Congregation for the Doctrine of the FaithDONUM VITAE
Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the
Dignity of Procreation
Replies to Certain Questions of the Day
February 22, 1987
CONTENTS
Foreword
Introduction
1. Biomedical Research and the
Teaching of the Church
2. Science and Technology at the Service of the Human Person
3. Anthropology and Procedures in the Biomedical Field
4. Fundamental Criteria for a Moral Judgment
5. Teachings of the Magisterium
I. Respect for Human Embryos
1. What Respect Is Due to the Human Embryo,
Taking into Account His Nature and Identity?
2. Is Prenatal Diagnosis Morally Licit?
3. Are Therapeutic Procedures Carried Out on the Human Embryo
Licit?
4. How Is One Morally To Evaluate Research and Experimentation
on Human Embryos and Fetuses?
5. How Is One Morally To Evaluate the Use for Research Purposes
of Embryos Obtained by Fertilization in Vitro?
6. What Judgment Should Be Made on Other Procedures of
Manipulating Embryos Connected with the "Techniques of Human Reproduction"?
II. Interventions Upon Human Procreation
A. Heterologous Artificial
Fertilization
1. Why Must Human Procreation Take Place in
Marriage?
2. Does Heterologous Artificial Fertilization Conform to the
Dignity of the Couple and to the Truth of Marriage?
3. Is "Surrogate" Motherhood Morally Licit?
B. Homologous Artificial
Fertilization
4. From the Moral Point of View What
Connection Is Required Between Procreation and the Conjugal Act?
5. Is Homologous in Vitro Fertilization Morally Licit?
6. How Is Homologous Artificial Insemination To Be Evaluated
from the Moral Point of View?
7. What Moral Criterion Can Be Proposed with Regard to Medical
Intervention in Human Procreation?
8. The Suffering Caused by Infertility in Marriage
III. Moral and Civil Law
Conclusion
Notes
FOREWORD
The Congregation of 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 fetuses and
as regards the legitimacy of techniques of artificial procreation.
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 center
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, defense 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" (Gn. 1:27), entrusting to them the task of "having dominion over the
earth" (Gn. 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.
On the one hand, it would 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, no. 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 about 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 regarding procreation and 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 the 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 directly to destroy 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 fetuses. 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 program 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.
2. Is Prenatal Diagnosis Morally Licit?
If prenatal diagnosis respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the
human fetus 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 fetus 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 confirm 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 favoring a link between prenatal diagnosis and abortion.
In conclusion, any directive or program of the civil and health authorities
or of scientific organizations which in any way were to favor 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 fetuses 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
fetal 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 Morally To Evaluate Research and Experimentation on Human
Embryos and Fetuses?
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 given their
free and informed 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
experimentation 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 fetuses, 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 fetuses 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 fetuses 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 human embryos alive 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 fetuses, 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 fetuses, as for the
corpses of adult persons, all commercial trafficking must be considered illicit
and should be prohibited.
5. How Is One Morally To Evaluate 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 or 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 defenseless 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 are 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 offense 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 offenses 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 hyper-ovulation 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 end 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.
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-a-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 uses, 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.
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. From the Moral Point of View What Connection Is Required 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, makes them capable of 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 toward 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 "spousal 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 unrepeatable 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. (46)
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 practiced, 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 remains 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 in 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 defense 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 or 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 are a, 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 professional 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-a-vis such laws must be
supported and recognized. A movement of passive resistance 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 ever 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 neighbor even the littlest among the children of men (cf. Lk.
10:29-37). 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 CARDINAL RATZINGER
Prefect
ALBERTO BOVONE
Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia
Secretary
[Return to top of page]
NOTES
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, October 27, 1980: AAS
72 (1980), 1126.
2. Pope Paul VI, Discourse to the General Assembly of the
United Nations Organization, October 4, 1965: AAS 57 (19651), 878:
Encyclical Populorum progressio, no. 13: AAS 59 (1967), 26:3.
3. Pope Paul VI, Homily during the Mass closing the Holy
Year, December 25, 1975: AAS 68 (1976), 145; Pope John Paul II,
Encyclical Dives in misericordia, no. 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, October 29,
1983: AAS 76 (1984), 390.
5. Cf. Declaration Dignitatis humanae, no. 2.
6. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, no. 22; Pope
John Paul II, Encyclical Redemptor hominis, no. 8: AAS 71 (1979),
270-272.
7. Cf. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, no. 35.
8. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes no. 15; cf.
also Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Populorum progressio, no. 20: AAS 59
(1967), 267; Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Redemptor hominis no.
15: AAS 71 (1979), 286-289; Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio,
no. 8: AAS 74 (1982), 89.
9. Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris
consortio, no. 11: AAS 74 (1982), 92.
10. Cf. Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae vitae, no.
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, October 29, 1983:
AAS 76 (1984), 393.
12. Cf. Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation
Familiaris consortio, no. 11: AAS 74 (1982), 91-92; cf also Pastoral
Constitution Gaudium et spes, no. 50.
13. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Declaration on Procured Abortion, no. 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, October 29,
1983: AAS 76 (1984), 390.
15. Pope John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et magistra,
III: AAS
53 (1961), 447.
16. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, no. 24.
17. Cf. Pope Pius XII Encyclical Humani generis:
AAS 42 (1950), 575; Pope Paul VI, Professio fidei: AAS 60
(1968), 4:36.
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," September 17, 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, no.
24.
20. Cf. Pope Pius XII Discourse to the Saint Luke
Medical-Biological Union, November 12, 1944: Discorsi e Radiomessaggi VI
(1944-1945), 191-192.
21. Cf. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, no.
50.
22. Cf. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, no.
51: "When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible
transmission of life, the moral character of one's behavior 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, no. 51.
24. Holy See, Charter of the Rights of the Family,
no. 4: L'Osservatore Romano, November 25, 1983.
25. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Declaration on Procured Abortion, nos. 12-13: AAS 66 (1974), 738.
26. Cf. Pope Paul VI, Discourse to participants in the
Twenty-third National Congress of Italian Catholic Jurists, December 9,
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 call 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, December 3, 1982: Insegnamenti 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, October 29,
1983: AAS 76 (1984), 392.
29. Cf. Pope John Paul II, Address to a Meeting of the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences. October 23, 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,
no. 4b: L'Osservatore Romano, November 25, 1983.
31. Cf. Pope John Paul II, Address to the Participants in
the Convention of the Pro-Life Movement, December 3, 1982: Insegnamenti
di Giovanni Paolo II, V, 3 (1982), 1511: "Any form of experimentation oil
the fetus 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, no, 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, October 29,
1983: AAS
76 (1984), 391.
34. Cf. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern
World, Gaudium et spes, no. 50.
35. Cf Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation
Familiaris consortio, no. 14: AAS 74 (1982), 96.
36. Cf Pope Pius XII Discourse to those taking part in the
4th International Congress of Catholic Doctors, September 29, 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" (Gn. 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 per christianis, 33: PC 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 II1, Epist. Gaudemus lit 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: AAS
12 (1879/80), 388-391; Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti connubii: AAS
22 (1930), 546-547: Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 48; Pope
John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, no. 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, September 29, 1949:
AAS 41 (1949), 560; Discourse to those taking part in the Congress of the
Italian Catholic Union of Midwives, October 29, 1951: AAS 43 (1951),
850; Code of Canon Law, Can. 1134.
38. Pope Paul VI. Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae no.
12: AAS
60 (1968), 488-489.
39. Loc. cit., ibid., no. 489.
40. Pope Pius XII, Discourse to those taking part in the
Second Naples World Congress on Fertility and Human Sterility, May 19, 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, no.
14.
43. Cf. Pope John Paul II, General Audience on January
16, 1980: Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, 111, 1 (1980), 148-152.
44. Pope John Paul II, Discourse to those taking part in
the 35th General Assembly of the World Medical Association, October 29,
1983: AAS 76 (1984):193.
45. Cf. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, no.
51.
46. Cf. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, no.
50.
47. Cf. Pope Pius XII; Discourse to those taking part in
the 4th International Congress of Catholic Doctors, September 29, 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
inpotentiae."
48. A similar question was dealt with by Pope Paul VI.
Encyclical Humanae vitae, no. 14: AAS 60 (1968), 490-491.
49. Cf. supra: 1,1ff.
50. Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris
consortio, no. 14: AAS 74 (1982), 96.
51. Cf Response of the Holy Office, March 17, 1897:
DS 3323; Pope Pius XII, Discourse to those taking part in the 4th
International Congress of Catholic Doctors, September 29, 1949: AAS
41 (1949), 560; Discourse to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives,
October 29, 1951: AAS 43 (1951), 850; Discourse to those taking part
in the Second Naples World Congress on Fertility and Human Sterility, May
19, 1956: AAS 48 (1956), 471-473; Discourse to those taking part in
the 7th International Congress of the International Society of Hematology,
September 12, 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, October 29, 1951: AAS 43 (1951), 850.
53. Pope Pius XII, Discourse to those taking part in the
4th International Congress of Catholic Doctors, September 29, 1949: AAS
41 (1949), 560.
54. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, no. 9: AAS
68 (1976), 86, which quotes the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes,
no. 51. Cf. Decree of the Holy Office, August 2, 1929: AAS 21
(1929), 490: Pope Pius XII, Discourse to those taking part in the 26th
Congress of the Italian Society of Urology, October 8, 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. September 29, 1949:
AAS 41 (1949), 560.
57. Cf. Pope Pius XII, Discourse to those taking part in
the Second Naples World Congress on Fertility and Human Sterility, May 19,
1956: AAS 48 (1956), 471-473.
58. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, no. 50.
59. Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris
consortio, no. 14: AAS 74 (1982), 97
60. Cf. Declaration Dignitatis humanae, no. 7.
Teachings of the
Magisterium on Abortion
