Church's teaching on unused frozen embryos?

[westcoast]

What is the Church’s current teaching on the **unused **frozen embryos that were made for in vitro fertilization?

 

[Seatuck]

What is the Church’s current teaching on the **unused **frozen embryos that were made for in vitro fertilization?

There is no teaching yet. The question of what to do with them is still being discussed.

 

[Leopard]

What is the Church’s current teaching on the **unused **frozen embryos that were made for in vitro fertilization?

I presume you are speaking of human embryos. They are fully human persons.

 

[Newbie2]

Well, we can probably say with certainty that the postion would be that they shouldn’t be “discarded” like yesterdays news, nor should they be killed for research.

What to do with them seems to be under debate. If you implant them into a uterus, this goes against the immorality of artificial fertilization, no?

Yet if you discard them, it’s a sin against life.

It may take a while to figure out the morality of frozen embryos.

 

[RWMorris]

Well, we can probably say with certainty that the position would be that they shouldn’t be “discarded” like yesterdays news, nor should they be killed for research.

What to do with them seems to be under debate. If you implant them into a uterus, this goes against the immorality of artificial fertilization, no?

Yet if you discard them, it’s a sin against life.

It may take a while to figure out the morality of frozen embryos.

I agree that we can and should preserve them; they are human beings. This may be one area that certain in vitro situations can be allowed. We’ll have to wait, pray, and see.

 

[Socio_Momma]

Well, we can probably say with certainty that the postion would be that they shouldn’t be “discarded” like yesterdays news, nor should they be killed for research.

What to do with them seems to be under debate. If you implant them into a uterus, this goes against the immorality of artificial fertilization, no?

Yet if you discard them, it’s a sin against life.

It may take a while to figure out the morality of frozen embryos.

It would seem that to adopt a frozen embryo or to continue the life of one in a more natural sense (not keeping this human embryo frozen) through implantation would be no more approving of the action of the how the embryo was created (i.e. in-vitro technique initially used) than adopting a baby conceived via sex outside of marriage or continuing the pregnancy of such a baby.

With the OP the initital way the co-creative act was done was outside the way it should be and goes against Church teahing (how the embryo is fertilized) BUT the human life that results should not have to suffer a life of true limbo (sitting in a frozen state) for the way the parents choose to conceive him/her.

The continuation of the life via implantation would not mean in-vitro is OK.

I am praying that the Church will give us a more definitive answer so that there is an understanding for how these babies can have a true chance for life via adoption instead of being destroyed, kept in a limbo-state, or used for research purposes

 

[shaka_maka]

You also have to worry about would it create a market. If everyone keeps going out and having one implanted, they’ll just create more. Then what do you do?

 

[Socio_Momma]

You also have to worry about would it create a market. If everyone keeps going out and having one implanted, they’ll just create more. Then what do you do?

I don’t think the “it will just create more” is a solid rebuttal given this larger issue of the how do we perserve the dignity of those who are already here. This isn’t a go ahead to continue the market if the Church allows for embryo adoption, no more than it is a go ahead for a man to rape when the Church defends human life that has been conceived this way (it is not the preborn human’s fault).

The Church already rejects the action of how the life is being co-created and the existent consumer market around human life (in this area and all areas). It already stands for an end to the practice. Yet, there is still the issue of what to do when people refuse the Church’s guidance and there is a human life that results. How do we help those human beings who are vulnerable & unable to help themselves because they are only in the early stages of their lives, trapped in an unnatural state of being?

This is a human being that deserves his/her life, it does not seem that in a Catholic pov that alternative which is a definite loss of human life would be acceptable simply do to the motives of those who have done the co-creative act (in or out of the womb). This would seem to deny the respect of the human dignity of these embryos who are currently waiting in this frozen limbo. It also would simply keep up the with status quo of freeze, dispose, or research.

The innocent human being deserves to have our aid, this is an example of the least among us. If we do not seek to help them, who will? This is such a sad situation…

What a world we live in that we have to figure out what to do with people who are stuck in these limbo states as frozen embryos. It beyond mind boggling when you really think about it

Here is a page from EWTN it lists some articles about this subject that Judie Brown posted. ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=477724&Pg=Forum10&Pgnu=1&recnu=3

 

[SoCalRC]

I don’t think the “it will just create more” is a solid rebuttal given this larger issue of the how do we perserve the dignity of those who are already here.

