California Court to Christian Doctors: You Must Violate Your Conscience

It's all over the news, so take your pick as to write ups. Here's one from a site that may be new to you, NewsOneNow:

California's highest court was unanimous in its decision on Monday that Christian doctors may not refuse to perform artificial insemination for homosexual patients.

Another sign of the Big One in California, that is, the moral fault line that is dividing this country increasingly, only this has been a slow earthquake, going on for years, so slow at times that many Christians think that they can just live with it and not consider the consequences. If you think that judicial appointments aren't all that important, let's talk about it, in prison, perhaps?

BUT, wait a minute. Court versus Christians gets the attention, but why are Christian doctors offering this "medical treatment" in the first place? This from the San Diego Union remind us about a moral dilemma that was already in play, and one Christian doctors have already compromised. Artificial insemination.

Justice Joyce Kennard, writing for the court, said the state's sweeping anti-discrimination law “furthers California's compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to medical treatment irrespective of sexual orientation.”

She said that to avoid any conflict with their religious beliefs, doctors could refuse to do insemination procedures for all patients, or refer patients to other doctors who have no religious objections.

Artificial insemination should never been accepted by Christians doctors in the first place, so the moral issue here lies further downstream. On the face of it, the court decision might force Christian doctors to reeducate their consciences by learning what real Christian medical practice is. In that sense, I am tempted to appreciate what could be a practical result of this decision--Christian doctors withdrawing from the whole in vitro business--while at the same time, the trajectory of such courts rulings are, at the very least quite troubling. Isn't it time to establish an alternative, and moral, traditional Christian medical practice around the country? The fault line is already there, but we've got Christian doctors standing on both sides of it.

Comments

[Childless in Texas]

My wife and I have struggled in a childless marriage for nearly a decade. Most certainly not out of choice--we still hold out hope that we can have children (or, when we can afford it, to adopt). It is not possible for me to convey in words the immense emotional toil that our inability to conceive has wrought upon us. Just imagine countless nights of weeping in each other's arms due to the void we experience, as over the years our friends and families have enjoyed the blessing of many newborn children. There are struggles that infertile couples have that others will never be able to appreciate, including silent exclusion from relationships and even church functions due to the fact that we simply do not have any "little ones."

I am a conservative Protestant, I have moral convictions against contraception and the conventional in vitro fertilization process (in which embryos are often created, often just to be destroyed or frozen), as well as against embryonic stem-cell research (in which embryos are destroyed), and against abortion (except to save the life of the mother).

However, a moral conviction against artificial insemination? That strikes me as tragically implausible. The process is unsuccessful more often than not, but that is beside the point. There is no life or death issue here. Not even close. I care very much about opposing a culture of death and promoting a culture of life, but condemning the use of medical technology to do what it can in aiding infertile couple's ability to conceive a child is, in my opinion, very much AGAINST right reason. This strikes me as (again, merely my opinion) the result of abstract armchair theologizing by men who have lofty philosophical principles but little real appreciation/compassion for those of us for whom the process might be our only hope of having at least one arrow in our quiver, let alone a full one.

[Joe Long]

I'd agree that charity is in order, in our consideration of Christian doctors who percieve a "fault line" where facilitating homosexual "families" is concerned, but none where artificial insemination for infertile married couples is. Aren't they more on the other side of a mere "argument", than a true "fault line"?

Some slopes are very, very slippery; some are not, particularly. It is the California court which has found one of the former - not the doctors who drew lines which seemed to them entirely reasonable and consistent.

[JS Bangs]

I write in sympathy with Childless. What exactly is the moral issue with an artificial insemination process that doesn't destroy embryos?

[GL]

First, coming from a man who, with his wife, experienced infertility for a time during our marriage (though we now have four children), I have come to share Jim Kushiner's view on the matter of the problems with IA in general. It did not come up as an option when we were seeking medical advise and treatment and I don't know how I would have then reacted.

Second, the argument that if doctor performs IA for a married heterosexual couple, he must perform IA for homosexual couples is specious. Nonetheless, it somewhat follows the logic of Justice O'Connor in her concurrence in the Lawrence decision striking down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional, in which she held that equal protection (14th amendment) required that if certain acts between those of the same-sex were to be criminalized then the same acts between those of the opposite sex must likewise be criminalized. In accepting unnatural means of sexual intercourse or reproduction, Christians opened the door for decisions like Justice O'Connor's in Lawrence and this case from California.

Third, this is just another example of the growing loss of religious liberty when it conflicts with the "right to privacy" created by the Court in the Griswold decision. The Court created right is coming more and more to trump the right created by the framers and ratifiers of the First Amendment. Expect this trend to continue.

[William Tighe]

The moral issue is that to procure the semen, some form of masturbation would seem to be required. In the Catholic view, masturbation is always sinful, regardless of the circumstances, which is why the Catholic Church has always condemned artificial insemination.

[William Tighe]

The moral issue is that to procure the semen, some form of masturbation would seem to be required. In the Catholic view, masturbation is always sinful, regardless of the circumstances, which is why the Catholic Church has always condemned artificial insemination.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The moral issue is that to procure the semen, some form of masturbation would seem to be required. In the Catholic view, masturbation is always sinful, regardless of the circumstances, which is why the Catholic Church has always condemned artificial insemination.<<<

There are any number of legitimate medical tests that require collection of a semen sample (e.g., something as basic as a sperm motility test). Are all of them per se "sinful"?

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

I thought the deeper issue, from the Catholic perspective, was the separation of sex from procreation. Thus, it would be problematic, masturbation or no.

[Thomas]

William,

The Catholic Church considers masturbation a sin because it separates sex from procreation.

From Persona Humana:

"...the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act.[19] The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes "the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love."[20] All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship."

If the rationale for a moral doctrine is flawed which depends on demonstrably false empirical matters, the doctrine itself is in jeopardy. It can't be held to simply because the consensus of the faithful has become clear, if that consensus is a conclusion based on a bad argument.

If the reason masturbation is condemned is because it takes place outside the context of a marital relationship and divides sex from procreation, and we find an instance where it takes place for the sake of procreation within a marital context, the doctrine falls apart. This doesn't necessarily even mean past judgments were incorrect, but they were based in a particular historical situation where, at the time, these judgments about masturbation are universally correct. Anymore, they simply aren't. That objection to artificial insemination doesn't work.

A better argument against it might come from an argument against the naturalness of the procedure itself. Even here though, the procedure is not working against nature, but accomplishing the natural goal which for which nature itself was insufficient.

[Stuart Koehl]

Thomas does not answer my question.

[Kamilla]

The depends upon how you construe the term "legitimate", Stuart. I'm not convinced it is legitimate to medicalize procreation in the first place.

It seems to me, the same arguments employed against the use of contraceptive devices and abortifacent drugs apply here - the reason being that they interfere with the marital act in an illegitimate manner. Once we accept the use of contraceptive devices and abortifacent drugs, the marital act is changed into something other than the marital act and we can no longer argue against other counterfeits. Sodomy is one counterfeit. Artificial insemination another.

Kamilla

[JS Bangs]

I thought the deeper issue, from the Catholic perspective, was the separation of sex from procreation. Thus, it would be problematic, masturbation or no.

