Instruction Donum Vitae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Respect for Nascent Human Life and the Dignity of Procreation

Foundation: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
source : Holy See.
language original: Latin.
Copyright the Latin original: No.
English translation: Holy See.
Copyright of the Spanish translation: No.
Date: 22 February 1987.
Checked on 12 August 2018.

Preamble

Various Episcopal Conferences and numerous bishops, theologians, doctors and scientists have questioned the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as to whether biomedical techniques which permit intervention in the initial phase of human life and even in the procreative process itself are in conformity with the principles of Catholic morality. The present instruction, which is the fruit of numerous consultations and in particular of a careful examination of episcopal declarations, does not seek to reproduce the entire teaching of the Church on the dignity of nascent human life and procreation, but rather to offer, in the light of the preceding teaching of the Magisterium, a specific response to the problems raised.

The presentation will follow the following plan: the introduction will recall the fundamental principles, of an anthropological and moral nature, necessary for an accurate assessment of these problems and for the elaboration of the corresponding response; the first part will deal with the respect due to the human being from the first moment of his existence; the second part will deal with the moral questions raised by the technical interventions on human procreation; in the third part some orientations will be pointed out about the relationship existing between moral law and civil law regarding the consideration due to human embryos and foetuses in dependence on the legitimacy of the techniques of artificial procreation.

Introduction

1. Biomedical research and the teaching of the Church

The gift of life, which God the Creator and Father has entrusted to man, demands that he become aware of its inestimable value and accept it responsibly. This basic principle must be placed at the centre of reflection aimed at clarifying and resolving the moral problems arising from artificial interventions on nascent life and on procreative processes.

Thanks to the progress of the biological and medical sciences, man has increasingly effective therapeutic means at his disposal, but he can also acquire new powers, with unforeseeable consequences, over the beginning and early stages of human life. Today, various procedures make it possible to intervene in the mechanisms of procreation, not only to facilitate them, but also to control them. If such techniques allow man to "take his destiny into his own hands", they also expose him "to the temptation to transgress the limits of a reasonable control of nature".1 This is why, although such techniques can constitute progress in the service of man, at the same time they entail serious risks. Hence the urgent appeal of many to safeguard the values and rights of the human person in interventions on procreation. The demand for light and guidance comes not only from the faithful, but also from all those who recognise the Church, "an expert in humanity "2, a mission at the service of the "civilisation of love "3 and of life.

The Magisterium of the Church does not intervene on behalf of a particular skill in the field of experimental sciences. On the contrary, after having considered the data acquired by research and technology, it wishes to propose, in virtue of its own evangelical mission and apostolic duty, the moral doctrine in conformity with the dignity of the person and his integral vocation, setting out the criteria for the moral evaluation of the applications of scientific research and technology to human life, particularly in its early stages. These criteria are respect, defence and promotion of man, his "primary and fundamental right" to life4 and his dignity as a person, endowed with a spiritual soul, moral responsibility5 and called to beatific communion with God.

The Church's intervention, in this field as in others, is inspired by the love she owes to man, to whom financial aid recognises and respects his rights and duties. This love is nourished by the wellspring of Christ's charity: through contemplation of the mystery of the incarnate Word, the Church also knows the "mystery of man "6; by proclaiming the Gospel of salvation, she reveals to man his own dignity and invites him to discover fully the truth about himself. The Church proposes the divine law for promote truth and liberation.

Because he is good, God gives to men - to show them the way of life - his commandments and the grace to observe them; and also because he is good, God always offers to all - to help them to persevere on the same path - his forgiveness. Christ has compassion for our frailties: He is our creator and our redeemer. May his Spirit open our hearts to the gift of divine peace and to the understanding of his precepts.

2. Science and technology in 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 them with the task of "dominating the earth" (Gen. 1:28). Scientific research, fundamental and applied, is a significant expression of man's dominion over creation. Precious resources of man when they are placed at his service and promote his integral development for the benefit of all, science and technology alone cannot indicate the meaning of human existence and progress. Since they are ordered to man, in whom they have their origin and their growth, they receive from the person and his moral values the direction of their purpose and the awareness of their limits.

It would therefore be illusory to claim the moral neutrality of scientific research and its applications. On the other hand, the guiding criteria can be taken neither from mere technical efficiency, nor from the utility they may bring to some at the expense of others, nor, worse still, from the dominant ideologies. Because of their very intrinsic significance, science and technology require unconditional respect for the fundamental criteria of morality: must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights and of his true and integral good according to God's plan and will7.

The rapid development of technological discoveries makes it all the more urgent to respect remembered criteria; science without conscience leads only to the ruin of hunger. "Our time, more than past times, needs this wisdom in order to humanise all the new things that man is discovering. The future destiny of the world is in danger, unless wiser men emerge "8.

3. Anthropology and biomedical interventions

What moral criteria should be applied to clarify the problems that arise today in the field of biomedicine? The answer to this question presupposes an adequate understanding of the nature of the human person in its corporeal dimension.

Indeed, it is only in the line of its true nature that the human person can realise itself as a "unified whole "9. This nature is at the same time bodily and spiritual. By virtue of its substantial union with a spiritual soul, the human body cannot be reduced to a complex of tissues, organs and functions, nor can it be valued in the same way as the body of animals, since it is a constituent part of a person, which expresses and manifests itself through it.

The natural moral law reveals and prescribes the aims, rights and duties based on the bodily and spiritual nature of the human person. This law cannot be understood as a simply biological normativity, but must be conceived as the rational order by which man is called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life and his acts and, more specifically, to use and dispose of his own body10.

A first conclusion can be drawn from these principles: any intervention on the human body does not only affect the tissues, organs and functions; it also affects, at various levels, the person himself; it therefore carries a moral meaning and responsibility, perhaps implicitly, but in a real way. John Paul II forcefully reminded the World Medical Association: "Each human person, in his unrepeatable uniqueness, consists not only of the spirit but also of the body, and therefore in the body and through the body the person himself is reached in his concrete reality. Respecting the dignity of man therefore entails safeguarding this identity of man corpore et anima unus, as the Second Vatican Council affirms (Const. Gaudium et spes, 14, 1). It is from this anthropological vision that the fundamental criteria for decision-making must be found, when it is a question of procedures which are not strictly therapeutic, such as, for example, those which aim to improve the human biological condition "11.

Biology and medicine contribute by their applications to the integral good of human life, when, from the moment they come to the sick person, they respect his dignity as a creature of God. But no biologist or doctor can reasonably claim to decide the origin and destiny of mankind in the name of his scientific skill . This rule must be applied in a particular way to the field of sexuality and procreation, for it is there that man and woman actualise the fundamental values of love and life.

God, who is love and life, has inscribed on man and woman the call to a special participation in his mystery of personal communion and in his work as Creator and Father12. For this reason, marriage possesses specific goods and values of union and procreation, incomparably superior to those of the lower forms of life. These values and meanings of a personal order determine, on the moral level, the meaning and limits of artificial interventions on procreation and the origin of human life. Such procedures are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial; as such they bear witness to the possibilities of medicine, but they must be morally valued because of their relationship to the dignity of the human person, called to correspond to the divine vocation to the gift of love and the gift of life.

