CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS
ORIGIN AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION REPLIES TO CERTAIN
QUESTIONS OF THE DAY
FOREWORD
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been approached by
various Episcopal Conferences or individual Bishops, by theologians, doctors and
scientists, concerning biomedical techniques which make it possible to intervene
in the initial phase of the life of a human being and in the very processes of
procreation and their conformity with the principles of Catholic morality. The
present Instruction, which is the result of wide consultation and in particular
of a careful evaluation of the declarations made by Episcopates, does not intend
to repeat all the Church's teaching on the dignity of human life as it
originates and on procreation, but to offer, in the light of the previous
teaching of the Magisterium, some specific replies to the main questions being
asked in this regard. The exposition is arranged as follows: an introduction
will recall the fundamental principles, of an anthropological and moral
character, which are necessary for a proper evaluation of the problems and for
working out replies to those questions; the first part will have as its subject
respect for the human being from the first moment of his or her existence; the
second part will deal with the moral questions raised by technical interventions
on human procreation; the third part will offer some orientations on the
relationships between moral law and civil law in terms of the respect due to
human embryos and foetuses* and as regards the legitimacy of techniques of artificial
procreation.
* The terms "zygote", "pre-embryo", "embryo"
and "foetus" can indicate in the vocabulary of biology successive
stages of the development of a human being. The present Instruction makes free
use of these terms, attributing to them an identical ethical relevance, in order
to designate the result (whether visible or not) of human generation, from the
first moment of its existence until birth. The reason for this usage is
clarified by the text (cf I, 1).
INTRODUCTION
1. BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND THE TEACHING OF THE
CHURCH
The gift of life which God the Creator and Father has entrusted to man calls
him to appreciate the inestimable value of what he has been given and to take
responsibility for it: this fundamental principle must be placed at the centre
of one's reflection in order to clarify and solve the moral problems raised by
artificial interventions on life as it originates and on the processes of
procreation. Thanks to the progress of the biological and medical sciences, man
has at his disposal ever more effective therapeutic resources; but he can also
acquire new powers, with unforeseeable consequences, over human life at its very
beginning and in its first stages. Various procedures now make it possible to
intervene not only in order to assist but also to dominate the processes of
procreation. These techniques can enable man to "take in hand his own
destiny", but they also expose him "to the temptation to go beyond the
limits of a reasonable dominion over nature".(1) They might constitute
progress in the service of man, but they also involve serious risks. Many people
are therefore expressing an urgent appeal that in interventions on procreation
the values and rights of the human person be safeguarded. Requests for
clarification and guidance are coming not only from the faithful but also from
those who recognize the Church as "an expert in humanity " (2) with a
mission to serve the "civilization of love" (3) and of life.
The Church's Magisterium does not intervene on the basis of a particular
competence in the area of the experimental sciences; but having taken account of
the data of research and technology, it intends to put forward, by virtue of its
evangelical mission and apostolic duty, the moral teaching corresponding to the
dignity of the person and to his or her integral vocation. It intends to do so
by expounding the criteria of moral judgment as regards the applications of
scientific research and technology, especially in relation to human life and its
beginnings. These criteria are the respect, defence and promotion of man, his
"primary and fundamental right" to life,(4) his dignity as a person
who is endowed with a spiritual soul and with moral responsibility (5) and who
is called to beatific communion with God. The Church's intervention in this field
is inspired also by the Love which she owes to man, helping him to recognize and
respect his rights and duties. This love draws from the fount of Christ's love:
as she contemplates the mystery of the Incarnate Word, the Church also comes to
understand the "mystery of man"; (6) by proclaiming the Gospel of
salvation, she reveals to man his dignity and invites him to discover fully the
truth of his own being. Thus the Church once more puts forward the divine law in
order to accomplish the work of truth and liberation. For it is out of goodness
- in order to indicate the path of life - that God gives human beings his
commandments and the grace to observe them: and it is likewise out of goodness -
in order to help them persevere along the same path - that God always offers to
everyone his forgiveness. Christ has compassion on our weaknesses: he is our
Creator and Redeemer. May his spirit open men's hearts to the gift of God's
peace and to an understanding of his precepts.
2. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AT THE SERVICE OF THE
HUMAN PERSON
God created man in his own image and likeness: "male and female he
created them" (Gen 1: 27 ), entrusting to them the task of
"having dominion over the earth" (Gen 1:28). Basic scientific
research and applied research constitute a significant expression of this
dominion of man over creation. Science and technology are valuable resources for
man when placed at his service and when they promote his integral development
for the benefit of all; but they cannot of themselves show the meaning of
existence and of human progress. Being ordered to man, who initiates and
develops them, they draw from the person and his moral values the indication of
their purpose and the awareness of their limits.
It would on the one hand be illusory to claim that scientific research and
its applications are morally neutral; on the other hand one cannot derive
criteria for guidance from mere technical efficiency, from research's possible
usefulness to some at the expense of others, or, worse still, from prevailing
ideologies. Thus science and technology require, for their own intrinsic
meaning, an unconditional respect for the fundamental criteria of the moral law:
that is to say, they must be at the service of the human person, of his
inalienable rights and his true and integral good according to the design and
will of God.(7) The rapid development of technological discoveries gives greater
urgency to this need to respect the criteria just mentioned: science without
conscience can only lead to man's ruin. "Our era needs such wisdom more
than bygone ages if the discoveries made by man are to be further humanized. For
the future of the world stands in peril unless wiser people are
forthcoming".(8)
3. ANTHROPOLOGY AND PROCEDURES IN THE BIOMEDICAL
FIELD
Which moral criteria must be applied in order to clarify the problems posed
today in the field of biomedicine? The answer to this question presupposes a
proper idea of the nature of the human person in his bodily dimension.
For it is only in keeping with his true nature that the human person can
achieve self-realization as a "unified totality":(9) and this nature
is at the same time corporal and spiritual. By virtue of its substantial union
with a spiritual soul, the human body cannot be considered as a mere complex of
tissues, organs and functions, nor can it be evaluated in the same way as the
body of animals; rather it is a constitutive part of the person who manifests
and expresses himself through it. The natural moral law expresses and lays down
the purposes, rights and duties which are based upon the bodily and spiritual
nature of the human person. Therefore this law cannot be thought of as simply a
set of norms on the biological level; rather it must be defined as the rational
order whereby man is called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life and
actions and in particular to make use of his own body.(10) A first consequence
can be deduced from these principles: an intervention on the human body affects
not only the tissues, the organs and their functions but also involves the
person himself on different levels. It involves, therefore, perhaps in an
implicit but nonetheless real way, a moral significance and responsibility. Pope
John Paul II forcefully reaffirmed this to the World Medical Association when he
said: "Each human person, in his absolutely unique singularity, is
constituted not only by his spirit, but by his body as well. Thus, in the body
and through the body, one touches the person himself in his concrete reality. To
respect the dignity of man consequently amounts to safeguarding this identity of
the man 'corpore et anima unus', as the Second Vatican Council says (Gaudium
et Spes, 14, par.1). It is on the basis of this anthropological vision that
one is to find the fundamental criteria for decision-making in the case of
procedures which are not strictly therapeutic, as, for example, those aimed at
the improvement of the human biological condition".(11)
Applied biology and medicine work together for the integral good of human
life when they come to the aid of a person stricken by illness and infirmity and
when they respect his or her dignity as a creature of God. No biologist or
doctor can reasonably claim, by virtue of his scientific competence, to be able
to decide on people's origin and destiny. This norm must be applied in a
particular way in the field of sexuality and procreation, in which man and woman
actualize the fundamental values of love and life. God, who is love and life,
has inscribed in man and woman the vocation to share in a special way in his
mystery of personal communion and in his work as Creator and Father.(12) For
this reason marriage possesses specific goods and values in its union and in
procreation which cannot be likened to those existing in lower forms of life.
