Bishop Mario Grech’s description of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) as “highly abortive” technique together with his strong emphasis that Catholic politicians should not promote the culture of death when IVF legislation is debated in Parliament stirred a lot of controversy locally. For a democratic country like ours, it is undoubtedly healthy that divergent opinions on thorny subjects like IVF are aired in a respectful and convincing way.

As one of the leading institutions, the Catholic Church in Malta cannot sit back and observe in silence what is happening around us without enlightening the consciences of both Catholics and people of good will regarding the IVF debate. Thus, Mgr Grech’s brave contribution deserves outright admiration. The Episcopal office itself demands that the Bishop do his duty and present the Church’s teaching concerning this controversial issue. In their “Pastoral Note to Priests on Matters of Doctrine” published last year, Bishops Paul Cremona, Mario Grech and Annetto Depasquale emphasised the Church’s responsibility in the formation of a correct conscience. They pointed out that “the Church bears the responsibility to enlighten the Catholic conscience as well as that of those who are seeking the truth that they may embrace the Christian vision of mankind and society in their daily commitments, both personal and social. The Church must present valid reasons and teachings which are grounded in faith in order that every person will be able to live a life which is concordant with his dignity in relation to others”.

The Church teaches that IVF is always morally wrong. There are three arguments that support her position, namely the “unity-procreation” argument, the “language of the body” argument and, finally, the “begotten-not-made” argument.

The first argument on the list, the “unity-procreation” one, states that the significance of the marital act is essentially derived from the marriage meaning itself. Per se, marriage is both a procreative and unitive relationship. The marital act possesses an inherent meaning that incorporates marriage’s two goods: unity and procreation.

The latter should never be purposely separated from sexual intercourse. Thus, morally speaking, procreation should never occur outside the parameters of sexual intercourse, as it occurs with IVF.

The subsequent reasoning, the “language of the body” argument, argues that since persons are a unity of body and soul, and because marriage is the fulfilment of an exclusive body-soul-two-in-one-flesh – committed relationship; conjugal self-giving is intended by God solely to show this body – soul reality. This unity possesses a spiritual aspect, the unitive significance, together with a bodily aspect, the procreative significance. Hence, when addressing the connection between procreation and the conjugal act, the “Instruction on respect for Human Life” in its origin and on the dignity of procreation, “Donum vitae”, explicitly states that “the moral value of the intimate link between the goods of marriage and between the meanings of the conjugal act is based upon the unity of the human being, a unity involving body and spiritual soul. Spouses mutually express their personal love in the ‘language of the body’, which clearly involves both ‘sponsal meanings’ and parental ones” (4b). The same paragraph of the Instruction concludes that “fertilization achieved outside the bodies of the couple remains by this very fact deprived of the meanings and the values which are expressed in the language of the body and in the union of human persons” (4b).

The last line of thought that opposes IVF is the “begotten-not-made” argument. Due to the innate value of people, children not simply are to be treated in a manner that is appropriate of persons following their coming to existence, but that their conception should be totally personal. Thus, bringing children into the world by means of the self-giving act of marital love is tantamount to treating them, precisely in their origins, in a way that is suitable of being persons. That is why Donum Vitae instructs that we should “affirm the right of the child to have a fully human origin through conception in conformity with the personal nature of the human being” (DV, I, 6, note 32). IVF is morally wrong since a child is made not begotten.

Can the Church remain silent concerning IVF?

Fr Mario Attard OFM Cap

SAN GWANN