(Death, Heaven, Purgatory, Hell)
Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults
|
|
The Gift of
Life (Donum Vitae) 1987
Instruction on Respect for Human
Life In its Origin and the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions
of the Day
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Foreword
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been approached by various
Episcopal Conferences or individual Bishops, by theologians, doctors and
scientists, concerning biomedical techniques which make it possible to intervene
in the initial phase of the life of a human being and in the very processes of
procreation and their conformity with the principles of Catholic morality. The
present Instruction, which is the result of wide consultation and in particular
of a careful evaluation of the declarations made by Episcopates, does not intend
to repeat all the Church's teaching on the dignity of human life as it
originates and on procreation, but to offer, in the light of the previous
teaching of the Magisterium, some specific replies to the main questions being
asked in this regard.
The exposition is arranged as follows: an introduction will recall the
fundamental principles, of an anthropological and moral character, which are
necessary for a proper evaluation of the problems and for working out replies to
those questions; the first part will have as its subject respect for the human
being from the first moment of his or her existence; the second part will deal
with the moral questions raised by technical interventions on human procreation;
the third part will offer some orientations on the relationships between moral
law and civil law in terms of the respect due to human embryos and fetuses* and
as regards the legitimacy of techniques of artificial procreation.
*The terms "zygote," "pre-embryo," "embryo" and "fetus" can indicate in the
vocabulary of biology successive stages of the development of a human being. The
present Instruction makes free use of these terms, attributing to them an
identical ethical relevance, in order to designate the birth (whether visible or
not) of human generation, from the first moment of its existence until birth.
The reason for this usage is clarified by the text (cf I, 1).
Introduction
Biomedical Research and the Teaching of the Church
The gift of life which God the Creator and Father has entrusted to man calls him
to appreciate the inestimable value of what he has been given and to take
responsibility for it: this fundamental principle must be placed at the center
of one's reflection in order to clarify and solve the moral problems raised by
artificial interventions on life as it originates and on the processes of
procreation.
Thanks to the progress of the biological and medical sciences, man has at his
disposal ever more effective therapeutic resources; but he can also acquire new
powers, with unforeseeable consequences, over human life at its very beginning
and in its first stages. Various procedures now make it possible to intervene
not only in order to assist but also to dominate the processes of procreation.
These techniques can enable man to "take in hand his own destiny," but they also
expose him "to the temptation to go beyond the limits of a reasonable dominion
over nature."[1] They might constitute progress in the service of man, but they
also involve serious risks. Many people are therefore expressing an urgent
appeal that in interventions on procreation the values and rights of the human
person be safeguarded. Requests for clarification and guidance are coming not
only from the faithful but also from those who recognize the Church as "an
expert in humanity"[2] with a mission to serve the "civilization of love"[3] and
of life.
The Church's Magisterium does not intervene on the basis of a particular
competence in the area of the experimental sciences; but having taken account of
the data of research and technology, it intends to put forward, by virtue of its
evangelical mission and apostolic duty, the moral teaching corresponding to the
dignity of the person and to his or her integral vocation. It intends to do so
by expounding the criteria or moral judgment as regards the applications of
scientific research and technology, especially in relation to human life and its
beginnings. These criteria are the respect, defense, and promotion of man, his
"primary and fundamental right" to life,[4] his dignity as a person who is
endowed with a spiritual soul and with moral responsibility [5] and who is
called to beatific communion with God.
The Church's intervention in this field is inspired also by the love which she
owes to man, helping him to recognize and respect his rights and duties. This
love draws from the fount of Christ's love: as she contemplates the mystery of
the Incarnate Word, the Church also comes to understand the "mystery of man";[6]
by proclaiming the Gospel of salvation, she reveals to man his dignity and
invites him to discover fully the truth of his own being. Thus the Church once
more puts forward the divine law in order to accomplish the work of truth and
liberation.
For it is out of goodness--in order to indicate the path of life--that God gives
human beings his commandments and the grace to observe them; and it is likewise
out of goodness--in order to help them persevere along the same path--that God
always offers to everyone his forgiveness. Christ has compassion on our
weaknesses: he is our Creator and Redeemer. May his spirit open men's hearts to
the gift of God's peace and to an understanding of his precepts.
Science and Technology at the Service of the Human Person
God created man in his own image and likeness: "male and female he created them"
(Gen 1:27), entrusting to them the task of dominion over the earth" (Gen 1:28).
Basic scientific research and applied research constitute a significant
expression of this dominion of man over creation. Science and technology are
valuable resources for man when placed at his service and when they promote his
integral development for the benefit of all; but they cannot of themselves show
the meaning of existence and of human progress. Being ordered to man, who
initiates and develops them, they draw from the person and his moral values the
indication of their purpose and the awareness of their limits.
It would on the one hand be illusory to claim that scientific research and its
applications are morally neutral; on the other hand one cannot derive criteria
for guidance from mere technical efficiency, from research's possible usefulness
to some at the expense of others, or, worse still, from prevailing ideologies.
Thus science and technology require, for their own intrinsic meaning, an
unconditional respect for the fundamental criteria of the moral law: that is to
say, they must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights
and his true and integral good according to the design and the will of God.[7]
The rapid development of technological discoveries gives greater urgency to this
need to respect the criteria just mentioned: science without conscience can only
lead to man's ruin. "Our era needs such wisdom more than bygone ages if the
discoveries made by man are to be further humanized. For the future of the world
stands in peril unless wiser people are forthcoming." [8]
Anthropology and Procedures in the Biomedical Field
Which moral criteria must be applied in order to clarify the problems posed
today in the field of biomedicine? The answer to this question presupposes a
proper idea of the nature of the human person in his bodily dimension.
For it is only in keeping with his true nature that the human person can achieve
self-realization as a "unified totality":[9] and this nature is at the same time
corporal and spiritual. By virtue of its substantial union with a spiritual
soul, the human body cannot be considered as a mere complex of tissues, organs
and functions, nor can it be evaluated in the same way as the body of animals;
rather it is a constitutive part of the person who manifests and expresses
himself through it.
