Vatican cautions against IVF, surrogacy

Insane. What year is this? 1355?

Hail to the Pope! That is what I call a clear instructions.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is more than a proclamation; it is an example of the international community giving human dignity a new consideration and placement.

I guess my brother and sister-in-law are going to Hell.....along with about another 5 or 6 couples I know that have lovingly brought a child into the world...

im gathering the pope means single ladies shouldn't be getting fertilized, but if a man and a woman can't have babies, its okay.

I admire their consistency with the death penalty, abortion, and now this. If one wants to argue that a person mustn't have an abortion because the pregnancy is God's doing, you can't very well say that IVF is okay when a man and a woman cannot conceive together.

Although personally, I am pro-choice and fine with IVF, in fact my cousin just had twin boys with IVF. However, with several adoptions in our family, my husband and I would adopt and in fact probably will adopt at least one of our children.

I must say I'm embarrassed that I was raised Catholic. Isn't the fact that medicine has been able to make these advances "a gift of love from God"? Why is it that everything that they don't understand is viewed as an act of evil or disrespect, as the Pope so indicates? Why is it that this cannot be done in the bonds of marriage as the Pope further indicates is one of the moral issues with IVF?

The Church wonders why people are driven away from it. I predict that the failure to adapt to the times will result in further withdrawal from the Church.

Michael, morality is timeless.
Bob the Music Man, if what has been done was done in ignorance of the sinfulness of the act, then it isn't mortal. However, once a person knows what constitutes a mortal sin and commits it anyway, then it is a different story.

www.catholic.com is faithful to Catholic teaching and can answer many, many questions.

God has a plan for this world and certain guidelines for living in it. Just because we *can* do something doesn't mean that we should. People are not commodities to be artificially manufactured and are not a right, but a gift from God.

If Joe Ratz had his way he'd have us all back in the dark ages. Pull your head out of your behind and join us here in the 21st century. The Catholic Church is simply becoming more and more irrelevent in today's world. See what happened to the financial and auto industries when they refused to change. What do they propose to do with all of the Catholic children born through infertility treatments? Are they going to hell? You're an ass.....

Before you spew your hate... reread what was written by the bishops, and the CDF.

- At every moment they speak of the respect for the dignity of the human person, and the beautiful bond, the sacramental bond, of marriage.
- The church struggles to maintain the intregrity of these things, above all else, in times when this message may be popular (ie. 1355A.D) and in times when people like Kathy are embarrassed by it.

I think it's important to distinguish between the act of IVF, which for the reasons they state, are not in line with conjugal act of marraige, therefore sinful, and the child itself which is most certainly a gift from God. So IVF is sinful, big deal. We all sin!! Be humble, go to confession, and be done with it. The worst thing you can do is be proud, or think you know better. I could tell you a story about a guy who thought he knew better...all you really need to know is that it doesn't end well.

I think the Pope should stay out of my bedroom and doctor's office...

I have an idea....How about Catholics try thinking for themselves instead of doing what the "pope" says? He's just a man, and probably quite a bit less intelligent than many of his followers. Catholicism is a joke, run by those that wish to control lives and dictate laws spawned by a science-less, reason-less dark ages mentality. Instead of relying on a "God", try relying on yourself, and your fellow humans. It's worth trying to make the world a better place not to please a supernatural, superstitious deity, but rather to make it better for our children, and even ourselves. Have some human pride.

The Pope, The Bishops and the Catholic church in general are a bunch of fools, morons and tools. I can not beleive how any intelegent person can not see that the church has corrupted with word of God and the teaching of Jesus. This must end.

Prayforall, morality is subjective and only timeless in the sense that morality will fit the times they are in.

PrayingForAll

I see your point, however the way many Catholics, including myself, were brought up is that if you committed a sin, whether it was preconceived or not, you may not have necessarily punched yourself a one way ticket to Hell but you sure as heck were ostracized by the powers that be, in this case the parish priest and the Vatican.

Listen, the Church talks about the value and dignity of Human Life, why dismiss certain methods like IVF, artificial birth control, simply because it's not done naturally?

I am opposed to abortion however I also am strongly in favor of artificial birth control simply because it reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies.

We could sit all day and debate the merits of preventing conception through natural and artifical means however at the end of the day, if a woman is pregnant with a child that is not wanted you can have three outcomes

1) She gets an abortion.
2) She has the child but it may suffer through abuse and neglect if not taken care of properly.
3) She puts it up for adoption which of course in a perfect world is what we all want out of these three scenarios.

I think it's now time that we stop using interpretations based on one person's opinion, the Pope's, and let's look at what Jesus would really want us Catholics to do in a scenario such as this

Just because something CAN be done, doesn't mean it is necessarily wise or in our long-term best interest. Labeling this as backwards is rather like a two-year old saying his mother is mean because she doesn't let him do exactly as he wants all the time. Our human nature is not always wise in it's choices and desires (e.g. overeating). We don't tend to think about the well-being of our spirits, but God does and any good church does, too. When I prayed about this I got the same answers: no donor egg, no IVF, even though my heart is deeply sad at being infertile. I trust this to be of a higher wisdom for me than I can discern for myself.

Permit me to be blunt: what a load of rubbish. Hey Pope -- guess what? NO ONE is listening to you and your dogma [delivered in Latin] -- "Dignitas Personae" ??? How about hocus-pocus? Like Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns and now the auto industry, we are watching a bunch of old, ridiculously out of touch old buzzards drive another institution into extinction. Won't be long now. It's too bad because the church can do so much good. But it's run by a bunch of morons who just don't get it. FILE UNDER: OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY

How about a report from the Vatican on Child Rape? When can we view that?... forget about it. We'll just shuffle the Evil off to another location.

The Pope nor any 100% Church following Catholic would ever be naive or prideful enough to say they no who is going to hell. We leave that up to God. I came back to the Church about ten years ago with an open mind and heart to what She stands for. I have a daily prayer life, receive the Sacraments regularly, and serve the Church financially and with my time and talent. There have been many terrible attrocities by so called holy men within the Church. In the last several years I have found out what the Church truly stands for it by finding a freat parish community and by learning about the doctrine of the Church. Mostly my conversion however has come through prayer and regular reception of the Eucharist, Confession, and time in Adoration. One of the major problems with the Church started several years ago when Bishops and Priests started to cave to political pressure and became more concerned with putting people in the pews then boldy proclaiming the Truth or Jesus and His Church. Pope Benedict and all those whom follow the Majesterium, Bible, and traditions of the Church want only what in their hearts they know to be best to help individuals draw closer to Chirst ensuring not only eternal happiness but their maximum joy and contentment the short time here on earth. It's OK to disagree with the Church but to lash out at Her without knowing Her true intent is not justified. All Catholics upon Confirmation and each time they recieve Jesus and say Amen are telling God and the congregation they accept what the Church teaches. We aren't called to agree, but believe. Believe the 2,000 years of the divenely inpsired Church are wiser and holier then us. Not all those people associtaed with the Church but the Truth of what the Church actually satnds for. For those whom are Catholic I strongly urge you to find a parish speaking the truth and go with an open heart and spend a couple months there. for those whom appear angry I would advise you to find someone whom is a 100% Church following Catholic and be willing to have a respectful calm conversation wih them.

To: PrayingForAll: How presumptious it is for any one on earth to know what god thinks or does. We're like a dog trying to figure out what's in the mind of our master.
Why do you take what is written in catholic.com or any religious website as truth? We can only guess as to what is expected of us, nothing more, nothing less. What we can do is work together for solutions, without involving a diety as there is no proof for the existence or absence of one. Anyone who says with certainty they know why we are here and what a god or gods' mind has in store for us is deluding themselves.

I cannot understand why anyone would regard the hierarchy of the Catholic Church as a moral authority on anything. They have protected a culture of pederasty and abuse of children, and they oppress women and homosexuals. Why do people still care what they say? They just have no right to put themselves forward as any kind of moral force in the world. I want to see a lot of change and hear a LOT of apologies from them., and nothing else.

Man, so many people I know (including me) are in deep doo doo if any of this ridiculous nonsense turns out to be true. IVF? How many couples now use that as a means of bringing a much-wanted and loved child into the world? Fortunately it's a bunch of garbage and a means of control over the weak-minded.

Oh well, at least they aren't still converting people at the point of a sword, so those of us who realize it's a load of hooey are free to ignore it without fear of being burned at the stake.

Does anyone really care what this guy says? Obviously the answer is 'yes' considering the positive comments that this article seem to be generating. It's really a sad state of affairs that, in this day and age, there are actually thoughtful people who take seriously the 'infallible' rantings of an 81 year old man who, after his fourteenth birthday, enrolled in the Hitler Youth.

