Yesterday, Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro Carámbula, Interim President of Human Life International had an article published on Life Site News in which he attempted to defend his position that embryo adoption is inconsistent with correct Catholic teaching. The question of embryo adoption arises following the procedure known as in vitro fertilization.
What is in vitro fertilization (IVF)?
In vitro fertilization is a very expensive process undertaken by couples who are having trouble conceiving. The usual procedure is that some of the man’s sperm and the woman’s eggs will be taken and given to a laboratory. Multiple attempts will be made to effect an artificial conception, outside of the womb – in something the equivalent of petri dish. The result will be a number of zygotes that will be allowed to develop into embryos. Tests will be undertaken on the newly-created embryos to determine the health & future characteristics of a particular embryo, should it be chosen for implantation in the mother’s womb. The choice of which embryo to choose is often presented to the couple. It may take many many “IVF treatments” – these are required because often the implanted embryo will be rejected by the woman’s body, and she must come in and have another implantation in the hopes that this one would succeed. Remaining embryos remain frozen at the laboratory.
It is my position that IVF could only be moral if only one embryo was created and implanted. The fact is that this is not how IVF is done, and therefore it cannot be moral.
What is embryo adoption?
Embryo adoption is where a woman seeks to “adopt” an unused embryo that was left over from another couple’s IVF treatments. The desire to adopt an existing frozen embryo comes from the realization that the alternative is the destruction of the embryo, through either research or discarding. Either way, proponents & opponents of embryo adoption recognize that at stake is the life of a tiny but valuable human-being.
Msgr. Barreiro begins his article by presenting the recent statements of a Catholic professor and doctor with whom he disagrees,
“At a recent debate at Christendom College Prof. Dr. Janet Smith upheld the view that the adoption of embryos could be morally appropriate, in particular if it is undertaken outside the context of in-vitro fertilization. To be realistic, the cases where embryo adoption could be done outside this context are very limited, but that does not change the wrongful nature of embryo adoption itself.
Prof Smith stated that “If [embryo adoption] would come up outside of [the context of] the in-vitro situation, I think we would have an intuitively stronger sense of the possible goodness of this act.” However, it is not a question of intuition, but of logical analysis based on right reason and on the magisterium of the Catholic Church.
I hold Dr. Smith’s views that embryo adoption can be moral. The alternative must be considered. The alternative is the destruction of the embryo, through either passive or active means. Unused IVF embryos can be destroyed passively by allowing them to thaw out. They can be destroyed actively by being donated to laboratories so that they may research on the small humans, thereby killing them. Msgr. Barreiro’s position is almost certainly that passive destruction is permissible, whereas active destruction is not.
Barreiro continues,
From a rational perspective it should be clear that embryo adoption is unnatural. It should be evident that God has given a womb to woman to receive and gestate her own children and not other embryos. There is a quantitative leap in the involvement of woman in the adoption of an already born child and adoption in the womb that leads to qualitative change in the involvement.
Firstly, we have an involvement that is physically external to her. In the second case we have an involvement that affects her internally in a marked way and as a consequence impedes her from gestating her own children.
It is clear that embryo adoption is unnatural. However next the author makes a leap in logic. Yes, it is evident that God has given women wombs that they may receive and gestate their own children. However it is not evident that God has given women wombs with a restriction on them receiving and gestating the children of others.
Barreiro then states the first of his two reasons for stating that the adoption of an embryo is qualitatively different from the adoption of a child that has been born. His first reason is that the adoption of an embryo takes place inside the woman, whereas the adoption of a child that has been born takes place outside the woman. This appeal to “environment” (i.e. in or out of the womb) is the same one that advocates of abortion make; and we refute it strongly. In and of itself, the location of the adopted child is therefore irrelevant. He goes on to back up his reasoning, stating that if a woman is gestating an adopted embryo, she is thereby physically unable to gestate her own embryo. However Catholic teaching permits natural family planning (NFP) for the purpose of spacing out children, so long as the intention is just. Who’s to say that a couple may not decide to allocate a spacing between two of their own children of say, four years, while they commit to adopting a frozen embryo?
