INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE

IN ITS ORIGIN AND THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION:

REPLIES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE DAY

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Authorized Vatican Translation

FOREWORD

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been approached by

various Episcopal Conferences or individual Bishops, by theologians, doctors

and scientists, concerning biomedical techniques which make it possible to

intervene in the initial phase of the life of a human being and in the very

processes of procreation and their conformity with the principles of Catholic

morality. The present Instruction, which is the result of wide consultation

and in particular of a careful evaluation of the declarations made by

Episcopates, does not intend to repeat all the Church's teaching on the

dignity of human life as it originates and on procreation, but to offer, in

the light of the previous teaching of the Magisterium, some specific replies

to the main questions being asked in this regard.

The exposition is arranged as follows: an introduction will recall the

fundamental principles, of an anthropological and moral character, which are

necessary for a proper evaluation of the problems and for working out replies

to those questions; the first part will have as its subject respect for the

human being from the first moment of his or her existence; the second part

will deal with the moral questions raised by technical interventions on human

procreation; the third part will offer some orientations on the relationships

between moral law and civil law in terms of the respect due to human embryos

and fetuses* and as regards the legitimacy of techniques of artificial

procreation.

__________

*The terms "zygote," "pre-embryo," "embryo" and "fetus" can indicate in

the vocabulary of biology successive stages of the development of a human

being. The present Instruction makes free use of these terms, attributing to

them an identical ethical relevance, in order to designate the birth (whether

visible or not) of human generation, from the first moment of its existence

until birth. The reason for this usage is clarified by the text (cf I, 1).

INTRODUCTION

1. BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH

The gift of life which God the Creator and Father has entrusted to man

calls him to appreciate the inestimable value of what he has been given and to

take responsibility for it: this fundamental principle must be placed at the

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 or 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" (Gen 1:27), entrusting to them the task of dominion over the

earth" (Gen 1:28). Basic scientific research and applied research constitute

a significant expression of this dominion of man over creation. Science and

technology are valuable resources for man when placed at his service and when

they promote his integral development for the benefit of all; but they cannot

of themselves show the meaning of existence and of human progress. Being

ordered to man, who initiates and develops them, they draw from the person and

his moral values the indication of their purpose and the awareness of their

limits.

It would on the one hand be illusory to claim that scientific research

and its applications are morally neutral; on the other hand one cannot derive

criteria for guidance from mere technical efficiency, from research's possible

usefulness to some at the expense of others, or, worse still, from prevailing

ideologies. Thus science and technology require, for their own intrinsic

meaning, an unconditional respect for the fundamental criteria of the moral

law: that is to say, they must be at the service of the human person, of his

inalienable rights and his true and integral good according to the design and

the will of God.|7\

The rapid development of technological discoveries gives greater urgency

to this need to respect the criteria just mentioned: science without

conscience can only lead to man's ruin. "Our era needs such wisdom more than

bygone ages if the discoveries made by man are to be further humanized. For

the future of the world stands in peril unless wiser people are

forthcoming."|8\

3. ANTHROPOLOGY AND PROCEDURES IN THE BIOMEDICAL FIELD

Which moral criteria must be applied in order to clarify the problems

posed today in the field of biomedicine? The answer to this question

presupposes a proper idea of the nature of the human person in his bodily

dimension.

For it is only in keeping with his true nature that the human person can

achieve self-realization as a "unified totality":|9\ and this nature is at the

same time corporal and spiritual. By virtue of its substantial union with a

spiritual soul, the human body cannot be considered as a mere complex of

tissues, organs and functions, nor can it be evaluated in the same way as the

body of animals; rather it is a constitutive part of the person who manifests

and expresses himself through it.