But this isn't sex which attempts to avoid the natural end of procreation. It's trying to reach the natural end of procreation by artificial means when the natural means have failed. If child-bearing is a proper telos of marriage (which I understand it to be), then surely its artificiality in this case can't be an objection.

[Kamilla]

The objection (and the sin) exists in the artificiality itself. A godly desire for children does not necessarily sanctify the means chosen to achieve that end.

Kamilla

[Childless in Texas]

Thank you, JS Bangs, you hit the nail on the head:

"But this isn't sex which attempts to avoid the natural end of procreation. It's trying to reach the natural end of procreation by artificial means when the natural means have failed. If child-bearing is a proper telos of marriage (which I understand it to be), then surely its artificiality in this case can't be an objection."

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Okay, I'm not trying to be too graphic here, but...
what if the wife (who has a proprietary interest in the body of the husband according to St. Paul) is the one who induces the expulsion of the vital formula and the intent of the couple in doing so is to conceive children in her womb? Does the fact that there are a few petri dishes and centrifuges involved (not to mention a turkey baster-like device) make the whole process illicit? I'm inclined to err on the side of the trying-to-conceive couple in this case.

Second, tangential question: are fertility drugs illicit? (Incidentally, there's more weird biochemistry going on with that than the above example.)

[JS Bangs]

Kamilla:

Please explain why it's illegitimate, even sinful by your account, to "medicalize procreation". Then explain why the same argument does not apply to intravenous feeding, intubation, blood transfusions, and organ transplants.

[Childless in Texas]

Kamilla,

I don't mean to be combative, but raising the artificiality of artificial insemination as an objection seems to prove too much.

Prosthetic legs are artificial, yet surely they help many people to achieve what must be a God-ordained purpose for humans, namely walking. Should we eschew prosthetic legs, too?

To be sure, a Godly desire to walk will not sanctify the (artificial) means chosen to achieve that end. But is the means really in need of sanctification?

[Kamilla]

The end justifies the means?

Kamilla

[JS Bangs]

Kamilla:

The ends doesn't justify the means. But neither you nor anyone else has offered a rationale for why artificiality per se is an illegitimate means.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Not all evils (such as infertility, infectious diseases, loss of limbs to an IED) can be linked to God's direct will. There are principalities and powers that can (and do) influence how things work in this still-cursed (though being redeemed) creation--not to mention evil human beings. I'm enough of a Baconian (one out of three cheers) to think that science can be used to ameliorate these things. Can one go too far? Certainly; if you are going to violate other moral laws by (for instance) producing and discarding human beings. IVF is illicit for this reason.

[Childless in Texas]

W.E.D. GODBOLD:

I agree that IVF (in vitro fertilization) is almost always wrong. I think it is wrong because it produces embryos, treating them as a mere means toward producing pregnancy, as is indicated by the fact that the "leftover" embryos are either destroyed or frozen (which is almost as bad--how would you like to be frozen?).

But artificial insemination is a whole other animal; there is no threat to the life of any embryos and no human lives are being created as mere means. Rather, if artificial insemination is successful, the new life is (all else being equal) being treated as an end in itself.

As far as I can tell, my original assessment in post #1 stands.

[Kamilla]

Uhm, yes, I did, JS. See my first response on this thread.

The arguments against against contraceptive devices and abortifacent chemicals (the two methods of birth control) have been made (repeatedly) here on MC and elsewhere - I will not rehash them. Artificial or medicalized conception is illicit, illegitimate and sinful for the same reason - it counterfeits the marital act. The physical union of one man and one women in marriage has an eschatological significance which separates it from the acts of daily living such as eating and walking.

Kamilla

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Getting back to Mr. Kushiner's post. I agree it was foolish for Christian doctors to have ever gotten into IVF. Those who did must not have reflected very much on what was being done. That said, I agree with GL that *if* they were foolish enough to engage in the practice, a legal line *should* be draw-able at married couples.

[Kamilla]

Childless,

My last post could be addressed to you as well. And per your first post, I am no armchair theologizing male. I am a woman, and though I have never married, I know that I am infertile. Does that make my arguments more legitimate? Certainly not, even if it may give them more emotional force.

Kamilla

[Bill R]

Surely if the man or the women, due to injury or illness, required the surgical insertion of, say, a tube or a stent to allow for sexual intercourse, we would not then forbid intercourse on the ground that it relied on artificial means, would we? How then does this differ from the artificial insemination of the wife by her own husband where undertaken precisely to further procreation?

[Wayne]

Linked to your post from Special rights trumps doctors religious rights

[Childless in Texas]

Kamilla,

I stress again: IVF is not the same as artificial insemination (AI). AI involves merely artificially inserting collected semen into the womb. I am opposed to IVF, but I still see no reason to oppose AI.

Oh-and I wouldn't mind if you were an armchair theologizing male, as long as you could give good reasons for what appears to be a wrongheaded moral prohibition.

[Childless in Texas]

I am open to having my opinion changed about artificial insemination. And I hope that if anybody has any good reason for opposing it, that they will bring it to my attention. Really.

I thought I should say that.

The problem is that there appears to be no good reason. And that makes all the moralizing against it (e.g., Kushiner's) appear empty and even dangerous.

[Jim Kushiner]

Does anyone know if it is common among Christian doctors to practice artificial insemimation but draw the line at IVF? How many draw that line? Do many or most who deal with infertility approve of AI but not IVF?

[Childless in Texas]

In my experience, most Christian couples who suffer from infertility are not very reflective about what might be morally permissible. Hence, they end up spending tens of thousands of dollars doing fertility treatments, IVF, you name it, just because the doctor presents these things as commonly accepted. No question is ever raised.

It is a sad state of affairs.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> I'm not convinced it is legitimate to medicalize procreation in the first place.<<<

Define "medicalize": we probably agree that IVF is not acceptable. Artificial insemination probably falls into the gray zone. What about fertility drugs, corrective surgical procedures for father and mother, or in vitro surgery on fetuses? Is ultrasound or amniocentesis "medicalization"? We have to define terms here.

[Kamilla]

Childless,

I am a medical professional with a second degree in philosophy - though I am not as accomplished at either as I would like to think I am, I do understand the differences between artificial insemination and IVF. Dr. Tighe has already given you a reason why both IVF and AI are sinful. I have given you my reasons why I think they are as well - and yet you refuse to recognize and interact with either argument. So, I'm done with this conversation as piling question upon question without responding to previous answers begins to look like a ploy. The answers are available here and elsewhere on MC, if you are interested you will find them.

Stuart,

I'd refer you back to the recent conversation elsewhere. Since we disagree on some of those basic arguments, I don't see the point in parsing anything further.

Jim,

I'm not aware of docs who draw the line there.

Kamilla

[T. Chan]

In case anyone is interested, the CDF instruction . One will have to scroll down a bit to get to HOMOLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION.

[JS Bangs]

Kamilla:

The entirety of your argument so far is this paragraph:

It seems to me, the same arguments employed against the use of contraceptive devices and abortifacent drugs apply here - the reason being that they interfere with the marital act in an illegitimate manner. Once we accept the use of contraceptive devices and abortifacent drugs, the marital act is changed into something other than the marital act and we can no longer argue against other counterfeits. Sodomy is one counterfeit. Artificial insemination another.

