|
INTRODUCTION
1. The dignity of a person must be
recognized in every human being from conception to
natural death. This fundamental principle expresses a
great “yes” to human life and must be at the center
of ethical reflection on biomedical research, which has
an ever greater importance in today’s world. The
Church’s Magisterium has frequently intervened to
clarify and resolve moral questions in this area. The
Instruction
Donum vitae was
particularly significant.[1]
And now, twenty years after its publication, it is
appropriate to bring it up to date.
The teaching of
Donum vitae remains
completely valid, both with regard to the principles on
which it is based and the moral evaluations which it
expresses. However, new biomedical technologies which
have been introduced in the critical area of human life
and the family have given rise to further questions, in
particular in the field of research on human embryos,
the use of stem cells for therapeutic purposes, as well
as in other areas of experimental medicine. These new
questions require answers. The pace of scientific
developments in this area and the publicity they have
received have raised expectations and concerns in large
sectors of public opinion. Legislative assemblies have
been asked to make decisions on these questions in order
to regulate them by law; at times, wider popular
consultation has also taken place.
These developments have led the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to prepare
a new doctrinal Instruction which addresses some
recent questions in the light of the criteria expressed
in the Instruction
Donum vitae and which also
examines some issues that were treated earlier, but are
in need of additional clarification.
2. In undertaking this study, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has benefited
from the analysis of the Pontifical Academy for Life and
has consulted numerous experts with regard to the
scientific aspects of these questions, in order to
address them with the principles of Christian
anthropology. The Encyclicals
Veritatis splendor[2]
and
Evangelium vitae[3] of
John Paul II, as well as other interventions of the
Magisterium, offer clear indications with regard to both
the method and the content of the examination of the
problems under consideration.
In the
current multifaceted philosophical and scientific
context, a considerable number of scientists and
philosophers, in the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath,
see in medical science a service to human fragility
aimed at the cure of disease, the relief of suffering
and the equitable extension of necessary care to all
people. At the same time, however, there are also
persons in the world of philosophy and science who view
advances in biomedical technology from an essentially
eugenic perspective.
3. In
presenting principles and moral evaluations regarding
biomedical research on human life, the Catholic Church
draws upon the light both of reason and of faith
and seeks to set forth an integral vision of man and his
vocation, capable of incorporating everything that is
good in human activity, as well as in various cultural
and religious traditions which not infrequently
demonstrate a great reverence for life.
The Magisterium also
seeks to offer a word of support and encouragement for
the perspective on culture which considers science an
invaluable service to the integral good of the life and
dignity of every human being. The Church therefore
views scientific research with hope and desires that
many Christians will dedicate themselves to the progress
of biomedicine and will bear witness to their faith in
this field. She hopes moreover that the results of such
research may also be made available in areas of the
world that are poor and afflicted by disease, so that
those who are most in need will receive humanitarian
assistance. Finally, the Church seeks to draw near to
every human being who is suffering, whether in body or
in spirit, in order to bring not only comfort, but also
light and hope. These give meaning to moments of
sickness and to the experience of death, which indeed
are part of human life and are present in the story of
every person, opening that story to the mystery of the
Resurrection. Truly, the gaze of the Church is full of
trust because “Life will triumph: this is a sure hope
for us. Yes, life will triumph because truth, goodness,
joy and true progress are on the side of life. God, who
loves life and gives it generously, is on the side of
life”.[4]
The present Instruction is
addressed to the Catholic faithful and to all who seek
the truth.[5]
It has three parts: the first recalls some
anthropological, theological and ethical elements of
fundamental importance; the second addresses new
problems regarding procreation; the third examines new
procedures involving the manipulation of embryos and the
human genetic patrimony.
First
Part: Anthropological, Theological and Ethical Aspects
of Human Life and Procreation
4. In recent
decades, medical science has made significant strides in
understanding human life in its initial stages. Human
biological structures and the process of human
generation are better known. These developments are
certainly positive and worthy of support when they serve
to overcome or correct pathologies and succeed in
re-establishing the normal functioning of human
procreation. On the other hand, they are negative and
cannot be utilized when they involve the destruction of
human beings or when they employ means which contradict
the dignity of the person or when they are used for
purposes contrary to the integral good of man.
The body of
a human being, from the very first stages of its
existence, can never be reduced merely to a group of
cells. The embryonic human body develops progressively
according to a well-defined program with its proper
finality, as is apparent in the birth of every baby.
It is appropriate to recall the
fundamental ethical criterion expressed in the
Instruction
Donum vitae in order to
evaluate all moral questions which relate to procedures
involving the human embryo: “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”.[6]
5. This ethical principle, which
reason is capable of recognizing as true and in
conformity with the natural moral law, should be the
basis for all legislation in this area.[7] In
fact, it presupposes a truth of an ontological
character, as
Donum vitae demonstrated
from solid scientific evidence, regarding the continuity
in development of a human being.
If
Donum vitae,
in order to avoid a statement of an explicitly
philosophical nature, did not define the embryo as a
person, it nonetheless did indicate that there is an
intrinsic connection between the ontological dimension
and the specific value of every human life. Although the
presence of the spiritual soul cannot be observed
experimentally, the conclusions of science regarding the
human embryo give “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?”.[8]
Indeed, the reality of the human being for the entire
span of life, both before and after birth, does not
allow us to posit either a change in nature or a
gradation in moral value, since it possesses full
anthropological and ethical status. The human embryo
has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity
proper to a person.
