From: kriz@skat.usc.edu (KRIZ)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Cath. Christianity 101 - Church on artificial insemination, etc
Date: 14 Aug 1992 19:48:18 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: skat.usc.edu


Recently Loren posted that an objection of the Church to artificial
insemination was that it involved masturbation on the part of the
male.

Actually, the primary difficulty the church has with artificial
insemination is that it places the creation of human life under
domination of technology.  Second, REGARDLESS OF HOW the male's 
sperm fertilizes the woman's ovum, if the two are not spouses,
the Church will ALWAYS consider the act or procedure performed 
to be contrary to moral law.  Third, the Church is opposed to 
the use of artificial insemination IN PLACE of normal conjugal 
relations between spouses:

   [The Church teaching on human sexuality] is founded upon the
   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 (Pope Paul VI Encyclical HUMANAE VITAE , #12; the 
   CDF's Instruction on Respect for Human Life at its Origin
   and the Dignity of Procreation, III, 4).

Fourth, the Church does not recognize the parents >>RIGHT<< to
have a child:

   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 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.

   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 an object 
   of ownership: Rather, a child is a gift, "the supreme gift"
   and the most gratuitous gift of marriage, and is a living
   testimony of the mutual giving of the parents.  For this
   reason, the child has the right, 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 conception. (CDF's Instruction on the
   Dignity of Human Life at its Origin and the Dignity of
   Procreation, III, 8.)

Finally, the reason why the Church insists on the child's
right to be conceived in the specific act of conjugal love
of its parents returns to safeguarding the origin of the
human person from technological domination:

   In reality, the origin of the human person is the result of 
   act of giving.  The one conceived must be the fruit of his
   parents' love.  He cannot be desired or conceived as a 
   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 the conditions of technical efficiency which 
   are to be evaluated to standards of control and domination.
   (CDF's Instruction on the Dignity of Human life at its Origin
   and the Dignity of Procreation, III, 4c).

Anyway, I have previously posted the document from which these
quotes came.  The section of the document dealing specifically
with issues involving interventions on human procreation is
given below.  I will be glad to either e-mail or repost the 
remainder of the document/others if there is an interest or
crying need.  I do think it is an intrinsic good for the
readership here to learn about what the Church actually 
teaches on these issues, rather than rely only on what
someone says it does.  

In Christ,

dennis
kriz@skat.usc.edu
------------------------------------------------------------


The following is a portion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith's 1987 "Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its
Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation - Replies to Certain
Questions of the Day."  The document is organized in the following
manner.

     Forward.
     Introduction.
     I. Respect for Human Embryos.
-->  II. Interventions Upon Human Procreation.
     III. Moral and Civil Law.
     Conclusion.

Note: (-->) Corresponds to the section of the document presented
herein.

In Christ,

dennis
kriz@skat.usc.edu

-------------------------------------------------------------------
The CDF's 1987 "Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin
and on the Dignity of Procreation" -- Part II.


                               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 text-tube (*in vitro* fertilization) and artificial
insemination through transfer into a 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 hyperovulation 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 and psychological reasons. 
Such deliberate destruction of human beings or their utilization
for different purposes to the detriment of the 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
judgement 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).

  [By the term HETEROLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION or
PROCREATION, the Instruction means techniques used to obtain a
human conception artificially by the use of gametes coming from at
least one donor other than the spouses who are joined in marriage. 
Such techniques can be of two types:

  a) HETEROLOGOUS IVF and ET: the technique used to obtain a human
conception through the meeting *in vitro* of gametes taken from at
least one donor other than the two spouses joined in marriage.

  b) HETEROLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION: the technique used to
obtain a human conception through the transfer into the genital
tracts of a woman of the sperm previously collected from a donor
other than the husband.

  By ARTIFICIAL HOMOLOGOUS FERTILIZATION or PROCREATION, the
Instruction means the technique used to obtain a human conception
using the gametes of the two spouses joined in marriage. 
Homologous artificial fertilization can be carried out by two
different methods:

  a) HOMOLOGOUS IVF and ET: the technique used to obtain a human
conception through the meeting *in vitro* of the gametes of the
spouses joined in marriage.

  b) HOMOLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION: the technique used to
obtain a human conception through the transfer into the genital
tracts of a married woman of the sperm previously collected from
her husband.]

