[...] In our days the recent Roman Pontiffs have proclaimed the same doctrine with the greatest clarity. [...] Paul VI, speaking on this subject on many occasions, has not been afraid to declare that this teaching of the Church “has not changed and is unchangeable.”

 Nostris temporibus postremi Romani Pontifices eandem doctrinam quam accuratissime declaraverunt [...] Paulus VI, qui saepius de hoc argumento ser monem habuit, asseverare non dubitavit huiusmodi Ecclesiae doctrinam (( neque esse mutatam, neque posse umquam mutari

These are the greater part of those which are today called “human rights” and which our age boasts of having formulated.

huiusmodi sunt, maxima ex parte, ea quae hodie o iura hominis » appellantur, quaeque nostra haec aetas se plane declaravisse gloriatur.

[1.1.] 11. The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental -  the condition of all the others. Hence it must be protected above all others. It does not belong to society, nor does it belong to public authority in any form to recognize this right for some and not for others: all discrimination is evil, whether it be founded on race, sex, color or religion. It is not recognition by another that constitutes this right. This right is antecedent to its recognition; it demands recognition and it is strictly unjust to refuse it.

11. Primum personae humanae est ius vivendi. Ei alia quidem sunt bona, quorum nonnulla sane pretiosiora sunt, at ius ad vitam fundamentum est atque condicio ceterorum, ac proinde magis quam cetera protegendum est. Ad societatem vel publicam auctoritatem, quaecumque est eius forma, nullo modo spectat illud ius aliis reservare, aliis autem auferre : quodlibet huius generis discrimen, turn nom.ine stirpis vel sexus, turn no-mine coloris corporis vel religionis factum, semper iniquum est. Illud enim est ius non ex gratia aliena profluens, sed cuilibet gratiae antecedens, ac postulat proinde, ut agnoscatur; si denegatur, stricta iustitia violatur.

From the time that the ovum is fertilized,

a life is begun

Simul atque ovum fecundatum est,

iam inchoata est vita,

 which is neither that of the father nor of the mother, it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already.

 quae neque patris neque matris est, verum novi viventis humani, qui propter se ipsum crescit. Is numquam humanus fiet, nisi iam tunc talis fuit.

Following is the text of

footnote 19:

^[19] This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement.

For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field.

It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons:

(1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed,

(2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.

it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. “The one who will be a man is already one.”^[20]

 objective jam grave peccatum est se committere in periculum homicidii faciendi. « Homo est et qui est futurus

 The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.⁽²⁶⁾

   Magisterium Ecclesiae expresse auctoritatem suam non interposuit circa hanc affirmationem, quae proprie ad philosophiam pertinet, at constanter moralem reprobationem confirmat cuiusvis abortus procurati. Quae doc•trina neque mutata est neque mntari potest.'‑

Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality.

  Quare fructus generationis humanae, inde a primo temporis momento quo exsistere incipit, hoc est a momento quo formatio zygoti inchoatur, absolutam illam exigit observantiam, quae ex lege morali homini debetur quoad totam suam rationem corporalem atque, spiritualem.

This doctrinal reminder provides the fundamental criterion for the solution of the various problems posed by the development of the biomedical sciences in this field: since the embryo must be treated as a person, it must also be defended in its integrity, tended and cared for, to the extent possible, in the same way as any other human being as far as medical assistance is concerned. 

  Doctrinae capita modo exposita criterium praebent fnndamentale ad varia solvenda problemata, quae e progressu disciplinarum biomedicarum gignuntur in hoc campo : quoniam scilicet embryon ut persona tractandus est, inde seqnitur ut ei debeatur etiam snae integritatis defensio, idemque curandus ac sanandus sit sicut quilibet homo, quantum fieri potest, in ambitu medicae assistentiae.

* The zygote is the cell produced when the [nuclei of the] two gametes have fused. 

 • Zygotum est cellula orta a fusione duorum gametum.

[1.3. I.]  2. IS PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS MORALLY LICIT?  

2. ESTNE MORALITER I.ICITA DIAGNOSIS PRAENATALIS?

If prenatal diagnosis respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human foetus and is directed towards its safeguarding or healing as an individual, then the answer is affirmative.

  Si diagnosis praenatalis tuetur vitam et integritatem embryonis et fetus humani atque spectat ad singulum embryonem servandum et eurandum, responsio est affia-matira.

[1.3. I.]  3. ARE THERAPEUTIC PROCEDURES CARRIED OUT ON THE HUMAN EMBRYO LICIT? 

3. LICETNE THERAPEUTICI INTERVENTUS IN HUMANO EMBRYONE?

As with all medical interventions on patients, one must uphold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it but are directed towards its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.

   Sicut quilibet artis medicae interventus in aegrotis, ita interventus in humano embryone liciti habendi sunt hac condicione, ut embryones vitam integritatemque observent, ne secumferant pericula haud proportionata sed spectent ad morbi curationem, ad salutis statum in melius mutandum et ad ipsius singularis fetus superstitem vitam in tuto ponendam.

[1.3. I.]  5. HOW IS ONE TO EVALUATE MORALLY THE USE FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES OF EMBRYOS OBTAINED BY FERTILIZATION ‘IN VITRO’? 

5. QUAENAM ESSE DEBET AESTI:VIATIO MORALIS DE USU EMBRYONUM QUI, INVESTIGATIONIS CAUSA, HABENTUR OPE FECUNDATIONIS IN VITRO?

Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and subjects with rights: their dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their existence. It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable “biological material

  Embryones humani in vitro producti habendi sunt creaturae humanae et iuris capaces : eorum dignitas eorumque ius ad vitam observanda sunt inde a primo eorum vitae momento. Morum igitur honestati contrarium est embryones humanos gignere ad abutendum, scilicet ut efficiantur cc materia biologica », quae praesto sit ad usum.

[1.3. I.]  6. WHAT JUDGMENT SHOULD BE MADE ON OTHER PROCEDURES OF MANIPULATING EMBRYOS CONNECTED WITH THE “TECHNIQUES OF HUMAN REPRODUCTION”? 

6. QUOMODO IUDICANDAE SUNT CETERAE FORMAE ARTIFICIOSAE TRACTATIONIS EMBRYONUM, QUAE CONECTUNTUR CUM (( TECHNICIS RATIONIRUS HUMANAE PROCREATIONIS))?

Techniques of fertilization in vitro can open the way to other forms of biological and genetic manipulation of human embryos, such as attempts or plans for fertilization between human and animal gametes and the gestation of human embryos in the uterus of animals, or the hypothesis or project of constructing artificial uteruses for the human embryo. These procedures are contrary to the human dignity proper to the embryo, and at the same time they are contrary to the right of every person to be conceived and to be born within marriage and from marriage. Also, attempts or hypotheses for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through “twin fission”, cloning or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union. 