I always thought that science that allows a devout, committed married couple (Catholic or not) to conceive a child of their own as a gift from God. What does God have against science anyhow? Didn't He create that too? Isn't that also part of His design?

Faith is a struggle. Where is it written that God was going to make it easy - and give us all the answers. It seems awfully convenient for the church to label something as unnatural, and therefore immoral.

You would think the Catholic church would be all for it. Those IVF babies might someday help fill the collection plate.

"So IVF is sinful, big deal. We all sin!! Be humble, go to confession, and be done with it. The worst thing you can do is be proud, or think you know better."

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. The act of IVF is performed by implanting several FERTILIZED eggs inside of a woman's uterus. The unused fertilized eggs are then destroyed. Since the Catholic Church believes that life begins at conception, they also believe that IVF is MURDER - a mortal sin and not one you can simply go to church, confess, and be done with.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee - this isn't one you can just say "oh well, whatever". If you buy into what the Catholic Church is selling, anyone who goes in for IVF has committed a MORTAL sin. Try confessing and praying that one away. You can't trivialize this stuff if the Church is not.

I have a deep prayer life and know Jesus personally. I receive the Sacraments and call upon the Holy Spirt to enlighten me and guide me. For may years I was away from God so I know the difference between trusting soley in myslef and other humans and now in trusting entirely in God. I also listen with an open heart and mind to the teachings of the Church and respect people's opinions whom don't agree. Anyone whom believes the Pope and or Church oppresses anyone or any group and doesn't want whats best for all mankind doesn't understand them. It's Ok to not be Catholic if you choose but unless you really pray and ask for guidance with an open heart and without judgement listen to the doctrine you really shouldn't criticize. Neither the Pope or the Church tells anyone what to do, but they would be irresponsible to not teach what they believe to be the Truth of Jesus and behaviors that might threaten an individuals eternal soul. The Church can only guide it's up to the individual to make his or her own free will decsions.

"Morality is subjective and only timeless in the sense that morality will fit the times they are in" - Wow. James, are you nuts? If that's the case, then there are no morals. You sum up the entire looney left - if it feels good, do it. (And I don't agree with the Pope on this one...)

"Baaaaaa!" Bunch of sheep. It's with great irony that the catholic people are referred to as a flock. Why anyone would listen to a group of old men without female companionship and practicing a vow of celibacy on matters of conception is dumbfounding... Who are they to say what's right and wrong when it comes to having children?

Also, as a tangent, I guess it's okay for them to forbid this medical practice - but when medicine is used to save lives, say, to successfully separate conjoined twins; remove a brain tumor; put certain cancers into remission, etc. all of a sudden, it's a "miracle" ?? No. It's not a miracle. It's Science. Don't give credit to your guy for what others have done.

Pope Benedict is Satan. I am convinced of ths. I mean, just look at him. How can he not be?

Pope Watcher, what a wonderful and intelligent post. You must have really thought through and researched your findings to come to this conclusion. Do you vote?

Proud to be Catholic - right on! Most critics of the Chuch have no understanding of who She is or why She is.

Take any idea and follow it naively enough and far enough, and it leads you off a cliff. The so-called "pro-life" viewpoint leads ulimately to this kind of nonsense: placing the interest of a unconscious microscopic ball of cells before those of an actual human being, and so PREVENTING human life from coming into the world.

With all due respect to the Church and the Pope, let him tell it to my twins. If God didn't want my wife and me to have IVF, He wouldn't have blessed us with success. SIN? It's a sin to take any action that would deny children to couples who want them.

This pope is a wretched man. And judging by the Catholic church's history, is likely a homosexual. He who lives in glass houses should not throw stones.

And to all those "Catholics" out there that ignore the church's stance on issues like this yet still call themselves Catholic - it is time to evolve and grow a brain of your own.

All those who write against the Vatican's document believe that morality is always progressive toward the good. 21st century is short to assess, al;though 9/11 terrorism and preemptive war not off to a good start. Last century brought us the lovely WWI andII, fascist and communist death camps. 2 use of nuclear weapons and the constant threat of more. The came the Pill, which lead to free love and the break up of families and millions of abortions. Morality can, has regressed too. BTW, those Catholics who used IVF without knowing the moral seriousness did not commit sin and are not in hell, as one writer suggested.

John - My wife and I are going throught fertility treatments now and will likely need IVF. Hope our success is as good as yours! Peace

ProudtobeCatholic is an excellent post laying out the path to faith. And this entire argument comes down to that: faith. Either you have faith in God (through Jesus) or you do not.

Though I am no longer a Catholic, I am a practicing Christian. And what that means is that I read the bible daily for guidance -- not because I have to or because someone tells me to, but because I want to -- and I pray daily for the same thing. What that also means is that I don't judge those without faith to be bad people or believe (or know!) that they are going to hell, etc. What I do know is that they are going to "punished" -- meaning their lives will lack joy. This would then be a version of hell. Taking Jesus's death for example, the bible notes that he went to hell while on the cross when he realized that God had forsaken him. He was then resurrected (went to heaven) and allowed the rest of us to be saved from that fate if we so choose.

I too used to be on the human/intellectual/clever side of this debate. I now realize that I misunderstood the whole premise. This is not about judgment or being told what to do or about blind belief, it's about having faith in something bigger than yourself. Any rules espoused are not rules to admit you to some sort of heaven club, but to help with right living -- living by the teaching of God through the bible. I would challenge anyone offended by this to simply think about their relationship with God. Do you have one? If so, put God first in any conversation and just see what happens. It clears up a lot of things, and makes life much simpler.

I guess I'm headed to hell in a handbasket. As for my three sons (all IVF children), I am now more convinced than ever that raising them Catholic would be a big mistake. How am I suppose to teach them to embrace an institution who espouses that their "unnatural" creation was sinful? Sorry Benny - you're not getting another dime out of me - us unnatural sinners will go worship where people strive to be more like Jesus- accepting, forgiving, and nonjudgmental.

"..placing the interest of a unconscious microscopic ball of cells before those of an actual human being, and so PREVENTING human life from coming into the world."

John (post #30), you too were once an "unconscious microscopic ball of cells", ALL of us were. This is where the church is coming from.

That being said, you have indeed been blessed with twins. It is hard to take sides on this issue.

Any organization, regardless of its age or doctrine, has to adapt to its environment over time. I am glad to see the Catholic Church just continues to dig itself further and further into irrelevancy.

The beginnng of this story calls this an "important document". Important to whom?
Certainly not to me or to anyone I can possibly think of. Why does the Catholic Church command headlines with their insane proclamations?
Just more of "men interested in the power of men". The Catholic Church and the Republican Party can stay out of the reproductive lives of my three daughters and six granddaughters.

Ah, I ask you all to remember that a long time ago, the conquistadors sent a letter back to the Vatican asking the Pope to classify the capybara. The capybara is the world's largest rodent, but since it spends most of it's time in the water, the Pope classified it as a fish. To this day, south-american catholics are permitted to eat capybara during lent since it is STILL considered a fish by the catholic church!!!
The Vatican shouldn't be passing judgement on something it hasn't experienced first-hand, and since they're all men, they should shut their mouths about pregnancy.

My son, who was conceived via IVF, is the absolute light of my life. The doctors who treated my husband and I for our infertility rejoiced with us when I became pregnant with him. The embryologist who oversaw our transfer told me that the embryo we were transferring that day - the one who became my son - "was perfect and beautiful."

Admittedly, I am biased, because I suffered from infertility for many years and ultimately brought home my son as a result of invitro fertilization. But I don't understand how the Catholic Church can say that the medical professionals in the field of reproductive medicine have no respect for the dignity of human life. Not once did I witness this in our experience.

These Vatican documents are usually addressed to "The Catholic Bishops, Priests, Laypeople and others of good faith." What they hope for is a trickle down effect. Most bishops will read them fewer priests, very few Catholic laypeople, and almost no one else, except journalists trying to stir something up. They would define "people of good faith" as those sympathetic and possibly open to such teaching. This does not mean everyone else is of 'bad faith,' but just that they would not be open to its teaching, and would find it like salt in the wounds, so best not to read it, to get all ticked off.

The thrust of Catholic teaching on reproduction is that it is a natural gift from God. Too much of our life, like the word processor i'm typing on, like like my cell phone, my laptop, my blackberry, already overly technologize our lives. Catholic teaching seeks to preserve the pro-creation process from becoming mechanized also. Early versions of techhological interventions were the pill and the condom. The birth of a child should be a human couple working with the Lord. Various ones of these technologies take over the Lord's part of the partnership

I have a serious question and hopefully someone out there can thoughtfully answer it as I'm sure I can't get Benedict on the phone right now.

