Sterility and Marital Fruitfulness in the Documents of the Magisterium: A Critical Appraisal

Abstract

For those of reproductive age, the decision to marry in the Catholic Church is one that expresses the desire for a fruitful married life. The teachings of the Catholic Magisterium provide a substantial and constructive dialogue about marital fruitfulness as it relates to the bearing and raising of children but a more adequate theological and pastoral response is needed for Catholic couples who remain childless after exhausting morally upright medical procedures for assisting reproduction. This commentary provides a critical appraisal of the documents of the Magisterium dating from the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law through to the present. The appraisal traces the development of the Magisterium’s teaching on sterility and marital fruitfulness by examining these documents chronologically in three periods: 1917 to 1965, 1966 to 2008 and 2009 to the present.

The Desire for a Fruitful Marriage

The Catholic Church fervently emphasises the blessing that children are to married couples. Its official rites and teachings describe them as the ‘supreme gift of Marriage’ and ‘ultimate crown’ of both matrimony itself and conjugal love (Order of Celebrating Matrimony 2015, ix; Second Vatican Council [1965] 1988, sec. 48). It has staunchly defended the personhood of the unborn, remained unwavering in its opposition to contraception, spoken consistently against assisted reproductive techniques that separate the procreative and unitive aspects of marriage and worked tirelessly to safeguard the family. The Catechism of the Catholic Church even describes having many children as ‘a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church [1992] 2000, para. 2373). In short, those who choose to marry in the Catholic Church are left with no uncertainty that having children aligns with both God’s plan for fruitful marriages and the Church’s intention for all married couples. For those of reproductive age, the decision to marry in the Catholic Church is therefore also a decision to hope for and welcome biological children into the family. It is a decision that expresses the deep desire for a fruitful married life.

The teachings of the Catholic Magisterium provide a substantial and constructive dialogue about marital fruitfulness as it relates to the bearing and raising of children. But what do the teachings say about marital fruitfulness for Catholic couples who remain childless after exhausting morally upright medical procedures for assisting reproduction? The intent of this brief commentary is to critically appraise the Magisterium’s teaching on marital fruitfulness and sterility from the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law through to the present. In particular, it is to consider the significance of these teachings for sterile Catholic couples, and in doing so highlight the need for ongoing theological and pastoral dialogue in this area.

From Code to Council: 1917 to 1965

From the time of the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law to the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council in 1965, the limited references to sterility by the Magisterium are found within the broader context of writings about the relationship between marriage and procreation. The mentions of sterility during this time essentially appear as side notes or acknowledgements of the undesirable counter-reality to child bearing rather than as a substantial dialogue for sterile couples.

The earliest reference to sterility in the documents of the Magisterium is found in Canon 1068 of the Pio-Benedictine code and states that ‘sterility neither impedes nor [renders illicit] marriage’ (1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code [1917] 2001, 1068.3). The inclusion of this canon served to clarify a potential ambiguity created by Canon 1013.1 of the code which described marriage according to its ‘ends’ and ‘properties’.

• §1. The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; the secondary [end] is mutual support and a remedy for concupiscence.

• §2. The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain special firmness by reason of the sacrament.

By assigning primacy to procreation in this way, the canonists had placed sterile couples in a position where they were unable to fulfil the stated primary end of their vocation. The inclusion of Canon 1068 therefore served to clarify that a marriage was still considered valid even when a couple was sterile. The ‘ends’ formulation ignited heated debate throughout the first half of the twentieth century about the nature of marriage, the precise meaning of these ‘ends’ and the relationship between them. ¹ Although child bearing and the raising of a family had long been inextricably connected with marriage, never before had Catholic doctrine placed it so unequivocally at the very heart and centre of what it meant to be married.

Sterility was only a side issue in the debate, and references to this condition appeared infrequently during this period. ² In his 1930 encyclical, Casti connubii, Pope Pius XI indicated that although a child holds the ‘first place’ amongst the blessings of marriage (Pius XI 1930, sec. 11), couples are not acting against nature when they engage in the conjugal act even when ‘on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth’ (Pius XI 1930 sec. 59). ³ His successor, Pope Pius XII, also wrote briefly about sterility. In his Address to Midwives on the Nature of their Profession, he said:

