Artificial insemination and the Virgin Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guilherme123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guilherme123

Guest
2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union… Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”
Click to expand...
I am having a hard time trying to reconcile this teaching with the miraculous pregnancy of the Virgin Mary, where the sexual act was dissociated from the procreative act. Any explanation?
 
Guilherme123 said:
2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union… Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”
Click to expand...
Almighty God was in charge and could do anything He wanted to.

When Adam and Eve were created, that, too, was outside of the normal method of the sexual act linked to the procreative act. And Christ is indeed the New Adam.
Click to expand...
 
The problem is the reason why artificial insemination is bad. If the problem is the fact that the sexual act is dissociated from the procreative act, why is not wrong Mary’s pregnancy?
 
Guilherme123 said:
The problem is the reason why artificial insemination is bad. If the problem is the fact that the sexual act is dissociated from the procreative act, why is not wrong Mary’s pregnancy?
Click to expand...
Because God.

The Incarnation is a divine act, not a human act.

Sexual intercourse is a human act in marriage.

Perhaps read up on the Incarnation.
 
Guilherme123 said:
The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another,
Click to expand...
Maybe you can look at it this way: the sexual act, the act by which two people give themselves to one another, is for humans, so separating it from procreation is not in God’s plan. But one does not need the ‘sexual act’ to give themselves to God, or for God to give himself to us, so there is no contradiction.

Peace
 
Luke 1: 26-38:

[26] And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, [27] To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. [28] And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. [29] Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. [30] And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

[31] Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. [32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. [33] And of his kingdom there shall be no end. [34] And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? [35] And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

[36] And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: [37] Because no word shall be impossible with God. [38] And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
 
Guilherme123 said:
2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union… Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”
Click to expand...
Everything that exists was and is created super-naturally, and sustained super-naturally.

Morality evaluates human acts. Artificial insemination is a human act, the incarnation of Christ in the womb of the virigin is not a human act set into motion by the human will.
Click to expand...
 
This is a great answer.

@Guilherme123 I understand your thought process in asking this question. Some of the responses seem to dismiss your point–I hope that this doesn’t keep you from asking additional questions in the future. Sometimes people don’t get more abstract lines of thinking (abstract lines…contradictory, I know…haven’t slept in days and my thoughts are jumbled) and miss your meaning. @Stephen_says gave an excellent perspective.
 
Last edited:
Guilherme123 said:
I am having a hard time trying to reconcile this teaching with the miraculous pregnancy of the Virgin Mary, where the sexual act was dissociated from the procreative act. Any explanation?
Click to expand...
Yes. “Anachronism”.

This is a teaching of the Catholic Church, and as such, did not exist prior to the establishment of the Church.

It’s kinda like asking the question that gets asked around here from time to time: “if the ‘marital act’ (ahem) is what consummates the marriage and make it indissoluble, then was Mary and Joseph’s marriage not valid?” The problem is that this is something that binds Catholics, and they weren’t Catholic at the time of their marriage.
 
Sorry - where exactly is the act which “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human [Divine, in this case] person”?

The Holy Spirit is the Love of God that is God Himself - what exactly could be further from severing procreation from union in the sexual act when there is not even a sexual act at all, and the union and procreation are deeper and more perfect respectively than a sexual act ever could be?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top