Friend had IVF, happy for her but not happy for her?

Does the ELCA support IVF? If so what about the embryos not used?


Why would anyone assume some distinction among the children:confused: The differentiation rests only in the actions of the parents - assuredly well-motivated actions, but wrong nonetheless. Your Church’s moral theology teaches that the ends don’t justify the means - and it teaches that some “means” are always wrong acts, no matter how well-intentioned.

We know for sure that the child born from IVF is WANTED and was not a result of failed contraception or natural family planning.

The earnest desire for the parents to have children, and to love them, are not being questioned. But it would be wrong to hint that parents of unplanned children are deficient in love for their children.

What will you do if the Church actually changes one of the written-in-stone, social dogmas? There’s a possibility that hopefully the rules regarding annulment will be relaxed. Will you believe that the new dogma is authentic?

Which dogma did you have in mind? “Rules” concerning how the Church determines whether a valid marriage took place are not dogma.

We live in times that are changing quicker than Bob Dylan ever imagined and the Church is changing too.

And yet the Church, rightfully, is not changing dogma. :shrug:

In Vitro Fertilization refers to the fertilization of a living human egg in an artificial environment outside the human body. When this happens, it usually is done in order to bear and give birth to children when conception has not been possible by normal means. A fertilized egg will then be artificially implanted in the womb of a woman so that the process of pregnancy may begin. The ELCA currently has no policy regarding In Vitro Fertilization. In 1983, however, the standing committee of the Division of Theological Studies of the Lutheran Council in the USA received permission from the American Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Church in America (both predecessor bodies of the ELCA), and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod to issue a report on In Vitro Fertilization (IFV). In the LCUSA report, there was agreement “that IVF in and of itself is not contrary to Christian values,” although there was some disagreement among members of the standing committee about some issues associated with this process. The report further stated that “The committee has unanimously concluded that IVF does not in and of itself violate the will of God as reflected in the Bible, when the wife’s egg and husband’s sperm are used.”

I cant tell which child was the result of rape or a Bill Cosby type drug either, I am not sure what that has to do with the morality of it though.

As for Dogma. If the Church changes the unchangeable then I would leave because She would be proven false. Duh, Would you be Catholic if the Eucharist was changed to just be symbolic?

But while we are on the subject. Do you view this desire to have a biological child using forbidden and sinful ways to be a product of selfishness and therefore not an act of love or of strait up Eugenics being that a child of a certain genetic makeup is the overriding desire?

Transubstantiation is theological, but social dogmas, such as anti-contraception issues or IVF have nothing to do with what I believe about receiving the Holy Eucharist. I do not believe that the Eucharist is a symbol. :rolleyes:

I think the best idea science or not is to Trust the Wisdom of the Church and not of individual biases and wants. Or just in “theological reason” should we relegate the God and His Church?

So, just give up thinking and discerning? The Church had no clue that there would be a fifty percent or thereabouts divorce rate when the rules concerning annulments were formulated. As much as staunch traditionalists protest, the world changes and the Church does also. I understand that Papa Francis is very traditional, however, he seems to understand that small changes, such as speeding up the annulment process, will not send the Church into a state of decay.:shrug:

It is just weird logic to me. How can one believe beyond all scientific evidence to the contrary that Jesus, His Body His blood His soul and His Divinity is present in bread and wine after words are spoken, yet not believe the Church, when it speaks of these things is knowledgeable and indeed more knowledgeable than an individual biased with the want for children and biased by the secular society we live in that demands us to get what we want how we want it? I just cannot reconcile the two. What kind of Church would we be if we did this. I understand you think the Church can change in these issues (you are wrong) but honestly, even if the Church were to change to your “progressive” ideals (though I am not sure they entail the “Progress” of Holiness) Wouldn’t you agree that you are bound under what the Church teaches in the here and now, not next year, or next century or tomorrow. Regardless of what we think our finger says when we lick it and stick it up in the air?

Obedience is lacking in our world today, and that is sad… But the excuse is "my conscience, thinking and discerning… blah blah blah. Funny how it is always in relation to going against the Church we do this.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

So you think that parents who are unable to conceive children without IVF are being selfish for bringing a life into this world and that no love is involved on their part? It’s very easy for people to say this who have no problem conceiving children the usual way. And as far as I know, most parents who use IVF do so because they are unable to conceive any child at all any other way and not because they are trying to create a child with a certain genetic makeup. :shrug:

No one disagrees. Admin processes and timeframes are hardly a question of dogma - “social” or otherwise.

One wonders how an individual’s “discernment” could ever be applied to the Real Presence or to the Immaculate Conception or a number of other aspects of the faith and conclude the same thing the Church teaches. Did the Church’s teaching charism work on these matters and malfunction on those teachings affecting our participation with God in creation? How do we know it wasn’t the other way around? Or, is it that the former teachings don’t present a challenge in this life, whereas the latter do - and that’s what gives rise to the need to “use our discernment”?

that no love is involved on their part?

