Okay I was in here a week ago asking why would the pope or Rome grant someone an IVF under certain Circumstances. I lost that thread so I’m posting a new one. Well, still concerns me that a priest and/or lay people are giving false information to a couple wanting confirmation. My friend told me the pastor of the church asked this question to rome and got permission.
]Since you have heard this second hand, there is no way to tell where the breakdown in communication has occured. Either your friend misunderstood, or the priest is telling her something that is 100% against Church teaching.
Perhaps I’m wrong but my faith tells me that invitro is not acceptable under no circumstance. What next permission to use Birth control or getting an abortion? I know you can be forgiven of these sins but why grant permission.
We already answered your questions last time you posted this.
The Church teaches this is not a morally permissable procedure and no one can “give permission” for such a procedure, including the Pope.
Needless to say, I confronted my friend with the fear that someone is not telling her the truth and she got really mad at me.
Of course she got mad at you. She wants to do this procedure that the Church teaches is not morally permissable.
Please share with me any websites regarding this!
Donum Vitae is the teaching of the Church on this topic. It was issued in 1987. It is reiterated in the 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."166
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. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."167 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."168
2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."169
I am going to be doing a lot of research on liberal theology and stuff in the next few days and weeks. 