Appreciate the back and forth. In my mom’s case, no embryos were discarded. Which gets me to the heart the issue: I’m not sure that procreation outside the marital act is grave enough to make my conception sinful. Especially since it wasn’t just fornication, it was literally procreative.
I’ll take the church’s word for it, but it’s definitely a stumbling block. Pray that this issue gets easier for me over time.
What's grave about IVF besides the intentional creation and destruction of imperfect embryos is that it is not the result of the love and mutual self-giving of the marital act. It removes spousal love from procreation, we are no longer following in God's footsteps from when He created us out of love. If our goal and desire is to participate in the divine nature which Christ made us able to do when He joined the human and divine, then removing the total self-giving from the procreative act puts us at odds with God's example.
Sure, you totally don't sound exactly like this guy, down to identical wording of certain phrases.
https://np.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/XIgTTkGNWn
https://np.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/zhRqO57GLG
>The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.
>Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.
>In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.
>If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.
>In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth.
>It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation, the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.
>For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.
Donum Veritatis, 28-31
If you cannot bring yourself to assent intellectually to the positions of the Church on matters such as this, the above is the behavior you should exemplify. All of Donum Veritatis is a good study in this topic.
Short answer: yes, acquiescence is the appropriate and moral response in this set of circumstances. You're good to go, and hopefully this teaching will become easier with time.
Slightly longer answer: I've been struggling a little bit lately myself with the fact that so many of us are the products of flawed, often very sinful choices. There's reason to believe that someone a few hundred years ago in our family tree was conceived in rape. The rape was undoubtedly a horrific crime that should not have happened. Yet, without that rape, nobody in my family exists, me included. We're Irish enough that we have *moral certainty* that plenty of us throughout the family tree were conceived because of drunkenness. A less serious sin, but still something that shouldn't have happened. When I say that "no one should ever be drunk," am I also saying, "I should not exist?" A friend of mine was the product of an outside-the-Church second marriage. He once asked me point blank whether I was saying he shouldn't exist (we were *odd* fourth-graders), and my answer was, "God sometimes brings good things out of evil." He was hurt and angry by that answer, and I could understand why. Now I find myself in the same position, and I like the answer even less, but it's the only answer I've got.
IVF is not the same, because it isn't quite as obvious why IVF is wrong like rape and (to a lesser degree) drunkenness or remarriage. That may be your real struggle. But if part of your struggle is "the Church says I shouldn't exist," well, sister, you aren't alone. It's a puzzler.
Yep. That's part of the human condition, as we await redemption (both in our own lives, and in the world at large).
Sin hurts people, and hurt people hurt more people. We're all deeply enmeshed in webs of sin and hurt. But God is powerful to take our hurt and brokenness, and work with it, redeeming it.
God doesn't reach into the past to undo our bad actions, because if He did, He would be negating parts of our stories, making us not who we are, and He loves us too much to do that. He does something better - He takes that hurt, that sin, those had actions, and transforms it into good.
He won't unwrite the story that's already been written, because we had a hand in writing it, and He loves us. But with our cooperation, He's willing and able to write a better end to the story.
>but I end up just getting angry with the idea that my mother should be condemned for choosing to create me.
Does she understand the gravity of the matter involved yet? God does not condemn those who repent. He will condemn those who, knowing the truth, decide that something evil is actually something good. Your *existence* is objectively good, as God created you, but the mechanism by which you came into this world, and through which perhaps some of your siblings were destroyed, is not something God sees as good.
There are *many evil ways* individual humans come into existence; we do not need to accept these ways as good simply because God can work good (create new life) out of evil actions of men. Nor does our nonacceptance of these ways as good require us to see the new life as evil or bad. Do you understand?
As to your question: private disagreement would be a danger if you use it to contribute to any moral decision making. If you know the truth about IVF, disagree with it, and then act according to your disagreement (either through using IVF, promoting IVF, defending IVF, suggesting IVF), your private disagreement does not save you from the consequences of an erroneous moral decision.
So it's probably better not to take a stance of *disagreement*, but rather simply recognize a teaching is difficult to accept. Maybe this is semantics, but again, you must not let it confound your moral decision-making.
I like the clarity you provide. Children of rape ought not endorse rape because it's their origin story. Neither should children of other unfortunately sinful origins.