The natural moral law expresses and lays down the purposes, rights and duties
which are based upon the bodily and spiritual nature of the human person.
Therefore this law cannot be thought of as simply a set of norms on the
biological level; rather it must be defined as the rational order whereby man is
called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life and actions and in
particular to make use of his own body.[10]
A first consequence can be deduced from these principles: An intervention on the
human body affects not only the tissues, the organs and their functions but also
involves the person himself on different levels. It involves therefore, perhaps
in an implicit but nonetheless real way, a moral significance and
responsibility. Pope John Paul II forcefully reaffirmed this to the World
Medical Association when he said: "Each human person, in his absolutely unique
singularity, is constituted not only by his spirit, but by his body as well.
Thus, in the body and through the body, one touches the person himself in his
concrete reality. To respect the dignity of man consequently amounts to
safeguarding this identity of the man 'corpore et anima unus,' as the Second
Vatican Council says (Gaudium et Spes, 14, par. 1).
It is on the basis of this anthropological vision that one is to find the
fundamental criteria for decision-making in the case of procedures which are not
strictly therapeutic, as, for example, those aimed at the improvement of the
human biological condition."[11]
Applied biology and medicine work together for the integral good of human life
when they come to the aid of a person stricken by illness and infirmity and when
they respect his or her dignity as a creature of God. No biologist or doctor can
reasonably claim, by virtue of his scientific competence, to be able to decide
on people's origin and destiny. This norm must be applied in a particular way in
the field of sexuality and procreation, in which man and woman actualize the
fundamental values of love and life.
God, who is love and life, has inscribed in man and woman the vocation to share
in a special way in his mystery of personal communion and in his work as Creator
and Father.[12] For this reason marriage possesses specific goods and values in
its union and in procreation which cannot be likened to those existing in lower
forms of life. Such values and meanings are of the personal order and determine
from the moral point of view the meaning and limits of artificial interventions
on procreation and on the origin of human life. These interventions are not to
be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness
to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral
evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to
realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life.
Fundamental Criteria for a Moral Judgment
The fundamental values connected with the techniques of artificial human
procreation are two: the life of the human being called into existence and the
special nature of the transmission of human life in marriage. The moral judgment
on such methods of artificial procreation must therefore be formulated in
reference to these values.
Physical life, with which the course of human life in the world begins,
certainly does not itself contain the whole of a person's value, nor does it
represent the supreme good of man who is called to eternal life. However it does
constitute in a certain way the "fundamental" value of life, precisely because
upon this physical life all the other values of the person are based and
developed.[13] The inviolability of the innocent human being's right to life
"from the moment of conception until death"[14] is a sign and requirement of the
very inviolability of the person to whom the Creator has given the gift of life.
By comparison with the transmission of other forms of life in the universe, the
transmission of human life has a special character of its own, which derives
from the special nature of the human persons. "The transmission of human life is
entrusted by nature to a personal and conscious act and as such is subject to
the all-holy laws of God: immutable and inviolable laws which must be recognized
and observed. For this reason one cannot use means and follow methods which
could be licit in the transmission of the life of plants and animals."[15]
Advances in technology have now made it possible to procreate apart from sexual
relations through the meeting in vitro of the germ-cells previously taken from
the man and the woman. But what is technically possible is not for that very
reason morally admissible. Rational reflection on the fundamental values of life
and of human procreation is therefore indispensible for formulating a moral
evaluation of such technological interventions on a human being from the first
stages of his development.
Teachings of the Magisterium
On its part, the Magisterium of the Church offers to human reason in this field
too the light of Revelation: the doctrine concerning man taught by the
Magisterium contains many elements which throw light on the problems being faced
here.
From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected
in an absolute way because man is the only creature on earth that God has
"wished for himself"[16] and the spiritual soul of each man is "immediately
created" by God;[17] his whole being bears the image of the Creator. Human life
is sacred because from its beginning it involves "the creative action of
God"[18] and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who
is its sole end.[19] God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its
end: no one can, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy
directly an innocent human being.[20]
Human procreation requires on the part of the spouses responsible collaboration
with the fruitful love of God; [21] the gift of human life must be actualized in
marriage through the specific and exclusive acts of husband and wife, in
accordance with the laws inscribed in their persons and in their union. [22]
Part I
Respect for Human Embryos
Careful reflection on this teaching of the Magisterium and on the evidence of
reason, as mentioned above, enables us to respond to the numerous moral problems
posed by technical interventions upon the human being in the first phases of his
life and upon the processes of his conception.
What Respect is Due to the Human Embryo, Taking into Account His Nature and
Identity?
The human being must be respected--as a person--from the very first instant of
his existence.
The implementation of procedures of artificial fertilization has made possible
various interventions upon embryos and human fetuses. The aims pursued are of
various kinds: diagnostic and therapeutic, scientific and commercial. From all
of this, serious problems arise. Can one speak of a right to experimentation
upon human embryos for the purpose of scientific research? What norms or laws
should be worked out with regard to this matter?
The response to these problems presupposes a detailed reflection on the nature
and specific identity--the word "status" is used--of the human embryo itself.
At the Second Vatican Council, the Church for her part presented once again to
modern man her constant and certain doctrine according to which: "Life once
conceived, must be protected with the utmost care; abortion and infanticide are
abominable crimes." More recently the Charter of the Rights of the Family,
published by the Holy See, [23] confirmed that "Human life must be absolutely
respected and protected from the moment of conception." [24]
This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of
human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the
identity of the human person. The Congregation recalls the teachings found in
the Declaration on Procured Abortion: "From the time that the ovum is
fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the
mother: it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would
never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual evidence ...
modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that,
from the first instant, the program is fixed as to what this living being will
be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic aspects already well
determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of human life, and
each of its great capacities requires time ... to find its place and to be in a
position to act."[27] This teaching remains valid and is further confirmed, if
confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which
recognize that in the zygote* resulting from fertilization the biological
identity of a new human individual is already constituted.
Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the
recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science
regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the
use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a
human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium
has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature,
but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured
abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.[26]
Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that
is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional
respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual
totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the
moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person
must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of
every innocent human being to life. This doctrinal reminder provides the
fundamental criterion for the solution of the various problems posed by the
development of the biomedical sciences in this field: since the embryo must be
treated as a person, it must also be defended in its integrity, tended and cared
for, to the extent possible, in the same way as any other human being as far as
medical assistance is concerned. __
*The zygote is the cell produced when the nuclei of the two gametes have
fused.
Is Prenatal Diagnosis Morally Licit?
If prenatal diagnosis respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the
human fetus and is directed towards its safeguarding or healing as an
individual, then the answer is affirmative.
For prenatal diagnosis makes it possible to know the condition of the embryo and
of the fetus when still in the mother's womb. It permits, or makes it possible
to anticipate earlier and more effectively, certain therapeutic,medical or
surgical procedures.
Such diagnosis is permissible, with the consent of the parents after they have
been adequately informed, if the methods employed safeguard the life and
integrity of the embryo and the mother, without subjecting them to
disproportionate risks.[27] But this diagnosis is gravely opposed to the moral
law when it is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion depending
upon the results: a diagnosis which shows the existence of a malformation or a
hereditary illness must not be the equivalent of a death- sentence. Thus a woman
would be committing a gravely illicit act if she were to request such a
diagnosis with the deliberate intention of having an abortion should the results
confirm the existence of a malformation or abnormality. The spouse or relatives
or anyone else would similarly be acting in a manner contrary to the moral law
if they were to counsel or impose such a diagnostic procedure on the expectant
mother with the same intention of possibly proceeding to an abortion. So too the
specialist would be guilty of illicit collaboration if, in conducting the
diagnosis and in the communicating its results, he were deliberately to
contribute to establishing or favoring a link between prenatal diagnosis and
abortion.
In conclusion, any directive or program of the civil and health authorities or
of scientific organizations which in any way were to favor a link between
prenatal diagnosis and abortion, or which were to go as far as directly to
induce expectant mothers to submit to prenatal diagnosis planned for the purpose
of eliminating fetuses which are affected by malformations or which are carriers
of hereditary illness, is to be condemned as a violation of the unborn child's
right to life and as an abuse of the prior rights and duties of the spouses.
Are Therapeutic Procedures Carried Out on the Human Embryo Licit?
As with all medical interventions on patients, one must uphold as licit
procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity
of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it but are directed
towards its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its
individual survival.
Whatever the type of medical, surgical or other therapy, the free and informed
consent of the parents is required, according to the deontological rules
followed in the case of children. The application of this moral principle may
call for delicate and particular precautions in the case of embryonic or fetal
life.
The legitimacy and criteria of such procedures have been clearly stated by Pope
John Paul II: "A strictly therapeutic intervention whose explicit objective is
the healing of various maladies such as those stemming from chromosomal defects
will, in principle, be considered desirable, provided it is directed to true
promotion of the personal well-being of the individual without doing harm to his
integrity or worsening his conditions of life. Such an intervention would indeed
fall within the logic of the Christian moral tradition."[28]
How Is One to Evaluate Morally Research and Experimentation* on Human Embryos
and Fetuses?
Medical research must refrain from operations on live embryos, unless there is a
moral certainty of not causing harm to the life or integrity of the unborn child
and the mother, and on condition that the parents have given their free and
informed consent to the procedure. It follows that all research, even when
limited to the simple observation of the embryo, would become illicit were it to
involve risk to the embryo's physical integrity or life by reason of the methods
used or the effects induced.
As regards experimentation, and presupposing the general distinction between
experimentation for purposes which are not directly therapeutic and
experimentation which is clearly therapeutic for the subject himself, in the
case in point one must also distinguish between experimentation carried out on
embryos which are still alive and experimentation carried out on embryos which
are dead. If the embryos are living, whether viable or not, they must be
respected just like any other human person; experimentation on embryos which is
not directly therapeutic is illicit.[29]
No objective, even though noble in itself, such as a foreseeable advantage to
science, to other human beings or to society, can in any way justify
experimentation on living human embryos or fetuses, whether viable or not,
either inside or outside the mother's womb. The informed consent ordinarily
required for clinical experimentation on adults cannot be granted by the
parents, who may not freely dispose of the physical integrity or life of the
unborn child. Moreover, experimentation on embryos and fetuses always involves
risk, and indeed in most cases it involves the certain expectation of harm to
their physical integrity or even their death.
To use human embryos or fetuses as the object or instrument of experimentation
constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings having a right to the
same respect that is due to the child already born and to every human person.
The Charter or the Rights of the Family published by the Holy See affirms:
"Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental
manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo."[30] The practice of keeping
alive human embryos in vivo or in vitro for experimental or commercial purposes
is totally opposed to human dignity.
In the case of experimentation that is clearly therapeutic, namely, when it is a
matter of experimental forms of therapy used for the benefit of the embryo
itself in a final attempt to save its life, and in the absence of other reliable
forms of therapy, recourse to drugs or procedures not yet fully tested can be
licit.[31]
The corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have been deliberately
aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings. In
particular, they cannot be subjected to mutilation or to autopsies if their
death has not yet been verified and without the consent of the parents or of the
mother. Furthermore, the moral requirements must be safeguarded that there be no
complicity in deliberate abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided. Also,
in the case of dead fetuses, as for the corpses of adult persons, all commercial
trafficking must be considered illicit and should be prohibited.
