Should Catholics Welcome IVF Babies?
Scroll to 13.11 to hear the reaction of English Catholic politician, Jacob Rees-Mogg to the news of Ruth Davidson’s IVF pregnancy – click here to read the news on announcement in April. Leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland, Ruth is in a same-sex “marriage”.
Since the allegedly traditional Catholic Rees-Mogg is already on public record saying that he would attend a same-sex wedding, perhaps his reaction to Ruth’s news is not too surprising. IVF doesn’t seem to be a matter of concern to Catholics these days – it’s not a hot homily topic, so what are we to make of it – DO we welcome IVF as a legitimate and perfectly moral means of bringing babies into this world?
Comments (107)
No, we can never approve of IVF and it can never be legitimate, but we can welcome the babies.
Jacob Rees-Mogg’s response was disappointing. I think he was trying to side step the issue and outsmart the interviewer as, despite the smiles and jokey nature, she tried her best to trip him up. It would have been good if he had been stronger.
By putting the word marriage in quotations are you suggesting that nonreligious marriages are less valid than religious marriages ?
Amanda,
By putting the word “marriage” in quotation marks, I’m saying (not “suggesting”) that two people of the same sex cannot be married. Obviously.
Do you care to give a nonreligious justification for that bold claim? Since many many people are not religious or spiritual
Amanda,
Marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman, essentially for the purpose of procreation. Here’s an openly homosexual man explaining why he is opposed to same-sex “marriage” – he was speaking prior to the referendum in Ireland which legalised same-sex “marriage”.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6HD8KLQBvA&w=854&h=480%5D
And here’s a short clip underlining the importance of “definitions” in law.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMYBl2uzXEw&w=854&h=480%5D
I hope this answers your question although I do not accept your premise that “many people are not religious or spiritual” – God has planted knowledge of Himself in every soul. Certainly there are many who refuse to accept that implanted knowledge, who reject God, but that is not the end of the matter – as they will find out in due course!
The first definition of marriage that comes up in a search: the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship.
Can you give a justification for why you think women should only be legally able to marry men and men only legally able to marry women?
Your personal religion of choice has nothing to do with the law that applies to everyone. We in the states has freedom from religions which means freedom from religious doctrines. Are you suggesting that everyone should be required by law to be your religion ?
Amanda
You may not be aware but Marriage existed before ever google did, and that answers on any search engine may wrongly be given prominence ahead of others that are historicaly accurate, and based on societal and cultural norms predating modern trends.
If you are correct ,how is it that that it was only in 2000 that Holland first legalised same sex marriage? If it was the norm before that one would assume civil practice, and legislation, would evidence that.
Amanda
If you think views on marriage expressed here primarily rely on an attempt to assert religious dominance you must surely be able to explain why atheistic ( Communist or formally communist) states like China, Russia and Cuba ban same sex marriage.
However, here we rightly assert what God decrees, and speaking of states like China we can only echo Jesus who said “if they are not against us they are for us” . Cf Mark 9:40)
Marriage existed before all Abrahamic religions (including yours) did so.. According to your logic, it’s invalid.
Amanda
No, no one is claiming that marriage did not exist before the Abrahamic religions, but the notion of marriage based on the relationship between a man and a woman, and providing a stable place to welcome, and raise children did. And if you are then going to argue that other forms of “marriage” did so did child sacrifice, and cannibalism. Personally, I welcome those things that civilise society, and promote the common good, and not those that run counted to accepted norms thousands of years old.
Further, in the USA The Founding Fathers upheld this view of marriage. The document that is the very foundation of your nation – The Constitution -was produced by their same clear thinking.
Amanda
You do not bring your intellect, or knowledge of history, and the almost universal norms on marriage, to your discussion of this topic.
Can I remind you of some advice, attributed to Abraham Lincoln, “better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”.
Petrus Regnat,
Love the Lincoln quote. Priceless! Some folks have, in the past, tried to apply it to my unworthy self, but I think Amanda is a truly worthy winner!
You have well and truly shone like a star on this thread and so you have been awarded the Catholic Truth T Shirt… Hope it fits!
https://img1.etsystatic.com/116/0/10563459/il_570xN.1040774831_bztb.jpg
But you have the burden of proof to show that homosexual marriage is against the common good, which we’re still waiting for you to explain.
The US is a secular nation where we value the freedom FROM religions just as much as the freedom to religions. If you want your theories respected, don’t use them to step on everyone’s toes.
Amanda
I have cited more than once that secular nations, and cultures, in which religion is banned uphold the same norms on marriage. Likewise, so do adherents of most other non Abrahamic faiths. Is that a sheer coincidence.
Likewise, you live in a country where to be seen to practice the Christian faith is almost a legal requirement for a would be politician. Likewise, practically everyone is “sworn in” in the USA swears on a Bible,
Separation of Church and State is not absolute in your own nation, and in secular societies, where religion is banned, The Natural or Moral Law seems to reign supreme.
Odd that, if your grasp of reality is correct.
A nation being secular does not stop religion from interfering with laws and rights (which the very reason abortion, alcohol, and marijuana have been prohibited; the religious majority voters of a legally secular nation often get their hands on the law and human rights which is why many unjust laws are currently still in place.
What does morality have to do with homosexuality and homosexual marriage (for nonreligious/spiritual people) ?
Also what does reproduction have to do with marriage laws?
Amanda,
A general rule of thumb in providing such “proof” is to consider what would happen in wider society if x or y were the norm.
Well, obviously, if it became the norm for same-sex couples to “marry” … we’d run out of people!
Not only would there be no children born to these couples – mission impossible – but there would be none to adopt!
Get it now?
Actually, Amanda, I don’t think you’ll get it now or ever, judging by your comments on this thread today. So, let’s call it a day, more or less. I believe you told us you are from the USA so you may not realise that over here, in not-so-sunny Scotland, it’s approaching 11.pm and since I’ll soon be leaving for the pubs and clubs, I suggest you give it a rest. You see nothing wrong with same-sex “marriage”, IVF etc. so we’re not going to agree. The bloggers here have given you every argument imaginable, answered your every challenge, and still you don’t want to know, so let’s leave it there. Thanks for dropping by. It’s been fun. Luv ‘n stuff… 😀
So are you suggesting that by homosexual people getting married and adopting the millions of foster children, more people would become gay until eventually everyone was gay and the race dies ?
You do realize that gay people are still gay with or without the right to marry, dont you?
Your post is so full of errors I only have time to correct the most basic.
First of all, a google search is hardly evidence, legal or otherwise. Imagine defending a case at court and the evidence brought forward is, “I looked it up on Google”! Staggering.
Secondly, marriage is not the property of the State. It’s rooted in Natural Law and reflects the natural reality of humanity. A male is designed to procreate with a female. I urge you to reflect on the word “Union”. A male body can only achieve true Union with a female body and vice versa.