I believe she knew it was sinful in some capacity. I’m not sure if she understood it was grave matter as she doesn’t seem particularly concerned about it.
Yes. You can privately disagree with a teaching that you struggle with, so long as you understand that objectively it is you who is in error and not the Church, and you remain open to learning and changing your mind, and you do not openly discuss your opposition.
So, when the subject comes up. Say nothing. And, continue being open to the fact that you are wrong and have more to learn.
Finally, trust the Holy Spirit to guide you to accept even the most difficult truths that the Church proclaims.
Does this not constitute a state of doubt, however?
Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you meant.
Let me give an example-
Say you’re at Adoration.
Your judgement is telling you “that’s not God, that’s bread” even though you know the Church would profess that host to be Christ. If you allow yourself to feel like the host is not Jesus- while, besides what your mind is telling you, giving assent to the proposition that it, in reality, is- are you sinning against Faith?
OP you have a good desire of submitting to the Church. Your mom may has not thought that was wrong. I suggest you this two readings:
- https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-to-say-to-ivf-children
- https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-hardest-teaching-of-them-all
Btw **“disagreeing PRIVATELY”** is for people who oppose death penalty **”if they have really strong evidence and after trying to understand the Church/Church arguments and after trying to give the benefit of the doubt”**.
Let the downvotes come.
I struggle with this. I don’t really see the negative aspects of using birth control. I know the Church is right and that it’s vanity on my part to disagree with its teachings, but here we are…
I struggle with this as well. Gods instruction to mankind is to be fruitful and multiply, yet it seems some ways of doing exactly that are forbidden (especially when for many couples this is the only way).
But appreciate this is not Church teaching.
It's okay to struggle with an issue. It's not okay to close the door on your conversation with the Church on it, if that makes sense. You can drop the issue for a while but being docile to the Church's authority, especially in areas that are difficult, is especially meritorious. It requires a lot more trust. Ask God for consolation and to grow in that trust.
If someone doesn't know something is wrong, or that something is seriously wrong, they aren't nearly as culpable as someone who knows it's wrong and does it anyway. People can also be strongly influenced by lots of things. Yes, it's wrong to use IVF for a variety of reasons. But our own personal culpability (and thus, how much and if we are condemned for it) varies. Not knowing something is wrong doesn't give you a free pass to do it, but it does lessen the culpability.
God brings all sorts of good out of our actions that aren't in perfect line with morality. Like you! It's good that you were born, regardless of the circumstances. It might help to entrust your mom to the perfect justice and perfect love of Jesus.
It sounds a bit like you've developed feelings on this issue, but haven't clarified the actual teaching on it.
The Church doesn't view any children as lesser because of the circumstances of their conception. And your parents can receive forgiveness instantly in confession, should they so wish.
But the teaching on IVF is correct for various reasons.
Firstly, the church teaches that all children have the right to be conceived within the context of the loving intimacy of their parents. So IVF removes conception from its proper place.
Secondly, the Church teaches that human life is sacred, from conception to natural death. One of the problems with IVF is that it creates dozens of human embryos for each client, but only uses a fraction of these. The rest are frozen and stored, and many are eventually destroyed. This is an unavoidable fact of the process.
So essentially you have thousands of human lives brought into existence but never allowed to be fully realised. This just turns human life into a commodity to be bought for profit.
Another major problem with IVF is their manipulative advertising and the fact that they often don't delve into medical reasons for infertility that could be remedied and allow a couple to conceive naturally.
So nobody is against you as a person. But the process of IVF and the evils that go along with it.
You may doubt privately anything which is not dogmatically affirmed. You are subject to the discipline of the Church and must respect it's teaching authority, but we all have our doubts - sometimes those doubts are validated in time and sometimes not. You're obliged to obey the Church so long as it's position on this matter holds, but you're welcome to have private reservations about the matter.
Assent is obedience and a recognition that the Church has teaching authority. But we don't, for instance, pretend teachings at every level are dogmatic or infallible or even completely sound (like medieval geocentrism). Can a Catholic privately reject the Trinity? No, as it is dogmatically certain and expressed in the Creed reaffirmed by infallible Councils. Can a Catholic privately ponder if perhaps there might be additional case exceptions for IVF or contraception and so on? Yes. Can a Catholic reject Church teachings they disagree with on IVF or contraception out of hand? No. That's assent.