   Rationes technicae fecundationis in vitro aditum patefacere possunt ad alias formas artificiosae tractationis biologicae vel geneticae embryonum humanorum, cuiusmodi sunt. conatus vel proposita fecundationis inter hominum et animalium gametes, et gestationis embryonum humanorum in uteris animalium ; coniecturae vel consilia artificiales uteros fabricandi ad embryones excipiendos. Huiusmodi procedendi rationes repugnant creaturae humanae dignitati quae ad embryonem spectat, simulque ius laedunt uniuscuiusque personae ut concipiatur et nascatur in matrimonio et ex matrimonio.32 Conatus quoque vel coniecturae eo spectantes ut creatura humana gignatur absque ulla colligatione cum sexualitate per (( fixionem gemellarem )), clonationem, parthenogenesim, uti aiunt, habenda sunt pro re morum honestati contraria, quippe quae cum dignitate sive procreationis humanae sive coniugalis coniunctionis nullo modo cohaereant.

The freezing of embryos, even when carried out in order to preserve the life of an embryo - cryopreservation - constitutes an offence against the respect due to human beings by exposing them to grave risks of death or harm to their physical integrity and depriving them, at least temporarily, of maternal shelter and gestation, thus placing them in a situation in which further offences and manipulation are possible. 

   Ipsa embryonum congelatio, etsi peragatur ad embryones in vita conservandos — quod (( crioconservationem » vocant — observantiam violat viventibus humanis debitam, cum eorum phisicam integritatem in gravia mortis vel damni pericula adducat, eos privet saltem ad tem‑pus materna receptione ac gestatione, eosdemque constituat talibus in adiunctis, ut inde via pateat ad novas violationes novasque artificiosas tractationes.

Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. These manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his or her integrity and identity. Therefore in no way can they be justified on the grounds of possible beneficial consequences for future humanity. Every person must be respected for himself: in this consists the dignity and right of every human being from his or her beginning. 

  Nonnulli conatus interveniendi in patrimonio cromosomico vel genetico non sunt therapeutici, sed spectant ad viventes humanos gignendos, selectos secundum sexum vel alias proprietates iam antea praestitutas. Huiusmodi artificiosae tractationes adversantur personali humanae creaturae dignitati eiusque integritati atque identitati. Eaedem igitur nullo modo comprobari possunt ob commoda, quae in societatis humanae bonum forte inde obvenire posse praevideantur.33 Quaelibet humana persona per se ipsam observanda est : in hoc dignitas et ius consistunt uniuscuiusque creaturae humanae inde ab ipsius initio.

[1.3.] II INTERVENTIONS UPON HUMAN PROCREATION 

II INTERVENTUS IN HUMANA PROCREATIONE

[1.3. II.] A. HETEROLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION 

FECUNDATIO ARTIFICIALIS HETEROLOGA

[1.3. II.]  3. IS “SURROGATE” MOTHERHOOD MORALLY LICIT? 

3. MATERNITAS (( SUBSTITUTIVA )) * ESTNE MORALITER LICITA?

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.

   Nullatenus; et id quidem iisdem de causis, quibus est fecundatio artificialis heterologa reicienda: opponitur enim tum unitati matrimonii, tum etiam dignitati procreationis personae humanae.

IIB Homologous Artificial Fertilization

[1.3. II.] B. HOMOLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION 

B FECUNDATIO ARTIFICIALIS HODIOLOGA

[1.3. II.]  5. IS HOMOLOGOUS ‘IN VITRO’ FERTILIZATION MORALLY LICIT? 

5. FECIINDATIO HOMOLOGA IN VITRO ESTNE MORALITER LICITA?

[...] 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”.

  [...] In methodo FIVET homologa, igitur, etsi consideretur in eontextu actuum coniugalium qui reapse exsistunt, nihilominus generatio personae humanae obiective destituitur perfectione sibi propria, qua scilicet illa est terminus et fructus actus coniugalis, per quem coniuges fieri possunt Dei cooperatores tradendo vitae donum novo alicui homini ».50

Certainly, homologous IVF and ET fertilization is not marked by all that ethical negativity found in extra-conjugal procreation; the family and marriage continue to constitute the setting for the birth and upbringing of the children.  Nevertheless, in conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remain opposed from the moral point of view to homologous ‘in vitro’ fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.

  Fatendum sane est in methodum FIVET homologam non cadere omnia admissa contra morum honestatem, quae deprebenduntnr in procreatione extra matrimonium effecta; familia enim et matrimonium pergunt esse ambitnh, in qno filiorum nativitas et educatio continentnr. Attamen, iuxta traditam doctrinam de matrimonii bonis et de personae humanae dignitate, morale Ec•clesiae iudicium perstat contrariurn fecttndationi homol,ogae in ritro: haec est intrinsecus illicita, ac dignitati procreattionis et coniunctionis coniuyalis tunc etiam repugnat, cum >Ri~il omittitur ut embryonis mors praecaveatur.

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. 

  Etei nullo modo probari possit agendi ratio, qua conceptio humana obtinetur per methodum FIVET, nihilominus puer in lncem editus excipi debet tamquam vivens Bonitatis divinae donnm, et cum amore est educandus.

[1.3. II.]  6. HOW IS HOMOLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION TO BE EVALUATED FROM THE MORAL POINT OF VIEW?

6. QUOMODO SECUNDM LEGEM MORALEM AESTIMANDA EST SEMINATIO ARTIFICIALIS HOMOLOGA?

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. 

  Seminatio artifcialis homologa intra ambitum matrimonii admitti nequit, exeepto casu in quo apparatus technicus non sit substitutivus actus coniugalis, sed se praebeat ut adiumeutum ad naturalem eius finem facilius assequendum.

[...] If the technical means facilitates the conjugal act or helps it to reach its natural objectives, it can be morally acceptable.

[1.3. II.]  7. WHAT MORAL CRITERION CAN BE PROPOSED WITH REGARD TO MEDICAL INTERVENTION IN HUMAN PROCREATION? 

  7. QUODNAM CRITERIUM MORALE ADHIBENDUM EST CIRCA MEDICI INTERVENTUM IN HUMANA 1'ROCREATIONE?

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”

Medicus interventus tunc personarum dignitatem tuetur, cum actum coniugalem adiuvare studet, sive ut facilins expleatur, sive ut idem, iam rite expletus, finem suum assequi possit."  

On the other hand, it sometimes happens that a medical procedure technologically replaces the conjugal act in order to obtain a procreation which is neither its result nor its fruit. In this case the medical act is not, as it should be, at the service of conjugal union but rather appropriates to itself the procreative function and thus contradicts the dignity and the inalienable rights of the spouses and of the child to be born.

