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