Such values and meanings are of the personal order and determine from the moral
point of view the meaning and limits of artificial interventions on procreation
and on the origin of human life. These interventions are not to be rejected on
the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the
possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation
in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his
vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life.
4. FUNDAMENTAL CRITERIA FOR A MORAL JUDGMENT
The fundamental values connected with the techniques of artificial human
procreation are two: the life of the human being called into existence and the
special nature of the transmission of human life in marriage. The moral judgment
on such methods of artificial procreation must therefore be formulated in
reference to these values.
Physical life, with which the course of human life in the world begins,
certainly does not itself contain the whole of a person's value, nor does it
represent the supreme good of man who is called to eternal life. However it does
constitute in a certain way the "fundamental " value of life,
precisely because upon this physical life all the other values of the person are
based and developed.(13) The inviolability of the innocent human being's right
to life "from the moment of conception until death" (14) is a sign and
requirement of the very inviolability of the person to whom the Creator has
given the gift of life. By comparison with the transmission of other forms of
life in the universe, the transmission of human life has a special character of
its own, which derives from the special nature of the human person. "The
transmission of human life is entrusted by nature to a personal and conscious
act and as such is subject to the all-holy laws of God: immutable and inviolable
laws which must be recognized and observed. For this reason one cannot use means
and follow methods which could be licit in the transmission of the life of
plants and animals" (15)
Advances in technology have now made it possible to procreate apart from
sexual relations through the meeting in vitro of the germ-cells
previously taken from the man and the woman. But what is technically possible is
not for that very reason morally admissible. Rational reflection on the
fundamental values of life and of human procreation is therefore indispensable
for formulating a moral evaluation of such technological interventions on a
human being from the first stages of his development.
5. TEACHINGS OF THE MAGISTERIUM
On its part, the Magisterium of the Church offers to human reason in this
field too the light of Revelation: the doctrine concerning man taught by the
Magisterium contains many elements which throw light on the problems being faced
here. From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be
respected in an absolute way because man is the only creature on earth that God
has "wished for himself " (16) and the spiritual soul of each man is
"immediately created" by God; (17) his whole being bears the image of
the Creator. Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves
"the creative action of God" (18) and it remains forever in a special
relationship with she Creator, who is its sole end.(19) God alone is the Lord of
life from its beginning until its end: no one can, in any circumstance, claim
for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being. (20) Human
procreation requires on the part of the spouses responsible collaboration with
the fruitful love of God; (21) the gift of human life must be actualized in
marriage through the specific and exclusive acts of husband and wife, in
accordance with the laws inscribed in their persons and in their union.(22)
I RESPECT FOR HUMAN EMBRYOS
Careful reflection on this teaching of the Magisterium and on the evidence of
reason, as mentioned above, enables us to respond to the numerous moral problems
posed by technical interventions upon the human being in the first phases of his
life and upon the processes of his conception.
1. WHAT RESPECT IS DUE TO THE HUMAN EMBRYO, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT HIS NATURE
AND IDENTITY?
The human being must be respected - as a person - from the very first instant
of his existence. The implementation of procedures of artificial fertilization
has made possible various interventions upon embryos and human foetuses. The
aims pursued are of various kinds: diagnostic and therapeutic, scientific and
commercial. From all of this, serious problems arise. Can one speak of a right
to experimentation upon human embryos for the purpose of scientific research? What
norms or laws should be worked out with regard to this matter? The response to
these problems presupposes a detailed reflection on the nature and specific
identity - the word "status" is used - of the human embryo itself
.
At the Second Vatican Council, the Church for her part presented once again
to modern man her constant and certain doctrine according to which: "Life
once conceived, must be protected with the utmost care; abortion and infanticide
are abominable crimes". (23) More recently, the Charter of the Rights of
the Family, published by the Holy See, confirmed that "Human life must be
absolutely respected and protected from the moment of conception".(24)
This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of
human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the
identity of the human person. The Congregation recalls the teachings found in
the Declaration on Procured Abortion: "From the time that the ovum
is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of
the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It
would never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual
evidence ... modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has
demonstrated that, from the first instant, the programme is fixed as to what
this living being will be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic
aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure
of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time ... to find its
place and to be in a position to act". (25) This teaching remains valid and
is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human
biological science which recognize that in the zygote* resulting from
fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already
constituted. Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to
bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions
of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for
discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first
appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?
The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a
philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any
kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is
unchangeable.(26)
Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence,
that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional
respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual
totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the
moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person
must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of
every innocent human being to life. This doctrinal reminder provides the
fundamental criterion for the solution of the various problems posed by the
development of the biomedical sciences in this field: since the embryo must be
treated as a person, it must also be defended in its integrity, tended and cared
for, to the extent possible, in the same way as any other human being as far as
medical assistance is concerned.
* The zygote is the cell produced when the nuclei of the two gametes have
fused.
2. IS PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS MORALLY LICIT?
If prenatal diagnosis respects the life and integrity of the embryo and
the human foetus and is directed towards its safeguarding or healing as an
individual, then the answer is affirmative.
For prenatal diagnosis makes it possible to know the condition of the embryo
and of the foetus when still in the mother's womb. It permits, or makes it
possible to anticipate earlier and more effectively, certain therapeutic,
medical or surgical procedures. Such diagnosis is permissible, with the consent
of the parents after they have been adequately informed, if the methods employed
safeguard the life and integrity of the embryo and the mother, without
subjecting them to disproportionate risks.(27) But this diagnosis is gravely
opposed to the moral law when it is done with the thought of possibly inducing
an abortion depending upon the results: a diagnosis which shows the
existence of a malformation or a hereditary illness
must not be the equivalent of a death-sentence. Thus a woman would be
committing a gravely illicit act if she were to request such a diagnosis with
the deliberate intention of having an abortion should the results conf rm the
existence of a malformation or abnormality. The spouse or relatives or anyone
else would similarly be acting in a manner contrary to the moral law if they
were to counsel or impose such a diagnostic procedure on the expectant mother
with the same intention of possibly proceeding to an abortion. So too the
specialist would be guilty of illicit collaboration if, in conducting the
diagnosis and in communicating its results, he were deliberately to contribute
to establishing or favouring a link between prenatal diagnosis and abortion. In
conclusion, any directive or programme of the civil and health authorities or
of scientific organizations which in any way were to favour a link between
prenatal diagnosis and abortion, or which were to go as far as directly to
induce expectant mothers to submit to prenatal diagnosis planned for the
purpose of eliminating foetuses which are affected by malformations or which
are carriers of hereditary illness, is to be condemned as a violation of the
unborn child's right to life and as an abuse of the prior rights and duties of
the spouses,
3. ARE THERAPEUTIC PROCEDURES CARRIED OUT ON THE
HUMAN EMBRYO LICIT?