As for this nonsense of “we in the States has (sic) freedom from Religion”. I think you mean “separation of Church and State”? This isn’t freedom. It’s licence. Licence to sink into the moral abyss.
Well, your post is full of ignorant bigotry but that’s beside the point;
Your personal bible of choice is what’s hardly evidence.
The RIGHT to marriage is property of the state, and all people are equal in the eyes of the state (unlike Catholicism, which I personally spent most of my life practicing and studying.)
Your last statement has nothing to do with the legal right to marriage, just personal opinion which applies to yourself and no one else.
Well, I guess if you are going to (ungrammaticallly) argue a doctrine you should at least get the name of the doctrine correct!
Please point out the bigotry…? I wondered how long it would take for the mask to slip. It always does.
What have I gotten incorrect about the Catholic doctrine?
Bigotry, which is masked behind religion, is thinking you are better or more worthy of a right than someone else based on their sexual preference being different than yours. What’s more is that you rely on “it’s my belief!” to justify why a law should be passed on it.
Amanda
Animals are not religious but even they stick to the laws of nature.
Sex between same-sex couples is against natural law and having no religion doesn`t automatically give you a dispensation.
Try sticking a 6 inch nail up your nose and tell me if that is acceptable.
So your only justification for denying certain people basic human rights is “nature though”? Since when does the right to vote or the right to bear arms have to do with nature ?
The right to marriage is basic, the vast majority strongly disagrees with you on this.
Amanda,
You keep comparing apples and oranges. Nobody is talking about the right to vote or bear arms. Totally irrelevant to this conversation.
If you don’t see the rationale for restricting marriage to between men and women, so be it. We’ve given you every explanation under the sun, including a short video talk from a homosexual man who can see clearly that the basis for marriage is the raising of children who need a mother and a father. He, and other non-religious people can see it, but nobody is going to convince you.
We really don’t have the time to spend going round in circles. You read the clear explanations given and return with a different (non) argument, to keep us going round in circles.
This ends here. If you wish to continue discussing this or any other issue here, you need to engage with the arguments, not keep returning with fresh and entirely irrelevant points which is the typical tactic of a troll.
So “nature” is not relevant to other rights, just this one right we’re talking about ? Why is that?
I think if you made a valid point it would be very clear to see, but the only thing you’ve said is “nature though” and I’ve debunked it already so it seems to just be your religious bias/willful ignorance pushing this anti-homosexual obsession.
There is no justification for stripping rights from certain people based on their sexual preference that exists outside of religions.
Yes, no species can tolerate sexual behavior that does not support the survival of that species. That includes also contraception and abortion.
Marriage cannot be “less valid”. It’s either valid, or invalid.
Correct, and all legal marriage is valid regardless of the religions or lack thereof of the individuals and regardless of their genders.
I suppose it depends on what your understanding of valid is. I guess you could claim that it is valid to believe that 2 + 2 = 5!
The laws of Marriage have always reflected the Natural Law. The State may pretend that it can legislate contrary to Natural Law. Passing a law to say two persons of the same sex can marry is as ridiculous as legislating that 2 + 2 = 5. All those with mind can see this.
My understanding of a valid marriage is the definition of marriage; it is a legal and financial union between two individuals in a relationship.
The laws of the “nature” (such as the fact that rape happens in nature, the fact that murder happens in nature, the fact that other species exhibit homosexual behaviors) are not how we define laws of our country, obviously.
Laws protect equal rights, there is no nonreligious justification for forcing homosexuals to abide by religious rules about marriage. Many marriages have nothing to do with religion, and in fact the concept of marriage predates all religions.
Many people are not interested in breeding, and they should not be forced to do so by law or otherwise.
All those with a mind know that virgins dont get pregnant and Mary didn’t want to get stoned to death for getting pregnant so she lied. That’s having a mind. Not forcing children to believe that homosexuals are less than and that if they are homosexual they will be tortured in agony for eternity, that’s sick and twisted my friend, not having a mind.
Amanda,
Marriage is a legal and financial union but that has always been so that the couple provide a stable home for children. Whether you like it or not, the procreation of children has always been the bedrock of marriage.
Here are some non-religious reasons why same-sex marriage is not a good thing
http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-there-any-secular-arguments-against-gay-marriage
What you say in your final paragraph about Our Lady is just not true – she did not lie. She was actually married to Joseph, that is something that has been explained on this blog a thousand times. If she hadn’t been married, then Joseph would not have had to think of divorcing her which is stated clearly in the Gospels, and also, there would have been no need for the Jewish religious leaders to plot to cook up a reason to arrest Jesus. That would have been their reason right there.
1. Many people are not interested in breeding, and breeding is not a legal inherent obligation with marriage. Granting homosexuals the equal right to marriage will not somehow create more homosexuals and eventually kill off the human race, that is idiotic.
2. Adults are responsible for protecting themselves by having safe sex and getting tested. It’s not the government’s job to ban rights for people who are more statistically risking disease. That’s like saying we should ban animal products because they cause disease and early death (which is true, however stepping on the current rights of the people to eat unhealthy food if they choose).
3. Your sexuality making you statistically more categorically likely to abuse substances does not make you less worthy of the right to marry someone you want to marry. Denying a gay of marriage does not take their gay away.
4. This point, if you can call it that, is a personal opinion with a source that’s a blog (a bigoted personal opinion at that).
The stories in the bible of your religion of choice have no baring on what rights citizens should or should not have.
What consenting adults do with each other’s bodies is NONE of your business or your religion’s business.
Amanda
People here, rightly, argue that these things are based on natural, or moral, law which is known, and easily recognised by non religious people. As I have said in an earlier post, in reply to you, these norms exist in societies, and nations, where religion, any religion, is officially banned. Until you can explain why those norms were upheld for thousands of years before Christianity was established, and exist in countries where Abrahamic religions have not, and may not, have ever been observed you have a problem.
The notion that “getting tested” for STI’s, and other diseases, is a long held, and is a universal, norm is unhistorical, and not based on the way science, and knowledge, has slowly developed.
You seem to have little understanding of nature, and not just human nature, civil society, cultural development, or history.
Norms and laws are not there to force people by law to have children.
They are there to protect rights.
If someone wants to marry someone else and wants to adopt instead of breeding (which WAY more people should be doing), WHAT business is that of yours or the government ? And how are those decisions unethical ?
Amanda,
Many people are not interested in breeding, and breeding is not a legal inherent obligation with marriage
Procreation is in fact an inherent part of sexual intercourse between a man and woman.
So, while I would agree there is not a “legal obligation” for a couple to procreate, the creation of new life is the natural result of their sexual coupling.
Its not so much of an “obligation” as it is a natural, in-built feature, whether we like it or not.
Granting homosexuals the equal right to marriage will not somehow create more homosexuals and eventually kill off the human race
Of course not; however, the oddity of “homosexual marriage” does cause confusion by clouding the the nature of marriage.