4. Fundamental criteria for moral judgement

The fundamental values related to the techniques of human artificial procreation are two: the life of the human being called into existence and the originality with which that life is transmitted in marriage. Moral judgement on methods of artificial procreation will have to be formulated in the light of these values.

Physical life, by which the human pathway begins in the world, certainly does not in itself exhaust all the value of the person, nor does it represent the supreme good of the human being called to eternity. However, in a certain sense it constitutes the "fundamental" value, precisely because it is on physical life that all the other values of the person rest and develop13. The inviolability of the right to life of the innocent human being "from the moment of conception until death "14 is a sign and a requirement of the very inviolability of the person, to whom the Creator has given the gift of life.

In comparison with the transmission of other forms of life in the universe, the communication of human life possesses an originality of its own, deriving from the very originality of the human person. agreement "And since human life is propagated to other human beings in a conscious and responsible manner, it follows that this propagation must be carried out in accordance with the sacrosanct, immutable and inviolable laws of God, which must be known and respected by all. No one, therefore, can licitly use in this subject the means or procedures that it is licit to use in the genetics of plants or animals "15.

Technical progress now makes procreation without sexual union possible by means of meeting in vitro of germ cells previously taken from the male and female. But what is technically possible is not, for that reason alone, morally permissible. Rational reflection on the fundamental values of life and human procreation is indispensable in order to formulate a moral judgement on technical interventions on the human being from the earliest stages of development.

5. The teachings of the Magisterium

The Magisterium of the Church offers human reason, also in this subject, the light of Revelation: the doctrine on man taught by the Magisterium contains numerous elements that illuminate the problems dealt with here.

The life of every human being must be respected absolutely from the very moment of conception, because man is the only creature on earth that God has "willed for himself "16, and the spiritual soul of every human being is "immediately created" by God17; his whole being bears the image of the Creator. Human life is sacred because from its very beginning it involves "the creative action of God "18 and remains always in a special relationship with the Creator, its only end19. God alone is Lord of life from its beginning to its end: no one, under any circumstances, can claim the right to directly kill an innocent human being20.

Human procreation presupposes the responsible collaboration of the spouses with the fruitful love of God;21 the gift of human life must be realised in marriage through the specific and exclusive acts of the spouses, of agreement with the laws inscribed in their persons and in their union22.

I. Respect for human embryos

A careful consideration of the teachings of the Magisterium and of the above-mentioned truths of reason allows a response to be given to the numerous problems raised by technical interventions on the initial phases of human life and on the process of conception.

1. What respect is due to the human embryo by virtue of its nature and identity?

The human being must be respected - as a person - from the very first moment of his or her existence.

Artificial fertilisation procedures have made it possible to intervene on human embryos and foetuses in various ways and for various purposes: diagnostic and therapeutic, scientific and commercial. This raises serious problems: can we speak of a right to experiment on human embryos for scientific research? What guidelines or legislation should be established in this area subject? The answer to these questions requires a profound reflection on the nature and self-identity - one speaks today of the "status" - of the human embryo.

The Church, for her part, in the Second Vatican Council, has once again proposed to our contemporaries her constant and certain doctrine, according to which "life already conceived must be safeguarded with extreme care from the moment of conception. Abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes "23. More recently, the Charter of the Rights of the Family, published by the Holy See, underlined that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception "24.

This Congregation is aware of the current discussions on the beginning of human life, on the individuality of the human being and on the identity of the person. In this regard, it recalls the teachings contained in the Declaration on procured abortion: "From the moment the ovum is fertilised, a new life is inaugurated which is neither that of the father nor that of the mother, but that of a new human being who develops by himself. It will never become human if it has not been human since then. Modern genetics gives a precious confirmation to this long-standing evidence. sample that from the very first moment the programme of what this living being will be is fixed: a man, this individual man with his characteristics already well determined. With fertilisation begins the adventure of a human life, whose main capacities require some time to develop and to be able to act "25. This doctrine remains valid and is confirmed, if necessary, by recent advances in human biology, which recognises that the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted in the zygoteb resulting from fertilisation.

Certainly no experimental data is in itself sufficient to recognise a spiritual soul; however, scientific knowledge about the human embryo offers a precious indication to rationally discern a personal presence from this first emergence of 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 constantly repeats the moral condemnation of any procured abortion subject . This teaching remains unchanged and immutable26.

Therefore, the fruit of human generation from the first moment of its existence, i.e. from the constitution of the zygote, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being must be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception and, therefore, from that very moment, the rights of the person must be recognised, principally the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.

The aforementioned doctrine offers the fundamental criterion for the solution of the various problems raised by the development of biomedical sciences in this field: since it must be treated as a person, in the field of medical attendance the embryo must also be defended in its integrity, cared for and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

2. Is prenatal diagnosis morally permissible?

Whether prenatal diagnosis respects the life and integrity of the human embryo and foetus and whether it is oriented towards their safekeeping or healing, the answer is yes.

Prenatal diagnosis can reveal the condition of the embryo or foetus while it is still in the mother's womb; and it allows, or enables, therapeutic, medical or surgical interventions to be planned earlier and more effectively.

Such a diagnosis is lawful if the methods used, with the duly informed consent of the parents, safeguard the life and integrity of the embryo and its mother, without exposing them to disproportionate risks27. But it is seriously contrary to the moral law when it contemplates the possibility, depending on its results, of causing an abortion: a diagnosis attesting to the existence of a malformation or a hereditary disease must not be tantamount to a death sentence. Consequently, a woman who requested a diagnosis with the firm intention of proceeding with an abortion in the event that the existence of a malformation or anomaly was confirmed would be committing a seriously unlawful act. Likewise, the spouse, relatives or any other person who advises or imposes the diagnosis on the pregnant woman with the same intention of proceeding to the abortion, if necessary, would be acting in a manner contrary to morality. The specialist who, by making the diagnosis or communicating its results, voluntarily contributes to establishing or favouring the link between prenatal diagnosis and abortion, is also responsible for unlawful cooperation.

Finally, a directive or a programme of civil and health authorities or scientific organisations that in any way favours the connection between prenatal diagnosis and abortion, or even induces pregnant women to undergo planned prenatal diagnosis with the aim of eliminating foetuses affected by or carrying malformations or hereditary diseases, must be condemned as a violation of the right to life of the unborn child and as a transgression of the priority rights and duties of spouses.

3. Are therapeutic interventions on the human embryo permissible?

As in any medical action on a patient, interventions on the human embryo are lawful provided that they respect the life and integrity of the embryo, that they do not expose it to disproportionate risks, that they are aimed at its cure, the improvement of its health conditions or its individual survival.

Whatever the medical, surgical or other therapy subject class , the free and informed consent of the parents is required, according to the deontological rules foreseen for children. The application of this moral principle may require delicate and particular precautions when the life of an embryo or foetus is involved.

goal The legitimacy and criteria for such interventions have been clearly formulated by John Paul II: "Strictly therapeutic action which aims to cure various illnesses, such as those caused by chromosomal defects, will in principle be considered desirable, provided that it aims at promote truly curing the personal well-being of the individual, without harming his integrity and without deteriorating his living conditions. Such an action subject is in fact in line with the logic of the Christian moral tradition "28.