6. Respect for that
dignity is owed to every human being because each one
carries in an indelible way his own dignity and value. The
origin of human life has its authentic context in
marriage and in the family, where it is generated
through an act which expresses the reciprocal love
between a man and a woman. Procreation which is truly
responsible vis-à-vis the child to be born “must be the
fruit of marriage”.[9]
Marriage, present in all times and
in all cultures, “is in reality something wisely and
providently instituted by God the Creator with a view to
carrying out his loving plan in human beings. Thus,
husband and wife, through the reciprocal gift of
themselves to the other – something which is proper and
exclusive to them – bring about that communion of
persons by which they perfect each other, so as to
cooperate with God in the procreation and raising of new
lives”.[10]
In the fruitfulness of married love, man and woman “make
it clear that at the origin of their spousal life there
is a genuine ‘yes’, which is pronounced and truly lived
in reciprocity, remaining ever open to life... Natural
law, which is at the root of the recognition of true
equality between persons and peoples, deserves to be
recognized as the source that inspires the relationship
between the spouses in their responsibility for
begetting new children. The transmission of life is
inscribed in nature and its laws stand as an unwritten
norm to which all must refer”.[11]
7. It is the Church’s
conviction that what is human is not only received and
respected by faith, but is also purified,
elevated and perfected. God, after having created man in
his image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26), described
his creature as “very good” (Gen 1:31), so as to
be assumed later in the Son (cf. Jn 1:14). In the
mystery of the Incarnation, the Son of God confirmed the
dignity of the body and soul which constitute the human
being. Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, but
instead fully disclosed its meaning and value: “In
reality, it is only in the mystery of the incarnate Word
that the mystery of man truly becomes clear”.[12]
By becoming one of us,
the Son makes it possible for us to become “sons of God”
(Jn 1:12), “sharers in the divine nature” (2
Pet 1:4). This new dimension does not conflict with
the dignity of the creature which everyone can recognize
by the use of reason, but elevates it into a wider
horizon of life which is proper to God, giving us the
ability to reflect more profoundly on human life and on
the acts by which it is brought into existence.[13]
The respect for the
individual human being, which reason requires, is
further enhanced and strengthened in the light of these
truths of faith: thus, we see that there is no
contradiction between the affirmation of the dignity and
the affirmation of the sacredness of human life. “The
different ways in which God, acting in history, cares
for the world and for mankind are not mutually
exclusive; on the contrary, they support each other and
intersect. They have their origin and goal in the
eternal, wise and loving counsel whereby God predestines
men and women ‘to be conformed to the image of his Son’
(Rom 8:29)”.[14]
8. By taking the interrelationship of
these two dimensions, the human and the divine,
as the starting point, one understands better why it is
that man has unassailable value: he possesses an
eternal vocation and is
called to share in the trinitarian love of the living
God.
This value belongs to all without
distinction. By virtue of the simple fact of existing,
every human being must be fully respected. The
introduction of discrimination with regard to human
dignity based on biological, psychological, or
educational development, or based on health-related
criteria, must be excluded. At every stage of his
existence, man, created in the image and likeness of
God, reflects “the face of his Only-begotten Son… This
boundless and almost incomprehensible love of God for
the human being reveals the degree to which the human
person deserves to be loved in himself, independently of
any other consideration – intelligence, beauty, health,
youth, integrity, and so forth. In short, human life is
always a good, for it ‘is a manifestation of God in
the world, a sign of his presence, a trace of his glory’ (Evangelium
vitae, 34)”.[15]
9. These two dimensions
of life, the natural and the supernatural, allow us to
understand better the sense in which the acts that
permit a new human being to come into existence, in
which a man and a woman give themselves to each other,
are a reflection of trinitarian love. “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”.[16]
Christian marriage is
rooted “in the natural complementarity that exists
between man and woman, and is nurtured through the
personal willingness of the spouses to share their
entire life-project, what they have and what they are:
for this reason such communion is the fruit and the sign
of a profoundly human need. But in Christ the Lord, God
takes up this human need, confirms it, purifies it and
elevates it, leading it to perfection through the
sacrament of matrimony: the Holy Spirit who is poured
out in the sacramental celebration offers Christian
couples the gift of a new communion of love that is the
living and real image of that unique unity which makes
of the Church the indivisible Mystical Body of the Lord
Jesus”.[17]
10. The Church, by expressing an
ethical judgment on some developments of recent medical
research concerning man and his beginnings, does not
intervene in the area proper to medical science itself,
but rather calls everyone to ethical and social
responsibility for their actions. She reminds them that
the ethical value of biomedical science is gauged in
reference to both the unconditional respect owed to
every human being at every moment of his or her
existence, and the defense of the specific character
of the personal act which transmits life. The
intervention of the Magisterium falls within its mission
of contributing to the formation of conscience,
by authentically teaching the truth which is Christ and
at the same time by declaring and confirming
authoritatively the principles of the moral order which
spring from human nature itself.[18]
Second
Part: New Problems Concerning Procreation
11. In light of the principles
recalled above, certain questions regarding procreation
which have emerged and have become more clear in the
years since the publication of
Donum vitae can now be
examined.
Techniques for assisting fertility
12. With regard to the
treatment of infertility, new medical techniques
must respect three fundamental goods: a) the right to
life and to physical integrity of every human being from
conception to natural death; b) the unity of marriage,
which means reciprocal respect for the right within
marriage to become a father or mother only together with
the other spouse;[19]
c) the specifically human values of sexuality which
require “that the procreation of a human person be
brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific
to the love between spouses”.[20]
Techniques which assist procreation “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”.[21]
In light of this principle, all
techniques of heterologous artificial fertilization,[22]
as well as those techniques of homologous artificial
fertilization[23]
which substitute for the conjugal act, are to be
excluded. On the other hand, techniques which act as
an aid to the conjugal act and its fertility are
permitted. The Instruction
Donum vitae states: “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”.[24]
And, with regard to homologous artificial insemination,
it states: “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”.[25]
13. Certainly, techniques aimed at removing obstacles to
natural fertilization, as for example, hormonal
treatments for infertility, surgery for endometriosis,
unblocking of fallopian tubes or their surgical repair,
are licit. All these techniques may be considered
authentic treatments because, once the problem
causing the infertility has been resolved, the married
couple is able to engage in conjugal acts resulting in
procreation, without the physician’s action directly
interfering in that act itself. None of these treatments
replaces the conjugal act, which alone is worthy of
truly responsible procreation.
In order to
come to the aid of the many infertile couples who want
to have children, adoption should be encouraged,
promoted and facilitated by appropriate legislation so
that the many children who lack parents may receive a
home that will contribute to their human development. In
addition, research and investment directed at the
prevention of sterility deserve encouragement.
In
vitro fertilization and the deliberate destruction
of embryos
14. The fact that the process of
in vitro fertilization very frequently involves
the deliberate destruction of embryos was already noted
in the Instruction
Donum vitae.[26]
There were some who maintained that this was due to
techniques which were still somewhat
imperfect. Subsequent experience has shown, however,
that all techniques of in vitro fertilization
proceed as if the human embryo were simply a mass of
cells to be used, selected and discarded.
It is true that approximately a
third of women who have recourse to artificial
procreation succeed in having a baby. It should be
recognized, however, that given the proportion between
the total number of embryos produced and those
eventually born, the number of embryos sacrificed is
extremely high.[27]
These losses are accepted by the practitioners of in
vitro fertilization as the price to be paid for
positive results. In reality, it is deeply disturbing
that research in this area aims principally at obtaining
better results in terms of the percentage of babies born
to women who begin the process, but does not manifest a
concrete interest in the right to life of each
individual embryo.