As with all medical interventions on patients, one
must uphold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect
the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks
for it but are directed towards its healing, the improvement of its condition
of health, or its individual survival. Whatever the type of medical,
surgical or other therapy, the free and informed consent of the parents is
required, according to the deontological rules followed in the case of
children. The application of this moral principle may call for delicate and
particular precautions in the case of embryonic or foetal life. The legitimacy
and criteria of such procedures have been clearly stated by Pope John Paul II:
"A strictly therapeutic intervention whose explicit objective is the
healing of various maladies such as those stemming from chromosomal defects
will, in principle, be considered desirable, provided it is directed to the
true promotion of the personal well-being of the individual without doing harm
to his integrity or worsening his conditions of life. Such an intervention
would indeed fall within the logic of the Christian moral tradition" (28)
4. HOW IS ONE TO EVALUATE MORALLY RESEARCH AND
EXPERIMENTATION* ON HUMAN EMBRYOS AND FOETUSES?
Medical research must refrain from operations on
live embryos, unless there is a moral certainty of not causing harm to the life
or integrity of the unborn child and the mother, and on condition that the
parents have givers their free and in formed consent to the procedure. It
follows that all research, even when limited to the simple observation of the
embryo, would become illicit were it to involve risk to the embryo's physical
integrity or life by reason of the methods used or the effects induced. As
regards experimentation, and presupposing the general distinction between
experi;'nentation for purposes which are not directly therapeutic and
experimentation which is clearly therapeutic for the subject himself, in the
case in point one must also distinguish between experimentation carried out on
embryos which are still alive and experimentation carried out on embryos which
are dead. If the embryos are living, whether viable or not, they must be
respected just like any other human person; experimentation on embryos
which is not directly therapeutic is illicit.(29) No objective, even
though noble in itself, such as a foreseeable advantage to science, to other
human beings or to society, can in any way justify experimentation on living
human embryos or foetuses, whether viable or not, either inside or outside the
mother's womb. The informed consent ordinarily required for clinical
experimentation on adults cannot be granted by the parents, who may not freely
dispose of the physical integrity or life of the unborn child. Moreover,
experimentation on embryos and foetuses always involves risk, and indeed in
most cases it involves the certain expectation of harm to their physical
integrity or even their death. To use human embryos or foetuses as the object
or instrument of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as
human beings having a right to the same respect that is due to the child
already born and to every human person.
The Charter of the Rights of the Family
published by the Holy See affirms: "Respect for the dignity of the human
being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human
embryo".(30) The practice of keeping alive human embryos in vivo
or in vitro for experimental or commercial purposes is totally opposed
to human dignity. In the case of experimentation that is clearly therapeutic,
namely, when it is a matter of experimental forms of therapy used for the
benefit of the embryo itself in a final attempt to save its life, and in the
absence of other reliable forms of therapy, recourse to drugs or procedures
not yet fully tested can be licit (31)
The corpses of human embryos and foetuses,
whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as
the remains of other human beings. In particular, they cannot be subjected
to mutilation or to autopsies if their death has not yet been verified and
without the consent of the parents or of the mother. Furthermore, the moral
requirements must be safeguarded that there be no complicity in deliberate
abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided. Also, in the case of dead
foetuses, as for the corpses of adult persons, all commercial trafficking must
be considered illicit and should be prohibited.
* Since the terms "research" and
"experimentation" are often used equivalently and ambiguously, it is
deemed necessary to specify the exact meaning given them in this
document.
1) By research is meant any
inductive-deductive process which aims at promoting the systematic observation
of a given phenomenon in the human field or at verifying a hypothesis arising
from previous observations.
2) By experimentation is meant any
research in which the human being (in the various stages of his existence:
embryo, foetus, child or adult) represents the object through which or upon
which one intends to verify the effect, at present unknown or not sufficiently
known, of a given treatment (e.g. pharmacological, teratogenic, surgical,
etc.).
5. HOW IS ONE TO EVALUATE MORALLY THE USE FOR
RESEARCH PURPOSES OF EMBRYOS OBTAINED BY FERTILIZATION 'IN VITRO'?
Human embryos obtained in vitro are human
beings and subjects with rights: their dignity and right to life must be
respected from the first moment of their existence. It is immoral to
produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable "biological
material". In the usual practice of in vitro fertilization,
not all of the embryos are transferred to the woman's body; some are
destroyed. Just as the Church condemns induced abortion, so she also forbids
acts against the life of these human beings. It is a duty to condemn the
particular gravity of the voluntary destruction of human embryos obtained 'in
vitro' for the sole purpose of research, either by means of artificial insemination
of by means of "twin fission". By acting in this way the
researcher usurps the place of God; and, even though he may be unaware of
this, he sets himself up as the master of the destiny of others inasmuch as he
arbitrarily chooses whom he will allow to live and whom he will send to death
and kills defenceless human beings.
Methods of observation or experimentation which
damage or impose grave and disproportionate risks upon embryos obtained in
vitro are morally illicit for the same reasons. every human being is to be
respected for himself, and cannot be reduced in worth to a pure and simple
instrument for the advantage of others. It is therefore not in conformity
with the moral law deliberately to expose to death human embryos obtained 'in
vitro'. In consequence of the fact that they have been produced in
vitro, those embryos which art not transferred into the body of the mother
and are called "spare" are exposed to an absurd fate, with no
possibility of their being offered safe means of survival which can be licitly
pursued.
6. WHAT JUDGMENT SHOULD BE MADE ON OTHER
PROCEDURES OF MANIPULATING EMBRYOS CONNECTED WITH THE "TECHNIQUES OF HUMAN
REPRODUCTION"?
Techniques of fertilization in vitro can
open the way to other forms of biological and genetic manipulation of human
embryos, such as attempts or plans for fertilization between human and animal
gametes and the gestation of human embryos in the uterus of animals, or the
hypothesis or project of constructing artificial uteruses for the human
embryo. These procedures are contrary to the human dignity proper to the
embryo, and at the same time they are contrary to the right of every person to
be conceived and to be born within marriage and from marriage.(32)
Also, attempts or hypotheses for obtaining a human being without any
connection with sexuality through "twin fission", cloning or
parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are
in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal
union.
The freezing of embryos, even when carried
out in order to preserve the life of an embryo - cryopreservation - constitutes
an offence against the respect due to human beings by exposing them to
grave risks of death or harm to their physical integrity and depriving them,
at least temporarily, of maternal shelter and gestation, thus placing them in
a situation in which further offences and manipulation are possible.
Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or
genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing
human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. These
manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his
or her integrity and identity. Therefore in no way can they be justified
on the grounds of possible beneficial consequences for future humanity. (33)
Every person must be respected for himself: in this consists the dignity and
right of every human being from his or her beginning.
II INTERVENTIONS UPON HUMAN
PROCREATION
By "artificial procreation" or "
artificial fertilization" are understood here the different technical
procedures directed towards obtaining a human conception in a manner other
than the sexual union of man and woman. This Instruction deals with
fertilization of an ovum in a test-tube (in vitro fertilization) and
artificial insemination through transfer into the woman's genital tracts of
previously collected sperm.
