The author argues that genetic technologies can never be fully sepa­rated from their eugenic ends. Because of this, the Church’s sexual ethic must be integrated with its social teaching to respond faithfully to ethical issues that arise with the use of genetic technologies. The author discusses, first, the Catholic opposition to eugenics from the turn of the twentieth century to the official papal condemnation of eugenics in 1930; next, the Church’s reaction to advances in DNA research in the 1950s and 60s; and finally, the shift from optimism to caution from the 1970s on, as new genetic technologies emerged in embryonic stem cell research, genetic counseling, and gene therapy. The author explores both the sources on which the Church has drawn in responding to genetic advances and the social issues that should prove fruitful for con­templation in the future.

As moral standards, natural law and the notion of properly functioning human nature have persisted in Western cultures from the dawn of civilization. Medieval Christians developed it in their theologies. However, Enlightenment criticism of medieval thought undermined the credibility of natural law and its authority for modern man. Jacques Maritain (1882–1973) developed a rational foundation for natural law and sought to provide objectivity to natural law precepts. His theory also reestablishes the divine authority of natural law for a world without faith. Maritain locates the primary disclosure of natural law in the conscience’s moral reflection in a controversial act of pre-conceptual or non-conceptual knowledge called connatural knowledge.

When William May first wrote Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life, his position was that to perform a craniotomy on a child to save the mother’s life constitutes a direct abortion and is not justifiable. In later editions, May rejected his earlier position in favor of one he originally argued against, most notably by Germain Grisez. The author maintains that the argu­ments surrounding craniotomies on the unborn are still of major relevance today, because they relate directly to certain controversial techniques used to manage ectopic pregnancies. He also argues that May’s original conclusion ought to be upheld, and that May’s later conclusion places too much weight on the interior intention of the actor and not enough on the act itself.

This article offers a detailed response to a recent article in this Journal (Winter 2014) by Charles Robertson titled “A Thomistic Analysis of Embryo Adoption.” A careful review of important terminology that is used in both Donum vitae and Dignitas personae was undertaken, and a summary is included to help define frequently misleading and even mistaken concepts and terms that can often lead to erroneous conclusions. This article focuses on Donum vitae I.3 and n. 2275 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which provide strong magiste­rial support for the liceity of embryo transfer and, ultimately, for the morality of embryo adoption as the only moral solution for “orphaned” embryos. The conclusion offers a faithful interpretation and resolution of the difficult passages in Donum vitae I.5 and Dignitas personae n. 19 regarding the magisterial liceity of both embryo transfer and embryo adoption.

Antifertility vaccination is a proposed method of contraception that induces infertility through an immunological response to specific reproductive targets. The following essay analyzes several peer-reviewed articles to identify these potential targets and then determines the bioethical implications of vac­cine use through the lens of Thomistic personalism. Vaccines that intentionally utilize a contraceptive action violate the principles of totality, integrity, and inseparability; while vaccines that intentionally utilize a contragestive action additionally violate the principles of inviolability of human life and non-maleficence. An exception may exist in cases where application is directed at the treatment of specific pathologies. These cases may be tolerated using the principle of double effect when certain conditions are met. Furthermore, the safeguarding of informed consent may prove problematic if contraception is integrated with established vaccine programs.