  Before formulating an ethical judgement on each of these
procedures, the principles and values which determine the moral
evaluation of each of them will be considered.


                                A
              HETEROLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION


1. Why must human procreation take place in marriage?

  EVERY HUMAN BEING IS ALWAYS TO BE ACCEPTED AS A GIFT AND BLESSING
OF GOD.  HOWEVER, FROM THE MORAL POINT OF VIEW A TRULY RESPONSIBLE
PROCREATION VIS-A-VIS THE UNBORN CHILD MUST BE THE FRUIT OF
MARRIAGE.

  For human procreation has specific characteristics by virtue of
the personal dignity of the parents and of the children: the
procreation of a new person, whereby the man and the woman
collaborate with the power of the Creator, must be the fruit and
sign of the mutual self-giving of the spouses, of their love and of
their fidelity [34].  THE FIDELITY OF THE SPOUSES IN THE UNITY OF
MARRIAGE INVOLVES RECIPROCAL RESPECT OF THEIR RIGHT TO BECOME A
FATHER AND A MOTHER ONLY THROUGH EACH OTHER.

  The child has the right to be conceived, carried in the womb,
brought into the world and brought up within marriage: it is
through the secure and recognized relationship to his own parents
that the child can discover his own identity and achieve his own
proper human development.

  The parents find in their child a confirmation and completion of
their reciprocal self-giving: the child is the living image of
their love, the permanent sign of their conjugal union, the living
and indissoluble concrete expression of their paternity and
maternity [35].

  By reason of the vocation and social responsibilities of the
person, the good of the children and of the parents contributes to
the good of civil society; the vitality and stability of society
require that children come into the world within a family and that
the family be firmly based on marriage.

  The tradition of the Church and anthropological reflection
recognize in marriage and in its indissoluble unity the only
setting worthy of truly responsible procreation.  


2. Does heterologous artificial fertilization conform to the
dignity of the couple and to the truth of marriage?

  Through IVF and ET and heterologous artificial insemination,
human conception is achieved through the fusion of gametes of at
least one donor other than the spouses who are united in marriage. 
HETEROLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION IS CONTRARY TO THE UNITY OF
MARRIAGE, TO THE DIGNITY OF THE SPOUSES, TO THE VOCATION PROPER TO
PARENTS, AND TO THE CHILD'S RIGHT TO BE CONCEIVED AND BROUGHT INTO
THE WORLD IN MARRIAGE AND FROM MARRIAGE.

  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 and ovum available, constitutes a
violation of the reciprocal commitment of the spouses and a grave
lack in regard to that 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 its unity and integrity; it brings about
and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational
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 JUDGEMENT CONCERNING
HETEROLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION: CONSEQUENTLY FERTILIZATION
OF A MARRIED WOMAN WITH THE SPERM OF A DONOR DIFFERENT FROM HER
HUSBAND AND FERTILIZATION WITH THE HUSBAND'S SPERM OF AN OVUM NOT
COMING FROM HIS WIFE ARE MORALLY ILLICIT.  FURTHERMORE, THE
ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION OF A WOMAN WHO IS UNMARRIED OR A WIDOW,
WHOEVER THE DONOR MAY BE, CANNOT BE MORALLY JUSTIFIED.

  The desire to have a child and the love between spouses who long
to obviate a sterility which cannot be overcome in any other way
constitute understandable motivations; but subjectively good
intentions do not render heterologous artificial fertilization
conformable to the objective and inalienable properties of marriage
or respectful of the rights of the child and of the spouses.


3. Is "surrogate" motherhood morally licit?

  [By "surrogate mother" the Instruction means:

  a) the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo implanted in her
uterus and who is genetically a stranger to the embryo because it
has been obtained through the union of the gametes of "donors". 
She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the baby once
it is born to a party who commissioned or made the agreement for
the pregnancy.

  b) the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo to whose
procreation she has contributed the donation of her own ovum,
fertilized through insemination with the sperm of a man other than
her husband.  She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender
the child once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the
agreement for the pregnancy.]

  NO, FOR THE SAME REASONS WHICH LEAD ONE TO REJECT HETEROLOGOUS
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.


                                B
               HOMOLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION

  Since heterologous artificial fertilization has been declared
unacceptable, the question arises of how to evaluate morally the
process of homologous artificial fertilization: IVF and ET and
artificial insemination between husband and wife.  First a question
of principle must be clarified.


