What is the Position of the Catholic Church on Organ Donation?




How does the Magisterium of the Catholic Church view research on embryos obtained through In Vitro Fertilization?

According to Donum Vitae: 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”. In the usual practice of in vitro fertilization, not all of the embryos are transferred to the woman’s body; some are destroyed. Just as the Church condemns induced abortion, so she also forbids acts against the life of these human beings.

It is a duty to condemn the particular gravity of the voluntary destruction of human embryos obtained ‘in vitro’ for the sole purpose of research, either by means of artificial insemination of by means of “twin fission”.


Methods of observation or experimentation which damage or impose grave and disproportionate risks upon embryos obtained in vitro are morally illicit for the same reasons. Every human being is to be respected for himself, and cannot be reduced in worth to a pure and simple instrument for the advantage of others. It is therefore not in conformity with the moral law deliberately to expose to death human embryos obtained ‘in vitro’. In consequence of the fact that they have been produced in vitro, those embryos which art not transferred into the body of the mother and are called “spare” are exposed to an absurd fate, with no possibility of their being offered safe means of survival which can be licitly pursued.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect For Human Life In Its Origin And On The Dignity Pf Procreation Replies To Certain Questions Of The Day, #5.


Is prenatal testing allowable by the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church?

According to Donum Vitae: For prenatal diagnosis makes it possible to know the condition of the embryo and of the fetus when still in the mother’s womb. It permits, or makes it possible to anticipate earlier and more effectively, certain therapeutic, medical or surgical procedures. Such diagnosis is permissible, with the consent of the parents after they have been adequately informed, if the methods employed safeguard the life and integrity of the embryo and the mother, without subjecting them to disproportionate risks.





Is Condom Use Morally Justified for Serodiscordant HIV Couples?

HIV/AIDS has continued to ravage developing countries of the world especially Sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa generates no more than 1 percent of the total wealth produced in the world. Yet it is the home of 10% of the world’s population, lives on 1% of the global economy, and carries 68% of the world’s HIV/AIDS burden. WHO estimates that in 2014 only about 41% of people living with HIV were able to access life-saving medications. Given the epidemic nature of this disease and the lack of cure, is condom use morally justified to prevent the spread of the disease in serodiscordant couples? The Church teaches that condoms and all other related methods of birth control sever the unitive and procreative significance inherent in the marital act. Humanae Vitae prohibits “any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation” (no. 14). In addition, the U.S Catholic Bishops assert that “The use of prophylactics to prevent the spread of HIV is technically unreliable. Moreover, advocating this approach means in effect, promoting behavior which is morally unacceptable. Campaigns advocating ‘safe/safer’ sex rest on false assumptions about sexuality and intercourse.”

However, Pope Benedict XVI, in his 2010 book-length interview, “Light of the World,” hypothesized that use of a condom to prevent infection could be a first step toward moral responsibility. He used the example of a male prostitute. The Pope’s remarks have been criticized by some as a deviation from the Church’s position on contraception and supported by numerous moral theologians and ethicists. On Dec 21, 2010 Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) expounded on the Pope’s remarks and stated that “those who know themselves to be infected with HIV and who therefore run the risk of infecting others, apart from committing a sin against the sixth commandment are also committing a sin against the fifth commandment – because they are consciously putting the lives of others at risk through behavior which has repercussions on public health.” The Note concludes that “those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another – even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity.” Similarly, the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference (who carry the greatest burden of HIV/AIDS) asserted in the 2001 pastoral letter that in a case of a married serodiscordant couple, the use of condom to prevent the spread of the disease to the spouse was acceptable. This position was based on the principle that everyone has the right to defend one’s life against mortal danger. Furthermore, moral theologians and ethicists argue that “a married man who is HIV-infected and uses the condom to protect his wife from infection is not acting to render procreation impossible, but to prevent infection. If conception is prevented, this will be an –unintentional – side-effect and will not therefore shape the moral meaning of the act as a contraceptive act” (Rhonheimer, 2004). These views are anchored on two moral principles: Lesser of Two Evils and Double Effect. Finally, the Church has always taught that individuals can follow their well-formed consciences in difficult situation:  “Catholics with a well-formed conscience can decide to use contraceptives ‘in cases of particular emergency.'” This decision must follow only after a “serious discernment of conscience” (National Catholic Reporter, Feb, 2016).