With what delicacy and charm does the Sacred Scripture show the gracious crown of children united around the father’s table! Children are the recompense of the just, as sterility is very often the punishment of the sinner. Hearken to the divine word expressed with the insuperable poetry of the Psalm: ‘Your wife, as a fruitful vine within your house, your children as olive shoots round about your table. Behold, thus is that man blessed, who fears the Lord!’ while of the wicked it is written: ‘May his posterity be given over to destruction; may their name be blotted out in the next generation.’ (Pius XII 1951)

As the content of Pius XII’s full address demonstrates, the pope’s intention was to emphasise the gift of a child and not to enter into a dialogue about sterility. Nevertheless, he could have achieved this same purpose without needing to contrast the ‘blessing’ of fertility with the ‘punishment’ of sterility. We might wonder whether the Old Covenant understanding of sterility still prevailed in the mind of the pope and Magisterium, or whether he was simply ignorant of the significance of his words for sterile couples and the need for greater sensitivity. ⁴ In either case, we can see that the very limited teachings of the Magisterium at this time were inadequate for those unable to have children.

The renewal of the Church at Vatican II brought a decisive shift away from the language of the ‘ends’ of marriage to instead describe it as a covenant of conjugal love and a call to holiness (Buck 2012, 451; Garcia de Haro 1993, 99, 101). With this change toward a more personalist understanding and presentation of marriage, also came a shift in the way that sterility was spoken about in the documents of the Magisterium. For instance, Gaudium et spes indicates:

But marriage is not merely for the procreation of children … Even in cases where despite the intense desire of the spouses there are no children, marriage still retains its character of being a whole manner and communion of life and preserves its value and indissolubility. (Second Vatican Council [1965] 1988, sec. 50)

Despite the significance of this acknowledgement, the conciliar texts continued to leave no doubt about the primacy of procreation. ⁵ In fact, the superlative language used by the council documents to describe children and procreation in such glorious ways had, and continues to have, the real potential to unintentionally amplify the anguish of sterile couples. For example, Gaudium et spes states:

Marriage and married love are by nature ordered to the procreation and education of children. Indeed children are the supreme gift of marriage and greatly contribute to the good of the parents themselves ... Without intending to underestimate the other ends of marriage, it must be said that true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it is directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Saviour, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day. (Second Vatican Council [1965] 1988, sec. 50)

Although Gaudium et spes is intentionally void of the explicit assertion that procreation is the primary end of marriage, the document nevertheless reflects the Council Fathers’ desire to affirm its primordial importance and maintain the traditional hierarchy of the primary and secondary ends (Haas 2013, 348–349).

We can conclude that the Magisterial writings on sterility up until this time were very limited and little more than an appendage to those on procreation. But as the sun was setting on the Second Vatican Council, both the Church and society at large found themselves confronted by a rapidly changing world that would have the effect of bringing sterility to the attention of the Magisterium in an inescapable way.

Humanae vitae to Dignitas Personae: 1966 to 2008

In the years that followed the Second Vatican Council, the relationship between the procreative and unitive dimensions of conjugal love faced unprecedented threats: first, from the rapid and widespread uptake of contraception to prevent pregnancy; and second, from the emergence of artificial reproductive technologies to achieve pregnancy. For sterile couples, the writings of the Magisterium that emerged in response to these challenges proved complicated. On the one hand, they provided a deeper theology of marriage and an enriched understanding of the fruitfulness of conjugal love as it extended beyond procreation. On the other hand, the Magisterium remained guarded in its writings on the fruitfulness of conjugal love in the absence of children and failed to seize important opportunities to speak to the hearts of sterile couples.

Written in the wake of the Second Vatican Council and in direct response to the increasingly widespread use of contraception, Humanae vitae (Paul VI 1968) might seem an unlikely inclusion in this brief appraisal (after all, sterile couples do not need to concern themselves with trying to avoid pregnancy). Nevertheless, it had significant implications for sterile couples in a number of ways. In the first instance, Humanae vitae provided a much fuller treatment of married love than had previously been provided, describing its features and exigencies in a holistic sense – fully human, total, faithful, and fruitful (Paul VI 1968, sec. 9). In doing so, it offered sterile spouses a deeper sense of their marriage vocation as it extended well beyond their procreative capacity. Also, importantly for sterile couples, the encyclical letter articulated the inherent value of sexual intercourse even when, due to natural reasons, it was known that procreation was very unlikely to result. It identified that under these circumstances ‘they [the couple] use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another’ (Paul VI 1968, sec. 16). Although this statement referred to fertile couples making use of infertile periods, it was nevertheless the first time that the Magisterium had articulated the unitive aspect of sexual intercourse so explicitly in such instances.