Ex contrario, quandoque fit ut medicus interventus, artis te.chnicae ope, substitutivus sit actus coniugalis ad procreationem obtinendam, quae propterea neque effectus est neque fructus einsdem actus : quo in caeu, actus medicus non videtur deservire, sicut oportet, coniugali iunctioni, sed procreandi munus sibi arrogat, sicque dignitati atqne inalienabilibus iuribus coniugum .ac nascituri contradicit.

[1.3. II.]  8. THE SUFFERING CAUSED BY INFERTILITY IN MARRIAGE 

8. DOLOR EX CONIUGALI STERILITATE.

A true and proper right to a child would be contrary to the child’s dignity and nature. The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor can he be considered as an object of ownership: rather, a child is a gift, “the supreme gift” 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. 

  Verum ac proprium ius ad filium, ipsius filii dignitati atque naturae adrersatur. P'ilius nullo rnodo aliquid est quod debetlu•, neque considerari potest ut obieeturn proprietatis; ipse potius est donum, et quidem « praestantissirntlm » 58 et maxime gratuiturn matrimonii, idemque rirens est testimoniu7rt mrutuae donationis eius parentum. Qua de causa, filius — ut supra nlemoratum est — ius habet ad exsistendum tamquam fruetus proreniens e.r aetu eoniugalis amoris proprio suorum parerttutn, idemque ius habet ad obserrantiam sibi tamquarn personae tribuerldarn inde a montento c•oneeptionis.

[1.3. ]  III. MORAL AND CIVIL LAW 

III DE RE MORALI AC CIVILI LEGE

THE VALUES AND MORAL OBLIGATIONS 
THAT CIVIL LEGISLATION 
MUST RESPECT AND SANCTION IN THIS MATTER 

BONA ATQUE OBLIGATIONES MORALIA LEGE CIVILI OBSERVANDA AC SANCIF.NDA IN HAC MATERIA

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

  Ius inviolabile ad vitam uniuscuiusque hominis innocentis atque iura familiae institutique matrimonialis, bona moralia fundamentalia censenda sunt, quippe quae condic.ionem naturalem et integram vocation?m personae humanae respiciant; suntque simul elementa quae pertinent ad ipsam civilis societatis structuram atque ordinationem.

For this reason the new technological possibilities which have opened up in the field of biomedicine require the intervention of the political authorities and of the legislator, since an uncontrolled application of such techniques could lead to unforeseeable and damaging consequences for civil society. Recourse to the conscience of each individual and to the self-regulation of researchers cannot be sufficient for ensuring respect for personal rights and public order. If the legislator responsible for the common good were not watchful, he could be deprived of his prerogatives by researchers claiming to govern humanity in the name of the biological discoveries and the alleged “improvement” processes which they would draw from those discoveries. “Eugenism” and forms of discrimination between human beings could come to be legitimized: this would constitute an act of violence and a serious offense to the equality, dignity and fundamental rights of the human person.

  Hac de causa, novaquae progrediens res technica portendit fieri posse in campo scientiae biomedicae, requirunt ut ii, penes quos snnt civilia muneraet potestas leges ferendi, auctoritatem suam interponant, quia harum technicarum rationum usus, vigilantiae non obnoxius, perduc.ere poterit ad consectaria, quae praevideri nequeunt, et detrimentum afferre civili societati. Appellatio ad nniuscuiusqne conscientiam et ad normas sibi voluntarie impositas, a scientiae investigatoribus satis non sunt ad personalia iura et reipublicae ordinem tucnda. Si legislator, in quem onus communis boni recidit, invigilare omittat, ipse expoliari possit suis praerogativis ab investigatoribns arrogantibus sibi munus gubernandi homines, nomine novoraln inventorum biologicorum et  prosperioris vitae condicionum, quae praesumuntur ex illis manare. Ita « eugenismus » et iniusta inter Creaturas humanas discriminarata haberi possint ; id vim gravemque ininriam inferat aequalitati, dignitati et primariis iuribus personae humanae.

24. Nevertheless, the Apostle’s experiences as a sharer in the sufferings of Christ go even further. In the Letter to the Colossians we read the words which constitute as it were the final stage of the spiritual journey in relation to suffering: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church”. And in another Letter he asks his readers: “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?”.

24. Apostoli tamen, qui Christi dolorum est particeps, experientiae etiam ulterius progrediuntur. In Epistula ad Colossenses haec legimus, quae spiritalis itineris veluti metam postremam, ad tribulationes quod attinet, efficiunt. Haec Sanctus Paulus scribit: “Nunc gaudeo in passionibus pro vobis, et adimpleo ea, quae desunt passionum Christi, in carne mea pro corpore eius, quod est Ecclesia”.(78) In alia Epistula eos, quibus mittitur, sic ipse interrogat: “Nescitis quoniam corpora vestra membra Christi sunt?”.(79) 

In the Paschal Mystery Christ began be union with man in the community of the Church. The mystery of the Church is expressed in this: that already in the act of Baptism, which brings about a configuration with Christ, and then through his Sacrifice—sacramentally through the Eucharist—the Church is continually being built up spiritually as the Body of Christ. In this Body, Christ wishes to be united with every individual, and in a special way he is united with those who suffer. The words quoted above from the Letter to the Colossians bear witness to the exceptional nature of this union. For, whoever suffers in union with Christ— just as the Apostle Paul bears his “tribulations” in union with Christ— not only receives from Christ that strength already referred to but also “completes” by his suffering “what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”. This evangelical outlook especially highlights the truth concerning the creative character of suffering. The sufferings of Christ created the good of the world’s redemption. This good in itself is inexhaustible and infinite. No man can add anything to it. But at the same time, in the mystery of the Church as his Body, Christ has in a sense opened his own redemptive suffering to all human suffering. In so far as man becomes a sharer in Christ’s sufferings—in any part of the world and at any time in history—to that extent he in his own way completes the suffering through which Christ accomplished the Redemption of the world.

In mysterio paschali Christus initium fecit coniunctionis cum homine in Ecclesiae communitate. Mysterium Ecclesiae sic declaratur: in ipsa Baptismi collatione, qua Christo configuratur homo, deinde per Christi Sacrificium – sacramentaliter per Eucharistiam – Ecclesia semper ut corpus Christi continuo spiritaliter aedificatur. In hoc corpore Christus vult cum cunctis hominibus coniungi imprimisque dolentes sibi coniungit. Allata Epistulae ad Colossenses verba singularem huius coniunctionis proprietatem testantur. Etenim qui una cum Christo condolescit – quemadmodum Paulus Apostolus Christo adhaerens suas fert “tribulationes” – non solum illam virtutem a Christo haurit, quae antea est dicta, sed sua etiam passione ipse, “quae desunt passionum Christi adimplet”. In hac evangelica expositione veritas de creatrice doloris natura singulariter in lumine ponitur. Christi passio bonum redemptionis mundi effecit, quod quidem in se ipso inexhaustum est et infinitum neque ei quidquam ab ullo homine addi potest. Simul vero in Ecclesiae mysterio ut in corpore suo Christus aliqua ratione redemptricem passionem suam omnibus hominum tribulationibus aperuit. Prout homo fit Christi passionis particeps – ubicumque in orbe terrarum quolibetque historiae tempore – ita eiusmodi passionem suo modo ipse adimplet, per quam Christus mundi redemptionem est operatus.

