(LifeSiteNews) — The following article includes remarks by Professor John Paul Meenan of Our Lady Seat of Wisdom College and responses by Dr. Elizabeth Rex of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Part 1 of their debate can be found here. None of these arguments defend the use of IVF. LifeSiteNews is directly opposed to IVF.
MEENAN: I would like to thank Dr. Rex for her detailed reply to my own concerns. I must confess that I did not realize that ‘embryo adoption’ had gone so mainstream in the Catholic world. But that still does not make it right.
REX: I would like to thank Prof. Meenan for replying to my reply. I hope we can continue our ongoing debate regarding the morality of both embryo transfer and embryo adoption.
For the record, we appear to be in full agreement with each other regarding the authoritative magisterial definitions that condemn the intrinsic evil of the following four Artificial Reproductive Techniques (ART):
1) artificial homologous fertilization;
2) artificial heterologous fertilization;
3) surrogate motherhood, as defined in Donum vitae II.A.3; and
4) freezing/cryopreservation, as defined and condemned in both Donum vitae, I.6 and in Dignitas personae 18. Here are the four key magisterial definitions:
“By ‘artificial procreation’ or ‘artificial fertilization’ are understood here the different technical procedures directed towards obtaining a human conception in a manner other than the sexual union of man and woman” (Donum vitae II, with emphasis added).
1.”By artificial homologous fertilization or procreation, the Instruction means the technique used to obtain a human conception using the gametes of the two spouses joined in marriage. Homologous artificial fertilization can be carried out by two different methods:
a) Homologous IVF and ET: the techniques used to obtain a human conception through the meeting in vitro of gametes of the spouses joined in marriage.
b) Homologous artificial insemination: the technique used to obtain a human conception through the transfer into the genital tracts of a married woman of the sperm previously collected from her husband.
2. “By the term heterologous artificial fertilization or procreation, the Instruction means the techniques used to obtain a human conception artificially by the use of gametes coming from at least one donor other than the spouses who are joined in marriage. Such techniques are of two types:
a) Heterologous IVF and ET: the technique used to obtain a human conception through the meeting in vitro of gametes taken from at least one donor other that the two spouses joined in marriage.
b) Heterologous artificial insemination: the technique used to obtain a human conception through the transfer into the genital tracts of the woman of the sperm previously collected from a donor other than her husband.
3. “By ‘surrogate mother’ the Instruction means:
a) the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo implanted in her uterus and who is genetically a stranger to the embryo because it has been obtained through the union of the gametes of ‘donors’. She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the baby once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy. (Emphasis added: this magisterial definition does not apply to embryo adoption.)
b) the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo to whose procreation she has contributed the donation of her own ovum, fertilized through insemination with the sperm of a man other than her husband. She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the child once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy.” (Em- phasis added: this magisterial definition does not apply to embryo adoption.)
4. “The freezing of embryos, even when carried out in order to preserve the life of an embryo – cryopreservation – constitutes an offense against the respect due to human beings by exposing them to grave risks of death or harm to their physical integrity and depriving them, at least temporarily, of maternal shelter and gestation, thus placing them in a situation in which further offences and manipulation are possible.” (Italics in original; bolding added.) N.B. Freezing embryos and “depriving them, at least temporarily, of maternal shelter and gestation” is morally offensive and a grave sin.
Four conclusions that I hope we can both share in the embryo adoption debate:
- Artificial procreation, including surrogacy, are all magisterially condemned.
- Embryo adoption, however, cannot be considered a form of surrogate motherhood and is therefore not prohibited by these magisterial definitions which are quoted from Donum vitae that was promulgated in 1987. In fact, Hannah Strege, the world’s first adopted frozen embryo, was not born until December 31, 1998, nearly 12 years later!
- Embryo transfer, likewise, is not prohibited by these magisterial definitions. In fact, what is explicitly prohibited is the freezing of embryos, even “temporarily,” because it harms and kills them, and because it “deprives them of maternal shelter and gestation.”
