Infertility

[sacredcello]

As the parent of internationally adopted children, and someone that previously took steps to adopt at home, I can tell you the above post is nonsense. The problems have to do with the nonsense one must go through in the U.S. to adopt at home, as well as the potential of the birth parents to wreak havoc on the adoptive family’s life down the road.

Yes, I have heard horror stories, as you say, of birth parents changing their mind at the last minute or well into the adoption process. I still say, though, that many more adoptions would take place in our own country, if there were a change of heart and mind about abortion. If it came to be seen as the horror that it is, there would be more than a million additional children born each year in our country. I’m not saying that we should go back to the 1950’s-60’s when pregnant teens were whisked away to institutions to give birth in secret, away from their home towns and to prepare to give their babies up for adoption. That wasn’t very good either. But, better than our current system.

 

[Warrior1979]

I still say, though, that many more adoptions would take place in our own country, if there were a change of heart and mind about abortion.

I completely disagree. If you added 100,000,000 children that needed adoption in this country, it still wouldn’t address the problems associated with adopting in this country. When it’s easier to adopt in a “Communist” country that is involved in every aspect of peoples live than at home, you know you’ve got a serious problem with the at-home adoption process.

The abortion argument can only come into play if there is nobody to adopt at home, which is clearly not the case. There are plenty of children to be adopted at home, it’s just that the government makes it unpalatable.

 

[Warrior1979]

With regard to infertility, my wife and I checked out fine; it just didn’t happen. In fact, she already had a biological son from a prior marriage…though she had him many years earlier.

One of the issues that I’ve seen happen with couples that were having trouble conceiving (of which I know many…mostly of the late-in-life variety) is that at least one of the spouses had to have a child with their own DNA. Some spent zillions of dollars on IVF. One, after spending close to $100,000 on IVF, with no success, then went on to implant another woman’s egg fertilized by her husband, which was successful.

For my wife and I, this wasn’t an issue. We went right to the adoption process. We started at home, then decided to go international. It was the best thing we ever did. Our children are truly extraordinary and gifts from God. Where or who they came from is irrelevant.

 

[sacredcello]

I completely disagree. If you added 100,000,000 children that needed adoption in this country, it still wouldn’t address the problems associated with adopting in this country. When it’s easier to adopt in a “Communist” country that is involved in every aspect of peoples live than at home, you know you’ve got a serious problem with the at-home adoption process.

The abortion argument can only come into play if there is nobody to adopt at home, which is clearly not the case. There are plenty of children to be adopted at home, it’s just that the government makes it unpalatable.

Oh, I guess you are referring to the government interfering with Christians who wish to adopt and raise them according to their faith? I’ve heard this can happen with fostering children as well, depending on the state.

In any case, it is a rhetorical argument. There isn’t likely to be a change of heart about abortion any time soon, unless by an act of God. Our society is moving in the opposite direction, for the most part.

 

[crazzeto]

I completely disagree. If you added 100,000,000 children that needed adoption in this country, it still wouldn’t address the problems associated with adopting in this country. When it’s easier to adopt in a “Communist” country that is involved in every aspect of peoples live than at home, you know you’ve got a serious problem with the at-home adoption process.

The abortion argument can only come into play if there is nobody to adopt at home, which is clearly not the case. There are plenty of children to be adopted at home, it’s just that the government makes it unpalatable.

Oh, I guess you are referring to the government interfering with Christians who wish to adopt and raise them according to their faith? I’ve heard this can happen with fostering children as well, depending on the state.

In any case, it is a rhetorical argument. There isn’t likely to be a change of heart about abortion any time soon, unless by an act of God. Our society is moving in the opposite direction, for the most part.

I don’t disagree that the process is (justifiably) long to adopt, but unfortunetly none of the arguments being made right now are swaying. I do happend to believe that the numbers aren’t there, and that this is due to abortion (sacredecello, actually we’re moving pro-life nationally).

But to solve this argument, we need hard numbers. We do have generalities of what abortion has done to this nation, tens of millions dead. How many, out of those tens of millions would have otherwise been adopted?

 

[Warrior1979]

We found plenty of kids to adopt in very short time. We just weren’t interested in the nonsense that went along with it, so we went overseas.