Everything else you've written is either a reiteration of or a reference to this paragraph. I'd first like to point out that even this paragraph simply presupposes its conclusion: you say they "interfere with the marital act in an illegitimate manner" without attempting to justify your judgment that they are illegitimate. Nonetheless, let me argue that it is legitimate.

Starting from first principles: sex is sanctified by God in the context of marriage, for the purposes of child-bearing and companionship. All forms of sexual immorality are a violation of one of these constraints. Fornication ignores the context, contraception destroys the first purpose, and homosexuality violates both. But artificial insemination violates neither, as it's pursued by married couples, and whatever sexual acts it involves are undertaken with an explicit procreative purpose.

You seem to take the view that any intrusion at all of artifice or technology destroys the sanctity of sex. I don't see where you're getting such a principle, and you certainly don't have the prerogative to simply assert it.

[GL]

As to Bill Tighe's post. I believe that orthodox Catholic ethicists have approved AI in cases in which the sperm can be retrieved surgically -- by a procedure which I do not want to contemplate nor describe. -- Ouch.

[Bill R]

"Ouch."

We'll leave that to the Catholics, GL. ;-)

I suspect most Protestants would favor the, um, "methods" posited by Gene (WED Godbold), above at 1:26:56 PM. I don't see where a moral issue arises then.

[William Tighe]

I've said all that I intend to say about the subject of this thread, but I think that I will add that I reject this assertion of Thomas's utterly:

"If the rationale for a moral doctrine is flawed which depends on demonstrably false empirical matters, the doctrine itself is in jeopardy. It can't be held to simply because the consensus of the faithful has become clear, if that consensus is a conclusion based on a bad argument."

Apart from what counts as "empirically false" the other problem with this is that it leaves the settled praxis of the Church -- as with WO or SS -- open for grabs when ever someone or some group can get up an argument along the lines of "now the truth can be spoken and heard." It is simply not Catholic/Orthodox/Patristic -- in a word, not Christian.

[Bobby Neal Winters]

Genesis 30
1 When Rachel saw that she was not bearing Jacob any children, she became jealous of her sister. So she said to Jacob, "Give me children, or I'll die!"

2 Jacob became angry with her and said, "Am I in the place of God, who has kept you from having children?"

Not a new question. As old as man. The answers have not really gotten any better either.

[Bill R]

Folks, this is not an issue of abortion, contraception, or in vitro fertilization. I've been on this blog for many years, and I don't recall a discussion about artificial insemination. For obvious reasons, it wasn't a topic of discussion among the Fathers! ;-) To say that it's all been settled or there really isn't anything more to say sounds more like you don't want to think too strenuously about the issue. That's unfortunate, because those who have to confront the issue personally have had to think very, very hard about it.

[JS Bangs]

Indeed. I agree with Bill Tighe's principle, but I don't see how the Church can have any settled praxis regarding artificial insemination, given that the technology for it has only existed for a few decades.

[David Gray]

>I agree with Bill Tighe's principle, but I don't see how the Church can have any settled praxis regarding artificial insemination, given that the technology for it has only existed for a few decades.

Does the Church have a position on masturbation?

[labrialumn]

What is the Biblical teaching here? Or is this another case of the Roman metropolitanate elevating philosophy to the level of dogma which must be believed? ("to the Law and to the Testimony, if what they say is not written therein, then know this: that I, the LORD, have not sent them")

As to the philosophy, something is very wrong with it. Is it also then wrong to use tools to raise crops? To hunt game? If man-madeness itself is sinful, then we should be making the Jains looks like computer geeks in comparison. Living naked in the wild, hunting and gathering with our bare hands.

For that matter, tools were used in the atonement for our sins, no less.

So, what does God, our *only* Lawgiver and Judge, have to say about it?

[Stuart Koehl]

Of course, it is possible to retrieve semen without either surgery or masturbation. Essentially, you anesthetize the man, then electrically stimulate the pineal nerve, which results in involuntary ejaculation. The procedure is used to extract semen from animals on which traditional methods are not suitable (think big cats, bears, wolves, etc.). Since the man is not conscious and has no role in the extractive process, it would seem that all moral qualms are addressed here.

[Bill R]

"Essentially, you anesthetize the man, then electrically stimulate the pineal nerve, which results in involuntary ejaculation."

Good grief, Stuart. After reading you and GL, I think I want to go huddle in a dark corner....

[Stuart Koehl]

hey, you guys asked.

And still nobody answered my question, so I will restate it:

One of the most common diagnostic procedures performed in fertility clinics is the sperm motility test. Basically, they look at your semen under a microscope to get a sperm count, and also evaluate the sperm for their quality (I always wondered about the scoring system--are there dual marks for difficulty and artistic merit, or what?). It's an important first step for couples having difficulty conceiving because most of the time, it's the man's problem, not the woman's--and the man's problem is usually a lot easier, cheaper and safer to solve. So, before they go running a whole gamut of invasive tests on the woman, they test the man.

So, you go to one of these places, and basically they hand you a cup and ask you to go to the bathroom to do your business, and then you come out and give them the cup, and several weeks later you get a report.

I note in passing that NASA required all its initial astronaut candidates to provide the same sample, as hilariously detailed by Tom Wolfe in his book "The Right Stuff", and even more hilariously by Ed Harris (John Glann) and Dennis Quaid (Gordon Cooper) in the superb movie adaptation.

So, straight up and down show of hands--sinful or not?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

David Gray: "Does the Church have a position on masturbation?"

David, I think Professor William Tighe answers your question (at least somewhat): "In the Catholic view, masturbation is always sinful, regardless of the circumstances, which is why the Catholic Church has always condemned artificial insemination."

[Ranee @ Arabian Knits]

I was under the impression that the problem with AI/IVF/etc was the same problem that exists with contraception, they separate the marital act from procreation. Also, while contraception tries to remove procreation from the marital act, AI/IVF/et al remove the unitive property of the marital act from procreation.

I speak as one who is not absolutely dogmatic on this issue, but who leans toward Rome on the issue. I was also diagnosed with PCOS and related infertility by three doctors, in three clinics in two states, and was healed of the condition by prayer, so my husband and I only started down the road of investigating how we would handle it.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The end justifies the means?<<<

If the end doesn't, what does?

[Ranee @ Arabian Knits]

Forgot to mention that aside from the m@sturbation issue, there is also the p0rnography issue. Both of which are encouraged in these treatments, are considered the norm, require the patient to actively avoid and yet still place himself in temptation, and is purchased by the clinics/doctors/hospitals/labs which perform these treatments, so even if one does not engage in it, one is giving money to it.

Also, I think I should clarify what I said above. Contraception removes the procreative nature from the marital act and AI, etc, remove the unitive nature from the marital act. Seeing as this act is not simply a physical function, but has spiritual ramifications and analogies, we should be careful when we accept a truncation of that.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Bill R: "Good grief, Stuart. After reading you and GL, I think I want to go huddle in a dark corner...."

Bill, if you do go huddle in a dark corner, no need to share what you're doing there. ;-)

Stuart: "So, straight up and down show of hands--sinful or not?

Pun intended?

(Is a little levity okay on this thread?)

[T. Chan]

From the CDF Instruction:

Masturbation, through which the sperm is normally obtained, is another sign of this dissociation: even when it is done for the purpose of procreation, the act remains deprived of its unitive meaning: "It lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes 'the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love' ".(54)

[DGP]

C'mon, guys, a little elementary research might advance the level of conversation.