Significantly, however, the encyclical is virtually silent on the topic of sterility despite the pastoral implications of its strong procreative focus for sterile spouses. By emphasising the generosity of those with many children and the divinely appointed connection between the procreative and unitive aspects of marriage (Paul VI 1968, sec. 10, 12), the encyclical inadvertently reinforced the suffering of those unable to be generous in this way or give expression to this divinely appointed connection. We might wonder why the pope chose not to provide words of consolation for sterile couples, or celebrate the intrinsic fruitfulness of all marriages, including those without children. In an encyclical letter aimed at encouraging procreation and dissuading contraceptive use and optional childlessness, it was perhaps considered prudent to exclude any discourse that might be misconstrued as support for deliberate childlessness. Nevertheless, this notable lacuna is significant for sterile spouses who are left with only a heightened sense of their inability to have children. ⁶

More than ten years and two papacies later, it was clear to Pope John Paul II that marriage and the family were being substantially affected by the ‘profound and rapid changes’ taking place in society and culture (John Paul II 1981, sec. 1). Deeply concerned by this, the pope promulgated his 1981 apostolic exhortation, Familiaris consortio, explaining that ‘the Church wishes to speak and offer her help … to every person who wonders about the destiny of marriage and the family’ (John Paul II 1981, sec. 1). It therefore seems both fitting and unsurprising that Familiaris consortio provides what might be considered the first ‘constructive’ discussion of sterility in the documents of the Magisterium. Pope John Paul II wrote:

It must not be forgotten however, that, even when procreation is not possible, conjugal life does not for this reason lose its value. Physical sterility in fact can be for spouses the occasion for other important services to the life of the human person, for example, adoption, various forms of educational work, and assistance to other families and to poor or handicapped children. (John Paul II 1981, sec. 1)

And then further:

The fruitfulness of conjugal love is not restricted solely to the procreation of children, even understood in its specifically human dimension: it is enlarged and enriched by all those fruits of moral, spiritual and supernatural life which the father and mother are called to hand on to their children, and through the children to the Church and to the world. (John Paul II 1981, sec. 28)

And then again:

Fruitful married love expresses itself in serving in many ways. Of these ways, begetting and educating children are the most immediate, specific and irreplaceable. In fact, every act of true love towards a human being bears witness to and perfects the spiritual fecundity of the family, since it is an act of obedience to the deep inner dynamism of love as self-giving to others. For everyone this perspective is full of value and commitment, and it can be an inspiration in particular for couples who experience physical sterility. (John Paul II 1981, sec. 41)

Here, for the first time, the Magisterium provided sterile couples with some sense of how the fruitfulness of their marital love might be expressed in the absence of children. Significantly, the pope emphasised the intrinsic spiritual fruitfulness of all marriages and embedded the begetting of children within the broader context of various expressions of fruitful married love. The many citations of Familiaris consortio in subsequent writings of the Magisterium indicate the significance of this exhortation to the Magisterial teachings on sterility.

The 1983 revised Code of Canon Law sought to reflect the changes in thought and language that had been expressed by Gaudium et spes and in the Magisterial teachings on marriage that had followed. In particular, it provided a broader theological presentation of marriage in comparison to the strictly legal approach of its predecessor. Canon 1055.1 stated:

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptised. (Code of Canon Law [1983] 1998, 1055.1)

Significantly for sterile couples, this canon defined marriage more holistically, with an emphasis on the sacred reality of the marriage covenant in preference to the language of a legal contract (Beal, Coriden, and Green 2000, 1241–1242; Örsy 1988, 46–48). In doing so, the canon reflected a greater focus on the interpersonal aspect of marriage as a mutual personal commitment of the spouses to share every aspect of their lives with one another (Beal, Coriden, and Green 2000, 1241–1242). So too, the canon presented the ‘good of the spouses’ and ‘the procreation and education of offspring’ as joint ends of marriage without ascribing primacy to either. There has been disagreement among the canonists as to the precise meaning of the ‘good of the spouses’, but we hear echoes from Gaudium et spes which outlined:

Married love is an eminently human love because it is an affection between two persons rooted in the will and it embraces the good of the whole person; it can enrich the sentiments of the spirit and their physical expression with a unique dignity and ennoble them as the special elements and signs of the friendship proper to marriage. (Second Vatican Council [1965] 1988, sec. 49)

Although the revised canon law made no explicit reference to the fruitfulness of marriage, we might nevertheless wonder whether the ‘good of the spouses’ goes some way toward recognising the spiritual fruitfulness of marriage that is reflected in the sentiments of Gaudium et spes and explicitly named in Familiaris consortio. Like the 1917 code, the revised law also included a canon confirming that sterility did not prohibit or nullify a marriage but otherwise made no further explicit reference to sterility (Code of Canon Law [1983] 1998, 1084.3).