Does this mean that the Redemption achieved by Christ is not complete? No. It only means that the Redemption, accomplished through satisfactory love, remains always open to all love expressed in human suffering. In this dimension—the dimension of love—the Redemption which has already been completely accomplished is, in a certain sense, constantly being accomplished. Christ achieved the Redemption completely and to the very limits but at the same time he did not bring it to a close. In this redemptive suffering, through which the Redemption of the world was accomplished, Christ opened himself from the beginning to every human suffering and constantly does so. Yes, it seems to be part of the very essence of Christ’s redemptive suffering that this suffering requires to be unceasingly completed.

Numquid ex hoc infertur imperfectam esse redemptionem, quam Christus ad effectum adduxerit? Non est ita. Id enim non aliud significat nisi redemptionem, quae vi amoris satisfactorii est acta, omni semper caritati patere, quae in hominis dolore ostenditur. In hoc ambitu – in ambitu scilicet amoris – redemptio, quae penitus iam perfecta est, aliqua ratione perficitur continenter. Christus redemptionem penitus quidem peregit ac quidem usque ad finem; simul tamen eam non conclusit: in redemptrice hac passione, per quam est redemptio omnium peracta, Christus inde ab initio complexus est semperque id omne complectitur, quod mortales patiuntur. Ita est: ad ipsam redemptricis Christi passionis essentiam pertinere videtur ratio, ob quam eiusmodi passio poscit ut continenter adimpleatur.

Evangelium Vitae

“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28): man’s responsibility for life  

“Crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram et subicite eam” (Gen. 1, 28): hominis de vita officia

[2.2.] 42. To defend and promote life, to show reverence and love for it, is a task which God entrusts to every man, calling him as his living image to share in his own lordship over the world [...]

42. Vitam tueri et provehere, eandem venerari et amare est officium quoddam singulis hominibus a Deo concreditum, cum Deus vocat eum, vividam veluti sui effigiem, ad mundi dominatum participandum quem ipse occupat:

As one called to till and look after the garden of the world (cf. Gen 2:15), man has a specific responsibility towards the environment in which he lives, towards the creation which God has put at the service of his personal dignity, of his life, not only for the present but also for future generations. It is the ecological question--ranging from the preservation of the natural habitats of the different species of animals and of other forms of life to “human ecology” properly speaking[1]--which finds in the Bible clear and strong ethical direction, leading to a solution which respects the great good of life, of every life. In fact, “the dominion granted to man by the Creator is not an absolute power, nor can one speak of a freedom to ‘use and misuse’, or to dispose of things as one pleases. The limitation imposed from the beginning by the Creator himself and expressed symbolically by the prohibition not to ‘eat of the fruit of the tree’ (cf. Gen 2:16-17) shows clearly enough that, when it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only to biological laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with impunity”.[2]    

Ad mundi hortum colendum tutandumque vocatus (Cfr. Gen. 2, 15) homo peculiare quidem officium de vitae loco suscipere debet, scilicet de universo mundo quem Deus commodavit ut illius personali dignitati eiusque vitae inserviret, spectatis non modo iis qui nunc sunt, verum et qui postea nascentur. Agitur quippe de oecologica quaestione – quae hinc diversarum animalium specierum naturales sedes multiplicesque vitae formas servandas complectitur, illinc ipsam “humanam oecologiam” (Cfr. IOANNIS PAULI PP. II Centesimus Annus, 38) – et quae in bibliorum sacrorum paginis clara et ethica ratione tantopere significatur, ut vita, quaevis vita, observanter colatur. Reapse “dominium a Creatore homini datum... non est absolutum, nec potest utendi et abutendi arbitrium vocari, vel ex commodo res disponendi. Modus, quem inde a principio ipse Creator homini imposuit quique symbolica ratione exprimitur per interdictionem comedendi de ligno (Cfr. Gen. 2, 16-17), satis clare ostendit in universitate naturae visibilis... nos legibus esse subiectos, non solum biologicis, verum etiam et moralibus, quae impune violari nequeunt” (IOANNIS PAULU PP. II Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 34).

“For you formed my inmost being” (Ps 139:13): the dignity of the unborn child    

“Quia tu formasti renes meos” (Ps 139 (138), 13): parvuli nondum nati dignitas

[2.2.] 44. Human life finds itself most vulnerable when it enters the world and when it leaves the realm of time to embark upon eternity. The word of God frequently repeats the call to show care and respect, above all where life is undermined by sickness and old age. […].

44. Magno in discrimine versatur humana vita cum ingreditur in mundum cumque ex hoc saeculo excedit ut in aeternitatis portum transeat. Saepius offendimus in Sacris Litteris – praesertim quod attinet ad exsistentiam cui morbo vel senectute insidiatur – hortamenta ad curam adhibendam reverentiamque. […]

“Your eyes beheld my unformed substance” (Ps 139:16): the unspeakable crime of abortion 

“Imperfectum adhuc me viderunt oculi tui” (Ps. 139 (138), 16): abominandum flagitium abortus

[2.2.] 58. […] The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenceless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defence consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby’s cries and tears. The unborn child is totally entrusted to the protection and care of the woman carrying him or her in the womb […]

Procurati ideo abortus gravitas moralis tunc quidem omni sua elucet in veritate, cum intellegitur hic agi de homicidio ac nominatim cum propria perspiciuntur adiuncta quibus illud circumdatur. Destruitur enim homo vitam modo ingrediens, quo videlicet haud potest quidquam prorsus concipi magis innocens: numquam iudicari potest adgressor tantoque minus adgressor iniustus! Imbecillis est atque inermis, adeo quidem ut minima etiam illa privetur sese defendendi ratione, quam habet implorans gemitus ac fletus nati modo infantis. Committitur usque quaque tutelae curaeque ipsius a qua in utero gestatur. […]

Poignant articulation of need for careful pastoral concern

[2.2.] 59. As well as the mother, there are often other people too who decide upon the death of the child in the womb. In the first place, the father of the child may be to blame, not only when he directly pressures the woman to have an abortion, but also when he indirectly encourages such a decision on her part by leaving her alone to face the problems of pregnancy:[3] in this way the family is thus mortally wounded and profaned in its nature as a community of love and in its vocation to be the “sanctuary of life”. Nor can one overlook the pressures which sometimes come from the wider family circle and from friends. Sometimes the woman is subjected to such strong pressure that she feels psychologically forced to have an abortion: certainly in this case moral responsibility lies particularly with those who have directly or indirectly obliged her to have an abortion. Doctors and nurses are also responsible, when they place at the service of death skills which were acquired for promoting life.