From the CCC:

************************************
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.
**********************************

See also Donum Vitae,

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

[Kamilla]

Stuart,

It's not a bathroom. In most places it is referred to as a "privacy" room. And, considering the materials therein, I always felt "icky" performing the analysis of the sample. Thankfully, we haven't done those for a number of years.

I think your question has already been answered several times. Did you simply miss all the references above to masturbation or did you deliberately ignore them in order to get in one more cheap joke?

Ranee,

Thank you for recognizing the simple connection.

Kamilla

[Bobby Neal Winters]

Here, I will go out on the limb to answer Stuart's question.

I would say that the ideal response of an infertile Christian couple would be to accept their state and seek adoption. Given the difficulty of adopting in some cases, this is a hard saying. However, I've known some wonderful people who were childless not of their own choice but have dealt with their lot in a virtuous manner.

Another response would be artificial insemination. While not ideal in that it separates conception from a direct act of love, it is an indirect act. And while the man's ejaculation is not part of intercourse with a woman, the purpose of it is to produce a child with his wife.

IVF is out. I say that in spite of knowing that, as in the cases between Sarah and Abraham and between Rachel and Jacob and between Judah and Tamar, the desire to have a child overrides a lot of morality, and in spite of not having had to bear that cross myself.

So we've live in a world now where some women are having their babies killed inside them and where gay men are hiring women to carry theirs.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It's not a bathroom. In most places it is referred to as a "privacy" room. <<<

Nineteen years ago at the IVF Institute in Fairfax, there was most definitely a toilet in there.

>>>I think your question has already been answered several times. Did you simply miss all the references above to masturbation or did you deliberately ignore them in order to get in one more cheap joke?<<<

My issue was with the word "always". Someone said masturbation is ALWAYS a sin, so I want to know if it is sinful in the context of routine medical procedures. Nobody has yet to answer, probably because it exposes the problem with reducing issues of sexual morality to the checking off of boxes on a list of permitted and prohibited things. Life isn't clean cut, there are real ambiguities to be worked through.

So, would you tell the husband in an infertile marriage NOT to submit to a sperm motility test? is scrupulosity here standing in the way of a potentially simple solution to the couple's problem? Would you require the woman to go through the entire battery of infertility tests to which women are subject rather than just check beforehand to see if the man has any lead in his pencil?

[David Gray]

>Someone said masturbation is ALWAYS a sin, so I want to know if it is sinful in the context of routine medical procedures. Nobody has yet to answer...

If they say ALWAYS the answer to your query is inherent in their statement.

[DGP]

>>So, would you tell the husband in an infertile marriage NOT to submit to a sperm motility test? is scrupulosity here standing in the way of a potentially simple solution to the couple's problem?

One gets a more useful sample for analysis simply by harvesting ejaculate from a perforated condom used during actual intercourse. Why subject a man to these other bizarre procedures (not least among which is masturbation) when you can get a sample that corresponds to what the man produces in coitus?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>One gets a more useful sample for analysis simply by harvesting ejaculate from a perforated condom used during actual intercourse. <<<

Um, they need it to be. . .fresh. So, unless you would like clinics to provide husband and wife with a bedroom, this presents problems. Also, what's all this about condoms? Six of one, half a dozen of the other, isn't it?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If they say ALWAYS the answer to your query is inherent in their statement.<<<

What you find out, David, is when the Catholic Church says always or never, it seldom actually means always or never. There's usually an implicit "except", which is left for bishops and theologians to work out.

[Kamilla]

Stuart,

Yes, the question of *always* was answered. These questions are only ambiguous for those seeking a a loophole. If it is wrong, it is always wrong, because of *why* it is wrong, see the CCC quote above.

For the couple facing infertility with a sincere Christian faith I would point them to their own adoption into Christ and kindly suggest that they, perhaps, should consider returning the favor (so to speak).

Kamilla

[DGP]

>>So, unless you would like clinics to provide husband and wife with a bedroom, this presents problems.

No, it's an opportunity for better medical advice and less abuse. Is providng a bed somehow more awkward than providing masturbation rooms, along with copies of Playboy and Hustler?

>>Also, what's all this about condoms?

You don't mind masturbation, but you have a problem with perforated condoms?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>You don't mind masturbation, but you have a problem with perforated condoms?<<<

I don't have a problem with either, in the proper medical context.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>For the couple facing infertility with a sincere Christian faith I would point them to their own adoption into Christ and kindly suggest that they, perhaps, should consider returning the favor (so to speak).<<<

Well, that sounds nice in the abstract, but for real human beings, things are always more complicated, and the word "always" should be reserved only for the most absolute cases.

In the case of my wife and I, we tried for several years to conceive a child, and eventually did consult a fertility clinic. The first thing that was ordered was indeed a sperm count and motility test. I didn't see anything wrong with it then, nor do I see anything wrong with it now. Our purpose in going through this was to determine if there was any correctable physiological problem preventing us from having a child. Medical diagnostics is no different from troubleshooting a car or a computer--start with the most obvious thing. Among the advice we were given on the basis of that test was better timing, avoidance of hot baths, and wearing of loose underwear. Those are simple, non-invasive, and utterly innocuous ways of addressing the problem.

For us, it did not work, so my wife was put on a course of drugs to stimulate ovulation. This took a while to kick in, so in the meanwhile there were a host of other tests, ranging from ultrasound imaging to laparoscopy--all of which were extremely unpleasant for my wife. I would certainly have felt remiss if, out of moral scrupulousness about masturbation under medical direction I allowed her to endure those when the problem might have entirely been mine.

In the end, things worked out very nicely. My wife was in fact pregnant during the laparoscopy, but fortunately the embryo was not dislodged from the uterine wall. Eighteen years later, I'm sending my embryo off to college. If good fruit come only from good trees, then this tree was very good indeed.

[Will]

Somehow after reading a very serious post I've got Monty Python running through my head. And no, it's not about Eric the Half Bee.

[Stuart Koehl]

Well, at least I'm not confronted with the need to sell my children for medical experiments.

[Childless in Texas]

Thank you to DGP for posting the passage from the "CCC" above. Here is an excerpt:

---------
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
---------

OKAY, I have been looking for an good argument against artificial insemination all along, and here, at least appears to be something like an argument. As I see it, it goes something like this:

1) Anything that dissociates the sexual act from the procreative act is morally impermissible.
2) Artificial Insemination dissociates the sexual act from the procreative act.
Therefore,
3) Artificial insemination is morally impermissible.

This argument is formally valid, therefore the only question pertains to the truth of the premises (1) and (2). I find (2) to be plausible, at least if I understand it correctly. BUT WHAT REASON DO WE HAVE TO THINK THAT (1) IS TRUE? I SINCERELY WANT SOMEONE TO ENLIGHTEN ME HERE!

I see no reason whatsoever to hold that mere dissociation of the sexual act from the procreative act is (morally) forbidden. Is this supposed to be a deliverance of right reason?

Somebody who knows something, PLEASE HELP ME HERE!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>OKAY, I have been looking for an good argument against artificial insemination all along, and here, at least appears to be something like an argument. <<<

Except that it is based on the fundamentally Western Christian assertion that procreation is the primary (or at best co-equal) purpose of marriage, which is not sustained in the Eastern Christian tradition (marriage is first and foremost a typos of the relation between Christ and the Church, and therefore has no "pragmatic" purpose; children are the fruit of the union, not its raison d'etre). Don't accept the first premise, and the rest of the argument falls apart.