4. How should research and experimentation on human embryos and foetuses be morally valued?

Medical research must refrain from intervention on living embryos unless there is moral certainty that no harm will be done to their life and integrity or to that of the mother, and only if the parents have given their free and informed consent to the intervention on the embryo. It follows that any research, even if it is limited to the simple observation of the embryo, is unlawful when, because of the methods used or the effects induced, it involves a risk to the physical integrity or the life of the embryo.

As far as experimentation is concerned, presupposing the general distinction between that which has a non-directly therapeutic purpose and that which is clearly therapeutic for the subject itself, it is necessary to distinguish between that which is carried out on embryos that are still alive and that which is carried out on dead embryos. In the case of living embryos, whether viable or not, they must be respected like all human persons; experimentation that is not directly therapeutic on embryos is illicit29.

No purpose, even if in itself noble, such as the anticipation of usefulness to science, to other human beings or to society, can in any way justify experiments on living human embryos or foetuses, whether viable or not, inside or outside the womb. The informed consent required for clinical experimentation on adults cannot be given by the parents, since they cannot dispose of the integrity or the life of the being yet to be born. Moreover, experimentation on embryos or foetuses always entails the risk, and more often the foreseeable risk, of harm to their physical integrity or even their death.

To use the human embryo or foetus as an object or instrument of experimentation is a crime against its dignity as a human being, who is entitled to the same respect due to the child already born and to every human person. The Charter of the Rights of the Family, published by the Holy See, states: "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all subject experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo "30. The practice of keeping human embryos alive, in vivo or in vitro, for experimental or commercial purposes, is completely contrary to human dignity.

In the event that the experimentation is clearly therapeutic, in the case of experimental therapies used for the benefit of the embryo as an extreme attempt to save its life, and in the absence of other effective therapies, resource to drugs or procedures that are not yet entirely safe31 may be lawful.

The corpses of human embryos or foetuses, whether voluntarily aborted or not, must be respected like the mortal remains of other human beings. In particular, they may not be mutilated or autopsied if there is no certainty of death and without the consent of the parents or the mother. The moral requirement that there be no complicity in the voluntary abortion and that the danger of scandal be avoided must also be safeguarded. Also in the case of dead foetuses, as in the case of adult corpses, any commercial practice is unlawful and must be prohibited.

5. What moral judgement does the use of embryos obtained by "in vitro" fertilisation for research merit?

Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and subjects of rights: their dignity and their 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 "biological material" available.

In the common practice of in vitro fertilisation, not all embryos are transferred into the woman's body; some are destroyed. The Church, in the same way that she condemns induced abortion, also forbids the violation of the life of these human beings. It is necessary to denounce the particular gravity of the deliberate destruction of human embryos obtained "in vitro" for the sole purpose of research, whether they are obtained by artificial fertilisation or by "twin fission". By behaving in this way, researcher usurps the place of God and, even if it is not aware of it, makes itself master of the destiny of others, since it arbitrarily determines who it will allow to live and who it will send to death, eliminating defenceless human beings.

Methods of observation or experimentation which cause harm or impose serious and disproportionate risks to embryos obtained in vitro are morally illicit for the same reason. Every human being must be respected for his or her own sake and cannot be reduced to a purely instrumental value for the benefit of others. It is therefore not morally wrong to deliberately expose human embryos obtained in vitro to death. Because they have been produced in vitro, these embryos, not transferred to the mother's body and called "supernumerary embryos", are exposed to an absurd fate, without it being possible to offer them safe and lawfully pursuable means of survival.

6. What are the merits of other embryo manipulation procedures linked to "human reproductive techniques"?

In vitro fertilisation techniques can make possible other forms of biological or genetic manipulation of human embryos, such as: attempts and projects of fertilisation between human and animal gametes and the gestation of human embryos in animal wombs; and the hypothesis and the project construction of artificial wombs for the human embryo. These procedures are contrary to the dignity of the human being proper to the embryo and, at the same time, injure the right of the person to be conceived and to be born in marriage and from marriage32 . Attempts and hypotheses to obtain a human being without any connection to sexuality by means of "twin fission", cloning, parthenogenesis, must also be considered contrary to morality insofar as they are in contrast to the dignity of both human procreation and the conjugal union.

The very freezing of embryos, even if carried out to keep the embryo alive - cryopreservation - is an offence to the respect due to human beings, in that it exposes them to serious risks of death or damage to their physical integrity, deprives them at least temporarily of maternal care and gestation, and places them in a situation susceptible to further injury and manipulation.

Some attempts to intervene on the chromosomal and genetic heritage are not therapeutic, but aim at producing human beings selected for sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity, integrity and identity of the human being. They can in no way be justified on the grounds of possible beneficial consequences for future humanity33. Each person deserves respect for himself: this is the dignity and the right of the human being from the beginning.

II. Interventions on human procreation

Artificial procreation" or "artificial insemination" is understood here to mean the various technical procedures aimed at achieving the conception of a human being by a means other than the sexual union of a man and a woman. This instruction deals with the fertilisation of the ovum in a test tube (in vitro fertilisation) and artificial insemination by transferring the collected sperm into the genital tract of the woman.

A preliminary aspect to the moral assessment of such techniques is the consideration of the circumstances and consequences they entail in relation to the respect due to the human embryo. The consolidation of the practice of in vitro fertilisation has required the formation and destruction of countless human embryos. Even today it presupposes superovulation in the woman: several eggs are collected, fertilised and then cultured in vitro for a few days. Usually not all of them are transferred into the woman's genital tract; some embryos, usually called "supernumerary embryos", are destroyed or frozen. Some of the embryos already implanted are sometimes sacrificed for various reasons: eugenic, economic or psychological. This voluntary destruction of human beings or their use for various purposes, to the detriment of their integrity and their life, is contrary to the doctrine mentioned above concerning procured abortion.

The connection between in vitro fertilisation and the voluntary disposal of human embryos is all too frequent. This is significant: with these procedures, which have apparently opposing aims, life and death are subjected to the decision of man, who thus ends up becoming the giver of life and death on demand. This dynamic of violence and domination can go unnoticed by those who, wanting to use it, are dominated by it. These facts and the cold logic behind them must be taken into account when formulating a moral judgement on IVFET (in vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer): the abortionist mentality that has made it possible thus leads, whether one wishes it or not, to man's domination over the life and death of his fellow human beings, which can lead to radical eugenicism.

However, this subject of abuses does not exempt from a deep and further ethical reflection on artificial procreation techniques considered in themselves, abstracting, as far as possible, from the annihilation of embryos produced in vitro.

This instruction will first consider the problems raised by heterologous artificial insemination (II, 1-3)d and successively those related to homologous artificial insemination (II, 4-6)e.

Before formulating the ethical judgement on each of them, the principles and values that determine the moral evaluation of each procedure will be considered.

