94chem said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Scotts Tot said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Scotts Tot said:

---

What is your perspective on married couples who implant every embryo they created and don't destroy any?

---

There's no way to do IVF that
A. Is not violative of the dignity of the human person
B. Doesn't separate procreation from the procreative act

We shouldn't create people in laboratories.

---

What does this mean specifically with regard to IVF?

---

That people in the embryonic stage of development have a right their mother's uterus where they belong. Not in a petri dish or freezer or a medical waste bin. Even more basic than that, they have the right to be called into existence through an act of love between their biological mother and father. Not via technical procedure, and subjected to unknown number of possible human error that has resulted in women unwittingly giving birth to other parents' children, or men other than their husband's children. How many people are raising other people's biological children who think they're their own offspring? Usually they only find out if a white family has an Asian baby or something.

---

My wife and I are white, and we have an Asian child. Is that okay with you?

---

Of course it's fine. I'm going to go out on a limb, and say it's because you adopted your child. For your case to be relevant in the context of this thread, she would have given birth to an Asian baby. My guess is that would not be okay with you since neither of you are Asian. (This exact thing has happened by the way. I'm not making it up).

Quo Vadis? said:

---

94chem said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Scotts Tot said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Scotts Tot said:

---

What is your perspective on married couples who implant every embryo they created and don't destroy any?

---

There's no way to do IVF that
A. Is not violative of the dignity of the human person
B. Doesn't separate procreation from the procreative act

We shouldn't create people in laboratories.

---

What does this mean specifically with regard to IVF?

---

That people in the embryonic stage of development have a right their mother's uterus where they belong. Not in a petri dish or freezer or a medical waste bin. Even more basic than that, they have the right to be called into existence through an act of love between their biological mother and father. Not via technical procedure, and subjected to unknown number of possible human error that has resulted in women unwittingly giving birth to other parents' children, or men other than their husband's children. How many people are raising other people's biological children who think they're their own offspring? Usually they only find out if a white family has an Asian baby or something.

---

My wife and I are white, and we have an Asian child. Is that okay with you?

---

I think you missed the "biological" part. You're taking offense where none was intended. He's obviously not talking about adoption.

---

Of course not, but I've had someone on this board tell me they couldn't adopt because all the white babies were getting taken by the [expletives].

94chem said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

94chem said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Scotts Tot said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Scotts Tot said:

---

What is your perspective on married couples who implant every embryo they created and don't destroy any?

---

There's no way to do IVF that
A. Is not violative of the dignity of the human person
B. Doesn't separate procreation from the procreative act

We shouldn't create people in laboratories.

---

What does this mean specifically with regard to IVF?

---

That people in the embryonic stage of development have a right their mother's uterus where they belong. Not in a petri dish or freezer or a medical waste bin. Even more basic than that, they have the right to be called into existence through an act of love between their biological mother and father. Not via technical procedure, and subjected to unknown number of possible human error that has resulted in women unwittingly giving birth to other parents' children, or men other than their husband's children. How many people are raising other people's biological children who think they're their own offspring? Usually they only find out if a white family has an Asian baby or something.

---

My wife and I are white, and we have an Asian child. Is that okay with you?

---

I think you missed the "biological" part. You're taking offense where none was intended. He's obviously not talking about adoption.

---

Of course not, but I've had someone on this board tell me they couldn't adopt because all the white babies were getting taken by the [expletives].

---

I think that was me

"Marriage is impossible without the possibility of sex. If a person is unable to have sex they cannot be married because sex is the literal point of marriage, to be very general and blunt."

I need to think about and research this, because I know of at least 2 people in the Bible that were married and never had sex- Joseph and Mary.

Where are you finding this sex requirement?

PabloSerna said:

---

"Marriage is impossible without the possibility of sex. If a person is unable to have sex they cannot be married because sex is the literal point of marriage, to be very general and blunt."

I need to think about and research this, because I know of at least 2 people in the Bible that were married and never had sex- Joseph and Mary.

Where are you finding this sex requirement?

---

Canon Law 1084.

And while Josephite marriages do exist, I've yet to hear any of them working that weren't entered into by people who didn't become saints, for the express reason that being open to life is a requirement for ALL marriages (obviously the holy family was open to life), and both couples have to consent to voluntary abstinence, while still retaining the ability to reasonably expectation sex from their spouse, marital debt being a real thing, even if not as understood by online edge lords.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"Marriage is impossible without the possibility of sex. If a person is unable to have sex they cannot be married because sex is the literal point of marriage, to be very general and blunt."