*Since the terms "research" and "experimentation" are often used equivalently
and ambiguously, it is deemed necessary to specify the exact meaning given them
in this document.
By research is meant any inductive-deductive process which aims at promoting the
systematic observation of a given phenomenon in the human field or at verifying
a hypothesis arising from previous observations.
By experimentation is meant any research in which the human being (in the
various stages of his existence: embryo, fetus, child or adult) represents the
object through which or upon which one intends to verify the effect, at present
unknown or not sufficiently known, of a given treatment (e.g. pharmacological,
teratogenic, surgical, etc.).
How is One to Evaluate Morally the Use for Research Purposes of Embryos
Obtained by Fertilization 'in Vitro'?
Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and subjects with rights: their
dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their
existence. It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as
disposable "biological material."
In the usual practice of in vitro fertilization, not all of the embryos are
transferred to the woman's body; some are destroyed. Just as the Church condemns
induced abortion, so she also forbids acts against the life of these human
beings. It is a duty to condemn the particular gravity of the voluntary
destruction of human embryos obtained 'in vitro' for the sole purpose of
research, either by means of artificial insemination of by means of "twin
fission." By acting in this way the researcher usurps the place of God; and,
even though he may be unaware of this, he sets himself up as the master of the
destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily chooses whom he will allow to live
and whom he will send to death and kills defenseless human beings.
Methods of observation or experimentation which damage or impose grave and
disproportionate risks upon embryos obtained in vitro are morally illicit for
the same reasons. Every human being is to be respected for himself, and cannot
be reduced in worth to a pure and simple instrument for the advantage of others.
It is therefore not in conformity with the moral law deliberately to expose to
death human embryos obtained 'in vitro.' In consequence of the fact that they
have been produced in vitro, those embryos which are not transferred into the
body of the mother and are called "spare" are exposed to an absurd fate, with no
possibility of their being offered safe means of survival which can be licitly
pursued.
What Judgment Should Be Made on Other Procedures of Manipulating Embryos
Connected with the "Techniques of Human Reproduction"?
Techniques of fertilization in vitro can open the way to other forms of
biological and genetic manipulation of human embryos, such as attempts or plans
for fertilization between human and animal gametes and the gestation of human
embryos in the uterus of animals, or the hypothesis or project of constructing
artificial uteruses for the human embryos. These procedures are contrary to the
human dignity proper to the embryo, and at the same time they are contrary to
the right of every person to be conceived and to be born within marriage and
from marriage.[32] Also, attempts or hypotheses for obtaining a human being
without any connection with sexuality through "twin fission," cloning or
parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are
in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal
union.
The freezing of embryos, even when carried out in order to preserve the life of
an embryo--cryopreservation--constitutes an offense against the respect due to
human beings by exposing them to grave risks of death or harm to their physical
integrity and depriving them, at least temporarily, of maternal shelter and
gestation, thus placing them in a situation in which further offenses and
manipulation are possible.
Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not
therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or
other predetermined qualities. These manipulations are contrary to the personal
dignity of the human beings and his or her integrity and identity. Therefore in
no way can they be justified on the grounds of possible beneficial consequences
for future humanity.[33] Every person must be respected for himself: in this
consists the dignity and the right of every human being from his or her
beginning.
Part II
Interventions Upon Human Procreation
By "artificial procreation" or "artificial fertilization" are understood here
the different technical procedures directed towards obtaining a human conception
in a manner other than the sexual union of man and woman. This Instruction deals
with fertilization of an ovum in a test-tube (in vitro fertilization) and
artificial insemination through transfer into the woman's genital tracts of
previously collected sperm.
A preliminary point for the moral evaluation of such technical procedures is
constituted by the consideration of the circumstances and consequences which
those procedures involve in relation to the respect due the human embryo.
Development of the practice of in vitro fertilization has required innumerable
fertilizations and destructions of human embryos. Even today, the usual practice
presupposes a hyper-ovulation on the part of the woman: a number of ova are
withdrawn, fertilized and then cultivated in vitro for some days. Usually not
all are transferred into the genital tracts of the woman; some embryos,
generally called "spare", are destroyed or frozen. On occasion, some of the
implanted embryos are sacrificed for various eugenic, economic or psychological
reasons. Such deliberate destruction of human beings or their utilization for
different purposes to the detriment of their integrity and life is contrary to
the doctrine on procured abortion already recalled.
The connection between in vitro fertilization and the voluntary destruction of
human embryos occurs too often. This is significant: through these procedures,
with apparently contrary purposes, life and death are subjected to the decision
of man, who thus sets himself up as the giver of life and death by decree. This
dynamic of violence and domination may remain unnoticed by those very
individuals who, in wishing to utilize this procedure, become subject to it
themselves. The facts recorded and the cold logic which links them must be taken
into consideration for a moral judgment on IVF and ET (in vitro fertilization
and embryo transfer): the abortion-mentality which has made this procedure
possible thus leads, whether one wants it or not, to man's domination over the
life and death of his fellow human beings and can lead to a system of radical
eugenics.
Nevertheless, such abuses do not exempt one from a further and thorough ethical
study of the techniques of artificial procreation considered in themselves,
abstracting as far as possible from the destruction of embryos produced in
vitro.
The present Instruction will therefore take into consideration in the first
place the problems posed by heterologous artificial fertilization (II, 1-3),*
and subsequently those linked with homologous artificial fertilization (II,
4-6).**
Before formulating an ethical judgment on each of these procedures, the
principles and values which determine the moral evaluation of each of them will
be considered.
*By the term heterologous artificial fertilization or procreation, the
Instruction means techniques used to obtain a human conception artificially by
the use of gametes coming from at least one donor other than the spouses who are
joined in marriage. Such techniques can be of two types:
Heterologous IVF and ET: the technique used to obtain a human conception through
the meeting in vitro of gametes taken from at least one donor other than the two
spouses joined in marriage.
