The Alabama Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision on February 16, 2024, declaring that an embryo is a human being and is protected under state law from mistreatment, has brought to public scrutiny the procedure called in vitro fertilization (IVF). The media generally has derided the decision, saying that the Court’s decision makes embryos equivalent to “people” or “children.” Many politicians, both conservative and liberal, have taken a stand in favor of IVF and say it must be protected in law. The Alabama legislature quickly passed a bill giving legal immunity to facilities that perform IVF and to those who seek it. IVF births are about 2% of all children born in the United States.

The underlying problem is infertility. I pray regularly for infertile couples I know. Every once in a while, I hear that the wife is now pregnant and I rejoice. A couple usually seeks advice from a gynecologist/obstetrician. If the OBGYN follows established protocols, a thorough examination of fertility issues for both the man and the woman is conducted, which sometimes leads to remedies that allow the couple to conceive a child naturally. There are reports that at other times a complete fertility examination is not done and the couple is simply referred to a fertility clinic to start IVF or artificial insemination.

The basic principle guiding Catholic reflection on infertility is that measures that assist a couple to conceive a child in their marital act are permissible while measures that replace the marital act are not. Both nature and God intend that the conception of new human beings occur in the intimate relations of a man and woman who should be committed not only to one another (i.e., married) but to the responsible upbringing of their children.

IVF departs from that norm. Its very name, in vitro, means in Latin that the conception occurs “in glass” (a petri dish in most cases), not in the couple’s marital act. Ovum and sperm are extracted from the man and woman, often by masturbation, and are manipulated in the laboratory. Multiple embryos are usually created, because some do not survive the freezing before insertion in the mother; others are not used because they are judged to have low reproductive potential; and some of those with high reproductive potential fail to attach to the uterine wall. As laudable as sympathy for an infertile couple may be, there is more than a whiff of “eugenics” in IVF as medical personnel choose which embryos are worthy of life and which are not.

So, what happens to the embryos that are not used? Unless the couple objects, they are discarded. If the couple wants to keep them, they are kept frozen for possible future use. Now, consider again what the media and many politicians have said: “The Alabama Supreme Court called these embryos people!” But the Court got it exactly right. What species are these embryos? Canine (dog)? Feline (cat)? Bovine (cow)? No, they are homo sapiens: they are “humans who know.” They may be small and only in the initial stages of development, but they are human beings. Simply throwing them out kills them, a literal example of Pope Francis’ sharp criticism of our modern “throw-away culture.”

Even though the embryos that died in the Alabama hospital should never have been conceived by IVF, still they were conceived and should be protected. That’s why the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the parents of those embryos could sue for damages owing to the destruction of their children due to the negligence of the IVF clinic.

Every help possible should be given to couples experiencing infertility but the ends do not justify the means. Technology in medicine as in warfare, commerce, and daily actions such as driving a car or using the Internet must be guided by ethical standards or else technology will betray the good which it pretends to serve. IVF looks for a short-term solution but does not recognize the longer-term damage it does by making the embryo an object of medical manipulation rather than a fruit of parental love.

The Catholic Church, relying on the sound conclusions of philosophy, anthropology and moral theology, has not approved in vitro fertilization because it does not assist a couple to achieve a pregnancy through their intimate union but rather replaces it. Our Church has also sponsored research to aid infertile couples. It behooves a couple facing infertility to insist on a thorough examination of the causes of their condition to see if a remedy may be found.

It is the normal desire and expectation of most couples to have children but there is no absolute right to have a child. If a couple’s desire cannot be achieved by morally and spiritually appropriate means, then, if they are persons of faith, it behooves them to accept their condition, just as God would want them to do if they conceived and gave birth to a child with serious physical or mental deficiencies. Potential parents are not consumers” buying” children. I have known childless couples who have adopted children, others who have given time and energy working with youth in their parish or community, others who have careers teaching children or serving them in the medical and legal professions. When faced with childlessness, we who believe in a provident God must seek above all to do God’s will and trust that this will bring the best outcome: peace of soul and a clear conscience.

Sincerely in Christ,

+Mark E. Brennan
Bishop of Wheeling-Charleston