 

[crazzeto]

We found plenty of kids to adopt in very short time. We just weren’t interested in the nonsense that went along with it, so we went overseas.

At least a brief search on google would seem to suggest that your experience does not mirror the national (international) reality with regards to the numbers of children available for adoption:

statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-placing-children.html

•The percentage of premarital births placed for adoption has decreased since the 1970s. Analyses of three cycles of the National Survey of Family Growth show the following trend:

◦From 1952 to 1972, 8.7% of all premarital births were placed for adoption.
◦From 1973 to 1981, this percentage fell to 4.1%.
◦From 1982 to 1988, it fell further to 2%. (Bachrach, Stolley, London, 1992)

•Less than 3% of white unmarried women and less than 2% of Black unmarried women. (Mosher and Bachrach, 1996)
•Of Black women with premarital births,
From 1952 to 1972, 1.5% placed their children for adoption.
From 1973 to 1981, this percentage fell to .2%
From 1982 to 1988, it rose to 1.1%.

•Of White women with premarital births,
From 1952 to 1972, 19.3% placed their children for adoption.
From 1973 to 1981, this percentage fell to 7.6%.
From 1982 to 1988, it fell further to 3.2%. (Bachrach, Stolley, London, 1992)
•Women who voluntarily place their children for adoption are likely to have greater educational and vocational goals for themselves than those who keep their children. Women making adoption plans often come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. These women come from intact families which are supportive of the placement, and which have not experienced teenage pregnancies by other family members. (Stolley, 1993)

I guess this is why personal experience isn’t necessarly alwasy the best indicator of what is actually going on out there. Did you ever wonder why it is states can afford to be so picky about whom they give children to?

 

[Warrior1979]

We didn’t limit our search to a particular state. As I’ve stated many times over, If we wanted to adopt at home, we could’ve…that wasn’t an issue. This was also true of many of the adoptive couples we met.

One thing to keep in mind is that many adoptive families are very particular, which significantly limits their choice. For example, there are potentially adoptive parents that insist the child is of a certain race, or even must look like the adoptive parents. Some insist on meeting the biological parents to see if that parent meets certain criteria. We had no such requirements.

 

[crazzeto]

We didn’t limit our search to a particular state. As I’ve stated many times over, If we wanted to adopt at home, we could’ve…that wasn’t an issue. This was also true of many of the adoptive couples we met.

One thing to keep in mind is that many adoptive families are very particular, which significantly limits their choice. For example, there are potentially adoptive parents that insist the child is of a certain race, or even must look like the adoptive parents. Some insist on meeting the biological parents to see if that parent meets certain criteria. We had no such requirements.

Ok, but the numbers show a reality differeing with your perception. Again, I think this is kind of the problem when people say “well I did… and I perceived…”… Because sometimes we find that we accidently live in a vaccum.

God bless,

 

[anilorak13ska]

I don’t know what ties any of you have to adoption, other than those who mentioned it outright, so I am not directing this at anyone in particular. But people who have never tried to adopt should not go around pretending that they are the expert on all things adoption/abortion and how they’ve found the simple and obvious solution to both the problem of abortion and the problem of infertility. I for one, am against abortion, but this doesn’t mean that I do not comprehend what may be going through a woman’s head when she is weighing her options. So long as she aborts, she can live in denial about the life that was within her. But if she gives birth and places that baby elsewhere, she will tend to have a sense of having abandoned her child in some way. Clearly, this doesn’t make it right. But saying that those who abort and those who adopt should just all get together is trying to make a gray situation black and white. I think the solution is prevention (say, abstinence before marriage), followed by family support of single parenthood for those who do not abide by the first solution, and then community support in terms of affordable childcare, etc. to allow the women to parent. This wouldn’t prevent some women from seeking abortions anyway, but it would assist those women who abort bc they aren’t ready to parent, or can’t handle parenting another child due to their circumstances.

DH and I tried to adopt domestically for 3 years before finally going international, but most people don’t turn to it as a last resort - they choose international adoption.