59. Praeter matrem alii item crebrius de morte infantis nondum enati decernunt. Culpari in primis potest pater infantis, non tum solum cum ad abortum aperte mulierem compellit, verum cum oblique etiam tali favet eius consilio, deserendo illam ante graviditatis difficultates (Cfr. IOANNIS PAULI PP. II Mulieris Dignitatem, 14): sic mortali vulnere percutitur familia suaque in natura uti communitatis ex amore violatur atque sua in vocatione ut “vitae sacrarium” sit. Nec impulsiones eas taceri decet quae ampliore e familiari cognatione importentur necnon ab amicis. Subicitur haud raro femina adeo vehementibus sollicitationibus ut animo sese cogi iam sentiat ad abortum accipiendum: talibus quidem in casibus nihil dubitatur quin illos praesertim premat morale officium a quibus recta obliquave via in abortum est propulsa. Responsales etiam medici ipsi esse possunt atque valetudinis curatores, cum in mortis ministerium suam peritiam destinant idcirco comparatam ut vitam provehat.

But responsibility likewise falls on the legislators who have promoted and approved abortion laws, and, to the extent that they have a say in the matter, on the administrators of the health-care centres where abortions are performed. A general and no less serious responsibility lies with those who have encouraged the spread of an attitude of sexual permissiveness and a lack of esteem for motherhood, and with those who should have ensured--but did not--effective family and social policies in support of families, especially larger families and those with particular financial and educational needs. Finally, one cannot overlook the network of complicity which reaches out to include international institutions, foundations and associations which systematically campaign for the legalization and spread of abortion in the world. In this sense abortion goes beyond the responsibility of individuals and beyond the harm done to them, and takes on a distinctly social dimension. It is a most serious wound inflicted on society and its culture by the very people who ought to be society’s promoters and defenders […]

Officio quodam similiter legum latores implicantur a quibus rogatae lataeque sunt leges pro abortu, tum, quatenus res ab iis pendet, administratores institutionum sanitatis adhibitarum ad exsequendos abortus. Non minor universim obligatio simul eos tangit qui adiuvant ut mentis habitus pro licentia sexuali ac maternitatis contemptus dispergantur, atque simul qui praestare debuerunt – et id facere omiserunt – rationes validas familiares socialesque ad familias sustentandas, potissimum frequentiores aut peculiaribus adflictas nummorum educationisque difficultatibus. Neque conivendum est illa in conspirationis iunctura eo usque pertingente ut instituta complectatur internationalia et opera fundata et sodalicia, quae certa via et ratione nituntur ut per orbem abortus sanciatur ac differatur. Hoc porro pacto excedit fines officii hominum singulorum abortus et detrimenta singulis illata, induitque sibi speciem insigniter socialem: gravissimum enim vulnus est societati ipsi inflictum eiusque humano cultui ab iis nempe qui illius esse potius debent aedificatores ac protectors[…]

“It is I who bring both death and life” (Dt 32:39): the tragedy of euthanasia    

“Ego occidam et ego vivere faciam” (Deut. 32, 39): euthanasiae tragoedia

[2.2.] 65. […] Euthanasia must be distinguished from the decision to forego so-called “aggressive medical treatment”, in other words, medical procedures which no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient, either because they are by now disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose an excessive burden on the patient and his family. In such situations, when death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one can in conscience “refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted”.[7] Certainly there is a moral obligation to care for oneself and to allow oneself to be cared for, but this duty must take account of concrete circumstances. It needs to be determined whether the means of treatment available are objectively proportionate to the prospects for improvement. To forego extraordinary or disproportionate means is not the equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in the face of death.[8]

Ab ea separetur oportet consilium illud, quo quis tractationem reiciat sic dictam “vehementiam therapeuticam”, aliquos nempe medicos interventus non amplius aegrotantis statui congruentes, quia impares iam sunt iis effectibus quos sperari liceret vel etiam quia nimis omnino ipsi aegroto eiusque familiae molesti. His enim in casibus, cum nuntiata iam instat mors nec vitari potest, licet ex conscientia “consilium inire curationibus renuntiandi, quae nonnisi precariam et doloris plenam vitae dilationem afferre valent, haud intermissis tamen ordinariis curis, quae in similibus casibus aegroto debentur” (Ibid. IV). Officium certissime adest morale ut quis se curet curetque se curandum; quod tamen officium metiendum est secundum concreta rerum adiuncta: in re namque nata necesse est diiudicare conveniantne therapeutica instrumenta ad manus aliquando melioris condicionis ipsis exspectationibus. Haud vero tantum valet consiliorum extraordinariorum vel nimiorum reiectio quam voluntaria mors vel euthanasia; consensum potius illa declarat cum humano statu ante mortem (Cfr. ibid.).

In modern medicine, increased attention is being given to what are called “methods of palliative care”, which seek to make suffering more bearable in the final stages of illness and to ensure that the patient is supported and accompanied in his or her ordeal.

Recentissima in medicina arte magis magisque emergunt sic dictae “curae palliativae”, eo scilicet pertinentes ut extremo morbi tempore tolerabilior fiat dolor utque patienti ipsi consentaneus simul praestetur comitatus humanus.

[2.2.] 66. […]Even when not motivated by a selfish refusal to be burdened with the life of someone who is suffering, euthanasia must be called a false mercy, and indeed a disturbing “perversion” of mercy. True “compassion” leads to sharing another’s pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear. Moreover, the act of euthanasia appears all the more perverse if it is carried out by those, like relatives, who are supposed to treat a family member with patience and love, or by those, such as doctors, who by virtue of their specific profession are supposed to care for the sick person even in the most painful terminal stages.

Quamvis non causetur euthanasia ex eo quod, sui commodi causa, quis curare recusat patientem, eadem falsa pietas est habenda, immo eius gravis “deformitas”: nam vera “miseratio” efficit ut cum alterius dolore homo societur, non autem eum perimit cuius aegritudo tolerari non potest. Atque multo flagitiosius videtur euthanasiae facinus, si ab iis patratur, qui – ut familiares – consanguineum leniter amanterque iuvare debent vel – ut medici – suam ipsorum propter artem, aegrotum curare debent, etiamsi in condicionibus ille insanabilibus versatur.