A. Heterologous artificial insemination

1. Why should human procreation take place in marriage?

Every human being must always be accepted as a gift and blessing from God. However, from the moral point of view, only the procreation which is the fruit of marriage is truly responsible towards the child to be born.

The procreation of a new person, in which man and woman collaborate in the power of the Creator, must be the fruit and the sign of the mutual self-giving of the spouses, of their love and their fidelity.34 The fidelity of the spouses, in the unity of marriage, entails mutual respect for their right to become father and mother exclusively through each other. The fidelity of the spouses, in the unity of marriage, entails mutual respect for their right to become father and mother exclusively through each other.

The child has the right to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up in marriage: only through the known and secure reference to their parents can children discover their own identity and reach human maturity.

The parents find in the child the confirmation and completion of their reciprocal gift: the child is the living image of their love, the permanent sign of their conjugal union, the living and indissoluble synthesis of their paternal and maternal dimension35.

Because of a person's vocation and social responsibilities, the good of children and parents contributes to the good of civil society; the vitality and balance of society require that children come into the world in a family, and that this family be stably founded on marriage.

The tradition of the Church and anthropological reflection recognise marriage and its indissoluble unity as the only place worthy of truly responsible procreation.

2. Is heterologous artificial insemination in accordance with the dignity of the spouses and the truth of marriage?

Through IVFET and heterologous artificial insemination, human conception is obtained through the union of gametes from at least one donor other than the spouses who are united in marriage. Heterologous artificial insemination is contrary to the unity of marriage, to the dignity of the spouses, to the proper vocation of parents and to the right of children to be conceived and brought into the world in marriage and by marriage36.

Respect for the unity of marriage and conjugal fidelity requires that children be conceived in marriage; the bond existing between the spouses attributes to the spouses, in an objective and inalienable manner, the exclusive right to be father and mother only through each other37. The resource to the gametes of a third person, in order to dispose of the sperm or the ovum, constitutes a violation of the reciprocal commitment of the spouses and a serious offence against that essential property of marriage which is unity.

Heterologous artificial fertilisation harms the rights of the child, deprives it of the filial relationship with its paternal origins and can hinder the maturation of its personal identity. It also constitutes an offence to the common vocation of the spouses to paternity and maternity: it objectively deprives conjugal fertility of its unity and integrity; it operates and manifests a rupture between genetic paternity, gestational paternity and educational responsibility. This alteration of personal relations within the family has repercussions on civil society: whatever threatens the unity and stability of the family constitutes a source of discord, disorder and injustice in the whole of social life.

These reasons determine a negative moral judgement of heterologous artificial fertilisation. Therefore, the fertilisation of a married woman with the sperm of a donor other than her husband is morally illicit, as is the fertilisation with the husband's sperm of an ovum not coming from his wife. It is also morally unjustifiable to artificially impregnate an unmarried, unmarried or widowed woman, whoever the donor may be.

The desire to have a child and the love between spouses who aspire to overcome sterility that cannot be overcome in any other way are understandable motivations; but subjectively good intentions do not make heterologous artificial fertilisation in conformity with the objective and inalienable properties of marriage, nor do they make it respectful of the rights of children and spouses.

3. Is "surrogate "f motherhood morally permissible?

No, for the same reasons that lead to the rejection of heterologous artificial fertilisation: it is in fact contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person.

Surrogate motherhood represents an objective offence against the obligations of maternal love, conjugal fidelity and responsible motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, gestated, brought into the world and educated by the parents themselves; it establishes, to the detriment of the family, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements that constitute it.

B. Homologous artificial insemination

Once heterologous artificial insemination has been declared unacceptable, the question arises as to how the procedures of homologous artificial insemination - IVFET and artificial insemination between spouses - are to be morally assessed. A question of principle needs to be clarified first.

4. What relationship should exist between procreation and the conjugal act from a moral point of view?

a) The Church's teaching on marriage and procreation affirms the "inseparable connection, which God has willed and which man cannot break on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. agreement Indeed, the conjugal act, by its intimate structure, by associating husband and wife in a very close bond, also makes them capable of engendering a new life in accordance with the laws inscribed in the very nature of man and woman "38. This principle, based on the nature of marriage and on the intimate connection of its goods, has well known consequences on the level of responsible paternity and maternity. "If both essential Structures are observed, that is to say, of union and procreation, the use of marriage maintains the sense of a reciprocal and true love and preserves its order to the lofty function of paternity to which man is called "39.

The same doctrine concerning the union existing between the meanings of the conjugal act and between the goods of marriage clarifies the moral problem of homologous artificial insemination, because "it is never permitted to separate these different aspects to the point of positively excluding both the procreative intention and the conjugal relationship "40.

Contraception intentionally deprives the conjugal act of its openness to procreation and thus brings about a voluntary dissociation of the purposes of marriage. Homologous artificial fertilisation, by attempting a procreation which is not the fruit of the specifically conjugal union, objectively realises an analogous separation between the goods and meanings of marriage.

Therefore, fertilisation is licitly desired when it is the end of a "conjugal act which is in itself suitable for the generation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its very nature and by which the spouses become one flesh "41. 41 But procreation is deprived of its proper perfection, from the moral point of view, when it is not desired as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific gesture of the union of the spouses.

b) The moral value of the close union between the goods of marriage and between the meanings of the conjugal act is based on the unity of the human being, a unity composed of body and spiritual soul42. The spouses express their personal love for each other with "the language of the body", which clearly carries "spousal" and parental meanings together43. The conjugal act with which the spouses reciprocally express the gift of self simultaneously expresses openness to the gift of life: it is an inseparably bodily and spiritual act. In their bodies and through their bodies the spouses consummate marriage and can become father and mother. To be in conformity with the language of the body and its natural generosity, the conjugal union must be carried out with respect for the openness to generation, and the procreation of a human person must be the fruit and completion of spousal love. The origin of the human being is thus the result of a procreation "linked to the union not only biological, but also spiritual of parents united by the bond of marriage "44. A fertilisation obtained outside the body of the spouses is therefore deprived of the meanings and values which are expressed, through the language of the body, in the union of human persons.

c) Only respect for the connection between the meaning of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being allows procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person. In its unique and unrepeatable origin, the child must be respected and recognised as equal in personal dignity to those who give it life. The human person must be accepted in the gesture of union and love of his or her parents; the generation of a child must therefore be the fruit of the reciprocal donation45 made in the conjugal act, in which the spouses cooperate as servants, and not as masters, in the work of creative love46.

The origin of a human person is actually the result of a gift. The person conceived must be the fruit of the love of his or her parents. It cannot be wanted or conceived as the product of an intervention of medical and biological techniques: this would be tantamount to reducing it to being the object of a scientific technology. No one can subordinate the coming into the world of a child to conditions of technical efficiency measurable according to parameters of control and domination.

The moral importance of the link between the meaning of the conjugal act and the goods of marriage, the unity of the human being and the dignity of his or her origin, require that the procreation of a human person should be desired as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love of the spouses. The link between procreation and the conjugal act is therefore of great value on the anthropological and moral level, and clarifies the position of the Magisterium with regard to homologous artificial fertilisation.

