Why is the Catholic Church opposed to artificial insemination

[ribozyme]

"The Roman Catholic Church condemns AID [Artificial insemination by donor] altogether…on the grounds that the only ethically exceptable way for women to have children is through sexual intercourse. Ratzinger and Bovone (1987) explained the Catholic position in a Vatican publication: “Artificial fertilization violates the right of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with this parential origins and can hinder the nurturing of his personal identity” (p. 23). Catholics have also asserted that reproductive technologies are “a threat to the stability of the family” (Bolan, 1988). However, no persuasive evidence has been reported to show that children conceived by reproductive technology are psychologically impaired or that they are jeopardizing the stability of their families. It is a curiosity of Catholic doctine condemning AIDS that Jesus Christ and his mother, Mary, were both, according to Catholic doctrine conceived by AID."

Emphasis mine and spelling errors too!

Lynn, Richard. Eugenics: A Reassessment. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2001. pg 259.

 

[cor]

"The Roman Catholic Church condemns AID [Artificial insemination by donor] altogether…on the grounds that the only ethically exceptable way for women to have children is through sexual intercourse.

More precisely the only acceptable way for women using their natural powers to have children is through sexual intercourse. So it wouldn’t exclude a supernatural event like in the case of the Virgin Mary.

Here are the natural law reasons given by the Catholic Church for opposition to artificial insemination. First we deal with heterologous cases (where the child is not genetically both the husband and wife’s):

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/donumvitae.htm#IIa1

“The fidelity of the spouses in the unity of marriage involves reciprocal respect of their right to become a father and a mother only through each other.”

So marriage involves the promise to have children only through each other. Heterologous insemination would violate that. Homologous now:

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/donumvitae.htm#IIb

It’s hard (at least for me) to follow the argument that it’s making and part of it may be because it is a teaching document, not a philosophy text, but what I got out of it was that:

1. Man is called by the law of nature to have children by means of an act which is both procreative and unitive in meaning.
2. Artificial insemination while it can include a procreative intention is not an act which has the unitive meaning mentioned in (1)
3. Only the conjugal act (perhaps facilitated by technology but not replaced) satisfies the conditions of being an act which is both procreative and unitive in meaning (1).

 

[Seatuck]

"The Roman Catholic Church condemns AID [Artificial insemination by donor] altogether…on the grounds that the only ethically exceptable way for women to have children is through sexual intercourse. Ratzinger and Bovone (1987) explained the Catholic position in a Vatican publication: “Artificial fertilization violates the right of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with this parential origins and can hinder the nurturing of his personal identity” (p. 23). Catholics have also asserted that reproductive technologies are “a threat to the stability of the family” (Bolan, 1988). However, no persuasive evidence has been reported to show that children conceived by reproductive technology are psychologically impaired or that they are jeopardizing the stability of their families. It is a curiosity of Catholic doctine condemning AIDS that Jesus Christ and his mother, Mary, were both, according to Catholic doctrine conceived by AID."

Emphasis mine and spelling errors too!

Lynn, Richard. Eugenics: A Reassessment. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2001. pg 259.

Another misconception about the Immaculate Conception. Mary was conceived through the marital act by her parents. The church doesn’t teach that she wasn’t.

 

[1ke]

Any technology which assists the marital act of intercourse is acceptable. Any act that replaces the act of intercourse is disordered and not acceptable.

Neither Jesus nor Mary were conceived via artificial insemination.

Mary was conceived by her parents.

Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Here is the text from the catechism…

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."168 "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."169

It is a curiosity of Catholic doctine condemning AIDS that Jesus Christ and his mother, Mary, were both, according to Catholic doctrine conceived by AID."

Can you define the exact method of “aid” used?
Did it deprive any human being of their dignity?

Mary was conceived when her parents conceived her naturally. The Holy Spirit intervened and made her conception free from original sin.
Jesus was conceived when the Mary was asked to receive the Holy Spirit…
There was no sexual act performed, so there was so disassociation of “sexual vs procreative” under consideration here.

 

[ribozyme]

Here is the text from the catechism…

Can you define the exact method of “aid” used?
Did it deprive any human being of their dignity?