[David Gray]

>Except that it is based on the fundamentally Western Christian assertion

What are the odds that he is a Western Christian?

[labrialumn]

Back on topic, this ruling is plainly unConstitutional, and if it reaches the Supreme Court before Barakh Hussein can appoint more anti-Constitutional oligarchs, it would be overturned.

But the message is clear: Christians, you are not welcome in California. Leave if you value your allegiance to Jesus Christ.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But the message is clear: Christians, you are not welcome in California. Leave if you value your allegiance to Jesus Christ.<<<

Well, the answer is clear; some Christian doctor is going to have to defy the state, and then take the consequences. Running away is certainly no solution.

[labrialumn]

Can Dr. Tighe provide us with the first textually-verified reference to artificial insemination in the literature of the Roman metropolitanate, since he claims that Rome has *always* said this?

T. Chan, the moral status of ejaculation is found in Leviticus - ritual uncleanness until sundown. A woman's period, on the other hand, made her ritually unclean for eight days.

DGP,
Does the reasoning regarding wombs in 2376 extend to wet nurses and bottles? They are of the same kind.

The use of the term "sport" in the Bible referring to marital behavior between husband and wife, as well as certain references in the Song of Songs raise severe questions as to the reasoning in the philosophy in 2377 and context.

Bobby Winters, why do you reject medical science where it violates no command of God, nor even the causitry of the natural law philosophers in the dioceses in fellowship with Rome(which is beyond -mere- Christianity)?

Childless, the question is: who is our lawgiver and judge? Does the Roman communion have the right to make new laws and impose them on all Christians, the way the Pharisees did upon the children of Israel and for which Christ rebuked them, or not?

I believe in being open to life. It is just that this discussion has gotten into an area where it seems that natural law philosophy has come round and no longer lines up with Scripture, and where burdens are being tied upon which God has not commanded, and that is sin.

[labrialumn]

Stuart, in the Western tradition, fleeing is the second option in the three options in the case of unlawful governance. The first is to peacefully change it. The second is to flee. The third is armed resistance in support of lawful lesser magistrates who are not violating their office.

[Susan Peterson]

Stuart, It is at least very clear from the wedding ceremony that the East strongly associates the desire for children with marriage. When my son was married,(in the Antiochian Orthodox Church) some of his not very religious siblings, and especially their girlfriends, were shocked by the number of references to children, and to many children. I would call that at least a strong indicator that the tradition considers children one of the main purposes of marriage. Of course one cannot derive syllogisms about this from the liturgy, but the liturgy is, I think, a strong pointer in that direction.

(And then of course we come to the point where I think that using the name "Catholic" means that you should accept magisterial authority, and you think that somehow being "Eastern" means that you don't have to, and I say then go be Orthodox, because being in communion with Rome means accepting the teaching authority of the Church, period. And you disagree. I know you disagree. Just about everyone here knows you disagree. It is like that joke about senior seminar at St. John 's College; sometimes you don't even have to talk, just raise an eyebrow and everyone knows already what your argument would be at that point. )

Now for some of the questions raised above and never quite settled. (The rest of this is addressed generally, not to Stuart in particular.) The Church teaches that masturbation is always wrong, period. That includes for purposes of obtaining a semen specimen. You cannot rescue a morally wrong action with a good intention.

I don't know about the procedure of electrically stimulating ejaculation as I have never heard a moral evaluation of the procedure. I imagine that if one were anaesthetized this would be analogous to nocturnal emissions, of null moral significance. But I am just guessing.

Another licit way of obtaining a semen sample is by the man and his wife's having intercourse in a nearby place using a perforated condom. I imagine that if the medical establishment shared these moral convictions, establishing places of sufficient privacy and comfort would not be impossible or impossibly expensive. That not being the case, I think a nearby motel would be sufficient. It is a technical question how fresh is fresh and what kind of treatment would prolong freshness, but I am guessing half an hour would not be much of a problem.

Now, why a perforated condom? You thought the RC was against condoms, absolutely. Well the reason condoms are wrong is that they prevent semen from being deposited in the vagina, which must take place for the act to be a true marital act. Intercourse with a condom is considered to be simulated sex, not real sex. (Intercourse with a condom is not considered to consummate a marriage, for instance.) However a perforated condom does allow some semen to be deposited in the vagina, and thus does not prevent the completion of a true act of marital intercourse.
It also preserves the majority of the ejaculate for analysis. (And don't ask me how big the holes are, or how many there have to be; I have never seen one, but I am willing to bet that someone, somewhere has addressed this question and come up with an answer. )

So why can't semen obtained in this way, during an act of marital intercourse be used for purposes of inseminating a woman with her husband's sperm? Someone above thought that it could, and I confess that I thought so myself, and said so over on Stand Firm a few days ago. I am sure I read that opinion somewhere, years ago, but when I tried to research the question, I couldn't find anything but the strict opinion that all insemination procedures are illicit.

The reason why is that the unitive and procreative aspects of sex must never be separated, in either direction. No sex without babies(ie openness to life) and no babies without sex. A child must be the result of a particular act of intercourse between its mother and its father.

Now I would still think that the use of semen obtained with a perforated condom to inseminate the woman soon after that act of intercourse, could be said to produce a child that was the result of a particular act of intercourse.

But I am not getting that interpretation out of the official documents.

I do think that in some cases, there are licit procedures which could be done which are not done because when the couple rejects AI the doctors just shrug at their unreasonableness and go no farther. For instance, one man was saying that his wife's womb was so tipped that sperm could not make it through to find the fallopian tubes. Well, wombs can be untipped surgically and suspended in the untipped position. But to doctors it seems that AI is simpler than abdominal surgery, so they probably never mentioned this. Another question is low sperm motility. This isn't always genetic. Avoiding high temperatures as Stuart mentioned is one low tech thing which can be tried. I also think that in conjunction with that one could try super good nutrition, and perhaps looking for chemicals in the environment (smoking, formaldehyde in the insulation, workplace chemicals) that might be harmful. In some cases the environment in the woman is unsuitable, and I believe there are ways of changing the PH, and gels and such, not the ordinary lubricants but designed to aid sperm motility. Doctors ought to be aware of all of these possibilities for those who do not believe in any form of AI.
Susan Peterson

[Peter Gardner]

It should be noted that in the Orthodox Tradition, at least, nocturnal emissions are not "of null moral significance". I have a little prayer book to be read after having one prior to communion, though it's mainly an issue (pun intended) for clergy, since laity can just go to confession.

It's not a huge deal, in the long run, but it's a bigger deal than, say, scantily clad women making a cameo appearance in a dream.

[T. Chan]

labrialumn:

The posts weren't meant for your benefit, since you do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church, or apparently, the existence of Natural Law.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Stuart: "What you find out, David, is when the Catholic Church says always or never, it seldom actually means always or never. There's usually an implicit "except", which is left for bishops and theologians to work out."

I understand what you're saying here Stuart. It just gets a little dicey and problematic and can cross over into the area of being arbitrary or in the area of favoring those in power or favoring those who can persuade the "powers that be." The "implicit except" clause can, and possibly more often than not, create more problems than it solves.

