IVF

A catholic couple i know had a child through IVF treatment. If this is not acceptable in the catholic church, why then did our parish priest baptize the baby after going through the pregnancy quite happily with them. Knowing the situation?

Why should the child be punished for what the parents did? This is a child of God despite how it was created.

As far as the Priest you will have to ask him yourself what his thinking was. But , after the conception is known and disapproved of there is no reason to be punishing the woman with coldness over her pregnancy. What’s done is done. The miracle of life growing in the womb is still taking place. It is something to be happy about despite it’s beginning.

It’s oddly possible that the priest does not know church teaching. Or it is possible that he is going to have something to explain to Jesus about why he didn’t instruct the faithful when he had the opportunity.

because the baby bears no fault for how he was conceived.

We don’t punish the innocent by not baptizing them for something they have no control over:confused: :shrug:

Ditto Shanny…the circumstances of the child’s conception has no bearing on whether or not he should be baptized. What about children from rape, premarital sex, etc? It is more important that the parents are practicing and willing to raise the child in the faith. It is possible they have confessed, but that’s really not anyone’s business but their own.

Because the baby is perfectly innocent and should be baptized…

curious to know the churches views on IVF, this couple approached a priest they didnt know. He told them that if they were to go ahead with it, they would be doing something worse than abortion, their child would be born without a soul as he or she would be manmade and not Godmade. And just because they want a child does not give them a God given right to one. When they get a completely diifferent response from another priest, dont you agree its all a bit confusing. And not in any small way. I also understood that if youve committed a ‘grave sin’ (the first priest described it as such) that you shouldnt recieve the communion. They both recieve again.

Personally I think the very idea that an IVF baby is born without a soul is one of the ugliest things I have heard in a long time.

As far as the baby being baptized, he/she should absolutely be baptized and cleansed of all original sin regardless of how the child came to be. It is still a child of God regardless and should be treated as such. It is not up to us to decide the state of the parents soul and whether or not they should receive communion. They may have gone to confession since the IVF treatment and been absolved of their sin. In any case, we should all treat this situation with charity and not judge the parents as we are all sinners. The best thing we can do is pray for the family.

I completely agree with this.

How do you know that this is what the priest really said – were you present during the conversation? This is not true and the whole thing seems a little fishy…

Thank you all for your views. You,ve made an aunty to a beautiful little boy very happy.

no child is born without a soul and no child is to blame if it was concieved via sin

who can know the state of their souls and whether or not they’ve repented and confessed?

Seems like you might have a lot of second, maybe third hand information. I don’t think there is anyway for you to know exactly what happened in this situation, much less any of us. As far as going to different priests and getting different advice, yes that happens. It is up to the advice seeker to read, study, ask, learn, and discern where the truth is. This is no small task, especially where one’s soul is concerned. People do it for all other reasons, though, like buying a car and deciding what schools to send their kids to, so I would imagine doing things right in the eyes of God would be worth a lot more investigation. I’m sure it would be difficult because I am sure a couple in this case want a baby more than a certain type of car, and emotions get in the mix and make things even more difficult. Hopefully they have the strength to do what is right.

I’ve already mentioned this in a previous thread, but we had a young wife in our parish die in India after a IVF procedure.She was Catholic, married in the Church,etc. but presumably unaware of Church teaching on IVF.
You can go online & see all the ads for IVF services in India at low prices.Not cheap of course if you lose your life…:frowning:

The Church does not teach that a child conceived via IVF has no soul. The priest was incorrect.

The couple commits a mortal sin by engaging in IVF. Abortion is also a mortal sin. Mortal means deadly. Murder-- abortion-- is one of the sins that cries out to heaven for justice. So, I suppose one could say it is “worse” than another sin, but all mortal sin is equally deadly to the soul.

This accurately represents Church teaching on our life-giving faculties.

IVF or any other act that separates the unitive and procreative elements of the marital act (sexual intercourse) is a sin against the Sixth Commandment. From the Catechism:

*The gift of a child

2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church’s traditional practice see in large families a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity.162

2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. “What will you give me,” asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"163 And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"164

2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."165

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."166

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."167 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."168

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."169

2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.*

Yes, that is quite disturbing.

This is true. One must refrain from the Eucharist. But, not forever. One must refrain until one has been reconciled through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession).

It made me feel pretty sick too…:sad_yes:

There’s no way to know whether they have confessed this sin and therefore absolved of it. If they have, there is no reason why they should not receive communion.

Not to take this topic too far afield, but the first priest was absolutely right in doing this (I assume your mother’s new husband had not obtained a decree of nullity for his prior marriage.)

It’s sad when priests think they have the power to override the laws of God and the Church. It just makes it harder for the righteous priests to teach their people about God’s law. Then those priests get a reputation for being “mean” because they stand up for the truth.

Pray for all priests!
[/quote]

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