Mary was conceived when her parents conceived her naturally. The Holy Spirit intervened and made her conception free from original sin.
Jesus was conceived when the Mary was asked to receive the Holy Spirit…
There was no sexual act performed, so there was so disassociation of “sexual vs procreative” under consideration here.

Look, Richard Lynn was the one who wrote that about Mary. He just didn’t write “acceptable” as “exceptable”.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Look, Richard Lynn was the one who wrote that about Mary. He just didn’t write “acceptable” as “exceptable”.

What’s your point?

 

[1ke]

Look, Richard Lynn was the one who wrote that about Mary. He just didn’t write “acceptable” as “exceptable”.

So, was there a question or were you simply pointing out that this author doesn’t know what he is talking about?

 

[gardenswithkids]

…Catholics have also asserted that reproductive technologies are "a threat to the stability of the family" (Bolan, 1988). However, no persuasive evidence has been reported to show that children conceived by reproductive technology are psychologically impaired or that they are jeopardizing the stability of their families…

Mr. Lynn (Prof. Lynn?) misunderstands basic Catholic doctrine like the immaculate conception, and I think he misreads the very words he quotes from Bolan. Stablity of the** family**–singular, as in the most basic building block of society. Creating children outside of loving sexual relationship between husband and wife places the stability of societies understanding of family at risk.

Reproductive technologies are not only used when a husband and wife face infertility; now they are also used for single parents and homosexual couples. Family court cases get very complicated as multitudes of people (sperm donor, egg donor, serogate mother, and those who paid for the procedures) sometimes claim they are the parents. Our very understanding of parenthood changed because of these reproductive technologies, and the courts still seem a bit confused about it. Bolan’s quote from 1988 saying that it poses a threat on the stability of the family seems almost prophetic when we see what has happened to society’s definition of family in the past 29 years.

 

[jmcrae]

If they don’t see the psychological trauma of children conceived outside the bonds of marriage, they just aren’t looking very hard. (I have recently had the most horrendous - and it’s not her fault - the most horrendous time, dealing with a lady at my church who recently found out that she was adopted, and that her real mother did not know her father’s name. She is (understandably) demanding answers and experiencing real emotional trauma about the fact that she doesn’t know where she came from; that she had a belief about where she came from that has turned out to be incorrect.

I would like everyone who says, “Oh, it’s no big deal for these kids” to spend one hour alone in a room with this woman, because believe me, yes, it is a big deal; she does not know who she is related to - and who is going to tell her the answer to this question - “Who can I marry? Since every man I meet could be my brother or my cousin.” And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…Our very understanding of parenthood changed because of these reproductive technologies, and the courts still seem a bit confused about it.

Lifesite’s News has a recent story I just read today about this very thing.

.
YORK COUNTY, Pennsylvania, May 2, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Pennsylvania middle-level court declared two lesbians and a sperm donor to be three legal parents for children at the heart of a custody support battle, in a ruling Monday. The decision follows an Ontario Appeals Court ruling in January that established three individuals–two lesbians and a sperm donor–as the legal parents of a young boy.

In the PA case, the battle over parenting responsibilities was fought on the grounds of child support payments. The two women in the case had split from a six-year lesbian relationship which had included forming a civil union in Vermont. …Jodilynn sued for child support payments from Jennifer and was awarded payments of $983 per month. Jennifer appealed that ruling, arguing that her friend Carl, who had donated the sperm to conceive the two youngest children, should be required to pay part of the child support. …While the judges acknowledged the lack of legal precedent for the situation, the final opinion stated that, “in the absence of legislative mandates, the courts must construct a fair, workable and responsible basis for the protection of children, aside from whatever rights the adults may have vis a vis each other.”
lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07050203.html

 

[buffalo]

Because it is artificial!

 

[Diddi]

If they don’t see the psychological trauma of children conceived outside the bonds of marriage, they just aren’t looking very hard. (I have recently had the most horrendous - and it’s not her fault - the most horrendous time, dealing with a lady at my church who recently found out that she was adopted, and that her real mother did not know her father’s name. She is (understandably) demanding answers and experiencing real emotional trauma about the fact that she doesn’t know where she came from; that she had a belief about where she came from that has turned out to be incorrect.