Let me struggle to give an example. Hopefully someone will provide a better one. There is to be no WO per Catholic dogma. Yet purportedly, although not confirmed or verified, there have been anonymous RC bishops who have ordained priestesses in Germany. The priestesses at womenpriests.org now claim that there is valid apostolic succession because RC bishops did the ordination.

Now suppose these RC bishops make the claim that you do. I.e., "when the Catholic Church says always or never, it seldom actually means always or never. There's usually an implicit "except", which is left for bishops and theologians to work out." And so these renegade RC bishops have somehow "worked out" that ordaining priestesses was okay in this instance.

Or suppose someone like Francesca were to use the same line of reasoning as you did for whatever issue or behavior that she sees fitting for her case which happens to run counter to Catholic dogma. Then you can't argue against her since she's merely providing the same justification as you do for your violation of Church teaching.

Please understand that this post is not whether masturbation is a sin, but rather an inquiry about how a Catholic is supposed to obey clear Catholic dogma. Or a corollary, if there are indeed "implicit exceptions" to clear Catholic dogma that use the express words of "always" or "never", then why, how, and when do some circumstances and people get the loopholes and others don't?

That is where I think it gets into the area of seeming arbitrariness or partiality or power, and thus creating more problems than it solves.

With genuine sincerity and humility.

[Bobby Neal Winters]

>>Bobby Winters, why do you reject medical science where it violates no command of God, nor even the causitry of the natural law philosophers in the dioceses in fellowship with Rome(which is beyond -mere- Christianity)?

<<

Lab,
If you are refering to my rejection of IVF, it is because they kill embryos and abort fetuses. There are other reasons, but this is all I have time for.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>There is to be no WO per Catholic dogma. Yet purportedly, although not confirmed or verified, there have been anonymous RC bishops who have ordained priestesses in Germany. <<<

There can be no anonymous ordinations, since ordination is an ecclesial act. And, moreover, a bishop cannot perform a sacrament validly if the intention of that act is to violate the mind of the Church. As far as I know, no such ordinations have ever been performed by a canonical Catholic bishop, regardless of what certain erstwhile priestesses may say. Their case is akin to that of non-canonical "Orthodox" priests who claim to be validly ordained by some vagante bishop. There is more to a sacrament than going through the motions.

But, in any case, you are mixing apples and oranges. Ordination is a sacramental act, whereas explication and implementation of the Church's teachings on sexual morality are pastoral and prudential in nature. A bishop has no latitude in the sacraments, but much latitude in most areas of pastoral care. Whether he acts prudently with that discretion is another matter, but there is no denying that he has it.

>>>Please understand that this post is not whether masturbation is a sin, but rather an inquiry about how a Catholic is supposed to obey clear Catholic dogma. Or a corollary, if there are indeed "implicit exceptions" to clear Catholic dogma that use the express words of "always" or "never", then why, how, and when do some circumstances and people get the loopholes and others don't?<<<

When in doubt, consult your bishop or spiritual advisor. If still in doubt thereafter, consult your conscience.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It should be noted that in the Orthodox Tradition, at least, nocturnal emissions are not "of null moral significance". I have a little prayer book to be read after having one prior to communion, though it's mainly an issue (pun intended) for clergy, since laity can just go to confession.<<<

This is true, though I am sure Peter recognizes that in the taxonomy of sins, transgressions and frailties, this constitutes a frailty, hamartia due to the weakness of human nature. Since the objective of human existence is theosis, and theosis requires liberation from the passions, obviously there is a moral dimension even to physiological phenomena. That said, most bishops and staretsy would say that the prayer is really intended for monastics and others attempting to plumb the greater depths of spiritual life.

[Stuart Koehl]

If I were asked to draw up a list of reproductive practices and assess their moral acceptability, I think it would look something like this:

Unacceptable

In Vitro Fertilization (IVF): Due to the inherent necessity of destroying embryos in the process.

Embryo culling: Abortion, pure and simple

Surrogacy: Bearing the biological child of one person by another person. Truly does separate the parents from the procreative act, thereby denying their nature as co-creators of new life with God

Sometimes Acceptable

Artificial Insemination:

Acceptable when done to improve the chances of conception, using the semen of the husband inserted into the wife. In my mind, it does not alienate the couple from the procreative act, merely takes advantage of a particular technology to ensure that it is more successful. The intent of the act is identical to that of normal conceptions.

Not acceptable when it involves semen from a man other than the husband, or when using stored semen for post-mortem conception (since the husband is dead, he would not be able to impregnate his wife by normal means.

Usually acceptable:

Basic fertility testing, even if it involves masturbation. You can't solve a problem if you don't know where it is.

Use of fertility-enhancing drugs to increase the probability and consistency of ovulation, but not for purposes of hyperstimulating ovulation in order to harvest eggs, and not if there is a serious chance of an unviable number of embryos that would require culling.

Ultrasound, MRIs, amniocentesis and other forms of pre-natal monitoring. Some oppose this because it creates incentives for abortion--that, however, is the fault of the person, not the technology. Given that we have increasing capability to intervene and resolve fetal medical conditions in utero, and may eventually have the ability to rectify congenital defects through forms of gene therapy, the ability to determine the health of the fetus and to provide proper care becomes a moral imperative.

[DGP]

CHILDLESS IN TEXAS:>>OKAY, I have been looking for an good argument... 1) Anything that dissociates the sexual act from the procreative act is morally impermissible.... BUT WHAT REASON DO WE HAVE TO THINK THAT (1) IS TRUE? I SINCERELY WANT SOMEONE TO ENLIGHTEN ME HERE! I see no reason whatsoever to hold that mere dissociation of the sexual act from the procreative act is (morally) forbidden. Is this supposed to be a deliverance of right reason?

The argument you were seeking followed the first line of 2377:

"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

The two footnotes are both to the document Donum Vitae, for which I already gave you the on-line citation.

STUART KOEHL:>>Except that it is based on the fundamentally Western Christian assertion that procreation is the primary (or at best co-equal) purpose of marriage,

Um, no. It is not so based. That is indeed a part of the Western tradition regarding marriage, but the argument doesn't cite the principle or depend upon it. Methinks you grind an ax.

LABRIALUMN:>>DGP, Does the reasoning regarding wombs in 2376 extend to wet nurses and bottles? They are of the same kind.

No, they are not of the same kind. They are merely analogous, and only in a limited fashion. Good moral deliberation requires the ability to make some distinctions.

LABRIALUMN:>>The use of the term "sport" in the Bible referring to marital behavior between husband and wife, as well as certain references in the Song of Songs raise severe questions as to the reasoning in the philosophy in 2377 and context.

No, it was Mr. Koehl who raised the question of procreation as a priority. Sexual sport makes no difference to 2377.

SUSAN PETERSON:>>So why can't semen obtained in this way, during an act of marital intercourse be used for purposes of inseminating a woman with her husband's sperm? Someone above thought that it could, and I confess that I thought so myself, and said so over on Stand Firm a few days ago. I am sure I read that opinion somewhere, years ago, but when I tried to research the question, I couldn't find anything but the strict opinion that all insemination procedures are illicit....Now I would still think that the use of semen obtained with a perforated condom to inseminate the woman soon after that act of intercourse, could be said to produce a child that was the result of a particular act of intercourse.

