C
catharina
Guest
As evidenced by the multitudes in the 1960s,
who wrongly guessed the nature of the not-yet-published
Humanae Vitae, it seems far wiser to await the blessing
of the Church regarding this situation.
- Status
who wrongly guessed the nature of the not-yet-published
Humanae Vitae, it seems far wiser to await the blessing
of the Church regarding this situation.
D
Debora123
Guest
At the cost of human lives, huh?
W
Willy_Jose
Guest
This opinion piece from thisrock is dated. It has Donum Vitae as its only reference, quite understandable since this article was written in 2002. Be informed that the Church has since clarified the issue with the release of the doctrinal instruction Dignitas Personae in June 20, 2008 - twenty years after the release of Donum Vitae precisely to further clarify bioethical issues such as adoption of embryos. Dignitas Personae is a follow-up to Donum Vitae. Here are the relevant statements.
*19. With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what to do with them? Some of those who pose this question do not grasp its ethical nature, motivated as they are by laws in some countries that require cryopreservation centers to empty their storage tanks periodically. Others, however, are aware that a grave injustice has been perpetrated and wonder how best to respond to the duty of resolving it.
Proposals to use these embryos for research or for the treatment of disease are obviously unacceptable because they treat the embryos as mere “biological material” and result in their destruction. The proposal to thaw such embryos without reactivating them and use them for research, as if they were normal cadavers, is also unacceptable.[37]
The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood;[38] this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.
It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.
All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”.[39]*
/
The last three paragraphs should put this issue to rest. Folks, read the whole document, it is worthwhile. The Church has indeed ruled against artificial implantation of embryos, whether they are preexisting or not. Catharina is right. It is decided teaching.
V
Victorious
Guest
Doing an embryo adoption compounds the evil, because the only way to do it is to commit yet another gravely immoral act, namely, implantation in a surrogate mother.
A good intention cannot rehabilitate an intrinsically evil act. Which is another way of saying the ends don’t justify the means. Which is another way of saying that you can’t do evil in order to achieve good.
W
Willy_Jose
Guest
You framed the debate correctly.
I posted parts of Dignitas Personae previously, and I have to say it is “implicit” rather than “explicit”. There is more to this implicit take, wherein I believe the Magesterium cannot explicitly rule in the future that heterologous embryo transfer is acceptable without severely contradicting its principles in Donum Vitae and Dignitas Persona. The Church does not contradict its own teachings.
V
Victorious
Guest
Only if you are prepared to take the position that in condemning the pharisees, Jesus meant to attack the moral law, and to teach us to do the same. Because that’s the ultimate implication of failing to distinguish between a mere tradition of men on the one hand – which is what the pharisees sought to uphold – and the law against an intrinsic evil on the other, which is what is at stake here.
I am going to continue to declaim this from the rooftops: you can’t do evil in order to achieve good. To choose to do evil in a good cause is an act of pride, a refusal to trust in God, and a denial of His lordship, His sovereignty and His infinite goodness.
D
Debora123
Guest
I don’t think this is to be considered official Church doctrine, but if that’s the case, someone needs to write to CAF and tell them their website is giving off false information:
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201fea5.asp
W
Willy_Jose
Guest
Debora,
I did not say CAF gave off false information. I meant CAF made an understandable analysis, considering they wrote the piece in 2002, six years before Dignitas Personae was released. Further, anything released by the CDF has express Papal approval - it is a doctrinal statement.
W
Willy_Jose
Guest
Here are the Vatican links to Donum Vitae and Dignitas Personae, respectively:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html
The CDF released Donum Vitae in February 22, 1987. It was headed then by (then)Cardinal Ratzinger, under the approval of Pope John Paul II.
The CDF released Dignitas Personae in September 8, 2008. It was under William Cardinal Levada, under the appoval of Pope Benedict XVI.
For the issue at hand, I wish to call attention to two similar passages in both documents :
Per Donum Vitae:
“In consequence of the fact that they have been produced in vitro, those embryos which art 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.”
Per Dignitas Personae:
*"**taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution *regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons".
Implicit, explicit, or otherwise, CDF has already committed itself to the explicit rejection of embyro transfer/ adoption by way of Dignitas Personae. The development of doctrine goes this way. The Church does not make seismic shifts to reverse itself.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html
The CDF released Donum Vitae in February 22, 1987. It was headed then by (then)Cardinal Ratzinger, under the approval of Pope John Paul II.
The CDF released Dignitas Personae in September 8, 2008. It was under William Cardinal Levada, under the appoval of Pope Benedict XVI.