- “By ‘artificial procreation’ or ‘artificial fertilization’ are understood here the different technical procedures directed towards obtaining a human conception in a manner other than the sexual union of man and woman” (DV II, emphasis added). But transferring an IVF-conceived embryo to a maternal womb for maternal shelter and gestation is a therapeutic, medical procedure that “must be” upheld as “licit” (DV I, 3).
MEENAN: Rex does not respond directly to the two key teachings which I quote from Donum Vitae (1987) and Dignitatis Personae (2008). She talks around them, but not to them.
REX: I did respond directly to Meenan’s two quotes from Donum vitae I.5 and Dignitas personae 19, but apparently, he decided not to read my very detailed responses that I wrote ten years ago in the scholarly pages of The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. Here, once again, is my direct response to Meenan regarding these two key teachings:
My article [“The Magisterial Liceity of Embryo Transfer”] in fact, includes two important chapters: “The Magisterial Liceity of Embryo Transfer in Donum vitae 1.3 Faithfully Resolves Donum vitae 1.5″ (pages 50-52); and “The Magisterial Liceity of Embryo Transfer in Donum vitae 1.3 Faithfully Resolves Dignitas personae 19″ (pages 52-56).
I would to recommend that Prof. Meenan – and other seriously interested LifeSite News followers – read my Winter 2015 article in The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly article (particularly pages 710–721) in which I carefully analyze and defend embryo transfer (ET) as a morally licit therapeutic procedure and as a life-saving medical intervention that Donum vitae I,3 (and also cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2275) teach “must be” upheld as “licit” when used to heal and save the lives of embryos. Neither Donum vitae nor the CCC prohibit the use of embryo transfer to heal and save the lives of human embryos who have been immorally conceived and frozen by their parents, and Dignitas personae 18 is deeply troubled that:
[t]he majority of embryos that are not used remain ‘orphans’. Their parents do not ask for them and at times all trace of their parents is lost. This is why there are thousands upon thousands of frozen embryos in almost all countries where in vitro fertilization takes place.”
The only embryos who are currently facing an absurd and unjust situation are those frozen embryos who have not been licitly and therapeutically healed and transferred to their own mothers’ wombs for maternal shelter and gestation. Responsible parents must either raise their own IVF children or, if that is not possible, then embryo adoption is the only other moral option for an unwanted unborn IVF child. Here is the link to my article.
RELATED: Embryo Adoption Debate, Part 1: Is rescuing frozen children an act of mercy—or a moral violation?
MEENAN: Before offering some clarifications required in the claims made in her response, allow me to ask a simple question:
Both Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger were well aware of all the reasons and arguments that Dr. Rex offers and could have made them at least as well as she does. Yet they still taught – quite clearly – that there are no licit means to bring these embryos to birth.
Why does Dr. Rex – and the others she quotes – get to say that there are now indeed licit means? What has changed since 1987 and 2008? Whence does she derive the authority to go contrary to the conclusions reached by the Magisterium? Keep in mind that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote Donum Vitae, and approved Dignitatis Humanae as Pope.
REX: Sadly, it is Professor Meenan who appears to be condemning what the Catholic Church herself has never condemned. Cardinal Ratzinger and Saint Pope John Paul II were not concerned about the licitness of embryo transfer to the womb of the mother, rather they were deeply troubled by the absurdity that surplus embryos were not being transferred to their mothers’ wombs! And “embryo adoption” was completely unknown – perhaps even inconceivable – back in 1987: Hannah was born 11+ years later, in 1998.
MEENAN: Readers should be aware that the Pontifical Academy for Life that Dr. Rex invokes for support is not a Magisterial office, but simply advisory, as is the Pontifical Academy for Sciences. You don’t even need to be a Catholic to be appointed, and there are some controversial appointees of late. Just a few years ago, they were embroiled in a scandal when a book they published approved contraception. And to seek moral guidance from the USCCB is a fraught endeavor.