5. Is homologous "in vitro" fertilisation morally permissible?

The answer to this question depends closely on the principles just recalled. Certainly, the legitimate aspirations of infertile couples cannot be ignored. For some, resource to homologous IVF is presented as the only means of obtaining a child sincerely desired: it is asked whether in these situations the totality of conjugal life would not suffice to ensure the dignity proper to human procreation. It is recognised that IVF cannot make up for the absence of conjugal relations47 and that it cannot be preferred to the specific acts of conjugal union, given the possible risks for the child and the discomfort of the procedure. But the question arises as to whether, given the impossibility of remedying sterility, which is a cause of suffering, in vitro fertilisation may not constitute a financial aid, or even a therapy, the moral legality of which could be admitted.

The desire for a child - or at least the availability to transmit life - is a morally necessary prerequisite for responsible human procreation. But this good intention is not sufficient to justify a positive moral evaluation of in vitro fertilisation between spouses. The procedure of IVFET must be judged in itself, and cannot receive its moral qualification final from the totality of conjugal life in which it is inscribed, nor from the conjugal relations that may precede or follow it48.

It has already been recalled that in the circumstances in which it is usually performed, FIVET involves the destruction of human beings, which puts it in contradiction with the aforementioned doctrine on abortion49 . But even if all precautions were taken to avoid the death of human embryos, homologous FIVET acts as a dissociation between the gestures intended for human fertilisation and the conjugal act. The very nature of homologous IVFET must therefore be considered in isolation from its relationship with the abortion sought.

Homologous IVF is carried out outside the body of the spouses by means of gestures of third parties, whose skill and technical activity determines the success of the intervention; it entrusts the life and identity of the embryo to the power of doctors and biologists, and establishes a domination of the technique over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality which should be common to parents and children.

In vitro conception is the result of the technical action that precedes fertilisation; this is not in fact obtained or positively desired as the expression and fruit of a specific act of conjugal union. In homologous IVFET, therefore, even when considered in the context of existing de facto conjugal relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: that of being the end and the fruit of a conjugal act, in which the spouses become "co-operators with God in order to give life to a new person "50.

These reasons make it possible to understand why the act of conjugal love is considered by the doctrine of the Church as the only place worthy of human procreation. For the same reasons, the so-called "simple case", i.e. a homologous FIVET procedure free of any connection with the abortive praxis of embryo destruction and masturbation, remains a morally illicit technique, because it deprives human procreation of the dignity that is proper and connatural to it.

Certainly, homologous IVFET does not have all the ethical negativity of extra-marital procreation; the family and marriage remain the sphere of the birth and upbringing of children. However, in conformity with the traditional doctrine on the goods of marriage and on the dignity of the person, the Church is morally opposed to homologous "in vitro" fertilisation; it is in itself illicit and contrary to the dignity of procreation and of conjugal union, even if every means were taken to avoid the death of the human embryo.

Even if it is not possible to approve how human conception is achieved in IVFET, every child that comes into the world must in any case be welcomed as a living gift of divine goodness and must be brought up with love.

6. How should homologous artificial insemination be evaluated morally?

Homologous artificial insemination within marriage is not admissible, except in cases where the technical means does not replace the conjugal act, but is a facilitation and financial aid for the latter to achieve its natural purpose.

The teachings of the Magisterium on this point have already been explicitly formulated:51 they are not merely the expression of particular historical circumstances, but are based on the Church's teaching on the connection between conjugal union and procreation, and on consideration of the personal nature of the conjugal act and of human procreation. "The conjugal act, by its natural structure, is a personal action, a simultaneous and immediate cooperation between the spouses, which, by the very nature of the agents and by the nature of the act itself, is the expression of the reciprocal gift which, in the words of Sacred Scripture, effects the union 'in one flesh'"52. Therefore, moral conscience "does not necessarily prohibit the use of some artificial means intended exclusively either to facilitate the natural act or to ensure that the natural act carried out in the normal way achieves its proper end "53. If the technical means facilitates the conjugal act or enables it financial aid to reach its natural objectives, it can be morally accepted. When, on the contrary, the technical intervention replaces the conjugal act, it will be morally illicit.

Artificial insemination as a substitute for the conjugal act is rejected because of the dissociation voluntarily caused between the two meanings of the conjugal act. Masturbation, by which sperm is normally procured, is another sign of this dissociation: even if it is performed in view of procreation, this gesture is still deprived of its unitive meaning: "it lacks....... the sexual relationship required by the moral order, which realises, 'the full meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation, in a context of true love'"54.

7. What moral criterion should be proposed for a doctor's intervention in human procreation?

The medical act must not be assessed solely in terms of its technical dimension, but also and above all in terms of its purpose, which is the good of the individual and his or her physical and mental health. The moral criteria governing medical intervention in procreation stem from the dignity of the human person, his sexuality and his origin.

Medicine that wishes to be ordered to the integral good of the person must respect the specifically human values of sexuality55. The doctor is at the service of the person and of human procreation: it is not up to him/her School to dispose or decide about them. The medical act is respectful of the dignity of persons when it is aimed at helping the conjugal act, either to facilitate its realisation, or so that the act normally carried out achieves its end56.

It sometimes happens, on the contrary, that medical intervention technically replaces the conjugal act, in order to obtain a procreation that is neither its result nor its fruit: in this case the medical act is not, as it should be, at the service of the conjugal union, but appropriates the procreative function and thus contradicts the dignity and inalienable rights of the spouses and of the child to be born.

The humanisation of medicine, which today is insistently demanded by all, requires first of all respect for the integral dignity of the human person in the act and at the moment when the spouses transmit life to a new personal being. It is therefore logical to address an urgent appeal to Catholic doctors and researchers to be exemplary witnesses of the respect due to the human embryo and to the dignity of procreation. Doctors and assistants in Catholic hospitals and clinics are especially called upon to honour their moral obligations, often also of a statutory nature. Those in charge of these Catholic hospitals and clinics, who are often religious, will do their utmost to ensure and promote an exact observance of the moral norms contained in this instruction.

8. Suffering from marital infertility

The suffering of spouses who are unable to have children or who fear bringing a disabled child into the world is an affliction that must be properly understood and appreciated by all.

On the part of the spouses, the desire for offspring is natural: it expresses the vocation to paternity and maternity inscribed in conjugal love. This desire can be even stronger if the spouses are afflicted by a sterility that seems incurable. However, marriage does not confer on the spouses the right to have a child, but only the right to carry out the natural acts that are naturally ordered to procreation57.

A true and proper right to the child would be contrary to its dignity and nature. The child is not something due and cannot be considered as an object of property: it is rather a gift, "the greatest "58 and most gratuitous gift of marriage, and is the living testimony of the reciprocal gift of its parents. By this title the child has the right - it has already been recalled - to be the fruit of the specific act of conjugal love of its parents and also has the right to be respected as a person from the moment of its conception.

