise en elle-même, comporte-t-elle une valeur morale définie ? Pour répondre à ces questions, nous avons retracé l’évolution de cette notion à travers une relecture de ses enjeux théologiques en les fondant sur la circulation de plusieurs pôles de réflexion (Écriture, Tradition, raison, sciences, vécu). Pour dissiper les ambiguïtés liées à cette notion, nous avons estimé qu’il serait préférable d’employer l’expression d’acte injustifiable plutôt que celle d’acte intrinsèquement mauvais. La notion d’acte injustifiable a l’avantage de faire droit à l’herméneutique et à l’exercice de la raison pratique dans le discernement éthique. Ainsi, on peut faire droit à la pluralité et articuler au mieux la temporalité et la complexité systémique dans le jugement moral des actes humains / In its official documents, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church often refers to intra-marital artificial contraception as an intrinsically evil act. The use of this concept seems to consider the biological nature as an imperative index of a moral standard without other considerations. If artificial contraception is wrong in itself, then what place do we give to conscience and freedom of couples in birth control? Is there an irreducible opposition between the natural law and contraceptive techniques? Does a technique, if taken by itself, hold a defined moral value? To answer these questions, we have traced back the evolution of this concept through a rereading of its anthropological-theological issues based on the circulation of several poles of thought (Scripture, Tradition and Reason, Humanities, Experience, etc.). To dispel any equivocities and ambiguities related to this concept, we believe it is better to use the term unjustifiable act rather than that of an intrinsically evil act. The concept of unjustifiable act has the advantage of granting hermeneutics and the use of practical reason in ethical discernment. In this way, we can honor otherness (recognition of particularities and subjectivities, while searching for the universal), grant the plurality of actions, norms and systems of legitimation of standards and allow regulation to better enable the regulation of historicity, temporality and systemic complexity in moral judgment of human actions.