Replies to Certain Questions of the Day

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 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. 

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

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 (1965), 878;

Encyclical Populorum progressio, no. 13: AAS 59 (1967), 263.

    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), 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," 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 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, 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 on 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 por 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: 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, 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, October 29,

1983: AAS 76 (1984), 393.

    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: I, 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.