4. What connection is required from the moral point of view between
procreation and the conjugal act?

  a) The Church's teaching on marriage and human procreation
affirms the "inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be
broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of
the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. 
Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most
closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the
generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very
being of man and of woman" [38].  This principle, which is based
upon the nature of marriage and the intimate connection of the
goods of marriage, has well-known consequences on the level of
responsible fatherhood and motherhood.  "By safeguarding both these
essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal
act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its
ordination towards man's exalted vocation to parenthood" [39].

  The same doctrine concerning the link between the meanings of the
conjugal act and 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 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
THE SPOUSES BECOME ONE FLESH" [41].  BUT FROM THE MORAL POINT OF
VIEW PROCREATION IS DEPRIVED OF ITS PROPER PERFECTION WHEN IT IS
NOT DESIRED AS THE FRUIT OF THE CONJUGAL ACT, THAT IS TO SAY OF THE
SPECIFIC ACT OF THE SPOUSES' UNION.

  b) The moral value of the intimate link between the goods of
marriage and between the meanings of the conjugal act is based upon
the unity of the human being, a unity involving body and spiritual
soul [42].  Spouses mutually express their personal love in the
"language of the body", which clearly involves both "sponsal
meanings" and parental ones [43].  The conjugal act by which the
couple mutually express their self-gift at the same time expresses
openness to the gift of life.  it is an act that is inseparably
corporal and spiritual.  It is in their bodies and through their
bodies that the spouses consummate their marriage and are able to
become father and mother.  In order to respect the language of
their bodies and their natural generosity, the conjugal union must
take place with respect for its openness to procreation; and the
procreation of a person must be the fruit and the result of married
love.  The origin of the human being thus follows from a
procreation that is "linked to the union, not only biological but
also spiritual, of the parents, made one by the bond of marriage"
[44].  Fertilization achieved outside the bodies of the couple
remains by this very fact deprived of the meanings and the values
which are expressed in the language of the body and in the union of
human persons.

  c) Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal
act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible
procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.  In his
unique and irrepeatable origin, the child must be respected and
recognized as equal in person 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 the 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 a 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 to
standards of control and domination.

  THE MORAL RELEVANCE TO 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 regards to
artificial fertilization.


5. Is homologous 'in vitro' fertilization morally licit?

  The answer to this question is strictly dependent on the
principles just mentioned.  Certainly one cannot ignore the
legitimate aspirations of sterile couples.  For some, recourse to
homologous IVF and ET appears to be the only way of fulfilling
their sincere desire for a child.  The question is asked whether
the totality of conjugal life in such situations is not sufficient
to ensure the dignity proper to human procreation.  It is
acknowledged that IVF 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 chile -- 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 definitive
moral quality from the totality of 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 were 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 A
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 bringing up of 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 A MORAL
POINT OF VIEW TO HOMOLOGOUS 'IN VITRO' FERTILIZATION.  SUCH
FERTILIZATION IS IN ITSELF ILLICIT AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE DIGNITY
OF PROCREATION AND OF THE CONJUGAL UNION, EVEN WHEN EVERYTHING IS
DONE TO AVOID THE DEATH OF THE HUMAN EMBRYO.

  Although the manner in which human conception is achieved with
IVF and ET cannot be approved, every child which comes into the
world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine
Goodness and must be brought up with love.


6. How is homologous artificial insemination to be evaluated from
a 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 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 ensuring 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 substituted for the conjugal act is
prohibited by reason of the voluntary achieved dissociation of the
two meanings of the conjugal act.  masturbation, through which the
sperm is normally obtained, is another sign of this dissociation:
even when it is done for the purpose of procreation, the act
remains deprived of its unitive meaning: "It lacks the sexual
relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship
which realizes 'the full sense of mutual self-giving and human
procreation in the context of true love'" [54].


7. What moral criterion can be proposed with regard to medical
intervention in human procreation?

  The medical act must be evaluated not only with reference to its
technical dimension but also and above all in relation to its goal
which is the good of persons and their bodily and psychological
health.  The moral criteria for medical intervention in procreation
are deduced from the dignity of human persons, of their sexuality
and of their origin.

