Religious Leaders Respond to the Vatican’s Ban on Artificial Conception

Religious leaders are giving mixed reviews to the Vatican’s recent ban on the use of new reproductive technologies. The landmark statement cites moral and theological reasons for opposing artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogate parenting, and prenatal diagnosis for the purpose of destroying a malformed fetus.

Theological Reasoning

Titled “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation,” the document opposes any attempt to treat infertility apart from sexual intercourse between husband and wife. Many of the principles are drawn from teachings of Pope John Paul II and other sources of official Catholic doctrine. An introduction quotes the Pope as saying these techniques expose mankind “to the temptation to go beyond the limits of a reasonable dominion over nature.”

The document makes it clear that the church does not reject infertility procedures merely because they are artificial. Instead, the doctrine rests on two “fundamental values”: the life of the human being who is created, and the special nature of the way human life is transmitted within marriage.

On the first point, the teaching restates traditional Catholic views on the sanctity of human life “from the moment of conception.” The second concern is defined as well: “Human procreation requires on the part of the spouses responsible collaboration with the fruitful love of God; the gift of human life must be actualized in marriage through the specific and exclusive acts of husband and wife.…”

The instruction draws no moral distinction between methods using donor sperm or eggs and ones that involve only the husband and wife. Many Protestant ethicists, on the other hand, do not object to methods such as artificial insemination of a woman with her husband’s sperm, or even in vitro fertilization using sperm and eggs from a married couple.

What Is Prohibited?

Treatments for infertility and certain medical procedures on embryos and fetuses fall under the Vatican’s blanket condemnation. Among the most widely used treatments for infertility is artificial insemination, in which a sperm sample is injected into a woman by her doctor. In cases where a husband has no sperm or produces defective sperm, a donor’s specimen is used.

However, the Vatican document cites a Catholic affirmation of an “inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.” In other words, sexual union within marriage must necessarily include a constant openness to procreation; and procreation without sexual union severs the two. This is why the Catholic church opposes the use of contraceptives.

In vitro fertilization between husband and wife is unacceptable, the instruction says, because “even if it is considered in the context of ‘de facto’ existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act.” In vitro fertilization involves harvesting multiple eggs from the woman, and mixing them with the husband’s sperm in a laboratory. Eggs that are fertilized as a result of this process are reintroduced into the woman’s womb; leftover pre-embryos are discarded or frozen for later use.

“Development of the practice of in vitro fertilization has required innumerable fertilizations and destructions of human embryos,” the Vatican document points out. In addition, it states, through these methods “life and death are subjected to the decision of man, who thus sets himself up as the giver of life and death by decree.” Finally, addressing the issue of third-party donors, the instruction notes, “The fidelity of the spouses in the unity of marriage involves reciprocal respect of their right to become a father and mother only through each other.”

Some of the document’s harshest words are reserved for surrogate motherhood. That practice involves a woman outside the marriage being paid to carry a child that belongs genetically to her as well as the husband seeking to have children. According to the Vatican, “Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity, and of responsible motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements which constitute those families.”

The document expresses sympathy for infertile couples, and charges the community of believers to “shed light upon and support the suffering of those who are unable to fulfill their legitimate aspiration to motherhood and fatherhood.” It recommends that infertile couples discover in their circumstances “an opportunity for sharing in a particular way in the Lord’s Cross, the source of spiritual fruitfulness.”

Reaction

A tremendous diversity of opinion about these issues exists within the Catholic community. Observers say many infertile Catholic couples will not heed the Vatican’s instruction, just as many neglect its teaching against artificial methods of birth control.

Others, however, welcome the document even if they dispute some of its recommendations. Catholic social analyst Michael Novak wrote, in a commentary about the document, that its main thrust “is to defend a human right never before articulated in such detail and clarity: the human right of a child to be born to two married persons through the mutual gift of their bodily and personal love for one another.”

Lutheran theologian Richard John Neuhaus said of the document: “I don’t think it’s the definitive word, but it’s a marvelously good starting point for discussion.” The Vatican’s insistence on not separating procreation from sexual union in marriage seems to be “a limited definition of the act of love,” Neuhaus said. “But one is challenged to ask, if you expand the act of love to separate love from the act of procreation, then where do you draw the line? It has raised a challenge to all of us to be more precise.”

Protestant ethicists tend to hold favorable views on fertility procedures that do not involve a third party. Stanley Hauerwas, ethics professor at Duke University, has opposed research and funding for the development of in vitro techniques. But concerning the application of these techniques to couples confronting infertility, he opts for an ambiguous position. He would support a couple’s choice to pursue in vitro fertilization if both partners are in agreement about it and strongly desire it.

Infertility specialist Joe S. McIlhaney, Jr., is a respected evangelical authority on the subject. In his book, 1250 Health Care Questions Women Ask (Baker), he tends to support the decisions of couples and their doctors in matters of infertility. He writes, “There is, I believe, no stronger stress in a couple’s life than the continued absence of the child that they long to have.… God has made it possible for us to develop new understanding and treatment for the causes of infertility. Those with infertility problems have at their disposal some of the most modern and up-to-date medical care available in any field of medicine.”

McIlhaney serves on a newly appointed ethics commission of the Christian Medical Society, which is preparing a statement evaluating reproductive choices. He said he expects the society’s document to include “major areas of disagreement with the Vatican statement.”

By Beth Spring.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.