I would like everyone who says, “Oh, it’s no big deal for these kids” to spend one hour alone in a room with this woman, because believe me, yes, it is a big deal; she does not know who she is related to - and who is going to tell her the answer to this question - “Who can I marry? Since every man I meet could be my brother or my cousin.” And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0CEEDE103AF936A25750C0A964958260

 

[GreenJeans]

If they don’t see the psychological trauma of children conceived outside the bonds of marriage, they just aren’t looking very hard. (I have recently had the most horrendous - and it’s not her fault - the most horrendous time, dealing with a lady at my church who recently found out that she was adopted, and that her real mother did not know her father’s name. She is (understandably) demanding answers and experiencing real emotional trauma about the fact that she doesn’t know where she came from; that she had a belief about where she came from that has turned out to be incorrect.

I would like everyone who says, “Oh, it’s no big deal for these kids” to spend one hour alone in a room with this woman, because believe me, yes, it is a big deal; she does not know who she is related to - and who is going to tell her the answer to this question - “Who can I marry? Since every man I meet could be my brother or my cousin.” And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Maybe the problem is that she found out as an adult. I wonder what the outcome would have been had she know all her life?

 

[jmcrae]

Maybe the problem is that she found out as an adult. I wonder what the outcome would have been had she know all her life?

I couldn’t say. I do know that most children who are adopted aren’t given very many details about why their parents gave them up, because usually the stories are too sad to be told to children. (I think there is also an underlying fear that the child might choose to follow in the biological parents’ footsteps and do something very foolish.)

 

[StevenFrancis]

"The Roman Catholic Church condemns AID [Artificial insemination by donor] altogether…on the grounds that the only ethically exceptable way for women to have children is through sexual intercourse. Ratzinger and Bovone (1987) explained the Catholic position in a Vatican publication: “Artificial fertilization violates the right of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with this parential origins and can hinder the nurturing of his personal identity” (p. 23). Catholics have also asserted that reproductive technologies are “a threat to the stability of the family” (Bolan, 1988). However, no persuasive evidence has been reported to show that children conceived by reproductive technology are psychologically impaired or that they are jeopardizing the stability of their families. It is a curiosity of Catholic doctine condemning AIDS that Jesus Christ and his mother, Mary, were both, according to Catholic doctrine conceived by AID."

Emphasis mine and spelling errors too!

Lynn, Richard. Eugenics: A Reassessment. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2001. pg 259.

I believe that all of us, in the fullness of time, will come to the same realizations about this, and every other topic discussed here, eventually. Jesus says so when he tells us that his Church will prevail against hell itself, and for all of time. Some of the answers given here require faith to believe, but not in order to be true. It saddens me that I spent so many years challenging God myself, when deep down, I guess I always knew on some level that the Bible, the Church, Tradition etc. were correct. It’s just so hard for us to accept that all the justifications and lies we’ve told ourselves, not just as individuals, but as entire societies, are just that. We don’t WANT to be wrong. We don’t WANT God to have set all this up to run just a certain way. Man just seemingly MUST have his own way. “We’ll show God”. Well, eventually, all of our societies and cultures are going to have to own up to the mistakes we’ve made. AID, IVF, Abortion, Embryonic stem cells, death penalty, Offensive War, greed and selfishness, egotism, wanton immorality, abuse of one’s own body with drugs, alcohol and tobacco, the seven deadly sins, euthenasia, eugenics, cloning, etc. etc. etc. all have quite real and quite dire consequences. We CAN see this with just a rudimentary philisophical and theological extrapolation tempered with prayer and discernment. Moral relativism is what is leading us down these roads. “It’s okay if it doesn’t hurt someone”. “The ends justify the means”. Well, all of these things that man does, DO hurt someone. The ends do NOT justify the means. We’re already seeing the results of these things. Just think and pray. That’s all one need do. We don’t have to be rocket scientists. Just know that as individual people we are but specks of sand. We are NOT the center of the universe. We need each other, and have thus been charged to take care of each other. To bolster the weakest link of the chain. We need to think of all others before we think of ourselves. Jesus tells us first and foremost to love. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. This includes BELIEVING what he says, and not second guessing him. And also, to love your neihbor as yourself. This will prevent the greed of feeling that you just MUST have a baby, or MUST kill your baby, because YOU say so, and YOU are man or woman, and can do anything you darn well please. This thinking WILL end. Either we will all just come to share these realizations over the course of time, or believe you me, we will most certainly be BROUGHT to these mutual understandings. We’re all heading the same way. There is only one way to the Father. But the road can be harder or softer depending on our own willingness to trust God.

