Does anyone here know the Church's position on "adoption" of an abandoned frozen embryo by an infertile couple? I belong to a group in which some very devout Catholic women, who suffer from infertility, are trying to find out if the Church has spoken officially on this subject.

It seems to me that I saw a priest on EWTN discuss the matter, and essentially that he said the end doesn't justify the means, and that as laudable as it may seem to rescue these "suspended" children, and bring them to birth, this method still circumvents God's intended plan of creating and nurturing new life in marriage. His position was that these poor little ones should simply be allowed to die a natural death -- as would happen in miscarriage for example.

I am confused because we are not discussing creating new life in the laboratory. These human beings already exist. It seems that these young couples in question would be adopting them at a very early stage, and incubating them, in a sense.

I don't want to give these women an incorrect response. Does anyone know of a resource, a link, etc. Thanks in advance.

God bless, Patricia

-- Patricia (MTherese2@aol.com), November 13, 2003

Answers

Dear Patricia,

While your concern for these little people and for infertile women is commendable, your second paragraph does indeed sum up the Church's position. Adoption applies to children who are already born, and does not involve a pregnancy. The only way a couple may morally achieve pregnancy is by intercourse between husband and wife. Using an immoral means to achieve a morally good outcome is never permissible; and while a woman who allows such an embryo to be implanted may not be personally guilty of the original immoral act, she becomes complicit in that act if she knowingly derives benefit, directly or indirectly, from the commission of the act. A husband and wife commit sin by undergoing in vitro fertilization with their own reproductive cells. It is no more defensible to allow someone else to commit the sin, but then derive personal benefit from their doing so.

It is true that these embryos already exist; but that argument is likewise used by proponents of cell harvesting from aborted children. "Even though I abhor the idea of aborting a fetus, these fetuses are already dead. Therefore, it does them no harm to take whatever parts we need for research or treatment of diseases." No, it does THEM no harm. But it does us harm if we allow ourselves to be complicit in an immoral act by reaping the benefits of the act.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 13, 2003.

So because these poor little BABIES were conceived in an "unapproved" fashion (and you may just as well substitute being an unwed mother here as well) they aren't people? What happened to "right to life"? You've just provided an argument for the Church to support abortion, if babies were to be born to unwed mothers.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 13, 2003.

Paul, I thought it was a sin to use in vitro fertilization even among a married couple. Was the "not" you placed in your response a typo?

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), November 13, 2003.

Hi David,

It wasn't a typo, but on rereading it I see the ambiguity. By "may not commit sin" I meant "are not permitted to commit sin". I'll change it to make it clearer. Thanks for pointing this out.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 13, 2003.

The priest was right as is Paul. This is a slippery slope. If you would permit these embryoes to be implanted once made you would condone it. By condoning it you would likely have the process repeat itself over and over.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), November 13, 2003.

Why is it considered a sin to use in vitro for a married couple? I thought that the main objection of the Church was that the technology is such that you wind up fertilizing several eggs at once, and that by choosing some babies over others (instead of choosing all of them) you were condemning the rest to death.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 13, 2003.

GT,

That is exactly right - and why would that be more acceptable for a married couple than for anyone else?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 13, 2003.

The Church stance is best expressed in the Catechism

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissoociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into exicstence 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 origen 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.

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."

This is the official stance of the Church and its hard for me to argue with it.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), November 13, 2003.

Are you saying then that if a couple agreed to raise all of the children conceived by this method it would be all right? Or if technology advanced to where the doctors could only fertilize one egg (I am assuming part of the problem is that it is difficult to isolate such small cellular matter) at a time it would be okay?

By the way, I do share the fear that such practice might become widespread (as in for money), but I'm thinking of that case where the divorcing couple were fighting over the frozen embryos and one side wanted to kill them. I could see requiring that the party choosing life be required to give up all claims of future financial support from the other side, but that would be a small price to pay for keeping the poor little ones alive.

There's a big difference between harvesting stem cells from aborted babies (I don't agree with that practice) and choosing to give already conceived babies a chance at life.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 13, 2003.

<>

Paul,

Thank you for your excellent response. I think the missing link in my own faulty logic was failing to consider the complicity factor, which is especially compelling in your stem cell analogy.

However, my head is still spinning a little bit as I ponder that it is moral to adopt a child who was conceived through a sinful act, such as fornication; yet immoral to bring to birth those conceived through the sinful means of IVF.