My wife took a fertility drug called Progesterone in order not only to help her conceive but also to reduce the risk of a miscarriage as she had two prior to the birth of our daughter last year.

Since that's using "artificial means" are we just as guilty? Not that I really care whether we are or not but I guess if we are it just lends more creedance to how ridiculous this whole "Dignitas Personae" is!

How is it that the Pope draws married Catholic couples closer to Christ and maximizes their joy and contentment here on earth by denying them the chance to use available means to have children of their own who would, in turn, be raised as Catholics?

I know, I know - by believing the wise and holy 2000 years of the divinely inspired Church. Would that include the years where those bought or murdered their way into the Papacy? Would it include the years that the Papacy ignored pleas to speak out against the Holocaust? Would it include the years that a blind eye was turned to the abuse of it's children?

I too am proud to be Catholic. But the goodness of the Catholic church comes from the flock, not the hierarchy. The Truth of the church, the meaning of Christs love for us and the progression of manind need not be mutually exclusive. I refuse to believe God would want it that way. How can it be sinful to within faith.....evolve.

My husband and I are proud and filled with gratitude as we await the birth of our child -- conceived through IVF -- due in the coming days/weeks. As we approach Christmas (possible the birthday of our long-awaited child), I can't help think about the Church's teachings regarding Jesus's unique conception. According to the Church, his birth was hardly "brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses." This Christmas, I am especially grateful for the opportunities we have had to pursue IVF and to the wonderful doctors who had the skill and expertise to help us make our little miracle.

I am an honest, moral, upstanding citizen. I donate my platelets every month to cancer patients at Dana Farber Hospital. I've volunteered for over three years as a mentor to a child through Big Brothers Big sisters. And next month after suffering 3 1/2 years of a devastating but treatable medical condition, infertility, my husband and I are finally going to have a real chance to conceive via IVF.

I am SO grateful to all the people reading this post who have never gone through fertility treatments, but are supportive of me and others like me. We need you.

Just like all of you, we want the chance to be biological parents, to see the love for our spouses reflected in the eyes of our children and to live our lives in peace.

The Catholic Church is based on the premise of guilt and sin. From the beginning, they take young, innocent children and teach them that their very existence is evil and sinful. They manipulate their followers. I find it fascinating that so many modern day Catholics adopt a "pick and choose" philosophy about their religion. The Vatican has a rabid hatred/fear of sex and I honestly believe that Jesus, were he here today, would speak out against the Catholic Church and all of their bigoted, hateful, hurtful propaganda. You have to feel pretty damn bad about yourself to buy into their lunancy.

I go with Archbishop Donald Wuerl to some degree, cloning is not acceptable
to me, but surrgoucy is something I would think it is still within the bible's.

Jesus said to Simon, "I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 16:18-19)
Catholics believe that Jesus gave Peter and all the popes a special divine grace so that he can lead the Church in matters of faith and morality. He is only a man, and many popes have not been good men, but the Holy Spirit has protected them from error in matters of faith and morality. Catholics should read and reflect on his words with an open heart and not reject them outright.

SBTC No one denies there have been bad people associated with the Church and although the people make up the Church all goodness comes from God. I feel great sympathy for those whom can't have children as that is an awful cross to bear. That being said we all have crosses to bear and by turning them over to Christ and allowing His will to be done we will find great joy. God's plan is greater for us then ours with or without having children. As I've said in my past posts you don't need to follow the teachings of the Church but the Pope and other leaders of the Catholic Church need to boldly proclaim that which they believe will bring people closer to Chirst and help ensure there eternal souls. It's up to the individual to decide whether to follow through his or her free will. It's silly to be mad at that Pope just becuase in good faith he has a different opinion. No one is forced into Catholicism. I really wonder how many people trashing the Pope and the Church feel they know Jesus personally and/or spend any time meditating on scripture and praying individually and with others? God Bless All!

This just dawned on me: Maybe the Pope wants to make it so that infertile catholics who want children HAVE to adopt from catholic charities?
One hand is washing the other...

That's great. Catholics should immediately cease and desist all of the activities outlined as contrary to their faith by the Pope. Now, what does this have to do with the rest of us? IVF has been a gift to so many. There are so many happy families that have come about thanks to the intervention of physicians, surrogate mothers, and other technologies. As a non-Catholic, why would I ever care to take advice on family planning from a man who does not have sex, has no family of his own, no wife (or husband for that matter), no need to worry or be concerned with these issues?

Luke said:

"Before you spew your hate... reread what was written by the bishops, and the CDF.

- At every moment they speak of the respect for the dignity of the human person, and the beautiful bond, the sacramental bond, of marriage."

Luke, where is there hate? I see disrespect, certainly, and frankly, the church's stances on many things do not deserve the respect the church's leadership expects, especially considering the leadership's frequent, bold hypocrisy ("respect for the dignity of the human person" flies out the window each and every time they speak of gays, for instance...I mean "homosexual unions are evil" and "homosexuals are enemies of the family and of God"......show me the respect for the dignity of the human person there).

Raised Roman Catholic, and since I was young had always questioned, not my faith, but some of the “rules” of the Church. Rules that seemed to fly in the face of what my faith was teaching me. Seemed the loving acceptance and compassion could only be given to certain persons but not to everyone, seemed hypocritical to me. This just furthers those feelings for me. Especially since I am presently pregnant with my first child throughout IVF, although I have severe Endometriosis that has impeded my ability to conceive in any other way that has not impeded the desire my husband and I have to be married and start a family as God intended. A woman often grieves each month she does not get that pretty pink line and you can trust me when I tell you that each failed cycle my husband and I grieved together for the lost of what could have been, how it is different? How is the effort, the desire, the grief different? Then maybe it is, because what a couple goes through while try through artificial methods makes those loses far more deeply felt. The Church can say what they wish, but I do not believe that the miracle that I have growing inside me it not fully loved and accepted my God nor just what He had intended.

“very high death rate for the embryos involved” Statement can not be quantified, simply because we do not know and have no way of figuring out how many eggs and sperm met in the “usual ways” but simply are not strong enough to make it, striped down to its core that is precisely what happens in the lab, it just simple because it takes pace outside the body it can be quantified.

“abuses such as embryo cryopreservation (freezing)” Statement total hypocrisy, so it is wrong create these gametes, but when they have been it is wrong to try and let them survive, as would go for the ““adoption” of abandoned or unwanted frozen embryos”

To Catholic Daddy: No, your wife's progesterone is not criticized by the Pope. They support medical aids that help couples conceive during normal intercourse; so in that respect, they would also support a little Chianti and Ravel's Bolero playing in the background if that gets you in the mood.

Despite their controversial opinions, as a non-practicing Catholic I'm still glad the Papacy has a strong and influential presence and espouses its opinions on ethics when it sees fit, even if controversial to some (or many). Sure beats the moral guidance we get from the Muslim hieracrchy or secular institutions.

Why are all of the Church haters who post here so bothered all the time? So much hate for the Church and the Pope. Church teaching must really bother people on at least a subconscious level, otherwise why would you care or even post here? The lady doth protest too much, methinks. I don't accept Mormon teaching but I don't go on the warpath to attack them. There must be something else going on here.....

gaudete,>
Oh no, a woman has the right to control her body with the Pill, us women have doomed us all. If men could carry a child, none of this would be the issue.

These priests and the Pope should lay off the wine at communion....or at least dilute it out with some water! Good Lord!!!

They AGAIN are proving that they are out of touch. The lengths that couples will go to conceive a baby if biologically they cannot is proof of their committment and love.

The most saddening part of these insane CHURCH beliefs (not fundamental to Christian doctrine) is that many Catholics will fall into this same method of thinking.

Jesus was the first child born of artificial insemination. The Pope and all the men in black backing him might do well to remember that. Small wonder that a bunch of men who can't get married are so fixated on conjugal sex.

Wow. I really dislike the Catholic Church. They think they know everything. And even though I'm not Catholic (or maybe I was "raised" catholic, but don't really ascribe to their beliefs any longer), I'm going to complain about everything that they say anyway. You know why? Because I will not allow anyone to hold a belief that makes something I have done or might one day do seem wrong to them. Nor can I allow someone to express a belief with which I do not agree. It doesn't really affect me in anyway if someone I don't even know might go along with the Church's teaching, and as a result adopt a child instead of going through IVF, but I will nevertheless complain about it, and accuse them of being from the Dark Ages.

I predict the church and most religions who are resistant to change and incapable of adaptation, will be extinct in the hopefully not to distant future !

