What is the Catholic churches view on IVF babies - and effects on stem cell views.

[erin74]

Sorry - strange title.

In our state the upper house is about to vote next week on whether to allow human cloning for the purposes of embryonic stem cell research. This legislation has already gone through our federal parliament, and the lower house of our state parliament.

We have been lobbying the politicians to encourage them to vote against this bill for a number of reasons.

My husband has been writing to them individually and got an interesting reply from one last week that I am hoping you can help with. She is a Catholic and is trying to resolve some things about this. Just FYI the local Catholic Archbishop came out last week and said that they should be voting against this if they are Catholic. It has caused a fair bit of debate, which I am not wanting ot address here. But that is informing part of her thinking.

Her concerns and confusion is about IVF firstly. She said that the Catholic church is against IVF. That it is not natural.

She is trying to discover how the Catholic church views someone who is born as an IVF baby - can they be baptised or have a Catholic funeral.

Because if they are not created in the natural way what is their status in the church? And if they are not really seen as properly formed, then are they really a person if a petrie dish. So is it then ok to do this research on them.

So if the are not a person at the stage that they are in a test tube, when do they become one - is it only on implantation?

If that is the case, then is it still wrong to do research on them?

We are answering this from a different perspective since our church does not share the view of the Catholic church on IVF. But I wondered if anyone had thought through this and might be able to help out. She is really trying to work out what to think, and how to vote. I suspect she responded so candidly to my husband since he is an Anglican minister and she was after another perspective on how to think on it.

I appreciate any assistance anyone can provide.

In Christ

erin

 

[Davidnic]

The child is still a child.
This article might clear up the questions (link)

I have never used that site before, but the article I've linked to is, as far as I can see at this hour , correct.

But the child is a child in all ways. Can be baptized and buried Catholic.

 

[français]

i agree with what davidnic said.. the child is still a child. and although unnatural, the Church would never reject someone coming to God's house with a willingness to love God

 

[helenofbritain]

Hi erin,

The basic facts are: babies are humans from conception, no matter how they were conceived. T hey are known and loved by God. They are human people.

The Church disapproves of contraception because it separates the unitive aspect of sex from the procreative aspect. Similarly, the Church disaproves of IVF procedures because they separate the procreative element from the unitive one.

While Cardinal Pell can be as tactful as a brick to the back of the head sometimes, what he said was correct. The Catholic MPs should have listened to him, and I'm very disappointed many of them didn't. But really, the ones who needed to be told weren't going to listen, and the ones who listened didn't need to be told. So other than making people think about it a bit, it was a fairly fruitless exercise



What diocese are you in? My hubby's an Anglican... we're in Newcastle.

 

[Assisi]

Her concerns and confusion is about IVF firstly. She said that the Catholic church is against IVF. That it is not natural.

The 'not natural' part is about separating children from sex. We believe that every child has the right to be created by two parents who come together and express their love through sex.

She is trying to discover how the Catholic church views someone who is born as an IVF baby - can they be baptised or have a Catholic funeral.

Yes, someone conceived using IVF is still a someone. All people deserve dignity - a person who was conceived though a means the Church disapproves of is separate from the sin itself. Think of it the same as a child conceived out of wedlock, the child is separate from the sin of the parents. The child is still loved and valued by God and the Church.

Because if they are not created in the natural way what is their status in the church? And if they are not really seen as properly formed, then are they really a person if a petrie dish. So is it then ok to do this research on them.

So, as we can see from above, the child is a child and of course deserves all the dignity which every human deserves. This is exactly why Catholics disapprove of embryonic stem cell research. No person should be used and killed for an experiment.

So if the are not a person at the stage that they are in a test tube, when do they become one - is it only on implantation?

Catholics believe that life begins at conception.

If that is the case, then is it still wrong to do research on them?

See above.

She is really trying to work out what to think, and how to vote.

If I knew her, I would tell her that a great person to ask for some material on this would be Cardinal Pell. It's his job to help Catholics be faithful...It sounds like you and your husband will do a good job too. This minister can and should read up on Catholic teaching in order to live a life faithful to that teaching.

Erin, you sound like a beautiful Christian, and as an Australian and a New South Welshwoman I thank you and your husband for the work you are doing to support the dignity of human life in our state. I pray that this bill is overturned.

 

[erin74]

The 'not natural' part is about separating children from sex. We believe that every child has the right to be created by two parents who come together and express their love through sex.



Yes, someone conceived using IVF is still a someone. All people deserve dignity - a person who was conceived though a means the Church disapproves of is separate from the sin itself. Think of it the same as a child conceived out of wedlock, the child is separate from the sin of the parents. The child is still loved and valued by God and the Church.



So, as we can see from above, the child is a child and of course deserves all the dignity which every human deserves. This is exactly why Catholics disapprove of embryonic stem cell research. No person should be used and killed for an experiment.



Catholics believe that life begins at conception.



See above.


If I knew her, I would tell her that a great person to ask for some material on this would be Cardinal Pell. It's his job to help Catholics be faithful...It sounds like you and your husband will do a good job too. This minister can and should read up on Catholic teaching in order to live a life faithful to that teaching.

Erin, you sound like a beautiful Christian, and as an Australian and a New South Welshwoman I thank you and your husband for the work you are doing to support the dignity of human life in our state. I pray that this bill is overturned.

ooo - have you written to the members of the Legislative Council - if you want their email addresses I can forward them to you, along with any other information you might be interested in.

I have started a thread in the Australian and Anglican forums about the impact this will have on woman. It's something that has been hugely overlooked.

Thankyou also for your kind words. I really appreciate it. We are really quite passionate about this. The assistant minister at our church has done quite a bit of research on all this and we've spend a lot of time trying to help people better understand what it's all about so they can have a more informed opinion on it. It's amazing how much misinformation there is on this issue.

that's a good idea about refering her to Cardinal Pell - he seemed to be pretty up on the ins and outs of embryonic stem cell research from what I've read on him on this issue.

 

[erin74]

The child is still a child.
This article might clear up the questions (link)

I have never used that site before, but the article I've linked to is, as far as I can see at this hour , correct.

But the child is a child in all ways. Can be baptized and buried Catholic.

Thanks for the link. I'm not sure it is the most accurate description of the IVF procedure, and I'm not sure I entirely get the arguments about why it would violate the rights of a child, especially if done ethically as most christians do it (ie no excess embryo's, no creating babies only to be destroyed, implanting all created embryo's). I think most of those arguments were against the less ethical ways of doing IVF.

Thanks though - I might take a look around that site and see if I can find anything else.

It's helpful though to hear that the child is considered a child from teh moment of conception - that's the kind of thing she is trying to resolve.

 

[Carrye]

Hi Erin,

Please pardon my abruptness, but I want to address your questions.

I'm not sure I entirely get the arguments about why it would violate the rights of a child

IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personality. It objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity, it brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood, and responsibility for upbringing.

1) Deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins - a child deserves to know and have a relationship with the parents who created him. Assuming that a sperm/egg donor, that may not be the case.
2) Can hinder the maturing of his personality - I assume that this has to do with that knowing of parents described in (1). Failing to have that provided for can lead to problems.
3) Deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity - IVF provides for the possibility of procreation but no unity. The marital act, when it is engaged in, should provide for both - unity and the possibility of procreation.
4) Manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood, and responsibility for upbringing - IVF separates these three aspects of what is really one thing = parenthood. You could have (with the surrogate mother) two genetic parents, a gestational mother, and other parents who raise the child. Ideally, the genetic, gestational, and daily parents should all be the same people.

I understand the argument, but I think it breaks down in other areas if it is taken alone. Adoption is one case that comes to mind. Still, I think we would agree that ideally it is best for a child to be with his biological parents if that is possible.

especially if done ethically as most christians do it (ie no excess embryo's, no creating babies only to be destroyed, implanting all created embryo's). I think most of those arguments were against the less ethical ways of doing IVF.

And certainly, creating only the embryos that are going to be implanted is, in a way, more responsible than creating ones which will end up being destroyed. However, it is still immoral.

It's helpful though to hear that the child is considered a child from teh moment of conception - that's the kind of thing she is trying to resolve.

And that's one thing that is very clear in Catholic teaching - it really can't be otherwise. There's a saying, "a person's a person no matter how small." Regardless of the method used to create the child, the Lord, in his infinite love, creates and gives the soul. That child is created in the Lord's own image and likeness.

Still, we should not take the Lord's love as being permission to engage in immoral acts.

 

[stivvy]

In the church we see all things as GOOD. The result is GOOD and the sufferring we are given is GOOD and the love He gifts us with is GOOD.

The ACTS and MEANS are what the church is bad. Man allowed the fertalization to take place (the action) but it is God who said "OK" and gave the result of a child. Anything that comes from God is GOOD.

Rape is an action that is bad, but if a child comes from that, then that child is GOOD! See, the actions don't constitute wether the result is acceptable or good or not. They are judged on 2 totally different plains.

So that baby has all the rights and privaledges afforded to any baby born in God's world, because it is He who gave him life, not the scientists or doctors.

I hope this helps!

 

[nyj]

Because if they are not created in the natural way what is their status in the church?

The sin rests with the parents and doctors, not with the child. This is the exact reason why the Church objects to abortion even in cases of rape and incest ... because the child is innocent. One of the parents is as guilty as sin, but the child is innocent.

As for embryonic stem cells ... new advances in research have demonstrated that you can take adult cells, and revert them back into stem cells. A lot of information can be found here.

Why people continue to beat the embryonic stem cell drum, when all the major advances have been done with adult stem cells ... is beyond me.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Why people continue to beat the embryonic stem cell drum, when all the major advances have been done with adult stem cells ... is beyond me.

It's called intellectual dishonesty. It's rampant amongst liberal type arguments.

My best friend's husband had a stem cell transplant (adult)-- for treatment of his poem's disease (which would have been fatal)--and he's doing wonderfully, I am happy to report.