The Catholic Church on infertility

Everyone knows that the Catholic Church considers children to be “the supreme gift of marriage” – in fact the Church says “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1652).  What then of married couples who struggle with infertility?  Many Catholics are not clear as to what the Church permits in this case.  If children are such a good thing, then surely medical practices to help couples conceive must be good?  If not, why not?  What are Catholics “allowed” to do about infertility?  Is this a grey area?

In fact the Church’s teachings are clear even in the face of all the scientific progress that has been made in this area and the various medical techniques available.  Any medical procedure must be evaluated in the light of the fundamental teachings of the Church’s gospel of life: 

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.  From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognised as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life (CCC 2270).  This is specifically extended to embryos created in a laboratory:  “Human embryos obtained ‘in vitro’ are human beings and subjects with rights: their dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their existence” (Donum Vitae I). 

Every human being is to be respected for himself, and cannot be reduced in worth to a pure and simple instrument for the advantage of others (DV I). 

Sexual intercourse has both a unitive and a procreative significance which “man on his own initiative may not break” (see CCC 2366).  This means that procreation cannot be separated out as an independent process; see point below.

Every human being is always to be accepted as a gift and blessing of God. However, from the moral point of view a truly responsible procreation vis-à-vis the unborn child must be the fruit of marriage (DV II).  Thus “the only acceptable way of conceiving a child is through sexual intercourse between a husband and wife” (Pope Benedict XVI, Pontifical Academy for Life General Assembly February 2012). 

A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift... In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights. (CCC 2378). 

Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. (CCC 2374)

Looked at in the light of these basics, most fertility treatments are easily enough understood in terms of their moral status.  The gravest difficulty with IVF is that it involves the destruction of human beings.  The woman is given a hormone to stimulate her ovaries to produce several eggs because, as the HFEA website puts it, “with more fertilised eggs, the clinic has a greater choice of embryos to use in your treatment”.  From the eggs that are successfully fertilised in the laboratory with sperm (from the woman’s partner or a donor), “the best one or two embryos” are chosen for transfer into the womb.  Remaining embryos can be frozen for the future use of this or another couple and destroyed at a later date if not used, or destroyed straight away.

As well as the destruction of human life, of course, IVF also involves conception outside of the context of sexual intercourse, and often use of sperm from a third party outside the marriage.  It should also be remembered that it has a relatively low success rate, can be catastrophically expensive and is not without medical risk.

Some Catholics, realising that IVF treatment involves the creation and destruction of “spare” embryos, ask what the problem is with techniques like GIFT (Gamete Intra-Fallopian Transfer) where the healthiest eggs and sperm harvested as above are placed together into a woman’s fallopian tubes for fertilisation to happen “naturally”, or artificial insemination using eggs and sperm from the couple only and no third party.  Especially in the case of artificial insemination where no surplus embryos are produced, they ask what the problem is.  Surely all that is happening is that a certain mechanical act is being bypassed?

This is a harder one to understand and explain, especially to non-Catholics who do not share a conviction that the two aspects of sex – procreation and intimacy – should not be artificially separated.  It is here that we need to explore the idea of the meaning of sex as the context in which a child is conceived.  Sex is an expression of the total self-giving of a man and a woman to each other, holding nothing back, with the inclusion of their fertility.  A baby is the fruit of this self-giving and thus natural conception speaks of the nature of the human being, created in, through, because of and for love.

Natural conception also speaks of the nature of the human being as an end in him/herself, a gift arising out of  the couple’s mutual love but not “something” they have a right to claim. The human person has a greater dignity than that.  For the same reason that we do not have a right to manipulate our fertility through artificial contraception, we do not have a right to “play God” through the use of artificial reproductive means to ensure a child.  We are, as Humanae Vitae prophetically claimed, “ministers not masters” of a plan bigger than us.  Once we start to regard ourselves as masters, to consider even our own biology as raw material for the use of our intellect – however worthy we feel our motives to be – and having no value or meaning inherent in itself, we are on that notorious "slippery slope".  This is why Pope Benedict XVI recently spoke (addressing the Pontifical Academy for Life General Assembly) of  “temptations leading scientists to offer unacceptable infertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization [which] include ‘easy money or, even worse, the arrogance of replacing the Creator.’  He noted that such pride endangers humanity itself.” (LifeSiteNews.com, 27 Feb).

So is that it?  Does the Church say something about the “great suffering” of infertile couples and then, feeling she has done the sympathy bit, get on with her scientist-bashing?  Not at all.  The human person’s rational intellect and creativity are gifts from God and reflections in us of God’s image.  The Pope also said, when making the remarks above, that medical research and treatment is “scientifically the correct approach to the issue of infertility,” but that it must respect the natural moral context for the creation of children.  He expressed fears that concentrating resources on the development of methods of assisted reproduction had led to a situation where “scientism and the logic of profit seem to dominate the field of infertility and human procreation, to the point of limiting many other areas of research”.

This view was echoed, on the same occasion, by Dr Thomas Hilgers (who opened the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction in 1985 to develop infertility treatments which respect the dignity of human life).  Hilgers remarked, “Were it not for the race to create children artificially, we probably would have had a cure for infertility by now.”