For the issue at hand, I wish to call attention to two similar passages in both documents :
Per Donum Vitae:
“In consequence of the fact that they have been produced in vitro, those embryos which art 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.”
Per Dignitas Personae:
*"**taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution *regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons".
Implicit, explicit, or otherwise, CDF has already committed itself to the explicit rejection of embyro transfer/ adoption by way of Dignitas Personae. The development of doctrine goes this way. The Church does not make seismic shifts to reverse itself.
V
Victorious
Guest
The fate of these unfortunate babies is indeed horrible. But this is not the fault of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has no authority to change the immutable laws of God, which she is bound to uphold and proclaim and preserve intact, no matter how hard they are. The grave responsibility for the fate of these children lies with those who refused to be bound by these laws of God as taught by the Church, and created these embryos in spite of the Church’s warnings. Had they obeyed, this awful situation would never have arisen.
For some reason, we think that if only we can free ourselves from the dominion of the Church, we could make Utopia a reality. But all we ever manage to do is create hell on earth. And, uncorrected by experience, we persist in doing it.
C
catharina
Guest
Thank you for recalling the name of the newer document.
Thank you for printing the excerpt as well.
“Dignitas Personae” - got it!
N
Newbie2
Guest
Sorry to harp on the hypothetical, but I wonder if technology might allow for such embryos to be raised in an artificial environment, all the way to “birth”, and allow for another way to rescue these unfortunate souls.
D
Debora123
Guest
Probably someday. Although I’m sure the “Church” will fight against that as well - considering the Church seems to think the best solution for these embryos is to leave them frozen - away from the human life it deserves, and away from eternal life with God. Just frozen. Yep, makes sense.Sorry to harp on the hypothetical, but I wonder if technology might allow for such embryos to be raised in an artificial environment, all the way to “birth”, and allow for another way to rescue these unfortunate souls.
N
Newbie2
Guest
I dunno…the only moral objections in the case of using embryo implantation are addressed, as is the objection to surrogacy. I can see an objection to the principle of using such an artificial means only in the sense that it could, pardon the pun,“spawn” a new industry of IVF coupled with artificial gestation…completely removing it from humans beyond them being gamete donors.
But…in certain very limited circumstances…such as rescue…maybe. Well see.
But…in certain very limited circumstances…such as rescue…maybe. Well see.
A
anilorak13ska
Guest
I know this is an old post, but I wanted to chime in. DH and I adopted 4 embryos, and we did not do this lightly. It was after much discernment and prayer, and after trying to adopt traditionally for several years, that we felt God wanting us to take a risk to give these babies a chance.
I do not intend to defend our decision here. I am only stating it for the purpose of establishing first-hand experience.
First of all, there is no technology available that implants embryos. What is being referred to here is called an embryo transfer, where the babies are placed into the woman’s uterus during a well-calculated fertile period, and then we wait to see if God wills for them to be implanted. One or both of the first babies that had their homecoming this way implanted, but sadly we lost them just a short week later. The second two babies we adopted never made it to implantation. So all that is happening in an embryo adoption is the physical transfer of the tiny babies from a petri dish into their rightful place - a mother’s womb. Implantation remains in the hands of God.
Having said that, I do have a dilemma on my mind now, after the fact. In memory of our first two babies’ due date (this week), I sent out a thank you card to the embryologist who assisted with their homecoming (“transfer”). I wanted to remind him that he is dealing with human life, and that even though the procedure was not “successful” for us, it was successful for the babies, as they have been released into heaven. It was a very painful and risky thing we did, for we long to be parents, but we knew that if these babies weren’t adopted, their genetic parents were ready to donate them to science (aka destroy them).
In the process of writing this card, I remembered filling out the clinic’s paperwork and being asked if we were interested in “selective reduction” aka abortion, in the case of multiples. We of course said “no”, but now I realize that this means that other patients do abort, and by our using this clinic’s services to save our babies’ lives, we financially supported an institution that takes the lives of other babies.
Now, whether or not we picked up our babies at this clinic, they would still abort the other patients’ babies if that’s what was being asked, bc our money paid for our expenses only. Still, I am now bothered by the idea of implicitly condoning this practice.
