Embryonic Adoption

Dear Catholic Exchange:

I have a question regarding a statement made by Father Saunders in his article on embryonic stem cell research. In a comment that he made objecting to the donation of embryos (originally “conceived” for IVF purposes, but now about to be destroyed) for purposes of embryonic stem cell research, he proposes the following alternative: “these embryos are human beings. In 1995, 500,000 women were seeking to adopt a child; the better course of action would be to allow these embryos to be donated to and adopted by parents.” It is my understanding that “adopting” these embryos and then implanting them in the uterus of the adoptive mother would not a morally acceptable option for Catholics, as procreation must occur within the unitive context of the marital act. My husband and I are struggling with infertility issues, and would like to know whether we were wrong in assuming that something of this nature was not an option for us as faithful Catholics. Any clarification that you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Mrs. Claire Boeck

Dear Mrs. Boeck,

Peace in Christ! We at Catholics United for the Faith were pleased to receive your question from the Catholic Exchange. You inquired about the Church’s position on the “adoption” and implantation of frozen embryos.

This situation presents the difficult dilemma of what ought to be done with frozen embryos (often referred to as “surplus” embryos) in light of the moral absolute of the right to life of every human person at any stage of existence. What makes the question a difficult one is that, according to natural law, conception and subsequent pregnancy, morally, is to be the result of the conjugal union. That is one of the reasons, for example, that in vitro fertilization (IVF) is morally illicit. Also, there is the moral concern that providing an acceptable solution to the problem of the remaining embryos is cooperation with IVF and would make IVF acceptable in the eyes of those who might otherwise oppose it.

However, by whatever means a human person comes into existence, regardless of the moral character of that means, that person is a subject of rights and possesses an inviolable dignity. So the destruction of frozen embryos is morally wrong and cooperation with IVF is morally wrong, yet the human person has the absolute right to life. Thus, the problem of a morally licit solution to saving the lives of frozen embryos is left without an apparent answer. And one cannot, because of no apparent answer, leave the embryos frozen. This is true for two reasons: 1) The question of what to do is still left open; 2) Leaving them frozen (cyrogenics) is certain death for them anyway.

The Church has yet to provide definitive guidance on this issue. Technology has raised, as it has in the past, new moral problems for which the solutions are not always simple. There is no doubt a framework of moral norms from which to work and reason, but the application to new problems is always difficult. It is the task of those involved in the relevant fields, such as moral theology or philosophy and medical science, to labor to find solutions in terms of moral norms. This is often a common occurrence before the Church will make definitive pronouncements. The Magisterium speaks with authority and infallibility, but it also uses and needs information from those with competence in particular areas.

Kathleen Rohan

Information Specialist

Catholics United for the Faith

827 North Fourth Street

Steubenville, OH 43952

800-MY-FAITH (800-693-2484)

From within the pale of ethicists loyal to the teaching of the Church on life, marriage, sexuality, etc., there are different opinions. What is agreed upon is that the destruction of embryos is morally illicit and provision must be made to preserve the life of each one as a human person with dignity and the right to life.

How life is to be preserved is where disagreement arises. There are those who argue that the application of IVF technology is morally licit in this situation because the moral imperative to save the life of the embryo trumps everything else. According to this position, an implantation would not be morally wrong, either in the mother or a woman other than the mother. In the latter, it is considered to be a sort of “pre-natal adoption.” (See The Question of Frozen Embryos by Maurizio P. Faggioni, O.F.M., available from EWTN’s website.)

Others argue that IVF is intrinsically a moral wrong and, thus, is not a moral means to save the life of frozen embryos, because one cannot justify the means with the end. In short, even though the embryo will have been saved, the baby will have been “produced” by following the immoral IVF process from beginning to end.

Proponents of implantation of the remaining embryos maintain a distinction: what is morally illicit about IVF is the creation of a new human being outside the conjugal act. Children are a fruit and blessing of the conjugal life, not commodities subject to various “means of production” (please see our Faith Fact 'Be Fruitful and Multiply': The Morality of Fertility Drugs for an explanation of medical science at the service of the conjugal life). The implantation of an embryo, on the other hand, is not in and of itself morally objectionable. That which gives occasion for the implantation is morally illicit in IVF, i.e., conception apart from the conjugal act. This distinction is necessary for the argument that IVF technology can be appropriated to preserve life of the embryo.

More fundamentally, the obvious moral solution to prevent this dilemma is to put an end to the “production” of embryos artificially and leave conceptions where the dignity of the human person rightly belongs — in the conjugal act. Many moral problems we have are the result of the disregard for other moral norms. For example, if one does not use contraception, one does not need to be concerned with whether to have the baby when a contraceptive fails. And the use of contraception often follows from the belief that one has a right to an active sex life with anyone one chooses at any time. Contraception becomes necessary in the mind of this person, because his or her belief about sex leads them to wish to avoid any responsibility associated with it. To disobey the moral law in one area, leads to many other moral problems that could be avoided by understanding and adhering to what is moral in the first place.

While it is true that artificially producing embryos must be stopped, that still leaves open the problem of what to do with the ones that have been created. Consider the words of John Paul II in an address to the 1996 Symposium on “Evangelium Vitae and Law.” Our Holy Father says:

“I…appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of “frozen” embryos which are and remain subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons. I also call on all jurists to work so that States and international institutions will legally recognize the natural rights of the very origin of human life and will likewise defend the inalienable rights which these thousands of “frozen” embryos have intrinsically acquired from the moment of fertilization.” (Click here for the full text of this address. Emphasis added.)

The Pope did not say that there was not a morally licit solution, but he did clearly indicate the current status of the dilemma by agreeing that at this time there doesn’t seem to be one. Thus, in light of that dilemma the production of human embryos must be halted at once. Further, even without a morally licit solution known to us, the rights these frozen embryos have as persons must be defended legally by lawful authorities. Those persons in the competent areas must work on behalf of life.

Because the Church has not spoken definitively on this issue, faithful Catholics are free to propose possible solutions. In evaluating this question, Germain Grisez, a highly respected moral theologian, tentatively approved of embryonic adoption in the case of a woman whose sister had frozen an embryo. Yet, despite his competence in the field of Catholic ethics, he speaks only from the standpoint of a well-informed opinion. Those who are in a situation wherein they must decide how to handle such, must proceed as best they can in good conscience with the saving of human life as the foremost concern in their minds. Through time and experience God brings the Church wisdom. One must not be afraid to err if trying to follow the truth. Better to err trying to be faithful, than to err in complete disregard for the respect due human life.

I hope this response is helpful. If you have further questions on this or any other subject, please let us know. If you have found this information to be helpful, please consider making a donation to CUF to help sustain this service. We offer this service free of charge, and would appreciate any donation you could give to help us help others. You can call us at 1-800-MY FAITH, visit us at www.cuf.org, or send your contribution to the address below. Thank you for your support as we endeavor to “support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.”

United in the Faith,