I guess my remaining confusion rests in the distinction between using aborted children for their stem cells and other atrocious practices, which do not respect or benefit the child in anyway; while nurturing and bringing an embryo to birth would seem to benefit the child in a manner analagous to adoption as referenced above. HELP!

If you could clarify this a little further, I would be extremely grateful. My heart knows that your position is correct, but I need to be able to explain it clearly to others. Thanks again.

Patricia

-- Patricia (MTherese2@aol.com), November 13, 2003.

Hi Patricia,

It is always difficult to do what is right when it seems we could do so much good for someone by doing that which is wrong. You are of course correct in saying that there is a distinction between harvesting parts from aborted children and offering life to a child in "suspended animation". On the other hand, cells taken from an aborted fetus might save the life of another person, or even several other persons. However, what we are discussing here is simply ends which might be achieved - all of them very worthwhile ends in and of themselves. Where we run into moral problems is in consideration of the means utilized to achieve the desired end. The wisdom of the world says "something wonderful could be accomplished, so let's do whatever has to be done to make it happen". The Law of God says "some things cannot be done - ever - no matter how much good might be accomplished". In in vitro fertilization, two moral evils are involved. First, the eventual deaths of discarded embryos, or at least their being maintained in conditions inappropriate to the dignity of the human person. But secondly, there is the violation of God's plan for sexual intimacy and reproduction. This is well described in the Catechism, article 2377, which David posted above. A couple accepting the implantation of such an embryo would not only become complicit in the original IVF, but would also be in direct personal violation of Church teaching concerning the dissociation of the sexual act from the procreative act, which is never allowed. It is sad to think of these innocent children who could be rescued if only ... if only we could ... sin. But of course we cannot.

I hope this helps. I am not expert in this area of moral theology.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 13, 2003.

Hello, Patricia.

I believe that neither the pope nor his curia (nor other bishops) has come out with a document in which this specific situation has been touched upon -- the licitness/illicitness of implanting embryos (that would otherwise be discarded) in the wombs of willing "adoptive women."

However, I think that the Church has clearly forbidden something else that is so close to your specific situation that it is only logical to assume that this too will be forbidden in specific language. I am speaking of something mentioned in Catechism article 2376 -- exactly one article before those quoted by David F, above. Here it is:

"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."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 15, 2003.

Oh, I forgot to mention that it would be possible for these little babies to be baptized and then allowed to die a natural death -- after which their souls would immediately enter heaven.

John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 15, 2003.

Here is a pretty good article on the topic:

http://www.archden.org/dcr/archive/20020828/2002082808op.htm

I would still say that the matter is still pretty much open as far as "official" Church teaching and application of the proper moral theology.

The references given above from the Catechism seem to make a judgment only on the sinful act of causing the conception of the embryo, not the "possibly heroic" act of saving the embryo once conceived.

Another drawback, however, that comes up is that embryo adoption may facilitate the institutionalization of IVF and actually lead to more embryos being created in this way.

-- Tom Stachnik (TJStachnik@yahoo.com), November 17, 2003.

Thank you, Tom, for a very interesting article. I will share it with the women I know who are struggling with the morality of this path to motherhood.

At first, it seems easy to make a comparison between embryo adoption, and adoption of a child who has been conceived and born naturally. When viewed in that manner, volunteering to bring these embryos to birth seems like a winning situation for all involved.

Yet, the many enlightening responses above have given me pause to think more deeply about this matter. One conclusion I have come to is that in "normal" adoption, the child may have been conceived through a sinful act, but was at least conceived naturally, and brought to birth by his or her biological mother. It is only the illicit state of the couple involved which causes their union to be an immoral, rather than holy, act. However, everything which follows seems natural and good to me: the creation of the child by God, its development within its mother, and finally, its birth.

With IVF, everything is unnatural, and completely disassociated from the unitive and procreative design of God. Finally, to defrost (what have we come to!) these tiny human beings and to artificially introduce them into another woman's uterus is a further continuation of a total distortion of God's plan for children to be conceived through the union of a man and a woman, ideally in a loving, marital relationship.

So, for these reasons, and those kindly shared in the posts above, I think I have a clearer understanding of the subject. Thanks so much to all who responded, and God bless you!

Patricia

-- Patricia (MTherese2@aol.com), November 20, 2003.