One of the many issues with IVF is that numerous extra embryos are made in order to increase the chances of having a successful birth. When these additional embryos are produced, they get stored (frozen) or discarded (aborted). In the United States alone, there are anywhere from one million to ten million frozen embryos in storage. What are we to do with these frozen embryos? Within Catholic theology there is a debate on this issue, with faithful, orthodox Catholics on both sides.
One side of the debate holds that the sin already occurred in the production of these embryos and that these embryos are suffering a great injustice by being kept frozen. Thus, we should allow people to “adopt” these embryos and allow women to carry them, birth them, and raise them. This is the pro-embryo adoption side. Adoption is moral, and organ donation can be moral, so why not allow a woman to give the use of her uterus to an abandoned child?
The other side of the debate holds that surrogate motherhood is immoral and embryo adoption (i.e., the implantation of a frozen embryo into the uterus of a willing woman who wants to adopt and love this poor child) is also immoral. There is no question that the motives of embryo adoption are good, but the act itself is considered wrong since it is participating in the evil of IVF. Essentially, putting the egg and sperm together in the petri dish is not the only part of IVF and artificial reproduction, but putting the created embryo into the uterus of a woman is also an essential part of the process of artificial reproduction and so is, in itself, an evil act.
The magisterium of the Church has sided, non-definitively, with the anti-embryo adoption side of the debate. First, John Paul II, in a speech, said, “I therefore appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos” (#6). Secondly, the CDF cited this line from John Paul II in its document Dignitas Personae. There, the CDF also writes:
It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption.” This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above. All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. (#19)
This document by the CDF was approved by Pope Benedict XVI. So, two popes have rejected embryo adoption, despite its good intentions, due to the nature of the act.
However, it is abundantly clear that this teaching (that embryo adoption is immoral) is not infallible or definitive. The Church could change her mind, and, even in both of the above-cited spots, the Church notes that the judgment is not definitive, hence John Paul says, “there seems to be no morally licit solution.”
Because of the non-definitive nature of this teaching, the debate continues. And this is good. Yet, Catholics should not think that it is, at this time, moral to actually engage in the practice of embryo adoption. The reason is simple. In respectful obedience, we must accept and follow all the teachings of the Church, even those that are fallible and could be wrong.
There are three levels of magisterial authority or three levels of teachings. First, there are doctrines of the faith. These are truths revealed by God which people believe by the theological virtue of faith. They can be defined extraordinarily by the pope or by an ecumenical council. They can also be taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. Taught either way, these truths are infallible and totally definitive; they cannot be changed.
Secondly, there are doctrines that are infallibly taught which are not divinely revealed but are connected to a revealed truth. These truths can be historically or logically connected to a revealed truth such that denying them entails denying a revealed truth that belongs to the first level. There is no distinction in the strength or irrevocability of the assent that one gives to truths of the first or second level. Both truths, once taught or defined by the Church, are infallible and definitive—they can never be changed.
The difference between these teachings is that those of the first level are presented to us by the Church as part of Divine Revelation (i.e. God told them to us in Scripture and Tradition), while those of the second level are not themselves revealed by God but are connected to truths that God has revealed.
The third type or level of magisterial teachings are teachings from the Church which are not presented to us as infallible or necessarily revealed by God. These are teachings on matters of faith and morals (such as our topic) which the Church gives us to help us live better, to help us understand revelation better, or to warn us against errors. While these teachings can even belong to prudential matters, about which it is legitimate and expected to have disagreement, they still must be obeyed. To these teachings we owe “religious submission of will and intellect.” Basically, even if we think these teachings or prudential decisions may be wrong, we should follow them because the Church has real authority over us, and the bishops and pope are our genuine leaders.
It is almost certain that the current teachings on embryo adoption (which say that embryo adoption is immoral) fall into this third level of magisterial authority. Thus, it is legitimate and good for theologians to debate about it in order to help the Church become more certain of the truth of the matter. But, even if some debate is legitimate, we certainly ought not to engage in a practice which the Church has warned us against and currently calls immoral. Since we must follow the Church’s teachings, even those which the Church tells us may be incorrect and which might change in the future, we must not engage in embryo adoption until the Church clearly gives us new instructions. At this time, to engage in embryo adoption would be a sin of disobedience to a legitimate authority (i.e., the Church).
So, regardless of where we individually fall on the debate of embryo adoption, none of us should be engaging in this activity until we get different directions from the Church.
Photo by michelle mirabell on Unsplash