I need to think about and research this, because I know of at least 2 people in the Bible that were married and never had sex- Joseph and Mary.

Where are you finding this sex requirement?

---

Canon Law 1084.

And while Josephite marriages do exist, I've yet to hear any of them working that weren't entered into by people who didn't become saints, for the express reason that being open to life is a requirement for ALL marriages (obviously the holy family was open to life), and both couples have to consent to voluntary abstinence, while still retaining the ability to reasonably expectation sex from their spouse, marital debt being a real thing, even if not as understood by online edge lords.

---

I feel like I need de-programming from just having read that.

To go back to something discussed a little earlier on the thread, can someone please clarify a "grave sin"? From some of the comments, I'm gleaning that the act, and possibly knowledge/intent, both play into it being defined as a "grave sin". Does this apply to IVF, Contraception, Masturbation, alike? And I am understanding that you should not receive communion without being absolved of those sins (confession)?

(Sorry if I'm getting any of the terminology incorrect, protestant here, making a genuine attempt at learning a thing or two)

For what it's worth I think the Catholic Church has it right on IVF. I can't really justify it understanding it the way I do now. I also can't imagine claiming to be a lifelong Catholic but discarding the church's teaching about IVF and communion due to personal inconvenience "because screw 'em, that's why!"

Daddy-O5 said:

---

To go back to something discussed a little earlier on the thread, can someone please clarify a "grave sin"? From some of the comments, I'm gleaning that the act, and possibly knowledge/intent, both play into it being defined as a "grave sin". Does this apply to IVF, Contraception, Masturbation, alike? And I am understanding that you should not receive communion without being absolved of those sins (confession)?

(Sorry if I'm getting any of the terminology incorrect, protestant here, making a genuine attempt at learning a thing or two)

For what it's worth I think the Catholic Church has it right on IVF. I can't really justify it understanding it the way I do now. I also can't imagine claiming to be a lifelong Catholic but discarding the church's teaching about IVF and communion due to personal inconvenience "because screw 'em, that's why!"

---

Hey, you're actually pretty on point with regard to the "grave sin" stuff. Minor technicality but colloquially even by me and other Catholics we refer to "mortal sin" as "grave sin" but it's the offense that is grave, not the sin, the sin is mortal.

For a sin to be mortal it has to be done willingly with full consent; and full knowledge, it also has to be a grave matter, not snipping the tags off of mattresses or littering.

Masturbation is a grave sin, although some form of addiction may lessen culpability as well as a "heat of the moment" lack of control. IVF is a grave sin as is murder, blasphemy, but even something as unfortunately common in modern times as skipping church on Sunday without legitimate reason.

You are correct, you should not receive communion in a state of mortal sin; and as Paul states it can actually do harm to you.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Quote:

---

Another sticking point seems to be the spiritual implications surrounding the separation of procreation from the marital act. It's not clear to me why this is immoral. Married couples frequently have sex that has little to no chance of resulting in pregnancy. What about women who are entirely infertile due to some medical reason or age? Should they become celibate because the intercourse is no longer a "procreative act"? Young Catholic couples who want to hold off on kids frequently engage in "natural family planning" to have sex at times when they are hoping/expecting the act to not result in pregnancy. Is this intention not immoral by the same standard?

---

This is the "people die all the time; why isn't it okay to kill them?" Argument.

Sex between a man and a woman is in principle both procreative and unitive, despite individual factors that come into play. Sex does not always have to end up in a child, but it cannot artificially ensure that does not happen. The design of the body is wonderful in that it ensures that women who get past the age of being able to take care of children are normally no longer able to have them. Even if they are no longer fertile; they are still engaging in relations that are in principle both unitive and procreative.

The reasoning behind NFP is that it is not sin for you and your wife to plan when you have relations. You do not have to have relations when your wife is fertile.

---

How could be sex be procreative if one party involved is infertile? That does not make sense to me. The definition of the word procreative is "capable of procreating."

Zachary Klement said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Quote:

---

Another sticking point seems to be the spiritual implications surrounding the separation of procreation from the marital act. It's not clear to me why this is immoral. Married couples frequently have sex that has little to no chance of resulting in pregnancy. What about women who are entirely infertile due to some medical reason or age? Should they become celibate because the intercourse is no longer a "procreative act"? Young Catholic couples who want to hold off on kids frequently engage in "natural family planning" to have sex at times when they are hoping/expecting the act to not result in pregnancy. Is this intention not immoral by the same standard?