The natural moral law expresses and lays down the purposes, rights and

duties which are based upon the bodily and spiritual nature of the human

person. Therefore this law cannot be thought of as simply a set of norms on

the biological level; rather it must be defined as the rational order whereby

man is called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life and actions and

in particular to make use of his own body.|10\

A first consequence can be deduced from these principles: An intervention

on the human body affects not only the tissues, the organs and their functions

but also involves the person himself on different levels. It involves

therefore, perhaps in an implicit but nonetheless real way, a moral

significance and responsibility. Pope John Paul II forcefully reaffirmed this

to the World Medical Association when he said: "Each human person, in his

absolutely unique singularity, is constituted not only by his spirit, but by

his body as well. Thus, in the body and through the body, one touches the

person himself in his concrete reality. To respect the dignity of man

consequently amounts to safeguarding this identity of the man 'corpore et

anima unus,' as the Second Vatican Council says (Gaudium et Spes, 14, par. 1).

It is on the basis of this anthropological vision that one is to find the

fundamental criteria for decision-making in the case of procedures which are

not strictly therapeutic, as, for example, those aimed at the improvement of

the human biological condition."|11\

Applied biology and medicine work together for the integral good of human

life when they come to the aid of a person stricken by illness and infirmity

and when they respect his or her dignity as a creature of God. No biologist

or doctor can reasonably claim, by virtue of his scientific competence, to be

able to decide on people's origin and destiny. This norm must be applied in a

particular way in the field of sexuality and procreation, in which man and

woman actualize the fundamental values of love and life.

God, who is love and life, has inscribed in man and woman the vocation to

share in a special way in his mystery of personal communion and in his work as

Creator and Father.|12\ For this reason marriage possesses specific goods and

values in its union and in procreation which cannot be likened to those

existing in lower forms of life. Such values and meanings are of the personal

order and determine from the moral point of view the meaning and limits of

artificial interventions on procreation and on the origin of human life.

These interventions are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are

artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of

medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the

dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to

the gift of love and the gift of life.

4. FUNDAMENTAL CRITERIA FOR A MORAL JUDGMENT

The fundamental values connected with the techniques of artificial human

procreation are two: the life of the human being called into existence and the

special nature of the transmission of human life in marriage. The moral

judgment on such methods of artificial procreation must therefore be

formulated in reference to these values.

Physical life, with which the course of human life in the world begins,

certainly does not itself contain the whole of a person's value, nor does it

represent the supreme good of man who is called to eternal life. However it

does constitute in a certain way the "fundamental" value of life, precisely

because upon this physical life all the other values of the person are based

and developed.|13\ The inviolability of the innocent human being's right to

life "from the moment of conception until death"|14\ is a sign and requirement

of the very inviolability of the person to whom the Creator has given the gift

of life.

By comparison with the transmission of other forms of life in the

universe, the transmission of human life has a special character of its own,

which derives from the special nature of the human persons. "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 indispensible 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 to destroy directly an innocent human being.|20\

Human procreation requires on the part of the spouses responsible

collaboration with the fruitful love of God;|21\ the gift of human life must

be actualized in marriage through the specific and exclusive acts of husband

and wife, in accordance with the laws inscribed in their persons and in their

union.|22\

PART 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." More recently the Charter of the Rights

of the Family, published by the Holy See,|23\ 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 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 the first

appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human

person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation

of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation

of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is

unchangeable.|26\

Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its

existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the

unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and

spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a

person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his

rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the

inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.

This doctrinal reminder provides the fundamental criterion for the

solution of the various problems posed by the development of the biomedical

sciences in this field: since the embryo must be treated as a person, it must

also be defended in its integrity, tended and cared for, to the extent

possible, in the same way as any other human being as far as medical

assistance is concerned.

__________________

*The zygote is the cell produced when the nuclei of the two gametes have

fused.