We were willing to be open with the birth family, we were open to certain difficult conception situations, we were somewhat open to race (we’re a mixed couple, and frankly, we did not want a Caucasian newborn like everyone else seems to), we didn’t care about gender… But 4 fall-throughs later we decided that enough was enough. We also fostered a little girl for nearly a year, and now that she’s back with her mom and we babysit her from time to time, as good as that relationship is, I don’t think that we would be that comfortable with an open adoption after all. I have strong opinions about how mom is raising her daughter (or rather not really raising her, just sort of being there), and it is hard for me to accept that SHE is the mother. I can’t imagine a birth mother being in this position and fully accepting that the adoptive parents make the calls. I know it works for many families, but for us, it might not.

So I think it’s too simplistic to think that the reason US families go abroad to adopt is bc there aren’t enough kids in the US, or that if there were more children being born to women unprepared to parent them, that these same families would then decide against international adoption. International adoption is not a second best option, it is simply a different option, as is domestic agency adoption, domestic independent/private adoption, or foster adoption. Different families choose different routes to adoption for various reasons, and generally not due to availability of children.

Furthermore, to say that all infertile people should just adopt is also simplifying a complex situation. There are definitely people who should not parent adopted children, bc they are unable or unwilling to undertake the unique challenges involved. You must be prepared to honor your child’s original family, recognize that this part of your child’s identity may be very important to them, and you cannot take it personally. An adopted child is not a replacement for a biological child. Infertile couples have to grieve the loss of their biological child before they can adopt. Adoption is not a fertility treatment; it is an entirely different calling from God.

 

[Warrior1979]

Ok, but the numbers show a reality differeing with your perception. Again, I think this is kind of the problem when people say “well I did… and I perceived…”… Because sometimes we find that we accidently live in a vaccum.

Not only me, but everyone else I know that went through the same thing. What was your experience with adopting?

 

[JacquesMaritain]

Furthermore, to say that all infertile people should just adopt is also simplifying a complex situation. There are definitely people who should not parent adopted children, bc they are unable or unwilling to undertake the unique challenges involved. You must be prepared to honor your child’s original family, recognize that this part of your child’s identity may be very important to them, and you cannot take it personally. An adopted child is not a replacement for a biological child. Infertile couples have to grieve the loss of their biological child before they can adopt. Adoption is not a fertility treatment; it is an entirely different calling from God.

Hi anilorak:

Thanks for this…truer words were never spoken. It drives me crazy when well-meaning but misinformed people, when hearing of our infertility, just say, “no problem, you can always adopt!” as though it were some replacement for a biological child. It is, as you say, an entirely different calling from God, and not everyone in this situation is either ready (or able) to receive it.

When people tell me to “just adopt” I sometimes feel like saying to them, “well, if you think adopting a child is the same, tell you what…donate one of your children to me, because you can always adopt another for yourself!” Of course they would be horrified if I were to suggest it, so I keep my mouth shut. It isn’t the same thing, no matter how much people try to sugarcoat it.

Thanks for your insights, and God Bless. My wife and I have been infertile forever, and have given up on ever having a family. God has chosen not to hear our prayers, who knows why, who can fathom the mind of God (maybe He knows we’d be bad parents or something), so we have to manage as best we can. So we do.

Jacques.

 

[KZ2011]

Jacques, so you don;t feel to be called to adopt? We are also not succeeding with our own baby so we started thinking about adoption. Both of us like the option but the horrific stories surrounding it scare me. Also I don;t feel a special calling only that my heart is open to any child. My boss’ son was supposed to take a new born home last week and one hour prior to that mother changed her mind to keep the baby. This is the second time it happened to them (within one year). I just don;t know if I have the nerve to pursue domestic adoption after hearing this. A thought came to my head that I would rather adopt an orphan from Africa…

 

[JacquesMaritain]

Jacques, so you don;t feel to be called to adopt? We are also not succeeding with our own baby so we started thinking about adoption. Both of us like the option but the horrific stories surrounding it scare me. Also I don;t feel a special calling only that my heart is open to any child. My boss’ son was supposed to take a new born home last week and one hour prior to that mother changed her mind to keep the baby. This is the second time it happened to them (within one year). I just don;t know if I have the nerve to pursue domestic adoption after hearing this. A thought came to my head that I would rather adopt an orphan from Africa…

Hi KZ2011:

Even if adoption were a possibility for us (it’s not, due to our advanced ages), I don’t think we could do it, as the child would not be ours. The Catechism says that a child is a gift from heaven:

2378 “A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person."