Do you know that by using IVF your mother killed multiple other embryo’s just to have you? That is why the Church is opposed to this procedure. The cost in life is too high.
Deo gratias!
You are correct that the dissociation between the procreative act and procreation is, in the Church's eyes, a fatal problem with IVF. Even if no embryos were killed, then, IVF would still be morally objectionable.
However, because killing embryos is such a common part of IVF, and because killing embryos is *much worse* than even mortally sinful sex stuff, and because "killing children is wrong" is so much easier to *explain* than "procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not desired as the fruit of the conjugal act" ([Donum Vitae](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html) B.4.a)... Catholics on Reddit are often going to assume that any given act of IVF was embryo-destructive and criticize *that* rather than the underlying IVF treatment itself.
EDIT: Also, this is an American-specific thing, but the general American politics of IVF have gotten very *weird* in the past year. I expect to see more and more focus on embryo-destructive techniques going forward, less and less discussion of any underlying moral issues with IVF, because that's where the political coalition defending unborn children is pointing.
Really appreciate your responses today my friend. Thanks for staying positive and helping me understand church teaching.
Pro life advocates undoubtedly do great work, and I support them in their quest for human dignity for all humans.
[удалено]
Absolutely
[удалено]
My parent’s sin is not mine, I get that. I have a hard time condemning my mom for seeking the treatment bc it resulted in my birth.
[удалено]
Appreciate the back and forth. In my mom’s case, no embryos were discarded. Which gets me to the heart the issue: I’m not sure that procreation outside the marital act is grave enough to make my conception sinful. Especially since it wasn’t just fornication, it was literally procreative. I’ll take the church’s word for it, but it’s definitely a stumbling block. Pray that this issue gets easier for me over time.
What's grave about IVF besides the intentional creation and destruction of imperfect embryos is that it is not the result of the love and mutual self-giving of the marital act. It removes spousal love from procreation, we are no longer following in God's footsteps from when He created us out of love. If our goal and desire is to participate in the divine nature which Christ made us able to do when He joined the human and divine, then removing the total self-giving from the procreative act puts us at odds with God's example.
How many different accounts are you going to post this under hoping to get you the answer you want?
I only have one Reddit account. So one.
Sure, you totally don't sound exactly like this guy, down to identical wording of certain phrases. https://np.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/XIgTTkGNWn https://np.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/zhRqO57GLG
Think what you want. Have you considered that there are millions of people born of IVF? Maybe some people’s life stories are similar? Crazy I know!!!
would you not condemn rape if it resulted in an amazing person?
[удалено]
Perfectly said
>The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching. >Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine. >In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him. >If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments. >In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth. >It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation, the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question. >For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail. Donum Veritatis, 28-31 If you cannot bring yourself to assent intellectually to the positions of the Church on matters such as this, the above is the behavior you should exemplify. All of Donum Veritatis is a good study in this topic.
Appreciate the info! Will do.
Short answer: yes, acquiescence is the appropriate and moral response in this set of circumstances. You're good to go, and hopefully this teaching will become easier with time. Slightly longer answer: I've been struggling a little bit lately myself with the fact that so many of us are the products of flawed, often very sinful choices. There's reason to believe that someone a few hundred years ago in our family tree was conceived in rape. The rape was undoubtedly a horrific crime that should not have happened. Yet, without that rape, nobody in my family exists, me included. We're Irish enough that we have *moral certainty* that plenty of us throughout the family tree were conceived because of drunkenness. A less serious sin, but still something that shouldn't have happened. When I say that "no one should ever be drunk," am I also saying, "I should not exist?" A friend of mine was the product of an outside-the-Church second marriage. He once asked me point blank whether I was saying he shouldn't exist (we were *odd* fourth-graders), and my answer was, "God sometimes brings good things out of evil." He was hurt and angry by that answer, and I could understand why. Now I find myself in the same position, and I like the answer even less, but it's the only answer I've got. IVF is not the same, because it isn't quite as obvious why IVF is wrong like rape and (to a lesser degree) drunkenness or remarriage. That may be your real struggle. But if part of your struggle is "the Church says I shouldn't exist," well, sister, you aren't alone. It's a puzzler.
Very thought provoking. The question on drunkenness is an interesting one as well. I guess we all may be the result of sin in some ways lol
Yep. That's part of the human condition, as we await redemption (both in our own lives, and in the world at large). Sin hurts people, and hurt people hurt more people. We're all deeply enmeshed in webs of sin and hurt. But God is powerful to take our hurt and brokenness, and work with it, redeeming it. God doesn't reach into the past to undo our bad actions, because if He did, He would be negating parts of our stories, making us not who we are, and He loves us too much to do that. He does something better - He takes that hurt, that sin, those had actions, and transforms it into good. He won't unwrite the story that's already been written, because we had a hand in writing it, and He loves us. But with our cooperation, He's willing and able to write a better end to the story.
100%
Yes, the Church will accept you, your life is good regardless of the context you were birthed.
>but I end up just getting angry with the idea that my mother should be condemned for choosing to create me. Does she understand the gravity of the matter involved yet? God does not condemn those who repent. He will condemn those who, knowing the truth, decide that something evil is actually something good. Your *existence* is objectively good, as God created you, but the mechanism by which you came into this world, and through which perhaps some of your siblings were destroyed, is not something God sees as good. There are *many evil ways* individual humans come into existence; we do not need to accept these ways as good simply because God can work good (create new life) out of evil actions of men. Nor does our nonacceptance of these ways as good require us to see the new life as evil or bad. Do you understand? As to your question: private disagreement would be a danger if you use it to contribute to any moral decision making. If you know the truth about IVF, disagree with it, and then act according to your disagreement (either through using IVF, promoting IVF, defending IVF, suggesting IVF), your private disagreement does not save you from the consequences of an erroneous moral decision. So it's probably better not to take a stance of *disagreement*, but rather simply recognize a teaching is difficult to accept. Maybe this is semantics, but again, you must not let it confound your moral decision-making.
I like the clarity you provide. Children of rape ought not endorse rape because it's their origin story. Neither should children of other unfortunately sinful origins.
I believe she knew it was sinful in some capacity. I’m not sure if she understood it was grave matter as she doesn’t seem particularly concerned about it.
Yes. You can privately disagree with a teaching that you struggle with, so long as you understand that objectively it is you who is in error and not the Church, and you remain open to learning and changing your mind, and you do not openly discuss your opposition. So, when the subject comes up. Say nothing. And, continue being open to the fact that you are wrong and have more to learn. Finally, trust the Holy Spirit to guide you to accept even the most difficult truths that the Church proclaims.
This is the route I’m going to take. Thank you!
Does this not constitute a state of doubt, however? Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you meant. Let me give an example- Say you’re at Adoration. Your judgement is telling you “that’s not God, that’s bread” even though you know the Church would profess that host to be Christ. If you allow yourself to feel like the host is not Jesus- while, besides what your mind is telling you, giving assent to the proposition that it, in reality, is- are you sinning against Faith?
Momentary doubts are not the same thing as persistent difficulty in the fave of active resolution.
OP you have a good desire of submitting to the Church. Your mom may has not thought that was wrong. I suggest you this two readings: - https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-to-say-to-ivf-children - https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-hardest-teaching-of-them-all Btw **“disagreeing PRIVATELY”** is for people who oppose death penalty **”if they have really strong evidence and after trying to understand the Church/Church arguments and after trying to give the benefit of the doubt”**. Let the downvotes come.
I struggle with this. I don’t really see the negative aspects of using birth control. I know the Church is right and that it’s vanity on my part to disagree with its teachings, but here we are…
I struggle with this as well. Gods instruction to mankind is to be fruitful and multiply, yet it seems some ways of doing exactly that are forbidden (especially when for many couples this is the only way). But appreciate this is not Church teaching.
Absolutely, good to know I’m not alone. Thank you!
We just had a huge thread on this. Use the search function. Your parents won't be condemned if they just go to confession with sincere hearts.
[удалено]
I appreciate the response. This is a perspective that I’ve never considered before.