  MEDICINE WHICH SEEKS TO BE ORDERED TO THE INTEGRAL GOOD OF THE
PERSON MUST RESPECT THE SPECIFICALLY HUMAN VALUES OF SEXUALITY
[55].  THE DOCTOR IS AT THE SERVICE OF THE 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 medial 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 inalienable rights of
the spouses and of the child to be born.

  The humanization of medicine, which is insisted upon today by
everyone, requires respect for the integral dignity of the human
person first of all in the act and at the moment in which the
spouses transmit life to a new person.  It is only logical
therefore to address an urgent appeal to Catholic doctors and
scientists that they bear exemplary witness to the respect due to
the human embryo and to the dignity of procreation.  The medical
and nursing staff of Catholic hospitals and clinics are in a
special way urged to do justice to the moral obligations which they
have assumed, frequently also, as part of their contract.  Those
who are in charge of Catholic hospitals and clinics and who are
often Religious will take special care to safeguard and promote a
diligent observance of the moral norms recalled in the present
Instruction.


8. The suffering caused by infertility in marriage.

  THE SUFFERING OF SPOUSES WHO CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN OR WHO ARE
AFRAID OF BRINGING A HANDICAPPED CHILD INTO THE WORLD IS A
SUFFERING THAT EVERYONE MUST UNDERSTAND AND PROPERLY EVALUATE.

  On the part of the spouses, the desire for a child is natural: it
expresses the vocation to fatherhood and motherhood inscribed in
conjugal love.  This desire can be even stronger if the couple is
affected by sterility which appears incurable.  Nevertheless,
marriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to have a
child, but only the right to perform those natural acts which are
*per se* ordered to procreation [57].

  A TRUE AND PROPER RIGHT TO A CHILD WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE
CHILD'S DIGNITY AND NATURE.  THE CHILD IS NOT AN OBJECT TO WHICH
ONE HAS A RIGHT, NOR CAN HE BE CONSIDERED 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 be born.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:

[34] Cf. Pastoral Constitution, GAUDIUM ET SPES, 50.

[35] Cf. Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation FAMILIARIS
CONSORTIO, 14: AAS 74 (1982) 96.

[36] Cf. Pope Pius XII, DISCOURSE TO THOSE TAKING PART IN THE 4TH
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF CATHOLIC DOCTORS, 29 September 1949: AAS
41 (1949) 559.  According to the plan of the Creator, "A man leaves
his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become
one flesh" (Gen. 2:24).  The unity of marriage, bound to the order
of creation, is a truth accessible to natural reason.  The Church's
Tradition and Magisterium frequently make reference to the Book of
Genesis, both directly and through passages of the New Testament
that refer to it: Mt. 19:4-6; Mk. 10:5-8; Eph. 5:31.  Cf.
Athenogoras, LEGATIO PRO CHRISTIANIS, 33: PG 6, 965-967.  St.
Chrysostom, IN MATTHAEUM HOMILIAE, LXII, 19, 1: PG 58, 597; St. Leo
the Great, EPIST. AD RUSTICUM, 4: PL 54, 1204; Innocent III, Epist.
GUADEMUS IN DOMINO: DS 778; Council of Lyons II, IV Session: DS
860; Council of Trent, XXIV Session: DS 1798, 1802; Pope Leo XIII,
Encyclical ARCANUM DIVINAE SAPIENTIAE: ASS 12 (1979/80) 388-391;
Pope Pius XI, Encyclical CASTO CONNUBII: AAS 22 (1930) 546-547;
Second Vatican Council, GAUDIUM ET SPES, 48; Pope John Paul II,
Apostolic Exhortation FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO, 19: AAS 74 (1982) 101-
102; CODE OF CANON LAW, Can. 1056.

[37] Cf. Pope Pius XII, DISCOURSE TO THOSE TAKING PART IN THE 4TH
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF CATHOLIC DOCTORS,  29 September 1949: AAS
41 (1949) 560; DISCOURSE TO THOSE TAKING PART IN THE CONGRESS OF
THE ITALIAN CATHOLIC UNION OF MIDWIVES,  29 October 1951: AAS 43
(1951) 850; Code of Canon Law, Can. 1134.

[38] Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter HUMANAE VITAE, 12: AAS 60
(1968) 488-489.

[39] Loc. cit., ibid, 489.

