« PCA and SSPX | Main | Babies for Life »
June 06, 2006
Sweeping Condemnation Day
The Pontifical Institute for the Family issued a document today:
The Pontifical Council for the Family, founded 25 years ago by John Paul II with the Motu Proprio "Familia a Deo Instituta," and presided by Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, today published a document entitled: "Family and Human Procreation."
The text, according to an explanatory note written by Fr. Abelardo Lobato O.P., consultor of the pontifical council, "is destined to be an object of study, both for its doctrine and in its pastoral application." The document opens with "an introduction to the theme of the relationship between ... the family and procreation."
This theme is then developed over four chapters covering "procreation; why the family is the only appropriate place for it; what is meant by integral procreation within the family; and what social, juridical, political, economic and cultural aspects does service to the family entail" The fifth chapter presents the theme "from two complementary perspectives: the theological, in that the family is an image of the Trinity; and the pastoral, because the family lies at the foundation of the Church and is a place of evangelization."
"The document," the explanatory note continues, "makes reference above all to Vatican Council II, to Pope John Paul II who dedicated great attention to these matters, and to the recent 'Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.' All this means that the document aims not only to find a doctrinal approach to the problem, but also to open doors to future research on the questions that are the object of discussion today."
It reaffirmed the famous 1968 encyclical ''Humanae Vitae'' that stated the Vatican's opposition to contraception. Since then, it said, couples ''have been limiting themselves to one, or maximum two children.''
''Never before in history has human procreation, and therefore the family, which is its natural place, been so threatened as in today's culture,'' said the 57-page document.
It also condemned in-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination and the use of embryos.
''The human being has the right to be generated, not produced, to come to life not in virtue of an artificial process but of a human act in the full sense of the term: the union between a man and a woman,'' the document said.
The document did not break any new ground but summarized traditional Vatican positions.
As opposed to "Catholic" positions. Once again, the implication is that these teachings are generated by the Committee of Old Men and there's nothing organic or deeply-rooted about them.
The document is undoubtedly issued in preparation for the World Meeting of Families to be held in Valencia, Spain in July at which Benedict will be in attendance on July 8-9
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
"Once again, the implication is that these teachings are generated by the Committee of Old Men and there's nothing organic or deeply-rooted about them."
Sadly, the Church often presents teaching in just this way. Why blame media outlets that have no competence in making judgments about theological matters when parish clergy, bishops, and the curia often fail so miserably?
Posted by: Todd at Jun 6, 2006 10:51:00 AM
All the controversial Catholic/Vatican positions regarding sex and procreation were held by every church and Protestant sect in Christendom prior to the 20th century. There were laws against contraception in every state in America until... when?
These aren't even uniquely Catholic positions - they're the positions of any sane culture.
Posted by: Daniel Mitsui at Jun 6, 2006 11:11:24 AM
"As opposed to "Catholic" positions. Once again, the implication is that these teachings are generated by the Committee of Old Men and there's nothing organic or deeply-rooted about them."
Sadly, this is how most Catholics view the Church's teachings on sexual morality.
Posted by: ken at Jun 6, 2006 11:26:35 AM
It also condemned in-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination and the use of embryos.
''The human being has the right to be generated, not produced, to come to life not in virtue of an artificial process but of a human act in the full sense of the term: the union between a man and a woman,'' the document said.
Sigh. Can't the Church ever discuss Her position on assisted reproduction without sounding like a jerk? It might help those people suffering with infertility not to be told that their "union" is not a "human act in the full sense of the term".
Posted by: a.j. at Jun 6, 2006 12:00:10 PM
a.j. - creating children in a lab is not a "human act in the full sense of the term". The union of a married couple that has children generated in a lab is not in question.
Posted by: Brian at Jun 6, 2006 12:20:56 PM
Ultimately the infertility issue comes down to the fact that we are not granted a "right to give birth to children". Sadly, some folks simply are not meant to give birth to children and to come up with immoral means to do so is not a good thing. We should be helping such persons by getting them to come to terms with the fact that they simply are not meant to give birth to children.
That would be the loving thing to do anyways.
Posted by: Brian at Jun 6, 2006 12:23:43 PM
Once again, the implication is that these teachings are generated by the Committee of Old Men and there's nothing organic or deeply-rooted about them.
This perception is of long standing. I still remember the joke I first heard as a kid in the 1960s (pre-Humanae Vitae) whose punchline was, "You no playa the game, you no make-a the rules!"
Posted by: RP Burke at Jun 6, 2006 12:25:20 PM
I love the Roman Catholic Church.
Posted by: Lily at Jun 6, 2006 12:38:49 PM
Brian:
I'm fully aware of the Church's teaching on the subject.
We're talking about a man and a woman, in a properly ordered marital relationship, responding to the God-given urge to "be fruitful and multiply", who for whatever reason suffer from an dis-order that prevents fertilization or implantation through marital congress.
We're also talking about (usually) joining that man's God-given seed and that woman's God-given egg and gestating any resulting life (again usually) in that woman's God-given uterus.
So far this is entirely kosher. The only "issue" is the delivery mechanism.