15. It is
often objected that the loss of embryos is, in the
majority of cases, unintentional or that it happens
truly against the will of the parents and
physicians. They say that it is a question of risks
which are not all that different from those in natural
procreation; to seek to generate new life without
running any risks would in practice mean doing nothing
to transmit it. It is true that not all the losses of
embryos in the process of in vitro fertilization
have the same relationship to the will of those involved
in the procedure. But it is also true that in many cases
the abandonment, destruction and loss of embryos are
foreseen and willed.
Embryos
produced in vitro which have defects are directly
discarded. Cases are becoming ever more prevalent in
which couples who have no fertility problems are using
artificial means of procreation in order to engage in
genetic selection of their offspring. In many countries,
it is now common to stimulate ovulation so as to obtain
a large number of oocytes which are then fertilized. Of
these, some are transferred into the woman’s uterus,
while the others are frozen for future use. The reason
for multiple transfer is to increase the probability
that at least one embryo will implant in the uterus. In
this technique, therefore, the number of embryos
transferred is greater than the single child desired, in
the expectation that some embryos will be lost and
multiple pregnancy may not occur. In this way, the
practice of multiple embryo transfer implies a purely
utilitarian treatment of embryos. One is struck by
the fact that, in any other area of medicine, ordinary
professional ethics and the healthcare authorities
themselves would never allow a medical procedure which
involved such a high number of failures and
fatalities. In fact, techniques of in vitro
fertilization are accepted based on the presupposition
that the individual embryo is not deserving of full
respect in the presence of the competing desire for
offspring which must be satisfied.
This sad reality, which
often goes unmentioned, is truly deplorable: the
“various techniques of artificial reproduction, which
would seem to be at the service of life and which are
frequently used with this intention, actually open the
door to new threats against life”.[28]
16. The Church moreover holds that
it is ethically unacceptable to dissociate
procreation from the integrally personal context of the
conjugal act:[29]
human procreation is a personal act of a husband and
wife, which is not capable of substitution. The blithe
acceptance of the enormous number of abortions involved
in the process of in vitro fertilization vividly
illustrates how the replacement of the conjugal act by a
technical procedure – in addition to being in
contradiction with the respect that is due to
procreation as something that cannot be reduced to mere
reproduction – leads to a weakening of the respect owed
to every human being. Recognition of such respect is, on
the other hand, promoted by the intimacy of husband and
wife nourished by married love.
The Church
recognizes the legitimacy of the desire for a child and
understands the suffering of couples struggling with
problems of fertility. Such a desire, however, should
not override the dignity of every human life to the
point of absolute supremacy. The desire for a child
cannot justify the “production” of offspring, just as
the desire not to have a child cannot justify the
abandonment or destruction of a child once he or she has
been conceived.
In reality, it seems that some
researchers, lacking any ethical point of reference and
aware of the possibilities inherent in technological
progress, surrender to the logic of purely subjective
desires[30]
and to economic pressures which are so strong in this
area. In the face of this manipulation of the human
being in his or her embryonic state, it needs to be
repeated that “God’s love does not differentiate between
the newly conceived infant still in his or her mother’s
womb and the child or young person, or the adult and the
elderly person. God does not distinguish between them
because he sees an impression of his own image and
likeness (Gen 1:26) in each one… Therefore, the
Magisterium of the Church has constantly proclaimed the
sacred and inviolable character of every human life from
its conception until its natural end”.[31]
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)
17. Among the recent techniques of
artificial fertilization which have gradually assumed a
particular importance is intracytoplasmic sperm
injection.[32]
This technique is used with increasing frequency
given its effectiveness in overcoming various forms of
male infertility.[33]
Just as in general with
in vitro fertilization, of which it is a variety,
ICSI is intrinsically illicit: it causes a complete
separation between procreation and the conjugal act. Indeed
ICSI takes place “outside the bodies of the couple
through actions of third parties whose competence and
technical activity determine the success of the
procedure. Such fertilization entrusts the life and
identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and
biologists and establishes the domination of technology
over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a
relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the
dignity and equality that must be common to parents and
children. Conception in vitro is the result of
the technical action which presides over
fertilization. Such fertilization is neither in fact
achieved nor positively willed as the expression and
fruit of a specific act of the conjugal union”.[34]
Freezing
embryos
18. One of the methods for
improving the chances of success in techniques of in
vitro fertilization is the multiplication of
attempts. In order to avoid repeatedly taking oocytes
from the woman’s body, the process involves a single
intervention in which multiple oocytes are taken,
followed by cryopreservation of a considerable number of
the embryos conceived in vitro.[35]
In this way, should the initial attempt at achieving
pregnancy not succeed, the procedure can be repeated or
additional pregnancies attempted at a later date. In
some cases, even the embryos used in the first transfer
are frozen because the hormonal ovarian stimulation used
to obtain the oocytes has certain effects which lead
physicians to wait until the woman’s physiological
conditions have returned to normal before attempting to
transfer an embryo into her womb.
Cryopreservation is
incompatible with the respect owed to human embryos;
it presupposes their production in vitro; it
exposes them to the serious risk of death or physical
harm, since a high percentage does not survive the
process of freezing and thawing; it deprives them at
least temporarily of maternal reception and gestation;
it places them in a situation in which they are
susceptible to further offense and manipulation.[36]
The majority
of embryos that are not used remain “orphans”. Their
parents do not ask for them and at times all trace of
the parents is lost. This is why there are thousands
upon thousands of frozen embryos in almost all countries
where in vitro fertilization takes place.
19. With
regard to the large number of frozen embryos already
in existence the question becomes: what to do with
them? Some of those who pose this question do not grasp
its ethical nature, motivated as they are by laws in
some countries that require cryopreservation centers to
empty their storage tanks periodically. Others, however,
are aware that a grave injustice has been perpetrated
and wonder how best to respond to the duty of resolving
it.
Proposals to use these
embryos for research or for the treatment of
disease are obviously unacceptable because they
treat the embryos as mere “biological material” and
result in their destruction. The proposal to thaw such
embryos without reactivating them and use them for
research, as if they were normal cadavers, is also
unacceptable.[37]
The proposal that these embryos
could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a
treatment for infertility is not ethically
acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial
heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of
surrogate motherhood;[38]
this practice would also lead to other problems of a
medical, psychological and legal nature.
It has also
been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to
be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that
there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”.
This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention
of respecting and defending human life, presents however
various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned
above.
