God may or may not have created limbo so man, always eager to improve on God’s work, created it. Due to the widespread use of In Vitro Fertilization of which the Church does not approve, hundreds of thousands of “spare” or “extra” embryos now exist in a man-made refrigerated limbo.
This is nothing short of a horror. And of course, the natural question that comes to mind is: Can they be rescued? While our instincts to preserve life might make the answer seem easy, it isn’t. According to Church teaching keeping the embryos frozen, implanting them in a woman’s womb, and destroying them are all immoral responses to a terrible situation.
Dignitas Personae, the CDF’s 2008 instructions on bioethics states that “All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved.”
Some people have adopted these embryos and hundreds of babies have been born due to embryo adoption but the Church doesn’t approve of surrogacy so what we have here is a philosophical and theological standoff with dire consequences. Ave Maria Law Professor Brian Scarnecchia recently said in an interview that some have suggested that “rescuing or adopting” a frozen embryo would not make the woman a surrogate if she intended to carry the child to term and adopt the baby.
Scarnecchia said that he’d even spoken to a nun who said that if embryo transfers were approved by the Church she’d consider founding an order of nuns dedicated to rescuing frozen embryos. At once, that would seem to me to be a loving and horrifying thought that would utterly redefine religious orders. But such is the theological pickle of fatal consequences we have found ourselves in.
But the desire to help is typical of Christians. We see humans in need and we want to help. We feel we’re called to help these human beings frozen in what some have called “concentration cans.”
And how many of us know wonderful couples who would love to have babies but for some reason have been unable to. We think wouldn’t it be wonderful for them to adopt these embryos, give birth to them, and love them. But by doing this wouldn’t we, in effect, be approving of the consequences of IVF and even supporting the creation of more of these embryos?
No matter the stance taken on the solution (if one is indeed possible) I think we can all agree with the admonition of Pope John Paul II who urged people to just stop creating embryos through IVF.
I’m interested in your thoughts.
Comments
Post a Comment
Here’s a nice back-and-forth on the topic at the National Catholic Bioethics Center: link. It helps give structure and flesh to the arguments on both sides. Maybe folks will find it useful.
God Bless,
RyanL
Ryan’s link is useful in delineating the main arguments for both sides. That said, I would think John Haas has the much stronger reasoning based upon the document. The argument that ‘Rome has not corrected’ is extremely weak and could be used to justify many abuses and departures from the Church teachings. How can the Rome correct every single thing said by anyone claiming to be Catholic?
In regards to embryo adoption. DP is clear that IVF and surrogacy are untenable. If we allow for embryo adoption, there will be the creation of a whole knew industry that will inevitably lead to abuse in this society. Only with the end of IVF will this horror come to an end. The most merciful thing that could be done would allow these embryos to thaw, and for nature to take its course so that these children can be free to enter the heavenly kingdom.
One of the biggest problems I see with embryo adoption is the fact that it would support and encourage the IVF clinics. You encourage them to basically “create a few extra to sell to the nuts who think these are babies.”
Christina, I completely agree. That would be a major concern that by adopting embryos we’d be supporting IVF. It’s such a terrible situation with no good solution as far as I can see.
I want to say first of all that I accept all that the Church teaches. And I must say, the moral conundrum of this particular situation gives me a headache on behalf of the Holy See. While I accept Church authority on this matter, the position of the Holy See does not seem to me to be a fully reconcilable position.
Here’s my thought: was it moral for God to grant a soul to these little ones conceived in an illicit way? Is it moral for us to deny a womb to these little ones conceived in an illicit way, and given an immortal soul by God? If it is an act of God that makes them human, then they have human rights, the right to life being the first and foremost.
First of all, I wish to say that I accept all that the Church teaches.
Second: On behalf of the Holy See, this conundrum gives me a headache. I do not see how the Holy See can reconcile itself with letting these babies remain and die in this man=made limbo.
My thought: Was it immoral for God to grant a soul to these little ones, conceived in the most illicit-possible situation imaginable? Clearly not. Is it therefore immoral to grant a womb for these little souls to grow into viability?
I understand not wanting to create a market for the IVF folks: that has to be stopped.
But for existent human persons conceived and frozen in time by illicit methods, it seems to me that to declare that they haven’t the right to life because of the way they were conceived (or the means whereby that right would be realized)is incoherent with Church teaching. The Church teaches that we have are endowed by our creator with a soul from the moment of conception. Are these conceived by illicit means human or not? If they are human, have they human rights? Right to life? Right to means of survival? Right to a womb of a willing (though surrogate) mother?
I feel bad for the Holy See. This is a tough one. It seems each position is incoherent with the teaching of the Church.
Carole, I understand where you are coming from, but we must keep in mind that the ends does not justify the means; and it is the means (or the procedure of getting the embryo artificially inside the womb) that is the sticking point; and one what has already been determined as unacceptable, which is why it was stated that it presents a situation which in fact CANNOT be resolved. So I don’t think that there nothing incoherent about this situation.