---

This is the "people die all the time; why isn't it okay to kill them?" Argument.

Sex between a man and a woman is in principle both procreative and unitive, despite individual factors that come into play. Sex does not always have to end up in a child, but it cannot artificially ensure that does not happen. The design of the body is wonderful in that it ensures that women who get past the age of being able to take care of children are normally no longer able to have them. Even if they are no longer fertile; they are still engaging in relations that are in principle both unitive and procreative.

The reasoning behind NFP is that it is not sin for you and your wife to plan when you have relations. You do not have to have relations when your wife is fertile.

---

How could be sex be procreative if one party involved is infertile? That does not make sense to me. The definition of the word procreative is "capable of procreating."

---

Procreative by design, not invalidated by individual circumstance

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Quote:

---

Another sticking point seems to be the spiritual implications surrounding the separation of procreation from the marital act. It's not clear to me why this is immoral. Married couples frequently have sex that has little to no chance of resulting in pregnancy. What about women who are entirely infertile due to some medical reason or age? Should they become celibate because the intercourse is no longer a "procreative act"? Young Catholic couples who want to hold off on kids frequently engage in "natural family planning" to have sex at times when they are hoping/expecting the act to not result in pregnancy. Is this intention not immoral by the same standard?

---

This is the "people die all the time; why isn't it okay to kill them?" Argument.

Sex between a man and a woman is in principle both procreative and unitive, despite individual factors that come into play. Sex does not always have to end up in a child, but it cannot artificially ensure that does not happen. The design of the body is wonderful in that it ensures that women who get past the age of being able to take care of children are normally no longer able to have them. Even if they are no longer fertile; they are still engaging in relations that are in principle both unitive and procreative.

The reasoning behind NFP is that it is not sin for you and your wife to plan when you have relations. You do not have to have relations when your wife is fertile.

---

How could be sex be procreative if one party involved is infertile? That does not make sense to me. The definition of the word procreative is "capable of procreating."

---

Procreative by design, not invalidated by individual circumstance

---

I don't really get it! But there are a number of things the Church teaches that don't really make a ton of sense to me.

Zachary Klement said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Quote:

---

Another sticking point seems to be the spiritual implications surrounding the separation of procreation from the marital act. It's not clear to me why this is immoral. Married couples frequently have sex that has little to no chance of resulting in pregnancy. What about women who are entirely infertile due to some medical reason or age? Should they become celibate because the intercourse is no longer a "procreative act"? Young Catholic couples who want to hold off on kids frequently engage in "natural family planning" to have sex at times when they are hoping/expecting the act to not result in pregnancy. Is this intention not immoral by the same standard?

---

This is the "people die all the time; why isn't it okay to kill them?" Argument.

Sex between a man and a woman is in principle both procreative and unitive, despite individual factors that come into play. Sex does not always have to end up in a child, but it cannot artificially ensure that does not happen. The design of the body is wonderful in that it ensures that women who get past the age of being able to take care of children are normally no longer able to have them. Even if they are no longer fertile; they are still engaging in relations that are in principle both unitive and procreative.

The reasoning behind NFP is that it is not sin for you and your wife to plan when you have relations. You do not have to have relations when your wife is fertile.

---

How could be sex be procreative if one party involved is infertile? That does not make sense to me. The definition of the word procreative is "capable of procreating."

---

Procreative by design, not invalidated by individual circumstance

---

I don't really get it! But there are a number of things the Church teaches that don't really make a ton of sense to me.

---

Not sure whether you've read through this thread, but I've taken several stabs at trying to break down this "procreative by design even when procreation is not possible" issue. I agree it is not reasonable and logically inconsistent.

Scotts Tot said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Quote:

---

Another sticking point seems to be the spiritual implications surrounding the separation of procreation from the marital act. It's not clear to me why this is immoral. Married couples frequently have sex that has little to no chance of resulting in pregnancy. What about women who are entirely infertile due to some medical reason or age? Should they become celibate because the intercourse is no longer a "procreative act"? Young Catholic couples who want to hold off on kids frequently engage in "natural family planning" to have sex at times when they are hoping/expecting the act to not result in pregnancy. Is this intention not immoral by the same standard?