As above, procreation is the natural result of normal human sexual behaviour and so a feature of marriage. The marriage bond also provides the secure, nurturing environment for the raising of the resultant children.
But by redefining marriage to include disordered homosexual behaviour, the natural link between marriage and procreation is broken. (as, obviously, homosexual couples can not procreate).
And so people no longer have a proper grasp of what marriage is. This confusion is evident in your words above where you talk of people having no interest in, or obligation to, “breed” – despite “breeding” being the natural result of intimate male-female relations.
And the notion of marriage being an equality issue is completely bogus. How would you feel if you asked for an apple, but someone gave you an orange instead, on grounds that it is “equal fruit”?
You would obviously see that as nonsensical, but somehow you abandon logic when it comes to human sexuality.
Adults are responsible for protecting themselves by having safe sex and getting tested.
Sex is inherently safe. Sex is a wonderful gift from God, to be enjoyed between a married couple.
There is no danger inherent to sex whatsoever, which is just as well, because being naked and in bed is a poor starting point from which to face any kind of danger.
If your sexual conduct is somehow “dangerous”, putting your health at risk then – I can assure you – you are “doing it wrong”.
“Doing it wrong” can take many forms, but perhaps the most common are:
(i) fundamentally disordered sexual behaviour – homosexual acts – which are contrary to the form and function of the human body. These put the person at increase risk of disease, as well as physical trauma. Using any object (including the human body) in a way which is contrary to its form and function is, obviously, idiotic and possibly even dangerous.
(ii) promiscuous behaviour. Here, sex is used as a toy for empty gratification. Often involving partners with no commitment to each other and with ambiguous sexual health. Also, those involved do not desire and/or are not equipped to deal with the new life which is the natural result of sex. Behaving in a way which risks undesired consequences, which cannot be coped with, is both immature and idiotic.
Denying a gay of marriage does not take their gay away.
There is no “gay” to take away.
Homosexuality is not an inherent characteristic, the way a persons race, or being male or female, is an inherent characteristic.
Homosexual acts are a disordered form of behaviour, resulting from erroneous attractions.
A person cant control what attractions they experience, but those of sound mind can choose what behaviours they undertake.
What consenting adults do with each other’s bodies is NONE of your business or your religion’s business.
Unfortunately, I cannot agree here. It is my business if I, or the society I live in, is negatively affected:
(i) homosexual behaviour between males is what mainly drives the spread of HIV across the west. HIV is an incurable disease and the drugs needed to controls its development – or reduce its likelihood of transmission – are very expensive. This has an obvious implication for taxpayers.
Is it fair that a tiny minority who insist on misusing their bodies represent such a disproportionately large drain on health resources? Of course not.
The same argument applies to promiscuity which is responsible for spreading other sexual diseases (often, fortunately, less severe than HIV).
(ii) additionally, pregnancies resulting from promiscuous behaviour likely represent the bulk of abortions carried out.
Again, this is an unfair cost, often borne by taxpayers.
And is it fair that so many innocent lives are lost (and in brutal fashion) simply because those having sex lack the maturity to be responsible for the results of their own choices? Again, of course not.
With respect, I suggest that many of your opinions here are strongly influenced by a secular mantra of “me, me, me” which fails to consider reality and the consequences of actions and subordinates everything to the selfish desires of the individual.
The only people who suggest that sex should result in pregnancy are religious people. Unsafe sex often does, but its not unethical to have safe consenting adult sex for the purpose of a healthy sex life.
Are you suggesting that those who do not want children should spend their lives without having sex ?
Homosexual marriage is legal currently and I’ve never come across someone who was confused by the concept.
Who do you think will get confused by it and why/how is that homosexual people’s problem?
If its so utterly confusing and difficult to wrap your mind around, that is your problem, not the rest of us who are on the same page.
You keep saying “natural”; human rights have nothing to do with what is natural; Homosexuals are not less deserving of marriage because of the fact that they cant breed with each other.
That is a cop out. At least admit you just personally dislike them and feel like you’re somehow better than them because you can push a baby out of your crotch like a mindless breeding robot.
There are SO MANY orphans and foster children, how is it the more ethical choice – for straight or homosexuals – to breed instead of adopt ?
So straight people having anal sex should now be illegal too, since it’s “contrary” to body function ?
So sex for gratification should be outlawed ?
It seems you have a problem with what you percieve as sexual misconduct between adults; Do you really believe the government should have the power to tell you what you do in your bedroom at night with your spouse is illegal because they personally find it sexually distasteful ?
So stopping the marriage is going to stop the sex or spread of disease? How do you figure that in the slightest ? You do realize that only religious people refrain from having sex in adulthood, right ?
Overweight people are a MASSIVE burden on taxpayers, should we ban them from their atrocious diets by law as well?
Since the government suddenly has the right to come in and make rules for us like children who dont have the right to make their own personal decisions with their bodies, apparently.
Fat people – the majority – are failing to take responsibility for their huge burden, should we allow the government to step in and make laws against getting fat, since the people are too stupid and irresponsible themselves to take responsibility ?
Amanda
Business partners have a legal and financial union but that has nothing at all to do with marriage, and it is a relationship.
And?
Amanda
May I remind you that you stated “a valid marriage is the definition of marriage; it is a legal and financial union between two individuals in a relationship.” So that includes the shareholders of McDonalds, Goldman Sachs and many other companies. Should they be offered IVF on their business accounts?
No because you can’t go to a courthouse with your girlfriend or boyfriend and leave as a McDonalds shareholder can you? There are different kinds of legal relationships. This is kindergarten level debating.
Rape happens in nature? Murder happens in nature? Could you provide a source of evidence for these ridiculous claims? You really believe animals can “murder” each other?
Could you also provide a source to show that anyone here believes a homosexual person will be tortured in agony? Bizarre claim indeed!
Are you suggesting that animals dont rape and kill each other in the wild?
The scientific unawareness of the Catholic community is a serious issue that needs addressing.
It is a bizarre claim, I agree, which is why I choose to reject the bible as a moral standard.
Homosexuals will not inherit the “kingdom of god” but instead their souls will be punished for their atrocities, according to your doctrine.
You didn’t say kill, did you? You said murder. Animals don’t have the ability to reason and make an informed act of the will. They are incapable of murder. The same applies to rape. A ridiculous argument! Our “nature” cannot be compared to the animals.
You need to remember that homosexual acts are unhygienic and unhealthy, placing the participants at risk. This is because these acts pervert the biological purpose and function of the human body.
By murder I meant kill for reasons other than food. Animals attack and often brutally kill each other when they feel their territory is invaded/disrespected.
Should we apply this “natural law” into the legal system?
The fact that a mentally functioning adult would suggest that consenseual sex between two women or two men is less hygienic or less healthy than consensual sex between a man and a woman is frankly absolutely shocking and one of the most ignorant claims I’ve hear in a long time.