Heterologous artificial insemination: the technique used to obtain a human
conception through the transfer into the genital tracts of the woman of the
sperm previously collected from a donor other than the husband.
**By artificial homologous fertilization or procreation, the Instruction means
the technique used to obtain a human conception using the gametes of the two
spouses joined in marriage. Homologous artificial fertilization can be carried
out by two different methods:
Homologous IVF and ET: the technique used to obtain a human conception through
the meeting in vitro of the gametes of the spouses joined in marriage.
Homologous artificial insemination: the technique used to obtain a human
conception through the transfer into the genital tracts of a married woman of
the sperm previously collected from her husband.
Heterologous Artificial Fertilization
Why Must Human Procreation Take Place in Marriage?
Every human being is always to be accepted as a gift and blessing of God.
However, from the moral point of view a truly responsible procreation vis-a-vis
the unborn child must be the fruit of marriage.
For human procreation has specific characteristics by virtue of the personal
dignity of the parents and of the children: the procreation of a new person,
whereby the man and the woman collaborate with the power of the Creator, must be
the fruit and the sign of the mutual self-giving of the spouses, of their love
and of their fidelity.[34] The fidelity of the spouses in the unity of marriage
involves reciprocal respect of their right to become a father and a mother only
through each other.
The child has the right to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the
world and brought up within marriage: it is through the secure and recognized
relationship to his own parents that the child can discover his own identity and
achieve his own proper human development.
The parents find in their child a confirmation and completion of their
reciprocal self-giving: the child is the living image of their love, the
permanent sign of their conjugal union, the living and indissoluble concrete
expression of their paternity and maternity.[35]
By reason of the vocation and social responsibilities of the person, the good of
the children and of the parents contributes to the good of civil society; the
vitality and stability of society require that children come into the world
within a family and that the family be firmly based on marriage.
The tradition of the Church and anthropological reflection recognize in marriage
and in its indissoluble unity the only setting worthy of truly responsible
procreation.
Does Heterologous Artificial Fertilization Conform to the Dignity of the
Couple and to the Truth of Marriage?
Through IVF and ET and heterologous artificial insemination, human conception is
achieved through the fusion of gametes of at least one donor other than the
spouses who are united in marriage. Heterologous artificial fertilization is
contrary to the unity of marriage, to the dignity of the spouses, to the
vocation proper to parents, and to the child's right to be conceived and brought
into the world in marriage and from marriage.[36]
Respect for the unity of marriage and for conjugal fidelity demands that the
child be conceived in marriage; the bond existing between husband and wife
accords the spouses, in an objective and inalienable manner, the exclusive right
to become father and mother solely through each other.[37] Recourse to the
gametes of a third person, in order to have sperm or ovum available, constitutes
a violation of the reciprocal commitment of the spouses and a grave lack in
regard to the essential property of marriage which is its unity.
Heterologous artificial fertilization violates the rights of the child; it
deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder
the maturing of his personal identity. Furthermore, it offends the common
vocation of the spouses who are called to fatherhood and motherhood: it
objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of unity and integrity; it brings
about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood and responsibility for
upbringing. Such damage to the personal relationships within the family has
repercussions on civil society: what threatens the unity and stability of the
family is a source of dissension, disorder and injustice in the whole of social
life.
These reasons lead to a negative moral judgment concerning heterologous
artificial fertilization: consequently fertilization of a married woman with the
sperm of a donor different from her husband and fertilization with the husband's
sperm of an ovum not coming from his wife are morally illicit. Furthermore, the
artificial fertilization of a woman who is unmarried or a widow, whoever the
donor may be, cannot be morally justified.
The desire to have a child and the love between spouses who long to obviate a
sterility which cannot be overcome in any other way constitute understandable
motivations; but subjectively good intentions do not render heterologous
artificial fertilization conformable to the objective and inalienable properties
of marriage or respectful of the rights of the child and of the spouses.
The desire to have a child and the love between spouses who long to obviate a
sterility which cannot be overcome in any other way constitute understandable
motivations; but subjectively good intentions do not render heterologous
artificial fertilization conformable to the objective and inalienable properties
of marriage or respectful of the rights of the child and of the spouses.
Is "Surrogate"* Motherhood Morally Licit?
No, for the same reasons which lead one to reject artificial fertilization: for
it is contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of
the human person.
Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of
maternal love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends
the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb,
brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it sets up, to the
detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral
elements which constitute those families.
*By "surrogate mother" the Instruction means:
the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo implanted in her uterus and who is
genetically a stranger to the embryo because it has been obtained through the
union of the gametes of "donors." She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to
surrender the baby once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the
agreement for the pregnancy.
the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo to whose procreation she has
contributed the donation of her own ovum, fertilized through insemination with
the sperm of a man other than her husband. She carries the pregnancy with the
pledge to surrender the child once it is born to the party who commissioned or
made the agreement for the pregnancy.
B. Homologous Artificial Fertilization
Since heterologous artificial fertilization has been declared unacceptable, the
question arises of how to evaluate morally the process of homologous artificial
fertilization: IVF and ET and artificial insemination between husband and wife.
First a question of principle must be clarified.
What Connection is Required from the Moral Point of View between Procreation
and the Conjugal Act?
The Church's teaching on marriage and human procreation affirms the "inseparable
connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative,
between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the
procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while
most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of
new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman."
[38] This principle, which is based upon the nature of marriage and the intimate
connection of the goods of marriage, has well-known consequences on the level of
responsible fatherhood and motherhood. "By safeguarding both these essential
aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its
fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's exalted
vocation to parenthood."[39]
The same doctrine concerning the link between the meanings of the conjugal act
and between the goods of marriage throws light on the moral problem of
homologous artificial fertilization, since "it is never permitted to separate
these different aspects to such a degree as positively to exclude either the
procreative intention or the conjugal relation." [40]
Contraception deliberately deprives the conjugal act of its openness to
procreation and in this way brings about a voluntary dissociation of the ends of
marriage. Homologous artificial fertilization, in seeking a procreation which is
not the fruit of a specific act of conjugal union, objectively effects an
analogous separation between the goods and the meanings of marriage.