To reduce this to "creating children in a lab" is callous.
And I disagree that anyone is "not meant to give birth to children". That's no more accurate that telling someone that they were just "meant to get leukemia". If the anatomy is there, the person is "meant to give birth". Infertility is a result of our fallen nature. Not a punishment or curse.
I greatly appreciate that the Magisterium doesn't simply embrace the philosophy that "because we can do something (technologically speaking), we should do it". It's the way the message gets presented that I have a problem with.
Being insensitive and callous, and then trying to use the fig-leaf of "it's just the loving thing to do" is not the answer.
Posted by: a.j. at Jun 6, 2006 12:51:15 PM
I confess having difficulty accepting that an in vitro child who could never be conceived naturally has a "right to be generated, not produced."
It may be immoral for parents to make use of in vitro procedures.
But I don't see how these procedures violate the rights of any children produced.
These children simply wouldn't exist without in vitro procedures. To say that the procedures violate their rights is to say that they have a "right" not to be born — a very chilling thought.
Posted by: Rick at Jun 6, 2006 1:25:10 PM
This is quite a personal issue for me, and I'm not sure I should even post this. I got married last November. My wife just found out she has premature ovarian failure (we're both in our mid-30s). Naturally, we are devastated. But never once did we consider in vitro fertilization or any other such technique. At some very deep level, it just feels wrong. We are still going to see a specialist, and the odds of having children, while low (must be realistic), are not zero. Pray for us, please!
Posted by: Tony A at Jun 6, 2006 1:59:45 PM
No sure why it's a jerky thing for the Church to talk about procreation in the context of full union of man and woman. Sounds beautiful to me.
Also, the Church is not saying that infertility prevents full union. Full union is accomplished in the complete giving of the self to the spouse. Children may be the result of that full giving - but they also may not, without diminishing the fulness of the giving.
There is also the minor detail that invitro fertilization creates many unwanted children in addition to the one wanted child, most of whom are frozen or destroyed, many of whom, in the case of multiple implantations, are aborted to make room for the wanted sibling. Now that's a loving way to get a child.
By the way, I'm infertile, and a convert to Catholicism. I studied this issue on my way into the Church, and wouldn't have converted if I couldn't accept it. I didn't just accept it - I think it's beautiful. Really beautiful. And challenging - means putting God first even ahead of your desire for children.
Posted by: Theo at Jun 6, 2006 2:00:22 PM
People who want to take offense will find a means to do so.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Jun 6, 2006 2:20:48 PM
AJ said "Infertility is a result of our fallen nature. Not a punishment or curse."
Of course. No one is saying that infertility is a punishment or a curse, least of all the Church. And if you can find a cure for infertility, that's great.
But invitro fertilization is not a cure, because it does not solve the underlying problem. It's an artificial, immoral solution, like robbing a bank to buy a nice house you couldn't otherwise afford. We all have a right to shelter - but we don't all have a right to live in a mansion.
There are many ways to parent other than biologically. Adoption, foster care, "spiritual" parenting of others through friendship, counseling, and other kinds of relationships. Those who are biologically barren can parent in many, many ways, and then barrenness is not a curse for us, but a gift. Infertility may be a cross, but crosses are meant to be embraced, and lived in union with Christ.
"Sing, O barren one, who did not bear . . . for the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her that is married, says the LORD." Isaiah 54:1
Posted by: Theo at Jun 6, 2006 2:23:25 PM
Ah yes, I remember those heady days of young adulthood, when my natural urges to procreate led me to the petri dishes and autoclaves.
"Bliss was it in that culturing lab to be alive, / But to be accomplishing blastocyst transfer was very heaven."
Or something like that.
PVO
Posted by: mulopwepaul at Jun 6, 2006 2:24:50 PM
I disagree with this statement: "right to give birth to children."
Children are a gift, not a "right." Parenthood is, likewise, a gift and privilege. It speaks of responsibilities, not rights.
My wife and I are involuntarily infertile. Since we were unable to have our own children, we had someone elses, through foster parenting and adoption.
If your faith makes you ready to parent, there are 500,000 children in need of permanent, adoptive parents in the U.S. alone. 100,000 of those kids are from California.
Posted by: Mark Andrews at Jun 6, 2006 2:33:11 PM
There is also the minor detail that invitro fertilization creates many unwanted children in addition to the one wanted child, most of whom are frozen or destroyed, many of whom, in the case of multiple implantations, are aborted to make room for the wanted sibling. Now that's a loving way to get a child.
Not always:
Posted by: Rick at Jun 6, 2006 2:52:42 PM
Tony,
You are in my prayers.
I think that Mark Shea captured the sentiment exactly:
In a sane universe, it would read "Vatican Issues Sweeping Affirmation of Love, Marriage, Family and Children".
Posted by: Brian Day at Jun 6, 2006 3:01:32 PM
Ah yes, I remember those heady days of young adulthood, when my natural urges to procreate led me to the petri dishes and autoclaves.
No. Most likely it's the sad days of mid-adulthood when you realize that despite alot of "opportunities", you haven't gotten pregnant yet.