Very very ignorant, bigoted, and the literal definition of homophobia. And the sickest part is that people like you use “its my religion!” as the justification for such disgraceful and disgusting uninformed opinions.
NEWSFLASH, you CHOSE your religion!
Willful ignorance is such cancer to society. Keep your religion (and all religions) away from laws that impact nonreligious people.
It’s not at all outrageous, it’s medical fact. Homosexual men use a part of the body that is for evacuation, not insertion. As a result, this increases their risk of anal cancer, anal injury, blood poisoning and prostate problems. So, I think you can lay off the amateur dramatics. Check the facts, my girl. Check the facts. Your very good friend, Professor Google, should be able to help.
As for the rest of your comment, it’s just simply incredible that you justify your argument based on the way wild animals behave. Are you suggesting homosexuals behave like the beasts of the field? Wouldn’t that be “homophobic”? I’m surprised that you would be so unkind as to speak of homosexuals in that way!
Um.. So no one should be legally allowed to have anal sex ?
I cant follow that logic, I’m sorry.
Amanda,
It’s not our religion which tells us homosexual activity is unhygienic/unhealthy. The medics tell us that. Until recently, actively homosexual men (even if they had only been active ONCE with ONE man) were not permitted to donate blood to the National Health Service blood bank. It was only because of their intense lobbying that the Government eventually caved in and so the majority of the population is at risk of receiving infected blood, as a result.
You’ve got things the wrong way round. The Church condemns homosexual activity BECAUSE it is unhealthy, BECAUSE it goes against the design of our bodies. It’s not unhealthy because the Church decided it should be! Goodness, in that case, we’d have the Church telling us to lay off chocolates and I, for one, ain’t having that!
Are you referring to sex with people who have STDs? Because heterosexual people get and spread disease too, should everyone be banned from marriage since everyone might catch a disease at some point?
Can you give a nonreligious example of how homosexual “activity” (a bit vague there) is unhealthy?
And why you aren’t pushing the government to outlaw other unhealthy acts like drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, and eating meat/dairy ?
Your misconceptions are not only ignorant but embarrassing. The fact that anyone of sound mind could think people who have anal sex or who scissor are unethical and dirty is unbelievable and sad.
Amanda
The fact that a mentally functioning adult would suggest that consenseual sex between two women or two men is less hygienic or less healthy than consensual sex between a man and a woman is frankly absolutely shocking
Sex is short for sex(ual intercourse). This is when two people combine their sex organs.
The only combination of people who can combine their sex organs is a man and a woman. This is because only opposite sex bodies are sexually compatible.
These are basic biological facts regarding the human body.
And so what homosexuals do together is not in fact “sex” at all. They are unable to have sexual intercourse because two same-sex bodies are not sexually compatible.
Calling homosexual acts “sex” is a function of two things: (i) an attempt to make homosexual acts sound normal, and (ii) the speaker not actually knowing what the word “sex” means. (many people seem to think it means “any activity bringing physical gratification”). I think you are guilty on both counts here!
And of course homosexual acts are “less” (to use your own word) than normal sexual acts.
Most obviously, they are incapable of procreation, on which the human race depends.
Additionally, the sexual function of the human body can only achieve fulfillment when the sexual function of the body is used in accordance with its form and function.
Fulfillment is an important thing in life, its surely what we all seek in every aspect of life.
I am amazed to hear you decry the fact that homosexual acts are less hygienic and healthy.
I can only assume you are unaware of the practices surrounding homosexual activity, or of the health statistics which show that, across the west, incurable disease and other maladies goes hand-in-hand with homosexual behaviour?
It seems you want to push your own personal creepy, anti-sex prudity onto the laws of the land.
Good luck with that. You’re in the sever minority on this.
Straight people have ANAL sex ALL the time. And guess what, it’s amazing.
Unhygienic does not mean illegal. Touching doorknobs and toilet handles is unhygienic, still not illegal though because they are every day parts of life.
Homosexuals do not enjoy sex ANY MORE than straight people do, and the weird obsession with applying guilt and shame to consensual adult sexuality needs to stop. It’s dysfunctional and unhealthy.
Amanda,
The fact that a mentally functioning adult would suggest that consenseual sex between two women or two men is less hygienic or less healthy than consensual sex between a man and a woman is frankly absolutely shocking and one of the most ignorant claims I’ve hear in a long time.
In the country where this blog is based, the NHS issues daily medication (“Prep”) to all men who indulge in homosexual behaviour.
Prep is a drug designed to reduce the likelihood of HIV transmission.
The NHS does not issue daily medication to all men whose sexual conduct is normal.
Questions:
(i) if men who indulge in homosexual behaviour require to take daily medication in an effort to protect them from the effects of their behaviour, what does this say about their behaviour?
(ii) if men who indulge in normal sexual behaviour do not require this same daily medication, what does this say about the comparative “healthiness” of homosexual behaviour compared to normal sexual behaviour?
Additionally:
(iii) if the NHS requires to issue homosexual men with Prep, despite the wide, free and easy availability of condoms, what does this say about the effectiveness of trying to prevent HIV with condoms?
Amanda,
It’s very clear that you are not here to engage meaningfully in the topic.
Typical of troll-like behaviour, you simply keep repeating the same (non) arguments, and ignore the solid medical facts given to you by the bloggers here.
You came on demanding non-religious, that is, secular reasons why homosexual “marriage” is wrong and I put two short videos, including a talk by a homosexual man arguing against same-sex “marriage” prior to the Irish referendum. He could see it, but he didn’t convince you.
Then our bloggers provided various medical facts about the unhealthiness of using the human body in an unnatural way, that the part of the body used by homosexual men for what is, in fact, pseudo-sexual activity, is that part used for human waste and is, therefore, manifestly unhealthy.
To finish off this discussion with you, therefore, I’m posting here a link to an organisation which has ducked the political correctness which seeks to camouflage the dangers of homosexual activity – in their About Us page we read: This site is a project of the American College of Pediatricians, in coalition with other organizations who share a concern for the well-being of all youth.
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/health-risks-of-the-homosexual-lifestyle/ – hardly an organisation based in the Vatican!
However, given your track record of either not reading or not accepting demonstrable medical facts, which are NOT an invention of the Catholic Church, I’ve now placed your details into our moderation file.
Thus, any future comments from you will be reviewed by my unworthy self, and only released if they contribute something meaningful to the debate. We’ve spent quite enough time going round in circles.
Would others please note that if you respond to Amanda, do not use her name or your comment, too, will disappear into the moderation file. I suggest you indicate that you are replying to her by adapting her name to fool the system – e.g. A***da or similar.
Comment removed by editor.
Do NOT put crudities on this blog. Occasionally, we have “jokes” threads for a bit of light relief and the title or introduction ALWAYS carries a reminder that the jokes must be in the “good clean fun” category.