Thus, fertilization is licitly sought when it is the result of a "conjugal act
which is per se suitable for the generation of children to which marriage is
ordered by its nature and by which spouses become one flesh." [41] But from the
moral point of view procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is
not desired as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say of the specific act
of the spouses' union.
The moral value of the intimate link between the goods of marriage and between
the meanings of the conjugal act is based upon the unity of the human being, a
unity involving body and spiritual soul.[42] Spouses mutually express their
personal love in the "language of the body," which clearly involves both
"spousal meanings" and parental ones.[43] The conjugal act by which the couple
mutually express their self-gift at the same time expresses openness to the gift
of life. It is an act that is inseparably corporal and spiritual. It is in their
bodies and through their bodies that the spouses consummate their marriage and
are able to become father and mother. In order to respect the language of their
bodies and their natural generosity, the conjugal union must take place with
respect for its openness to procreation; and the procreation of a person must be
the fruit and the result of married love. The origin of the human being thus
follows from a procreation that is "linked to the union, not only biological but
also spiritual, of the parents, made one by the bond of marriage."[44]
Fertilization achieved outside the bodies of the couple remains by this very
fact deprived of the meanings and the values which are expressed in the language
of the body and in the union of human persons.
Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect
for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with
the dignity of the person. In his unique and irrepeatable origin, the child must
be respected and recognized as equal in personal dignity to those who give him
life. The human person must be accepted in his parents' act of union and love;
the generation of a child must therefore be the fruit of that mutual giving [45]
which is realized in the conjugal act wherein the spouses cooperate as servants
and not as masters in the work of the Creator who is Love.[46]
In reality, the origin of a human person is the result of an act of giving. The
one conceived must be the fruit of his parents' love. He cannot be desired or
conceived as the product of an intervention of medical or biological techniques;
that would be equivalent to reducing him to an object of scientific technology.
No one may subject the coming of a child into the world to conditions of
technical efficiency which are to be evaluated according to standards of control
and dominion.
The moral relevance of the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and
between the goods of marriage, as well as the unity of the human being and the
dignity of his origin, demand that the procreation of a human person be brought
about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses. The
link between procreation and the conjugal act is thus shown to be of great
importance on the anthropological and moral planes, and it throws light on the
positions of the Magisterium with regard to homologous artificial fertilization.
Is Homologous 'In Vitro' Fertilization Morally Licit?
The answer to this question is strictly dependent on the principles just
mentioned. Certainly one cannot ignore the legitimate aspirations of sterile
couples. For some, recourse to homologous IVF and ET appears to be the only way
of fulfilling their sincere desire for a child. The question is asked whether
the totality of conjugal life in such situations is not sufficient to insure the
dignity proper to human procreation. It is acknowledged that IVR and ET
certainly cannot supply for the absence of sexual relations [47] and cannot be
preferred to the specific acts of conjugal union, given the risks involved for
the child and the difficulties of the procedure. But it is asked whether, when
there is no other way of overcoming the sterility which is a source of
suffering, homologous in vitro fertilization may not constitute an aid, if not a
form of therapy, whereby its moral licitness could be admitted.
The desire for a child--or at the very least an openness to the transmission of
life--is a necessary prerequisite from the moral point of view for responsible
human procreation. But this good intention is not sufficient for making a
positive moral evaluation of in vitro fertilization between spouses. The process
of IVF and ET must be judged in itself and cannot borrow its definite moral
quality from the totality of conjugal life of which it becomes part nor from the
conjugal life of which it becomes part nor from the conjugal acts which may
precede or follow it. [48]
It has already been recalled that, in the circumstances in which it is regularly
practiced, IVF and ET involves the destruction of human beings, which is
something contrary to the doctrine on the illicitness of abortion previously
mentioned.[49] But even in a situation in which every precaution is taken to
avoid the death of human embryos, homologous IVF and ET dissociates from the
conjugal act the actions which are directed to human fertilization. For this
reason the very nature of homologous IVF and ET also must be taken into account,
even abstracting from the link with procured abortion.
Homologous IVF and ET is brought about outside the bodies of the couple through
actions of third parties whose competence and technical activity determine the
success of the procedure. Such fertilization entrusts the life and identity of
the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the
domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a
relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality
that must be common to parents and children.
Conception in vitro is the result of the technical action which presides over
fertilization. Such fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively
willed as the expression and fruit of specific act of the conjugal union. In
homologous IVF and ET, therefore, even if it is considered in the context of 'de
facto' existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is
objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result
and fruit of a conjugal act in which the spouses can become "cooperators with
God for giving life to a new person."[50]
These reasons enable us to understand why the act of conjugal love is considered
in the teaching of the Church as the only setting worthy of human procreation.
For the same reasons the so-called "simple case," i.e. a homologous IVF and ET
procedure that is free of any compromise with the abortive practice of
destroying embryos and with masturbation, remains a technique which is morally
illicit because it deprives human procreation of the dignity which is proper and
connatural to it.
Certainly, homologous IVF and ET fertilization is not marked by all that ethical
negativity found in extra-conjugal procreation; the family and marriage continue
to constitute the setting for the birth and upbringing of the children.
Nevertheless, in conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods
of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remains opposed from the
moral point of view to homologous 'in vitro' fertilization. Such fertilization
is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the
conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human
embryo.
Although the manner in which human conception is achieved with IVF and ET cannot
be approved, every child which comes into the world must in any case be accepted
as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love.
How Is Homologous Artificial Insemination to Be Evaluated From the Moral
Point of View?
Homologous artificial insemination within marriage cannot be admitted except for
those cases in which the technical means is not a substitute for the conjugal
act but serves to facilitate and to help so that the act attains its natural
purpose.
The teaching of the Magisterium on this point has already been stated.[51] This
teaching is not just an expression of particular historical circumstances but is
based on the Church's doctrine concerning the connection between the conjugal
union and procreation and on a consideration of the personal nature of the
conjugal act and of a human procreation. "In its natural structure, the conjugal
act is a personal action, a simultaneous and immediate cooperation on the part
of the husband and wife, which by the very nature of the agents and the proper
nature of the act is the expression of the mutual gift which, according to the
words of Scripture, brings about union 'in one flesh.'"[52] Thus moral
conscience "does not necessarily proscribe the use of certain artificial means
destined solely either to the facilitating of the natural act or to insuring
that the natural act normally performed achieves its proper end." [53] If the
technical means facilitates the conjugal act or helps it to reach its natural
objectives, it can be morally acceptable. If, on the other hand, the procedure
were to replace the conjugal act, it is morally illicit.
Artificial insemination as a substitute for the conjugal act is prohibited by
reason of the voluntarily achieved dissociation of the two meanings of the
conjugal act. Masturbation, through which the sperm is normally obtained, is
another sign of this dissociation: even when it is done for the purpose of
procreation, the act remains deprived of its unitive meaning: "It lacks the
sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which
realizes 'the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the
context of true love.'" [54]
What Moral Criterion Can Be Proposed With Regard to Medical Intervention in
Human Procreation?
The medical act must be evaluated not only with reference to its technical
dimension but also and above all in relation to its goal which is the good of
persons and their bodily and psychological health. The moral criteria for
medical intervention in procreation are deduced from the dignity of human
persons, of their sexuality and of their origin.
Medicine which seeks to be ordered to the integral good of the person must
respect the specifically human values of sexuality.[55] The doctor is at the
service of persons and of human procreation. He does not have the authority to
dispose of them or to decide their fate. A medical intervention respects the
dignity of persons when it seeks to assist the conjugal act either in order to
facilitate its performance or in order to enable it to achieve its objective
once it has been normally performed.[56]
On the other hand, it sometimes happens that a medical procedure technologically
replaces the conjugal act in order to obtain a procreation which is neither its
result nor its fruit. In this case the medical act is not, as it should be, at
the service of conjugal union but rather appropriates to itself the procreative
function and thus contradicts the dignity and the inalienable rights of the
spouses and of the child to be born.
The humanization of medicine, which is insisted upon today by everyone, requires
respect for the integral dignity of the human person first of all in the act and
at the moment in which the spouses transmit life to a new person. It is only
logical therefore to address an urgent appeal to Catholic doctors and scientists
that they bear exemplary witness to the respect due to the human embryo and to
the dignity of procreation. The medical and nursing staff of Catholic hospitals
and clinics are in a special way urged to do justice to the moral obligations
which they have assumed, frequently also, as part of their contract. Those who
are in charge of Catholic hospitals and clinics and who are often Religious will
take special care to safeguard and promote a diligent observance of the moral
norms recalled in the present Instruction.
The Suffering Caused By Infertility in Marriage
The suffering of spouses who cannot have children or who are afraid of bringing
a handicapped child into the world is a suffering that everyone must understand
and properly evaluate.
On the part of the spouses, the desire for a child is natural: it expresses the
vocation to fatherhood and motherhood inscribed in conjugal love. This desire
can be even stronger if the couple is affected by sterility which appears
incurable. Nevertheless, marriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to
have a child, but only the right to perform those natural acts which are per se
ordered to procreation.[57]
A true and proper right to a child would be contrary to the child's dignity and
nature. The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor can he be
considered as an object of ownership: rather, a child is a gift, "the supreme
gift"[58] and the most gratuitous gift of marriage, and is a living testimony of
the mutual giving of his parents. For this reason, the child has the right, as
already mentioned, to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of
his parents; and he also has the right to be respected as a person from the
moment of his conception.
Nevertheless, whatever its cause or prognosis, sterility is certainly a
difficult trial. The community of believers is called to shed light upon and
support the suffering of those who are unable to fulfill their legitimate
aspiration to motherhood and fatherhood. Spouses who find themselves in this sad
situation are called to find in it an opportunity for sharing in a particular
way in the Lord's Cross, the source of spiritual fruitfulness. Sterile couples
must not forget that "even when procreation is not possible, conjugal life does
not for this reason lose its value. Physical sterility in fact can be for
spouses the occasion for other important services to the life of the human
person, for example, adoption, various forms of educational work, and assistance
to other families and to poor or handicapped children." [59]
Many researchers are engaged in the fight against sterility. While fully
safeguarding the dignity of human procreation, some have achieved results which
previously seemed unattainable. Scientists therefore are to be encouraged to
continue their research with the aim of preventing the causes of sterility and
of being able to remedy them so that sterile couples will be able to procreate
in full respect for their own personal dignity and that of the child to born.
Part III
Moral and Civil Law
The Values and Moral Obligations That Civil Legislation
Must Respect and Sanction in this Matter
The inviolable right to life of every innocent human individual and the rights
of the family and of the institution of marriage constitute fundamental moral
values, because they concern the natural condition and integral vocation of
every human person; at the same time they are constitutive elements of civil
society and its order.
For this reason the new technological possibilities which have opened up in the
field of biomedicine require the intervention of the political authorities and
of the legislator, since an uncontrolled application of such techniques could
lead to unforeseeable and damaging consequences for civil society. Recourse to
the conscience of each individual and to the self-regulation of researchers
cannot be sufficient for insuring respect for personal rights and public order.
If the legislator responsible for the common good were not watchful, he could be
deprived of his prerogatives by researchers claiming to govern humanity in the
name of the biological discoveries and the alleged "improvement" processes which
they would draw from those discoveries. "Eugenism" and forms of discrimination
between human beings could come to be legitimized: this would constitute an act
of violence of and serious offense to the equality, dignity and fundamental
rights of the human person.