A preliminary point for the moral evaluation of
such technical procedures is constituted by the consideration of the
circumstances and consequences which those procedures involve in relation to
the respect due the human embryo. Development of the practice of in vitro
fertilization has required innumerable fertilizations and destructions of
human embryos. Even today, the usual practice presupposes a hyperovulation on
the part of the woman: a number of ova are withdrawn, fertilized and then
cultivated in vitro for some days. Usually not all are transferred into
the genital tracts of the woman; some embryos, generally called "spare
", are destroyed or frozen. On occasion, some of the implanted embryos
are sacrificed for various eugenic, economic or psychological reasons. Such
deliberate destruction of human beings or their utilization for different
purposes to the detriment of their integrity and life is contrary to the
doctrine on procured abortion already recalled. The connection between in
vitro fertilization and the voluntary destruction of human embryos occurs
too often. This is significant: through these procedures, with apparently
contrary purposes, life and death are subjected to the decision of man, who
thus sets himself up as the giver of life and death by decree. This dynamic of
violence and domination may remain unnoticed by those very individuals who, in
wishing to utilize this procedure, become subject to it themselves. The facts
recorded and the cold logic which links them must be taken into consideration
for a moral judgment on IVF and ET (in vitro fertilization and embryo
transfer): the abortion-mentality which has made this procedure possible thus
leads, whether one wants it or not, to man's domination over the life and
death of his fellow human beings and can lead to a system of radical
eugenics.
Nevertheless, such abuses do not exempt one from
a further and thorough ethical study of the techniques of artificial
procreation considered in themselves, abstracting as far as possible from the
destruction of embryos produced in vitro. The present Instruction will
therefore take into consideration in the first place the problems posed by
heterologous artificial fertilization (II, 1-3), * and subsequently those
linked with homologous artificial fertilization (II, 4-6 ) .** Before
formulating an ethical judgment on each of these procedures, the principles
and values which determine the moral evaluation of each of them will be
considered.
* By the term heterologous artificial
fertilization or procreation, the Instruction means techniques used to
obtain a human conception artificially by the use of gametes coming from at
least one donor other than the spouses who are joined in marriage. Such
techniques can be of two types
a) Heterologous IVF and ET: the technique
used to obtain a human conception through the meeting in vitro
of gametes taken from at least one donor other than the two spouses joined in
marriage.
b) Heterologous artifical insemination:
the technique used to obtain a human conception through the transfer into the
genital tracts of the woman of the sperm previously collected from a donor
other than the husband.
** By artificial homologous fertilization or
procreation, the Instruction means the technique used to obtain a human
conception using the gametes of the two spouses joined in marriage. Homologous
artificial fertilization can be carried out by two different methods:
a) Homologous IVF and ET: the technique
used to obtain a human conception through the meeting in vitro of the
gametes of the spouses joined in marriage.
b) Homologous artificial insemination: the
technique used to obtain a human conception through the transfer into the
genital tracts of a married woman of the sperm previously collected from her
husband.
A. HETEROLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL
FERTILIZATION
1. WHY MUST HUMAN PROCREATION TAKE PLACE IN
MARRIAGE?
Every human being is always to be accepted as
a gift and blessing of God. However, from the moral point of view a truly
responsible procreation vis-à-vis the unborn child must be the fruit of marriage.
For human procreation has specific
characteristics by virtue of the personal dignity of the parents and of the
children: the procreation of a new person, whereby the man and the woman
collaborate with the power of the Creator, must be the fruit and the sign of
the mutual self-giving of the spouses, of their love and of their fidelity.(34)
The fidelity of the spouses in the unity of marriage involves reciprocal
respect of their right to become a father and a mother only through each
other. The child has the right to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought
into the world and brought up within marriage: it is through the secure and
recognized relationship to his own parents that the child can discover his own
identity and achieve his own proper human development. The parents find in
their child a confirmation and completion of their reciprocal self-giving: the
child is the living image of their love, the permanent sign of their conjugal
union, the living and indissoluble concrete expression of their paternity and
maternity, (35) By reason of the vocation and social responsibilities of the
person, the good of the children and of the parents contributes to the good of
civil society; the vitality and stability of society require that children
come into the world within a family and that the family be firmly based on
marriage. The tradition of the Church and anthropological reflection recognize
in marriage and in its indissoluble unity the only setting worthy of truly
responsible procreation.
2. DOES HETEROLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION
CONFORM TO THE DIGNITY OF THE COUPLE AND TO THE TRUTH OF MARRIAGE?
Through IVF and ET and heterologous artificial
insemination, human conception is achieved through the fusion of gametes of at
least one donor other than the spouses who are united in marriage. Heterologous
artificial fertilization is contrary to the unity of marriage, to the dignity of
the spouses, to the vocation proper to parents, and to the child's right to be
conceived and brought into the world in marriage and from marriage.(36)
Respect for the unity of marriage and for conjugal fidelity demands that the
child be conceived in marriage; the bond existing between husband and wife
accords the spouses, in an objective and inalienable manner, the exclusive
right to become father and mother solely through each other.(37) Recourse to
the gametes of a third person, in order to have sperm or ovum available,
constitutes a violation of the reciprocal commitment of the spouses and a
grave lack in regard to that essential property of marriage which is its
unity. Heterologous artificial fertilization violates the rights of the child;
it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can
hinder the maturing of his personal identity. Furthermore, it offends the
common vocation of the spouses who are called to fatherhood and motherhood: it
objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity; it
brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational
parenthood and responsibility for upbringing. Such damage to the personal
relationships within the family has repercussions on civil society: what
threatens the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension,
disorder and injustice in the whole of social life. These reasons lead to a
negative moral judgment concerning heterologous artificial fertilization:
consequently fertilization of a married woman with the sperm of a donor different
from her husband and fertilization with the husband's sperm of an ovum not coming
from his wife are morally illicit. Furthermore, the artificial fertilization of
a woman who is unmarried or a widow, whoever the donor may be, cannot be
morally justified.
The desire to have a child and the love between
spouses who long to obviate a sterility which cannot be overcome in any other
way constitute understandable motivations; but subjectively good intentions do
not render heterologous artificial fertilization conformable to the objective
and inalienable properties of marriage or respectful of the rights of the
child and of the spouses.
3. IS "SURROGATE"* MOTHERHOOD MORALLY
LICIT?
No, for the same reasons which lead one to reject
heterologous artificial fertilization: for it is contrary to the unity of
marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person. Surrogate
motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal
love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends the
dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb,
brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it sets up, to the
detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and
moral elements which constitute those families.
* By "surrogate mother" the Instruction
means:
a) the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo
implanted in her uterus and who is genetically a stranger to the embryo
because it has been obtained through the union of the gametes of
"donors". She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the
baby once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for
the pregnancy.
b) the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo
to whose procreation she has contributed the donation of her own ovum,
fertilized through insemination with the sperm of a man other than her
husband. She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the child once
it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the
pregnancy.
B HOMOLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION
Since heterologous artificial fertilization has
been declared unacceptable, the question arises of how to evaluate morally the
process of homologous artificial fertilization: IVF and ET and artificial
insemination between husband and wife. First a question of principle must be
clarified.