[40] Pope Pius XII, DISCOURSE TO THOSE TAKING PART IN THE SECOND
NAPLES WORLD CONGRESS ON FERTILITY AND HUMAN STERILITY,  19 May
1956: AAS 48 (1956) 470.

[41] CODE OF CANON LAW, Can. 1061.  According to this Canon, the
conjugal act is that by which the marriage is consummated if the
couple "have performed (it) between themselves in a human manner."

[42] Cf. Pastoral Constitution GAUDIUM ET SPES, 14.

[43] Cf. Pope John Paul II, GENERAL AUDIENCE ON 16 JANUARY 1980:
INSEGNAMENTI DI GIOVANNI PAOLO II, III, 1 (1980) 148-152.

[44] Pope John Paul II, DISCOURSE TO THOSE TAKING PART IN THE 35TH
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 29 October 1983:
AAS 76 (1984) 393.

[45] Cf. Pastoral Constitution GAUDIUM ET SPES, 51.

[46] Cf. Pastoral Constitution GAUDIUM ET SPES, 50.

[47] Cf. Pope Pius XII, DISCOURSE TO THOSE TAKING PART IN THE 4TH
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF CATHOLIC DOCTORS, 29 September 1949: AAS
41 (1949) 560: "It would be erroneous ... to think that the
possibility of resorting to this means (artificial fertilization)
might render valid a marriage between persons unable to contract it
because of the impedimentum impotentiae."

[48] A similar question was dealt with by Pope Paul VI, Encyclical
HUMANAE VITAE, 14: AAS 60 (1968) 490-491.

[49] Cf. supra: I, 1ff.

[50] Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO,
14: AAS 74 (1982) 96.

[51] Cf. RESPONSE OF THE HOLY OFFICE, 17 March 1987: DS 3323: Pope
Pius XII, DISCOURSE TO THOSE TAKING PART IN THE 4TH INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS OF CATHOLIC DOCTORS,  29 September 1949: AAS 41 (1949)
560; DISCOURSE TO THE ITALIAN CATHOLIC UNION OF MIDWIVES, 29,
October 1951: AAS 43 (1951) 850; DISCOURSE TO THOSE TAKING PART IN
THE SECOND NAPLES WORLD CONGRESS ON FERTILITY AND HUMAN STERILITY,
19 May 1956: AAS 48 (1956) 471-473; DISCOURSE TO THOSE TAKING PART
IN THE 7TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF
HAEMATOLOGY,  12 September 1958: AAS 50 (1958) 733; Pope John
XXIII, Encyclical MATER ET MAGISTRA, III: AAS 53 (1961) 447.

[52] Pope Pius XII, DISCOURSE TO THE ITALIAN CATHOLIC UNION OF
MIDWIVES, 29 October 1951: AAS 43 (1951) 850.

[53] Pope Pius XII, DISCOURSE TO THOSE TAKING PART IN THE 4TH
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF CATHOLIC DOCTORS, 29 September 1949: AAS
41 (1949) 560.

[54] Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, DECLARATION
ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS CONCERNING SEXUAL ETHICS, 9: AAS 68 (1976) 86,
which quotes the Pastoral Constitution GAUDIUM ET SPES, 51.  Cf.
DECREE OF THE HOLY OFFICE, 2 August 1929: AAS 21 (1929) 490; Pope
Pius XII, DISCOURSE TO THOSE TAKING PART IN THE 26TH CONGRESS OF
THE ITALIAN SOCIETY OF UROLOGY, 8 October 1953: AAS 45 (1953) 678.

[55] Cf. Pope John XXIII, Encyclical MATER ET MAGISTRA, III: AAS 53
(1961) 447.

[56] Cf. Pope Pius XII, DISCOURSE TO THOSE TAKING PART IN THE 4TH
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF CATHOLIC DOCTORS, 29 September 1949: AAS
41 (1949), 560.

[57] Cf. Pope Pius XII, DISCOURSE TO THE TAKING PART IN THE SECOND
NAPLES WORLD CONGRESS ON FERTILITY AND HUMAN STERILITY,  19 May
1956: AAS 48 (1956) 471-473.

[58] Pastoral Constitution GAUDIUM ET SPES, 50.

[59] Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO,
14: AAS 74 (1982) 97.

-------------------------------------------------------------------