[2.2.] 67. Quite different from this is the way of love and true mercy, which our common humanity calls for, and upon which faith in Christ the Redeemer, who died and rose again, sheds ever new light. The request which arises from the human heart in the supreme confrontation with suffering and death, especially when faced with the temptation to give up in utter desperation, is above all a request for companionship, sympathy and support in the time of trial. It is a plea for help to keep on hoping when all human hopes fail. […]

67. Omnino autem alia est amoris sinceraeque pietatis via, quam nostra humanitas communis infert quamque in Christo Redemptore fides, qui mortuus est et resurrexit, novis rationibus collustrat. Postulatio, quae ex hominis corde manat instantibus novissime dolore et morte, praesertim cum temptatur ut se ipse ad desperationem inclinet atque quasi in ea absumatur, requirit potissimum consuetudinem, solidarietatem, atque praesidium difficultatibus obvenientibus. Auxilium postulatur ad insuper sperandum, cum omnes humanae spes praeciduntur. […]

The Legislators' Unenviable Dilemma

[2.2.] 73. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”.[11]

Si ergo de lege agitur suapte natura iniqua, ut est quae abortum permittit et euthanasiam, numquam licet eidem se accommodare, nec quisquam “potest esse particeps alicuius motus publicae opinionis qui eiusmodi legi faveat, neque potest latis suffragiis sustinere”

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations--particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation--there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.  

De conscientia nominatim agitari potest quibusdam forte evenientibus casibus, cum legatorum suffragia necessaria sunt ut strictiori legi faveatur, quae scilicet circumscribat abortuum lege admissorum numerum pro laxiore lege quae iam viget vel suffragiis probanda. Huiusmodi eventus non sunt rari. Illud enim contingit, dum orbis terrarum quibusdam in partibus leges subinde pro abortu inducuntur, suadentibus haud raro valentibus internationalibus institutis, aliis tamen in Nationibus – in illis potissimum quae iam infeliciter id genus leges sunt expertae – signa quaedam exsistunt mutatarum sententiarum. Superiore in casu, quoties vitari antiquarive non potest abortus lex, liquet legatum, qui palam alioquin vulgoque abortui adversetur, suffragari licite posse illis consiliis quae eiusmodi legis damna minuere velint et perniciosum effectum extenuare qui sive culturam sive moralitatem publicam respicit. Hac enim agendi ratione officium suum non praestat illicitae vel iniustae legi; potius vero aequus opportunusque inducitur conatus ut eius iniquae cohibeantur species.

Organ-Donation as Heroic

[2.2.] 88. […] And when earthly existence draws to a close, it is again charity which finds the most appropriate means for enabling the elderly, especially those who can no longer look after themselves, and the terminally ill to enjoy genuinely humane assistance and to receive an adequate response to their needs, in particular their anxiety and their loneliness. In these cases the role of families is indispensable; yet families can receive much help from social welfare agencies and, if necessary, from recourse to palliative care, taking advantage of suitable medical and social services available in public institutions or in the home.

Sub exitum autem terrestris vitae, caritas adhuc modos quosdam peraptos invenit ut senes, peculiariter qui opibus suis sufficienter non sunt praediti, atque insanabiliter aegrotantes, de cura humana gaudere possint ac rectas responsiones accipere postulationibus suis, singulari modo anxietati suae et solitudini. Familiarum officium substitui non potest his in casibus: suum tamen validum auxilium illae reperire possunt in socialibus adiutoriis praestandis structuris et, cum necesse est, in usurpatione curarum dolorem lenientium, aptis adhibitis sanitatis socialisque rationis ministeriis tum in hospitiis publicis tum domi praestitis.

In particular, the role of hospitals, clinics and convalescent homes needs to be reconsidered. These should not merely be institutions where care is provided for the sick or the dying. Above all they should be places where suffering, pain and death are acknowledged and understood in their human and specifically Christian meaning. This must be especially evident and effective in institutes staffed by Religious or in any way connected with the Church.   

Iterum proprie est considerandum momentum valetudinariorum, clinicarum atque curationis domorum: eorum vera proprietas non spectat solummodo ad instituendas structuras in quibus cura agatur aegrotorum et morientium, sed praesertim ad praebendos ambitus in quibus angustia, dolor atque mors agnoscuntur et explanantur in sua ipsarum humana notione proprieque christiana. Singillatim talis identitas clara et valida apparere debet in institutis quae a religiosis diriguntur vel, quavis ratione, quae cum Ecclesia nectuntur.

[2.2.] 91. Today an important part of policies which favour life is the issue of population growth. Certainly public authorities have a responsibility to “intervene to orient the demography of the population”.[12] But such interventions must always take into account and respect the primary and inalienable responsibility of married couples and families, and cannot employ methods which fail to respect the person and fundamental human rights, beginning with the right to life of every innocent human being. It is therefore morally unacceptable to encourage, let alone impose, the use of methods such as contraception, sterilization and abortion in order to regulate births.

91. Pars quidem magni momenti in arte politica pro vita hodie efficitur ex quaestionibus demographicis. Magistratuum profecto est “consilia capere ad populi demographiam dirigendam” (Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae, n. 2372); eiusmodi tamen consilia praesumere semper et observare debent praecipuam atque non inalienabilem responsalitatem coniugum et familiarum, neque uti possunt rationibus parum reverentibus personam eiusque capitalia iura, initio ducto ab iure ad vitam cuiusvis personae humanae innocentis. Nulla ergo morali ratione permitti potest ut, ad natorum continendum numerum, suadeantur nedum iniungantur viae quales sunt anticonceptio, sterilizatio et abortus.

Address by Pope John Paul II On the Occasion of the International Conference of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Health Care

Discorso di Giovanni Paolo Ii In Occasione della Conferenza Internazionale Del Pontificio Consiglio per la Pastorale Della Salute

Friday, November 12, 2004

Venerdì, 12 novembre 2004

3. L’amore verso il prossimo, che Gesù ha tratteggiato con efficacia nella parabola del buon samaritano (cfr Lc 10, 29ss), rende capaci di riconoscere la dignità di ogni persona, anche quando la malattia è venuta a gravare sulla sua esistenza. La sofferenza, l’anzianità, lo stato di incoscienza, l’imminenza della morte non diminuiscono l’intrinseca dignità della persona, creata ad immagine di Dio.

Tra i drammi causati da un’etica che pretende di stabilire chi può vivere e chi deve morire, vi è quello dell’eutanasia. Anche se motivata da sentimenti di una mal intesa compassione o di una mal compresa dignità da preservare, l’eutanasia invece che riscattare la persona dalla sofferenza ne realizza la soppressione.

La compassione, quando è priva della volontà di affrontare la sofferenza e di accompagnare chi soffre, porta alla cancellazione della vita per annientare il dolore, stravolgendo così lo statuto etico della scienza medica.