4. WHAT CONNECTION IS REQUIRED FROM THE MORAL
POINT OF VIEW BETWEEN PROCREATION AND THE CONJUGAL ACT?
a) The Church's teaching on marriage and human
procreation affirms the "inseparable connection, willed by God and unable
to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the
conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its
intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and
wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws
inscribed in the very being of man and of woman".(38) This principle,
which is based upon the nature of marriage and the intimate connection of the
goods of marriage, has well-known consequences on the level of responsible
fatherhood and motherhood. "By safeguarding both these essential aspects,
the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness
the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's exalted
vocation to parenthood".(39) The same doctrine concerning the link
between the meanings of the conjugal act and between the goods of marriage
throws light on the moral problem of homologous artificial fertilization,
since "it is never permitted to separate these different aspects to such
a degree as positively to exclude either the procreative intention or the
conjugal relation" (40) Contraception deliberately deprives the conjugal
act of its openness to procreation and in this way brings about a voluntary
dissociation of the ends of marriage. Homologous artificial fertilization, in
seeking a procreation which is not the fruit of a specific act of conjugal
union, objectively effects an analogous separation between the goods and the
meanings of marriage. Thus, fertilization is licitly sought when it is the
result of a "conjugal act which is per se suitable for the generation of
children to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses
become one flesh".(41) But from the moral point of view
procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not desired as the
fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say of the specific act of the spouses'
union.
b ) The moral value of the intimate link between
the goods of marriage and between the meanings of the conjugal act is based
upon the unity of the human being, a unity involving body and spiritual soul.
(42) Spouses mutually express their personal love in the "language of the
body ", which clearly involves both "sponsal meanings" and
parental ones.(43) The conjugal act by which the couple mutually express their
self-gift at the same time expresses openness to the gift of life. It is an
act that is inseparably corporal and spiritual. It is in their bodies and
through their bodies that the spouses consummate their marriage and are able
to become father and mother. In order to respect the language of their bodies
and their natural generosity, the conjugal union must take place with respect
for its openness to procreation; and the procreation of a person must be the
fruit and the result of married love. The origin of the human being thus
follows from a procreation that is "linked to the union, not only
biological but also spiritual, of the parents, made one by the bond of
marriage".(44) Fertilization achieved outside the bodies of the couple
remains by this very fact deprived of the meanings and the values which are
expressed in the language of the body and in the union of human persons.
c) Only respect for the link between the meanings
of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible
procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person. In his unique and
irrepeatable origin, the child must be respected and recognized as equal in
personal dignity to those who give him life. The human person must be accepted
in his parents' act of union and love; the generation of a child must
therefore be the fruit of that mutual giving (45) which is realized in the
conjugal act wherein the spouses cooperate as servants and not as masters in
the work of the Creator who is Love. In reality, the origin of a human person
is the result of an act of giving. The one conceived must be the fruit of his
parents' love. He cannot be desired or conceived as the product of an
intervention of medical or biological techniques; that would be equivalent to
reducing him to an object of scientific technology. No one may subject the
coming of a child into the world to conditions of technical efficiency which
are to be evaluated according to standards of control and dominion. The
moral relevance of the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and
between the goods of marriage, as well as the unity of the human being and the
dignity of his origin, demand that the procreation of a human person be brought
about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses.
The link between procreation and the conjugal act is thus shown to be of great
importance on the anthropological and moral planes, and it throws light on the
positions of the Magisterium with regard to homologous artificial
fertilization.
5. IS HOMOLOGOUS 'IN VITRO' FERTILIZATION MORALLY
LICIT?
The answer to this question is strictly dependent
on the principles just mentioned. Certainly one cannot ignore the legitimate
aspirations of sterile couples. For some, recourse to homologous IVF and ET
appears to be the only way of fulfilling their sincere desire for a child. The
question is asked whether the totality of conjugal life in such situations is
not sufficient to ensure the dignity proper to human procreation. It is
acknowledged that IVF and ET certainly cannot supply for the absence of sexual
relations (47) and cannot be preferred to the specific acts of conjugal union,
given the risks involved for the child and the difficulties of the procedure.
But it is asked whether, when there is no other way of overcoming the
sterility which is a source of suffering, homologous in vitro
fertilization may not constitute an aid, if not a form of therapy, whereby its
moral licitness could be admitted. The desire for a child - or at the very
least an openness to the transmission of life - is a necessary prerequisite
from the moral point of view for responsible human procreation. But this good
intention is not sufficient for making a positive moral evaluation of in
vitro fertilization between spouses. The process of IVF and ET must be
judged in itself and cannot borrow its definitive moral quality from the
totality of conjugal life of which it becomes part nor from the conjugal acts
which may precede or follow it.(48)
It has already been recalled that, in the
circumstances in which it is regularly practised, IVF and ET involves the
destruction of human beings, which is something contrary to the doctrine on
the illicitness of abortion previously mentioned.(49) But even in a situation
in which every precaution were taken to avoid the death of human embryos,
homologous IVF and ET dissociates from the conjugal act the actions which
are directed to human fertilization. For this reason the very nature of
homologous IVF and ET also must be taken into account, even abstracting from
the link with procured abortion. Homologous IVF and ET is brought about
outside the bodies of the couple through actions of third parties whose
competence and technical activity determine the success of the procedure. Such
fertilization entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of
doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the
origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is
in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents
and children.
Conception in vitro is the result of the
technical action which presides over fertilization. Such fertilization is
neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as the expression and fruit of
a specific act of the conjugal union. In homologous IVF and ET, therefore,
even if it is considered in the context of 'de facto' existing sexual
relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its
proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal
act in which the spouses can become "cooperators with God for giving
life to a new person".(50) These reasons enable us to understand why the
act of conjugal love is considered in the teaching of the Church as the only
setting worthy of human procreation. For the same reasons the so-called
"simple case", i.e. a homologous IVF and ET procedure that is free
of any compromise with the abortive practice of destroying embryos and with
masturbation, remains a technique which is morally illicit because it deprives
human procreation of the dignity which is proper and connatural to it.
Certainly, homologous IVF and ET fertilization is not marked by all that
ethical negativity found in extra-conjugal procreation; the family and
marriage continue to constitute the setting for the birth and upbringing of
the children. Nevertheless, in conformity with the traditional doctrine
relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church
remain opposed from the moral point of view to homologous 'in vitro'
fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to
the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is
done to avoid the death of the human embryo. Although the manner in which
human conception is achieved with IVF and ET cannot be approved, every child
which comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of
the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love.
6. HOW IS HOMOLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION TO
BE EVALUATED FROM THE MORAL POINT OF VIEW?
Homologous artificial insemination within
marriage cannot be admitted except for those cases in which the technical
means is not a substitute for the conjugal act but serves to facilitate and to
help so that the act attains its natural purpose.
The teaching of the Magisterium on this point has
already been stated.(51) This teaching is not just an expression of particular
historical circumstances but is based on the Church's doctrine concerning the
connection between the conjugal union and procreation and on a consideration
of the personal nature of the conjugal act and of human procreation. "In
its natural structure, the conjugal act is a personal action, a simultaneous
and immediate cooperation on the part of the husband and wife, which by the
very nature of the agents and the proper nature of the act is the expression
of the mutual gift which, according to the words of Scripture, brings about
union 'in one flesh' ".(52) Thus moral conscience "does not
necessarily proscribe the use of certain artificial means destined solely
either to the facilitating of the natural act or to ensuring that the natural
act normally performed achieves its proper end".(53) If the technical
means facilitates the conjugal act or helps it to reach its natural
objectives, it can be morally acceptable. If, on the other hand, the procedure
were to replace the conjugal act, it is morally illicit. Artificial
insemination as a substitute for the conjugal act is prohibited by reason of
the voluntarily achieved dissociation of the two meanings of the conjugal act.
Masturbation, through which the sperm is normally obtained, is another sign of
this dissociation: even when it is done for the purpose of procreation, the
act remains deprived of its unitive meaning: "It lacks the sexual
relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which
realizes 'the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the
context of true love' ".(54)
7. WHAT MORAL CRITERION CAN BE PROPOSED WITH
REGARD TO MEDICAL INTERVENTION IN HUMAN PROCREATION?