2. Is Prenatal Diagnosis Morally Licit?

If prenatal diagnosis respects the life and integrity of the embryo and

the human 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 the 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 true promotion of the personal well-being of the individual

without doing harm to his integrity or worsening his conditions of life. Such

an intervention would indeed fall within the logic of the Christian moral

tradition."|28\

4. How Is One to Evaluate Morally Research and Experimentation* on Human

Embryos and 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 or the Rights of the Family published by the Holy See affirms:

"Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental

manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo."|30\ The practice of keeping

alive human embryos in vivo or in vitro for experimental or commercial

purposes is totally opposed to human dignity.

In the case of experimentation that is clearly therapeutic, namely, when

it is a matter of experimental forms of therapy used for the benefit of the

embryo itself in a final attempt to save its life, and in the absence of other

reliable forms of therapy, recourse to drugs or procedures not yet fully

tested can be licit.|31\

The corpses of human embryos and 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.

________________

*Since the terms "research" and "experimentation" are often used

equivalently and ambiguously, it is deemed necessary to specify the exact

meaning given them in this document.

1) By research is meant any inductive-deductive process which aims at

promoting the systematic observation of a given phenomenon in the human field

or at verifying a hypothesis arising from previous observations.

2) By experimentation is meant any research in which the human being (in

the various stages of his existence: embryo, fetus, child or adult) represents

the object through which or upon which one intends to verify the effect, at

present unknown or not sufficiently known, of a given treatment (e.g.

pharmacological, teratogenic, surgical, etc.).

5. How is One to Evaluate Morally the Use for Research Purposes of Embryos

Obtained by Fertilization 'in Vitro'?

Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and subjects with

rights: their dignity and right to life must be respected from the first

moment of their existence. It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to

be exploited as disposable "biological material."

In the usual practice of in vitro fertilization, not all of the embryos

are transferred to the woman's body; some are destroyed. Just as the Church

condemns induced abortion, so she also forbids acts against the life of these

human beings. It is a duty to condemn the particular gravity of the voluntary

destruction of human embryos obtained 'in vitro' for the sole purpose of

research, either by means of artificial insemination of by means of "twin

fission." By acting in this way the researcher usurps the place of God; and,

even though he may be unaware of this, he sets himself up as the master of the

destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily chooses whom he will allow to

live and whom he will send to death and kills 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 embryos. 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 beings 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 the right of every

human being from his or her beginning.

PART 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.

_____________

*By the term heterologous artificial fertilization or procreation, the

Instruction means techniques used to obtain a human conception artificially by

the use of gametes coming from at least one donor other than the spouses who

are joined in marriage. Such techniques can be of two types:

a) Heterologous IVF and ET: the technique used to obtain a human

conception through the meeting in vitro of gametes taken from at least one

donor other than the two spouses joined in marriage.

b) Heterologous artificial insemination: the technique used to obtain a

human conception through the transfer into the genital tracts of the woman of

the sperm previously collected from a donor other than the husband.

**By artificial homologous fertilization or procreation, the Instruction

means the technique used to obtain a human conception using the gametes of the

two spouses joined in marriage. Homologous artificial fertilization can be

carried out by two different methods:

a) Homologous IVF and ET: the technique used to obtain a human conception

through the meeting in vitro of the gametes of the spouses joined in marriage.

b) Homologous artificial insemination: the technique used to obtain a

human conception through the transfer into the genital tracts of a married

woman of the sperm previously collected from her husband.

A. HETEROLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION

1. Why Must Human Procreation Take Place in Marriage?

Every human being is always to be accepted as a gift and blessing of God.

However, from the moral point of view a truly responsible procreation

vis-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 spouses, in an objective and inalienable manner, the exclusive

right to become father and mother solely through each other.|37\ Recourse to

the gametes of a third person, in order to have sperm or ovum available,

constitutes a violation of the reciprocal commitment of the spouses and a

grave lack in regard to the 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 unity and integrity; it brings

about and manifests a rupture between genetic 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 artificial

fertilization: for it is contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity

of the procreation of the human person.

Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the

obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible

motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived,

carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents;

it sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical,

psychological and moral elements which constitute those families.