First there's the frustratingly well-intentioned advice from everyone to "just relax" and it'll happen.
Then there's the heady days of all the embarrassing tests and examinations and having marital relations reduced to temperature, timing and mucous viscosity.
And who can ever forget those heady injections (including some intramuscular) to stimulate ovulation (which are entirely permitted by the Church) and all the related side-effects.
And oh, those heady days of being told you're just not normal, women being made to feel like they're not "real" women.
And finally, the heady comments of someone as special as yourself.
Posted by: a.j. at Jun 6, 2006 3:28:43 PM
Bravo a.j.!!
Infertility feels like a nightmare from which one can't awake. Particularly when there's a slight possibility it will happen naturally...and it doesn't, year after year after year.
It puts an enormous strain on a marriage - do I love this person enough to forego having my own children? Watching other couples start families, going to Baptisms and first birthday parties and baby showers - seeing friends who have had abortions get pregnant w/out a problem. It can call your faith and your very reason for being into question.
I understand the Church's position and I believe that some people's desperation carries them too far. But it is really infuriating to be characterized as selfish moral cretins by people who have no idea what this is like.
Posted by: tracy at Jun 6, 2006 3:44:57 PM
" Infertility is a result of our fallen nature. Not a punishment or curse."
How is that?
If it's a result of fallen nature, then it is a punishment, not for individual sin perhaps but just for being human.
Posted by: Caroline at Jun 6, 2006 4:00:27 PM
A.J. and Tracy, I've been where you have - depression, watching careless friends have oopses, being told that it wasn't "meant to be" (would you tell that to a cancer patient, for God's sake?), considering killing myself because what the hell was the point anyway, and (really coming out of the closet here) DID do in vitro. It was only afterwards that I realized what I had really done, and how how much I had shortchanged my baby at the beginning of his life (and those of his non-surviving siblings - no, I didn't "destroy" them, they died on their own). Not coincidentally, this was also the time when it actually entered my slow-learning brain to read HV and DV themselves, not just what people said about them.
To people who have not been there - or not been sorely tempted - I beg you most sincerely, please be careful with your language. When I was in the middle of my pre-in vitro hell and meandering around Catholic blogs, looking for something to hold on to, it was very painful to see people dismissing outright as a selfish vixen anyone who would even *think* about doing in vitro. "Miss out on one of life's basic experiences - bah! You can do other things, how dare you even be tempted? Think of all the children who need adopting," seemed to be a prevailing attitude. (Adoption is wonderful, and we're planning to do it in a few years, but it comes with its own complications and is not a cure-all, nor very easy). Also, I beg you in addition, please do your research. People do throw away living embryos, they do do selective abortions, but this does not mean that everyone who does IVF has done these things, or would contemplate doing them. Please do remember, many many IVF embryos (and naturally conceived embryos) die on their own, sometimes before transfer into the uterus and sometimes after. To assume the worst of an IVF-er is not the way to bring them back onto the straight and narrow. I was far more impressed by the straight-arrow Catholics I knew who really never would have done it themselves but did not scold me or speculate about my unworthy motives but simply told me the truth and offered me their love and prayers regardless.
Posted by: Sonetka at Jun 6, 2006 4:04:54 PM
BTW, just so nobody's worried - "considering killing myself" was one very bad, but short stretch after having an awful miscarriage of a hard-won pregnancy, not an ongoing state or anything like that. No need to call the cops to save me from myself :).
Posted by: Sonetka at Jun 6, 2006 4:07:19 PM
Theo, how wonderful of you to do what so many Catholics are unable to do-fully embrace the faith without reservation, especially on a subject that is so sensitive.
To all who are unable to have children and are looking for a morally acceptable solution-snowflakes.org is an organization in which couples can adopt embryos fertilized from in-vitro. As far as I know, accepted by the Church in that these embryos would stand frozen, discarded, or used for research. I have an aunt and uncle that did this and what a beautiful addition to our family that could finally fully enter the world! A miracle!
Posted by: Jessie at Jun 6, 2006 4:26:02 PM
Jessie:
I do not believe the Church has yet granted approval for embryo adoption.
This is from a May 2005 Washington Post Article:
"But the debate over embryo adoptions is just beginning to take shape. "There are very few moral issues on which the Catholic Church has not yet taken a position. This is one," said Cathy Cleaver Ruse, chief spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities.
One of the leading voices in the church in favor of embryo adoptions is the Rev. Thomas D. Williams, dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome. "It's reaching out to another human being, albeit in an embryonic state, in the only way that that little being can be helped," he said.
But the Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, who has a doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and is staff ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, argued that embryo adoptions would make Catholics complicit in test-tube fertilizations, which the church considers illicit. Moreover, he said, artificially implanting an embryo in a woman's womb is a "grave violation of the nature of marital sexuality."
When counseling Catholic couples on the issue, Pacholczyk said, he is careful to point out: "The Vatican could prove me wrong tomorrow. But I don't think the church will ever give them permission for this."
Posted by: a.j. at Jun 6, 2006 5:31:05 PM