Secondly, in the same way that a regular adoption of an already born child can be done only by married couples, it should be logical to request that an embryo should be adopted by a married couple. But here we have a problem. A woman does not have a right to use her body outside marriage because that will offend the marriage covenant that she has with her husband.
It has been argued that the husband can consent to his wife adopting in her womb, but he does not have the right to authorize his wife to use her body in such a fashion because this permission would be a modification of the marriage covenant. It constitutes a modification of the covenant because it infringes the mutual and exclusive right of the spouses to become a mother and father only through each other.
The Catholic Church has always taught a man and a woman are free to enter into marriage, but they do not have the right to modify the conditions of marriage or the nature of the marriage covenant.
Next Barreiro appeals to the Catholic teaching that embryo adoption is immoral because a husband does not have the right to authorize his wife to use her body for this purpose. He states that a couple voluntarily consenting to adopting an embryo would be violating their marriage covenant. The marriage covenant he refers to states that the two spouses have a mutual and exclusive right to become a mother and father only through each other. How then is the adoption of a child that has been born acceptable? Is the difference here that the woman’s body is used in one instance but not in the other?
I strongly disagree. In the instance of the adoption of a child that has been born, the new mother may use her body in countless ways to nurture and grow her new child. She may do this through breast-feeding, and the other physical exertions that come with raising a child.
Click here if you wish to read the last couple of paragraphs of the article which include a quote from the Instruction of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in the Instruction Dignitas Personae of September 8th 2008. However nothing of substance is stated in this section that was not already covered in the first half of the article, reproduced above.
The position I have heard espoused by good Catholic friends is that ultimately, embryo adoption is wrong because the embryos should never have been created in the first place. They are right that the embryos should not have ever been created. What about an embryo conceived in rape? Should we seek to destroy the embryo inside the mother through abortion? This rape-conceived human-being was forcefully, and possibly unnaturally conceived, therefore surely the marriage covenant has been modified if the couple consent to carrying the child to term.
If Catholics are going to be consistent, they must either reject all forms of adoption (born and unborn), or they must accept all forms of adoption.
This post is not seeking to attack the Catholic Church or Catholics – it is instead critiquing a teaching of the Church – something I do within my own Church structure/doctrine.
Update (10 Aug. 2011): The Culture Vulture responds – Part 1, Part 2.
See also What is the Pro-Life Catholic View of Human Embryo Adoption? at http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/29/what-is-the-pro-life-catholic-view-of-human-embryo-adoption/ and The Catholic Case for Embryo Adoption at http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/17/the-catholic-case-for-embryo-adoption/ for the pro-life Catholic view…
This is a great topic and my mind is racing through different analogies and situations to better understand this dilemma.
Thanks Steve, will definitely read both of these articles.
After doing some reading, I don’t think the Church has officially said that embryo adoption is immoral, but instead takes a firm stance against it for the reasons outlined in Dignitas Personae.
This doesn’t surprise me as this is such a complicated issue and (according to Catholic theology) the infallibility of the Magisterium (all of the bishops teaching in union with the Pope) or the Pope doesn’t mean that every pronouncement or statement is Catholic doctrine which must be believed by the faithful. The Magersterium or Pope are only infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals and when seeking to define doctrine (such as in an ecumenical council or when the Pope speaks alone ex cathedra, from the chair of Peter).
To simplify that concept, if the Pope was infallible in matters of mathematics, and sat down to take a math test, but refused to answer any of the questions, he would still be infallible. Only when choosing to answer the questions on the math test would the Holy Spirit guide the Pope (or Magisterium) to the right answer.
This is important because what IS defined doctrine (either though the constant teaching of the Magisterium or ex cathedra from the Pope) is that violating the marriage covenant and/or breaking the natural law is immoral . Which means no matter how a Catholic looks at the situation, in order to save the baby’s life (frozen embryo’s life), a Catholic must sin.
