asking for some clarification here (I’m not a catholic).
I understand the proscription on birth control, as that prevents a birth that God may have wanted to occur. It inhibits the creation of life.
But, IVF does exactly the opposite, it enables life where the mother may, through no fault of her own, be unable to conceive.
Does the catholic church frown on this? If so, what is the rationale? I simply don’t understand (no insults intended, and if so, I appologize in advance) I’m simply curious as to the ‘why’.
I understand the proscription on birth control, as that prevents a birth that God may have wanted to occur. It inhibits the creation of life.
But, IVF does exactly the opposite, it enables life where the mother may, through no fault of her own, be unable to conceive.
Does the catholic church frown on this? If so, what is the rationale? I simply don’t understand (no insults intended, and if so, I appologize in advance) I’m simply curious as to the ‘why’.
The rationale for the second is the same as the first... the Will of God. Life is His domain. We cooperate with His Will in generating offspring. It's the height of hubris to seek to create a life that God Himself has denied you.
IVF involves masturbation which the Church teaches is immoral. IVF takes place outside of the conjugal act which the Church teaches is immoral. IVF usually involves the fertilization of more than one egg, thus creating more than one embryo. What happens to those other embryos? Are they left in a state of suspended animation, frozen, or are they destroyed, aborted? Both options are immoral.
“But, IVF does exactly the opposite, it enables life where the mother may, through no fault of her own, be unable to conceive.
Does the catholic church frown on this...”
The embryo is a living being. All well and good. The problem comes eggs are harvest and fertilized. Those embryos are discarded or frozen. The best are cherry-picked.
All life is sacred. Not just the ones you choose or want.
Yeah, I’m with you—I don’t understand this one at all.
The answers you have been given are accurate, but not comprehensive. This link is to the instruction which covers the issues in detail.
One of those tenets holds that IVF treatments are a sin because, the Diocese explained in a statement, they “frequently involve the deliberate destruction and freezing of embryos.”
In her lawsuit, Herx claims that her bishop told her that IVF “is an intrinsic evil, which means no circumstances can justify it. “ She also claims in her lawsuit that her parish pastor told her that she was a “grave, immoral sinner” for pusuing IVF.
The church sees the case as a test of constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.
The diocese tells TODAY that is(sic) supports infertility treatments for its employees, just not in vitro fertilization, which the church believes contradicts its right-to-life beliefs.
“The Diocese views the core issue raised in this lawsuit as a challenge to the Diocese's right, as a religious employer, to make religious based decisions consistent with its religious standards on an impartial basis,” the Diocese said in a statement.
IVF involves the fertilization of, and the deliberate destruction of, many, many developing human embryos. This is gravely immoral.
See a short discussion from Catholic Answers and a longer one from the former Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict:
Because children are not commodities.
Two or three ideas:
One, that the sexual act within marriage cannot be separated from potential fertility, and potential fertility cannot be separated from the sexual act. There is a sacredness and a total self-giving in the marriage act, and conception of children is not permitted outside of this sacredness.
Two, that IVF treats the embryos created as commodities not as human beings, and substitutes the physician’s will for the will of God - this embryo is not dividing well, discard it, these are extra, freeze them.
Three, a practical problem rather than an intrinsic problem, the death of discarded embryos, equivalent to abortion, or the direct abortion of extra fetuses within the womb.
The Church does permit the transfer of an unfertilized ovum from above a blocked fallopian tube to below the blockage. It permits hormonal treatment to trigger ovulation and support pregnancy. It permits intrauterine injection of sperm, provided that the sperm was collected during a normal act of intercourse in the marriage (via a condom with a few holes pricked in it.)
It does not permit insemination with the sperm of a man who is not the husband, nor the use of an ovum not from the wife. It does permit the adoption and implantation of frozen embryos.
So it isn’t that what occurs by nature must be God’s will. It’s a question of the limits on tweaking nature, and keeping those tweaks within the sacred nature of the marriage act. This can certainly look like hair-splitting, but there’s a complex consistency to it.
Back to the article - the teacher would never have had a problem if she hadn’t talked about it - who would ever have known how the baby was conceived? Was she unaware of the teachings of the Church, or did she decide to be confrontational?
As part of the IVF process, many fertilized embryos are created that will not be implanted. Those are either destroyed, or left to sit in a freezer until the person wants to try and get pregnant again. The person undergoing IVF might successfully have one child, but at the same time kill dozens of others in the process.
The process of IVF requires that a number of eggs be fertilized outside the womb. The hope is that one of the embryos (the fertilized eggs) will work. In the process, the other embryos are either frozen or destroyed.
Since life begins at conception, and conception is defined as the moment when fertilization occurs, it is just as morally wrong to destroy an embryo outside the womb as it is inside the womb.
In other words, the end result of IVF is exactly the same as an abortion.
The Church also teaches that the only way for conception to be valid is in the context of a sacramental marriage. The sex act must be open to conception, and have a unifying effect as well.
IVF lacks the unifying effect of the sexual act between a man and a woman.
Hope that helps.
But, IVF does exactly the opposite, it enables life where the mother may, through no fault of her own, be unable to conceive. >>>
actually, it’s simple, first one needs to understand the ivf procedure and that life begins at conception. What the ivf procedure does is create many lives at one time in a petri dish, then some of those many lives are inserted into the woman knowing that most if not all those embryos will die. It’s a gamble. And if one or more live, then the option of selective reduction/abortion comes about. The remaining human life created in the petri dish will remain in a frozen gulag for life, frozen in liquid nitrogen. Either used to future use or to stay there for ever. There are over 400,000 babies in liquid nitrogen in England.