I agree. Further, I think it misses the point. It is not a ‘seller’s market’. That is, IV fertilization requires the generation of extra embryos. There are hundreds of thousands of such embryo’s in existance now. Under current secular law, most will be incinerated as “biological waste”.

Although the desire to procreate is understandable and, in of itself, a laudable goal. The IV fertilization procedure itself is seemingly illicit under Church teaching. The most recent Church document on this that I am aware of is DONUM VITAE (The Gift of Life) from 1987:

usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/donumvitae.shtml

Part I, #5, discusses the fate of IV embryos
Part II, #5, discusses IV fertilization itself

 

[mapleoak]

It would seem that to adopt a frozen embryo or to continue the life of one in a more natural sense (not keeping this human embryo frozen) through implantation would be no more approving of the action of the how the embryo was created (i.e. in-vitro technique initially used) than adopting a baby conceived via sex outside of marriage or continuing the pregnancy of such a baby.

There is a major difference between implantation to preserve the life of the human embryo and that of continuing an already existing pregnancy. Implantation involves the commission of an immoral act. Continuing a pregnancy does not. To directly perform an intrinsically immoral act for any reason is never justified.

With the OP the initital way the co-creative act was done was outside the way it should be and goes against Church teahing (how the embryo is fertilized)

But it does not give licensce to perform another immoral act.

BUT the human life that results should not have to suffer a life of true limbo (sitting in a frozen state) for the way the parents choose to conceive him/her.

That these human lives have to suffer in ‘limbo’ due to our misdeeds is an injustice for which we must strive toward eliminating the cause. God in His mercy and justice hears their plight as he does that of the unborn. It is a false compassion to take these embryos’ suffering and relieve it through immoral means.

The continuation of the life via implantation would not mean in-vitro is OK.

Correct.

I am praying that the Church will give us a more definitive answer so that there is an understanding for how these babies can have a true chance for life via adoption instead of being destroyed, kept in a limbo-state, or used for research purposes

Of the presented options - being destroyed, kept in a limbo-state, used for research, or implanting into a female person, only one is absent of immoral action. It is not to our discretion to eliminate suffering using any means possible. We have to accept that many times God allows suffering to take place for purposes that may only be known to Him.

 

[mapleoak]

I don’t think the “it will just create more” is a solid rebuttal given this larger issue of the how do we perserve the dignity of those who are already here.

This is true. It must be rebutted on the morality of the intended act.

The Church already rejects the action of how the life is being co-created and the existent consumer market around human life (in this area and all areas). It already stands for an end to the practice. Yet, there is still the issue of what to do when people refuse the Church’s guidance and there is a human life that results. How do we help those human beings who are vulnerable & unable to help themselves because they are only in the early stages of their lives, trapped in an unnatural state of being?

Yes, it may very well be outside of our realm to help those trapped in such an unnatural state due to someone refusing Church teaching. There are many other instances of situations where someone is left in an unjustly unnatural state due to another’s misdeeds.

This is a human being that deserves his/her life, it does not seem that in a Catholic pov that alternative which is a definite loss of human life would be acceptable simply do to the motives of those who have done the co-creative act (in or out of the womb).

Depends whether someone is performing an act which directly results in the death of a person. Disposing of these embryos is such an act. Ripping them apart for research is such an act. Maintaining them in a frozen state is not.

This would seem to deny the respect of the human dignity of these embryos who are currently waiting in this frozen limbo. It also would simply keep up the with status quo of freeze, dispose, or research.

What are you refering to? Maintaining them in a frozen state, thawing and disposing of, or implanting?

 

[mapleoak]

Although the desire to procreate is understandable and, in of itself, a laudable goal. The IV fertilization procedure itself is seemingly illicit under Church teaching. The most recent Church document on this that I am aware of is DONUM VITAE (The Gift of Life) from 1987:

It is for just that reason of being illicit (actually intrinsically evil) that IVF is not allowed.