The intervention of the public authority must be inspired by the rational
principles which regulate the relationships between civil law and moral law. The
task of the civil law is to insure the common good of people through the
recognition of and the defense of fundamental rights and through the promotion
of peace and of public morality.[60] In no sphere of life can the civil law take
the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its
competence. It must sometimes tolerate, for the sake of public order, things
which it cannot forbid without a greater evil resulting. However, the
inalienable rights of their persons must be recognized and respected by civil
society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single
individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society
and the state: they pertain to human nature and are inherent in the person by
virtue of the creative act from which the person took his or her origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard: a) every human
being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until
death; b) the rights of the family and of marriage as an institution and, in
this area, the child's right to be conceived, brought into the world and brought
up by his parents. To each of these two themes it is necessary here to give some
further consideration.
In various states certain laws have authorized the direct suppression of
innocents: the moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the
protection which civil legislation must accord them, the state is denying the
equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the
service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable,
the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. The political
authority consequently cannot give approval to the calling of human beings into
existence through procedures which would expose them to those very grave risks
noted previously. The possible recognition by positive law and the political
authorities of techniques of artificial transmission of life and the
experimentation connected with it would widen the breach already opened by the
legalization of abortion.
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be insured for the
unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate
penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights. The law
cannot tolerate--indeed it must expressly forbid--that human beings, even at the
embryonic stage, should be treated as objects of experimentation, be mutilated
or destroyed with the excuse that they are superfluous or incapable of
developing normally.
The political authority is bound to guarantee to the institution of the family,
upon which society is based, the juridical protection to which it has a right.
From the very fact that it is at the service of people, the political authority
must also be at the service of the family. Civil law cannot grant approval to
techniques of artificial procreation which, for the benefit of third parties
(doctors, biologists, economic or governmental powers), take away what is a
right inherent in the relationship between spouses; and therefore civil law
cannot legalize the donation of gametes between persons who are not legitimately
united in marriage.
Legislation must also prohibit, by virtue of the support which is due to the
family, embryo banks, post mortem insemination and "surrogate motherhood."
It is part of the duty of the public authority to insure that the civil law is
regulated according to the fundamental norms of the moral law in matters
concerning human rights, human life and the institution of the family.
Politicians must commit themselves, through their interventions upon public
opinion, to securing in society the widest possible consensus on such essential
points and to consolidating this consensus wherever it risks being weakened or
is in danger of collapse.
In many countries, the legalization of abortion and juridical tolerance of
unmarried couples makes it more difficult to secure respect for the fundamental
rights recalled by this Instruction. It is to be hoped that states will not
become responsible for aggravating these socially damaging situations of
injustice. It is rather to be hoped that nations and states will realize all the
cultural, ideological and political implications connected with the techniques
of artificial procreation and will find the wisdom and courage necessary for
issuing laws which are more just and more respectful of human life and the
institution of the family.
The civil legislation of many states confers an undue legitimation upon certain
practices in the eyes of many today; it is seen to be incapable of guranteeing
that morality which is in conformity with the natural exigencies of the human
person and with the "unwritten laws" etched by the Creator upon the human heart.
All men of good will must commit themselves, particularly within their
professional field and in the exercise of their civil rights, to ensuring the
reform of morally unacceptable civil laws and the correction of illicit
practices. In addition, "conscientious objection" vis-…-vis such laws must be
supported and recognized. A movement of passive resistance to the legitimation
of practices contrary to human life and dignity is beginning to make an ever
sharper impression upon the moral conscience of many, especially many
specialists in the biomedical sciences.
Conclusion
The spread of technologies of intervention in the processes of human procreation
raises very serious moral problems in relation to the respect due to the human
being from the moment of conception, to the dignity of the person, of his or her
sexuality and the transmission of life.
With this instruction the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in
fulfilling its responsibility to promote and defens the Church's teaching in so
serious a matter, addresses a new and heartfelt invitation to all those who, by
reason of their role and their commitment, can exercise a positive influence and
ensure that, in the family and in society, due respect is accorded to life and
love. It addresses this invitation to those responsible for the formation of
consciences and of public opinion, to scientists and medical professionals, to
jurists and politicians. It hopes that all will understand the incompatibility
between recognition of the signity of the human person and contempt for life and
love, between faith in the living God and the claim to decide arbitrarily the
origin and fate of a human being.
In particular, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith addresses an
invitation with the confidence and encouragement to theologians, and above all
to moralists, that they study more deeply and make ever more accessible to the
faithful the contents of the teaching of the Church's Megisterium in the light
of a valid anthropology in the matter of sexuality and marriage and in the
context of the necessary interdisciplinary approach. Thus they will make it
possible to understand ever more clearly the reasons for the validity of this
teaching. By defending man against the excesses of his own power, the Church of
God reminds him of the reasons for his true nobility; only in this way can the
possibility of living and loving with that dignity and liberty which derive from
respect for the truth be ensured for the men and women of tomorrow. The precise
indications which are offered in the present instruction, therefore, are not
meant to halt the effort of reflection but rather to give it a renewed impulse
in unrenounceable fidelity to the teaching of the Church.
In the light of the truth about the gift of human life and in the light of the
moral principles which flow from that truth, everyone in invited to act in the
area of responsibility proper to each, and like the good Samaritan, to recognize
as a neighbor even the littlest among the children of men. (cf. Lk. 10:29-37).
Here Christ's words find a new and particular echo: "What you do to one of the
least of my brethren, you do unto me" (Mt. 25:40).
During an audience granted to the undersigned Prefect after the plenary session
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Supreme Pontiff, John
Paul II, approved this instruction and ordered it to be published.
Given at Rome, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, February 22,
1987, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, the Apostle.
JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER
Prefect
+ALBERTO BOVONE
Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia
Secretary
__________________________
Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20017-1194 (202) 541-3070