But the real dilemma (in my opinion) is how sinful is it? Catholic’s believe in venial and mortal sins. Venial sins which harm a person’s relationship with God and mortal sins which kill it (hence mortal, i.e. dead spiritual life=no sanctifying grace). “Little white lies”, habitual cursing, stealing someone’s change only one time (haha) would most likely all be venial sins. Murder, adultery (this one is very close to violating the marriage covenant: we’ll come back to this later), idolatry are all usually mortal sins.
But for a sin to be mortal it has to meet three conditions: 1)Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter; 2) Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner; 3) Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner. A grave sin which doesn’t meet both of the last two conditions would be considered a venial sin.
Now back to embryo adoption. If the Church teaches that IVF is a grave sin, and that violating the marriage covenant (which I see as adultery or something very similar) and/or natural law is a grave sin, then it would most likely not condone participating in those acts, even if to save a baby. Although the act of saving the baby is a righteous act, I believe the Church is asking the question “at what cost?”.
To make an extreme example of this point: would you kill an innocent person to save a baby (frozen embryo)? Or a guilty person? Or beat an innocent person to within an inch of his life? Or beat a guilty person? Or commit adultery? Or (to move to the bottom of the scale) tell a little white lie?
Somewhere in the list of sins from “murder an innocent person” to “tell a little white lie” the sinful act which results in the saving of a baby will become morally justifiable, but I don’t know if I can say where that is. I suspect it comes where sins switch from being grave or mortal sins to be being trivial and venial.
Because there are so many factors to consider when making that determination, I think the Church hasn’t officially come out and said embryo adoption is immoral. And although violating the marriage covenant is usually a grave sin (especially because Catholic marriage is modeled after Christ’s relationship with his Church) I don’t know that it is always considered a grave sin, depending on the situation.
For example: Murder is usually a grave sin, but not in a just war or in some cases of the death penalty.
The answer to this question is above my paygrade (hat tip to BHO for that line), but as a faithful Catholic I am leaning toward the opinion in Dignitas Personae. It’s a really, really tough one.
But remember, the Church hasn’t defined it yet, probably because it can not be sure that all cases of embryo adoption are not immoral.
And one last thing… in response to your closing statement (If Catholics are going to be consistent, they must either reject all forms of adoption (born and unborn), or they must accept all forms of adoption): I think Catholics are being consistent with Catholic doctrine, which tells us that adoption is not always possible without committing a (potential) grave sin.
We could get into the issue of culpability, too, which may help determine whether violating natural law or the marriage covenant is a grave or venial sin, depending on the situation.
Hey Jeff – thanks for your comment.
“I don’t think the Church has officially said that embryo adoption is immoral, but instead takes a firm stance against it “
Why take a firm stand against something that is not immoral? If a practice is not immoral, then it follows that it is morally acceptable.
Yep completely with you re: papal infallibility – I don’t agree with it, but I understand what it means.
From your fourth comment onwards, you are dealing with embryonic adoption being problematic for the reason that it violates the sacrament of marriage. But you didn’t address my argument that it was acceptable (see below the final quote in my article).
I agree it’s a tough one… for Catholics 😉 The Culture Vulture is apparently going to do a response early next week, so keep an eye out for that – I expect it will be good. And did you read Gerard’s article? I haven’t yet. Plan to. Tell me what you think.
Andy –
What I should have said is, to my knowledge the Church has not defined any doctrine regarding embryonic adoption that would make it Catholic doctrine. But after reading the original article again, it appears that Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, Secretary of the CDF, stated that Instruction Dignitas Personae participates in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter and as a consequence it should be received by the faithful with the religious assent of their spirit.
If that is true (and I need to do some more research), then I have to say that as a Catholic, although I may not understand it, I have to accept as faith that embryo adoption is immoral. (But if this true, there has to be some reason God wants this truth revealed to us – see two paragraphs down)
To answer your question about pre-born vs born-adoption, I am leaning toward the Church’s view that the relationship between mother and fetus is different than the relationship between adopted mother and adopted son or daughter. If the mother/fetus relationship wasn’t important, there would have been no reason for Mary to carry Jesus in her womb. He could have just been delivered to her by the angel as a child.