The medical act must be evaluated not only with
reference to its technical dimension but also and above all in relation to its
goal which is the good of persons and their bodily and psychological health.
The moral criteria for medical intervention in procreation are deduced from
the dignity of human persons, of their sexuality and of their origin. Medicine
which seeks to be ordered to the integral good of the person must respect the
specifically human values of sexuality.(55) The doctor is at the service of
persons and of human procreation. He does not have the authority to dispose of
them or to decide their fate.
A medical intervention respects the dignity of
persons when it seeks to assist the conjugal act either in order to facilitate
its performance or in order to enable it to achieve its objective once it has
been normally performed",(56) On the other hand, it sometimes happens
that a medical procedure technologically replaces the conjugal act in order to
obtain a procreation which is neither its result nor its fruit. In this case
the medical act is not, as it should be, at the service of conjugal union but
rather appropriates to itself the procreative function and thus contradicts
the dignity and the inalienable rights of the spouses and of the child to be
born. The humanization of medicine, which is insisted upon today by everyone,
requires respect for the integral dignity of the human person first of all in
the act and at the moment in which the spouses transmit life to a new person.
It is only logical therefore to address an urgent appeal to Catholic doctors
and scientists that they bear exemplary witness to the respect due to the
human embryo and to the dignity of procreation. The medical and nursing staff
of Catholic hospitals and clinics are in a special way urged to do justice to
the moral obligations which they have assumed, frequently also, as part of
their contract. Those who are in charge of Catholic hospitals and clinics and
who are often Religious will take special care to safeguard and promote a
diligent observance of the moral norms recalled in the present
Instruction.
8. THE SUFFERING CAUSED BY INFERTILITY IN
MARRIAGE
The suffering of spouses who cannot have
children or who are afraid of bringing a handicapped child into the world is a
suffering that everyone must understand and properly evaluate.
On the part of the spouses, the desire for a
child is natural: it expresses the vocation to fatherhood and motherhood
inscribed in conjugal love. This desire can be even stronger if the couple is
affected by sterility which appears incurable. Nevertheless, marriage does not
confer upon the spouses the right to have a child, but only the right to
perform those natural acts which are per se ordered to procreation.(57)
A true and proper right to a child would be contrary to the child's dignity
and nature. The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor can he be
considered as an object of ownership: rather, a child is a gift, "the
supreme gift" (58) and the most gratuitous gift of marriage, and is a
living testimony of the mutual giving of his parents. For this reason, the
child has the right, as already mentioned, to be the fruit of the specific act
of the conjugal love of his parents; and he also has the right to be respected
as a person from the moment of his conception.
Nevertheless, whatever its cause or prognosis,
sterility is certainly a difficult trial. The community of believers is called
to shed light upon and support the suffering of those who are unable to
fulfill their legitimate aspiration to motherhood and fatherhood. Spouses who
find themselves in this sad situation are called to find in it an opportunity
for sharing in a particular way in the Lord's Cross, the source of spiritual
fruitfulness. Sterile couples must not forget that "even when procreation
is not possible, conjugal life does not for this reason lose its value.
Physical sterility in fact can be for spouses the occasion for other important
services to the life of the human person, for example, adoption, various forms
of educational work, and assistance to other families and to poor or
handicapped children".(59) Many researchers are engaged in the fight
against sterility. While fully safeguarding the dignity of human procreation,
some have achieved results which previously seemed unattainable. Scientists
therefore are to be encouraged to continue their research with the aim of
preventing the causes of sterility and of being able to remedy them so that
sterile couples will be able to procreate in full respect for their own
personal dignity and that of the child to be born.
III. MORAL AND CIVIL LAW
THE VALUES AND MORAL
OBLIGATIONS THAT CIVIL LEGISLATION MUST RESPECT AND SANCTION
IN THIS MATTER
The inviolable right to life of every innocent
human individual and the rights of the family and of the institution of
marriage constitute fundamental moral values, because they concern the natural
condition and integral vocation of the human person; at the same time they are
constitutive elements of civil society and its order. For this reason the new
technological possibilities which have opened up in the field of biomedicine
require the intervention of the political authorities and of the legislator,
since an uncontrolled application of such techniques could lead to
unforeseeable and damaging consequences for civil society. Recourse to the
conscience of each individual and to the self-regulation of researchers cannot
be sufficient for ensuring respect for personal rights and public order. If
the legislator responsible for the common good were not watchful, he could be
deprived of his prerogatives by researchers claiming to govern humanity in the
name of the biological discoveries and the alleged "improvement"
processes which they would draw from those discoveries. "Eugenism"
and forms of discrimination between human beings could come to be legitimized:
this would constitute an act of violence and a serious offense to the
equality, dignity and fundamental rights of the human person. The intervention
of the public authority must be inspired by the rational principles which
regulate the relationships between civil law and moral law. The task of the
civil law is to ensure the common good of people through the recognition of
and the defence of fundamental rights and through the promotion of peace and
of public morality.(60) In no sphere of life can the civil law take the place
of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its
competence. It must sometimes tolerate, for the sake of public order, things
which it cannot forbid without a greater evil resulting. However, the
inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil
society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on
single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by
society and the State: they pertain to human nature and are inherent in the
person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his of her
origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard:
a) every human being's right to life and physical
integrity from the moment of conception until death; b)
the rights of the family and of marriage as an institution and, in this area,
the child's right to be conceived, brought into the world and brought up by
his parents. To each of these two themes it is necessary here to give some
further consideration.
In various States certain laws have authorized
the direct suppression of innocents: the moment a positive law deprives a
category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation must accord
them, the State is denying the equality of all before the law. When the State
does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in
particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a State based on
law are undermined. The political authority consequently cannot give approval
to the calling of human beings into existence through procedures which would
expose them to those very grave risks noted previously. The possible
recognition by positive law and the political authorities of techniques of
artificial transmission of life and the experimentation connected with it
would widen the breach already opened by the legalization of abortion. As a
consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn
child from the moment of his conception, the law must provide appropriate
penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights. The law
cannot tolerate - indeed it must expressly forbid - that human beings, even at
the embryonic stage, should be treated as objects of experimentation, be
mutilated or destroyed with the excuse that they are superfluous or incapable
of developing normally.
The political authority is bound to guarantee to
the institution of the family, upon which society is based, the juridical
protection to which it has a right. From the very fact that it is at the
service of people, the political authority must also be at the service of the
family. Civil law cannot grant approval to techniques of artificial
procreation which, for the benefit of third parties (doctors, biologists,
economic or governmental powers), take away what is a right inherent in the
relationship between spouses; and therefore civil law cannot legalize the
donation of gametes between persons who are not legitimately united in
marriage. Legislation must also prohibit, by virtue of the support which is
due to the family, embryo banks, post mortem insemination and
"surrogate motherhood". It is part of the duty of the public
authority to ensure that the civil law is regulated according to the
fundamental norms of the moral law in matters concerning human rights, human
life and the institution of the family. Politicians must commit themselves,
through their interventions upon public opinion, to securing in society the
widest possible consensus on such essential points and to consolidating this
consensus wherever it risks being weakened or is in danger of collapse.