Declaration on Euthanasia:




What is the Catholic Church’s position on suicide and Physician-Assisted Suicide?




  1. No one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God’s love for that person, without violating a fundamental right, and therefore without committing a crime of the utmost gravity.[4]
  2. Everyone has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God’s plan. That life is entrusted to the individual as a good that must bear fruit already here on earth, but that finds its full perfection only in eternal life.
  3. Intentionally causing one’s own death, or suicide, is therefore equally as wrong as murder; such an action on the part of a person is to be considered as a rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan. Furthermore, suicide is also often a refusal of love for self, the denial of a natural instinct to live, a flight from the duties of justice and charity owed to one’s neighbor, to various communities or to the whole of society – although, as is generally recognized, at times there are psychological factors present that can diminish responsibility or even completely remove it. However, one must clearly distinguish suicide from that sacrifice of one’s life whereby for a higher cause, such as God’s glory, the salvation of souls or the service of one’s brethren, a person offers his or her own life or puts it in danger (cf. Jn. 15:14).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia,
May 5, 1980

 II.  Catechism of the Catholic Church:














Is the Catholic Church against all forms of stem cell research?

The answer is No. The Catholic Church is only against some forms of Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) that entail the destruction of human embryos. Stem cells are cells that develop very early in the human embryo after fertilization. Stem cells “have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body during early life and growth. In addition, in many tissues they serve as a sort of internal repair system, dividing essentially without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential either to remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell” (National Institute of Health, Stem Cell Basics, 2015). Proponents of ESCR believe it has the potential of being a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues that could treat plethora of diseases such as Parkinson’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, burns, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis and many more. They argue that since ESCR hold these “great” potentials, it is justified to experiment on embryonic stem cells retrieved by any means available (induce abortion of early embryos to retrieve their stem cells, produce/create embryos in vitro for the sole purpose of research, use “leftover” embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF) and so on. The end in this context justifies the means. On the contrary, the moral objection to some forms of ESCR stems from the fact that stem cells harvested from living 3-5 days old embryos (blastocysts) will ultimately result in the destruction of a young human being. This objection against ESCR does not imply opposition to stem cell research generally. Most types of stem cell research (especially adult stem cell research) and morally acceptable forms of ESCR are encouraged. Stem cells can be derived from these morally acceptable sources: Embryonic Germ Cells (from miscarriages or spontaneous abortions and not elective abortions), Umbilical Cord Stem Cells, Placenta-derived Stem Cells, Post-Natally Derived (Adult) Stem cells, De-Differentiation Strategies (provided it doesn’t go so far as to make a human embryo), and Reprogramming Strategies (as long it generates a distinctly non-embryonic entity).

The Church’s objection to some forms of stem cell research is expressed in Donum Vitae no. 4: “Medical research must refrain from operations on live embryos, unless there is a moral certainty of not causing harm to the life or integrity of the unborn child and the mother, and on condition that the parents have givers their free and informed consent to the procedure. It follows that all research, even when limited to the simple observation of the embryo, would become illicit were it to involve risk to the embryo’s physical integrity or life by reason of the methods used or the effects induced. As regards experimentation, and presupposing the general distinction between experimentation for purposes which are not directly therapeutic and experimentation which is clearly therapeutic for the subject himself, in the case in point one must also distinguish between experimentation carried out on embryos which are still alive and experimentation carried out on embryos which are dead. If the embryos are living, whether viable or not, they must be respected just like any other human person; experimentation on embryos which is not directly therapeutic is illicit. (29) No objective, even though noble in itself, such as a foreseeable advantage to science, to other human beings or to society, can in any way justify experimentation on living human embryos or fetuses, whether viable or not, either inside or outside the mother’s womb” (Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, 1987).




Is Surrogate Motherhood Ethical for the Roman Catholic Church?


* By “surrogate mother” the Instruction means:

  1. 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 the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy.
  2. 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.


Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction On Respect for Human Life In Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day.