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.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
“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 addressed is that a person who is concieved in such a way is not hopeless. God obviously brings great good out of evil. The problem with the brief tract is that its whole point is to undermine the person created in such a fashion (which is in fact a good end) in lieu of condeming the evil act (or means) on its own merits (that of separating the unitive & procreative love of spouses). I think the tract’s focus on mocking the end of an action would only be appropriate for when discussing evil ends (for instance a dead child as a result of an abortion). Although I don’t think mocking is really an appropriate approach.
Similarly, I believe the Church has refrained from speaking of children born out of wedlock as “illegitimate.”
I happened to come across an interesting article on this very topic:
http://www.dwc.org/questions/Illegi
timate.shtml
“I think it is a great allusion, that this supposed psychology is very much common sense.”
I’ve seen the kind of argument presented in many areas–hit the worst possible outcome to shock. I think this only provokes incredulity. Test tube babies might commit suicide? It’s like equating porn users with potential rapists. In a way they are, but in a way they aren’t, and that equivocation will snare you in clashes with self-righteous onanism.
Kevin, I would agree that such strong language does not work in all sorts of areas - I will not ignore prudence! But it is also true that modern man has become very much used to these technological intrusions, and he starts to lose the sense of how exactly they are sinful. And with these bio-ethical issues, which are sometimes (not here) so unclear, I think strong language is needed to establish a proper hatred of the sin. The stigma attached to creating a bastard child is an entirely natural thing. Surely these other practices which tamper with the divine institution of marriage in another fashion ought to be equally stigmatized.
Johnboy, I don’t know what to say. Its absurd to think that anyone is saying that a child is hopeless, just because they are a bastard or a test-tube bastard. We don’t need to address something so obvious! Remember that this “meaningless” epithet is not attached to the person by the author, but suggested as a possible one they might attach to themselves, because of the inhuman acts of their parents.
Maybe it will help y’all if you re-imagine this scenario as one where the child is the first one ever cloned. Does the tone feel right to you now?
Most people commit suicide due to hopelessness (assuming they aren’t suffering from mental issues). I think the author of the tract is stating this implicitly, and it’s obvious; at least to me.
“Cat got your tongue?”
More on the Brave New World…
I want to be pink like Dad
By ANTONELLA LAZZERI
and JOHN KAY
Chief Reporter
THE white dad whose wife had Asian twins in an IVF blunder told yesterday how his son declared: “I want to be pink like you, Daddy.”
He said he replied: “Well, I want to be brown like you — that’s why I sit out in the sun. He laughed at that.”
The dad and his white wife, who we will call Mr and Mrs A, were speaking for the first time since The Sun’s world exclusive 2002 story about the test tube bungle.
We told then how the twins, now six, were born after an Asian man’s sperm was wrongly used to impregnate eggs from Mrs A at a fertility clinic run by Leeds NHS Trust.
Yesterday Mr and Mrs A, both 35, revealed their life is an extraordinary mixture of TORMENT over the mix-up — coupled with JOY at having two beautiful children they “love to bits”. In an emotional interview the couple, who cannot be identified by law, also told how they were:
THRUST into a nightmare that shattered their world and threatened their marriage.
STILL surviving on anti-depressants to combat stress.
FORCED to fight for nearly three years for DNA tests establishing the twins’ parentage; and
OBLIGED to adopt the kids in an £80,000 process that was opposed by the Asian man, who has sought contact with the twins and wants to be recognised as their proper father.
The couple said they had made a pact to be truthful to the dark-skinned, dark-eyed twins — a boy and a girl — about the blunder.
They have moved house so the children can attend a mixed-race school.
They cope with tricky questions about different skin colours by simply saying the kids are adopted. And though they originally planned to have a large family, they vowed not to try for more children.
Mr A, a businessman, said: “We decided it wasn’t fair on the twins. I told my wife I couldn’t bear the thought that at some time in the future they might feel we loved their sisters or brothers more because those kids were ‘ours’ and white. Our twins are enough. They are the most lovely kids ever. We adore them.”
The couple, who had been trying for children for six years, told how their lives changed forever the instant the error was discovered.
Mrs A said: “I was physically sick. The thought that I’d had children with a stranger felt like a violation in itself. Our happiness at having our longed-for babies was shattered. My greatest sadness is that my husband is not the biological father of our children.
“All we wanted was a family. Instead we were landed with a nightmare that will last forever.
“At the moment our children are happy and well balanced. But we have been warned by experts that as they grow up their colour and parenthood will become an issue and they may react badly. We live with that worry every day.” The couple finally decided to tell their story to reveal the extent of their ordeal in the hope it never happens to others.
Holding his wife’s hand, Mr A said: “What happened threatened our marriage and our whole existence. Many men in my position would have walked away and that’s what my wife feared when we discovered the truth.
“She was scared I would reject the twins AND her. But that never entered my mind. My children know I am not their biological father and that there is a ‘real’ daddy somewhere. But they also know I love them totally. And they love me.”
Grabbing her husband’s hand, Mrs A told him: “I just felt so upset for you.”