REX: I am saddened that Prof. Meenan has diminished the reputation of the Pontifical Academy for Life, e.g. during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI back in 2008. According to the Catholic News Agency, on June 17, 2008, “Pope Benedict appointed Bishop Salvatore Fisichella, current Auxiliary of Rome and the rector of the city’s Pontifical Lateran University, as president of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Bishop Fisichella (…) succeeds Bishop Elio Sgreccia who resigned after reaching the age of 75, the mandatory age for resignation. (…) He is also a member of two congregations within the Roman Curia: the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.”
Clearly, Mons. Rino Fisichella was asked by Pope Benedict XVI to attend and speak on his behalf at the official Vatican Press Conference on December 12, 2008, the day that the Instruction Dignitas personae was released to the Catholic Church and to the world.
I am also saddened that Prof. Meenan would attempt to describe seeking moral guidance from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as a “fraught endeavor.”
MEENAN: It is a principle in theology that one always interprets the less authoritative in light of the more authoritative. Both Donum Vitae and Dignitatis Personae are Magisterial documents, promulgated by the highest level of authority in the Church. Nothing and no one whom Dr. Rex invokes to support her position has such authority.
Theologians debate all sorts of things, from women’s ordination, to contraception, euthanasia and abortion. That does not make these issues debatable. For when things really matter, the Church (after much pondering) will simply speak the truth.
Read over the two key paragraphs cited in my first reply. The Church frames her teaching in such simple and clear terms, so that all may understand, ‘with ease, firm certainty and no admixture of error’, without any need of advanced education, esoteric language or complex arguments.
REX: Correct, but no one, including Prof. Meenan, should condemn what the Catholic Church has not condemned, or misrepresent what the Magisterium actually teaches.
MEENAN: We will now clarify our response to just a few of the claims made by Dr. Rex:
1. Yes, we have a duty to save and preserve life but not at the expense of doing moral evil. That is the whole point of the two documents. Placing an embryo in a womb by technical means (embryo transfer, ET) replaces the conjugal act and is an intrinsic evil, as part of the broader evil of IVF. Even if many Catholics, even bishops, support the technology since it seems superficially ‘pro-life’. It’s not.
REX: Nowhere do either of the two Instructions condemn embryo transfer (ET) as replacing the conjugal act. Both documents do, however, condemn artificial fertilization, artificial insemination, and commercial surrogacy because these are the techniques that immorally replace the conjugal act. Once the child has been conceived, frozen, and abandoned by its own parents, Donum vitae I,3 clearly teaches that “one must uphold as licit” all therapeutic medical interventions, like embryo transfer, that are aimed at healing and saving the lives of embryos. This key magisterial teaching is also authoritatively cited and taught in CCC n. 2275.
MEENAN: 2. The arguments made by Dr. Rex supporting embryo transfer could just as well be used to support some, if not all, aspects of IVF. After all, it isproducing life, is it not, and children who would otherwise not have existed can now exist, all the while giving (apparently) great hope and joy to infertile couples. In whatever way one defines surrogacy, implanting a genetically alien child in one’s womb fits the bill, regardless of intention. But Donum Vitae condemns even the theoretical ‘simple case’ of IVF and ET: An infertile, married couple, who have one ovum fertilized via IVF, by sperm taken without masturbation, and no abortion.
Would Dr. Rex dissociate these two procedures, claiming that IVF is wrong, but ET – implanting the embryos – is not? Is this what she claims the documents are teaching? It seems clear that both procedures are condemned as immoral. The whole process dissociates the ‘nexus indissolubilis’ – the unbreakable bond – that exists, and must exist, between the unitive and the procreative.