---

This is the "people die all the time; why isn't it okay to kill them?" Argument.

Sex between a man and a woman is in principle both procreative and unitive, despite individual factors that come into play. Sex does not always have to end up in a child, but it cannot artificially ensure that does not happen. The design of the body is wonderful in that it ensures that women who get past the age of being able to take care of children are normally no longer able to have them. Even if they are no longer fertile; they are still engaging in relations that are in principle both unitive and procreative.

The reasoning behind NFP is that it is not sin for you and your wife to plan when you have relations. You do not have to have relations when your wife is fertile.

---

How could be sex be procreative if one party involved is infertile? That does not make sense to me. The definition of the word procreative is "capable of procreating."

---

Procreative by design, not invalidated by individual circumstance

---

I don't really get it! But there are a number of things the Church teaches that don't really make a ton of sense to me.

---

Not sure whether you've read through this thread, but I've taken several stabs at trying to break down this "procreative by design even when procreation is not possible" issue. I agree it is not reasonable and logically inconsistent.

---

I commented on that post before I read through the rest of the thread.

I'm Catholic and agree with the Church's position on IVF and generally, most of what I understand about the Church's teaching on sex.

I just do not understand the logic in "procreative" or "procreative by design" when there are instances where it is clear that procreation is impossible.

Zachary Klement said:

---

Scotts Tot said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Quote:

---

Another sticking point seems to be the spiritual implications surrounding the separation of procreation from the marital act. It's not clear to me why this is immoral. Married couples frequently have sex that has little to no chance of resulting in pregnancy. What about women who are entirely infertile due to some medical reason or age? Should they become celibate because the intercourse is no longer a "procreative act"? Young Catholic couples who want to hold off on kids frequently engage in "natural family planning" to have sex at times when they are hoping/expecting the act to not result in pregnancy. Is this intention not immoral by the same standard?

---

This is the "people die all the time; why isn't it okay to kill them?" Argument.

Sex between a man and a woman is in principle both procreative and unitive, despite individual factors that come into play. Sex does not always have to end up in a child, but it cannot artificially ensure that does not happen. The design of the body is wonderful in that it ensures that women who get past the age of being able to take care of children are normally no longer able to have them. Even if they are no longer fertile; they are still engaging in relations that are in principle both unitive and procreative.

The reasoning behind NFP is that it is not sin for you and your wife to plan when you have relations. You do not have to have relations when your wife is fertile.

---

How could be sex be procreative if one party involved is infertile? That does not make sense to me. The definition of the word procreative is "capable of procreating."

---

Procreative by design, not invalidated by individual circumstance

---

I don't really get it! But there are a number of things the Church teaches that don't really make a ton of sense to me.

---

Not sure whether you've read through this thread, but I've taken several stabs at trying to break down this "procreative by design even when procreation is not possible" issue. I agree it is not reasonable and logically inconsistent.

---

I commented on that post before I read through the rest of the thread.

I'm Catholic and agree with the Church's position on IVF and generally, most of what I understand about the Church's teaching on sex.

I just do not understand the logic in "procreative" or "procreative by design" when there are instances where it is clear that procreation is impossible.

---

In principle humans have 2 arms, 5 senses, 10 fingers, etc. That statement isn't invalidated by the fact that some humans have 1 arm, are blind or deaf, or cut off their thumb in an accident.

Zachary Klement said:

---

Scotts Tot said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Quote:

---

Another sticking point seems to be the spiritual implications surrounding the separation of procreation from the marital act. It's not clear to me why this is immoral. Married couples frequently have sex that has little to no chance of resulting in pregnancy. What about women who are entirely infertile due to some medical reason or age? Should they become celibate because the intercourse is no longer a "procreative act"? Young Catholic couples who want to hold off on kids frequently engage in "natural family planning" to have sex at times when they are hoping/expecting the act to not result in pregnancy. Is this intention not immoral by the same standard?

---

This is the "people die all the time; why isn't it okay to kill them?" Argument.

Sex between a man and a woman is in principle both procreative and unitive, despite individual factors that come into play. Sex does not always have to end up in a child, but it cannot artificially ensure that does not happen. The design of the body is wonderful in that it ensures that women who get past the age of being able to take care of children are normally no longer able to have them. Even if they are no longer fertile; they are still engaging in relations that are in principle both unitive and procreative.

The reasoning behind NFP is that it is not sin for you and your wife to plan when you have relations. You do not have to have relations when your wife is fertile.

---

How could be sex be procreative if one party involved is infertile? That does not make sense to me. The definition of the word procreative is "capable of procreating."

---

Procreative by design, not invalidated by individual circumstance

---

I don't really get it! But there are a number of things the Church teaches that don't really make a ton of sense to me.

---

Not sure whether you've read through this thread, but I've taken several stabs at trying to break down this "procreative by design even when procreation is not possible" issue. I agree it is not reasonable and logically inconsistent.

---

I commented on that post before I read through the rest of the thread.

I'm Catholic and agree with the Church's position on IVF and generally, most of what I understand about the Church's teaching on sex.

I just do not understand the logic in "procreative" or "procreative by design" when there are instances where it is clear that procreation is impossible.

---

I think it's the language that's getting in the way, the fact that a woman doesn't have a uterus doesn't change the fact that sex is by design both unitive and procreative.

It seems like the argument is "women who are no longer fertile cannot have children, therefore women who can have children should be able to use birth control".

As with most things intent matters, you don't stop being "open to life" if your body goes through menopause. Artificially putting a barrier between yourself and your wife or a wife taking a pill to chemically stop her natural body process for the purpose of not getting pregnant is not open to life.

Maybe Pius XI says it better than I in Casti Connubii

Quote:

---

54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."[45]

56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Scotts Tot said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Quote:

---

Another sticking point seems to be the spiritual implications surrounding the separation of procreation from the marital act. It's not clear to me why this is immoral. Married couples frequently have sex that has little to no chance of resulting in pregnancy. What about women who are entirely infertile due to some medical reason or age? Should they become celibate because the intercourse is no longer a "procreative act"? Young Catholic couples who want to hold off on kids frequently engage in "natural family planning" to have sex at times when they are hoping/expecting the act to not result in pregnancy. Is this intention not immoral by the same standard?

---

This is the "people die all the time; why isn't it okay to kill them?" Argument.

Sex between a man and a woman is in principle both procreative and unitive, despite individual factors that come into play. Sex does not always have to end up in a child, but it cannot artificially ensure that does not happen. The design of the body is wonderful in that it ensures that women who get past the age of being able to take care of children are normally no longer able to have them. Even if they are no longer fertile; they are still engaging in relations that are in principle both unitive and procreative.

The reasoning behind NFP is that it is not sin for you and your wife to plan when you have relations. You do not have to have relations when your wife is fertile.

---

How could be sex be procreative if one party involved is infertile? That does not make sense to me. The definition of the word procreative is "capable of procreating."

---

Procreative by design, not invalidated by individual circumstance

---

I don't really get it! But there are a number of things the Church teaches that don't really make a ton of sense to me.

---

Not sure whether you've read through this thread, but I've taken several stabs at trying to break down this "procreative by design even when procreation is not possible" issue. I agree it is not reasonable and logically inconsistent.

---

I commented on that post before I read through the rest of the thread.

I'm Catholic and agree with the Church's position on IVF and generally, most of what I understand about the Church's teaching on sex.

I just do not understand the logic in "procreative" or "procreative by design" when there are instances where it is clear that procreation is impossible.

---

I think it's the language that's getting in the way, the fact that a woman doesn't have a uterus doesn't change the fact that sex is by design both unitive and procreative.

It seems like the argument is "women who are no longer fertile cannot have children, therefore women who can have children should be able to use birth control".

As with most things intent matters, you don't stop being "open to life" if your body goes through menopause. Artificially putting a barrier between yourself and your wife or a wife taking a pill to chemically stop her natural body process for the purpose of not getting pregnant is not open to life.

Maybe Pius XI says it better than I in Casti Connubii

Quote:

---

54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."[45]

56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

---

---

That's fine, but it's purely a stance taken by the church to decide what is immoral in these matters. Many Christians with a biblical worldview do not hold the idea that artificially preventing fertilization is immoral. There's nothing in the Bible that references this concept explicitly, so it's up to us to interpret. It's fine if that's the position of the Catholic church, but many/most Christian's don't agree.

