Church teaching on fertilization

  • Thread starter Thread starter Intrigued_Latin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Intrigued_Latin

Guest
Dear friends,

Can anyone provide information to Church teaching on what type of fertilization (if any) is acceptable (outside of natural marital intercourse)

I understand that IVF is not.

If I’m going to discuss this with some friends of mine I’d like to be well informed.

Thanks be to God for my 2 year old daughter.

Brad
 
2376
Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167

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."168 "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."169

2378
A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170

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.
 
Thanks for the information.

It appears as though the Church only accpets pro-creation as a result of the physical union between husband and wife.
 
Summing up -

Any kind of fertilization that happens outside of the marital act, or interrupts it, is wrong.

However, using methods that make either or both spouses more fertile is OK.

Search the “Ask an Apologist” forum for the subject. They refer to a collection of scientists that use natural methods to increase fertility. I can’t remember their name for sure - something like “The Catholic Center for Bioethics”?
 
johnshelby said:
2376
Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167

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."168 "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."169

2378
A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170

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.
Click to expand...

That makes sense…but wouldnt that also rule out adoption? Theyre becoming parents by another person.
 
40.png
siamesecat:
That makes sense…but wouldnt that also rule out adoption? Theyre becoming parents by another person.
Click to expand...
Adoption doesn’t treat the conception as your own.

Adoptive parents usually fully recognize the fact that they are giving an opportunity to a child to be raised in a family. They are today’s heroes.👍

Malia
 
In Massachusetts now some want to redesign birth certificates to read Person A and Person B, according to a columnist Kathleen Parker. Bye bye, genealogy. :eek:

An excerpt from her article, “Baby C, or Thing Three?”
Kathleen Parker:
The slippery slope that wasn’t supposed to happen once same-sex marriage was granted is making Everest jealous.

The problem is that birth certificates as currently written reflect archaic notions of procreation, that is, involving a mother and father. Thus, gay and lesbian parents have asked the state to replace “mother” and “father” with Parent A and Parent B.

And we thought Dr. Seuss was just being silly when he created Thing One and Thing Two in his “Cat in the Hat” series.
Click to expand...
Sorry if it’s slightly tangential, but related to the topic sort of. It’s about what it means to be a parent. :confused: At this point birth certificates might as well just be internet blogs by their parents, as far as their credibility and usefulness. :whacky:

Alan
 
It is never morally acceptable to create a new human life except through the conjugal act of love between a husband and wife.

A controversial possibility is that of adopting a frozen embryo that already exists (through someone elses sinful participation in IVF). That tiny baby is a human being. He did nothing wrong and bears NO blame for being an IVF baby.

Some moral theologians believe it is acceptable to “adopt” one of these babies and have him implanted in a woman’s womb. Others object, believing this somehow legitimizes IVF. (Though they don’t seem to object to the “legitimizing” effect regular adoption might have on fornication…)

However, the Church has not ruled on this yet. Current church objections to IVF all revolve around the conception, not implantation. Thus, IMO, a catholic couple can be free to adopt a frozen embryo IF they are fully educated about church teaching on IVF and approach the process as a rescue of an otherwise doomed child, not a loophole around church IVF teachings.
 
40.png
manualman:
Thus, IMO, a catholic couple can be free to adopt a frozen embryo IF they are fully educated about church teaching on IVF and approach the process as a rescue of an otherwise doomed child, not a loophole around church IVF teachings.
Click to expand...
And how many desperate couples will actually view it this way? Or will they view it as the loophole it is?
 
I didn’t see this mentioned, but it is also permissible for normal conjugal relations to take place and then after have a doctor move the sperm into the correct area. I believe this is to help with certain fertility issues. I believe this is also a bit costly…
 
Please be aware that homologous artificial insemination can be moral if it is an assistance of the conjugal act rather than a replacement. This teaching is clearly indicated in Donum Vitae which was authored by our current Pope.

Here is a link to the Ask an Apologist thread where this was answered.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=51417
 
40.png
Karin:
And how many desperate couples will actually view it this way? Or will they view it as the loophole it is?
Click to expand...
So the innocent unborn babies must die to avoid the need for people to understand a complex issue?

Would you also deny a rape victim ovulation-suppressing medications (PILL) if a blood test showed she had not recently ovulated when brought to the hospital? That one is confusing too, but is NOT an immoral act when understood fully.

My point is that whether or not some people will draw wrong conclusions based on lazy thinking is irrelevent to the core issue of whether this is a morally acceptable action or not.

