aggietony2010 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

I have looked on both Vatican and USCCB sites for reference and have not found "grave sin" but rather "immoral" for IVF. Please cite your assertation.

Regarding Archbishop Vigano, he choose to do this himself after a lot of time and effort by many to work it out. I don't see the connection, maybe you can elaborate?

---

Find me an IVF provider where the process involves none of the following.

Masturbation/non-vaginal intercourse (grave matter)
Pornography (grave matter)
Embryo selection/reduction (grave matter)

And then one can start parsing what is meant by "immoral."

---

747Ag said:

---

Scoopen Skwert said:

---

747Ag said:

---

Scoopen Skwert said:

---

"Dallas Jesuit"

Ah. Now it makes sense.

---

You know, Bishop Lynch (technically a Dominican school) wouldn't have been much better for him in this regard. Both schools weren't really bastions of orthodoxy back in the early 90's.

---

Sadly I saw it slipping away in the VERY early 90s.

Father Damian Fandal would be disappointed.

---

Reflecting back, the theology classes weren't great. Learned so much more by reading books in college. However, Sr. Cecelia was my favorite teacher (chemistry & physics). She was the only Dominican presence in my time there... and probably still is.

---

The Marksman said:

---

Wyoming Aggie said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Wyoming Aggie said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Yeah, pretty sure that's not how that works. But that's between you and your priest / bishop. Not my business.

---

It's not between me and anybody. It's between me and God.

---

I don't know if you're trying to be edgy or have a few weird theological hang ups but you're the equivalent of beating your chest that you're a Vegan who eats meat.

The church says you're committing grave sin, you say you don't care what the church says, but that you're a member of the same church. There are many churches who will embrace your enthusiasm with IVF, not sure why you want to be a member of one that says what you're doing is akin to murder.

---

I'm in my 40's and been a Catholic my whole life. Went to Dallas Jesuit for HS. I've even been a eucharistic minister for several years.

I'm sorry but I'm not playing musical chairs with churches because of the whims of man who make these decisions.

God gave me a mind to determine right from wrong.

You're not a serious human being if you do literally whatever your church tells you, you're a mindless drone.

The Pope also thinks the USA should have open borders and that no person is illegal while he sits behind the walls of the Vatican.

---

I see we've gotten to the point of the debate where one side just starts insulting everyone who doesn't agree with them because they can't articulate an actual argument to support their position

---

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.

---

Wyoming Aggie said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Wyoming Aggie said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Need to have their ability to receive the Eucharist rescinded pending spiritual direction, absolution and conversion.

IVF is much more insidious than abortion because it pretends to be about life, but in doing; achieves the wholesale slaughter of the unwanted.

---

Catholic here and my wife and I are about to start IVF treatments in our early 40's. Can't wait. And I'll definitely still receive the Eucharist.

---

Why? I don't understand this mindset. The church says "this is a moral evil", but you say "not only are we going to do this happily, we'll keep taking the Eucharist and we don't care what you say"?

---

I don't understand your mindset. Wanting to rescind my ability to receive the eucharist because my wife and I are trying to bring a new life into the world.

Do you people listen to yourselves? Get off your moral high horse. And you wonder why people are leaving the church in droves.

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Scotts Tot 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.

---

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what "procreative in principle" means. If either or both of the man and woman are rendered sterile for any number of reasons (medical, age, etc), how are the relations procreative in any way whatsoever? A woman who has gone through menopause, or had a hysterectomy for a medical reason, or any number of other reasons she or her husband might no longer be fertile, cannot procreate. The sex they have is unitive but not procreative.

---

In principle means "relating to the design of". Whereas two men and two women can never procreate together therefore sex between them is wrong in principle, between man and woman the possibility of procreation by design exists, even if certain individual circumstances render it nearly impossible. I say "nearly impossible" because if it is absolutely impossible, marriage shouldn't be possible (you have to be able to consummate the marriage).

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Wyoming Aggie said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Wyoming Aggie said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Need to have their ability to receive the Eucharist rescinded pending spiritual direction, absolution and conversion.

IVF is much more insidious than abortion because it pretends to be about life, but in doing; achieves the wholesale slaughter of the unwanted.

---

Catholic here and my wife and I are about to start IVF treatments in our early 40's. Can't wait. And I'll definitely still receive the Eucharist.

---

Why? I don't understand this mindset. The church says "this is a moral evil", but you say "not only are we going to do this happily, we'll keep taking the Eucharist and we don't care what you say"?

---

I don't understand your mindset. Wanting to rescind my ability to receive the eucharist because my wife and I are trying to bring a new life into the world.

Do you people listen to yourselves? Get off your moral high horse. And you wonder why people are leaving the church in droves.

---

I'll save the details of how we ultimately left the church for exactly the kind of stuff you are highlighting, but suffice it to say, the Catholics not only drove us away from Catholics, they drove us away from church in general. Hopefully, your faith is better than mine. Life is too short to be unhappy and unfulfilled. Have your children. Be happy. Use science to your advantage; The science that God enabled.

I truly hope you're successful and you have all the children and happiness you can handle, and to heck with any person or entity that chastises you for it.

---

You can't be serious. Your point is "if something exists; it must be good, because since it exists, God enabled it"?

Would you say the same thing about methamphetamines, fentanyl, nuclear weapons, puberty blockers, sex change operations, etc?

---

Scotts Tot said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Scotts Tot 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.

---

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what "procreative in principle" means. If either or both of the man and woman are rendered sterile for any number of reasons (medical, age, etc), how are the relations procreative in any way whatsoever? A woman who has gone through menopause, or had a hysterectomy for a medical reason, or any number of other reasons she or her husband might no longer be fertile, cannot procreate. The sex they have is unitive but not procreative.

---

In principle means "relating to the design of". Whereas two men and two women can never procreate together therefore sex between them is wrong in principle, between man and woman the possibility of procreation by design exists, even if certain individual circumstances render it nearly impossible. I say "nearly impossible" because if it is absolutely impossible, marriage shouldn't be possible (you have to be able to consummate the marriage).

---

Are you saying marriage is impossible without the possibility of procreation? What would say about a single woman for whom procreation is absolutely impossible, but wants to get married? I have a female friend who experienced this exact situation.

Also I feel as though the question is really being unanswered regarding sex between a married man and woman that has zero chance of procreation. The woman I mentioned in the previous paragraph had as much possibility of becoming pregnant as a lesbian in a same-sex relationship…zero. Is her marriage invalid?

---