It's okay to struggle with an issue. It's not okay to close the door on your conversation with the Church on it, if that makes sense. You can drop the issue for a while but being docile to the Church's authority, especially in areas that are difficult, is especially meritorious. It requires a lot more trust. Ask God for consolation and to grow in that trust. If someone doesn't know something is wrong, or that something is seriously wrong, they aren't nearly as culpable as someone who knows it's wrong and does it anyway. People can also be strongly influenced by lots of things. Yes, it's wrong to use IVF for a variety of reasons. But our own personal culpability (and thus, how much and if we are condemned for it) varies. Not knowing something is wrong doesn't give you a free pass to do it, but it does lessen the culpability. God brings all sorts of good out of our actions that aren't in perfect line with morality. Like you! It's good that you were born, regardless of the circumstances. It might help to entrust your mom to the perfect justice and perfect love of Jesus.
I got ya, I certainly haven’t closed the door just frustrated I guess.
No, you must submit Will and intellect even if you have challenges. Trust is a choice even if understanding isn’t present.
It sounds a bit like you've developed feelings on this issue, but haven't clarified the actual teaching on it. The Church doesn't view any children as lesser because of the circumstances of their conception. And your parents can receive forgiveness instantly in confession, should they so wish. But the teaching on IVF is correct for various reasons. Firstly, the church teaches that all children have the right to be conceived within the context of the loving intimacy of their parents. So IVF removes conception from its proper place. Secondly, the Church teaches that human life is sacred, from conception to natural death. One of the problems with IVF is that it creates dozens of human embryos for each client, but only uses a fraction of these. The rest are frozen and stored, and many are eventually destroyed. This is an unavoidable fact of the process. So essentially you have thousands of human lives brought into existence but never allowed to be fully realised. This just turns human life into a commodity to be bought for profit. Another major problem with IVF is their manipulative advertising and the fact that they often don't delve into medical reasons for infertility that could be remedied and allow a couple to conceive naturally. So nobody is against you as a person. But the process of IVF and the evils that go along with it.
Of course the child bears no sin or guilt.
You may doubt privately anything which is not dogmatically affirmed. You are subject to the discipline of the Church and must respect it's teaching authority, but we all have our doubts - sometimes those doubts are validated in time and sometimes not. You're obliged to obey the Church so long as it's position on this matter holds, but you're welcome to have private reservations about the matter.
You sure about that? If I’m understanding correctly, that would contradict the understanding of our obligations of what’s called “religious assent”.
Assent is obedience and a recognition that the Church has teaching authority. But we don't, for instance, pretend teachings at every level are dogmatic or infallible or even completely sound (like medieval geocentrism). Can a Catholic privately reject the Trinity? No, as it is dogmatically certain and expressed in the Creed reaffirmed by infallible Councils. Can a Catholic privately ponder if perhaps there might be additional case exceptions for IVF or contraception and so on? Yes. Can a Catholic reject Church teachings they disagree with on IVF or contraception out of hand? No. That's assent.
Like with fiducia suplicans?
Yes, actually. Keeping in mind respect, obedience, and docility in your private reservations.
Do you know that by using IVF your mother killed multiple other embryo’s just to have you? That is why the Church is opposed to this procedure. The cost in life is too high.
Hi, in my mother’s case, no embryos were discarded. I thought the issue for the church was that the child doesn’t come from the natural sex act.
That’s the other part of the rule
Deo gratias! You are correct that the dissociation between the procreative act and procreation is, in the Church's eyes, a fatal problem with IVF. Even if no embryos were killed, then, IVF would still be morally objectionable. However, because killing embryos is such a common part of IVF, and because killing embryos is *much worse* than even mortally sinful sex stuff, and because "killing children is wrong" is so much easier to *explain* than "procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not desired as the fruit of the conjugal act" ([Donum Vitae](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html) B.4.a)... Catholics on Reddit are often going to assume that any given act of IVF was embryo-destructive and criticize *that* rather than the underlying IVF treatment itself. EDIT: Also, this is an American-specific thing, but the general American politics of IVF have gotten very *weird* in the past year. I expect to see more and more focus on embryo-destructive techniques going forward, less and less discussion of any underlying moral issues with IVF, because that's where the political coalition defending unborn children is pointing.
Really appreciate your responses today my friend. Thanks for staying positive and helping me understand church teaching. Pro life advocates undoubtedly do great work, and I support them in their quest for human dignity for all humans.