Opinions among RC authorities vary. The use of a perforated condom for the purpose of semen analysis is almost universally accepted. But to harvest semen in order to treat it and then replace it (GIFT, Gamete Intra-Fallopian Transfer) is disputed. I am not aware of any authoritative judgment on the matter.

[DGP]

I might have added above that while the use of a perforated condom probably does alter the chances of conception as a result of the sexual act, this is not a serious moral problem. Adjustments of probably consequences, so long as they do not change the intrinsic quality of the act, fall into the realm of prudence. That is to say, one may undertake such alterations for sufficiently good ends. In this case, the value of semen analysis for fertility treatment clearly serves the purpose of procreation without changing the quality of the sexual act, even if it reduces the probability of conception in a specific instance.

It should go without saying that the use of an unperforated condom changes the quality of the act itself -- or perhaps, if you prefer, introduces a distinct act into the chain.

[Childless in Texas]

What if we were suddenly inflicted with a post-apocalyptic scenario, like that which has been portrayed in the movie, "CHILDREN OF MEN," where women have mysteriously become incapable of conception. I bet in this case the Catholic Church would come around and recognize that it is morally permissible to use human technology to find some way of achieving the God-ordained end of procreation. And I see no morally relevant difference between this scenario and an infertile couple's situation.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Stuart: "When in doubt, consult your bishop or spiritual advisor. If still in doubt thereafter, consult your conscience."

Sounds fine to me. Yet (scratching head) as to the latter, isn't that what Francesca (and other liberal Catholics) refer to as the "primacy of conscience" doctrine in Vatican II?

Not to mention that one's bishop or spiritual advisor may also provide bad counsel, albeit perhaps unintentionally.

Also, what's the distinction between "consult your conscience" and the allegation that Protestants use "private judgment" or "private interpretation"?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Sounds fine to me. Yet (scratching head) as to the latter, isn't that what Francesca (and other liberal Catholics) refer to as the "primacy of conscience" doctrine in Vatican II?<<<

The difference is in presumptions and priorities. One should always give the benefit of the doubt to the Church and its Tradition, even if one does not necessarily understand. Through prayer, enlightenment and understanding usually ensue. It is only in rare cases, where the Tradition does not speak clearly, or the decision of the Church authorities runs so contrary to one's innate sense of right and wrong, that one should prayerfully discern one's course of action. But one must always make certain that the interior voice one hears is truly the indwelling Spirit, and not the voice of one's own desires.

As the Byzantine Catholic catechism "Shown to Be Holy: An Introduction to Eastern Christian Moral Thought" put it:

It is precisely such episodes [i.e., the Aryan Controversy] as this that led to the teaching there is no certain ground by which we can automatically discern God's guidance in situations which have not been the subject of revelation. We can seek his will prayerfully, consult the Church and its Tradition, and still be wrong. On the other hand, we may find ourselves opposed to the highest Church authority and yet be right. Thus, the monk St. Maximos the Confessor opposed the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople almost singlehandedly during the sixth century Monothelite Controversy. He rejected his own Church's bishops, saying, "When I see the Church of Constantinople as it was formerly, then I will enter into communion with it without any exhortation on the part of men. But when there are heretical tempations in her, and while heretics are its bishops, no word or deed will ever convince me to enter communion with it".

And so, after a person has deeply and seriously consulted the ministry given to the Church, and reflected fully on its direction as well as the leadings of his own heart, that person must follow his conscience, even if it runs contrary to the established understanding of the Church. We must be aware of our proneness to delusion, put our trust in God's hidden ways, and then act. We may be wrong, and even commit a transgression, but we will not sin, provided that our conclusion be founded on solid reflection and prayerful maturity. We must know, however, that simply following whim or convenience is not the same as an informed conscience. (pp.67-68).

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Thanks Stuart for the response. I'm cool with it. I don't wish to gently press you any further.

BTW, you are an amazingly fast thinker and a lightning quick typist!

[therecusant]

I've just read the thread, and I must correct a major assumption of multiple posters. IFV does NOT necessarily result in the destruction of embryos. My father (a conservative Evangelical) is an infertility specialist (first one full time in Indiana since 1979) and implants all fertilized eggs. There are NEVER any left over.

As a Catholic, I fully accept the Church's teaching on this issue and, therefore, object to my father's good-intentioned actions. But it is only just to correct the misunderstanding that IVF MUST result in the destruction of embryos.

[labrialumn]

As to IVF: what makes it immoral is when the doctors murder the "extra" babies. When those babies are adopted, or later brought to term by their parents - and some families do this - the immorality is less obvious from the perspective of what God has said and taught us. But I wasn't referring to IVG, Bobby Winters, I was referring to AI between husband and wife.

T. Chan, you are partially correct: I accept God's authority. I do not find the claims of universal and absolute authority of your particular metropolitanate over all of the others, and over the very nature of the New Covenant (and thus over God Himself, being Himself its founder and a party to it), and over all of the cosmos to be credible. Someday that might change with further information. Presently the evidence appears to weigh significantly against it. But your denomination isn't the Church, In saying -that-, you are insisting on your conclusion to be everyone else's premise. it appears to be a true Christian synod that is truly but imperfectly united to The Church, which is Christ's bride, militans and triumphans both together. This is *Mere* Comments, a reference to C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, not Vatican Radio. Your response might have been valid in the latter venue (were it not for Lumen Gentium, Ut Unam Sint and other documents that you presumably consider fully authoritative), but they are not appropriate here. It is also difficult to see how my stating that natural law philosophers may have erred at points in their philosophizing results in your conclusion that I deny the existance of that philosophy.

Stuart your statement that "Since the objective of human existence is theosis, and theosis requires liberation from the passions, obviously there is a moral dimension even to physiological phenomena." is a remarkably clear statement of Buddhist thinking in Eastern Orthodox terms. It isn't, however, Christianity. (1 Timothy 4:1-5, 1 John)

DGP, You make some assertions but provide no proof in response to some of my posts. Surrogacy is not the act of procreation, it is providing nourishment and protection. Therefore it *is* of the same kind as wet nurses, bottle-feeding and day care. Moral reasoning requires making *accurate* distinctions.

Stuart, in your post of 9:27 you do an excellent job of restating Martin Luther. he and St. Maximos appear to have been of one mind, which makes sense, since Luther was trying to return the church in western Europe to true catholicity.

[David Gray]

>It is only in rare cases, where the Tradition does not speak clearly, or the decision of the Church authorities runs so contrary to one's innate sense of right and wrong, that one should prayerfully discern one's course of action. But one must always make certain that the interior voice one hears is truly the indwelling Spirit, and not the voice of one's own desires.

Stuart Koehl, easy going Protestant...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart Koehl, easy going Protestant...<<<

So, David, you are telling me that I must reject the official teaching not only my Church, but of all the Byantine Catholic Churches? I did quote from an official catechism with the following endorsement:

"This book is the work of those Byzantine Catholic Churches in North America which participate in ECDD, the catechetical arm of the bishops of Eastern Catholic Associates. . . The text was subsequently reviewed and approved by all the hierarchs of the thirteen participating dioceses, their directors of religious education, and diocesan catechetical staffs. IT THEREFORE REPRESENTS THEIR COMMUNITIES' COMMON FAITH AND VISION [Caps added for emphasis].