It goes on to say that we can perform an act of generousity by adopting/raising an abandoned child. But that’s not supposed to be a substitute. It suggests rather that we surrender ourselves to God, and accept the Cross He wants us to bear (ie, accept our condition and not try to get around it). It suggests further that we are not completely evil for being sterile, which I suppose is a sort of concession that we’re not all bad. Forgive me if I’m somewhat upset by that, as the line is not necessary and becomes a case of “damning with faint praise”:

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"

Well, my wife and I being too old to adopt, we’re going down the road of performing services for others instead. I’m troubled also by the language used in the Catechism when it cautions us against IVF and other forms of reproductive technology:

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.” (Emphasis mine)

A close reading of that passage seems to say that the child has the right to know his or her true birth parents (ie, when an adopted child become old enough to want to find out who their real parents are, we have to let them), and further, that we (my wife and I) are to be parents only through each other, not via third parties (such as the family that created the child we would supposedly adopt). And it leads to a conundrum: if spouses supposedly have a “right” to become a father/mother ***only ***through each other, to whom do they appeal if their rights have been abrogated, as is the case with all infertile couples?

In short: an adoption is not of the same category of a father and mother with child of your own. I can see from your posting you feel uneasy about the casual way people equate the two as well (your 4th sentence). It’s an act of charity some of us can perform, but it’s a totally different category of idea.

I hope this helps.

Jacques

 

[anilorak13ska]

It saddens me to hear that people still have this idea that adoption is just a permanent form of foster care, and that the “real” parents are those who share the child’s genes. If adoption was good enough for Jesus, whose ancestry according to Matthew is traced through his non-biological father, St. Joseph, then it’s good enough for me to consider my future adopted children as truly and fully “my own”. That is not to say that their biological parents don’t have a place in their life. Why can’t a child love more than two parents if we as parents can love more than one or two children? Is it ideal? Of course not. No child should have to be separated from their first parents. But when this becomes inevitable, to say to that child that their “real” parents are the ones who abused or neglected them (and thereby necesitated the adoption) is to speak completely out of turn, to say the least.

Clearly, not everyone is prepared to accept another person’s child as their own. But if we can accept a perfect stranger as our spouse, and treat them as our next of kin and as THE point of contact in emergencies, etc., then why would anyone ever doubt that someone could take another stranger, a child, and make them a part of their family, for better or for worse? I’ve come to respect that not everyone feels equally enthusiastic about adoption as I do, but please don’t use the Catechism as an excuse for not wanting to adopt by insinuating that an adoptive parent-child relationship is somehow not as real as a biological parent-child relationship. The only difference is the origin. Ask any parents of both biological and adoptive children, and they will attest to this.

 

[JacquesMaritain]

Clearly, not everyone is prepared to accept another person’s child as their own. But if we can accept a perfect stranger as our spouse, and treat them as our next of kin and as THE point of contact in emergencies, etc., then why would anyone ever doubt that someone could take another stranger, a child, and make them a part of their family, for better or for worse? I’ve come to respect that not everyone feels equally enthusiastic about adoption as I do, but please don’t use the Catechism as an excuse for not wanting to adopt by insinuating that an adoptive parent-child relationship is somehow not as real as a biological parent-child relationship. The only difference is the origin. Ask any parents of both biological and adoptive children, and they will attest to this.

Hi anilorak:

I’m sorry if my views sadden you. I haven’t quoted your first paragraph as I honestly can’t make heads or tails out of it; I suspect I am totally misinterpreting what you are saying; Jesus as an “adopted child”? I don’t get that, I’m sorry, I don’t understand it at all.

