[klossg]

rogator: "what is the problem?"

Great question! In simple terms: In Vitro takes everything wonderful and unitive about sex and separates it into a scientific experiment conducted in a laboratory. On the other hand, God is love. God gave us sex, thank God! Sex is love. Christ and the Church teach that every sex act, as designed by our loving God, should be both unitive and procreative. In Vitro is only procreative. (The opposite problem of contraception). To be clear, the Church is not talking about the birth process, which will be very unitive. The Church is talking about the conception process alone.

[armydoc]

Christ and the Church teach that every sex act, as designed by our loving God, should be both unitive and procreative. In Vitro is only procreative. (The opposite problem of contraception).

NFP clearly violates the "spirit", if not the "letter", of this principal. The goal of NFP is to have sexual relations without conception, correct? No, NFP is not 100% successful in preventing conception, but neither is any artificial form of BC. It's only a matter of degree. Yes, I realize that OCP's can prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum, essentially an abortion; this is a separate matter. But other methods such as a condom, a diaphragm, or spermicidal foam do not have this effect. These methods have in common with NFP the deliberate thwarting of the procreative ideal. Why the inconsistency?

[Mrs. Don-o]

In vitro, like artificial insemination, is essentially a veterinary practice. There is nothing wrong with in vitro fertilization for pets, farm animals, endangered species and other non-human entities.

The problem with human in-vitro fertilization is that it is a subhuman way to conceive a creature who has the dignity of being, in fact, sacred: an image of God.

It comes down to the question of: is sex sacred, ir isn't it? The Church teaches that for humans (all humans, not just Catholics), sex IS sacred. For us, is it a constitutive element of a sacrament, the Sacrament of Matrimony -- which means that marital lovemaking is actually a channel which God uses to make you holy!

Since human beings are God's image-bearers, marital sexual love is the only appropriate way to bring them into being. In other words (it sounds strange to our totally crass and secularized ears, but here it is): only sexual intercourse is sufficiently dignified to bring a human person into existence with his/her dignity intact.

"Begotten, not made." That means a lot. Something that is "made" is a product, and products are inherently inferior to the producer. A product is a commodity. A commodity is a thing -- something which can be owned or discarded, bought, sold, traded, used. (Which is exactly what can be done wih an IVF embryo.) But a creature which is begotten has exactly the same nature and dignity as the one who begot him.

This kind of thinking may seem kind of high-altitude and rarefied at first, but it's clearer if you look at artificial procreation as a whole, and where it is headed. It is clearly headed toward taking humans out of the "person" category and into the "product" category. Read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" or C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man."

[ninenot]

The answer from Klossg is fine.

Understand that the view of the Romeneskos is essentially "reductionist,"--as are the Vagina Monologues, and the practice of homosexual relations.

It views the body as a machine, and utilizes the body's capabilities as one would a machine. And if that machine doesn't work the way WE think it should, then we go to the mechanic and get it fixed.

But conception of a child is not merely a mechanical function, nor is it a "right" by virtue of marriage.