4. La vera compassione, al contrario, promuove ogni ragionevole sforzo per favorire la guarigione del paziente. Al tempo stesso essa aiuta a fermarsi quando nessuna azione risulta ormai utile a tale fine.

Il rifiuto dell’ accanimento terapeutico non è un rifiuto del paziente e della sua vita. Infatti, l’oggetto della deliberazione sull’opportunità di iniziare o continuare una pratica terapeutica non è il valore della vita del paziente, ma il valore dell’intervento medico sul paziente.

L’eventuale decisione di non intraprendere o di  interrompere una terapia sarà ritenuta eticamente corretta quando questa risulti inefficace o chiaramente sproporzionata ai fini del sostegno alla vita o del recupero della salute. Il rifiuto dell’accanimento terapeutico, pertanto, è espressione del rispetto che in ogni istante si deve al paziente.

Sarà proprio questo senso di amorevole rispetto che aiuterà ad accompagnare il paziente fino alla fine, ponendo in atto tutte le azioni e attenzioni possibili per diminuirne le sofferenze e favorirne nell’ultima parte dell’esistenza terrena un vissuto per quanto possibile sereno, che ne disponga l’animo all’incontro con il Padre celeste.

5. Soprattutto nella fase della malattia, in cui non è più possibile praticare terapie proporzionate ed efficaci, mentre, si impone l’obbligo di evitare ogni forma di ostinazione o accanimento terapeutico, si colloca la necessità delle “cure palliative” che, come afferma l’Enciclica Evangelium vitae, sono “destinate a rendere più sopportabile la sofferenza nella fase finale della malattia e di assicurare al tempo stesso al paziente un adeguato accompagnamento” (n. 65).

Le cure palliative, infatti, mirano a lenire, specialmente nel paziente terminale, una vasta gamma di sintomi di sofferenza di ordine fisico, psichico e mentale, e richiedono perciò l’intervento di un’équipe di specialisti con competenza medica, psicologica e religiosa, tra loro affiatati per sostenere il paziente nella fase critica.

In particolare, nell’ Enciclica Evangelium vitae è stata sintetizzata la dottrina tradizionale sull’uso lecito e talora doveroso degli analgesici nel rispetto della libertà dei pazienti, i quali devono essere posti in grado, nella misura del possibile, “di soddisfare ai loro obblighi morali e familiari e soprattutto devono potersi preparare con piena coscienza all’incontro definitivo con Dio” (n. 65).

D’altra parte, mentre non si deve far mancare ai pazienti che ne hanno necessità il sollievo proveniente dagli analgesici, la loro somministrazione dovrà essere effettivamente proporzionata all’intensità e alla cura del dolore, evitando ogni forma di eutanasia quale si avrebbe somministrando ingenti dosi di analgesici proprio con lo scopo di provocare la morte.

Ai fini di realizzare questo articolato aiuto occorre incoraggiare la formazione di specialisti delle cure palliative, in particolare strutture didattiche alle quali possono essere interessati anche psicologi e operatori della pastorale.

Intentional homicide

Homicidium voluntarium

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.⁶⁸

2268 Quintum praeceptum tamquam peccato graviter obnoxium proscribit homicidium directum et voluntarium. Homicida illique qui voluntarie cooperantur occisioni, committunt peccatum quod ad coelum clamat vindictam postulans. ¹⁷⁸

Infanticide,⁶⁹ fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.

Infanticidium, ¹⁷⁹ fratricidium, parricidium et coniugis occisio crimina sunt speciatim gravia, propter naturalia vincula quae rumpunt. Sollicitudo pro eugenismo vel pro curanda publica valetudine nullam possunt iustificare occisionem, licet haec a publicis praecipiatur potestatibus.

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

2269 Quintum praeceptum prohibet aliquid facere cum intentione mortem cuiusdam personae indirecte provocandi. Lex moralis vetat quemdam periculo mortis exponere sine causa gravi, et etiam auxilium recusare personae in discrimine constitutae.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.⁷⁰

A societate humana condiciones famis tolerari, quae mortem afferunt, quin nisus fiat ut eisdem remedium afferatur, scandalosa est iniustitia et gravis culpa. Negotiatores, quorum usurarii et mercatorii usus, suorum in humanitate fratrum famem et mortem provocant, indirecte committunt homicidium. Hoc illis est imputabile. ¹⁸⁰

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.

Homicidium involuntarium moraliter imputabile non est. Sed si quis, sine rationibus proportionatis, ita agit ut mortem adducat, etiam sine intentione illam apportandi, de gravi non excusatur culpa.

5.1. Catechism on Abortion

Abortion

Abortus

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life (⁷¹ Cf. CDF, Donum vitae I, 1.).

2270 Vita humana, a momento conceptionis, debet absolute observari et protegi. Creaturae humanae, inde a primo eius exsistentiae momento, agnosci debent personae iura, inter quae ius inviolabile omnis creaturae innocentis ad vitam. ¹⁸¹

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you (⁷² Jer 1:5; cf. Job 10:8-12; Ps 22:10-11.).

« Priusquam te formarem in utero, novi te et, antequam exires de vulva, sanctificavi te » (Ier 1,5).

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth(⁷³ Ps 139:15.).

« Non sunt abscondita ossa mea a Te, cum factus sum in occulto, contextus in inferioribus terrae » (Ps 139,15).

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

2271 Ecclesia, a saeculo primo, moralem affirmavit malitiam omnis abortus provocati. Haec doctrina mutata non est. Permanet immutabilis. Abortus directus, id est, tamquam finis vel tamquam medium volitus, legi morali est graviter contrarius:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.(⁷⁴ Didache 2, 2: SCh 248, 148; cf. Ep. Barnabae 19, 5: PG 2, 777; Ad Diognetum 5, 6: PG 2, 1173; Tertullian, Apol. 9: PL 1, 319-320.)

« Non interficies foetum in abortione neque interimes infantem natum ». ¹⁸²

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.(⁷⁵ GS 51 # 3.)

« Deus [...], Dominus vitae, praecellens servandi vitam ministerium hominibus commisit, modo homine digno adimplendum. Vita igitur inde a conceptione, maxima cura tuenda est; abortus necnon infanticidium nefanda sunt crimina ». ¹⁸³

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”(⁷⁶ CIC, can. 1398.)“by the very commission of the offense,”(⁷⁷ CIC, can. 1314.) and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.(⁷⁸ Cf. CIC, cann. 1323-1324.) The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2272 Formalis cooperatio ad abortum culpam constituit gravem. Ecclesia hoc contra vitam humanam delictum poena canonica punit excommunicationis. « Qui abortum procurat, effectu secuto, in excommunicationem latae sententiae incurrit », ¹⁸⁴ « ipso facto commissi delicti », ¹⁸⁵ condicionibus a iure praevisis. ¹⁸⁶ Ecclesia sic misericordiae campum restringere non intendit. Commissi criminis manifestat gravitatem, damnum irreparabile innocenti, qui morte afficitur, illatum, eius parentibus totique societati.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

2273 Ius inalienabile ad vitam uniuscuiusque hominis innocentis est elementum societatis civilis et eius legislationis constitutivum:

“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”(⁷⁹ CDF, Donum vitae III.)