All Catholic doctrine reveals truth about the nature of God and is important for our salvation, or else it would have never been revealed. Revealed truths, more narrowly defined in the embryonic adoption doctrine, could have profound impact on how Christian’s understand Jesus’ Incarnation, His existence as both man and God, and the relationship between Mary and Jesus, so I have to take the Church’s teaching on faith, even if I don’t understand it. That’s the great thing about being Catholic: I get to have faith that the Spirit is always with the Church, guiding her to not err in matters of faith and morals, which means She (the Church) will always have true Deposit of Faith necessary for salvation.
In response to your rape example, a second immoral act would never be the correct response to a first immoral act. Abortion after rape would be two immoral acts. Embryo implantation (adoption) after creating and freezing human embryos would be two immoral acts. Even though the act of implanting the embryo in the womb might very well save the baby’s life, it might not be our place to do that. It may only be God’s.
This issue is incredibly sad. The thought of hundred of thousands of human lives frozen in time waiting to either be used for experimentation or destroyed is very unsettling, but I thank you Andy for bringing up this topic. I will definitely check back for other responses and do some independent research into this.
Line 3 paragraph 4 should Christians plural, nor Christian’s possessive. Sorry.
I did read Gerard’s article, and although I agree with some of his points, I don’t agree with his conclusion that the Church’s adherence to it’s teaching regarding marriage, sex, conception, and child birth is effectively telling the frozen babies “Gee it stinks to be you.” I understand how it can be seen that way (similarly to how the Church’s teaching regarding contraception is like telling African’s with AIDS the same) but I disagree with him.
What I am encouraged about is that article’s such as his, if they gain traction, may force the Church to define the doctrine more thoroughly and bring forward solutions on how to solve this crisis without compromising the human dignity of the babies or those longing to see them freed.
Wow.. it looks like I went crazy misusing apostrophes tonight. Sorry about the typos.
First, I’d like to say that I enjoyed this article and agree with almost everything you have written. I have done a great deal of research about the morality of embryo adoption, and have come to the conclusion that not only can it be moral, but in some cases even exemplary. Dignitas Personae attempts to address the issue, but in the end is noncommittal on the question. I agree with moral theologians who say that if the Church had really wanted to take a stand against embryo adoption, then Dignitas Personae would have been much more explicit.
Personally, I cannot understand why, in a Church committed to life “from conception to natural death,” leaders are ready to unequivocally deem the saving of these tiny humans as immoral. I know that there are many, many complicated moral issues within the question of embryo adoption, but I do believe that there are cases in which it is a morally sound option.
Finally, I would like to point out a side which was not covered in this discussion. It has to do with the last quote by Barriero which stated that regular adoption can only be done by married people. The Church has no teaching banning single people from adopting. If a single woman adopts an embryo, with the intention of raising it (therefore not as a surrogate), there is no marriage covenant to break. Likewise, it doesn’t matter that the womb is “busy” and not able to carry another child, as she does not have any other moral options for pregnancy at that point in her life as a single mother. Granted, it is ideal that a child be adopted into a loving, stable, healthy marriage. However, it should be noted that, given the right circumstances, adoption by people living the single vocation can be just as life-giving (or in this case, life-saving) as traditional adoption.
For me, this issue of creating life through IVF is tremendously personal. Due to some of my brothers being carriers of cystic fibrosis (and therefore lacking vas deferens), they have together with their wives brought 6 children into the world with IVF. I know the children’s parents are committed to giving all embryos they have created a chance at life, as they believe each one is a unique child. I also know that my siblings’ parish priest supported their decisions to procreate through IVF, with the understanding that the parents will assure all embryos created are transferred to the mothers’ wombs and that the children will be raised Catholic.