By the way, i doubt you would find any Eastern Orthodox theologian who would disagree with the either my statement, or the extract from "Shown to Be Holy".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, in your post of 9:27 you do an excellent job of restating Martin Luther. he and St. Maximos appear to have been of one mind, which makes sense, since Luther was trying to return the church in western Europe to true catholicity.<<<

I don't believe that Luther necessarily committed a sin by his break with the Catholic Church, for I cannot look into his soul and determine if he acted out of prayerful discernment or spiritual delusion; that would be presumption on my part. I can safely say, however, that in my view, and the view of the Orthodox Churches from which my Byzantine Catholic Churches derive (see, e.g., the exchange of letters between the Tubingen theologians and Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II in the 17th century), that Luther was gravely mistaken both in his understanding of the problems of the Western Church in his time, and especially in his prescriptions for reform. Therefore, at best, Luther committed a transgression through his actions.

Of course, this assessment is meaningless in a Lutheran context, since we have different definitions and categorizations of sin.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart your statement that "Since the objective of human existence is theosis, and theosis requires liberation from the passions, obviously there is a moral dimension even to physiological phenomena." is a remarkably clear statement of Buddhist thinking in Eastern Orthodox terms. It isn't, however, Christianity. (1 Timothy 4:1-5, 1 John)<<<

Certainly some Western Christians have been saying this since the 13th century, but it has been a constant thread in Eastern Christian spirituality since Evagrios of Pontus in the fourth century. In the 14th century, St. Gregory Palamas systematized what has become known as "Hesychast" spirituality, was challenged by a very learned theologian named Barlaam of Calabria, who was strongly influenced by Scholastic theology. In a series of synods held in the mid-14th century, Palamas was vindicated and his work became a formal part of the Orthodox Tradition. The second Sunday in Lent is therefore known as the Sunday of St. Gregory Palamas, and in the 1960s, the Catholic Church, which had been cool to Palamism generally, finally recognized him as a saint of the Universal Church. Both Eastern and Latin Catholics therefore revere him as such, and his spirituality is fully legitimate in the eyes of the Church.

[DGP]

>>DGP, You make some assertions but provide no proof in response to some of my posts. Surrogacy is not the act of procreation, it is providing nourishment and protection. Therefore it *is* of the same kind as wet nurses, bottle-feeding and day care. Moral reasoning requires making *accurate* distinctions.

You can't see any difference in kind between surrogacy in utero and day care? Even the most rabid proabortionists might be able to catch that one. Among the most important distinctions here is the establishment of a permanent and unretractable bond between the child and his surrogate -- a bond that may well compete with genetic parentage. Day care is a provisional relationship. Should it loom large enough to begin to threaten the mother-child bond, it may be retracted.

Also, day care is remedial. It is not usually envisioned as the means to reproduction, but as a stop-gap aid. Surrogacy, however, is normally undertaken as an essential means to someone's misguided efforts at reproduction.

I do not believe current technology makes it possible for surrogacy to function remedially -- i.e., as an alternative to a pregnancy which can no longer be sustained. When and if such technology exists, there might be cases where surrogacy would be morally acceptable.

[labrialumn]

Stuart, just an FYI, but Luther didn't split from Rome, Rome split from Luther, and it was pretty much all about Western innovations post 1054. As to the Buddhist-like teachings, just because some men hundreds and tens of hundreds of years after the Holy Spirit inspired St. John the apostle to write that such teachings were of demonic origin, came to see such as legitimate spirituality, doesn't mean that it is, does it? Or does God obey the bishops?

DGP, you don't cite any Divine commands or teachings, just personal opinion. I don't much care for your associating me with pro-aborts, if that was your intent. Embryonic transfer among animals has been practiced in agriculture for two or three decades now. Last I heard Mayo was studying it for application to humans. FWIW.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, just an FYI, but Luther didn't split from Rome, Rome split from Luther, and it was pretty much all about Western innovations post 1054.<<<

As the Sad Sack comic strip had it, "Hey, Sarge, why are all those other guys out of step?"

>>>As to the Buddhist-like teachings, just because some men hundreds and tens of hundreds of years after the Holy Spirit inspired St. John the apostle to write that such teachings were of demonic origin, came to see such as legitimate spirituality, doesn't mean that it is, does it? Or does God obey the bishops?<<<

I'm not even going to begin to answer that, simply because I don't think we could have a meaningful discussion until you have read in some detail the works of Evagrios Ponticus, Pseudo-Dionysius, Gregory of Nyssa, Symeon the New Theologian and Gregory Palamas. Not only would you not have the technical vocabulary, but we would not even be able to share a common frame of reference from which to argue. There are some very good books available as introductions to the subject, the most accessible of which would be Bishop Kallistos' "The Orthodox Way", Protestant theologian Daniel B. Clendenin has written two books aimed squarely at Protestants trying to understand Orthodox theology and spirituality: "Eastern Orthodox Christianity" and "Eastern Orthodox Theology". Both are excellent. Another Protestant, James Payton, Jr. has written a similar volume, called "Light from the Christian East".

On Gregory Palamas, John Meyendorff's introductory book is hard to beat.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Labrialumn, this is just too much. Do you even know what the Eastern Orthodox mean by "the passions" before you condemn them as devils?

[Susan Peterson]

Labrialumn, Could you tell us what texts from St. John you think condemn these passages? Then we would be able to make cogent arguments as to why we don't think they apply.
Susan Peterson

[DGP]

>>DGP, you don't cite any Divine commands or teachings, just personal opinion.

I don't think there are any divine commands explicitly on homologous insemination -- nor on nuclear deterrence or proliferation, nor on lesbianism, nor on the Sarbanes-Oxley rules. There are, however, *applicable* divine commands, not to mention other divinely revealed truths that bear on the moral evaluation of these activities. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we do our best to discern God's will. We RCs try to do that as a community, which is why I cited the ecclesiastical documents I did.

>>I don't much care for your associating me with pro-aborts, if that was your intent.

Yes, it was. But given that your posts are habitually laden with tendentious remarks (such as the one above associating "the Roman communion" to the Pharisees) you're hardly in a position to complain that you're being treated unjustly.

>>Embryonic transfer among animals has been practiced in agriculture for two or three decades now. Last I heard Mayo was studying it for application to humans. FWIW.

Interesting, but not surprising. In any case, the point remains: Surrogacy as it is currently practiced is usually envisioned as an essential part of someone's reproductive process, rather than as a remedy to save a life already in existence. When surrogacy is practiced as the adoption of embryos already otherwise conceived and destined for execution, it remains salutary, and might also be salutary as a remedy for problem pregnancies should such transfer technology become available among humans.

[Rob G]

**Labrialumn, this is just too much. Do you even know what the Eastern Orthodox mean by "the passions" before you condemn them as devils?**

Of course he doesn't. And it's not just the EOs but the RCs too, even though their theology doesn't emphasize these things quite as much. I myself would like to hear the Johannine quotes he's referring to.

Also, the fact that Christian ascetical teaching has some affinities with certain aspects of Buddhism (or vice versa) means zilch in and of itself. All truth is, in fact, God's truth, and it's not unexpected that other world religions would have some truthful teachings.

[David Gray]

Count on Stuart to create another Protestant bashing session (even as he reveals he has no truly meaningful differences with the more liberal end of the Protestant spectrum)...