The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Experts warn of ‘inhumane’ treatment of embryos, ‘evil’ circumstances surrounding IVF

Heritage Foundation researcher Emma Waters speaks to Prudence Robertson on “EWTN Pro-Life Weekly,” Feb. 29, 2024. (Credit: “EWTN Pro-Life Weekly”)

CNA Staff, Mar 2, 2024 / 07:00 am (CNA).

A Catholic moral theologian this week warned that in vitro fertilization (IVF) “separates the things that God wanted to be together” while another expert spoke out against the “inhumane” treatment of the hundreds of thousands of human embryos produced by IVF.

The Alabama Supreme Court has sparked a national debate on the ethics surrounding IVF following the court’s recent decision that ruled embryos are considered children under state law.

“EWTN Pro-Life Weekly” anchor Prudence Robertson spoke to Emma Waters, a researcher at the Heritage Foundation, about the ethical implications of IVF and its effects on marriage and society.

“In a normal in vitro fertilization process, clinicians will create anywhere between 15 to 20 embryos at a time,” Waters explained.

Embryos are then tested for genetic issues, and parents have the opportunity to choose the sex of the baby, she explained. After this, wanted embryos are either implanted into the intended mother or frozen for a later time.

But unwanted embryos are “routinely destroyed or donated to science, where they’re also later destroyed after having inhumane testing done to them,” Waters pointed out.

Because of the high cost of IVF, which averages about $19,000, many couples choose to discontinue the process, resulting in the embryonic children being destroyed.

Nearly 80,000 infants born were conceived through such alternatives to sex, according to the most recent data from 2020. But reports say that between 400,000 and 1.5 million frozen embryonic children are preserved in laboratories in the U.S. today.

Father Ezra Sullivan, OP, a professor of moral theology and psychology at the University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome, told Robertson that the Church is outspoken against the mass “production of children” through IVF.

When asked what might be done about the thousands upon thousands of embryonic children now in existence in labs throughout the U.S., Sullivan called it an “irresolvably evil” situation.

“Should we try to allow parents to conceive these children, since they already exist?” he asked. “Should we baptize them — and in that moment of baptism, the embryo, unfortunately, cannot survive?”

“There’s no definitive resolution because it’s a situation that John Paul II would say is irresolvably evil,” he continued. “There’s no way to solve it without some kind of moral problem arising.”

IVF has “totally upended society’s understanding” of what it means to procreate, Waters said.

Children “can be created at will by any adults who simply have the right parts whether they come from themselves or they come through sperm and egg donation,” she explained.

Sullivan, meanwhile, noted that IVF “breaks apart” the “marital bond” because it creates a child “outside of the marital act, within a hospital or laboratory.”

“The issue of IVF is sensitive because a lot of people are having trouble conceiving in this time, ” he said. “But ultimately the Church says that we want to go the natural route.”

IVF separates ‘the things God wanted to be together’

While “conception is difficult” for a variety of reasons, Sullivan noted that IVF “separates the things that God wanted to be together: love and marriage, conception, procreation in the very marital act.”

“One of the difficulties that we need to accept as human beings is that we’re weak, we’re imperfect,” Sullivan noted. “And sometimes when, for instance, we have trouble conceiving, sometimes that’s our body’s way of saying that maybe we need to find another way to give life to the world, another way to serve others.”

The Alabama ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by three couples after their IVF-created embryos were accidentally destroyed at the lab where they were stored.

During the discussion of the issue on “EWTN Pro-Life Weekly,” Dr. Joseph Meaney, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, defended the Alabama ruling.

Meaney said the decision “recognizes that human life begins at conception” and that “children should be protected no matter where they are, in their mother’s womb or in the laboratory.”

“In fact, it points out that the in vitro fertilization process kills huge numbers of children at the embryonic stage,” he said.

The ruling limited the protection of these embryos to legal protection against cases where clinics were negligent. But the Alabama Legislature has since defined protections for IVF after three clinics in the state paused their in vitro services.

In the wake of the controversy, several top contenders for the 2024 U.S. presidential election have voiced their support for IVF.

Donald Trump came out strongly against the Alabama Supreme Court ruling on social media, saying he supports IVF “in every state in America.”

Trump’s lone remaining rival for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, told CNN’s Jake Tapper that she conceived her son through artificial insemination. She said that “Alabama needs to go back and look at the law” that fueled the court’s decision.

President Joe Biden, meanwhile, told EWTN White House correspondent Owen Jensen this week that he disagreed with the Catholic Church’s position on IVF.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Catholic News Agency 12569 Articles
Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com)

15 Comments

  1. I’m not sure what the fuss is.
    .
    Many, many years back, the HEK 293 cell line (among others, see Children of God for LIfe website) came into existence and is currently used in a wide variety of pharmaceutical applications including vaccine production, notably the Covid vaccine, the use of which our very own Pope assures us is an “act of love.”
    .
    https://www.axios.com/2021/08/18/pope-francis-video-ad-encourage-covid-vaccines
    .
    Indeed, vaccines that were produced and or tested with fetal cells lines are often required for entrance into Catholic schools around the country, and I expect Catholic colleges and seminaries. Bishops around the globe (and in the Vatican) order priests, deacons, and employees to be vaccinated against certain diseases (notably Covid) with these vaccines.