The Church will never fall. We plan on being around until the second coming. It is OK to bash the Church as it is made clear in scripture this will happen and we will recieve extra grace for being persecuted for our beliefs. Have a womderful weeknd all and a very Merry Christmas.

The problem with the Cathloic Church is that they're not content with leading their sheep. They want everyone to follow their rules and try to force them on others through political maneuvering. Believe what you want, if it makes you happy, but don't you dare try to force your mysticism and delusion on me and my family. I don't need some invisible figure shaking their finger at me in order to live my life as a good human being.
Especially when the authority claiming to represent that figure has been responsible for so many acts throughout history that could only be described as evil. The pedophile cover-ups, turning a blind eye to the Holocaust, consent of the slave trade, the Inquisition, oppression of women, 'witch' burnings, the slaughter of the Crusades and on and on...

Why a couple that cannot conceive normally won't adopt a child is beyond my comprehension. With all the unwanted children already born and being born at this moment and beyond; that are being cared for as best as they can in hospitals; orphanages; Foster Homes;; these children need loving parents. Why add to the "crisis" of overpopulation....what if something happens to the parents of invitro - there will go another unloved & unwanted child into the system of oblivion.....

marc - the Church will never go away - ever. You're not much of a student of history, are you... If fact, it is quite the opposite - it is the Churches which adapt with the relativistic times that go into extinction (watch as the Episcopal Church self-destructs before our eyes..).

#42 Catholic Daddy, as previously noted, Progesterone is ok (paragraph 12), because it assists the natural act of procreation.

Peter, #52. you use quotation marks around the Church teaches that "homosexuals are the enemies of the family and God." I challenge you to produce the source of that quote--it can't be true. And I mean it has to be from a legitimate Catholic teacher, not just from raving lunatic. If you do produce the quote, i will contribute $100 to a charity we can both agree on.

Seems like most of those who attack the Church's teachings on these matters do so with the ever popular but always ineffective ad hominem, or in this plural case, ad homines 'argument.' Well, your mother wears army boots.

To all those who describe how wonderful, beloved, treasured your IVF conceived babies are, every normal person would agree,even the stuffy old curmudgeons in the Vatican, so there really is no sense in bringing that up. All the Church teaches are correct moral principles as deduced from Scripture, and then to love and care for and integrate those who for whatever reason have not lived according to those timeless principles.

I am a Catholic and actively practice my faith. I teach religious education, participate in the liturgy, and give time and money to the church in the spirit of stewardship, and am trying to raise my children to be selfless servants, to be their "brother's keeper," to take personal responsibility to help those in need in big and small ways, to live the faith with which they have been blessed. I am also in the process of becoming a gestational carrier for a couple where the wife cannot carry her own child due to cancer (she was fortunate that her ovaries were spared). I know the church's stance on assisted reproduction, particularly the use of third-party donors (of sperm, egg or uterus) and I just can't see how helping a couple in their situation conflicts with what I have learned about God and faith, about doing unto others as I would have done for me. Weren't surrogates used throughout the Old Testament? How can being an instrument in the miracle of life be a grave sin? I don't think that it was "God's will" that this woman got cancer. I don't think that it's "God's will" that this lovely couple not be able to have biological children. I don't think that any of the many children I know who where conceived via assisted reproduction (IVF and other methods) have been robbed of their dignity, I think they are glad that they are alive and in their families. In the time that I have been involved in the world of IVF I have yet to come across anyone who doesn't appreciate, perhaps more than the rest of the world, the wonder and miracle of life and, for many, the hand of God in creating it. Anyone who has gone through infertility treatments knows that it takes a tremendous amount of science and medicine to accomplish that which nature normally does all on it's own, and even with all that we know and all that we can control, at the end of the day it comes down to the uncontrolled - call it luck, call it chance, call it God or whatever. I don't think that the patients, doctors, nurses, and staff involved in IVF think that they are replacing the role of God (or nature, etc.) in reproduction, they are correcting the physical, medical barriers to reproduction, many which are probably the result of widespread man-made problems (DES anyone?). If we can use our God-given brains to create products and medications and toxins that contirbute to infertility then we should also be able to use our brains and talent to correct those problems and help couples get on with their lives and their families. I sincerely hope that as time goes by the Church revises its stance on this and that couples who struggle with infertility and their faith find the peace and balance that works for them.

We tried IVF and stuff, and it didn't work. Then we looked into gestational carriers. It's a weird world.

Eventually, we adopted an American baby, in an open adoption arrangement; the birth mother chose us. The hardest thing is convincing birth mothers to agree to give up their babies at birth, rather than having the kids spend 2-5 years in DSS first. But it is good for the children in the long run. Our baby came home to us at 10 days old, and she is our baby.

I'm not going to judge people who choose IVF. But after a point, it just seemed wrong to be potentially spending six digit figures to make our own genetic baby, when that act is "supposed" to be free and spontaneous. It seemed our resources could be better put forth for children who have already made their way into this world.

"Why a couple that cannot conceive normally won't adopt a child is beyond my comprehension."

Because adopting a child at the age of 2 or 3 or 4 is very different from conceiving or adopting a child who comes to you as a newborn infant. Attachment happens within the first few months, and a child with attachment problems can be very difficult for the parents. Many children who were adopted later never really trust anyone. Of course these children need homes, but parents willing to adopt such children need to volunteer for the task, rather than being forced into it by their infertility.

If you can adopt as a newborn, then it's a lot easier.

God said to be fruitful and multiply--how are some people supposed to fulfill that instruction without the aid of modern technology? This isn't the word of God, people. This is the word of a fearful man.

Besides, if fertility procedures, including surrogacy, involve people outside of the marriage, then what about adoption? Adoption involves people outside of the marriage, too.

Again, the Vatican is not asking you to have children and be wonderful parents to them. The Vatican is imposing a ridiculous standard of biological normalcy (assuming that all couples will be able to have a child through hetero-sex with very few problems) that many people cannot follow through no fault of their own.

For all those who find this "instruction" inconsistent with other teachings of the church, you're not crazy. It's not about logic or consistency. It's about control, "normal," and "ethical."

While I'm not Catholic (or Christian in any way), I am angry because I already know I'm going to face major hurdles with fertility, and if I decide to have children through these now "unethical" means, I'm going to have to deal with even more rudeness and lack of understanding from the practicing Catholics in my life.

Dear Pope whatever you call yourself:

All of the comments that churned up within me while reading this garbage from your "church" come from having been so helped by SCIENCE to have two lovely healthy twins thanks to Boston's Brigham and Women's IVF clinic. Yes I-V-F. Test tubes. Microsocopes. Pipettes. Sperm of their father. Egg of their mother. Injected hormones. Loving and competent care. And NO BOINK REQUIRED.

Meanwhile we should be "civil" and respectful, while this morally inept and perverse bunch essentially calls me and my offspring unworthy? Hey Pope: given recent (and likely centuries) of organized perversity, your tugs upon the coattails of irony seem without limit.

It's difficult to contain the anger and frustration as it seems unimaginable that these views continue to be promulgated and - worse - GET PRESS.

But since they did, and on the auspicious occasion of a massive ice storm, the pope ought to know that my two children are made of *far better stuff* than he can make up with all that frocking.

The alleged holy roman catholic church can take their pope and their pontification and insert it where the sun don't shine. Clearly, they have a corner on the marketplace of darkness.

All hail IVF! Up with SCIENCE!! Get over it and join the 21st century, or get the hell out of it. The planet is clearly way to bright for you and whatever it is you're selling.

Probably a good idea for devout, infertile Catholics to not procreate. I think Darwin would agree.

I don't understand how anyone would follow the Catholic Church anymore. We are well past the dark ages and they haven't caught up yet. Now these guys have decided that IVF is evil. Are you kidding me, talk about a group of guys with alot of time on their hands.

As a victim of immigration and paternity fraud using an unauthorized IVF, I applaud the Dignitas Personae. I hope that others like myself are allowed to tell our stories and how unauthorized medical experiments are being done under biotechnology.

Father X ....
Google Save Baby X

If anyone understands the Catholic Church, there are rules that the church comes out with which are opinions, and then there is Canon Law, which is a law that comes from the holy spirit. I do not believe that God will condem anyone if they conceived a child via IVF, especially if they tried to have a child in a normal way, but IVF could have been their only option. These people would not be ex-communicated from the church, or condemed by any priest, bishop, Cardinal, etc. Now Murder is a sin that we all know is wrong, and this is a Canon Law of the church. I think if you read what was said about what the pope said, it could easily be understood, But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of

Thank God that fewer and fewer people of each generation believe this superstitious crap and waste their time following the teachings of a bunch of self-righteous charlatans. Hopefully in just a few more generations, society will be totally free of the fear mongering, power hungry leaders of this cult.