Complex moral issues are actually EASIER to understand if one discards the idea the catholic moral teaching is a list of BANNED actions and instead embraces the positive message behind the ban.
  1. All children have a fundamental human right to be conceived as the result of conjugal love between a mother and father. THIS is why IVF and the typical artificial insemination procedure are opposed by the church.
  2. Every marital act must be an act of self-giving in a way that expresses both the procreative and unitive aspects of marriage. Thus, the use of NFP to postpont pregnancy is acceptable. The intrusion of chemical of physical means to avoid pregnancy turns the act from having the potential to be mutually giving to being inherently ‘taking.’ A rape victim is not in a ‘giving’ situation! She need only ensure that she hasn’t ovulated before taking an ovulation-suppressing pill (to ensure that it doesn’t kill a conceived child).
Same principles apply to virtually every moral ban in the church.
 
40.png
Karin:
And how many desperate couples will actually view it this way? Or will they view it as the loophole it is?
Click to expand...
It is not a loophole for IVF. It is the adoption of very little children that are in grave danger of death.

When does one become a mother? At birth or at conception? The Church would teach at conception, society at birth. If one becomes a mother at conception, then how is it that one can not adopt a child when they are a few cells vs. one may at say, 9 pounds? A child is a child, one is just bigger than the other and one is in substantially more danger.
 
Daniel Kane:
It is not a loophole for IVF. It is the adoption of very little children that are in grave danger of death.

When does one become a mother? At birth or at conception? The Church would teach at conception, society at birth. If one becomes a mother at conception, then how is it that one can not adopt a child when they are a few cells vs. one may at say, 9 pounds? A child is a child, one is just bigger than the other and one is in substantially more danger.
Click to expand...
Well “adopting” the few cells to have them grow to a full term child they need to be implanted . How does this go “with” church teaching?
 
40.png
manualman:
  1. All children have a fundamental human right to be conceived as the result of conjugal love between a mother and father. THIS is why IVF and the typical artificial insemination procedure are opposed by the church How is inserting/implanting artificially someone elses children that are “extras” from IVF in line with what you said? This child is not concieved through the conjugal act of a married couple but in a petri dish. .
Click to expand...
 
The only way I could get pregnant is through IVF (my ovaries and fallopian tubes were removed when I was 17 years old due to cystic ovaries, to get pregnant I would need to not only do IVF but also get eggs from one of my sisters). It saddens me that the Church looks at IVF as a mortal sin. I understand the reasoning on why they do, but for us who will never be able to experience pregnancy, giving birth, holding your baby and seeing your traits and your husbands traits…its heartbreaking.
 
Karin,

your post went through kinda strange and I can’t read some of the words. But if I understood your gist correctly, what I said is quite consistant.
  1. It was wrong and sinful for the biological parents and scientists to create a new life in such a clinical manner.
  2. Irregardless of the sins involved at the time, the new child is entirely INNOCENT of the sins of his parents.
(Disclaimer: Manualman does NOT enjoy infallibility and the following opinions are NOT settled matters in catholic moral theology)
  1. Thus, rescuing this innocent child from being discarded like excess trash is an act of mercy, not sin. Turning up our noses to him seems to me to be the same as seeing a known prostitute dump her live baby in a dumpster and doing NOTHING about it since we KNOW that baby was conceived in sin, so not worth saving. (shudder)
It seems to me that we are a LONG way from winning the pro-life struggle when even here among devoted catholics people make a strong distinction between the sanctity of a born baby and that of a very young fetus.
 
40.png
manualman:
Karin,

your post went through kinda strange and I can’t read some of the words. But if I understood your gist correctly, what I said is quite consistant.
  1. It was wrong and sinful for the biological parents and scientists to create a new life in such a clinical manner. Ok I can understand that!
  2. Irregardless of the sins involved at the time, the new child is entirely INNOCENT of the sins of his parents. Ok I understand this also.
(Disclaimer: Manualman does NOT enjoy infallibility and the following opinions are NOT settled matters in catholic moral theology)
  1. Thus, rescuing this innocent child from being discarded like excess trash is an act of mercy, not sin. Turning up our noses to him seems to me to be the same as seeing a known prostitute dump her live baby in a dumpster and doing NOTHING about it since we KNOW that baby was conceived in sin, so not worth saving. (shudder) Saving the baby I can agree with and do agree with…but the means IVF I do not agree with. Unless there is another way to save this baby? This is the part I think I am getting confused on.
It seems to me that we are a LONG way from winning the pro-life struggle when even here among devoted catholics people make a strong distinction between the sanctity of a born baby and that of a very young fetus.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top