All things considered, it
needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned
embryos represent a situation of injustice which in
fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made
an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific
authorities and in particular to doctors, that the
production of human embryos be halted, taking into
account that there seems to be no morally licit solution
regarding the human destiny of the thousands and
thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the
subjects of essential rights and should therefore be
protected by law as human persons”.[39]
The
freezing of oocytes
20. In order avoid the serious
ethical problems posed by the freezing of embryos, the
freezing of oocytes has also been advanced in the area
of techniques of in vitro fertilization.[40]
Once a sufficient number of oocytes has been obtained
for a series of attempts at artificial procreation, only
those which are to be transferred into the mother’s body
are fertilized while the others are frozen for future
fertilization and transfer should the initial attempts
not succeed.
In this
regard it needs to be stated that cryopreservation of
oocytes for the purpose of being used in artificial
procreation is to be considered morally unacceptable.
The
reduction of embryos
21. Some
techniques used in artificial procreation, above all the
transfer of multiple embryos into the mother’s womb,
have caused a significant increase in the frequency of
multiple pregnancy. This situation gives rise in turn to
the practice of so-called embryo reduction, a procedure
in which embryos or fetuses in the womb are directly
exterminated. The decision to eliminate human lives,
given that it was a human life that was desired in the
first place, represents a contradiction that can often
lead to suffering and feelings of guilt lasting for
years.
From the ethical point of
view, embryo reduction is an intentional selective
abortion. It is in fact the deliberate and direct
elimination of one or more innocent human beings in the
initial phase of their existence and as such it always
constitutes a grave moral disorder.[41]
The ethical justifications proposed for
embryo reduction are often based on analogies with
natural disasters or emergency situations in which,
despite the best intentions of all involved, it is not
possible to save everyone. Such analogies cannot in any
way be the basis for an action which is directly
abortive. At other times, moral principles are invoked,
such as those of the lesser evil or double effect, which
are likewise inapplicable in this case. It is never
permitted to do something which is intrinsically
illicit, not even in view of a good result:
the end does not justify the means.
Preimplantation
diagnosis
22. Preimplantation diagnosis is a form
of prenatal diagnosis connected with techniques of
artificial fertilization in which embryos formed in
vitro undergo genetic diagnosis before being
transferred into a woman’s womb. Such diagnosis is done
in order to ensure that only
embryos free from defects or having the desired sex or
other particular qualities are transferred.
Unlike other forms of
prenatal diagnosis, in which the diagnostic phase is
clearly separated from any possible later elimination
and which provide therefore a period in which a couple
would be free to accept a child with medical problems,
in this case, the diagnosis before implantation is
immediately followed by the elimination of an embryo
suspected of having genetic or chromosomal defects, or
not having the sex desired, or having other qualities
that are not wanted. Preimplantation diagnosis –
connected as it is with artificial fertilization, which
is itself always intrinsically illicit – is directed
toward the qualitative selection and consequent
destruction of embryos, which constitutes an act of
abortion. Preimplantation diagnosis is therefore the
expression of a eugenic mentality that “accepts
selective abortion in order to prevent the birth of
children affected by various types of anomalies. Such an
attitude is shameful and utterly reprehensible, since it
presumes to measure the value of a human life only
within the parameters of ‘normality’ and physical
well-being, thus opening the way to legitimizing
infanticide and euthanasia as well”.[42]
By treating
the human embryo as mere “laboratory material”, the
concept itself of human dignity is also subjected to
alteration and discrimination. Dignity belongs
equally to every single human being, irrespective of his
parents’ desires, his social condition, educational
formation or level of physical development. If at other
times in history, while the concept and requirements of
human dignity were accepted in general, discrimination
was practiced on the basis of race, religion or social
condition, today there is a no less serious and unjust
form of discrimination which leads to the
non-recognition of the ethical and legal status of human
beings suffering from serious diseases or disabilities.
It is forgotten that sick and disabled people are not
some separate category of humanity; in fact, sickness
and disability are part of the human condition and
affect every individual, even when there is no direct
experience of it. Such discrimination is immoral and
must therefore be considered legally unacceptable, just
as there is a duty to eliminate cultural, economic and
social barriers which undermine the full recognition and
protection of disabled or ill people.
New forms
of interception and contragestation
23.
Alongside methods of preventing pregnancy which are,
properly speaking, contraceptive, that is, which prevent
conception following from a sexual act, there are other
technical means which act after fertilization, when the
embryo is already constituted, either before or after
implantation in the uterine wall. Such methods are
interceptive if they interfere with the embryo
before implantation and contragestative if they
cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted.
In order to promote wider use of
interceptive methods,[43]
it is sometimes stated that the way in which they
function is not sufficiently understood. It is true that
there is not always complete knowledge of the way that
different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific
studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting
implantation is certainly present, even if this does
not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every
time they are used, also because conception does not
occur after every act of sexual intercourse. It must be
noted, however, that anyone who seeks to prevent the
implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been
conceived and who therefore either requests or
prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends
abortion.
When there is a delay in
menstruation, a contragestative is used,[44]
usually one or two weeks after the non-occurrence of the
monthly period. The stated aim is to re-establish
menstruation, but what takes place in reality is the
abortion of an embryo which has just implanted.
As is known, abortion is “the
deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is
carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of
his or her existence, extending from conception to
birth”.[45]
Therefore, the use of means of interception and
contragestation fall within the sin of abortion
and are gravely immoral. Furthermore, when there is
certainty that an abortion has resulted, there are
serious penalties in canon law.[46]
Third
Part: New Treatments which Involve the Manipulation of
the Embryo or the Human Genetic Patrimony
24. Knowledge acquired in recent years has opened new
perspectives for both regenerative medicine and for the
treatment of genetically based diseases. In particular,
research on embryonic stem cells and its possible
future uses have prompted great interest, even though up
to now such research has not produced effective results,
as distinct from research on adult stem cells.
Because some maintain that the possible medical advances
which might result from research on embryonic stem cells
could justify various forms of manipulation and
destruction of human embryos, a whole range of questions
has emerged in the area of gene therapy, from cloning to
the use of stem cells, which call for attentive moral
discernment.
Gene
therapy
25. Gene
therapy commonly refers to techniques of genetic
engineering applied to human beings for therapeutic
purposes, that is to say, with the aim of curing
genetically based diseases, although recently gene
therapy has been attempted for diseases which are not
inherited, for cancer in particular.
In theory,
it is possible to use gene therapy on two levels:
somatic cell gene therapy and germ line cell therapy. Somatic
cell gene therapy seeks to eliminate or reduce
genetic defects on the level of somatic cells, that is,
cells other than the reproductive cells, but which make
up the tissue and organs of the body. It involves
procedures aimed at certain individual cells with
effects that are limited to a single person. Germ
line cell therapy aims instead at correcting genetic
defects present in germ line cells with the purpose of
transmitting the therapeutic effects to the offspring of
the individual. Such methods of gene therapy, whether
somatic or germ line cell therapy, can be undertaken on
a fetus before his or her birth as gene therapy
in the uterus or after birth on a child or adult.