I do agree that the verbiage makes this hard to debate, and I wish the language surrounding the "procreative" issue was more precise.

until around 1900 every Christian denomination of every stripe held effectively the same view as the RCC and the Orthodox do today

Zobel said:

---

until around 1900 every Christian denomination of every stripe held effectively the same view as the RCC and the Orthodox do today

---

The church fathers opposed fertilization in a lab? That's news to me…

The rare thread where I find myself wanting to argue with the Catholics and my fellow protestants simultaneously.

(I find it fairly easy to grasp the Catholic position on some of the things being discussed, though I don't inherently agree with it all).

i was replying to "Many Christians with a biblical worldview do not hold the idea that artificially preventing fertilization is immoral. There's nothing in the Bible that references this concept explicitly, so it's up to us to interpret. " until recently, every Christian denomination interpreted in the same way.

and, even to the point about IVF, there is nothing really new under the sun. this isn't something that is somehow completely foreign to first principles. sex, procreation, technology and its use, all are questions that the church is quite capable of answering.

most modern americans have a completely unhealthy and disordered relationship toward sex, probably because they're downstream of some really bad puritan influences...

All this talk and no mention of Onan????

Or did I pull out of the thread too early???

From the catechism:

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. the distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

It would seem more correct to say mortal sin and not grave sin. It threw me off as well because grave is related to the matter at hand. In the case of IVF it is the life of the embryo and destruction of that life is immoral. Whether it is a mortal sin involves a few more variables.

PabloSerna said:

---

From the catechism:

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. the distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

It would seem more correct to say mortal sin and not grave sin. It threw me off as well because grave is related to the matter at hand. In the case of IVF it is the life of the embryo and destruction of that life is immoral. Whether it is a mortal sin involves a few more variables.

---

Canon 915. The threshold is "obstinately persevering in manifestly grave sin".

My wife and I are both Catholic--and Republican. I would say she is "more" so than I. She totally comes from that mindset that you go to mass every weekend and on holy days regardless if you're out of town on vacation or whatever you're doing.

I know what the church says and believes about IVF.

We struggled with fertility and pregnancy loss and ultimately decided on IVF for our family. We adopted a non destructive plan. We only made two embryos our first attempt and had twins, but lost them late in pregnancy.

2nd attempt two healthy children from two embryos. We had none to destroy and none were.

We're very blessed with our family now. The power and majesty of creation was not dimished by what science was able to ASSIST us with. We do not feel guilty or shamed. I understand why the authority of the church may disagree, but I personally stopped caring about it myself.

That sounds a whole lot like mortal sin to me. Per the CCC there are only two types of sins. Are you saying there are others?

Just curious.

You say you are Catholic and Republican. Then follow that up with that you don't care what the Church (magisterium) advises the faithful about IVF. Are those two aspects related or what was the reason for declaring a political affiliation?

PabloSerna said:

---

Just curious.

You say you are Catholic and Republican. Then follow that up with that you don't care what the Church (magisterium) advises the faithful about IVF. Are those two aspects related or what was the reason for declaring a political affiliation?

---

Ummm see thread title? Lol.

PabloSerna said:

---

That sounds a whole lot like mortal sin to me. Per the CCC there are only two types of sins. Are you saying there are others?

---

I'm saying that your whole point from the beginning about malice and intent are moot. Intent doesn't matter. It only matters if their stance is public and they're defiant. We've already established IVF is a grave sin.

Ah- ok. Thx

Bob Lee said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

That sounds a whole lot like mortal sin to me. Per the CCC there are only two types of sins. Are you saying there are others?

---

I'm saying that your whole point from the beginning about malice and intent are moot. Intent doesn't matter. It only matters if their stance is public and they're defiant. We've already established IVF is a grave sin.

---

Actually:
1. IVF involves grave matter, because it involves the life of a person at a very early stage of development. This is the 1st part of 3 conditions for a mortal sin. Fr. Dominic Legge, OP talks about this very specifically (04:56). Fr. Mike Schmitz covers this as well, exactly the same (01:48).

2. With that understanding one cannot claim ignorance. This is the second condition- full knowledge.

3. Any Catholic that fully understands and then deliberately destroys life has met the 3rd condition- intent.

Only then is it a mortal sin. Even then, all three conditions must be met at each particular case.

For those interested, here is a very helpful video:

PabloSerna said:

---

Just curious.

You say you are Catholic and Republican. Then follow that up with that you don't care what the Church (magisterium) advises the faithful about IVF. Are those two aspects related or what was the reason for declaring a political affiliation?

---

Yes, stated specifically due to the way the OP posted it.