In many countries, the legalization of abortion
and juridical tolerance of unmarried couples makes it more difficult to secure
respect for the fundamental rights recalled by this Instruction. It is to be
hoped that States will not become responsible for aggravating these socially
damaging situations of injustice. It is rather to be hoped that nations and
States will realize all the cultural, ideological and political implications
connected with the techniques of artificial procreation and will find the
wisdom and courage necessary for issuing laws which are more just and more
respectful of human life and the institution of the family. The civil
legislation of many states confers an undue legitimation upon certain
practices in the eyes of many today; it is seen to be incapable of
guaranteeing that morality which is in conformity with the natural exigencies of
the human person and with the "unwritten laws" etched by the Creator
upon the human heart. All men of good will must commit themselves,
particularly within their prof essional field and in the exercise of their
civil rights, to ensuring the reform of morally unacceptable civil laws and
the correction of illicit practices. In addition, "conscientious
objection" vis-à-vis such laws must be supported and recognized. A
movement of passive resistence to the legitimation of practices contrary to
human life and dignity is beginning to make an ever sharper impression upon
the moral conscience of many, especially among specialists in the biomedical
sciences.
CONCLUSION
The spread of technologies of intervention in the
processes of human procreation raises very serious moral problems in relation
to the respect due to the human being from the moment of conception, to the
dignity of the person, of his or her sexuality, and of the transmission of
life. With this Instruction the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in
fulfilling its responsibility to promote and defend the Church's teaching in
so serious a matter, addresses a new and heartfelt invitation to all those
who, by reason of their role and their commitment, can exercise a positive
influence and ensure that, in the family and in society, due respect is
accorded to life and love. It addresses this invitation to those responsible
for the formation of consciences and of public opinion, to scientists and
medical professionals, to jurists and politicians. It hopes that all will
understand the incompatibility between recognition of the dignity of the human
person and contempt for life and love, between faith in the living God and the
claim to decide arbitrarily the origin and fate of a human being.
In particular, the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith addresses an invitation with confidence and encouragement to
theologians, and above all to moralists, that they study more deeply and make
eves more accessible to the faithful the contents of the teaching of the
Church's Magisterium in the light of a valid anthropology in the matter of
sexuality and marriage and in the context of the necessary interdisciplinary
approach. Thus they will make it possible to understand ever more clearly the
reasons for and the validity of this teaching. By defending man against the
excesses of his own power, the Church of God reminds him of the reasons for
his true nobility; only in this way can the possibility of living and loving
with that dignity and liberty which derive from respect for the truth be
ensured for the men and women of tomorrow. The precise indications which are
offered in the present Instruction therefore are not meant to halt the effort
of reflection but rather to give it a renewed impulse in unrenounceable
fidelity to the teaching of the Church.
In the light of the truth about the gift of human
life and in the light of the moral principles which flow from that truth,
everyone is invited to act in the area of responsibility proper to each and,
like the good Samaritan, to recognize as a neighbour even the littlest among
the children of men (Cf . Lk 10: 2 9-37). Here Christ's words find a
new and particular echo: "What you do to one of the least of my brethren,
you do unto me" (Mt 25:40).
During an audience granted to the undersigned
Prefect after the plenary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, the Supreme Pontiff, John Paul II, approved this Instruction and
ordered it to be published.
Given at Rome, from the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, February 22, 1987, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter,
the Apostle.
JOSEPH Card. RATZINGER Prefect
ALBERTO BOVONE Titular
Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia Secretary
(1) POPE JOHN PAUL II, Discourse to those taking part in the 81st
Congress of the Italian Society of Internal Medicine and the 82nd Congress of
the Italian Society of General Surgery, 27 October 1980: AAS 72 (1980)
1126.
(2) POPE PAUL VI, Discourse to the General Assembly of the United
Nations Organization, 4 October 1965: AAS 57 (1965) 878; Encyclical
Populorum Progressio, 13: AAS 59 (1967) 263.
(3) POPE PAUL VI, Homily during the Mass closing the Holy Year, 25
December 1975: AAS 68 (1976) 145; POPE JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Dives in
Misericordia, 30: AAS 72 (1980) 1224.
(4) POPE JOHN PAUL II, Discourse to those taking part in the 35th
General Assembly of the World Medical Association, 29 October 1983: AAS 76
(1984) 390.
(5) Cf. Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, 2.
(6) Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 22; POPE JOHN PAUL II,
Encyclical Redemptor Hominis, 8: AAS 71 (1979) 270-272.
(7) Cf. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 35.
(8) Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 15; cf. also POPE PAUL
VI, Encyclical Populorum Progressio, 20: AAS 59 (1967) 267; POPE JOHN PAUL
II, Encyclical Redemptor Hominis, 15: AAS 71 (1979) 286-289; Apostolic
Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 8: AAS 74 (1982) 89.
(9) POPE JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio,
11: AAS 74 (1982) 92.
(10) Cf. POPE PAUL VI, Encyclical Humanae Vitae, 10: AAS 60 (1968)
487-488.
(11) POPE JOHN PAUL II, Discourse to the members of the 35th General Assembly
of the World Medical Association, 29 October 1983: AAS 76 (1984)
393.
(12) Cf. POPE JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio,
11: AAS 74 (1982) 91-92; cf. also Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes,
50.
(13) SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration on
Procured Abortion, 9, AAS 66 (1974) 736-737.
(14) POPE JOHN PAUL II, Discourse to those taking part in the 35th General
Assembly of the World Medical Association, 29 October 1983: AAS 76 (1984)
390.
(15) POPE JOHN XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, III: AAS 53
(1961) 447.
(16) Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 24.
(17) Cf. POPE PIUS XII, Encyclical Humani Generis: AAS 42 (1950)
575; POPE PAUL VI, Professio Fidei: AAS 60 (1968) 436.
(18) POPE JOHN XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, III: AAS 53
(1961) 447; cf. POPE JOHN PAUL II, Discourse to priests participating in a
seminar on "Responsible Procreation", 17 September 1983, Insegnamenti
di Giovanni Paolo II, VI, 2 (1983) 562: "At the origin of each human
person there is a creative act of God: no man comes into existence by chance;
he is always the result of the creative love of God".
(19) Cf. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 24.
(20) Cf. POPE PIUS XII, Discourse to the Saint Luke Medical-Biological
Union, 12 November 1944: Discorsi e Radiomessaggi VI (1944-1945)
191-192.
(21) Cf. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 50.
(22) Cf. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 51: "When it is
a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of
life, the moral character of one's behaviour does not depend only on the good
intention and the evaluation of the motives: the objective criteria must be
used, criteria drawn from the nature of the human person and human acts,
criteria which respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human
procreation in the context of true love".
(23) Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 51.
(24) HOLY SEE, Charter of the Rights of the Family, 4: L'Osservatore
Romano, 25 November 1983.
(25) SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration on
Procured Abortion, 12-13: AAS 66 (1974) 738.
(26) Cf. POPE PAUL VI, Discourse to participants in the Twenty-third
National Congress of Italian Catholic Jurists, 9 December 1972: AAS 64 (
1972) 777.
