Theological Opinion on Permissible Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART)

THEOLOGICAL OPINION ON PERMISSIBLE ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (ART)

The Instruction on Respect for
Human Life in its Origin and On the Dignity of Procreation from the Vatican
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1987) (1) does not explicitly
mention any  specific
assisted reproductive technologies which satisfy the principles set out for a
procedure being morally permissible.  Thus
we must rely on the opinion of theologians in this area.
 

The following is a list of assisted reproductive technologies which
theologians, either historically or more recently, have argued are morally
permissible according to Church norms.  In
all cases, it is understood that the procedure may licitly be used only by
marital spouses. 
 

 
1) Procedures involving the repositioning of sperm or ova
before or after an act of sexual
intercourse
 
‘
A surgical procedure moves sperm past a blockage in the epididymis,
followed by a normal act of sexual intercourse. (2)
 
‘
After an act of sexual intercourse, a syringe is used to syphon the semen
from the vagina and to propel it into the uterus and fallopian tubes. (3)
 
‘Low Tubal Ovum Transfer (LTOT) This procedure begins with ovulatory drugs being
administered to the woman to stimulate the maturation of multiple ova.  The
couple engages in sexual intercourse just prior to the predicted time of
ovulation.  Immediately thereafter,
a laparoscopy is performed to retrieve the woman’s ova.
The ova are then repositioned in the mid or lower portion of the
fallopian tube or in the uterus, and the couple repeats sexual intercourse  to enhance the chances of fertilization. (4)
(Although this procedure was judged to be morally acceptable by
Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of Cincinnati in 1983 (5) as well as being supported
by theological opinion (6), it is no longer used because of unsatisfactory
success rates. (7) )
 

 
2)  Procedures
involving the temporary exteriorization and
processing of sperm after an act of
sexual intercourse
 
‘
Semen is removed from the vagina and centrifuged to bring about a greater
concentration of spermatozoa, and then reinjected into the vagina. (8)
 
‘
Semen is removed from the vagina and washed to eliminate
sperm-agglutinating and sperm- immobilizing antibodies, and then reinjected into
the cervical canal. (9)
 
‘
Semen is collected from acts of intercourse, by morally acceptable means,
and spun down  to leave a residue
containing a heavy concentrate of viable spermatozoa.
This concentrated deposit of active sperm is reinjected into the
woman’s generative tract either immediately before or after an act of sexual
intercourse in order to mix with and fortify the husband’s ejaculate. (10)
 

 
3)  Procedures
involving the temporary exteriorization of ova
after an act of sexual intercourse
 
‘Low Tubal Ovum Transfer (LTOT) — described above.
 

 
4)  See also the
handbook entry Gamete Intrafallopian
Transfer (GIFT).
 
1.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Insstruction
on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and On the Dignity of Procreation (Donum
Vitae) (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1987).
 
2.
John W. Carlson, ‘Interventions Upon Gametes in Assisting the Conjugal Act
toward Fertilization’ in  Kevin
William Wildes, S.J. (ed.), Infertility: A
Crossroad of Faith, Medicine, and Technology (Boston: Kluwer, 1997), p. 109.

 
3.
Orville N. Griese, Catholic Identity in
Health Care: Principles and Practice (Braintree, MA: Pope John Center,
1987), pp. 42, 45; Carlson, ‘Interventions Upon Gametes in Assisting the
Conjugal Act toward Fertilization,’ p. 111.
 
4.
Donald T. DeMarco, ‘Catholic Moral Teaching and TOT/GIFT’ in Donald G.
McCarthy (ed.), Reproductive Technologies,
Marriage and the Church (Braintree, MA: Pope John Center, 1988), pp. 125-6.
 
5.
Letter of Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk to Thomas Hammer, Chair of the Board of
Trustees, St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Dayton, Ohio.
See also Peter Feuerherd, ‘New Hospital Infertility Program seen as a
Blessing,’ The Catholic Telegraph,
Cincinnati, Ohio, Sept. 9, 1983 at 124.
 
6.
See, for example, Donald McCarthy, ‘Infertility Bypass: A Possible Treatment
of Blocked Fallopian Tubes,’ Ethics and
Medics 8/10 (1983); Donald McCarthy, ‘Should Catholic Hospitals Encourage
Low Tubal Ovum Transfers?’ Hospital
Progress (March 1984): 55-6; DeMarco, ‘Catholic Moral Teaching and
TOT/GIFT,’ p. 126; William May, ‘Catholic Teaching on the Laboratory
Generation of Human Life’ in Marilyn Wallace, RSM and Thomas W. Hilgers
(eds.), The Gift of Life  The
Proceedings of a National Conference
on the Vatican Instruction on Reproductive Ethics and Technology (Omaha, NB:
Pope Paul VI Institute Press, 1990), p. 87.
 
7.
DeMarco, ‘Catholic Moral Teaching and TOT/GIFT,’ p. 127; David S.
McLaughlin, ‘A Scientific Introduction to Reproductive Technologies’ in
Donald G. McCarthy (ed.), Reproductive
Technologies, Marriage and the Church (Braintree, MA: Pope John Center,
1988), p. 64.
 
8.
Griese, Catholic Identity in Health Care:
Principles and Practice, p. 45; Carlson, ‘Interventions Upon Gametes in
Assisting the Conjugal Act toward Fertilization,’ p. 112.
 
9.
Griese, Catholic Identity in Health Care:
Principles and Practice, p. 49, n. 86; Carlson, ‘Interventions Upon
Gametes in Assisting the Conjugal Act toward Fertilization,’ p. 112.
 
10.
Griese, Catholic Identity in Health Care:
Principles and Practice, pp. 45-6; Carlson, ‘Interventions Upon Gametes in
Assisting the Conjugal Act toward Fertilization,’ p. 117; Thomas J.
O’Donnell, S.J., Medicine and Christian
Morality, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Alba House, 1991), p. 238.