Call us religious maniacs if you like, but if you wish to blog here, you will abide by our rules. And publishing even MINOR crudities is strictly prohibited – Ed:
Editor: first sentence removed, as it refers to Amanda’s crudity now removed. Disheartening to see how easily Catholics are led astray. Read my comment in Amanda’s post, to which you are replying. It applies to us all, Pat.
Get a loadda this – and educate yourself!
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/medical-consequences-of-what-homosexuals-do/
Outdated, biased sources and heavily biased personal opinions.
What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is none of your business or the government’s, and there is no nonreligious justification for stripping people of the right to marry based on their sexual preference. That’s silly and barbaric and elitist.
An organ for the evacuation of waste? I think it’s safe to describe as unhygenic!
Amanda
In your replies you have evidenced an inability to reason, and cite evidence, and to understand the evidence presented to you. Your understanding of what is proper to humanity, and proper to other creatures, suggests you would be as much at home in a zoo as in an habitation for human beings. As for bigotry, you display anti-Catholic bigotry in every post. At least you get an high score in sectarianism, if in no other subject.
Anti-Catholic bigotry is not the same as criticizing Catholic doctrine, which is all I’ve done.
The fact that you could compare people who support gay rights to zoo animals is not only a personal attack and not in any way an argument, it’s low hanging fruit. Step up and defend the bold claims you’ve made or stop making them.
Amanda
You should observe that I write as Petrus Regnant and there is also a Petrus on here.
I have not once, I think, mentioned Gays or Homosexuals. I have, however, said marriage is between a man and a woman, and open to children.
The reference to a zoo was, again, nothing to gay or homosexual anything, but to do with the fact YOU cannot distinguish between the acts of human, who are moral agents with free will, and animals who act instinctively, and have no morality, or free will. Thus the reference to a zoo was not in relation to sexuality at all.
As I said elsewhere, you do not read what others have written, or, if you do, you do not understand it, and you do not apply your intellect to moral, or social issues, and have no historical insight into the development of society, and culture.
Are you saying that homosexual marriage in the equal sense should not be legal or that it’s unethical?
If so please give a nonreligious justification.
It isn’t clear how any of that is pertinent.
Amanda
If you are asking if Gay Marriage is a possibility then the answer is no. Marriage is a lifelong union, between one man and a woman, open to children. As Gay people cannot have children naturally then there is no reason for them even to attempt to marry. Secular China, Cuba and many other non Christian countries say the same thing. Like it, or not, many atheists daily conform to The Natural, or Moral Law, and uphold it.
(I am not denying the fact that some Gay people have, and will, raise children but that is not the same thing as saying that ordinarily they cannot naturally have children.)
So people who dont want to breed should be denied the right to get married?
I dont think I’ve ever claimed that gays can naturally have children? Do you think adoption is less of a childhood/parenthood than breeding?
Dont recall what I might have said that’s not relevant here but offending is not my intention; I assumed this was a place for adults but I’ll try to child-proof my language.
Amanda,
I’m very interested in your remark that you will “child-proof” your language. Reminds me of the descriptions all around us of “adult” entertainment – which is a euphemism for everything from filthy talk to explicit sexual (and pseudo-sexual) activity to pornography.
In fact, real adults (those with a level of intellectual and emotional maturity) don’t want or need such filth shoved down their throats in order to enjoy someone’s company, a book, a film, etc.
So, I say, good for you – it’s much better to make your conversation or writings suitable for an intelligent child or adolescent, than an unsavoury old man in a raincoat…
Ok I’m not sure if you’re implying that mature content is off limits to discuss for some ethical reason but that’s fine, it’s not my blog so I’ll try not to offend anyone’s sensitivities.
Amanda
Please read Joseph Sciambra’s blog. It gives extremely graphic details of his (past) homosexual lifestyle, and exactly why he exited it. It is very harrowing reading.
http://josephsciambra.com/surviving-gaybarely/
You can not go from homo to hetero, just like you can not go from hetero to gay.
Sometimes people do naturally; but by choice, it is only pretending and wishful thinking.
We do not choose our sexual preferences. They are traits we naturally have as part of our personality, just like you dont choose to prefer rock music over country or coke over pepsi.
Amanda,
Did you read the link Westminster Fly gave to the experience of the homosexual man, Joseph Sciambra, who says he “escaped” the lifestyle?
Amanda,
Not forcing children to believe that homosexuals are less than and that if they are homosexual they will be tortured in agony for eternity, that’s sick and twisted my friend, not having a mind.
I am sure that you will know that this is pure invention and not even remotely close to what the Church teaches.
Setting up your own skittles, so you can knock them down again, isn’t “having a mind” either you know!
I am well aware of what the Christian Catholic Bible teaches, and it’s that homosexuals will not inherit the “kingdom of god”.
People who practice homosexuality rather won’t inherit it; technically those who are homosexual but who repress it and pretend/try not to be have a shot at heaven according to the christian bible. But those who practice homosexuality definitely wont get in.
Here’s a small miracle: the USCCB actually publishes Catholic teaching on IVF, which, it turns out, is condemned as immoral. Some excerpts:
“One reproductive technology which the Church has clearly and unequivocally judged to be immoral is in vitro fertilization or IVF. Unfortunately, most Catholics are not aware of the Church’s teaching, do not know that IVF is immoral, and some have used it in attempting to have children. If a couple is unaware that the procedure is immoral, they are not subjectively guilty of sin. Children conceived through this procedure are children of God and are loved by their parents, as they should be. Like all children, regardless of the circumstances of their conception and birth, they should be loved, cherished and cared for.
Obviously, IVF eliminates the marriage act as the means of achieving pregnancy, instead of helping it achieve this natural end. The new life is not engendered through an act of love between husband and wife, but by a laboratory procedure performed by doctors or technicians. Husband and wife are merely sources for the “raw materials” of egg and sperm, which are later manipulated by a technician to cause the sperm to fertilize the egg. Not infrequently, “donor” eggs or sperm are used. This means that the genetic father or mother of the child could well be someone from outside the marriage. This can create a confusing situation for the child later, when he or she learns that one parent raising him or her is not actually the biological parent.
In fact, the identity of the “donor,” whether of egg or sperm, may never be known, depriving the child of an awareness of his or her own lineage. This can mean a lack of knowledge of health problems or dispositions toward health problems which could be inherited. It could lead to half brothers and sisters marrying one another, because neither knew that the sperm which engendered their lives came from the same “donor.”
But even if the egg and sperm come from husband and wife, serious moral problems arise. Invariably several embryos are brought into existence; only those which show the greatest promise of growing to term are implanted in the womb. The others are simply discarded or used for experiments. This is a terrible offense against human life. While a little baby may ultimately be born because of this procedure, other lives are usually snuffed out in the process.”