It is enlightning to view so many posts in regards to this issue. We are all born with a spiritual gene. Like all things human,it is required to develop. For the devout,
tolerance and compassion for those who's reactions to this edict appear negative.
The truth is understanding the disparities through a sometimes laborious reflection from inside oneself. Whatever any of us discovers with this process, the joy is knowing that we are brought just a little closer to combining that which we understand, to that what our will desires. In hope, that our will becomes one with our one day fully developed spiritual gene. Some call that heaven.

It reminds me of a joke.

A town is being flooded and a man is trapped on his roof. The waters continue to rise. A boat pulls alongside the roof, full of people saved from other roofs. The pilot says, "Come on in, I'll take you to safety." But the man on the roof says he will put his faith in the Lord to save him and send the boat away. The weather gets worse and the water rises some more. A helicopter appears overhead, lowers a rope, and the pilot yells out, "Climb up the rope, I'll fly you to safety." The man yells back, "No, I am putting my faith in the Lord." The helicopter flies away. The water continues to rise and he man drowns. He appears in heaven and is greeted by the Lord. The man says, "Lord, I put my faith in you, and you let me down." THe lLord replied, "I sent you a boat! I sent you a helicopter!"

The Church has been and remains consistent in it's defense of the the dignity of every individual. This is about ethical standards and boundaries of behavior, not popularly accepted standards. Morality and ethics have and always will be different than popular culture. Many popular standards were acceptable in Nazi Germany, for instance, that were profoundly at odds with objective ethics. In existing for two thousand years the Church has made many human errors, but remains remarkably consistent in it's teachings on human dignity.

Why don't you bunch of raving lunatics just take the time to read the Pope's document and try to understand why the church has cautioned against things such as IVF and surrogacy. Instead, you just read the blurbs put here by Paulson who only goal is to incite people to foam at the mouth and rip apart anything that has to do with religions.

The Church in this document is being consistent with what it has always taught about the sanctity of life and human sexualtiy. As mentioned before, the whole problem with IVF is that high numbers of embryos are destroyed. The church correctly views this destruction of life as no different that destroying a fetus in an abortion. This is called protecting the rights of the unborn. It doesn't seem that the pope and the church are out of touch when it understands more about reproductive technology and the good and bad of it than most of the screaming lunatics posting here.

I can't believe all you liberal people who are supposed to be the "most respectful" of others, are such hate mongers. Grow up will you and learn to respect all religions, people, gay, straight, etc. The Pope and the Catholic Church make these interpretations based on their belief for the benefit of Catholics. They are not trying to push their doctrine on Jews, Muslim, etc. The media does that.

As far as my opinion, IVF is a good thing, however, I do fully agree that there are many ethical issues surround the freezing and destroying of fertilized eggs. I'm not even Catholic or religious, but I can tell you that "LIFE" biomedically speaking does start at Conception. It's a form of a human being and growing. Anyone that has had a baby, has seen the growth of and form of that baby take shape within the womb through ultrasounds can't deny that it is a living being. So the question of ethics and morality is legitmate, unless you live under a rock. However, I would still respect your view, not hate you!!

Anyone with a clue about history knows the degree to which religion has caused and justified wars and its attempts to control and stifle the beliefs of those who disagree. I'll take separation of church and State thank you very much.

Hmm maybe IVF wasn't around back then, but I'm pretty sure Mary didn't get preggo w/ Jesus the old fashioned way. Perhaps we could even think of her as the first surrogate mother. I guess there are always exceptions, eh Benedict?

T-bone why should anyone have to respect a religion or culture that has as one of it's main tenents, the subjugation of woman or the exclusion of individuals based on sexual orientation or how their children are conceived? Tolerance is one thing. Acceptance and respect are much deeper. I tolerate Catholicism everyday. I know and respect many Catholics that deosn't mean I respect or accept their religion. Just because I reject a theory of morality doesn't mean I "hate" anyone.

This directive on IVF is certainly consistent with the Church's teachings on life.

But I'm curious:
1. Why isn't there baptism or funeral for aborted fetuses?
2. Why has miscarriage (natural abortion) never been honored with formal mourning ceremonies?
3. Why aren't we baptizing zygotes, instead waiting until birth?
4. Shouldn't menstrual blood be formally buried in a Catholic ceremony every month in case there is life in there? (Menstruation frequently washes out un-implanted fertilized eggs. )

O Noel,

You might want to get your facts straight about "capybaras" before posting. I don't think its quite as a slam-dunk "gotcha" moment against church practices as you may think.
From the New York Sun,
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/in-days-before-easter-venezuelans-tuck-into/11063/
"There are different versions of the tale of the Vatican choice that made capybara into a South American Easter treat. Most cite a request from 16th-century European missionaries in the region who were facing limited food supply and had trouble selling converts on Lent's month of abstentions. According to legend, the clergymen sent a message to Vatican authorities, describing a furry creature that spends much of its time swimming with its webbed feet, implying that it might be a fish - and hinting that permission to eat the animal could save them from possible starvation."

Lost and found writes: "We are all born with a spiritual gene."
Tell us your research into this. Have you personally identified it? Can you cite the research? Would it be the suggested genetic trait that is alleged to drive otherwise rational human beings to religion? (doubtful)

"For the devout, tolerance and compassion for those who's reactions to this edict appear negative."

For the non-devout, the arrogance of the devout is a society-buster. Maybe the devout don't belong in it. The devout are so into life. How about "live and let live"? How about dealing with the log in your own eye?

"The truth is understanding the disparities through a sometimes laborious reflection from inside oneself. Whatever any of us discovers with this process, the joy is knowing that we are brought just a little closer to combining that which we understand, to that what our will desires. In hope, that our will becomes one with our one day fully developed spiritual gene. Some call that heaven."

This deserves closer examination. I suggest a couch, and daily medication. While waiting for the appointment, might the writer have enough coherence to explain this in terms the non-devout can comprehend?

My three Catholic children were conceived via IVF ... does that make them less Catholic? My husband is a cancer survivor. These children are ours, genetically. I see absolutely no reason for this stance. Does the Pope want to come watch our conjugal acts? We tried for three years to conceive. I felt like the luckiest mom in the world when I held my eldest in my arms, eleven years ago.

You can't take that away from me. Odds are that in the future, Catholic priests and nuns will be created by IVF. What then? Possibly a future Pope! These are not the Dark Ages. Stay out of my bedroom and my marriage. Both are fine!

I think in the midst of this discussion, that we should not forget the immortal words uttered by Earl Butz, Gerald Ford's Secretary of Agriculture, in 1975. In reference to the then (like Benedict, elderly and celibate) Pope's pronouncements on human sexuality and reproduction, he said "He no play-a the game, he no make-a the rules". Absolutely classic. And he got canned for this.

Perhaps the church is working on another 'important document' entitled 'How We Pretended Not to Notice Years of Sexual Abuse by Our Priests.'

gaudete:

My bad. Point taken.

I should have said ["enemies of the family and of God."]

From "Considerations":

"Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon."

Homosexuals are immoral. Immoral behavior goes against God.

"aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society"

We need to protect ourselves against an immoral enemy, for the sake of the family and for society.

"Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil."

Recognizing gay marriages would be legalizing evil.

"Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law"

Homosexuals break God's moral laws, and without remorse, thus they are enemies of God.

"Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage."

Again, enemies of God's ordained institution.

"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. "

We are dangerous to children.

"If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. "

We jeopardize the common good, and are actually working against it.

" it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State"

speaks for itself

"On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase."

Again, a threat to society as God wants it.

"When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."

speaks for itself

"The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself."

speaks for itself

Now, albeit, I should have presented that quote as a paraphrasing, but please. Give me a break.

Where does it NOT say we are enemies of the family and of God and God's plan/order?

It absolutely does.

It flat out calls us evil. Is not evil the enemy of God?

In response to "Considerations," Thomas More Law Center applauded the Vatican's opposition to the legal recognition of homosexual unions as a “call to arms."

The church has indeed acknowledged that this is a war, and it absolutely claims to be fighting on the side of God and for God.

The church is very clear on this.

The unrepentant immoral, those living evil lives, those that threaten God's design of the social order, the wicked, the depraved, etc....that's what the church has said we are...enemies of God, absolutely.

So, if you want to knit-pick and slap me on the wrist for not indicating that I was paraphrasing, you go right ahead.

It never fails to amaze me that when an article dealing with the Catholic Church and their position on "faith and morals" is published, all the so called "experts" on Catholism, come crawling out of the woodwork to express their inane and absurd opinions.Too bad they were not around 2000 years ago when the Church was founded.