By the mid-1980s the Church faced a new challenge, and one that pertained exclusively to sterile couples: the emergence and rapid uptake of artificial reproductive biotechnologies. ⁷ Recognising the threat that this presented to the relationship between marriage and procreation, the Magisterium found itself needing to respond to the issue of sterility directly for the first time. To this day, the resulting instruction, Donum vitae: Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1987, remains the most substantial Magisterial document pertaining to sterility.

Donum vitae is divided into three parts, with Part II: Interventions Upon Human Procreation being of the greatest significance for sterile couples. This section sets forth explicit explanations regarding the moral failings of assisted reproductive techniques that separate human procreation from the conjugal act, with a particular focus on in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and embryo transfer (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 1987, sec. II). The document provides only a brief, but nevertheless significant discussion of the suffering of sterile couples, suggesting that ‘spouses who find themselves in this sad situation are called to find in it an opportunity for sharing in a particular way in the Lord’s cross, the source of spiritual fruitfulness’ (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 1987, sec. II.B.8). It cites Familiaris consortio, reaffirming that physical sterility can provide couples with an opportunity to express the fruitfulness of their conjugal love in other ways such as adoption, educational work and assistance to others (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 1987, sec. II.B.8). In doing so, Donum vitae draws together the broader understanding of the fruitfulness of conjugal love that was articulated throughout Familiaris consortio, with the spiritual fecundity of the cross, thereby providing a clear point of departure for theologically exploring the fruitfulness of sterile marriages.

Despite the significance of this revelation for sterile couples, Donum vitae overwhelmingly reads as an explanation of ‘what not to do’ if you are sterile rather than as a constructive discourse on the fruitfulness of conjugal love for sterile couples. This disproportionate emphasis again highlights the challenge that sterility presented to the Church. As we have observed, in the years that preceded the emergence of reproductive biotechnologies, the Magisterium had consistently and overtly espoused the importance of procreation. It had left no uncertainty about the great gift that children were to married couples and it had been unequivocal in its condemnation of contraception and optional childlessness. In light of this, it seems unsurprising that sterile Catholic couples might seek to use these new artificial reproductive techniques to join their fertile brothers and sisters in celebrating the joy of bearing biological children. We might even ask whether some couples felt that it was a morally neutral (or even morally preferable) approach to take given the personal, familial, social and ecclesial expectations around having children. It is true that by this time the Magisterium had already made it clear that the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage were inseparable. But until now the purpose of this teaching had been to safeguard the procreative potential of the conjugal act and not to prevent couples from using alternative methods to the conjugal act for procreation. We therefore cannot simply assume that the full meaning of this teaching was clear to sterile couples at this time.

Given the potential for this confusion, we can understand why the Magisterium needed to respond with explicit teachings about the illicit nature of artificial reproductive techniques that separated the procreative process from the unitive aspect of marriage. Nevertheless, we might wonder why the Church did not also seize this moment as an opportunity to provide a sustained, substantial and constructive dialogue about marital fruitfulness that could speak to sterile couples who were searching and desiring to express the fruitfulness of their marriage. As suggested in the earlier discussion of Humanae vitae, perhaps the Magisterium felt that such a dialogue around sterility might be mistakenly taken to condone optional childlessness.

The publication of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church brought together a number of teachings from preceding documents relating to procreation, marital fruitfulness and sterility. The sections of greatest significance to sterile couples seeking to understand the fruitfulness of their conjugal love include those titled: The openness to fertility (§1652–1654); The fecundity of marriage (§2366–2372); and The gift of a child (§2373–2379).