26. For a
moral evaluation the following distinctions need to be
kept in mind. Procedures used on somatic cells for
strictly therapeutic purposes are in principle morally
licit. Such actions seek to restore the normal
genetic configuration of the patient or to counter
damage caused by genetic anomalies or those related to
other pathologies. Given that gene therapy can involve
significant risks for the patient, the ethical principle
must be observed according to which, in order to proceed
to a therapeutic intervention, it is necessary to
establish beforehand that the person being treated will
not be exposed to risks to his health or physical
integrity which are excessive or disproportionate to the
gravity of the pathology for which a cure is sought. The
informed consent of the patient or his legitimate
representative is also required.
The moral
evaluation of germ line cell therapy is
different. Whatever genetic modifications are effected
on the germ cells of a person will be transmitted to any
potential offspring. Because the risks connected to any
genetic manipulation are considerable and as yet not
fully controllable, in the present state of research,
it is not morally permissible to act in a way that may
cause possible harm to the resulting progeny. In the
hypothesis of gene therapy on the embryo, it needs to be
added that this only takes place in the context of in
vitro fertilization and thus runs up against all the
ethical objections to such procedures. For these
reasons, therefore, it must be stated that, in its
current state, germ line cell therapy in all its forms
is morally illicit.
27. The
question of using genetic engineering for purposes other
than medical treatment also calls for consideration. Some
have imagined the possibility of using techniques of
genetic engineering to introduce alterations with the
presumed aim of improving and strengthening the gene
pool. Some of these proposals exhibit a certain
dissatisfaction or even rejection of the value of the
human being as a finite creature and person. Apart from
technical difficulties and the real and potential risks
involved, such manipulation would promote a eugenic
mentality and would lead to indirect social stigma with
regard to people who lack certain qualities, while
privileging qualities that happen to be appreciated by a
certain culture or society; such qualities do not
constitute what is specifically human. This would be in
contrast with the fundamental truth of the equality of
all human beings which is expressed in the principle of
justice, the violation of which, in the long run, would
harm peaceful coexistence among
individuals. Furthermore, one wonders who would be able
to establish which modifications were to be held as
positive and which not, or what limits should be placed
on individual requests for improvement since it would be
materially impossible to fulfil the wishes of every
single person. Any conceivable response to these
questions would, however, derive from arbitrary and
questionable criteria. All of this leads to the
conclusion that the prospect of such an intervention
would end sooner or later by harming the common good, by
favouring the will of some over the freedom of
others. Finally it must also be noted that in the
attempt to create a new type of human being one
can recognize an ideological element in which man
tries to take the place of his Creator.
In stating
the ethical negativity of these kinds of interventions
which imply an unjust domination of man over man,
the Church also recalls the need to return to an
attitude of care for people and of education in
accepting human life in its concrete historical finite
nature.
Human
cloning
28. Human cloning refers
to the asexual or agametic reproduction of the entire
human organism in order to produce one or more “copies”
which, from a genetic perspective, are substantially
identical to the single original.[47]
Cloning is
proposed for two basic purposes: reproduction,
that is, in order to obtain the birth of a baby, and
medical therapy or research. In theory, reproductive
cloning would be able to satisfy certain specific
desires, for example, control over human evolution,
selection of human beings with superior qualities,
pre-selection of the sex of a child to be born,
production of a child who is the “copy” of another, or
production of a child for a couple whose infertility
cannot be treated in another way. Therapeutic cloning,
on the other hand, has been proposed as a way of
producing embryonic stem cells with a predetermined
genetic patrimony in order to overcome the problem of
immune system rejection; this is therefore linked to the
issue of the use of stem cells.
Attempts at
cloning have given rise to genuine concern throughout
the entire world. Various national and international
organizations have expressed negative judgments on human
cloning and it has been prohibited in the great
majority of nations.
Human cloning is intrinsically
illicit in that, by taking the ethical negativity of
techniques of artificial fertilization to their extreme,
it seeks to give rise to a new human being without a
connection to the act of reciprocal self-giving between
the spouses and, more radically, without any link
to sexuality. This leads to manipulation and abuses
gravely injurious to human dignity.[48]
29. If cloning were to be done for
reproduction, this would impose on the resulting
individual a predetermined genetic identity, subjecting
him – as has been stated – to a form of biological
slavery, from which it would be difficult to free
himself. The fact that someone would arrogate to himself
the right to determine arbitrarily the genetic
characteristics of another person represents
a grave offense to the dignity of that
person as well as to the fundamental equality of all
people.
The
originality of every person is a consequence of the
particular relationship that exists between God and a
human being from the first moment of his existence and
carries with it the obligation to respect the
singularity and integrity of each person, even on the
biological and genetic levels. In the encounter with
another person, we meet a human being who owes his
existence and his proper characteristics to the love of
God, and only the love of husband and wife constitutes a
mediation of that love in conformity with the plan of
the Creator and heavenly Father.
30. From the ethical point of view,
so-called therapeutic cloning is even more serious. To
create embryos with the intention of destroying them,
even with the intention of helping the sick, is
completely incompatible with human dignity, because it
makes the existence of a human being at the embryonic
stage nothing more than a means to be used and
destroyed. It is gravely
immoral to sacrifice a human life for therapeutic ends.
The ethical objections raised in
many quarters to therapeutic cloning and to the use of
human embryos formed in vitro have led some
researchers to propose new techniques which are
presented as capable of producing stem cells of an
embryonic type without implying the destruction of true
human embryos.[49]
These proposals have been met with questions of both a
scientific and an ethical nature regarding above all the
ontological status of the “product” obtained in this
way. Until these doubts have been clarified, the
statement of the Encyclical
Evangelium vitae needs to
be kept in mind: “what is at stake is so important that,
from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere
probability that a human person is involved would
suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of
any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo”.[50]
The
therapeutic use of stem cells
31. Stem
cells are undifferentiated cells with two basic
characteristics: a) the prolonged capability of
multiplying themselves while maintaining the
undifferentiated state; b) the capability of producing
transitory progenitor cells from which fully
differentiated cells descend, for example, nerve cells,
muscle cells and blood cells.
Once it was
experimentally verified that when stem cells are
transplanted into damaged tissue they tend to promote
cell growth and the regeneration of the tissue, new
prospects opened for regenerative medicine, which have
been the subject of great interest among researchers
throughout the world.