Peter (If anyone is still reading this thread),

No where does the church say or even imply that homosexual persons are evil. It is homosexual sexual activity that is called immoral, for the following reasons: 1)in many places, the Bible says so. 2)it is against natural law. One of the main reasons for (heterosexual) sexual activity is for the procreation of children. Men's and women's bodies are by nature made for each other, men/men, women/women are not. Finally, the church does not just say that homosexual intercourse is wrong, but heterosexual sex outside of marriage. Homosexual sex is by definition outside marriage, in the eyes of the Catholic (and many other ) churches.
Thus, chastity for all unmarried is Christian orthodoxy

But on this, as so many other issues, the maxim is 'love the sinner, hate the sin,' so no matter how much any of us sin, gay or straight, God and the church loves us.

non_intres_in_judicium
But why has the church failed to correct it's mistake in classifying it as a fish when science has proven that it is not a fish?
If I were starving during lent, and my cows liked to swim in the water, could I get the Pope to classify my cows as fish to save me from starvation?
I brought up the story to show how the chruch refuses to rectify its errors.
Science and religion know nothing about each other. Therefore, scientists shouldn't tell priests what to do in church, and the Vactican shoudln't tell scientists what to do in the laboratory.

Only in the highly populated Roman Catholic arena of Boston would all this debate continue. The Pope is the leader of one church with fallible human beings running its organization. Unless it recognizes that its Westen cultured laity have taken advantage of the scientific gifts that dedicated men and women have made strides in and praises rather than condemns them, you will see more and more leaving its pews than since the priest abuse issue- In Boston especially and elsewhere where it really became public, didn't it? Yes, technology is a two edged sword but the moral decision and my judgement will be before God not some voted in man who beat the political game in Rome....

and by the way non_intres_in_judicium, the only fact that I didn't have straight in my original comment was who sent the Vatican the letter. Your referenced news story changed nothing about the point of the anecdote: That the Vatican refuses to EVER change its position on anything, even when they are undeniably wrong about something they know nothing about.

If traditional families are the only way to raise children...what's the deal with Jesus' family?

Mom got pregnant while still a virgin
Dad abandoned them
They lived in a barn with animals
Jesus grew up and was killed by the state.

What's traditional about that?

Today is the day we stop taking my beautiful 6 year old IVF born daughter to church. She will no longer be attending CCD, it will be difficult to explain it to her, may have to wait a few years.

My two younger, non IVF children will not be raised Catholic either.

How could I possibly teach her that the religion we are asking her to choose thinks she never should have been born. What a shame.

What the Heck
It took them 500 years to admit they were wrong about Galileo
But then again, I thought they were too busy protecting child rapists to care about anything else

How fortunate proiv's daughter is to escape from Catholicism at such a young age. Would that more of us had been so lucky!

gaudete, it doesn't surprise me you still tried to defend those direct quotes, which are appallingly offensive.

The Catholic church says it must uphold "the dignity of all persons" but doesn't mince words when demonizing and demoralizing gay people.

Sorry, weak.

"But on this, as so many other issues, the maxim is 'love the sinner, hate the sin,' so no matter how much any of us sin, gay or straight, God and the church loves us."

No, that's just a lot of talk.

My Catholic aunt and uncle (mother's siblings) want nothing to do with me because I am gay. My uncle even refuses to pass on my contact information to my cousin.

I do NOT feel the love.

My family is Catholic, by way of a very traditional Italian-American upbringing. My cousin is gay, and we support him. We all went to his wedding and talk to him frequently. We hope to see him have a child with his new husband however they may choose to go about that. I teach Sunday school and have used my cousin as an example of a "good person" without hesitation.

Peter, maybe your family members have personal problems or personalities flaws that, sadly, prevent them from being fair to you and make it too difficult for them to love you unconditionally. Please don't blame their individual shortcomings on Catholicism. My family proves such a reaction is not the norm, or at least, we are the exception that proves the rule wrong.

The Pope and Vatican may come out with official decrees, but please understand that these are more guidelines than laws. God gave us all Free Will that no old man in Italy can take away. We can choose to be Catholic AND to think for ourselves-- I have seen it.

Perhaps see this as an urging to seek adoption before IVF? What's wrong with that?

gaudete:

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing" - tee shirt held up by Cardinal O'Malley during the same sex marriage fight in 2006.

Yes, that's calling his opposition evil. That is calling gays evil.

This was an utterly irresponsible gesture for a church leader to make. Such statements absolutely promote hostility towards gay people; it is teaching hate not "love the sinner, hate the sin."

And how did gay people respond? With warranted outrage.

But of course, the church played the victim, trying to paint gays as virulently "anti-religion."

RESPONSE:

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England]and in New England"

[Benjamin Franklin, "Toleration", in _Works, Vol.ii._,p. 112]

So, if the Pope comes down with a serious disease, he will refuse any help from medical technological advances?

I doubt that very much.

Medford, I enjoyed reading your post.

I would like to say this, though, with all due respect.

At Mitt Romney's pre-presidential campaign PR photo op, the so-called Liberty Sunday, Cardinal O'Malley stood near Romney as the governor condemned gay marriage and spoke of its alleged threats to the family and to society.

As I stood watching, along with many other gays and lesbians, and our family and friends, a group of four boys, no older than eleven, walked by us and shouted, "You are all disgusting!" with confident rancor.

I absolutely blame Cardinal O'Malley and other church leaders for fueling anti-gay hostility and hatred.

I said:

"My Catholic aunt and uncle (mother's siblings) want nothing to do with me because I am gay. My uncle even refuses to pass on my contact information to my cousin."

I often wonder if my aunt and uncle think for a second that such a gesture breaks my mom's heart.

Since I've come out, not once did my aunt and uncle support their sister in having two gay children (and my mom and I suspect my second cousin, my uncle's grandson, is gay...and my aunt's grandson). Instead, they've opted to judge, something for which the Catholic church is well known.

My aunt actually said to her sister, "I don't know how you get up every day knowing two of your sons aren't joining in you in Heaven.

I mean, THIS is family values?

Well, during my mom's divorce, after my dad left my mom for a younger woman, my mom said to me, "You are my angel. Not one friend or family member stood by me while all of this has happened...they've swept it under the rug and didn't even talk about it. But if it hadn't been for you, I don't know what I would have done. You are my angel."

THAT's family values.

But since I'm gay, my values are obsolete, in the eyes of the Catholic church, and I'm simply a sinner rebelling against God.

Yeah. I'm a little angry with my mom's church.

Medford, you said:

"Perhaps see this as an urging to seek adoption before IVF? What's wrong with that?"

Someone else said she wanted to use IVF so that she could see her love's reflection in her own child.

Why is the flu, polio, measles, vaccine OK but IVF is not?

All are scientific/medical breakthroughs used to sustain life, yes?

I don't think I can recall a Catholic objecting to receiving the flu vaccine.

The holy mother of God, the Blessed Virgin seems to have been a victim of IVF with the sperm of the Holy Ghost posing as a dove. Yet her soul is stainless, what's up with that contradiction?

My husband and I were both baptized, recd communion & married in the Catholic Church. We have since parted ways and our wonderful (now 16 yr old) daugher has been baptized, received communion, is now a teaching Sunday School and hopefully she will be married in the Lutheran church. We could not, in good conscious, continue in a church who believes her to be a sin (or our actions to be sinful) Shame on the pope and anyone else who would have you believe that her birth is nothing less than a miracle. We believe it was God who gave drs. the ability to help infertile couples and thank him every day for this help!

What blows my mind is all the so called Catholics posting here that are acting with surprise and outrage that this document. Obviously you did't know your Catholic Doctrine as well as you thought you did. There is absolutely nothing new in this document. It is a restating and clarification of past teachings. The church as stated over and over again in the past that it does not condone IVF, contraception, abortion, cloning, or embryonic stem cell research because they all involve the destruction of human life. The sin of IVF is primarily the destruction of the embryos involved. No where ever has the church said that children today who were born via IVF are evil or sinners. That is ridiculous. This article's point is to reaffirm how all human life from conception until death is sacred and made in God's image and the sacredness of the conjugal act in creating life. Several people here have posted that they have left or are leaving the church because of this. If this is true, then your faith was already lacking and you were just looking for an excuse to leave.

Peter,

First, I'm not sure why you brought up your whole story of being gay, since it has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. However, the church for two thousand years has always taught the sacredness human sexuality and how it is only permissible between a married man and woman. It also teaches that all people are made in God's image and worthy of respect and dignity. (Love the sinner.) The church must condemn homosexual acts or lifestyles because it is against what I said earlier of the sacredness of the sexual intimacy between a married man and woman. This has been the case for 2000 years and will always be the case. Don't expect the church to ever change this regardless of how many protests happen.