The entire article bears reading – and obviously, Jacob Rees-Mogg needs to read up on Church teaching, since he’s made up his own:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/reproductive-technology/begotten-not-made-a-catholic-view-of-reproductive-technology.cfm
RCA Victor,
Thank you very much for posting that excellent statement of the American Bishops. I’m pleasantly surprised – delighted actually – that they have published such a clear explanation of Catholic moral teaching about IVF.
I could find nothing when I Googled UK Catholic Bishops IVF except one of our previous threads
https://catholictruthblog.com/2018/02/12/bishop-john-keenan-of-paisley-welcomes-latest-fertility-breakthrough/
:Little wonder that Catholics do not realise the immorality of this method of conception. With the death of religious instruction in Catholic schools and pulpits came the death of the Catholic mind or sense. At one time, a Catholic would have known, by instinct, that this method of conception cannot be in accord with God’s will. Instead, now, I’m sure we all know of cases where children have been conceived by IVF. “I want [a child]” has become “I have a right to [a child]” and a woman’s right to choose has become a woman’s right to demand.
What a sorry mess.
You wouldn’t find anything under Catholic Bishops UK because they don’t all belong to the same Conference of Bishops. You have one for England and Wales, one for Scotland, and, I think, one for Ireland as a whole.
As a general rule Rome does not want, or expect, different Conferences to issue joint statements. In recent memory, they were reprimanded by Rome for issuing the document “One Bread, One Body” collectively some year ago.
It would be surprising if any statement they did issue in any way was different to that of the USCCB.
I might add, that one primary reason for opposing IVF is that inevitably it results in the destruction of human life when embryos, for whatever reason are discarded.Human Life is sacred from the moment of conception to its natural end.
Spot on, Petrus Regnat – spot, absolutely, on!
I’m just curious – were you at all disappointed in Jacob Rees-Mogg’s attempt to gloss over the Church’s teaching on IVF?
He is not a theologian (moral or otherwise) and it is possible he is not fully educated on the issue. Further, for his fondness for traditional liturgy etc, he remains an ambitious politician who chooses most of his words carefully so as to not offend any likely backer.
I think he has glossed over many such issues including same sex marriage and abortion. I, for example, know a number of gay people but I would never attend their “wedding”. If I were to stand for election I hope I would say, on the great moral issues, this is what I believe, and you can expect me to vote in line with my faith, and principles.
Nobody has to be a theologian to know when something is wrong. JRM is very sure of his ground on abortion and condemns it outright, with no exceptions, which is fantastic. It’s a contradiction to hear I’m watering down IVF – doesn’t he realise there will be embryos destroyed, so lives lost as in abortion? Also, doesn’t every child have a right to know his or her father? Will this child know who his or her father is?
I love your final paragraph, I’ll vote for you, LOL!
I meant to type “”hear him watering down” not “I’m”. Sorry!
Petrus Regnat,
I think we’re all aware that there are different Bishops Conferences – another modernist novelty – for the countries of the UK, but being, as ever, in something of a hurry, and with perhaps too much faith in Google I took a short cut – having previously visited the various websites and found nothing – this was simply a last ditch attempt to see if any statement from any UK bishop is to be found; I’m nothing if not (kinda) thorough 😀
As for your concluding expression of surprise, check out our discussion on the Bishop of Paisley’s welcome for “the latest fertility breakthrough”…
https://catholictruthblog.com/2018/02/12/bishop-john-keenan-of-paisley-welcomes-latest-fertility-breakthrough/
I sincerely hope you are right, in that the UK bishops would not issue any statement different to that of the US bishops, but in the current climate, where we have top cardinals urging the re-writing of the moral law in just about every sphere, I would not be so sure. But, I repeat – I hope you are right and I am wrong in this instance. There’s a first time, Petrus Regnat, for everything!
With regards Bishop Keenan, at the tail end of his comment he says “obviously, this is quite different from IVF. ” I don’t know if he is correct on that, but if there is no real difference to IVF – with its many failures and the often frequent discarding of embryos – then he is wrong.
On the plus side he actively supported The Rosary on the Coast, and The March for Life in London.
The MARCH FOR LIFE IN LONDON?…..WHERE WAS VINCENT NICHOLS ON THAT DAY…..anyone know ?
St Miguel,
I think you raised that on another pro-life thread. Who knows where he was – and who cares? This is not another pro-life thread – it is dedicated to the topic of IVF so please stick to the topic which is contextualised in the announcement from the same-sex couple, Ruth Davidson & partner, that they have conceived a child by this means. I’m really supposed to delete all off topic comments, so be aware that I feel a sense of duty coming over me now… 😀
Stick to the topic, or pick another one – you know it makes sense!
I should perhaps have added ‘does anyone know the views on IVF from Vincent Nichols…has he got anything to say or has he ever let rip on this subject?’
St Miguel,
Given your preoccupation with him, I have to presume that you live in the Cardinal’s archdiocese, so why not contact his office to ask?
Me? I would presume that, as with everything else, the Cardinal would go along with whatever is popular.
If people want a civil partnership, that was fine with him. If they want a baby by any and every means, I imagine that will be fine with him. Who cares? He’s a bad bishop. Rude man (never answers letters of emails) so I’ve not got the slightest interest in him – he is an out & out modernist, evidence abounds, so unless there is a particular matter of interest relating to him in the news/public domain, I wouldn’t give him a second thought.
In my own experience, female homosexuals (I won’t use the l-word) have a loathing of men and anything male-oriented.
But when they need a sperm donor, ‘well that’s all right then’. Pathetic.
IVF is wrong and its widespread acceptance indicates a western culture where all that matters is desire and its gratification.
Some adults today would be open-mouthed if you suggested that they should accept the reality of infertility – no, these days everyone has an outlook like a toddler and must always get what they want, regardless of the cost (which might not only be financial).
It is especially wrong that IVF is done on the NHS, which is meant to treat illness and injury.
But, of course, no infant has control over how he or she was conceived and so being born as a result of IVF does not mean a child is of any less worth, or less precious.
I agree that the ridiculously named “conservative” party response to the new of ruth davidson’s pregnancy was absurd. They should change their name to the capitalist party – that’s all they are now, they are not conservative in the slightest.
On hearing of Davidson’s self-indulgent action, my first thought was “so who is the child’s father” but that did not seem to matter one jot to her or the gushing choir of glib approval.
Female homosexuals who are very masculine – like Davidson – can, I think, flatter themselves that they approximate a man, but this is just another piece of nonsense typical of the (LGBTQIA-123-ABC)^3 ‘community’.
I think the commodification of children in this way is one of the more repugnant things to appear as a result of “gay marriage”. Sad to see secular women reduced to being paid brood mares to cater to rich homosexuals couples like elton john and his “husband”. But, in the hierarchy of special victims, homosexuals outrank secular women, and so women do no matter in this instance.
Gabriel Syme,
“Who is the child’s father” is a key question that is unlikely ever to be answered. Given that fatherless families are destroying young lives, it is nothing short of a scandal that these IVF treatments are being encouraged and funded by tax-payers’ money.