    Theologians (professional and armchair) assure us again and again and again that being vaccinated with any of these vaccines is acceptable (just be sure to protest!)
    .
    So I am not entirely sure what the fuss is about IVF. In twenty or so years, I am quite confident that Theologians will assure everyone that whatever medical therapeutics invented with the destroyed left-over embryos (aka human beings) at IVF clinics is morally fine (just be sure to protest).

    • Along the same lines, anyone who is conceived through rape, or who has an ancestor conceived through rape, should be denied entrance to Catholic schools, right? Wait, that’s not enough — better make that anyone ever tainted with Original Sin. Sure, that leaves exactly two people eligible for the schools, Neither of Whom could possibly be educated by the tainted faculty, but I’m sure that is more than made up for by the absolute refusal to cooperate with evil.

      Or we could take a page from the Apostle Paul instead. Obviously no one, and especially no Christian, should offer food to idols, nor should they encourage others to do so, but it was still permissable to buy such food in the market at a reduced price. We must not participate in evil ourselves, nor may we encourage others to participate in evil now or in the future, but evil so thoroughly permeates history that if we pretend we can avoid everything touched by it we are being dishonest hypocrites … which means we are participating in evil.

      This isn’t just about the HEK 293 cell line. It’s also about slavery and the mistreatment of the American Indians. It’s about barons of industry oppressing their workers to create the modern world. It’s about pogroms and persecutions and purges. It’s about kings and presidents fighting wars and reshaping the map for money or prestige. Everyone you meet, every place you go, every tool you use is to some extent shaped by a sinful choice in the past.

      • Outis: Could you more clearly explain what your point is? Even though there was evil in the past, can we not oppose IVF now?
        Who exactly is “pretending that we can avoid everything touched by “evil?
        What does “slavery and mistreatment of American Indians” have to do with this article on IVF?
        Please explain.

        • (I believe) He’s assimilating other “gains” made by society to their related pain to others and/or related sins – pretty much “nothing” is exempt/pure yet we have no problem with it in our daily lives? Do we subscribe to a cable network that also offers porn, so we can watch our news and TV shows?

          One example may be, you do business with Amazon because it saves you money, is quick etc… yet they were one of the first to jump on the abortion travel to other states is reimbursed by their health plan bandwagon. They also have the postal service delivering non-emergency packages on Sundays (non optional for some employees – see recent court case) Based on just their revenues, how much real pushback is there on this company or any other in the U.S? If you mentioned this to someone on the street they would just shrug their shoulders, most likely, even if they raised their eyebrows when informed of any injustices. Is our own church even perfect?

          I think his point is, it’s impossible to sort out/discard everything in our lives, past or present, that’s not pure – and just put ourselves in a pristine utopian situation. The fact that we kicked the Natives off their land/conquered or whatever you would like to deem it is an example. We still pay tribes billions in grants every year, but the fact of the historical related land matter still remains. We go about our lives every day with nary a thought to what took place in this matter; except maybe to remove the word “Chief” from the name of a sports team, as if that absolves us in present day (and is often being construed as an insult by the Tribes).

          Will the Church baptize a baby from the surviving embryo? I imagine/hope the answer is yes, but I don’t know if this has been documented. I naively hope a soul is not yet attached to these embryos that are frozen or discarded, but Ceasar has said this is no different than using the morning after pill.

  2. I consider that what is going on at Fordham University will eventually ruin what had been an unrivaled Law Department/Faculty and the unrivaled form of jurisprudence they had honed there. This should not be allowed to materialize; however, presently the other Departments are all caving to peculiar notions taught as normality. And that is done for the sake of having a peculiar enrollment and avoiding embarrassment, when in reality it is all abnormal. In which respect – Utter Fantasy.

  3. In December 1983, the first babies were born using the IVF method. They happened to be twins. 41 years have passed and I don’t recall a mention of IVF until the Alabama ruling. As a result, state IVF clinics have shut down. Again, “conservative” courts have caused mayhem. The GOP is further conflicted as they try to repair internal damage that has been caused by duplicit Trump’s illegal dictations. Technology too sinful?

    I am pro-life, ALL life. When I am conflicted by a topic that defies dogma, apparently today, I ask God for help. I am awaiting his answer.

    I continue to ask WHY would an all loving, all omniscient God create an infertile couple? “Go forth and multiply”.

    May he forgive me.

    • Consider Abraham’s aged and childless wife Sarah. She laughed when told by God or His angel that she would conceive by the following year.
      Consider John the Baptist’s mother, Elizabeth, and how astonished she was to be pregnant after the Angel Gabriel appeared to her unbelieving husband, announcing her pregnancy, despite her old age.
      How do these modern, supposedly infertile, couples know for certain that they are infertile? How do they know that God does not have a plan for them, as He did for Sarah and Elizabeth? They don’t know.