Among the
sources for human stem cells which have been identified
thus far are: the embryo in the first stages of its
existence, the fetus, blood from the umbilical cord and
various tissues from adult humans (bone marrow,
umbilical cord, brain, mesenchyme from various organs,
etc.) and amniotic fluid. At the outset, studies focused
on embryonic stem cells, because it was believed
that only these had significant capabilities of
multiplication and differentiation. Numerous studies,
however, show that adult stem cells also have a
certain versatility. Even if these cells do not seem to
have the same capacity for renewal or the same
plasticity as stem cells taken from embryos, advanced
scientific studies and experimentation indicate that
these cells give more positive results than embryonic
stem cells. Therapeutic protocols in force today provide
for the use of adult stem cells and many lines of
research have been launched, opening new and promising
possibilities.
32. With regard to the ethical
evaluation, it is necessary to consider the methods
of obtaining stem cells as well as
the risks connected with their clinical
and experimental use.
In these methods, the
origin of the stem cells must be taken into
consideration. Methods which do not cause serious harm
to the subject from whom the stem cells are taken are to
be considered licit. This is generally the case when
tissues are taken from: a) an adult organism; b) the
blood of the umbilical cord at the time of birth; c)
fetuses who have died of natural causes. The obtaining
of stem cells from a living human embryo, on the other
hand, invariably causes the death of the embryo and is
consequently gravely illicit: “research, in such cases,
irrespective of efficacious therapeutic results, is not
truly at the service of humanity. In fact, this research
advances through the suppression of human lives that are
equal in dignity to the lives of other human individuals
and to the lives of the researchers themselves. History
itself has condemned such a science in the past and will
condemn it in the future, not only because it lacks the
light of God but also because it lacks humanity”.[51]
The use of embryonic stem
cells or differentiated cells derived from them – even
when these are provided by other researchers through the
destruction of embryos or when such cells are
commercially available – presents serious problems from
the standpoint of cooperation in evil and scandal.[52]
There are no
moral objections to the clinical use of stem cells that
have been obtained licitly; however, the common criteria
of medical ethics need to be respected. Such use should
be characterized by scientific rigor and prudence, by
reducing to the bare minimum any risks to the patient
and by facilitating the interchange of information among
clinicians and full disclosure to the public at large.
Research initiatives
involving the use of adult stem cells, since they do not
present ethical problems, should be encouraged and
supported.[53]
Attempts
at hybridization
33. Recently
animal oocytes have been used for reprogramming the
nuclei of human somatic cells – this is generally called
hybrid cloning – in order to extract embryonic
stem cells from the resulting embryos without having to
use human oocytes.
From the
ethical standpoint, such procedures represent an offense
against the dignity of human beings on account of the
admixture of human and animal genetic elements capable
of disrupting the specific identity of man. The
possible use of the stem cells, taken from these
embryos, may also involve additional health risks, as
yet unknown, due to the presence of animal genetic
material in their cytoplasm. To consciously expose a
human being to such risks is morally and ethically
unacceptable.
The use
of human “biological material” of illicit origin
34. For
scientific research and for the production of vaccines
or other products, cell lines are at times used which
are the result of an illicit intervention against the
life or physical integrity of a human being. The
connection to the unjust act may be either mediate or
immediate, since it is generally a question of cells
which reproduce easily and abundantly. This “material”
is sometimes made available commercially or distributed
freely to research centers by governmental agencies
having this function under the law. All of this gives
rise to various ethical problems with regard to
cooperation in evil and with regard to scandal. It
is fitting therefore to formulate general principles on
the basis of which people of good conscience can
evaluate and resolve situations in which they may
possibly be involved on account of their professional
activity.
It needs to be remembered above
all that the category of abortion “is to be applied also
to the recent forms of intervention on human embryos
which, although carried out for purposes legitimate in
themselves, inevitably involve the killing of those
embryos. This is the case with experimentation on
embryos, which is becoming increasingly widespread
in the field of biomedical research and is legally
permitted in some countries… [T]he use of human embryos
or fetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a
crime against their dignity as human beings who have a
right to the same respect owed to a child once born,
just as to every person”.[54]
These forms of experimentation always constitute a grave
moral disorder.[55]
35. A different situation is
created when researchers use “biological material” of
illicit origin which has been produced apart from their
research center or which has been obtained
commercially. The Instruction
Donum vitae formulated the
general principle which must be observed in these cases:
“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”.[56]
In this regard, the criterion
of independence as it has been formulated by some ethics
committees is not sufficient. According to this
criterion, the use of “biological material” of illicit
origin would be ethically permissible provided there is
a clear separation between those who, on the one hand,
produce, freeze and cause the death of embryos and, on
the other, the researchers involved in scientific
experimentation. The criterion of independence is not
sufficient to avoid a contradiction in the attitude of
the person who says that he does not approve of the
injustice perpetrated by others, but at the same time
accepts for his own work the “biological material” which
the others have obtained by means of that
injustice. When the illicit action is endorsed by the
laws which regulate healthcare and scientific research,
it is necessary to distance oneself from the evil
aspects of that system in order not to give the
impression of a certain toleration or tacit acceptance
of actions which are gravely unjust.[57]
Any appearance of acceptance would in fact contribute to
the growing indifference to, if not the approval of,
such actions in certain medical and political circles.
At times,
the objection is raised that the above-mentioned
considerations would mean that people of good conscience
involved in research would have the duty to oppose
actively all the illicit actions that take place in the
field of medicine, thus excessively broadening their
ethical responsibility. In reality, the duty to avoid
cooperation in evil and scandal relates to their
ordinary professional activities, which they must pursue
in a just manner and by means of which they must give
witness to the value of life by their opposition to
gravely unjust laws. Therefore, it needs to be stated
that there is a duty to refuse to use such “biological
material” even when there is no close connection between
the researcher and the actions of those who performed
the artificial fertilization or the abortion, or when
there was no prior agreement with the centers in which
the artificial fertilization took place. This duty
springs from the necessity to remove oneself,
within the area of one’s own research, from a gravely
unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the
value of human life. Therefore, the above-mentioned
criterion of independence is necessary, but may be
ethically insufficient.
Of course,
within this general picture there exist differing
degrees of responsibility. Grave reasons may be
morally proportionate to justify the use of such
“biological material”. Thus, for example, danger to the
health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine
which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin,
while keeping in mind that everyone has the duty to make
known their disagreement and to ask that their
healthcare system make other types of vaccines
available. Moreover, in organizations where cell lines
of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility
of those who make the decision to use them is not the
same as that of those who have no voice in such a
decision.