Having said that, as a mother of 4 children in heaven, would I risk judgment again to save my babies? If my babies had been born and sleeping in their crib, and I was taking a shower when a house fire broke out, and I only had time to grab my babies and bolt out the door without having a chance to cover my naked body for decency’s sake, would this also be considered wrong? Wouldn’t I be committing one moral evil (indecent exposure, lascivious quasi-pornographic activity) in order to commit a moral good (saving the lives of my children)? Would this be seen as moral relativism? Would people tell me to risk my children’s death while I try to put on appropriate clothing before trying to save them? Of course, there can never be a good enough parallel drawn.
Our 4 children were conceived through illicit means, but we had no part in this. Their genetic parents did this. We took them in just like any other adopted child. We provided what they needed. At this stage of development, they didn’t need a crib, diapers, and milk; they needed a uterus.
Speaking of which, the idea that an artificial uterus would in any way support the dignity of these poor babies is preposterous. It isn’t bad enough that they were conceived artificially? Now we’re suggesting they be gestated artificially as well? Perhaps this isn’t surprising when all motherly duties are being outsourced nowadays, from formula to daycare.
Returning to the moral dilemma. At this point, I don’t know if we would adopt embryos again, realizing what we now realize about the fact that abortions take place at many such clinics. Then again, this is not very different from the other procedures that are done that we as Catholics are against - IVF, surrogacy, donor insemination. To adopt embryos, to allow them to live, requires association with clinics that do other, illicit, procedures. Perhaps an entirely Catholic, Pro-Life clinic may be in order, one where babies go to be rescued. The nun’s idea mentioned in one of the posts was most fascinating.
Regarding the disassociation of the marital act from conception, I also must stress that this does not apply in embryo adoption. DH and I prayed for our babies before their homecoming, they were already our babies even before they were in my womb. Our adopting them or transferring them did not bring them into being, as some have pointed out. It is ridiculous to use this against embryo adoption, just as it would be ridiculous to use lack of marital intimacy as a reason not to adopt a newborn, toddler, preschooler, or teen. These children were already conceived, and the adopting parents had nothing to do with how that came about.
It is only individual interpretation and opinion that tries to extend this Catholic teaching from intimacy to pregnancy. Saying that because the child is not biologically related to the parents or because she or he was conceived outside the womb and therefore does not deserve to be gestated in the womb is like saying that an adopted orphan baby does not deserve to be breastfed by the adoptive mother. Of course, there is a camp that argues just this. But that is a sad debate for another day.
Btw, it is illegal to buy or sell embryos, so the idea that this would create a market for it is moot.
I do not intend to defend our decision here. I am only stating it for the purpose of establishing first-hand experience.
First of all, there is no technology available that implants embryos. What is being referred to here is called an embryo transfer, where the babies are placed into the woman’s uterus during a well-calculated fertile period, and then we wait to see if God wills for them to be implanted. One or both of the first babies that had their homecoming this way implanted, but sadly we lost them just a short week later. The second two babies we adopted never made it to implantation. So all that is happening in an embryo adoption is the physical transfer of the tiny babies from a petri dish into their rightful place - a mother’s womb. Implantation remains in the hands of God.
Having said that, I do have a dilemma on my mind now, after the fact. In memory of our first two babies’ due date (this week), I sent out a thank you card to the embryologist who assisted with their homecoming (“transfer”). I wanted to remind him that he is dealing with human life, and that even though the procedure was not “successful” for us, it was successful for the babies, as they have been released into heaven. It was a very painful and risky thing we did, for we long to be parents, but we knew that if these babies weren’t adopted, their genetic parents were ready to donate them to science (aka destroy them).
In the process of writing this card, I remembered filling out the clinic’s paperwork and being asked if we were interested in “selective reduction” aka abortion, in the case of multiples. We of course said “no”, but now I realize that this means that other patients do abort, and by our using this clinic’s services to save our babies’ lives, we financially supported an institution that takes the lives of other babies.
Now, whether or not we picked up our babies at this clinic, they would still abort the other patients’ babies if that’s what was being asked, bc our money paid for our expenses only. Still, I am now bothered by the idea of implicitly condoning this practice.
Having said that, as a mother of 4 children in heaven, would I risk judgment again to save my babies? If my babies had been born and sleeping in their crib, and I was taking a shower when a house fire broke out, and I only had time to grab my babies and bolt out the door without having a chance to cover my naked body for decency’s sake, would this also be considered wrong? Wouldn’t I be committing one moral evil (indecent exposure, lascivious quasi-pornographic activity) in order to commit a moral good (saving the lives of my children)? Would this be seen as moral relativism? Would people tell me to risk my children’s death while I try to put on appropriate clothing before trying to save them? Of course, there can never be a good enough parallel drawn.
