|
2. Specific Questions
The author maintains
that contraceptive methods which intervene after fertilization and before implantation, are not abortifacient.
He maintains that, generally speaking, they cannot be considered morally licit
means of birth control;24 however, they are morally acceptable “in
situations of particular gravity, when it is impossible to have recourse to
other means”.25 The author applies this same standard of judgment to
sterilization, stating that in some situations it does not pose a moral
problem, “given that the intention is to achieve a human good in a responsible
way”.26 Both these positions are contrary to the teaching of the
Church.27
The author holds that
the doctrine of the Church on homosexuality possesses a certain coherence, but
does not enjoy an adequate biblical foundation28 and suffers from
significant conditioning29 and ambiguities.30 It reflects the
defects present “in the entire historical construct of Christian sexual
ethics”.31 In the moral evaluation of homosexuality, the author adds,
one must “adopt a provisional attitude”, formulated “from the perspective of
inquiry and openness”.32 For the person who is irreversibly homosexual,
a coherent Christian commitment “does not necessarily lead to the rigid
morality of either becoming heterosexual or total abstinence”.33 These
positions are incompatible with Catholic doctrine, according to which there is
a precise and well-founded evaluation of the objective morality of sexual
relations between persons of the same sex.34 The degree of subjective
moral culpability in individual cases is not the issue here.
The author asserts that
the “gravity ex toto genere
suo of masturbation” has not been
established.35 In fact, personal conditions are objective elements of
this behaviour and therefore “it is not correct to create an ‘objective
abstraction’ from personal conditioning and make an evaluation that is
universally valid from an objective point of view”.36 “Not every act of
masturbation is ‘objectively grave matter’”.37 In this view, the
judgment of Catholic moral teaching, according to which acts of autoeroticism
are objectively intrinsically evil, would not be correct.38
With regard to
responsible parenthood, the author states that none of the present methods of
birth control is good in every respect. “It is inconsistent and dangerous to
make an overall moral evaluation based on one particular method”.39
While it is the responsibility of the Magisterium to
give positive and negative guidance on the use of the various
methods,40 if conflicts of conscience arise, “the fundamental principle
of the inviolability of the moral conscience would continue to be
valid”.41 But even prescinding from conflict
situations, “the moral use of strictly contraceptive methods must be the object
of the responsible discernment of the married couple”.42 Among the
various criteria presented by the author to guide this discernment,43
there is no reference to the objective and binding character of the moral norm
contained in the Encyclical Humanae vitae44
and in other documents of the papal Magisterium
before45 and after.46
On homologous in vitro
fertilization, the author distances himself from the teaching of the
Church.47 “With regard to fertilization limited to a husband and wife
(‘the simple case’), we hold that it cannot be rejected...”.48 If the
likelihood of risk to the unborn child is removed as far as possible, and there
is a reasonable proportion between the failures and the well-founded hope for
success, and the human condition of the embryo is always respected, then
“homologous artificial fertilization cannot be declared immoral in
principle”.49
Moral de Actitudes also contains ambiguous judgments on other specific
moral problems, for example, on married couples having recourse to artificial
insemination with the sperm of a donor,50 on heterologous in vitro fertilization51, and on
abortion. The author rightly affirms the overall immorality of abortion;
however, his position on therapeutic abortion is ambiguous.52
In his discussion of the possibility of medical intervention in some very
difficult cases, it is not clear whether he is referring to what has
traditionally been called “indirect abortion”, or if he admits the lawfulness
of procedures which do not come under this category. His statements on eugenic
abortion are similarly ambiguous.53 On abortion legislation, the author
correctly asserts that abortion cannot be considered an individual right;54
nevertheless, he goes on to state that “not all liberalization of laws [on
abortion] is directly contrary to ethics”.55 The author seems to be
referring to laws that depenalize abortion.56
There are, however, different types of depenalization;
some in practice constitute the legalization of abortion and the others are not
acceptable according to Catholic teaching.57 Since the context of the
author’s statement is not sufficiently clear, it is not possible for the reader
to determine what form of abortion depenalization is
not considered “directly contrary to ethics”.
The Congregation notes
with satisfaction the steps already taken by the author and his willingness to
follow the documents of the Magisterium, and trusts
that his collaboration with the Doctrinal Commission of the Spanish Episcopal
Conference will result in a text suitable for the formation of students in
moral theology.
With this Notification,
the Congregation also wishes to encourage moral theologians to pursue the task
of renewing moral theology, in particular through deeper study of fundamental
moral theology and through precise use of the theological-moral methodology, in
keeping with the teaching of the Encyclical Veritatis
splendor and with a true sense of their
responsibility to the Church.
The Sovereign Pontiff
John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect on
February 9, 2001, in light of the further developments, confirmed his approval of
the present Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation,
and ordered its publication.
Rome, from
the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, February 22, 2001, the
Feast of the Chair of Peter, Apostle.
+ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect
+ Tarcisio Bertone,
S.D.B.
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary
|