Putting things in perspective and taking the Church’s teaching as a whole, I think it is rather clear, although unfortunate. Additionally, I don’t think your logic holds. For example, if a child has a fatal disease and needs an organ transplant right away, would it be acceptable to obtain the organs via immoral means, say murder? No. A man made limbo is exactly correct.
I do not think the Church teaches that the process of implanting an embryo in a womb is intrinsically immoral. A woman who “rescues” an embryo is not a participant in the immoral process of creating an embryo in vitro. Since she is not engaging in a “marital act,” she is not participating in distorting or destroying the integrity of a marital act. The Church condemns deciding to engage in the process of in vitro fertilization and surrogacy. I think it is a careless assumption to say that the Church therefore would condemn the specific act of implantation after the fact for the purpose of “rescue.” Rescuing these babies may be unfeasible, but I do not agree that there is a genuine “moral conundrum” involved at all. Killing them is murder. Rescuing them from their current condition would be praiseworthy. And doing so by means of implantation is not morally problematic.
So Fr. Fitzpatick, what you are saying in effect is the opposite with the CDF stated in that this situation has already been solved? Can you show me church document where it supports your statement?
Dignitas Personae, when discussing the topic of giving frozen embryos to infertile couples, references Donum vitae. In particular, it’s about “artificial heterologous procreation” and surrogate motherhood. I’m not sure the Donum vitae definition of surrogate motherhood matches what an infertile couple would be doing, since the baby would not be given up after birth. It is odd to me that the CDF would reference that at all, since it doesn’t seem to apply in this case.
The real stopping point is artificial heterologous procreation.
“but subjectively good intentions do not render heterologous artificial fertilization conformable to the objective and inalienable properties of marriage or respectful of the rights of the child and of the spouses.” - Donum vitae, part II, 2
There is another odd thing:
“Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements which constitute those families.” - Donum vitae, part II, 3
Couldn’t nearly the same thing be said about adoption, since the child is not brought up by his own parents?
I think that, as the morality of this situation is examined in more detail, what is referred to in Dignitas Personae as “prenatal adoption” may, MAY, be found to be acceptable, although not ideal. But I don’t see how, in light of Donum vitae.
Donum vitae condemns heterologous procreation. The woman in whose womb a frozen embryo is implanted is not engaging in procreation AT ALL. This is precisely what I meant by my reference to careless reading of the Vatican documents. The illicit in vitro fertilization is the illicit act of procreation. And the illicitness of surrogacy is grounded in the participation in the process of illicit procreation. The woman in whose womb a frozen embryo (whom she has adopted) is implanted is doing nothing any more illicit than breast-feeding a child she has adopted.
The Church has not made a final decision, so it is somewhat inaccurate to state that all three are “immoral responses”. I think it more accurate to say there are “unsettled moral issues still left” with some (e.g., implantation), though others are always wrong (e.g., killing/destroying).
Fr. Fitzpatrick, I think you are missing the bigger picture and like wise carelessly reading Vatican documents. It’s no doubt that proponents of heterologous embryo transfer have the best interest of countless human lives in mind, but one cannot deny truths that have been already established by the Church nor ignore all the other possible immoral outcomes that may come about accepting such a practice. At the very least we can agree, for the time being, that until the Church explicitly finds heterologous embryo transfer as morally acceptable, that we refrain from making the false assumption that this problem has been resolved and that heterologous embryo transfer is totally acceptable and free of immoral implications.
For those interested in pondering this question more in depth, I found this report very interesting to read. http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/LQOleson.pdf
The idea that approving of Embryo Adoption will create a “whole new industry” ignores the fact that there are already well over 500,000 embryos frozen in storage in the U.S. today.
I understand the desire to not create any additional embryos, but what then would the Catholic church have us do with the half a million embryos (people) who have already been created? Leave them frozen? Destroy them? Give them to scientific research?
Someone needs to invent the artificial womb.
I don’t know if the comment “Someone needs to invent the artificial womb.” was serious or a joke. Either way I find it sickening. As already stated by Matthew A. Siekierski, the child has a right to be”...carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it [surrogate motherhood] sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements which constitute those families.” - Donum vitae, part II, 3.
How, in any way, does an artificial womb right these wrongs of surrogacy? Whats more an artificial womb in itself would be a further attack on the dignity of women and parenthood by further divorcing the miracle of life from the natural processes that God has created for bringing new life into this world. It’s now possible to have sex without “fear” of getting pregnant, and to get pregnant without have sex. An artificial womb would make it possible to have a biological child with out being pregnant (or worrying that the surrogate will change her mind). Why would any woman go through morning sickness and swollen ankles, let alone child birth again? Humans and primates share 90-something percent of the same DNA, why not genetically mutate some gorillas with human wombs and have them carry these children?
What you suggest would have far reaching consequences, most of which would be to encourage in vitro industries - a repugnant consequence of a noble desire to preserve another’s life. Personally I cannot see how the Church take any formal position on whether or not these children can, morally, be rescued until the further creation of human life by artificial means is stopped. We must all pray that it will be stopped and that those responsible for deciding what to do with frozen embryos ( the scientists, clinic administrations, law makers, etc as well as the Church) will all be granted wisdom.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.