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