Rejoice and be glad!!! He is risen. It’s all going to be okay.

Peace my friend.

Yours in Christ,
Steven

 

[Diddi]

I believe that all of us, in the fullness of time, will come to the same realizations about this, and every other topic discussed here, eventually. Jesus says so when he tells us that his Church will prevail against hell itself, and for all of time.

Some of the answers given here require faith to believe, but not in order to be true. It saddens me that I spent so many years challenging God myself, when deep down, I guess I always knew on some level that the Bible, the Church, Tradition etc. were correct. It’s just so hard for us to accept that all the justifications and lies we’ve told ourselves, not just as individuals, but as entire societies, are just that. We don’t WANT to be wrong. We don’t WANT God to have set all this up to run just a certain way. Man just seemingly MUST have his own way. “We’ll show God”.

Well, eventually, all of our societies and cultures are going to have to own up to the mistakes we’ve made. AID, IVF, Abortion, Embryonic stem cells, death penalty, Offensive War, greed and selfishness, egotism, wanton immorality, abuse of one’s own body with drugs, alcohol and tobacco, the seven deadly sins, euthenasia, eugenics, cloning, etc. etc. etc. all have quite real and quite dire consequences. We CAN see this with just a rudimentary philisophical and theological extrapolation tempered with prayer and discernment.

Moral relativism is what is leading us down these roads. “It’s okay if it doesn’t hurt someone”. “The ends justify the means”.

Well, all of these things that man does, DO hurt someone. The ends do NOT justify the means. We’re already seeing the results of these things.

Just think and pray. That’s all one need do. We don’t have to be rocket scientists. Just know that as individual people we are but specks of sand. We are NOT the center of the universe. We need each other, and have thus been charged to take care of each other. To bolster the weakest link of the chain. We need to think of all others before we think of ourselves. Jesus tells us first and foremost to love. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. This includes BELIEVING what he says, and not second guessing him. And also, to love your neihbor as yourself. This will prevent the greed of feeling that you just MUST have a baby, or MUST kill your baby, because YOU say so, and YOU are man or woman, and can do anything you darn well please. This thinking WILL end. Either we will all just come to share these realizations over the course of time, or believe you me, we will most certainly be BROUGHT to these mutual understandings. We’re all heading the same way. There is only one way to the Father. But the road can be harder or softer depending on our own willingness to trust God.

Rejoice and be glad!!! He is risen. It’s all going to be okay.

Peace my friend.

Yours in Christ,
Steven

Amen:thumbsup:
(paragraphs added)

 

[whatevergirl]

Father Pakwa on EWTN explained this perfectly – artifical insemination often brings with it several embryos, and not all are wanted by the mother/couple in the majority of cases, so he said that because one knows this going into the process, one is knowingly allowing embryos to die, in order to get pregnant. In this case, one I guess would have to look at it as getting pregnant in this manner, would be considered a very selfish act, according to Father Pakwa. He said it better than me, but that’s the gist of why it’s considered immoral according to the Catholic Church.

 

[apricot_yogurt]

Artificial insemination does not need to create excess embryos. Some women are injected with donor sperm via a kind of turkey baster. Some women might have it done with selected sperm in a clinic, or choose the DIY method using sperm from a male friend, or “mail order”.
What this says is that men’s contribution ends at conception. It denies the child the right and need for a father. My children need the discipline and affection of their father as much as they need me. It reduces children to a comodity-“I want it”.

 

[whatevergirl]

Artificial insemination does not need to create excess embryos. Some women are injected with donor sperm via a kind of turkey baster. Some women might have it done with selected sperm in a clinic, or choose the DIY method using sperm from a male friend, or “mail order”.
What this says is that men’s contribution ends at conception. It denies the child the right and need for a father. My children need the discipline and affection of their father as much as they need me. It reduces children to a comodity-“I want it”.

yes, i agree…good post!