Our 4 children were conceived through illicit means, but we had no part in this. Their genetic parents did this. We took them in just like any other adopted child. We provided what they needed. At this stage of development, they didn’t need a crib, diapers, and milk; they needed a uterus.
Speaking of which, the idea that an artificial uterus would in any way support the dignity of these poor babies is preposterous. It isn’t bad enough that they were conceived artificially? Now we’re suggesting they be gestated artificially as well? Perhaps this isn’t surprising when all motherly duties are being outsourced nowadays, from formula to daycare.
Returning to the moral dilemma. At this point, I don’t know if we would adopt embryos again, realizing what we now realize about the fact that abortions take place at many such clinics. Then again, this is not very different from the other procedures that are done that we as Catholics are against - IVF, surrogacy, donor insemination. To adopt embryos, to allow them to live, requires association with clinics that do other, illicit, procedures. Perhaps an entirely Catholic, Pro-Life clinic may be in order, one where babies go to be rescued. The nun’s idea mentioned in one of the posts was most fascinating.
Regarding the disassociation of the marital act from conception, I also must stress that this does not apply in embryo adoption. DH and I prayed for our babies before their homecoming, they were already our babies even before they were in my womb. Our adopting them or transferring them did not bring them into being, as some have pointed out. It is ridiculous to use this against embryo adoption, just as it would be ridiculous to use lack of marital intimacy as a reason not to adopt a newborn, toddler, preschooler, or teen. These children were already conceived, and the adopting parents had nothing to do with how that came about.
It is only individual interpretation and opinion that tries to extend this Catholic teaching from intimacy to pregnancy. Saying that because the child is not biologically related to the parents or because she or he was conceived outside the womb and therefore does not deserve to be gestated in the womb is like saying that an adopted orphan baby does not deserve to be breastfed by the adoptive mother. Of course, there is a camp that argues just this. But that is a sad debate for another day.
Btw, it is illegal to buy or sell embryos, so the idea that this would create a market for it is moot.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
I haven’t looked through the whole thread so this may have already been adressed, but IMO this logic seems spurious at best.I’m sure the magisterium would love to sanction adopting out those embryos, and I’m sure there are many Catholics who would like to do so. But I don’t know how the Vatican can approve these adoptions without at the same time giving a green light to IVF. It’s either allowed or it’s not… so those embryos will just have to sit in the freezer until they get adopted by non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics.
That’s like saying that if the Vatican gives the green light to adopting children who were born from rape we’re giving green light to rape. It’s not the same as okaying IVF, it’s just trying to correct some of the problems caused by it.
L
Listener
Guest
What is the evil being done if someone adopted an embryo? In this case, the IVF has already been done. Implanting an existing embryo into someone’s uterus is definitely not IVF. It is simply giving a home to someone who already exists (just an earlier form of adoption).
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
If Dignitas Personae really represents the final word on Church teaching regarding this subject my first reaction, perhaps uneducated, is that I’m very disappointed.
The document does not say anything about artificial uteruses; I don’t know if they’d approve it or not, and of course it would be a highly unfortunate situation if they were used, but perhaps one day they’d be a practical solution. I don’t know.
The thing I don’t get, and the Church in her wisdom almost certainly has an explanation I haven’t heard or understood properly yet, is how the Church considers it immoral to get injected with human embryos if the person getting injected is using this as a way to save the embryos from death. The child did nothing wrong; the person getting injected did nothing wrong. So where’s the culpability?
The document does not say anything about artificial uteruses; I don’t know if they’d approve it or not, and of course it would be a highly unfortunate situation if they were used, but perhaps one day they’d be a practical solution. I don’t know.
The thing I don’t get, and the Church in her wisdom almost certainly has an explanation I haven’t heard or understood properly yet, is how the Church considers it immoral to get injected with human embryos if the person getting injected is using this as a way to save the embryos from death. The child did nothing wrong; the person getting injected did nothing wrong. So where’s the culpability?
D
Debora123
Guest
I agree.
BUT I have made that exact same argument before on here and a poster linked me to some Catholic source that basically stated that it would NOT be morally permissible to adopt these little embryos.
It doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever, but what can ya do.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
I suppose the real difference is one of natural law…it’s a subtle distinction, like the one between artificial contraception and NFP. The problem with implanting embryos before birth might not be that IVF is wrong, but that the simple fact of artificial implantation is wrong.
If this is true it may just be an unfortunately unfair case of “the ends don’t justify the means”.
If this is true it may just be an unfortunately unfair case of “the ends don’t justify the means”.
- Status