I find that Catholics on sites such as Life News have shown vast ignorance in relation to assisted reproduction (such as using the term “implant” instead of “transfer”) and a lack of compassion that cannot be considered Christ-like. They assume all IVF cycles involve destruction of embryos and a quest for “perfect” babies and they mock married couples that would like to become biological parents through IVF as selfish and ignoring God’s will for them in their lives. They assume these parents are too narcissistic to adopt, but that those who have conceived naturally (no matter the circumstances) have been “blessed” by God. How many of these Life News commentators have experienced infertility and forgone any “unnatural treatments”, and how many of them are fertile and have chosen to also adopt children into their families? (I challenge each of them to assert this data before each article or post they publish.) Following the logic of the Roman Catholic Church’s argument that all children should be conceived in the loving embrace of their married parents, why isn’t the Church at the forefront of advocacy for research into fallopian tube, vas deferens and uterus transplants?
In January 2008, I asked Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, in person about the moral status of my brothers and their wives. He said that IVF is never morally acceptable and that it is a grave offense. When asked what my siblings should now do, he said that they need to make a good confession. I wonder, though, what have they done that is sinful? I interpret Fr. Tad’s perspective to be that, if my brothers and their wives were “good” Catholics, their children would not exist. I then wonder if my son, who attends Catholic school, will at some point be taught that if his uncles and aunts were good Catholics, his 6 cousins would not exist. I think this information would be mind-blowing to a young Catholic who has always been taught to revere life and that marriage and child-bearing are considered gifts from God. You can be sure we will be leaving Catholic school if this occurs, and that a letter to the Diocese and an email chain will be forthcoming.
When I met Fr. Tad I also asked him about snowflake babies and the Catholic Church’s perspective on this procedure. He essentially said it is morally wrong to create new embryos and that while the Church at that time had no official position on adopting frozen embryos, there were good arguments on both sides. In relation to embryo adoption, I find the Church’s argument to penalize couples with no frozen embryos in favor of those couples who produced more than they wanted. The Church seems to say that the current frozen embryos deserve a chance at life, in their biological or adopted families, before any potential embryos may morally be created that would be guaranteed to grow up in their own biological family. If a couple, though, were to already have one or more biological children, wouldn’t it make more sense for them to produce biological siblings for their children through IVF (if other means weren’t successful) than to adopt frozen embryos with no biological relationship to their family?
The way I then see the crisis of frozen embryos is that if the Catholic Church recruited enough generous women to donate their womb space to bring all the frozen embryos to life, and surely the Church would do all in its power to ensure the former frozen embryos are adopted into loving homes, then couples who seek to utilize the IVF process and will not abuse it by creating more embryos than they would give life to would then have a moral chance at procreating with their own embryos.
These issues make me seriously wonder- How many Catholics turn to IVF when they have no other biological options, and how many other infertile Catholics chose adoption instead? What percentage of Catholics who have had children naturally have in addition adopted children into their families, and how many couples practice NFP so that they can afford to adopt and raise others’ children? It seems so convenient to match up the unwanted babies in the world with couples struggling with infertility (and it certainly lifts the burden on taxpayers that otherwise would be supporting the unadopted children’s needs). If no babies were available for adoption, though (the supply is shrinking as we give increasingly greater support to single mothers, many of them having chosen to conceive outside of marriage), would the Life News writers and posters still feel so self-righteous in demanding infertile couples forgo fertility treatments?
I also ponder – how many otherwise faithful Catholics leave the Church over feeling stigmatized for physical disabilities involving reproductive organs over which they have no control, especially when the Church consistently celebrates the new lives created by the “blessed”, fertile couples? Do we ever hear priests characterize those with, say, heart defects as unworthy to receive transplants, as God wanted them to suffer? It is beyond my understanding, even as a theology minor at a Catholic college who has worked for several dioceses, how the Church can sympathize with and forgive women who have chosen to have abortions, even welcoming them back into the Church if they are now married with other children (who will never know about their murdered sibling), but the Church completely condemns a Catholic couple who has never so much as used birth control, who choose in response to infertility to procreate via IVF using their own eggs and sperm, and transfer all embryos to the uterus.
I just read this. I’d like to respond soon. Let’s keep this conversation going, because I read quite a few good questions in your post that I think need to be answered.
Thanks!
These are really tricky/difficult areas.
Thanks for your thoughts.