Infertility, however, whatever the cause and whatever the prognosis, is certainly a hard test. The Christian community is called to enlighten and support the suffering of those who do not succeed in realising their legitimate aspiration to fatherhood and motherhood. Spouses who find themselves in this painful situation are called to discover in it the opportunity to participate particularly in the cross of the Lord, source of spiritual fruitfulness. Infertile spouses should not forget that "even when procreation is not possible, married life does not lose its value. Physical sterility, in fact, can be an opportunity for spouses to render other important services to the life of human persons, such as, for example, adoption, various types of educational work, financial aid to other families, to poor or handicapped children "59.

Many researchers have made efforts in the fight against infertility. By fully safeguarding the dignity of human procreation, some have obtained results which previously seemed unattainable. Scientists should be encouraged to continue their research work in order to prevent and remedy the causes of sterility, so that infertile couples may be able to procreate while respecting their personal dignity and that of the child to be born.

III. Morality and civil law

The values and moral obligations to be respected and sanctioned by civil law in this area are subject

The inviolable right of every innocent human individual to life, the rights of the family and the institution of marriage are fundamental moral values, because they concern the natural condition and the integral vocation of the human person. At the same time they are constitutive elements of civil society and its legal system.

For these reasons, the new possibilities of technology in the field of biomedicine require the intervention of the political and legislative authorities, because the uncontrolled use of these techniques could have unforeseeable and harmful consequences for civil society, resource . The appeal to the individual conscience and self-discipline of researchers is not enough to ensure respect for personal rights and public order. If the legislator, responsible for the common good, were to neglect its duties of vigilance, it could be stripped of its prerogatives by those researchers who would seek to govern humanity in the name of biological discoveries and the alleged processes of "improvement" that would result from them. Eugenicism" and discrimination between human beings could be legitimised, which would constitute a serious attack on equality, dignity and the fundamental rights of the human person.

The intervention of the political authority must be inspired by the rational principles that regulate the relationship between the civil law and the moral law. The mission of civil law is to guarantee the common good of the people through the recognition and defence of fundamental rights, the promotion of peace and public morality60. In no area of life can civil law replace conscience or dictate norms that exceed one's own skill. Civil law will sometimes have to tolerate, for the sake of public order, what it cannot prohibit without causing more serious harm. However, the inalienable rights of the individual must be recognised and respected by civil society and political authority. These rights of man are not subordinate either to individuals or to parents, nor are they a concession of society or the state: they belong to human nature and are inherent to the person by virtue of the creative act that gave rise to him.

Among these fundamental rights, it is worth recalling: a) the right of every human being to life and physical integrity from conception to death; b) the rights of the family and of marriage as an institution and, in this area, the right of children to be conceived, brought into the world and educated by their parents. On each of these two themes, it is worth adding a few considerations.

In some states the law has authorised the direct suppression of innocents. When a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection due to them by civil law, the state denies the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of every citizen, and particularly of those who are weaker, the very foundations of the rule of law are undermined. The political authority cannot therefore authorise human beings to be called into existence by procedures that expose them to the very serious risks mentioned above. If the positive law and the political authorities were to recognise the techniques of artificial transmission of life and the experiments connected with them, they would widen the gap opened by the legalisation of abortion still further.

The respect and protection to be guaranteed, from the moment of conception, to those who are to be born, requires that the law should provide for appropriate penal sanctions for any deliberate violation of their rights. The law must not tolerate - indeed, it must explicitly prohibit - that human beings, even when embryonic, can be treated as objects of experimentation, mutilated or destroyed, on the pretext that they are superfluous or incapable of normal development. result .

The political authority has the obligation to guarantee the family institution, on which society is founded, the legal protection to which it is entitled. Because it is at the service of the individual, political authority must also be at the service of the family. Civil law may not authorise artificial procreation techniques that take away, for the benefit of third parties (doctors, biologists, economic or governmental powers), what constitutes an exclusive right of the relationship between spouses, and therefore may not legalise the donation of gametes between persons who are not legitimately united in marriage.

The legislation should also prohibit embryo banks, post mortem insemination and "surrogate" motherhood on the grounds of financial aid due to the family.

Among the rights of public authority is that of ensuring that the civil law is regulated by the fundamental norms of the moral law as regards the rights of man, human life and the institution of the family. Politicians must strive, through their intervention in public opinion, to obtain the broadest possible social agreement on these essential points, and to consolidate it where this agreement is in danger of weakening or disappearing.

In many countries, the legalisation of abortion and the legal tolerance of unmarried cohabitants make it more difficult to guarantee respect for the fundamental rights mentioned in this instruction. It is desirable that states do not take upon themselves the responsibility of increasing the gravity of these socially harmful situations of injustice. On the contrary, it is to be hoped that nations and states will become aware of all the cultural, ideological and political implications related to artificial procreation techniques, and that they will find the wisdom and courage to enact laws that are fairer and more respectful of human life and the institution of the family.

Civil legislation in many states today attributes, in the eyes of many, undue legitimacy to certain practices. It is sample incapable of guaranteeing morality congruent with the natural requirements of the human person and with the "unwritten laws" engraved by the Creator in the human heart. All men of goodwill should strive, particularly through their professional activity and the exercise of their civil rights, to reform morally unacceptable positive laws and to correct unlawful practices. Moreover, "conscientious objection" to such laws must be presented and recognised. It should be added that the demand for passive resistance to the legitimisation of practices that are contrary to human life and dignity is beginning to gain a strong hold on the moral conscience of many, especially those specialising in the biomedical sciences.

Conclusion

The spread of intervention techniques on the processes of human procreation raises very serious moral problems, concerning the respect due to the human being from the moment of conception and the dignity of the person, his or her sexuality and the transmission of life.

With this document, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, fulfilling its task of promote and safeguarding the teaching of the Church in this grave matter subject, once again addresses a warm appeal to all those who, by the role they play and by their activity, can exert a positive influence so that, in the family and in society, life and love may be properly respected: to those responsible for the formation of consciences and public opinion, to scientists and medical professionals, to jurists and politicians. The Church wants everyone to understand the incompatibility between recognition of the dignity of the human person and disregard for life and love, between faith in the living God and the claim to want to decide arbitrarily the origin and destiny of the human being.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in particular, addresses a confident and encouraging invitation to theologians, and especially to moralists, to deepen and make more accessible to the faithful the teachings of the Church's Magisterium, in the light of an anthropologically correct conception of sexuality and marriage and in the context of the necessary interdisciplinary approach . In this way, the reasons for and the value of these teachings will be increasingly better understood; by defending man against the excesses of his own power, the Church of God reminds him of the titles of his true nobility. Only in this way can the humanity of tomorrow be assured the possibility of living and loving with the dignity and freedom born of respect for truth. The precise indications contained in this instruction are not intended to slow down the effort of reflection, but rather to give it renewed impetus along the path of unrenounceable fidelity to the doctrine of the Church.

In the light of the truth about the gift of human life and the resulting moral principles, each one is invited to behave, within the sphere of his own responsibility, like the Good Samaritan and to recognise in the least of the children of men his own neighbour (cf. Lk. 10:29-37). Here the words of Christ ring out in a new and special way: "Inasmuch as you did not do this to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me" (Mt 25:40).