REX: No. Embryo transfer is not “producing life”: immoral artificial fertilization or immoral artificial insemination has already “produced life.” The child begins to exist at fertilization – even while it is frozen – not when it implants itself in the womb. The child’s right to life begins at fertilization, not at implantation. This is a very common medically false argument that is frequently used by many theologians and ethicists opposed to both embryo transfer and embryo adoption. Medical dictionaries scientifically define the beginning of human life – and pregnancy – at fertilization, not a week or so later at implantation. For decades, the Guttmacher Institute has insisted on defining both conception and pregnancy as beginning at implantation – not at fertilization – for obvious evil and nefarious reasons. A man and a woman become a father and a mother following fertilization, not following implantation.
Yes. I am happy that Prof. Meenan and I may actually begin to agree that it is both homologous and heterologous artificial fertilization and artificial insemination that actually dissociate the inseparability of the unitive and procreative meanings of the conjugal act – i.e., the ‘nexus indissolubilis’ – and that violate the marital bond and the right of the spouses to become parents only through each other. When the spare embryos are later abandoned by their biological parents, embryo transfer (ET) and embryo adoption are the only morally licit means to help restore the child’s natural and inviolable right to maternal shelter, gestation, and birth into a loving adoptive family. The Church has always praised and promoted adoption.
MEENAN: 3. The paragraph permitting therapeutic interventions on the unborn – a noble endeavor – refers to babies already in the womb and cannot be construed to support implanting embryos. The document just spent the previous paragraphs condemning IVF and ET. What is more, if this were the point of that paragraph, why wouldn’t the authors of the document – who were well aware of embryo transfer – allude to such when referring later to embryo adoption? Instead, it says the exact opposite: There are no licit means to bring these embryos to term. Dr. Rex’s interpretation is specious.
REX: Prof. Meenan is not at liberty to alter, change, or add a single word to the official text of a magisterial document: Donum vitae I, 3 uses the word “embryo” – not baby – and neither does Donum vitae I,3 include the words “in the womb.”
MEENAN 4. As an ancillary point, how would such embryos be chosen? By arbitrary criteria, eugenic or otherwise, or by a quasi-random lottery?
REX: The placing family – with the spare frozen embryos – has the primary duty to find a good family for their remaining frozen embryos. The placing family also has the ability to chose whether to pursue an open, closed, or even anonymous adoption. A placing family or an adoptive family can also contact organizations like the Snowflake Embryo Adoption Program or the National Embryo Adoption Center who have assisted countless generous placing and adopting couples who chose life and adoption as a loving and moral option for frozen unborn children.
MEEHAN: 5. To implant these embryos in the wombs of willing participants – for all of the good intentions – is formal cooperation in this macabre endeavor, usurping God’s prerogative, and would only create an even greater market and appetite for embryonic children to be produced. Moral evil always begets ever-greater evil, which is why the Church has indeed condemned IVF and ET, from beginning to end. We should take no part in it. These children, sadly, have no morally licit way to be brought to term. That is what the Church has taught, simply and clearly. If the Magisterium intervenes and clarifies this further, I am open. Until then, Roma locuta, causa finita.
REX: Keeping one’s own “spare” unborn IVF children frozen in liquid nitrogen for endless years, and by formally cooperating in the evil of IVF by paying costly cryostorage fees at hundreds of evil IVF clinics is what Prof. Meenan and all Catholics should condemn as a truly heinous and “macabre endeavor.” Cryopreservation deliberately and immorally deprives their own unborn IVF children of “maternal reception and gestation” until their innocent and defenseless unborn children die of decay and freezer burn! The only moral options are: 1) carefully transfer one’s own frozen embryos to their mother’s womb and loving raise them at home with their siblings; or 2) prayerfully consider embryo adoption as a truly loving and merciful choice. What we do – or fail to do – to the least of our brethren, we do – or fail to do – unto Jesus. Choose life!
I, too, believe that the Magisterium needs to intervene and clarify the morality of embryo transfer and embryo adoption. Until then, the discussion is “still open” and the “Vatican did not rule out the practice” (Catholic News Service, 12/08/08).
So, until then, we can almost “agree” with each other: Roma locuta, causa finita.
RELATED: Can we adopt embryos from IVF? Catholic bioethicist weighs in