In the context of the
urgent need to mobilize consciences in favour of
life, people in the field of healthcare need to be
reminded that “their responsibility today is greatly
increased. Its deepest inspiration and strongest support
lie in the intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension of
the health-care profession, something already recognized
by the ancient and still relevant Hippocratic Oath,
which requires every doctor to commit himself to
absolute respect for human life and its sacredness”.[58]
Conclusion
36. There
are those who say that the moral teaching of the Church
contains too many prohibitions. In reality, however, her
teaching is based on the recognition and promotion of
all the gifts which the Creator has bestowed on man:
such as life, knowledge, freedom and love. Particular
appreciation is due not only to man’s intellectual
activities, but also to those which are practical, like
work and technological activities. By these, in fact, he
participates in the creative power of God and is called
to transform creation by ordering its many resources
toward the dignity and wellbeing of all human beings and
of the human person in his entirety. In this way, man
acts as the steward of the value and intrinsic beauty of
creation.
Human
history shows, however, how man has abused and can
continue to abuse the power and capabilities which God
has entrusted to him, giving rise to various forms of
unjust discrimination and oppression of the weakest
and most defenseless: the daily attacks on human life;
the existence of large regions of poverty where people
are dying from hunger and disease, excluded from the
intellectual and practical resources available in
abundance in many countries; technological and
industrial development which is creating the real risk
of a collapse of the ecosystem; the use of scientific
research in the areas of physics, chemistry and biology
for purposes of waging war; the many conflicts which
still divide peoples and cultures; these sadly are only
some of the most obvious signs of how man can make bad
use of his abilities and become his own worst enemy by
losing the awareness of his lofty and specific vocation
to collaborate in the creative work of God.
At the same
time, human history has also shown real progress in
the understanding and recognition of the value and
dignity of every person as the foundation of the
rights and ethical imperatives by which human society
has been, and continues to be structured. Precisely in
the name of promoting human dignity, therefore,
practices and forms of behaviour harmful to that dignity
have been prohibited. Thus, for example, there are legal
and political – and not just ethical – prohibitions of
racism, slavery, unjust discrimination and
marginalization of women, children, and ill and disabled
people. Such prohibitions bear witness to the
inalienable value and intrinsic dignity of every human
being and are a sign of genuine progress in human
history. In other words, the legitimacy of every
prohibition is based on the need to protect an authentic
moral good.
37. If initially human
and social progress was characterized primarily by
industrial development and the production of consumer
goods, today it is distinguished by developments in
information technologies, research in genetics, medicine
and biotechnologies for human benefit, which are areas
of great importance for the future of humanity, but in
which there are also evident and unacceptable abuses.
“Just as a century ago it was the working classes which
were oppressed in their fundamental rights, and the
Church courageously came to their defense by proclaiming
the sacrosanct rights of the worker as person, so now,
when another category of persons is being oppressed in
the fundamental right to life, the Church feels in duty
bound to speak out with the same courage on behalf of
those who have no voice. Hers is always the evangelical
cry in defense of the world’s poor, those who are
threatened and despised and whose human rights are
violated”.[59]
In virtue of
the Church’s doctrinal and pastoral mission, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has felt
obliged to reiterate both the dignity and the
fundamental and inalienable rights of every human being,
including those in the initial stages of their
existence, and to state explicitly the need for
protection and respect which this dignity requires of
everyone.
The fulfillment of this duty implies
courageous opposition to all those practices which
result in grave and unjust discrimination against unborn
human beings, who have the dignity of a person, created
like others in the image of God. Behind every “no”
in the difficult task of discerning between good and
evil, there shines a great
“yes” to the recognition of the dignity and inalienable
value of every single and unique human being called into
existence.
The
Christian faithful will commit themselves to the
energetic promotion of a new culture of life by
receiving the contents of this Instruction with the
religious assent of their spirit, knowing that God
always gives the grace necessary to observe his
commandments and that, in every human being, above all
in the least among us, one meets Christ himself (cf.
Mt 25:40). In addition, all persons of good will, in
particular physicians and researchers open to dialogue
and desirous of knowing what is true, will understand
and agree with these principles and judgments, which
seek to safeguard the vulnerable condition of human
beings in the first stages of life and to promote a more
human civilization.
The
Sovereign Pontiff Benedict XVI, in the Audience granted
to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect on 20 June 2008,
approved the present Instruction, adopted in the
Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its
publication.
Rome, from
the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, 8 September 2008, Feast of the Nativity of the
Blessed Virgin Mary.
William Card. Levada
Prefect
+ Luis F. Ladaria, S.I.
Titular Archbishop of Thibica
Secretary
[1] Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction
Donum vitae on
respect for human life at its origins and for
the dignity of procreation (22 February 1987):
AAS 80 (1988), 70-102.
[2] John
Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Veritatis splendor regarding
certain fundamental questions of the Church’s
moral teaching (6 August 1993): AAS 85
(1993), 1133-1228.
[3] John
Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Evangelium vitae on
the value and inviolability of human life (25
March 1995): AAS 87 (1995), 401-522.
[4] John
Paul II, Address to the participants in the
Seventh Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of
Life (3 March 2001), 3: AAS 93 (2001),
446.
[5] Cf.
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et
ratio on the relationship between faith and
reason (14 September 1998), 1: AAS 91
(1999), 5.
[6] Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction
Donum vitae,
I, 1: AAS 80 (1988), 79.
[7]
Human rights, as Pope Benedict XVI has recalled,
and in particular the right to life of every
human being “are based on the natural law
inscribed on human hearts and present in
different cultures and civilizations. Removing
human rights from this context would mean
restricting their range and yielding to a
relativistic conception, according to which the
meaning and interpretation of rights could vary
and their universality would be denied in the
name of different cultural, political, social
and even religious outlooks. This great variety
of viewpoints must not be allowed to obscure the
fact that not only rights are universal, but so
too is the human person, the subject of those
rights” (Address to the General Assembly of the
United Nations [18 April 2008]: AAS 100
[2008], 334).
[8] Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction
Donum vitae, I, 1:
AAS 80 (1988), 78-79.
[9] Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction
Donum vitae, II,
A, 1: AAS 80 (1988), 87.
[10] Paul
VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae (25
July 1968), 8: AAS 60 (1968), 485-486.
[11] Benedict
XVI, Address to the Participants in the
International Congress organized by the
Pontifical Lateran University on the 40th
Anniversary of the Encyclical Humanae vitae,
10 May 2008: L’Osservatore Romano, 11 May
2008, p. 1; cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter
Mater et magistra (15 May 1961), III: AAS
53 (1961), 447.