 

[Socio_Momma]

The document, DONUM VITAE (The Gift of Life), discusses the fertilization as being illicit (immoral) as it disjoints the unitive and procreative aspects, along with the other ethical and moral implications present. It does condemn research and disposal (treating embryos as spares), the later is attached to the concept of keeping an embryo in a permanent frozen state. He/she will be disposed of once deemed no longer necessary, due the IVF clinic’s label as a “spare”. The leaving in a frozen state by extension will allow for the direct disposal. Even though I am aware others would argue that perhaps it could be comparable to the reality that all human life will end. However, this is not comparable as the embryo human life is being neglected in an unnatural state and allowed to passively be euthanized, due to being unwanted (a “spare”). It is akin to standing by and doing nothing, while one may argue we have no obligation to do anything that is a false argument. We always have an obligation to do something, we cannot do everything (this is not humanly possible), we cannot do it alone (we need Christ), but we are not to complacently stand by.

There is no direct (unless I am missing it) from the Church on the discussion of the singular actions of the implantation of an already existing IVF embryo. If there where we wouldn’t be discussing it here, the matter would be closed.

The issues is that the IVF portion has already taken place because the fertilization has already happened in-vitro (outside of the womb). This is comdemned and is illicit. Yet, still it is the action of the implantation of an IVF embryo that is not directly approached as an immoral act in and of itself by the Church. Instead it has not been addressed at this time. So the question remains can implantation occur in this circumstance?

The action of fertilization is done (which was/is immoral/illicit) & the human being already exists (with all the rights in a Catholic pov that other human being should have). Now what do we as Catholics do. Obviously the Church accepts children who have been conceived by IVF, it does not extend the immoral fertilization to their nature. However, it is not clear if one can adopt an embryo in this state to allow the life to be continued in respected fashion (freezing it not respectful, the Church has stated such).

It is not a rejection of the reality of human suffering, which God can & does use according to His Infinite Wisdom. It is also not a rejection of understanding that God is His Mercy hears the plight of these human beings, to strive for an answer as to what the nature of implantation would be.

The Church and the USCCB has not given direction on that particular matter,the implantation only of the already existent embryo. It has also not stated that the implantation (or attempt to implant) a human being conceived in this fashion is immoral based on the circumstance offered of adoption. It has only stated that such fertilization is illicit (immoral).

Until the Church does give us a direct answer moral theologians will continue to disagree. The link I gave offered several articles that present those who agree (while highlighting the reasons those would not agree) with the concept that it may be permissible to do embryo adoption. Reading those if one hasn’t is a good insight into the moral arguments on both sides. I, myself, agree with the view that it could be permissible to do embryo adoption.

Here is another article which gives a better run-down on the pro-embryo adoption side: catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2236

However there are others who disagree due the illicit nature of the fertilization:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/30/AR2005053000872.html See second page with Fr. Tadeusz who argues it may be a complicit act to implant, complict to the illicit act of fertilization. Fertilization being the illicit act.

***BTW-- I apologize for answering all the above posts in this one, or at least attempting to without doing the “quotes” box or directing toward each individual post. I am not going to be around a computer for a few days but wanted to respond in some fashion. Even though I won’t be able to get back to this thread for awhile, I am sure though that others will have lots to say without me around

 

[SoCalRC]

There is no direct (unless I am missing it) from the Church on the discussion of the singular actions of the implantation of an already existing IVF embryo.

I am not aware of any such statement either. I am not sure what Mapleoak is relying on when he declares implantation itself prohibited.

Part II, #5 of DONUM VITAE is subtle. Presumably it was not the Church’s intention to forbid fertility treatment, just procedures that have morally unacceptable ends.

 

[Newbie2]

It would seem that to adopt a frozen embryo or to continue the life of one in a more natural sense (not keeping this human embryo frozen) through implantation would be no more approving of the action of the how the embryo was created (i.e. in-vitro technique initially used) than adopting a baby conceived via sex outside of marriage or continuing the pregnancy of such a baby.

With the OP the initital way the co-creative act was done was outside the way it should be and goes against Church teahing (how the embryo is fertilized) BUT the human life that results should not have to suffer a life of true limbo (sitting in a frozen state) for the way the parents choose to conceive him/her.

