C
catharina
Guest
I think that the poster can explain herself.
I’ve encountered her many times.
- Status
I’ve encountered her many times.
N
Newbie2
Guest
How about if someone is struggling with an issue? Does that invalidate their Catholic identity?
D
Debora123
Guest
Catechism:
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.”
This is true. However, in the case we’re speaking of, the egg has ALREADY been fertilized. The wrong has already been done.
IVF = in vitro FERTILIZATION
The fertilization has already been done, and now what remains is an abandoned human person, sitting in some freezer - deserving of a loving home.
*
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.*
Again, this is talking about IVF - IN VITRO FERTILIZATION.
Note the phrase I bolded above. This is speaking of the procedure that brings this new life into the world. It is wrong to bring this new life into existance by means of IVF, however, this is not the case we are discussing. In the case we are discussing, THE LIFE THAT IS ALREADY HERE. It is already in existence, and now it needs to be treated like the human being that it is.
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.”
This is true. However, in the case we’re speaking of, the egg has ALREADY been fertilized. The wrong has already been done.
IVF = in vitro FERTILIZATION
The fertilization has already been done, and now what remains is an abandoned human person, sitting in some freezer - deserving of a loving home.
*
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.*
Again, this is talking about IVF - IN VITRO FERTILIZATION.
Note the phrase I bolded above. This is speaking of the procedure that brings this new life into the world. It is wrong to bring this new life into existance by means of IVF, however, this is not the case we are discussing. In the case we are discussing, THE LIFE THAT IS ALREADY HERE. It is already in existence, and now it needs to be treated like the human being that it is.
C
catharina
Guest
I still await your reponse to this.
"Yet as a graduate student in Theology (presumably,
CATHOLIC Theology), you know (and accept) that
the Catholic Church does NOT allow adoption of
frozen embryos, do you not?"
No use getting sidetracked …
(That was Post # 30.)
D
Debora123
Guest
Yes Catharina, we all know. If you could excommunicate me, you would have done so weeks ago.
D
Debora123
Guest
Actually Catharina, the Church hasn’t made an official decision on this issue.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Sorry, I thought the discussion was “case closed”. Thought the question was rhetorical.
C
catharina
Guest
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201fea5.asp
"What Is the Church’s Position?
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), having been approached for moral clarity concerning the latest biomedical technology and its intervention in the initial stages of human life, in 1987 issued the Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation (Donum Vitae) . This document is arguably the Catholic Church’s controlling statement on the dignity and respect due to the human embryo. Donum Vitae reaffirms the sacredness of human life “from the moment of conception,” meaning that the human embryo must be respected and treated as a person recognized to have, above all, the right to life. In addition, it must be defended in its integrity and tended and cared for, to the extent possible, in the same way as any other human being (DV 1:1).
In light of this teaching, can it be morally permissible to freeze or keep frozen a human being, even with the purpose of preserving his life? The CDF’s answer is negative: “Freezing of embryos (cryopreservation) constitutes an offense against the respect due to human beings by exposing them to grave risks of death or harm to their physical integrity and depriving them, at least temporarily, of maternal shelter and gestation, thus placing them in a situation in which further offenses and manipulation are possible” (DV 1:6).
Equally clear, though tragic, is the statement that “in consequence of the fact that they have been produced in vitro, those embryos that are not transferred into the body of the mother and are called ‘spare’ are exposed to an absurd fate, with no possibility of their being offered safe means of survival which can be licitly pursued” (DV 1:5). In other words, none of the options available for saving the life of these embryos can be said to be morally permissible and in conformity with the plan of God for human procreation. One might think that the issue would end there. But it has not. … "
Printed in Catholic Answers publication in 2002.
(Of course, some still dispute this teaching - they are in dissent.)
"What Is the Church’s Position?
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), having been approached for moral clarity concerning the latest biomedical technology and its intervention in the initial stages of human life, in 1987 issued the Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation (Donum Vitae) . This document is arguably the Catholic Church’s controlling statement on the dignity and respect due to the human embryo. Donum Vitae reaffirms the sacredness of human life “from the moment of conception,” meaning that the human embryo must be respected and treated as a person recognized to have, above all, the right to life. In addition, it must be defended in its integrity and tended and cared for, to the extent possible, in the same way as any other human being (DV 1:1).
In light of this teaching, can it be morally permissible to freeze or keep frozen a human being, even with the purpose of preserving his life? The CDF’s answer is negative: “Freezing of embryos (cryopreservation) constitutes an offense against the respect due to human beings by exposing them to grave risks of death or harm to their physical integrity and depriving them, at least temporarily, of maternal shelter and gestation, thus placing them in a situation in which further offenses and manipulation are possible” (DV 1:6).
Equally clear, though tragic, is the statement that “in consequence of the fact that they have been produced in vitro, those embryos that are not transferred into the body of the mother and are called ‘spare’ are exposed to an absurd fate, with no possibility of their being offered safe means of survival which can be licitly pursued” (DV 1:5). In other words, none of the options available for saving the life of these embryos can be said to be morally permissible and in conformity with the plan of God for human procreation. One might think that the issue would end there. But it has not. … "
Printed in Catholic Answers publication in 2002.
(Of course, some still dispute this teaching - they are in dissent.)
C
catharina
Guest
Really?Sorry, I thought the discussion was “case closed”. Thought the question was rhetorical.
The question was not rhetorical.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Seriously, was this response really necessary?
Depends on what you mean by “dispute” and “dissent”.
C
catharina
Guest
Rejection of Church Teaching is dissent.
C
catharina
Guest
n2
Now will you be responding to Posts # 47 and #30?
Or not???
Now will you be responding to Posts # 47 and #30?
Or not???
N
Newbie2
Guest
Agreed. But you wrote to the effect that dispute=dissent. Does that mean, in your POV that dispute=rejection of Church teachings?
D
Debora123
Guest
From your own source Catharina:
“Because the matter is so pressing,** moral theologians are debating what has been termed the “rescue” of frozen embryos. The magisterium has not issued a specific judgment on this**, and there is a division of opinion among theologians who firmly assent to the teaching of Donum Vitae. Some argue that “rescuing” frozen embryos is intrinsically immoral; others argue it is not. Though members of the latter group give different arguments to support their position, they all hold that it is morally licit for a woman to volunteer to have an embryo transferred into her womb in order to protect its life.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201fea5.asp
There is no official Church position on this as of yet. Sorry.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Am I going to respond to my own post #47? No.
C
catharina
Guest
C
catharina
Guest
As you know …
I’m referring to my own quoted post therein.
The font is RED.
Guess you prefer games???
N
Newbie2
Guest
I want to know precisely what you mean by “dispute”, “dissent”, and reject, since you brought it up. If you don’t care if I (we) understand what you’re trying to say, OK, but I’m not clear on your definitions, here.
Why would I respond to my own post #47?
C
catharina
Guest
As you know …
I’m referring to my own quoted post therein.
The font is RED.
Original post was 30.
Still waiting …
Guess you prefer games???
N
Newbie2
Guest
I see. No, I didn’t know. That was unclear.
I’ll let you know if I will respond to the question.
What I believe has little bearing on this discussion, wouldn’t you agree? I’m sure it’s more interesting to explore what you mean by “dissent”, “dispute” and “rejection”, so I can tell you whether I “dissent”, “dispute” or “reject” Church teachings in this area in your terms so that we can more effectively communicate.
- Status