So what of ethical fertility research?  It exists and its fruits can be found in NaPro Technology which, in the words of Chelsea Zimmerman, “can and has helped women successfully achieve and maintain pregnancy without having to resort to manufacturing their children in petri dishes or inject themselves with a stranger’s sperm. Using this technology, couples respect and cooperate with [God’s] divine plan for the creation of human life rather than taking the matters of life in their own hands and forcing God to cooperate with them.” It works with the woman’s natural cycle to identify and treat various causes of infertility and recurrent miscarriage and is available in the UK; see http://lifefertilitycare.co.uk/

For those needing persuasion, Chelsea links to a page which lists peer-reviewed academic papers supporting NaPro’s efficacy: http://www.naprotechnology.com/references.htm

I close with some more words from Chelsea, because I can’t put the case better than she does.  “To those who struggle with infertility, the Catholic Church is not your enemy. She wants what is best for both you and the children you so desire...  Never forget that no prayers go unanswered and all suffering, given over to the Lord bears fruit in some form... Whether you seek to welcome a new member to your family through (ethical) fertility treatment or even the always loving option of adoption,  remember that children are a gift, not a right. Keep the focus of your marriage on you and your spouse giving and receiving the total gift of self while loving God and trusting Him for the timing of children – if they should ever come.”  

The pro-life DNA of marriage

“Gay marriage” is of course a hot topic of the moment, with David Cameron actively backing its legalisation and online campaigns both for and against being launched (see button on our own sidebar).  It is a topic pro-lifers must take seriously, because like the fundamental right to life, it concerns our very nature and identity as human beings.  That’s not for a moment to say that gay people are anything less than human: of course they are no different from heterosexuals in their personhood and dignity.  But a gay relationship cannot be equated with a heterosexual one and called a marriage.  They are essentially different beasts.

The purpose of sexual intercourse is not only for procreation, but procreation is an essential dimension of it, as the Catholic Church teachers teaches when it states that the unitive and procreative aspects of sex must not be artificially separated.  That’s why, in order to answer man’s deepest need for companionship and intimacy, God created a woman.  Their relationship – not a petri dish or artificial insemination – is the loving, sexual context in which children were intended to be conceived and born.  Over the millennia this committed, fruitful, life-giving relationship of two biologically and psychologically complementary persons came to represent first God’s relationship with His people Israel, and then Christ’s relationship with His Church.  Finally it was raised to the dignity of a sacrament, a vehicle of grace and a participation in the internal relationships of the Holy Trinity (which the human family mirrors).  In marriage between man and woman, then, we can read the spiritual as well as biological DNA of the human person, his nature, his dignity and his relationship to His creator.  It’s what we’re all about on a multitude of layers.

Sexual activity between a same-sex couple is something different.  It cannot be procreative and thus cannot co-create with God.  There is no biological complementarity to reflect the initiatory love of the Creator with the receptive love of His creatures (even if the couple assume roles).  Should children be desired – and this is particularly important from the pro-life point of view – then they will have to be conceived by artificial means (which at the very least will mean conception outside of the act of marriage, and at worst can mean IVF treatment with consequent loss of embryonic life).  In short, sex between two men or two women is just a different thing altogether.

 

One does not need to rely on religion - which of course will not bear weight with everyone - to protect the traditional definition of marriage.  Marriage, defined as the “voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life” (Hyde v Hyde 1866), has been a constant of human societies in all ages and all parts of the world.  Our own British society was founded on it and until recently held together by the familial bonds resulting from it. This is recognised by the UN Declaration of Human Rights in article 16 which allows that the family, headed by a man and a woman, “is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.  Gay marriage will tend to undermine that because it cannot give rise to a family with the usual natural network of extended relationships around it; blood aunts and uncles, grandparents and so on.

The civil partnerships into which gay couples may legally enter bestow virtually identical legal rights to marriage already, so there is no practical reason to  redefine marriage in order to include them.  A gay relationship may be loving and stable, but it is a partnership, not a marriage.

Christian Medical Comment carries an excellent post which brings together 24 articles on the legalisation of same-sex “marriage” in the UK.  I am indebted to it for the definitions of marriage and family quoted above, and it is a mine of useful information and arguments to draw upon when debating this foundationally important topic with those inclined to support “equality in love”.  Do go over and read.

I have posted before on the difficulty of separating out the ethical wheat from the darnel in so many of the situations the modern world presents to us.  That isn’t to say the basic moral principles aren’t clear, but they are entwined with so many other hurts, challenges and considerations that they can be hard to tease out.  Coaxing the knots apart can be a very painful process and this whole debate is a case in point, because we are asking homosexual people to make a sacrifice, even if for the sake of receiving greater blessing and even if it is one we also ask of some heterosexual people, for example priests, religious and unmarried singles.

Being gay is not a sin (although it is a mis-orientation, a particular sharing in the state of disorder each and every one of us suffers from in one way or another); loving someone is not a sin; but the genital expression of that love is a sin outside of marriage, because it constitutes a distortion of what sex is meant to be for and about... and homosexual love can never constitute a marriage.  This is a hardship for those with same sex attraction.  However much we point out that our society gives too much weight to sex as the only means of complete human fulfilment, however much we draw attention to the myriad other types of loving and intimate relationships there are other than sexual ones and point out that celibacy can have positive value, it remains a hardship.  I think it was Michael Voris who said that homosexuals who remain celibate for love of Christ and His Church are “moral giants” amongst us, carrying a heavy cross, and I wholeheartedly agree.

One of the unhappiest aspects of this whole scenario is that, it seems, either you support “gay marriage” and active gay relationships generally, or you are labelled homophobic, unjust and a hater of gay people.  You are allowed no leeway to say “I love and respect my gay brothers and sisters just as I love and respect anyone else, but I believe that gay sex is wrong”.  That will simply arouse anger, disbelief and accusations of hypocrisy or arrogance.  I find that understandable... but very, very sad.