The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in the course of the audience granted to the undersigned Prefect after the plenary meeting of this Congregation, has C the present Instruction and has ordered its publication.

Rome, at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 22 February 1987, Feast of the Chair of St. Peter the Apostle.

Cardinal Joseph RATZINGER
Prefect

Alberto BOVONE
Titular Archbishop of Caesarea of Numidia
Secretary.

Notes

(a) The terms "zygote", "pre-embryo", "embryo" and "foetus" in the biological vocabulary may indicate successive stages in the development of the human being. The present instruction uses these terms freely, attributing to them an identical ethical meaning. By them it designates the fruit, visible or not, of human generation, from the first moment of its existence until birth. The reason for this usage will be made clear in the text (cf. I, 1).

(1) John Paul II, speech to the participants of the 81st congress of the Italian Society of Internal Medicine and the 82nd congress of the Italian Society of General Surgery, 27 October 1980: AAS 72 (1980), 1126.

(2) Paul VI, speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations, 4 October 1965: AAS 57 (1965), 878 Enc. Populorum Progressio, 13: AAS 59 (1967), 263.

(3) Paul VI, Homily at the Closing Mass of the Holy Year, 25 December 1975: AAS 68 (1976), 146: John Paul II, Encyclical, Dives in misericordia, 30: AAS 72 (1980), 1224. Dives in misericordia, 30: AAS 72 (1980), 1224.

(4) John Paul II, speech to the participants in the 35th General Assembly of the World Medical Association, 29 October 1983: AAS 76 (1984), 390.

(5) Cf. Decl. Dignitatis humanae, 2.

(6) Past Const. Gaudium et spes, 22; John Paul II, Enc. Redemptor hominis, 8: AAS 71 (1979), 270-272.

(7) Cf. const. past. Gaudium et spes, 35.

(8) Past. Gaudium et spes, 15; cf. also Paul VI, Enc. Populorum Progressio, 20: AAS 59 (1967), 267; John Paul II, Enc. Redemptor hominis, 15: AAS 71 (1979), 286-289; Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 8: AAS 71 (1979), 286-289. Familiaris consortio, 8: AAS 74 (1982), 89.

(9) John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 11: AAS 74 (1982), 92. Familiaris consortio, 11: AAS 74 (1982), 92.

(10) Cf. Paul VI, Enc. Humanae vitae, 10: AAS 60 (1988), 487-488.

(11) John Paul II, speech to the participants in the 35th General Assembly of the World Medical Association, 29 October 1983: AAS 76 (1984), 393.

(12) Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 11: AAS 74 (1982), 91-92; cf. also Pastoral Const. Familiaris consortio, 11: AAS 74 (1982), 91-92; cf. also Const. past. Gaudium et spes, 50.

(13) Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion, 9: AAS 66 (1974), 736-737.

(14) John Paul II, speech to the participants in the 35th Assembly of the World Medical Association, 29 October 1983: AAS 76 (1984), 390.

(15) John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, III: AAS 53 (1961), 447.

(16) Past. Gaudium et spes, 24.

(17) Cf. Pius XII, Enc. Humani generis: AAS 42 (1950), 575; Paul VI, Professio fidei: AAS 60 (1968), 436.

(18) John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, III: AAS 53 (1961), 447; cf. John Paul II, speech to the priests participating in a study seminar on "Procreation manager", 17 September 1983: Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, VI, 2 (1983), 562: "At the origin of every human person there is a creative act of God: no man comes into existence by chance; he is always the result of God's creative love".

(19) Cf. const. past. Gaudium et spes, 24.

(20) Cf. Pius XII, speech to the "Saint Luke" Medical-Biological Union, 12 November 1944; Speeches and Radio Messages, VI (1944-1945), 191-192.

(21) Cf. const. past. Gaudium et spes, 50.

(22) Cf. const. past. Gaudium et Spes, 61: "In seeking to harmonise conjugal love and the responsible transmission of life, the morality of conduct depends not only on the rightness of intention and the evaluation of motives, but on objective criteria deduced from the nature of the person and his or her acts, which respect the full meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation, in a context of true love".

(23) Past. Gaudium et spes, 51.

(24) Holy See, Charter of the Rights of the Family, art. 4: L'Osservatore Romano, 25 November 1983.

(25) Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on procured abortion, 12 - 13: AAS 66 (1974), 738.

(b) [The zygote is the cell resulting from the fusion of the nuclei of the two gametes].

(26) Cf. Paul VI, speech to the participants in the XXIII National congress of Italian Catholic Jurists, 9 December 1972: AAS 64 (1972), 777.

(27) The obligation to avoid disproportionate risks requires genuine respect for the human being and for the correctness of the therapeutic intention. This means that the doctor "must first of all carefully assess the possible negative consequences that the necessary use of a particular examination technique may have on the conceived being, and avoid resource to diagnostic procedures whose honest purpose and substantial harmlessness are not sufficiently guaranteed. And if, as often happens in human decisions, a risk coefficient is involved, the doctor will take care to ensure that it is balanced by the real urgency of the diagnosis and by the importance of the results that can be achieved through it for the benefit of the unborn child" (John Paul II, speech to the participants in the Convention of the "Movement for Life", 3 December 1982: Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, V, 3 [1982], 1512). This clarification on "proportionate risks" should be borne in mind whenever, in the future, this instruction uses these terms.

(28) John Paul II, speech to the participants in the 35th General Assembly of the World Medical Association, 29 October 1983: AAS 76 (1984), 392.

(c) As the terms "research" and "experimentation" are often used equivalently and ambiguously, it seems appropriate to clarify their meaning in this document:

1) Research means any inductive-deductive procedure aimed at promote systematic observation of a phenomenon in the human domain, or at verifying a hypothesis formulated on the basis of previous observations.
2) Experimentation means any research in which the human being (in the various stages of its existence: embryo, foetus, child or adult) is the object by means of which or on which the effect of a given treatment (e.g. pharmacological, teratogenic, surgical, etc.), hitherto unknown or not well known, is to be verified.

(29) Cf. John Paul II, speech to the participants at a congress of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 23 October 1982: AAS 75 (1983), 37: "I condemn in the most explicit and formal way the experimental manipulations of the human embryo, because the human being, from the moment of conception until death, cannot be exploited for any reason whatsoever".

(30) Holy See, Charter of the Rights of the Family, art. 4b: L'Osservatore Romano, 25 November 1983.

(31) Cf. John Paul II, speech to the participants in the Convention of the "Movement for Life", 3 December 1982: Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, V, 3 (1982), 1511: "Any form of experimentation on the foetus which could damage its integrity or worsen its condition is unacceptable, unless it is an extreme attempt to save it from death". Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia, 4: AAS 72 (1980), 550: "In the absence of other remedies, it is licit to have recourse, with the consent of the sick person, to the means made available by the most advanced medicine, even if they are still in a state of experimentation and are not without risk".

(32)No one can claim, before existing, a subjective right to begin existence; however, it is legitimate to uphold the right of the child to have a fully human origin through conception appropriate to the personal nature of the human being. Life is a gift that must be granted in a way that is in accordance with the dignity of both the subject who receives it and the subjects who transmit it. This clarification must also be borne in mind in relation to what will be said about artificial human procreation.