_________

*By "surrogate mother" the Instruction means:

a) the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo implanted in her uterus

and who is genetically a stranger to the embryo because it has been obtained

through the union of the gametes of "donors." She carries the pregnancy with a

pledge to surrender the baby once it is born to the party who commissioned or

made the agreement for the pregnancy.

b) the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo to whose procreation she

has contributed the donation of her own ovum, fertilized through insemination

with the sperm of a man other than her husband. She carries the pregnancy with

the pledge to surrender the child once it is born to the party who

commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy.

B. HOMOLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION

Since heterologous artificial fertilization has been declared

unacceptable, the question arises of how to evaluate morally the process of

homologous artificial fertilization: IVF and ET and artificial insemination

between husband and wife. First a question of principle must be clarified.

4. What Connection is Required from the Moral Point of View between

Procreation and the Conjugal Act?

a) The Church's teaching on marriage and human procreation affirms the

"inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his

own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive

meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the

conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them

for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being

of man and of woman."|38\ This principle, which is based upon the nature of

marriage and the intimate connection of the goods of marriage, has well-known

consequences on the level of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. "By

safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative,

the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and

its ordination towards man's exalted vocation to parenthood."|39\

The same doctrine concerning the link between the meanings of the

conjugal act and between the goods of marriage throws light on the moral

problem of homologous artificial fertilization, since "it is never permitted

to separate these different aspects to such a degree as positively to exclude

either the procreative intention or the conjugal relation."|40\

Contraception deliberately deprives the conjugal act of its openness to

procreation and in this way brings about a voluntary dissociation of the ends

of marriage. Homologous artificial fertilization, in seeking a procreation

which is not the fruit of a specific act of conjugal union, objectively

effects an analogous separation between the goods and the meanings of

marriage.

Thus, fertilization is licitly sought when it is the result of a

"conjugal act which is per se suitable for the generation of children to which

marriage is ordered by its nature and by which 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 irrepeatable

origin, the child must be respected and recognized as equal in personal

dignity to those who give him life. The human person must be accepted in his

parents' act of union and love; the generation of a child must therefore be

the fruit of that mutual giving|45\ which is realized in the conjugal act

wherein the spouses cooperate as servants and not as masters in the work of

the Creator who is Love.|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

insure the dignity proper to human procreation. It is acknowledged that IVR

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 definite moral quality from the totality of conjugal life of which it

becomes part nor from the 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

is 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 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 a 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 insuring that the natural act normally performed

achieves its proper end."|53\ If the technical means facilitates the conjugal

act or helps it to reach its natural objectives, it can be morally acceptable.

If, on the other hand, the procedure were to replace the conjugal act, it is

morally illicit.

Artificial insemination as a substitute for the conjugal act is

prohibited by reason of the voluntarily achieved dissociation of the two

meanings of the conjugal act. Masturbation, through which the sperm is

normally obtained, is another sign of this dissociation: even when it is done

for the purpose of procreation, the act remains deprived of its unitive

meaning: "It lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order,

namely the relationship which realizes 'the full sense of mutual self-giving

and human procreation in the context of true love.'"|54\

7. What Moral Criterion Can Be Proposed With Regard to Medical Intervention

in Human Procreation?

The medical act must be evaluated not only with reference to its

technical dimension but also and above all in relation to its goal which is

the good of persons and their bodily and psychological health. The moral

criteria for medical intervention in procreation are deduced from the dignity

of human persons, of their sexuality and of their origin.

Medicine which seeks to be ordered to the integral good of the person

must respect the specifically human values of sexuality.|55\ The doctor is at

the service of persons and of human procreation. He does not have the

authority to dispose of them or to decide their fate. A medical intervention

respects the dignity of persons when it seeks to assist the conjugal act

either in order to facilitate its performance or in order to enable it to

achieve its objective once it has been normally performed.|56\

On the other hand, it sometimes happens that a medical procedure

technologically replaces the conjugal act in order to obtain a procreation

which is neither its result nor its fruit. In this case the medical act is

not, as it should be, at the service of conjugal union but rather appropriates

to itself the procreative function and thus contradicts the dignity and the

inalienable rights of the spouses and of the child to be born.