Despite its heading, The openness to fertility section of the Catechism (§1652–1654) provides little by way of explicit teaching on ‘openness to fertility’ per se. Instead, paragraph 1652 emphasises the ordering of marriage to procreation and quotes Gaudium et spes in extolling the great gift of a child. Once again, the superlative language used has the effect of inadvertently reinforcing the suffering of sterility:

1652 “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory” (Second Vatican Council [1965] 1988, sec. 48.1, 50).

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female;” wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day (Second Vatican Council [1965] 1988, sec. 50.1; Gen 2: 18; Mt 19:4; Gen 1:28).

Significantly for sterile couples, Paragraph 1653 and particularly paragraph 1654 point toward the broader understanding of marital fruitfulness identified in Familiaris consortio and Donum vitae. Paragraph 1654 provides encouragement for sterile couples:

1654 Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.

Given the inclusion of this expanded notion of fruitfulness, it would perhaps have been more appropriate to title this section The openness to fruitfulness, and to also include a paragraph explicitly emphasising the necessary disposition of openness to God to welcome whatever fruits He bestows on a couple, including but not limited to the blessing of children.

Unfortunately, the section of the Catechism titled The fecundity of marriage (§2366–2372) is significant for sterile couples because of what it is lacking rather than because of what it includes. The paragraphs in this section relate exclusively to procreative fruitfulness which is but one aspect of the ‘fecundity of marriage’ (albeit an exceptional one). Given the broader understanding of marital fruitfulness affirmed in paragraph 1654, we might wonder why this has not been reflected in a section so boldly titled.

It is under the heading The gift of a child (§2373–2379) that sterility is most extensively addressed in the Catechism. It appears that the primary purpose of this section is to provide explicit teachings about the use of artificial reproductive techniques, and to emphasise that every child is a gift to his or her parents, rather than something owed to them as a right. Once again referencing Gaudium et spes, the section begins with paragraph 2373 highlighting that ‘large families are a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity’. This paragraph seems an unnecessarily poignant way to begin the only section of the Catechism that specifically pertains to those struggling to have a family, let alone a ‘large’ one. Paragraph 2374 goes on to recognise the suffering of sterile couples:

2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. “What will you give me,” asks Abraham of God, “for I continue childless?” (Gen 15:2) And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, “Give me children, or I shall die!” (Gen 30:1).

Paragraphs 2375–2377 deal specifically with the morality of reproductive techniques and so do not contribute anything specifically to a discussion of marital fruitfulness in the persisting absence of biological children. Paragraph 2378 again draws on Gaudium et spes as well as Donum vitae to emphasise the child as a ‘gift’ – the ‘supreme gift of marriage’ – rather than something owed to a couple.

Paragraph 2379 is perhaps the most significant paragraph in the Catechism with respect to sterility. Like Donum vitae, it explicitly establishes the fruitfulness of sterile Christian marriages with reference to the fecundity of the cross and thereby provides a point of departure for further theological exploration.

2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.

Sterile couples may justifiably feel uneasy that this paragraph begins by declaring that sterility is not ‘an absolute evil’, as though there might otherwise be some doubt about this being the case. Regrettably, the framing of this sentence obscures the meaning that was presumably intended by the Magisterium: that although sterility is a physical evil- in that it is the privation of the good of fertility- God can nevertheless bring great good from the consequences of this evil (Catechism of the Catholic Church [1992] 2000, para. 312). Understood in this way, the remainder of the paragraph logically follows: first, identifying that union with the cross is the necessary condition for this spiritual fruitfulness; and second, by providing examples of how this might be concretely expressed.

Twenty years after the issuing of Donum vitae, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (2008) prepared Instruction Dignitas personae on Certain Bioethical Questions with the aim of updating the teachings of Donum vitae in light of new artificial reproductive techniques. After outlining the anthropological, theological and ethical aspects of human life and procreation, the second part of the instruction discusses ‘New Problems Concerning Procreation’ (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2008). Although the document is self-evidently relevant to sterile married couples, it does not further the constructive dialogue of Familiaris consortio or the link between the broader spiritual fruitfulness of marriage and the fruitfulness of the cross articulated in Donum vitae and Article 2379 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Rather, Dignitas personae is concerned fundamentally with highlighting and delineating the illicit nature of particular techniques for assisting reproduction with a focus on those developed since the writing of Donum vitae.