      How do they know God does not have some other plan, in which celibacy would be required or preferred? They don’t know.

      They need to ask God for supernatural faith, and not gravely offend Him by pursuing IVF.

      I hope this helps answer your question. His ways are not our ways. And His thoughts are not our thoughts.

    • Genesis 18: 12-15

      “…Can any task be too difficult for the Lord? At this time of year, the time I have appointed, I will come back to thee; live she till then, Sara shall have a son…

      “…And when Sara, overcome with terror, denied the charge of laughing, Ah, he said, but thou didst laugh.”

      +++

      Luke 1: 5-25

      “…And Zachary said to the angel, By what sign am I to be assured of this? I am an old man now, and my wife is far advanced in age …”

      +++
      Isaiah 55: 8-9

      “…Not mine, the Lord says, to think as you think, deal as you deal.

      “by the full height of heaven above earth, my dealings are higher than your dealings, my thoughts than your thoughts.”

      — taken from Knox translation

    • God gives us freedom to love or not, do good or evil. I am not a scientist but I have heard that infertility is the result of human choices that pollute our environment, including the womb environment. When mothers or grandmothers take the pill, it influences the fertility of their offspring. God did not make the person infertile, pollution might have.Humans choose to pollute.

  4. Republican politicians typically oppose abortion, but now appear to support IVF. Philosophically, these two positions would appear to be contradictory, but expect some interesting moral and intellectual gymnastics to justify this seemingly mutually exclusive position.

    Perhaps that great moral philosopher and intellectual Marjorie Taylor Greene can enlighten us?

    • It would be naive to think any politician regardless of party affiliation would be able to align their platform with every Catholic moral principle. Informed voters should investigate the platform of each candidate and make a conscientious decision to vote for a person who most aligns with Catholic moral teaching. On the whole, the scale has always tipped toward the Republican candidates. It just has.

  5. “Father Ezra Sullivan, OP, a professor of moral theology and psychology at the University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome, told Robertson that the Church is ‘outspoken’ against the mass “production of children” through IVF.

    I must understand a vastly different meaning of the word “outspoken.” I have never heard the Phrase IVF spoken at my home parish, or other parishes where I occasionally attend Mass. While we already have 10 states with legal Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS-Euthanasia), I have read that a number of additional states will have it on the ballot this November. I have not heard that word mentioned either. Also haven’t heard homosexuality, cohabitation, etc. mentioned. The Church being outspoken seems to mean today that a bishop who is head of a USCCB committee issues a statement on an issue – a statement which is not read by 99 out of a 100 Mass going Catholics.

    If these moral issues are not addressed at the parish level, then the Church is not really being outspoken. But, thanks anyway to CWR for addressing them.

  6. Embryo. An unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development, in particular a human offspring during the period from approximately the second to the eighth week after fertilization [after which it is usually termed a fetus] (Oxford Dictionary).
    Inhumane treatment is relative to an ‘offspring in process of development’. Human life begins at the moment of conception as insightfully taught by the Church. Life created in God’s own image, which is why the entire process from human intent in the conjugal act, until old age and death is a sacred process. Why motivation for sexual relations and the entire process of developing a relationship must be within the realization of this sacred end. Purity and impurity. Man and woman in sincere and lasting love for eachother exclusively in an act of mutual love open to life.
    Any deviation violates the sacred process and offends the creator of life. A sin of impurity directly violates the author of life, who is true life, life to be experienced by the believing faithful in its fullness.
    The reverence or lack given to this initial process of bringing life into the world affects most profoundly the entire spectrum of our relationship to others and to the dynamics related to world and nature. The balance of that relation is either excessive or negligent when the life process is itself devalued and abjured. That is why we currently perceive an imbalance in Church priority referring to abortion and the environment, to sexual sanctity and love of creation.

    • Dear Father. I appreciate your wisdom. But, with all due respect, being IVF “celibate”, I believe you speak from afar on conjugal relations. I am a nitpicker on dogmatic conclusions, especially with scientific offerings to relieve human suffering. Thoughts, infertile couples that seem forgotten….

      God created man/women to his image and likeness.
      God said “go forth and multiply and fill the earth”.
      Our Lord Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these”.

      I am pro-life, ALL life. The IVF scientific process must improve. Embryos must not be discarded.

      God bless.

  7. Pope Francis recently said on X that loving neighbour and loving God are a single love.

    The Commandments (of Moses) put limits, eg., eye for an eye means you can not kill for an eye. Jesus put further limits, in the Beatitudes, in some statements eg. about millstones and in the sins against the Spirit.

    Like the situation with abortion, we are not to be co-opted into cryogenic infanticide by “becoming baptizers because the problem can’t be beaten”. Very serious. Abomination.

    It seems that either the X statement is wrong or it fails to clarify faith teaching as it should -fully.

    In fact “limit” is -and will be- an essential feature in the eschatological determination. Mercy is meant to begin justice; justice invites mercy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*