I'm sorry about how your family treats you and your mother, but don't judge all of Catholicism or Christianity because of their behavior.

Rob, see #52, to see in what context I've brought up being gay.

It is very relevant to the discussion, in that I am trying to clearly illustrate how the church is once again flagrantly hypocritical...this time in it's proclamation that it respects the dignity of all persons.

You say:

"I'm sorry about how your family treats you and your mother, but don't judge all of Catholicism or Christianity because of their behavior."

This is rather hypocritical of you, considering you've attempted to blanket tarnish all gays in your post about isolated incidents of inappropriate behavior by gays outraged at Prop 8's passing.

As for the church teaching to "love the sin, hate the sinner," please refer to post #105.

Peter,

The church is not being "flagrantly hypocritical". It has always respected the dignity of all persons. But it cannot stand by and condone those behaviors which are against its core teachings. No religion will ever do that. There is a difference between the person and the behavior or action.

Secondly, I wasn't trying to blanket tarnish all gays. Just the militant gays who take part in these gay marriage protest demanding rights when they clearly do not respect the rights of others.

Rob, you said that you used the example you did to illustrate that gays are the tyrrants in the same sex marriage debate, you absolutely did.

Also, come on.

Holding up a tee shirt that reads "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing," which Cardinal O'Malley did in 2006, is demonizing your opposition in a demeaning and humiliating way, ABSOLUTELY.

Are you NUTS?!

O'Malley's outrageous gesture was most certainly not one which upheld the dignity of gays and lesbians.

And now the church is insulting the parents of IVF children, and those children themselves. It says it upholds the dignity of all persons but it fails to see how blatant its humiliation of people is at times.

I fail to see how two loving adults, in a consenting relationship, building a life together is immoral. How do you think that couple feels being told their bond is "evil."

Is not your marriage a part of your very identity, Rob?

Well, when your relationship is called evil, YOU are indeed being called evil.

And Rob, O'Malley's holding that tee shirt calling us "evil" up, and smiling, came after saying:

"Many people would like to dismiss us as anti-gay, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, but in our belief all we do and say, we must show forth true humility, a spirit of love and a spirit that reflects God and who we are."

Calling gays and their civil rights movement "evil" on a tee shirt is showing a "spirit of love?"

Humility comes in the form of calling yourself "good men" and us "evil?"

Saying you are good and your opposition is evil is indeed being "holier than thou"...how much holier than thou can you get...I mean, the opposite of holy is evil, yes?

It's just beyond hypocritical and it boggles my mind that you can justify some of the things they've said about us.

The Catholic Church speaks out of both sides of its mouth and people are rapidly losing respect for it.

And taking into consideration the pedophile scandal, the LAST tee shirt the Church should be using against ANYONE is one that reads:

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing"

I mean, the incredible nerve. It's beyond my comprehension.

Peter,

People are losing respect for what they think is the Church and her teachings and not what the church really is.

Bishop Fulton Sheen once said that those that hate the Church only hate what they think is the Church and not what the church really is. I'm sorry that you think I am hypocritical for defending my Church, but I will never apologize for defending it. You don't understand the point Cardinal O'Malley was trying to make and you will not allow yourself to even try to understand the truth and why the Church has opposed gay marriages and things like IVF. It's your right to keep screaming hypocrite and trashing the Church. Just don't expect your protests to change 2000 years of teachings.

2,000 years of teachings....when they still thought the world was flat? When they still condoned slavery and the subjugation of women?

And where do you get off saying I won't even try to understand the truth about the Catholic church?

I've spent my whole life trying to understand the Catholic church? Including tales from my mother about how boarding school nuns punished her for minor offenses by hitting her knuckles with a ruler until she bled.

Please, do help me understand. No rhetoric. No hollow defenses. Please help me understand.

Please explain that tee shirt.

First of all Peter where do you get off thinking that you understand the Catholic Church better than any of us? Thinking the world was flat, slavery, and the subjogation of women where never part of actual Catholic Church doctrine. Look it up. The sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman and the importance of the bond between that marriage and the procreation of life is part of that true doctrine that has stood for 2,000 years.

Also, I went to Catholic school as a child and was taught by strict nuns. I didn't appreciate back then, but I thank God for the respect and faith that those sisters instilled in me. Maybe if more people where slapped with rulers when they were younger we wouldn't have the problems we have today. Instead we want to coddle them and not hurt their self esteem rather than teach them discipline and respect. Save me the sob stories of your mother in Catholic school. My family and I lived it and I don't blame the nuns at all for it.

As for the t-shirt, all Catholics are obliged by their faith to uphold the teachings of the Church such as homosexual acts being immoral. If you don't like then find another church and stop whinning.

Not once did I claim to know the Catholic church better than anyone else. I've expressed my personal involvement with it and, now, my perspective on it as an outsider. I've challenged your views of the Church, indeed.

Rob, I'm making a point about the mindset of the human race at the time these dogmas were devised. That's pretty obvious.

I also mentioned my mother's having been abused (because disciplining a child until she bleeds IS abuse) as a single example of some of the Church's practices that boggle my mind. You callously write it off as a "sob story." You're beautiful.

This is ironic, coming from you, considering you show very little respect (i.e. "Save me the sob stories of your mother," "stop whining"):

"Instead we want to coddle them and not hurt their self esteem rather than teach them discipline and respect."

Sir, you show NO respect.

As for your pitiful claim that I'm "whining," I will only say this.

Until gay men are no longer executed in some countries, until gaybashings stop happening on a daily basis, until gay teenagers stop killing themselves, until children, passing their gay elders, don't feel entitled to shout , "You're all disgusting!," I will continue to criticize the Church for contributing to the problem of anti-gay hate in the world.

As for the tee shirt defense, I don't buy it. It's absolutely irresponsible to use that kind of language against us. That tee shirt directly referred to us as "evil." There's no way around it. That's demonizing us in a very public forum. And I find THAT evil.

*** I'd love to hear your justification of the Church leadership using that quote in particular (i.e. "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."), in light of the Church doing NOTHING about the pedophile problem it knew about for years. Hypocrites, indeed! ***

*** That kind of silence is a greater act of evil than two men or two women who love each other physically expressing that love.

THAT is why I find those tee shirts outrageous and infuriating. The Church is in NO position to call me and my relationship "evil" after what it has done. ***

"If you don't like then find another church and stop whinning."

Again, until the Church stops lying about gay and lesbian people (we KNOW we are not evil and we KNOW our relationships are not evil), I will continue to defend myself against it.

Your condescending dismissal of me as a whiner is indicative of how utterly out of touch with what gay people experience on a daily basis, and it suggests deep denial regarding the Church's indirect, and often very direct, fueling the fires of anti-gay hate.

This dismissal shouldn't come as any surprise, however, considering you're the kind of person who would call nuns beating a little girl's hands with a ruler until the girl bled a "sob story."

I routinely find myself intrigued by those who angrily defend "The One True Church of Love" but seem to have a rather chilly heart.

"The sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman and the importance of the bond between that marriage and the procreation of life is part of that true doctrine that has stood for 2,000 years."

Yes, and 150 years ago we had slavery and women couldn't vote.

We're still a rather primitive species.

As for marriage being a neverchanging institution...

Marriage, a History

Long ago, love was a silly reason for a match. How marriage has changed over history.

Through most of Western civilization, marriage has been more a matter of money, power and survival than of delicate sentiments. In medieval Europe, everyone from the lord of the manor to the village locals had a say in deciding who should wed. Love was considered an absurdly flimsy reason for a match. Even during the Enlightenment and Victorian eras, adultery and friendship were often more passionate than marriage. These days, we marry for love—and are rewarded with a blistering divorce rate.

Antiquity-Renaissance

What's love got to do with it? In early history, politics and money trumped emotions.

Ancient Greece: Love is a many-splendored (manly) thing. Love is honored—especially between men. In marriage, inheritance is more important than feelings: A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative—even if she has to divorce her husband first.

Rome: Wife-swapping as a career move—Statesman Marcus Porcius Cato divorces his wife and marries her off to his ally Hortensius in order to strengthen family bonds; after Hortensius dies, Cato remarries her.

6th-century Europe: Political polygamy—The Germanic warlord Clothar, despite being a baptized Christian, eventually acquires four wives for strategic reasons, including his dead brother's wife, her sister and the daughter of a captured foreign king.

12th-century Europe: Marriage is good for loving...someone else—Upper-class marriages are often arranged before the couple has met. Aristocrats believe love is incompatible with marriage and can flourish only in adultery.