« Inalienabilia personae iura agnosci atque observari debent a civili societate et a publicis auctoritatibus. Quae iura neque a singulis hominibus pendent, neque a parentibus, ac ne sunt quidem concessio a societate et a Civitate facta: verum ea pertinent ad humanam naturam, atque personae inhaerent vi creatricis actionis, a qua persona ipsa originem duxit. Inter haec fundamentalia iura, ad rem quod attinet, recolere oportet: ius ad vitam et ad corporis integritatem, quo unaquaeque creatura humana gaudet a conceptionis momento usque ad mortem ». ¹⁸⁷

“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”(⁸⁰ CDF, Donum vitae III.)

« Cum lex civilis cuidam hominum coetui praesidium aufert, quod lex praebere debet, eo ipso tunc respublica negat omnium civium aequalitatem coram lege. Cum respublica vim suam non adhibet ad iura uniuscuiusque tuenda, maxime debiliorum, tunc labefiunt ipsa fundamenta Civitatis legitime constitutae. [...] Ex observantia atque tutela quae nascituro debentur, inde a conceptionis momento, consequitur ut lex congruas poenas praevideat contra quamlibet deliberatam violationem iurium ipsius ». ¹⁸⁸

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

2274 Embryo, quippe qui tamquam persona, inde a conceptione, est tractandus, in sua integritate est defendendus, curandus et sanandus, quantum fieri potest, sicut quaelibet alia humana creatura.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.”(⁸¹ CDF, Donum vitae I, 2.)

Praenatalis diagnosis est moraliter licita, si « tuetur vitam et integritatem embryonis et fetus humani atque spectat ad singulum embryonem servandum vel curandum [...]. Ea tamen graviter legi morali adversatur, si, prout erit eius exitus, admittat abortum fieri posse: diagnosis [...] aequiparanda non est damnationi ad mortem ». ¹⁸⁹

2275 “One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.”(⁸² CDF, Donum vitae I, 3.)

2275 « Interventus in humano embryone liciti habendi sunt hac condicione, ut embryonis vitam integritatemque observent, ne secumferant pericula haud proportionata sed spectent ad morbi curationem, ad salutis statum in melius mutandum vel ad ipsius singularis fetus superstitem vitam in tuto ponendam ». ¹⁹⁰

“It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.”(⁸³ CDF, Donum vitae I, 5.)

« Morum [...] honestati contrarium est embryones humanos gignere ad abutendum, scilicet ut efficiantur "materia biologica", quae praesto sit ad usum ». ¹⁹¹

“Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity”(⁸⁴ CDF, Donum vitae I, 6.) which are unique and unrepeatable.

« Nonnulli conatus interveniendi in patrimonio cromosomico vel generativo non sunt therapeutici, sed spectant ad viventes humanos gignendos, selectos secundum sexum vel alias proprietates iam antea praestitutas. Huiusmodi artificiosae tractationes adversantur personali humanae creaturae dignitati eiusque integritati atque identitati » ¹⁹² unicae, non iterabili.

5.3. Euthanasia

Euthanasia

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2276 Illi, quorum vita impedita est vel infirmata, specialem postulant observantiam. Personae aegrotae vel aliqua incapacitate (handicap) laborantes sustineri debent ut vitam degant ita normalem, quantum fieri potest.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

2277 Euthanasia directa, quaecumque sunt eius motiva vel media, consistit in fine imponendo vitae personarum aliqua incapacitate (handicap) laborantium, aegrotarum vel morientium. Moraliter inacceptabilis est.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

Sic actio vel omissio quae, ex se vel in intentione, mortem causat ad dolorem supprimendum, occisionem constituit dignitati personae humanae et observantiae erga Deum viventem, eius Creatorem, graviter contrariam. Iudicii error, in quem quis bona fide incidere potest, naturam non mutat huius interficientis actus qui semper proscribendus est et excludendus. ^[(¹⁹³) Cf Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Decl. Iura et bona: AAS 72 (1980) 542-552.]

2278 5.4. Discintinuing Procedures - Palliative Care

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are [:]

2278 Cessatio a mediis medicinalibus,

burdensome,

dangerous,

extraordinary, or

disproportionate to the expected outcome

onerosis,

periculosis,

extraordinariis vel

talibus quae cum effectibus obtentis proportionata non sunt,

can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

2279 Etiamsi mors imminere consideretur, curae, quae ordinario personae aegrotae debentur, nequeunt legitime interrumpi. Analgesicorum medicamentorum usus ad moribundi dolores sublevandos, etiam cum periculo eius dies breviandi, potest esse dignitati humanae moraliter conformis, si mors neque ut finis neque ut medium est volita, sed solummodo praevisa et, tamquam inevitabilis, tolerata. Curae lenientes formam constituunt excellentem caritatis gratuitae. Hac ratione foveri debent.

5.6. Suicide

Suicide

Suicidium

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

2280 Unusquisque suae vitae est responsabilis coram Deo qui illam ei donavit. Ipse eius Dominus permanet summus. Tenemur eam cum gratitudine accipere et ad Ipsius honorem praeservare atque ad animarum nostrarum salutem. Vitae, quam Deus nobis concredidit, administratores sumus et non domini. De illa non disponimus.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2281 Suicidium naturali creaturae humanae contradicit inclinationi ad eius vitam conservandam et perpetuandam. Graviter iusto sui ipsius amori contrarium est. Pariter amorem offendit proximi, quia iniuste solidarietatis frangit vincula cum societatibus familiari, nationali et humanae, erga quas obligati permanemus. Suicidium amori Dei viventis est contrarium.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

2282 Suicidium, si intentione committitur ut exemplo sit, praesertim iuvenibus, gravitatem etiam sumit scandali. Cooperatio voluntaria ad suicidium est legi morali contraria.

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

Graves perturbationes psychicae, angustia vel gravis timor probationis, doloris vel cruciatus responsabilitatem se ipsum interficientis possunt imminuere.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

2283 De salute aeterna personarum, quae sibi ipsis mortem intulerunt, desperari non debet. Deus potest, viis, quas solus Ipse noscit, occasionem illis praebere salutaris poenitentiae. Ecclesia orat pro personis quae vitae suae intulerunt vim.