It is also worth mentioning the short address Right and Wrong Approaches to Problems of Infertility that was given several years prior to Dignitas personae (John Paul II 2004, 258–259). In this address, Pope John Paul II again highlighted the serious implications of artificial reproductive techniques and urged scientists to pursue a ‘natural way’ of overcoming the infertility of spouses (John Paul II 2004, 259). Although this address offered no new or substantial contribution to the discussion of sterility, the pope’s appeal was nevertheless an acknowledgement of the need for a constructive way forward for those without children seeking to live a fruitful married life.

Amoris laetitia: 2009 to Present

In the years that followed Dignitas personae, the Magisterium became virtually silent in its writings on sterility. More recently however, Pope Francis has demonstrated a greater sensitivity to the broad challenges encountered by married couples including those experiencing sterility. Undoubtedly, the clearest evidence of this is the 2014 and 2015 Synods on the Family and the subsequent Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris laetitia, released in 2016.

In Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis summarises and affirms the Church’s teaching on the family without contributing anything specifically new to the relationship between marriage and procreation. He explicitly addresses the experience of sterility, briefly acknowledging the suffering that it causes, before devoting significant discussion to the ways in which the conjugal love of couples – including sterile couples – bears fruit. He writes:

Some couples are unable to have children. We know that this can be a cause of real suffering for them. At the same time, we know that “marriage was not instituted solely for the procreation of children …” (Second Vatican Council [1965] 1988, sec. 50) … So too, “motherhood is not a solely biological reality, but is expressed in diverse ways” (Fifth General Conference 2007, 457). (Francis 2016, sec. 178)

Drawing heavily on the final report of the Synod on the Family (Relatio finalis), he goes on to emphasise the choice of adoption and foster care as expressions of fruitfulness and encourages those unable to have children to embrace this choice. The pope echoed this same sentiment in early 2022 as part of his Catechesis on Saint Joseph, fervently imploring those unable to have children to think about adoption (Francis 2022).

In Amoris laetitia, the pope also highlights the tendency of the Church to overemphasise the duty of procreation, sometimes at the expense of other aspects of marriage such as the call to grow in love and the ideal of mutual assistance (Francis 2016, sec. 36). He affirms the broader understanding of marital fruitfulness that was identified in previous documents, and contributes to a deepened sense of its meaning as an expansion of the love of spouses that makes the love of God present to and for others. He explains:

We also do well to remember that procreation and adoption are not the only ways of experiencing the fruitfulness of love. Even large families are called to make their mark on society, finding other expressions of fruitfulness that in some way prolong the love that sustains them … Their [married couples’] fruitfulness expands and in countless ways makes God’s love present in society. (Francis 2016, sec. 181–184)

Significantly, Amoris laetitia seems less guarded in its discourse on sterility than previous documents. Pope Francis is explicit in recognising that the fruitfulness of conjugal love need not be connected to children, yet seems unconcerned that this could be interpreted as condoning optional childlessness.

The Barren Bear Fruit

In the century since the Pio-Benedictine code, the Magisterium has navigated a tumultuous course with respect to its teachings on sterility and marital fruitfulness. There has been a pressing need to emphasise the joy, blessing and divinely ordered duty of having children in the face of a contraceptive mentality, while at the same time denouncing the use of artificial reproductive technologies that might otherwise make the realisation of this joy, blessing and duty possible for many infertile couples. Unfortunately, for those unable to have biological children and looking to the Church for counsel, the overwhelming dominance of these two themes casts a large shadow over some of the encouraging and constructive teachings of the Magisterium that affirm the fruitfulness of conjugal love in its many and varied forms. In Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis emphasises the need for continued, open dialogue about the many complex ‘doctrinal, moral, spiritual, and pastoral questions’ affecting marriage and the family (Francis 2016, sec. 2). Let us respond with a sustained, substantial and hope-filled discussion of marital fruitfulness for sterile couples that is not only pastoral but also deeply theological, having its roots in the inexhaustible fruitfulness of the cross. ⁸ Only in the light of Christ, who transformed the meanings of fruitfulness and suffering, can the barren come to know that their conjugal love brings forth life in abundance.

Biographical Note

Briony Mowbray holds a BSc in Chemistry and Mathematics and B.Ed. in Secondary Teaching from the University of Sydney. She recently completed an MPhil in Theology from the University of Notre Dame, Sydney. Her MPhil thesis on marital fruitfulness for sterile Catholic couples was derived from personal experience, and motivated by the hope of supporting others unable to have biological children as well as those working with sterile Christian couples.

ORCID iD

Briony Mowbray https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2948-557X