But I do want to talk about what you say in the second paragraph. We don’t accept perfect strangers as our spouses; they don’t become spouses until we know them, and they know us, which is a process that takes years of discernment. (Well, it did for my wife and I, anyway). Adopting a child does not seem to be like that…correct me if I am wrong, as we cannot adopt due to age, so we really don’t know the nitty-gritty of the process. But you apply, they match you up with a child, and you accept them, right? You don’t spend months or years “getting to know” them before you decide to make them part of your family, do you? From what I can see, the adoptive parents (usually) know almost nothing about the children they are adopting; their biological and genetic histories are a tabula rasa, a clean slate. Again, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, as this was long ago for me…maybe today’s kids do come with “genetic profiles”, but I doubt it. This has become important now that genetic testing and other medical research means you can tell what diseases you are likely to develop, say, if you know your biological family’s background. Knowing your biological mother has the genes for, say, breast cancer, may now be a matter of life and death.

I’m trying to say (I think) that adoption is a different kind of thing than having a biological child. It’s a different sort of “real”, a corporeal reality as opposed to, say, a spiritual one. Biological children are real in a corporeal sense, flesh and blood, bone cleft from bone, heart made from heart. You say the only difference is the origin, but wow, what a difference! Again, you would seem to say that it doesn’t really matter, and furthermore, that any parent of both would attest to this. I cannot say, as I can never be a parent, but if that’s true, then they ought to be willing to accept the challenge I made a few posts back (if it really doesn’t matter, give me one of your biological children and adopt one for yourself). I find it hard to believe they would take me up on the offer, but who knows? Maybe I’m completely off base about this (it wouldn’t be the first time).

I don’t know if my viewpoint came through very clearly, but i would never use the Catechism as an excuse, as I think this section on infertility is very badly written, and not cogently argued. It meanders all over the place, and seems to be an afterthought. In fact, I think portions of this section on infertility are actually quite hostile to us.

To see this, all you have to do is “re-write” the relevant passages with other minorities or marginalized groups in mind. If you do that, you can see what I’m talking about. The first line of section 2379, for example, should never have survived the editing process: “The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil." I don’t think being sterile is an evil at all, as it’s not my fault, or my wife’s…this is a holdover from the days before modern medicine, where infertility was (wrongly) believed to be a consequence of the bearer’s sin. It needs to go, and right away. This sort of thing insults me, and makes me angry.

If I wrote a similar line about, say, black people, or women, or gays, I’d be (rightly!) run out of town on a rail. (“History shows that being black is not completely inferior”…“Science demonstrates that being female is not to be absolutely ignorant”…“Experience shows that homosexuals are not completely immoral”). Well, you get the idea. We’d never write this sort of statement about others; so what makes us infertiles worthy of being, as I said above, “damned with faint praise”?

Jacques

 

[KZ2011]

Jesus was not a biological son of Saint Joseph. Joseph rightly “adopted him” instructed to do so in his dream. I can imagine that it must have been hard to withstand the mockery of neighbours because Mary became pregnant before they were married.

Anyway, I feel from your post Jacques that perhaps you would have a hard time to love an adopted child as your own when you see such huge differences in the origin of the child. So maybe you were not called to adoption?? Only you know this of course. No person even today comes with a genetic profile written in their file in the hospital. Maybe in some sci-fi movies…(and would know this since I am a a biology researcher). Your own child might get some nasty disease and die. How can you control that??? It happens. For example my husbands family has a history of mental disease (unfortunately he has one too). I am not eager to inherit these genes! What you are talking about sounds similar to eugenics.

As far as your post to give me one of your children and adopt a different one for yourself: I think that it does not work this way. I know families with both biological and adopted children and they treat them and love them the same and would never give away even the adopted child once it has become part of their family. I imagine that by adopting the child
you claim it your own (you have to be aware of the different origin and other challenges). I would not even give my cat to anybody since I am attached to her because she is part of my family.

 

[anilorak13ska]

KZ2011 - I couldn’t have said it better myself But from what I understand, Jacques indeed is not interested in adoption, hence his opinion.

Jacques, I’m sorry if I got a bit defensive in my previous response. The point is, as I originally stated and you agreed - not everyone is cut out to adopt. People who cannot get past the biology and genetics are the first in line. I don’t know your age, but while you may not be eligible to adopt a newborn through an agency, there are older children, minority children, and children with special needs who still need permanent families. And independently birth mothers can choose adoptive parents of any age they choose, since there’s no law that says you can’t adopt past a certain age. Having said that, I do not recommend you adopt based on the hangups you have with adoption.