[12] Second
Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et spes, 22.
[15] Benedict
XVI, Address to the General Assembly of the
Pontifical Academy for Life and International
Congress on “The Human Embryo in the
Pre-implantation Phase” (27 February 2006):
AAS 98 (2006), 264.
[16] Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction
Donum vitae,
Introduction, 3: AAS 80 (1988), 75.
[17] John
Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris
consortio on the role of the Christian
family in the modern world (22 September 1981),
19: AAS 74 (1982), 101-102.
[18] Cf.
Second Vatican Council, Declaration
Dignitatis humanae, 14.
[19] Cf.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Instruction
Donum vitae, II,
A, 1: AAS 80 (1988), 87.
[20] Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction
Donum vitae, II,
B, 4: AAS 80 (1988), 92.
[21] Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction
Donum vitae,
Introduction, 3: AAS 80 (1988), 75.
[22]
The term heterologous artificial
fertilization or procreation refers to
“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” (Instruction
Donum vitae, II:
AAS 80 [1988], 86).
[23] The
term homologous artificial fertilization or
procreation refers to “the technique used to
obtain a human conception using the gametes of
the two spouses joined in marriage” (Instruction
Donum vitae, II:
AAS 80 [1988], 86).
[24] Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction
Donum vitae, II,
B, 7: AAS 80 (1988), 96; cf. Pius XII,
Address to those taking part in the Fourth
International Congress of Catholic Doctors (29
September 1949): AAS 41 (1949), 560.
[25] Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction
Donum vitae, II,
B, 6: AAS 80 (1988), 94.
[26] Cf.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Instruction
Donum vitae, II:
AAS 80 (1988), 86.
[27] Currently
the number of embryos sacrificed, even in the
most technically advanced centers of artificial
fertilization, hovers above 80%.
[29] Cf.
Pius XII, Address to the Second World Congress
in Naples on human reproduction and sterility
(19 May 1956): AAS 48 (1956), 470; Paul
VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae, 12:
AAS 60 (1968), 488-489; Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction
Donum vitae, II,
B, 4-5: AAS 80 (1988), 90-94.
[30] An
increasing number of persons, even those who are
unmarried, are having recourse to techniques of
artificial reproduction in order to have a
child. These actions weaken the institution of
marriage and cause babies to be born in
environments which are not conducive to their
full human development.
[31] Benedict
XVI, Address to the General Assembly of the
Pontifical Academy for Life and International
Congress on “The Human Embryo in the
Pre-implantation Phase” (27 February 2006):
AAS 98 (2006), 264.
[32] Intracytoplasmic
sperm injection is similar in almost every
respect to other forms of in vitro
fertilization with the difference that in this
procedure fertilization in the test tube does
not take place on its own, but rather by means
of the injection into the oocyte of a single
sperm, selected earlier, or by the injection of
immature germ cells taken from the man.
[33] There
is ongoing discussion among specialists
regarding the health risks which this method may
pose for children conceived in this way.
[34] Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction
Donum vitae, II,
B, 5: AAS 80 (1988), 93.
[35] Cryopreservation
of embryos refers to freezing them at extremely
low temperatures, allowing long term storage.
[36] Cf.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Instruction
Donum vitae, I, 6:
AAS 80 (1988), 84-85.
[37] Cf.
numbers 34-35 below.
[38] Cf.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Instruction
Donum vitae, II,
A, 1-3: AAS 80 (1988), 87-89.
[39] John
Paul II, Address to the participants in the
Symposium on “Evangelium vitae and Law”
and the Eleventh International Colloquium on
Roman and Canon Law (24 May 1996), 6: AAS
88 (1996), 943-944.
[40] Cryopreservation
of oocytes is also indicated in other medical
contexts which are not under consideration here.
The term oocyte refers to the female germ cell
(gametocyte) not penetrated by the spermatozoa.
[41] Cf.
Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et spes, n. 51; John Paul II,
Encyclical Letter
Evangelium vitae,
62: AAS 87 (1995), 472.
[43] The
interceptive methods which are best known are
the IUD (intrauterine device) and the so-called
“morning-after pills”.
[44] The
principal means of contragestation are RU-486
(Mifepristone), synthetic prostaglandins or
Methotrexate.
[46]Cf.
CIC, can. 1398 and CCEO, can. 1450 § 2; cf. also
CIC, can. 1323-1324. The Pontifical Commission
for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of
Canon Law declared that the canonical concept of
abortion is “the killing of the fetus in
whatever way or at whatever time from the moment
of conception” (Response of 23 May 1988:
AAS 80 [1988], 1818).
[47] In
the current state of knowledge, the techniques
which have been proposed for accomplishing human
cloning are two: artificial embryo twinning and
cell nuclear transfer. Artificial embryo
twinning consists in the artificial
separation of individual cells or groups of
cells from the embryo in the earliest stage of
development. These are then transferred into the
uterus in order to obtain identical embryos in
an artificial manner. Cell nuclear transfer,
or cloning properly speaking, consists in
introducing a nucleus taken from an embryonic or
somatic cell into an denucleated oocyte. This is
followed by stimulation of the oocyte so that it
begins to develop as an embryo.
[48] Cf.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Instruction
Donum vitae,
I, 6: AAS 80 (1988), 84; John Paul II,
Address to Members of the Diplomatic Corps
accredited to the Holy See (10 January 2005), 5:
AAS 97 (2005), 153.
[49] The
new techniques of this kind are, for example,
the use of human parthenogenesis, altered
nuclear transfer (ANT) and oocyte assisted
reprogramming (OAR).
[51] Benedict
XVI, Address to the participants in the
Symposium on the topic: “Stem Cells: what is the
future for therapy?” organized by the Pontifical
Academy for Life (16 September 2006): AAS
98 (2006), 694.
[52] Cf.
numbers 34-35 below.
[53] Cf.
Benedict XVI, Address to the participants in the
Symposium on the topic: “Stem Cells: what is the
future for therapy?” organized by the Pontifical
Academy for Life (16 September 2006): AAS
98 (2006), 693-695.
[56] Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction
Donum vitae, I, 4:
AAS 80 (1988), 83.
[57] Cf.
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Evangelium vitae,
73: AAS
87 (1995), 486: “Abortion and euthanasia are
thus crimes which no human law can claim to
legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience
to obey such laws; instead there is a grave
and clear obligation to oppose them by
conscientious objection”. The right of
conscientious objection, as an expression of the
right to freedom of conscience, should be
protected by law.
[59] John
Paul II, Letter to all the Bishops on “The
Gospel of Life” (19 May 1991): AAS 84
(1992), 319.
|