(27) The obligation to avoid disproportionate risks involves an authentic
respect for human beings and the uprightness of therapeutic intentions. It
implies that the doctor "above all ... must carefully evaluate the
possible negative consequences which the necessary use of a particular
exploratory technique may have upon the unborn child and avoid recourse to
diagnostic procedures which do not offer sufficient guarantees of their honest
purpose and substantial harmlessness. And if, as often happens in human
choices, a degree of risk must be undertaken, he will take care to assure that
it is justified by a truly urgent need for the diagnosis and by the importance
of the results that can be achieved by it for the benefit of the unborn child
himself" (POPE JOHN PAUL II, Discourse to Participants in the Pro-Life
Movement Congress, 3 December 1982: Insegnantenti di Giovanni Paolo II,
V, 3 [1982] 1512). This clarification concerning "proportionate
risk" is also to be kept in mind in the following sections of the present
Instruction, whenever this term appears.
(28) POPE JOHN PAUL II, Discourse to the Participants in the 35th
General Assembly of the World Medical Association, 29 October 1983: AAS 76
(1984) 392.
(29) Cf. POPE JOHN PAUL II, Address to a Meeting of the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences, 23 October 1982: AAS 75 (1983) 37: "I condemn,
in the most explicit and formal way, experimental manipulations of the human
embryo, since the human being, from conception to death, cannot be exploited
for any purpose whatsoever".
(30) HOLY SEE, Charter of the Rights of the Family, 4b: L'Osservatore
Romano, 25 November 1983.
(31) Cf. POPE JOHN PAUL II, Address to the Participants in the Convention
of the Pro-Life Movement, 3 December 1982: Insegnamenti di Giovanni
Paolo II, V, 3 (1982) 1511: "Any form of experimentation on the
foetus that may damage its integrity or worsen its condition is unacceptable,
except in the case of a final effort to save it from death". SACRED
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration on Euthanasia,
4: AAS 72 (1980) 550: "In the absence of other sufficient remedies, it is
permitted, with the patient's consent, to have recourse to the means provided
by the most advanced medical techniques, even if these means are still at the
experimental stage and are not without a certain risk".
(32) No one, before coming into existence, can claim a subjective right to
begin to exist; nevertheless, it is legitimate to affirm the right of the
child to have a fully human origin through conception in conformity with the
personal nature of the human being. Life is a gift that must be bestowed in a
manner worthy both of the subject receiving it and of the subjects
transmitting it. This statement is to be borne in mind also for what will be
explained concerning artificial human procreation.
(33) Cf. POPE JOHN PAUL II, Discourse to those taking part in the 35th
General Assembly of the World Medical Association, 29 October 1983: AAS 76
(1984) 391.
(34) Cf. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern world, Gaudium
et Spes, 50.
(35) Cf. POPE JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio,
14: AAS 74 ( 1982) 96.
(36) Cf. POPE PIUS XII, Discourse to those taking part in the 4th
International Congress of Catholic Doctors, 29 September 1949: AAS 41
(1949) 559. According to the plan of the Creator, "A man leaves his
father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh"
(Gen 2:24). The unity of marriage, bound to the order of creation, is a
truth accessible to natural reason. The Church's Tradition and Magisterium
frequently make reference to the Book of Genesis, both directly and through
the passages of the New Testament that refer to it: Mt 19: 4-6; Mk:
10:5-8; Eph 5: 31. Cf. ATHENAGORAS, Legatio pro christianis, 33:
PG 6, 965-967; ST CHRYSOSTOM, In Matthaeum homiliae, LXII, 19, 1: PG 58
597; ST LEO THE GREAT, Epist. ad Rusticum, 4: PL 54, 1204; INNOCENT
III, Epist. Gaudemus in Domino: DS 778; COUNCIL OF LYONS II, IV Session:
DS 860; COUNCIL OF TRENT, XXIV , Session: DS 1798. 1802; POPE LEO XIII,
Encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae: ASS 12 (1879/80) 388-391; POPE PIUS
XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930) 546-547; SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL,
Gaudium et Spes, 48; POPE JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris
Consortio, 19: AAS 74 (1982) 101-102; Code of Canon Law,
Can.1056.
(37) Cf. POPE PIUS XII, Discourse to those taking part in the 4th
International Congress of Catholic Doctors, 29 September 1949: AAS 41
(1949) 560; Discourse to those taking part in the Congress of the Italian
Catholic Union of Midwives, 29 October 1951: AAS 43 (1951) 850; Code of
Canon Law, Can. 1134.
(38) POPE PAUL VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, 12: AAS 60
(1968) 488-489.
(39) Loc. cit., ibid., 489.
(40) POPE PIUS XII, Discourse to those taking part in the Second Naples
World Congress on Fertility and Human Sterility, 19 May 1956: AAS 48
(1956) 470.
(41) Code of Canon Law, Can. 1061. According to this Canon, the
conjugal act is that by which the marriage is consummated if the couple
"have performed (it) between themselves in a human manner".
(42) Cf. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 14.
(43) Cf. POPE JOHN PAUL II, General Audience on 16 January 1980: Insegnamenti
di Giovanni Paolo II, III, 1 (1980) 148-152.
(44) POPE JOHN PAUL II, Discourse to those taking part in the 35th
General Assembly of the World Medical Association, 29 October 1983: AAS 76
(1984) 393.
(45) Cf. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 51.
(46) Cf. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 50.
(47) Cf. POPE PIUS XII, Discourse to those taking part in the 4th
International Congress of Catholic Doctors, 29 September 1949: AAS 41
(1949) 560: "It would be erroneous ... to think that the possibility of
resorting to this means (artificial fertilization) might render valid a
marriage between persons unable to contract it because of the impedimentum
impotentiae".
(48) A similar question was dealt with by POPE PAUL VI, Encyclical Humanae
Vitae, 14: AAS 60 (1968) 490-491.
(49) Cf. supra: I, 1 ff.
(50) POPE JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio.
14: AAS 74 (1982) 96.
(51) Cf. Response of the Holy Office, 17 March 1897: DS 3323; POPE PIUS
XII, Discourse to those taking part in the 4th International Congress of
Catholic Doctors, 29 September 1949: AAS 41 (1949) 560; Discourse to
the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives, 29 October 1951: AAS 43 (1951)
850; Discourse to those taking part in the Second Naples World Congress on
Fertility and Human Sterility, 19 May 1956: AAS 48 (1956) 471-473; Discourse
to those taking part in the 7th International Congress of the International
Society of Haematology, 12 September 1958: AAS 50 (1958) 733; POPE JOHN
XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, III: AAS 53 (1961) 447.
(52) POPE PIUS XII, Discourse to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives,
29 October 1951: AAS 43 ( 1951 ) 850.
(53) POPE PIUS XII, Discourse to those taking part in the 4th
International Congress of Catholic Doctors, 29 September 1949: AAS 41
(1949) 560.
(54) SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration on
Certain Questions Concerning Sexual ethics, 9: AAS 68 (1976) 86, which
quotes the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 51. Cf. Decree of
the Holy Office, 2 August 1929: AAS 21 (1929) 490; POPE PIUS XII, Discourse
to those taking part in the 26th Congress of the Italian Society of Urology,
8 October 1953: AAS 45 (1953) 678.
(55) Cf. POPE JOHN XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, III: AAS 53
(1961) 447.
(56) Cf. POPE PIUS XII, Discourse to those taking part in the 4th
International Congress of Catholic Doctors, 29 September 1949: AAS 41
(1949), 560.
(57) Cf. POPE PIUS XII, Discourse to the taking part in the Second
Naples World Congress on Fertility and Human Sterility, 19 May 1956: AAS
48 (1956) 471-473.
(58) Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 50.
(59) POPE JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio,
14: AAS 74 (1982) 97.
(60) Cf. Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, 7.
|