Good point.

 

[mapleoak]

I am not aware of any such statement either. I am not sure what Mapleoak is relying on when he declares implantation itself prohibited.

From Dominum Vitae part II:

“3. Is “Surrogate” Motherhood Morally Licit?
No, for the same reasons which lead one to reject heterologous artificial fertilization: for it is contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person.
Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements which constitute those families.”

Morally illicit acts cannot ever be performed regardless of the good that may result.

 

[SoCalRC]

From Dominum Vitae part II:

"3. Is “Surrogate” Motherhood Morally Licit?

Morally illicit acts cannot ever be performed regardless of the good that may result.

Notice that Surrogate Motherhood that is declared illicit, not the various technicalities invovled. Surrogate motherhood could involve implantation, artificial insemination, even consentual sex. Church teaching remains the same, it is the concept itself that is immoral.

Implanation in the context of nuturing an unwanted embryo is a different moral situation. It would appear to be more akin to adoption. Division among theologians appears to hinge on the zygote’s origins, not the actions of the mothers to be:

catholic.org/diocese/diocese_story.php?id=23590

 

[mapleoak]

Notice that Surrogate Motherhood that is declared illicit, not the various technicalities invovled.

Wouldn’t that also mean that the act of becoming a surrogate mother would be illicit?

Surrogate motherhood could involve implantation, artificial insemination, even consentual sex. Church teaching remains the same, it is the concept itself that is immoral.

I am not sure what you are getting at here. If the concept of surrogate motherhood is immoral, in what way can it be not immoral then to implant an already existing embryo? Also how can surrogate motherhood be the result of consensual sex?

Implanation in the context of nuturing an unwanted embryo is a different moral situation. It would appear to be more akin to adoption.

Some concerns of moral and ethical significance which make it substantially different from natural adoption include the denial of husband and wife to have children of their own as a result of their unitive and procreative love. If someone else’s child is in the mother’s womb, their act of love making cannot possibly be open to the creation of new life. This differs from a couple who conceived naturally and has marital relations with each other while pregnant in that the unborn child is the result of their love-making.
With natural adpotion their is no such denial of this procreative aspect. Additionally, there is the violation of the sacredness of the mother’s womb with ET among other things.

 

[SoCalRC]

I am not sure what you are getting at here. If the concept of surrogate motherhood is immoral, in what way can it be not immoral then to implant an already existing embryo? Also how can surrogate motherhood be the result of consensual sex?

A ‘surrogate mother’ is essentially a reproductive facilitator, who may or may not be a genetic contributor to the child. As noted, the Church considers this illicit.

With natural adpotion their is no such denial of this procreative aspect. Additionally, there is the violation of the sacredness of the mother’s womb with ET among other things.

I am not arguing a position, I am simply noting that theologians are divided and the Church has not taken an official position. Though without giving it a lot of consideration, I find myself leaning towards licit.

The key for me is your use of the words “natural adoption”. If we adopt an infant we have to use formula instead of natural lactation. If we adopt a child who is disabled we need to use extensive technology to sustain their survival. If we draw a line with the implantation and natural development, then we appear to be inherently considering the zygotes lesser children of God.

If the Church deems the act illicit I will, of course, obey. But in the mean time I have respect for people who are treating these fertilized eggs as legitimate human persons, in dire need of rescue and nurturing, not merely a theological problem.

 

[manualman]

Sorry, maple, I’m with these guys. Existing church teaching on IVF is silent about the morality of the artificial IMPLANTATION. Rather it clearly opposes IVF on the grounds that the means of conception, egg harvest, embryo freezing, and selective abortion are immoral.

However, I HAVE heard one good argument against embryo adoption. The theology of the body might imply that a woman becoming pregnant apart from the marital act is an act inherently violent against the union of the man and wife and destructive to the realtionship, even if both (consciously) highly desire to go forward with the adoption. Pregnancy, childbirth, labor, recovery, nursing, etc are not simply mechanical actions. Engaging these biological functions apart from the natural fruit of the womb is definitely a brave new world.

I used to be very much pro-embryo adoption. After hearing it this way, I’m more inclined to advise folks to wait and see what the Church discerns.