The humanization of medicine, which is insisted upon today by everyone,

requires respect for the integral dignity of the human person first of all in

the act and at the moment in which the spouses transmit life to a new person.

It is only logical therefore to address an urgent appeal to Catholic doctors

and scientists that they bear exemplary witness to the respect due to the

human embryo and to the dignity of procreation. The medical and nursing staff

of Catholic hospitals and clinics are in a special way urged to do justice to

the moral obligations which they have assumed, frequently also, as part of

their contract. Those who are in charge of Catholic hospitals and clinics and

who are often Religious will take special care to safeguard and promote a

diligent observance of the moral norms recalled in the present Instruction.

8. The Suffering Caused By Infertility in Marriage

The suffering of spouses who cannot have children or who are afraid of

bringing a handicapped child into the world is a suffering that everyone must

understand and properly evaluate.

On the part of the spouses, the desire for a child is natural: it

expresses the vocation to fatherhood and motherhood inscribed in conjugal

love. This desire can be even stronger if the couple is affected by sterility

which appears incurable. Nevertheless, marriage does not confer upon the

spouses the right to have a child, but only the right to perform those natural

acts which are per se ordered to procreation.|57\

A true and proper right to a child would be contrary to the child's

dignity and nature. The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor

can he be considered as an object of ownership: rather, a child is a gift,

"the supreme gift"|58\ and the most gratuitous gift of marriage, and is a

living testimony of the mutual giving of his parents. For this reason, the

child has the right, as already mentioned, to be the fruit of the specific act

of the conjugal love of his parents; and he also has the right to be respected

as a person from the moment of his conception.

Nevertheless, whatever its cause or prognosis, sterility is certainly a

difficult trial. The community of believers is called to shed light upon and

support the suffering of those who are unable to fulfill their legitimate

aspiration to motherhood and fatherhood. Spouses who find themselves in this

sad situation are called to find in it an opportunity for sharing in a

particular way in the Lord's Cross, the source of spiritual fruitfulness.

Sterile couples must not forget that "even when procreation is not possible,

conjugal life does not for this reason lose its value. Physical sterility in

fact can be for spouses the occasion for other important services to the life

of the human person, for example, adoption, various forms of educational work,

and assistance to other families and to poor or handicapped children."|59\

Many researchers are engaged in the fight against sterility. While fully

safeguarding the dignity of human procreation, some have achieved results

which previously seemed unattainable. Scientists therefore are to be

encouraged to continue their research with the aim of preventing the causes of

sterility and of being able to remedy them so that sterile couples will be

able to procreate in full respect for their own personal dignity and that of

the child to born.

PART 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 every 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 insuring 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

of and 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 insure 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 their persons 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 area, the child's right to be conceived, brought into

the world and brought up by his parents. To each of these two themes it is

necessary here to give some further consideration.

In various states certain laws have authorized the direct suppression of

innocents: the moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of

the protection which civil legislation must accord them, the state is denying

the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power

at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more

vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. The

political authority consequently cannot give approval to the calling of human

beings into existence through procedures which would expose them to those very

grave risks noted previously. The possible recognition by positive law and

the political authorities of techniques of artificial transmission of life and

the experimentation connected with it would widen the breach already opened by

the legalization of abortion.

As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be insured for

the unborn child from the moment of 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 insure 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 �

Made available to the network by

Bob Van Cleef <revc@GARG.CAMPBELL.CA.US>

Send email to

fileserver@garg.campbell.ca.us

with the following text in the body of the message

help

dir

to get information on the Roman Catholic Archive file server