Fertility treatments and Theology of the Body

[Kevn]

The central tenet of the Theology of the Body, is that we are ‘wonderfully and fearfully made’ in the image of God, and so using contraception would be re engineering it (in effect) for our own pleasure.

But if that is the case, people born naturally infertile should not attempt any kind of fertility treatments (not talking about ivf, but other methods like ovulation induction), because isn’t that too a re engineering of the body?

Now i know there is some inherent flaw in that question, because if you generalise it, you eventually end with negating the entire medical field, and avoiding treatment for ANY medical condition. And there definitely seems to be something wrong in THAT!

So, can anyone help me bridge this gap?

 

[nodito]

Welcome to CAF!

The human body was designed in a particular way so that the parts of the body have particular functions. The eyes were made to see. The heart is meant to pump blood. And the reproductive organs are designed to enable humans to reproduce. This is true even though we know some people, because of sickness or genetics or original sin, are born blind or with heart defects or infertility. This is the basis of natural law. When we see that someone’s particular organ or body part is not working correctly, we rightly deduce that something has gone amiss; something is not as it should be. It is in keeping with natural law to restore the body 's function to the way it was designed to work. This is why surgery, medical treatment, and certain infertility treatments are licit and good.

Contraception, on the other hand, contradicts God’s design. The reproductive organs were designed to help make babies. If a woman gets pregnant, it demonstrates that her body is working the way God designed the female body to work. Permanet contraception mutilates the body. Temporary contraception renders the act sterile. It is not at all in keeping with natural law, just as would say it would be wrong to deliberately blind someone or to regularly make yourself vomit to avoid the consequences of eating. We must treat our bodies with the respect they deserve and maintain or restore the functions that God intended them to have.

 

[Kevn]

Wow… That actually did clear things up…

Reminds me of Jesus telling the people (before healing the blind man), that he was made blind, so that God’s glory may be manifested (I assume manifested in the restoration of sight in that man)…

Thanks a lot!

 

[1ke]

Your logic does not hold.

Fertility treatments correct a defect, just as insulin does. There is no theological ground for claiming that legitimate treatments aimed at correcting a defect or curing the ill is immoral. Jesus cured the sick.

While we as a race are certainly fearfully and wonderfully made, and perfect in original holiness, individuals can be afflicted with disease or defect as a result of Original Sin and disorder in the natural world. Jesus teaches us it is an act of charity (love) to care for them and healing is a ministry.

 

[Starrsmother]

Your logic does not hold.

Fertility treatments correct a defect, just as insulin does. There is no theological ground for claiming that legitimate treatments aimed at correcting a defect or curing the ill is immoral. Jesus cured the sick.

While we as a race are certainly fearfully and wonderfully made, and perfect in original holiness, individuals can be afflicted with disease or defect as a result of Original Sin and disorder in the natural world. Jesus teaches us it is an act of charity (love) to care for them and healing is a ministry.

I believe the church DOES allow many/most fertility treatments–simply not IVF or a few others which do interfere with natural law and in such a way that the dignity of the human life being created is not respected. I don’t see church teaching as the enemy to science or scientific advance in this area. Perhaps I err however…

 

[_Abyssinia]

1. With regard to the treatment of infertility, new medical techniques must respect three fundamental goods: a) the right to life and to physical integrity of every human being from conception to natural death; b) the unity of marriage, which means reciprocal respect for the right within marriage to become a father or mother only together with the other spouse;19] c) the specifically human values of sexuality which require “that the procreation of a human person be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses”.20] Techniques which assist procreation “are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life”.21]

In light of this principle, all techniques of heteologous artificial fertilization,22] as well as those techniques of homologous artificial fertilization23] which substitute for the conjugal act, are to be excluded. On the other hand, techniques which act as an aid to the conjugal act and its fertility are permitted. The Instruction Donum vitae states: “The doctor is at the service of persons and of human procreation. He does not have the authority to dispose of them or to decide their fate. A medical intervention respects the dignity of persons when it seeks to assist the conjugal act either in order to facilitate its performance or in order to enable it to achieve its objective once it has been normally performed”.24] And, with regard to homologous artificial insemination, it states: “Homologous artificial insemination within marriage cannot be admitted except for those cases in which the technical means is not a substitute for the conjugal act, but serves to facilitate and to help so that the act attains its natural purpose”.25]

1. Certainly, techniques aimed at removing obstacles to natural fertilization, as for example, hormonal treatments for infertility, surgery for endometriosis, unblocking of fallopian tubes or their surgical repair, are licit. All these techniques may be considered authentic treatments because, once the problem causing the infertility has been resolved, the married couple is able to engage in conjugal acts resulting in procreation, without the physician’s action directly interfering in that act itself. None of these treatments replaces the conjugal act, which alone is worthy of truly responsible procreation.

In order to come to the aid of the many infertile couples who want to have children, adoption should be encouraged, promoted and facilitated by appropriate legislation so that the many children who lack parents may receive a home that will contribute to their human development. In addition, research and investment directed at the prevention of sterility deserve encouragement.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

Pope Paul VI Institute for the study of human reproduction has moral fertility treatments

popepaulvi.com

Just the facts

Some astonishing facts about NaPro are:

• It is more effective than IVF. Success rates are said to range from 40% to 60% vs. the IVF rate of 32.3% per cycle.

• It costs only a fraction of what IVF costs.

• It is almost 80% effective in bringing about childbirth after several miscarriages.

• It is 95% successful in treating premenstrual syndrome.

• It is 95% successful in treating postpartum depression.

• It cuts the rate of premature birth by almost 50%, thus lowering the frequency of birth-related injuries.

• With NaPro, you can have more children after the first without paying the same large cost again.19

The list of benefits seems to go on and on. The only thing lacking now is getting the word out. NaPro has a great future.20

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7810

 

[His_helpmeet]

IVF and AI are contrary to Catholic teaching because they dissociate the unitive and procreative aspects of human sexuality. The child becomes no longer a visible symbol of the couple’s love for each other, conceived through their physical expression of that love.

On the other hand, as the PPs have said, medications designed to induce ovulation are intended to correct a defect. These medications still require the marital act in order to be effective. Consequently, the unitive and procreative aspects of human sexuality are not divided and they are morally licit.