Regarding Jesus, he was adopted by His earthly father, St. Joseph. There are many ways to become an adoptive family - step-parent adoption being one of them, relative adoption, etc. And I’d hardly say that I knew all there was to know about my husband before I committed myself to him. Likewise, you do get information about the child you are considering adopting, including medical and social history, so that you can make an informed decision as best you can. And with foster care adoption, you precisely get to know a child and if they become available for adoption, you can choose to adopt them or not based on having gotten to know them enough. So again, adoption is not a black and white process, much like infertility.

As for the Catechism, I agree with you that it is not the best “literature” on infertility, certainly nothing to read to make you feel better about it. That’s why I don’t think using it to back up one’s opinion is the best choice. Infertility is a disorder like any other - there is something wrong with the physical body. We as Christians do not believe that disease or illness is a curse from God, so why would infertility be any different? It’s a cross to bear, for sure, but in no way does it diminish God’s love of you or your value as His child.

I was in denial for several years after we got our diagnosis. We went directly to pursuing adoption and I never allowed myself the chance to grieve. Only recently did God put it on my heart to hope for a miracle, which I did, and I was disappointed. Then I was angry at God for leading me on like that, since I was “fine” before. But now I realize that maybe God needs me to be able to sympathize with my future kids. They will have gone through an incredible loss by being separated from their first family. Maybe my husband and I also needed to have gone through a loss we had no control over, so that we could better relate to them and help them get past it.

I’d like to share a poem I found elsewhere online that I found really speaks to my condition, of how infertility has been a blessing to me:
I am a religious person

and my faith in what God means when he gives people certain challenges

has kept me goingthrough this ordeal.

What do I think God meant when he gave me Infertility?

I think he meant for my husband and I to grow closer,become stronger, love deeper.

I think God meant for us to find the fortitude within ourselves to get up every time infertility knocks us down.

I think God meant for our medical community to discovermedicines, invent medical equipment, create procedures and protocols.

I think God meant for us to find a cure for Infertility.

No, God never meant for me to not have children.

That’s not my destiny, that’s just a fork in the road I’m on.

I’ve been placed on the road less traveled, and like it or not, I’m a better person for it.

Clearly, God meant for me to overcome my devestation, guilt and sorrow

in order to develop more compassion,deeper courage, and greater inner strength on this journey to resolution

and I haven’t let Him down.

Frankly, if the truth be known, I think God meant for me to build a thirst for a child so strong and so deep

that when that baby is finally placed in my arms

it will be the longest,

coolest,

most refreshing drink

I’ve ever known.

~Author Unknown

 

[Hail_Linus]

It suggests further that we are not completely evil for being sterile, which I suppose is a sort of concession that we’re not all bad. Forgive me if I’m somewhat upset by that, as the line is not necessary and becomes a case of “damning with faint praise”:

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"

You are misinterpreting the Catechism. The “evil” of sterility has nothing to do with you. It is referring to the condition of sterility. When the Catechism states that it is not an absolute evil it means the condition of sterility is not necessarily a bad thing. Another way of looking at it is perhaps God wants you to bring love into the world another way, i.e. “adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.” The Crucifixion of Jesus was evil but not an absolute evil since so much good came from it. Unite your cross with the Lord’s cross.

I am trying to cheer you up and I hope it comes across that way. I am truly sorry for your suffering.

 

[sacredcello]

You are misinterpreting the Catechism. The “evil” of sterility has nothing to do with you. It is referring to the condition of sterility. When the Catechism states that it is not an absolute evil it means the condition of sterility is not necessarily a bad thing. Another way of looking at it is perhaps God wants you to bring love into the world another way, i.e. “adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.” The Crucifixion of Jesus was evil but not an absolute evil since so much good came from it. Unite your cross with the Lord’s cross.

I am trying to cheer you up and I hope it comes across that way. I am truly sorry for your suffering.

Thank you, Hail Linus. That is exactly the way I see it. I am struggling with infertility and am currently receiving treatments from a NaPro Technology doctor. I read that passage in the Catechism, and I was not insulted or saddened by it. It has nothing to do with me personally, but my condition. I agree that infertility is not an absolute evil, nor is the Cross of Christ.