Loading ...
A booklet put out by the Family Life Bureau of the National Catholic Welfare Conference.
No date in the booklet, but circa 1950’s? Nonetheless, a juicy excerpt:
” Since it occasionally happens that a husband is completely sterile, the suggestion is made that the semen containing the spermatozoa obtained from someone other than the husband, a so called, ‘donor’ be used. Obviously in the eyes of the Church, this is considered test tube bastardy and has explicitly been condemned by her.
“One of the cardinal principles of artificial insemination is that secrecy as to the donor of the semen must be maintained. In effect, this means that the scientifically conceived test-tube bastard is of undetermined and undeterminable paternity, nor can legal “semi-adoption” ever change the fact that he will forever be a stranger in his father’s house. The Catholic physician need offer no apology for his refusal to initiate by any deliberate act the tragedy at the outset by such an enormous source of melancholia. The obsessive maternal instinct of a childless wife in no way justifies a random sireless son.
“Such a bizzare human being, finding himself a meaningless wanderer on the wasteland of time - never to know his true father nor to find his pride of lineage - might conceivably decide to terminate his artificially initiated life by suicide. Who would say the physician who performed the act of donor insemination was free from moral guilt in planting this pyschological time bomb?
“The Holy Father, defining the thought of the Church on artificial insemination spoke with the wisdom of the ages when he reaffirmed the Christian believe that ‘to spouses alone is reserved the right of human procreation.’ New things may be the scientist’s role, but only God can make a soul.”
How’s that for judgmental? If only priests were that honest on Sunday mornings.
“Such a bizzare human being, finding himself a meaningless wanderer on the wasteland of time - never to know his true father nor to find his pride of lineage - might conceivably decide to terminate his artificially initiated life by suicide. Who would say the physician who performed the act of donor insemination was free from moral guilt in planting this pyschological time bomb?
Best post, ever.
No question - artificail insemination is morally wrong.
“Such a bizzare human being, …a meaningless wanderer on the wasteland of time.” I hope, however, that this assessment does not suggest that in God’s eyes, such a person who came into being this way through no fault of his own, is without value - does it?
+JMJ+
You’re right. It is juicy!
Deacon,
of course not. It’s just that he has been given a profound and unjust impediment to a normal human relationship with the world. But all things are possible with God…
While it is clear from this post that keeping with an anonymous donor in artificial insemination is wrong by the standards of Mother Church, is it still wrong to use the “techniques of modern science” for artificial insemination if they are performed *between* spouses, i.e. a husband’s spermatoza is used to fertilize a wife’s eggs?
The issue of a child growing up fatherless is circumvented but are there still issues that do not make this practice in this case morally just?
While in the post it mentioned, “… to spouses alone is reserved the right of human procreation…” what more could be understood/taken away from this line?
- S.B.
OK people. The Catholic Church does not forbid a sense of humor. Apparently, of those who posted, only Iacobus sees this. My intention was to point out the dramatic prose style of the author. There.
Great way to end the story with the pride of lineage line. It is an unfortunate fact that we need to hear more often.
I think of all the programs that are out there to help teens “find themselves” and here we are artificially inseminating them into existence.
Kyrie eleison
-KJS
+JMJ+
Catharina: Hey! I noticed it, too!
“Such a bizzare human being, finding himself a meaningless wanderer on the wasteland of time - never to know his true father nor to find his pride of lineage - might conceivably decide to terminate his artificially initiated life by suicide.”
This awkward invocation of hypothetical psychology, open to all sorts of objections, distracts from a very grave truth.
I’d think it better expressed to say something along the lines that an artificially created life gives men the illusion of control over life. Once we commit to the artificial creation of life, we’ve lost an intrinsic check on artificially ending a life by suicide or murder.
Kevin,
You’re right that your rendering would be more accurate, but such pedestrian prose would never be the occasion of a blog post!
Awkward invocation of Hypothetical Psychology?
Pish-posh! Bring forth your objections, Kevin, whatever they may be! I think it is a great allusion, that this supposed psychology is very much common sense. Further, I think we desperately need to re-introduce this language which so clearly communicates the revulsion which we should have to such sins. A distraction - certainly not!
I think that the fundamental issue not a