I thought Jacob R-M’s responses to his cordially malicious inquisitor were not only extremely evasive, but very typical of the modern Catholic in full retreat from the Faith. These people (including bishops and priests) are afraid to speak the truth, so they either deny it outright or clothe it in such humanistic warm and fuzzies that it is no longer recognizable….but quite inoffensive.
Dear Jacob, if the Apostles had been as spineless as you, there would be no Faith for you to retreat from.
RCA Victor,
“Spineless” is the word. Pontius Pilate would be proud of these “traditional” Catholics, with Jacob Rees-Mogg leading from the back.
I don’t think this has been mentioned yet on this thread, but there’s another reason we should not be condoning IVF.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-103749/IVF-babies-twice-chance-defects.html
I doubt very much whether IVF practitioners are under any obligation to warn their patients that IVF children have a higher incidence of abnormalities (e.g. Down’s syndrome and spina bifida). If these are detected during pre-natal screening, many unborn babies (the innocent parties, as always) probably will never see the light of day.
Some characteristics of Amanda’s contributions remind me of encounters I have had with secular people of my own age (40) or younger:
– she doesn’t seem to know the meaning of words she herself uses (examples from this thread: ‘sex’ and ‘murder’)
– the only possible explanation for disagreeing with her stance is prejudice / bigotry
– her arguments revolve around ranting about ignorance and prejudice, there are no facts or logic underpinning them (of course, any argument advocating homosexual behaviour will always be a fact- and logic-free zone).
– facts which she doesn’t like are dismissed out of hand as being biased or outmoded, instead of responded to
– has a strong perception that religious people are anti-science and generally ignorant (which only betrays her own ignorance, given the peerless and ongoing contribution of the Catholic Church to scientific advancement and education).
– holds opinions which are blatant falsehoods and indicate no familiarity with the subject whatsoever (such as the remarkable claim that homosexual behaviour isn’t less healthy than normal sexual conduct, despite the wealth of medical evidence existing across the west.)
Many of these characteristics can, of course, be traced back to media suggestion / conditioning.
Gabriel Syme,
Well said – superb!
Indeed, I’ve now managed to read all of your responses to Amanda and you have covered everything. We’re left with the old saying: “There are none so blind, as those who will not see.” Oh and: “You can take a horse to the water but you cannot make it drink”… Oh and… well, you’ll get my drift!
Now, it’s up to Amanda to decide if she will reflect deeply on the facts given to her on this blog by your good self and others.. All that’s left for YOU to say is…
http://www.dumpaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/its-o.k.-if-you-dont-agree-with-me-I-cant-force-you-to-be-right.jpg
There are, already, three comments from Amanda in moderation – each one more frantic than the one before and with nothing new or making sense contained therein, so I suggest we do not encourage her by responding further to her comments, except in the briefest form, if you feel the need.
She has changed the premise from demanding secular reasons to discourage same-sex “marriage” to asking what right we have to condemn those in normal marriage who behave immorally (not that she thinks they’re behaving immorally). We’ve moved from apples and oranges to apples and pears.
There surely has to be an easier way for me NOT to make a living? Rhetorical, folks, strictly rhetorical question.
Amanda, we’ve got nothing to say to you, really – much as I would love to be saying the opposite but there’s a verse or two in Sacred Scripture which exhorts us to walk away when the hearer is just not listening, if you get my drift. So, allow me to thank you for popping by and to pray that God will bless you in what is left of your life.
Kindest regards.
Sad to say there is no place for the likes of ..Amanda..on this blog …
They just wind people up with their total nonsense and spoil the ethos of a wonderful site
I think it should be worth saying that promoting fertility among properly married couples is a good thing, and if medicines or other interventions can be developed which help make the fullness of marriage more attainable for those unfortunate enough to suffer the sadness of childlessness, then that is to be welcomed.
The “wrongness” for want of a better word with IVF is twofold: 1) Excess embryos are produced which are usually discarded. 2) The unitive and procreative purposes of the martial act are separated. To put it crudely, the semen used is typically derived from an act of masturbation.
In problem with IVF is therefore not the ends, but rather the means.
I think there is a legitimate moral discussion to be had about whether processes similar to IVF could be developed which would be morally permissible. It is possible (just do a little Googling) to buy “Catholic IVF”. This is of course not officially endorsed by the Church, but seeks to overcome the two main moral problems identified above.
First – no embryos are discarded. Embryos are produced and implanted one at a time.
Second – The semen used is recovered from a properly completed act of sexual intercourse.
This may appear an overly legalistic approach, but I do find it difficult to see much that would be wrong with this. What it would boil down to as a technological intervention in the marital act to improve the possibility of a live birth.
I note above that there may be some evidence that IVF babies are more likely to suffer illness. I can’t speak to the veracity of that claim, but assuming for the sake of the argument that it is correct, it seems to me that in those circumstances the question would rightly fall to the prudential judgement of the couple. Many couples have to weigh the risks of possible illnesses in their children due to age or genetic issues in the family.
Chris McLaughlin,
i dislike the idea of technological involvement in any such way as you describe. I can understand people going for tests to fix their infertility if possible, but not to this extent which doesn’t actually make them fertile. I can’t help wishing people would just do what Catholics traditionally did and just accept God’s will for them, if they find they are unable to have children. It may be a cross to bear, but the alternative is to create a Catholic version of “I want so I must get.”
Sorry to throw cold water on your idea, and I recognise that you are trying to be faithful to Catholic morality in making that suggestion but IMHO we just have to get back to accepting that we don’t always get what we want in this life and our attitude must be one of acceptance of God’s will for us.
Fidelis,
I have to say that I agree with you. The so-called “Catholic” IVF sounds awful to me. In fact, I sounds quite disgusting!
I agree that couples going for tests and then treatment is permissible, but this is a step too far.
Petrus – You may well find the sound of something disgusting, but that doesn’t make it wrong. That’s really just an arbitrary prejudice. Most people have an innate sense of squeamishness about most surgery.
Prima facie it would seem that the two Catholic objections to standard IVF can be avoided. If that is indeed the case then we are compelled to re-appraise the situation in an objective fashion, based on an understanding of the new reality. I am not necessarilly either in favour or opposed of so-caled “Catholic IVF”, I think it needs very careful consideration by greater minds than mine. However proceeding on the principle that that which is not prohibited is permitted, it seems someone would have to artiulate a new argument aginst IVF for the current prohibition to be rationally sustained.
It’s not true to say that Catholics traditionally accepted physical impairment as “God’s will”. We have always sought to improve medicine and reduce suffering. In fact Christ’s instruction to care for the sick implies that God’s will is for us to go ever further in this regard. When we get cancer we don’t “accept God’s will” and refuse chemoptherapy. Rather we embrace the benefits of technological innovation which arise from our literally God-given genius. It is certainly possible to misuse technology for evil purposes, and we should always be careful in our approach to new technologies, but we don’t reject technology per se. We aren’t Amish.
Chris McLaughlin,
I have to say that my own instinct here is in tune with what Fidelis and Petrus have written – that there is a difference between trying to repair infertility and going to extraordinary lengths, using technology, to have a child.
Being infertile is not an “illness” or a “disease” like cancer (although for the record, there are those who refuse chemotherapy due to its side effects and settle to prepare for death) and it is true that in life we do have to accept that we cannot always get what we want.
Indeed, I find the current attitude to children utterly perplexing.
We have what appears to be a majority of women who do not want children while they are of child-bearing age, contracept and even abort any conceived, but then – as of right – want everything possible to be done to allow them to have a baby in their older age. Knowing what older age is like, I am genuinely perplexed. An hour in any swing park with my 5 year old Great Niece wears me out for the week! I exaggerate, but only slightly 😀
The fact is, nobody has a “right” to a child and if the infertility cannot be “cured”, that means a child cannot be conceived naturally and so with sadness, we have to accept that childlessness is the cross that infertile couples must bear. It doesn’t mean we “reject new technologies” but we must discern the use of technologies new and old, so that we do not contravene the natural moral law, as I’m sure you will agree.
Like Fidelis, I appreciate your motive in trying to think of an acceptable form of “Catholic IVF” but I do believe that this is one area where “new arguments” are not so much necessary as putting the “old arguments” often and clearly. This is not happening – indeed, most priests never mention the subject and thus most Catholics don’t even know that IVF is prohibited. If I, with my non-scientific mind, can grasp the teaching of the Church on this without any trouble, then it should not be beyond the intelligence of the majority of the Catholic population to do so as well. As with all Truth, it makes perfect sense – certainly when taught in the context of God’s plan of salvation for us, and our need to cultivate a Catholic sense which includes a sense of resignation to the will of God. Far from making a cross more difficult to accept, such Catholic sense makes the burden lighter – or so the great saints tell us. I’m just quoting them – I’m not good at this myself, take note!
There are other means of giving a child a home and supplying parental care and love for him/her, such as adoption.
Editor – Your instinct may or may not be correct, however in either event your instinct is not a rational moral analysis of the case. I would like to see the moral arguments articulated and explored.
As we all know there are essentially two fundamental Catholic objections to IVF, discarded embryos and the separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. In principle, if the process was conducted in such a way as to avoid these two means, then only two possibilities remain. 1) We accept that IVF conducted in such a way is permissible; or 2) We formulate some new objection to explain why it is not be permissible. Since I first heard about this “Catholic IVF” a few years ago I have been going over it in my mind, and have not yet found any strong moral objection to it. That doesn’t mean to say that no such objection exists, merely that I haven’t heard one. “New arguments” are not only desirable here, they are actually necessary, because in their absence we cease to be a religion based on reason as well as faith, which is one of our great superiorities over Protestantism for example.
I accept the chemotherapy analogy was imperfect, but please note I did not refer to impaired fertility as an illness (although it is often caused by illness, or as a side-effect of the treatment of illness). Rather I referred to it as a physical impairment, a falling short of optimum health. In most cases the affected people are not absolutely infertile, they have a reduced level of fertility which makes reproduction much more difficult. In this sense I would say infertility would be in a similar category to severe short-sightedness, or partial deafness. I had the symptoms of my own severe short-sightedness treated first with spectacles and contact lenses, and then more recently had the cause treated by means of laser eye surgery. I don’t believe I was ever called upon to accept my short-sightedness as “God’s will”; and truthfully the idea of resigning oneself to fate sounds suspiciously like the predestination fixations of Calvinism or Hinduism to me. Suffering can be turned from something useless to something of great value by uniting it to the sacrifice of the cross, but it is not necessary that we must always do so. We can also seek suffering’s annihilation by human means, and if this is accomplished by morally, it too is also of great value. To suffer needlessly actually risks a self-indulgent idolatry, and is potentially spiritually dangerous.
I don’t dispute much of what you say. The Catholic population is very poorly informed on this subject. Moreover our society aborts the unborn by the million and has made adoption of babies almost extinct. This is a great shame as it was a far more civilized solution to two great human miseries – unwanted babies and childlessness. I agree we have allowed a society to develop which has made the optimum time for pregnancy socially and economically precarious for many mothers. We should clearly seek to address this. University degrees where study continues all round, rather than stopping for half the year, would allow young women to enter the workplace a couple of years earlier for example. Removing the planning barriers to building more houses would improve supply and lower the cost of accommodation. But these solutions do not have to be an alternative to fertility treatment, it is perfectly possible to do both. It should also be remembered that while many seek IVF because they have unwisely delayed their attempts to conceive a family, for many others infertility is merely the product of a cruel biological lottery and no fault of their own.
Well, Chris, you’ve an awful cheek dismissing my gut reaction/instinct and demanding some solid moral theology instead, but I’ve emailed a trusted priest with the link to your suggestion and subsequent comments and when he replies, I’ll let you know.
I have to add though, that I was taken aback at your remarks about resignation to God’s will:
I don’t believe I was ever called upon to accept my short-sightedness as “God’s will”; and truthfully the idea of resigning oneself to fate sounds suspiciously like the predestination fixations of Calvinism or Hinduism to me.
Once again, your analogy is wanting, since your short-sightedness was something that could be put right, by various means, including technology. Infertile women tend to remain infertile with IVF providing an unnatural means of giving her the child she wants – at, literally, all costs. Just ask any passing tax-payer.
And it is unsettling, to say the least to see any Catholic equating “fate” with “God’s will” – not remotely the same, as even a cursory glance at the lives of all the great saints who preached the importance of resignation to God’s will reveals.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5741869/Police-government-buildings-display-rainbow-flags-lanyards-shoelaces-IDAHOBIT.html
Apologys if this is on the wrong thread
As I was driving from work this lunchtime, I listened to the Dean of Windsor say this at the Marriage of Harry and Meghan:
“Marriage is a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God. It is given that as man and woman grow together in love and trust, they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind, as Christ is united with his bride, the Church.
The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together in the delight and tenderness of sexual union and joyful commitment to the end of their lives.
It is given as the foundation of family life in which children are born and nurtured and in which each member of the family, in good times and in bad, may find strength, companionship and comfort, and grow to maturity in love.”
How, in a country where The Head of State, is also The Supreme Governor of The Established Church. have a Parliament that legislates for Gay Marriage when the above states the meaning and purpose of Marriage very succinctly?
https://www.metro.news/dont-hide-your-love-away-says-pm-as-she-unveils-lgbt-scheme/1069643/
tHIS MAY BE THE WRONG THREAD TO POST ON BUT SOME APPROPRIATE THREADS HAVE CLOSED
Comments are closed.