(33) Cf. John Paul II, speech to the participants of the 35th General Assembly of the World Medical Association, 29 October 1983: AAS 76 (1984), 391.

(d) The instruction understands under the name of Heterologous artificial fertilisation or procreation the techniques aimed at artificially obtaining a human conception, from gametes from at least one donor other than the spouses united in marriage. These techniques may be of two types:

a) Heterologous IVFET: is the technique aimed at achieving human conception through the in vitro union of gametes collected from at least one donor different from the two spouses united in marriage.
b) Heterologous artificial insemination: is the technique aimed at obtaining a human conception through the transfer to the woman's genital tract of sperm previously collected from a donor other than the husband.

(e) The instruction understands by Homologous artificial fertilisation or procreation the technique aimed at achieving human conception from the gametes of two spouses united in marriage. Homologous artificial insemination can be performed by two different methods:

a) Homologous IVFET: is the technique aimed at achieving human conception through the in vitro union of gametes of the spouses united in marriage.
(b) Homologous artificial insemination: is the technique aimed at achieving human conception by transferring to the genital tract of a married woman the sperm previously taken from her husband.

(34) Cf. const. past. Gaudium et spes, 50.

(35) Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 14: AAS 74 (1982), 96. Familiaris consortio, 14: AAS 74 (1982), 96.

(36) Pius XII, speech to the participants in the IVth International Catholic Doctors congress , 29 September 1949: AAS 41 (1949), 559. According to the plan of the Creator, "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become two in one flesh" (Gn. 2:24). The unity of marriage, rooted in the order of creation, is a truth accessible to natural reason. Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church frequently refer to the book of Genesis, either directly or through the New Testament passages which quote it: Mt. 19, 4-6; Mk. 10, 5-8; Eph. 5, 31. Cf. Athenagoras, Legatio pro christianis, 33: PG 6, 965-967; St. John Chrysostom, In Mathaeum homiliae, LXII, 19, 1: PG 58, 597; St. Leo the Great, Epist. ad Rusticum, 4: PL 54, 1204; Innocent III, Epist. Gaudemus in Domino: DS 778; Second Council of Lyons, IV sess.: DS 860; Council of Trent, XXIV sess.: DS 1798, 1802; Leo XIII, Encyclical Arcanum divinae sapientiae: AAS 12 (1879/80), 388-391; Pius XI, Encyclical Casti connubii: AAS 12 (1879/80), 388-391; Pius XI, Encyclical Casti connubii: AAS 12 (1879/80), 388-391. Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 546-547; Second Vatican Council, Const. past. Gaudium et spes, 48; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 19: AAS 22 (1930), 544-547; Vatican Council II, Past Const. Familiaris consortio, 19: AAS 74 (1982), 101-102; C.I.C. can. 1056.

(37) Cf. Pius XII, speech to the participants in the IVth International congress of Catholic Doctors, 29 September 1949: AAS 41 (1949), 560; speech to the congresswomen of the Italian Catholic Union of Obstetricians, 29 October 1951: AAS 43 (1951), 850; C.I.C. can. 1134.

(f) Under the name "surrogate" this instruction means:

a) the woman who carries the gestation of an embryo implanted in her uterus, which is genetically foreign to her, obtained through the union of gametes of "donors", with the commitment of submit the child, immediately after birth, to the one who has commissioned or contracted the gestation;
b) the woman who carries the gestation of an embryo to whose procreation she has collaborated with the donation of her own ovum, fertilised by insemination with the sperm of a man other than her husband, with the commitment to submit the child, after birth, to the one who has commissioned or contracted the gestation.

(38) Paul VI, Enc. Humanae vitae, 12: AAS 60 (1968), 488-489.

(39) Paul VI, loc. cit.: ibid, 489.

(40) Pius XII, speech to the participants in the II World Congress congress in Naples on human fertility and sterility, 19 May 1956: AAS 48 (1956), 470.

(41) C.I.C. can. 1061. According to this canon, the conjugal act is that by which marriage is consummated if the two spouses "have performed it between themselves in a human way".

(42) Cf. const. past. Gaudium et spes, 14.

(43) Cf. John Paul II, General Audience, 16 January 1980: Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, III, 1 (1980), 148-152.

(44) John Paul II, speech to the participants in the 35th General Assembly of the World Medical Association, 29 October 1983: AAS 76 (1984), 393.

(45) Cf. const. past. Gaudium et spes, 51.

(46) Cf. const. past. Gaudium et spes, 50.

(47) Cf. Pius XII, speech to the participants in the IV International Catholic Doctors congress , 29 September 1949: AAS 41 (1949), 560: "It would be false to think that the possibility of having recourse to this means (artificial insemination) could make marriage valid between persons incapable of contracting it because of impedimentum impotentiae".

(48) An analogous problem is dealt with by Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae vitae, 14: AAS 60 (1968), 490-491. Humanae vitae, 14: AAS 60 (1968), 490-491.

(49) Cf. above I, 1ff.

(50) John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 14: AAS 74 (1982), 96. Familiaris consortio, 14: AAS 74 (1982), 96.

(51) Cf. official document , 17 March 1897: DS 3323; Pius XII, speech to the participants in the IV International congress of Catholic Doctors, 29 September 1949: AAS 41 (1949), 560; speech to the congresswomen of the Italian Union of Obstetricians, 29 October 1951: AAS 43 (1951), 850; speech to the participants in the II Naples World congress on human fertility and sterility, 19 May 1956: AAS 48 (1956), 471-473; speech to the participants in the VII International congress of the International Society of Haematology, 12 September 1958: AAS 50 (1958), 733; John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, III: AAS 50 (1958), 733; John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, III: AAS 48 (1956), 471-473; John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, III: AAS 50 (1958), 733. Mater et magistra, III: AAS 53 (1961), 447.

(52) Pius XII, speech to the Congresswomen of the Italian Union of Obstetricians, 29 October 1951: AAS 43 (1951), 850.

(53) Pius XII, speech to the participants in the IVth International Catholic Doctors' congress , 29 September 1949: AAS 41 (1949), 560.

(54) Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Certain Questions of Sexual Ethics, 9: AAS 68 (1976), 86, citing Const. past. Gaudium et spes, 51; cf. Decree of the Holy Father, official document, 2 August 1929: AAS 21 (1929), 490; Pius XII, speech to the participants in the XXVI congress of the Italian Society of Urology, 8 October 1953: AAS 45 (1953), 678.

(55) Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, III: AAS 53 (1961), 447.

(56) Cf. Pius XII, speech to the participants in the IVth International Catholic Doctors' congress , 29 September 1949: AAS 41 (1949), 560.

(57) Pius XII, speech to the participants in the II World Assembly in Naples congress on human fertility and sterility, 19 May 1956: AAS 48 (1956), 471-473.

(58) Past. Gaudium et spes, 50.

(59) John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 14: AAS 74 (1982), 97. Familiaris consortio, 14: AAS 74 (1982), 97.

(60) Cf. Decl. Dignitatis humanae, 7.