I did not say that.
But lets examine this issue. For a Catholic, the answer would have to be that there would have to be many motivations to do this. Having a Child IVF is indeed expensive, and it is a risk to the mother and babies health. Not to mention other babies that may be killed in the process. So, to knowingly go against something that your faith teaches for the purposes of conceiving a child is indeed motivated IN PART by less than altruistic motives.
I have no doubt that many IVF kids are loved. And in part that is the motivation of some couples to use this process. But if a child is loved is not the answer here. For instance you would not make the case for marital rape if the end result was a child who was loved? right?
Now, perhaps to a non Christian or non Catholic this is not as big of an issue, society would be telling them this is a perfectly acceptable and loving way to bring forth a child for those who struggle with infertility. Though the matter would still be grave, there really would be no voice telling them it is wrong, so culpability would be impacted. having said that, I have to believe that with the proliferation of children who can be adopted that IVF is indeed motivated in part by selfish and genetic reasons. Desiring a baby to have specific genes is really no different than IVF. When there are babies at the ready to be adopted.

The same could be applied to a couple who wanted a baby but did not want to be in a marriage or were in an open marriage. In that case a man and a woman could decide they wish to make a baby and did not need an outdated Church teaching about marriage to do it. Could they both love the child? Sure. Could they both be doing something to create life? Sure. But it would be a sin. And a mortal one at that.

Hoosier, are you indicating that in all matters rule driven by the Church that have to do with current social issues, that you have no opinion that contradicts the CCC? Do you, for instance, think that allowing a person such as Charlie Manson to receive the Eucharist (if he was Catholic and had confessed to a priest), but not allow a divorced and remarried (with no annulment) person the grace of the sacrament is not worthy of question? There must be something that you struggle to understand. I am ernest in this query.:shrug:

Yes. Much of “theological dissent” seems to have to do with genitals or sexual reproduction. Odd. When in true theology there are so many other issues to grapple with. Like the logic of a God who dies. Or of Resurrection. Or of any of the millions of miracles that defy not only logic but the laws of the world itself. A Eucharistic Miracle, Bi-location, Levitation, incorruptibility, Resurrection, healing, stigmata, The dancing of the sun. That Mary can hear our prayers and pray for us… Etc. All of these things that are distinctly Catholic. Yet, when it comes to things like wanting to have a cute baby of your own "well the Church is not in touch, or it is not up to date on the science, or that it needs to change and that was part of what those silly flat earth bishops thought in the “dark ages” etc.
I just cannot wrap my mind around someone who says “amen” to something as nonsensical as the Eucharist on their tongue but thinks the Church is apparently some sort of old grandpa that just does not “get” it when it comes to having a child, ebing married or the desires of our genitals…:shrug:

Actually, they’re inextricably linked.

If you believe in the real presence, that requires that you believe in Jesus’ divinity and his ability to effect a lasting spiritual legacy in the world through His church. Your belief in the institution of the Eucharist presupposes a belief in the historicity and ability of Jesus to institute holy orders and to confer the Holy Spirit upon priests of the church. That same underlying assumption underpins the legacy of the church as Jesus’ institution, with the attendant powers he granted through its investiture to Peter. What shall be bound on Earth shall be bound in heaven, and what shall be loosed on Earth shall be loosed in heaven. To doubt a fundamental Church teaching on the sanctity of the origins of life entails doubting the legitimacy of the one who created the teaching, as well as the One who invested him with the legitimate right and authority to do so.

Yes indeed. In order to love God and become the best person we can, we have to be truthful with ourselves and Our Lord. Quite obviously God knows when we are lying to ourselves and to him. As a 62 year old, what seemed über important at thirty now seems utterly irrelevant. If your perspective does not change as you age, then you are not learning or maturing. Now that I find myself questioning many things, I wonder if there are others who are in the same boat? Do you, AlphaWoman, question in your heart and mind some of the rules that the Church teaches? I certainly don’t mean you should ignore any rules, just if you struggle to make sense of them?

Perhaps you could direct alpha woman to your other thread where you asked just that question?

Good idea, even if your sarcasm was showing a teeny tiny bit!:eek:

You make a good point. How incongruous would it be were the Church to enjoy the continued intimate relationship with Christ evident in the Celebration of the Eucharist, and all the sacraments, but to have it simultaneously teaching His flock error.

Absolutely, there are inevitably teachings that I struggle with. I think we all do to varying degrees at some time or another. It’s a product of our being post-original sin creatures; our capacity to understand with reason is impaired by our corporeal desires and biases. Even if we were able to sidestep original sin as a source of bias, our faculty to reason is imperfect.

That is part of the reason it is so important for us to have the Holy Spirit guiding the Church, and for us to have priests and a Pope who are largely external to the lived condition of the lay person. We are so fortunate! They devote their lives in fullness to the pursuit of truth and good through the inspiration and stewardship of the Holy Sprit as objective outsiders for the benefit of the whole Church. We grow in grace when, having used our reason to the best of our ability, still fail to grasp the moral nuance behind a Church teaching, yet place trust in Jesus out of obedience and love. Our duty as Catholics is to do God’s will, not to understand everything perfectly.

It may surprise you to learn that I wasn’t Catholic–except in sacramental legacy–until I was an adult. I disagreed with much of the Church’s teaching around family life and sexual ethics. Reading widely in an attempt to disprove God’s existence brought me to the Church, but it was only once I began praying the rosary that I started to gain insight into the issues I really struggled with. Now, I use the rosary to pray for understanding of and obedience to God, and it’s helped me not only accept, but love, some of the issues I originally felt were thorniest. Maybe you can turn to Mary in the rosary for help. She won’t let you down if you’re seeking truth with an honest, loving heart. :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit