Not trying to be trite or sarcastic, this is an honest question.
Don't quite understand the statement above. Does the Church not approve of a married Catholic couple, who cannot have children any other way, of using "assisted reproduction"? Given the ovum and sperm are from the married couple, I can't see where there would be a problem. Then again, I'm not the person to ask with regards to Canon Law or other Church teachings.
My thanks in advance to anyone who can clarify this for me.
Best Regards
Sergio
Hi,
On all matters, the Church does not ask for blind obedience but seeks to instruct using reason. The reasoning for all of the Church's positions are written in easy to understand language - as they are on this topic. See below:
2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church's traditional practice see in large families a sign of God's blessing and the parents' generosity.[162]
2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. "What will you give me," asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"[163] And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"[164]
2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."[165]
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]
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.
I am not versed in Cannon law either, but I have a couple of questions for you.
1) Presuming the natural method of coitus with your spouse, with or without fertility drugs, does not work, why would a couple not adopt rather than use the extreme meaures of in-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, etc?
2) If a regular result of the extreme measures is fertilized ova that are frozen forever, discarded, or harvested for stem cells, would that impact your position on these measures?
3) If the problem is that the woman's uterus just won't hold an implated egg, how many of these ova (babies) would they use (kill) in trying to get it to work before giving up?
These are honest ethical questions, not challenges or attacks. The first one came up when a caller was asking Dr. Laura about a child she was carrying as a surrogate for her sister. The caller was asking Dr. Laura what she should tell her own child about the baby she would deliver that would not be hers. Dr. Laura asked why her sister didn't just adopt. Was it ego that decided they must use whatever means necessary to keep their own genes in the pool? On the other hand, Levitical law commands a man to impregnate his brother's widow if she is childless so the line may be carried on so it is a real question.
Shalom.