14th-century Europe: It takes a village—Ordinary people can't choose whom to marry either. The lord of one Black Forest manor decrees in 1344 that all his unmarried tenants—including widows and widowers—marry spouses of his choosing. Elsewhere, peasants wishing to pick a partner must pay a fee.

16th-century Europe: Love's a bore—Any man in love with his wife must be so dull that no one else could love him, writes the French essayist Montaigne.

1600s-Victorian Era

It's a family affair: Married love gains currency, but for intimacy and passion, people still turn to family, lovers and friends.

1690s U.S.: Virginia wasn't always for lovers—Passionate love between husband and wife is considered unseemly: One Virginia colonist describes a woman he knows as "more fond of her husband perhaps than the politeness of the day allows." Protestant ministers warn spouses against loving each other too much, or using endearing nicknames that will undermine husbandly authority.

18th-century Europe: Love gains ground—In England and in the salons of Enlightenment thinkers, married love is gaining credibility. Ladies' debating societies declare that while loveless marriages are regrettable, women must consider money when choosing a partner.

1840, England: Virgin lace—Queen Victoria starts a trend by wearing virginal white, instead of the traditional jeweled wedding gown. Historically thought of as the lustier sex, women are now considered chaste and pure. As a result, many men find it easier to have sex with prostitutes than with their virtuous wives.

Mid 19th-century U.S.: Honeymoon suite for three—Honeymoons replace the older custom of "bridal tours," in which the newly married couple travel after the wedding to visit family who could not attend the ceremony. Even so, many brides bring girlfriends with them on their honeymoons.

20th Century-Today

We worship the couple. Intimacy shrinks to encompass just two, and love becomes the only reason for marriage.

1920s U.S.: How Saturday night began—Dating is the new craze—in restaurants and cars, away from the oversight of family. Popular culture embraces sex, but critics fear that marriage is on the rocks.

1950s U.S.: Marriage is mandatory—Marriage becomes almost universal, and the nuclear family is triumphant: Four out of five people surveyed in 1957 believe that preferring to remain single is "sick," "neurotic" or "immoral."

1970s U.S.: All you need is love?—Self-sufficient women and changing social rules mean marriage is no longer obligatory. Quarreling couples split up rather than make do, and the divorce rate skyrockets.

Today: Bride pride—Marriage is the ultimate expression of love, leading gays and lesbians to seek the right to marry, but also encouraging couples to cohabit until they're sure about their "soul mate." Marriage rates fall—but the fantasy of the perfect wedding is ubiquitous.

[Based on research from Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, by Stephanie Coontz.]

Peter,

I honestly don't care what you think of me. But you are constanly screaming how the church is "Hyprocrites" and "evil" like you actually understand the truth about the Chruch and its teachings. Your only invovlement in it probably came from your relatives who won't accept you as being gay and your mother who is still angry at the nun with the ruler. You and others like you keep bringing up the sexual abuse scandal in the church. But you are choosing to omit a very important fact which I will get to later. First, do not blame the Catholic Faith for the actions of several priests or bishops. The Faith did not cause the scandal, but the actions of sick men and poor leaders is to blame. These sick men should have never been clergy to begin with. But the church is not alone in this problem. What you Catholic bashers conviently forget is that this same problem has happend in other denominations and other professions is larger numbers. Ministers, teachers, police officers, and public officials have all been involved in similar scandals but its easier to pick on the Catholic Church.

The one fact you are omitting about the scandal is that several studies have shown that the majority of the cases did not involve peophilia but gay men in the priesthood preying upon older boys. That's why the church has said that this was not so much a pedophile problem but a GAY problem. It was in large part about actively gay men hiding in the priesthood. That's why men with gay tendencies are now rightfully excluded from the priesthood. There was a small number of pedophile cases and cases involving young girls, but the majority involved gays in the priesthood. I khow you will deny this and claim that the big bad Catholics are saying this as part of the conspiracy against gays. Save it.

As for the nuns with the rulers, my mother in the 1950's had the same thing happen to her in school. What's interesting is that it was in a PUBLIC SCHOOL. But I guess the nuns and the Catholics are to blame for that too. That type of punishment happened in a lot more that just Catholic Schools, so this little argument of yours against the nuns and the Church is irrelevant.

If I show you no respect its because I am tired of you and other like you blaming the Church for all your problems. I often find myself intrigued by those who angrily defend their right to equality and tolerance but seem to be bigots against Catholics.

You quote an article from Stephanie Coontz and expect me to believe it? This is a woman who is pro-gay marriage, claims that kids raised with a mother and father are no better off than those raised without fathers, and also said that Christ was anti-Family. She is so obviously biased. You actually expect me to believe anything that comes from this woman? Please do some research and find a more credible source next time.

"If I show you no respect its because I am tired of you and other like you blaming the Church for all your problems."

This is utter bull.

I don't blame the Church for all my problems. I do, however, resent the Church for actively making my life more difficult than it needs to be.

Secondly, this is a pathetic copout:

"The one fact you are omitting about the scandal is that several studies have shown that the majority of the cases did not involve peophilia but gay men in the priesthood preying upon older boys. That's why the church has said that this was not so much a pedophile problem but a GAY problem. It was in large part about actively gay men hiding in the priesthood. "

Get this straight.

A pedophile is a pedophile, gay or straight, so enough with your specious passing of the buck and blaming gay people. ENOUGH.

What you, sir, are choosing to ignore is my entire point: the cover-up.

I am not blaming the Church for the initial problem. I am blaming the Church for its cover up and for its perpetuating the problem.

THAT was my point, sir...but your shallow analysis of my assertions is devoid of this.

I am losing respect for your critical thinking skills at this point.

"I often find myself intrigued by those who angrily defend their right to equality and tolerance but seem to be bigots against Catholics."

Frankly, I could care less if you tolerate me or not. Being asked to be tolerated is a form of self-hatred, as far as I'm concerned.

I flat out reject your lies (you say it's Catholic truth, but NONE OF US KNOWS FOR CERTAIN WHAT IS GOD'S TRUTH, and if you claim to know you should be attending a commitment hearing sometime real soon), and demand civil equality to you, and many of us are not shutting up, or letting you put us away in closets EVER AGAIN.

As long as you continue to spread lies about us, we will continue to voice our outrage and, no, we will not tolerate lies in the name of "tolerance."

Would you tolerate church leaders calling you "evil?"

No, you wouldn't.

You strive to take away our rights, the rights experts in Constitutional law bestowed upon us, and we're supposed to tolerate that in the spirit of "tolerance?"

And when we don't tolerate that, you call us hypocrites.

You and those whom share your shallow attitudes are absolutely freakin' amazing.

"You quote an article from Stephanie Coontz and expect me to believe it? This is a woman who is pro-gay marriage, claims that kids raised with a mother and father are no better off than those raised without fathers, and also said that Christ was anti-Family. She is so obviously biased. You actually expect me to believe anything that comes from this woman? Please do some research and find a more credible source next time."

I don't expect you to believe ANYTHING by ANYBODY who says a single word that will get you to budge out of your current position of willful ignorance.

Whether this author is already pro-gay or not is irrelevant. It is an accurate historic summation.

You are merely threatened by this woman because her work tosses your entire "marriage has never changed over 2,000" years nonsense out the window.

NEWSWEEK's story must have really set you off, too, eh, Rob?

I've had quite enough of wasting my time with you. Your eyes and ears are sewn shut and there's nothing that can change that.

And frankly, at this point, interacting with you is beneath me.

I didn't ignore your point about the cover-up. I said it was do to bad leaders in the Church. I don't deny there was a cover-up and fault the bishops of those dioceses for it. But it still doesn't change the fact that most case involved gay men as priests.

What do you expect the Catholic church to do? Change it's teaching because its politically correct to condone Petey and his partner getting married? This ain't the Unitarian church. The Catholic church has always said gay relationships are disordered and that will never change.

"You strive to take away our rights, the rights experts in Constitutional law bestowed upon us, and we're supposed to tolerate that in the spirit of "tolerance?"" Where the hell in the Constitution is there a right to get married? It doesn't exist and no one is trying to take any other rights away from you.

As for Coontz, she is as liberal as you are gay and has been proven to misquote and distort history in her writings. The newsweek piece was a joke and has already been discredited by many Bible scholars from various denominations. The only thing Coontz, Newsweek, and your rantings are good for is cleaning up after my dog.

You call it "willful ignorance" , I call it standing by my beliefs and not changing because is the politically correct thing to do. Your arrogance is absolutely amazing and it is a huge waste of my time to furter interact with someone who thinks the world needs to revolve around him.

Big ole "whatever, " Rob.

Take it easy.

What a joke!
I think the hierarchy is about as credible as professional wrestling