Monday, March 29, 2021

On The Subject Of In Vitro Fertilization

 

To My Readers: I will be praying you all have a Happy and Blessed Holy Week and Easter in 2021. Thanks to my guest poster, A Simple Man, I  have the opportunity to attend all Holy Week services with greater ease and to spend more time with my family this Easter. As always, I will respond below to any comments, especially those addressed to me. I hope you all enjoy this week's post and find it as interesting and informative as I did!

God Bless you all---Introibo

On the Subject of In Vitro Fertilization

By A Simple Man

 

[ASM’s Note: This post will be discussing mature topics related to matters of human sexuality, the reproductive act, and certain sins of impurity. Although no vulgarity will be employed by yours truly, the terms employed by approved moral theologians may seem frank and quite candid to impressionable minds. Reader discretion is advised.]


While browsing headlines recently, an article from InsideHook (an online platform dedicated to news and luxury lifestyle articles for affluent men) published on January 8, 2021 caught my eye: “There’s a Pandemic Sperm Shortage, and “Sperm King” Megadonors Are in High Demand.” What an outlandish title, to say the least!

A brief summary follows: as the COVID-derived lockdowns continue on, demand for sperm banks has risen, while “supply” is at a shortage; to meet this demand, men are donating sperm (the “sperm kings” in question) more and more through online networks, sometimes free of charge; the sordid reasons for why these men donate sperm is given (some explicitly want to pass on their genes without the responsibility of parenthood); a linked follow-up article (Bowles, Nellie. “The Sperm Kings Have a Problem: Too Much DemandNew York Times, published Jan. 8, 2021) goes into further detail, but I think the following words from Ms. Bowles fully capture the moral absurdity on display:

And so in the capitalist crunch, Sperm World — the world of people buying and selling sperm — has gotten wild. Donors are going direct to customers. They meet with prospective mothers-to-be in Airbnbs for an afternoon handoff; Facebook groups with tens of thousands of members have sprung up. The reason I know this at all is simple enough: I am 32 years old, partnered to a woman, stuck at home and in the market for the finest sperm I can get.

Sperm is treated as a commodity (selling up to $1,100 a vial per the prior article!), much like the babies that result from them. All of this has been made possible by the process known as IVF: in vitro fertilization.

What is IVF? “In vitro” is Latin for “in the glass”; IVF describes the process where egg cells are extracted from a woman and combined with a man’s sperm in a laboratory dish or some other receptacle (hence the colloquial term “test tube baby”). After fertilization has occurred, the zygote is then returned to the woman’s uterus with the intention of establishing a successful pregnancy. This form of artificial insemination achieved public notoriety with the birth of Louise Joy Brown on July 26, 1978 (Source: History.com Editors. “World’s first "test tube" baby born.HISTORY, published Mar. 12, 2010, last updated Jul. 23, 2020); since then, births accomplished via IVF account for up to 1 through 2 percent of all U.S. births as recently as 2012, as reported by Penn Medicine.

The specific outcomes of this procedure have resulted in chaotic “family” arrangements, as already seen from the above articles (particularly with regards to lesbian couples seeking to have children using their own ova without having a man involved). However, with regards to a husband and wife seeking to overcome issues of infertility, is IVF morally permissible? This is what we shall investigate.

What would IVF be morally classified as? Let us first consider that, as far as the man is concerned, sperm banks obtain their samples through acts of onanism, providing pornographic material to help “facilitate” their donation. (For the sake of propriety, I will not link to any articles with stories about this aspect of sperm donation; needless to say, this can be independently verified via articles through publishers like VICE, the UK Daily Mail, etc.) It goes without saying that we’re already on bad footing.

Secondly, before providing numerous excerpts from McHugh, O.P. and Callan, O.P.’s Moral Theology, let us recall some definitions: fornication is the copulation of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman who is not a virgin; adultery (a distinct species of lust) is sexual intercourse with the husband or wife of another, while a type of imperfect adultery occurs if unlawful familiarities occur without intercourse; coition is another term for natural sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.

Without further ado, I will let the Dominicans have their say. The following section is cited entirely from the 1958 edition of Moral Theology, as hosted online by Project Gutenberg:

2520. The Consummated Sins of Impurity.—There are in all seven species of completed acts of impurity. (a) Thus, some sins of impurity are against reason because they do not observe the ends of sexual intercourse…(b) Other sins of impurity are against reason because they violate a right of the person with whom intercourse is had (incest), or of a third party to whom that person belongs. If the third party is injured in conjugal rights, there is adultery; if in parental rights, there is defloration or rape, according as the injury is done without or with force; if in religious rights, there is sacrilege…

2521. Comparative Malice of the Sins of Consummated Lust.—(a) In the abuse of an act, the worst evil is the disregard of what nature itself determines as the fundamentals upon which all else depends, just as in speculative matters the worst error is that which goes astray about first principles. Now, the prime dictates of nature as to sexual intercourse are that it serve the race and the family. Hence, the sin of unnatural lust (which injures the race by defeating its propagation) and the sin of incest (which injures the family by offending piety) are the worst of carnal vices. (b) In the abuse of an act a lesser evil is that which observes the natural fundamentals, but disregards what right reason teaches about things secondary, in the manner of performing the act. But reason requires that in sexual intercourse the rights of the individual be respected. A most serious violation of individual right is adultery, which usurps the right of intercourse belonging to another; next in gravity is rape, which violently seizes for lust a person under the care of another or undefiled; next is defloration, which trespasses on the right of guardianship, or removes bodily virginity, but without violence; last among these sins is fornication, which is an injury done not to the living, but to the unborn.

[…]

2523. [On Fornication] […] (a) […] Onanism is an aggravating circumstance of fornication, or rather a new sin of unnatural intercourse…

2524. Sinfulness of Fornication.—It is of faith that fornication is a mortal sin. (a) Thus, it is gravely forbidden by the divine positive law… (b) Fornication is gravely forbidden by the natural law. For it is seriously against reason to cause an injury to the entire life of another human being; but fornication does this very thing by depriving the unborn child of its natural rights to legitimacy, to the protection of both parents, and to education in the home circle. True, in some cases there may be no prospect of a child, or there may be provision for its proper rearing; but these cases are the exception, since fornication from its nature tends to the neglect of the child, and the morality of acts must be judged, not by the exceptional and accidental, but by the usual and natural. Those who commit fornication are thinking of their own pleasure rather than of duty, and will generally shirk the difficult burdens of parenthood. Society also would be gravely wounded if unmarried intercourse were at any time lawful. Hence, St. Paul reproves the pagans, though ignorant of Scripture, for their sins of fornication (I Cor., vi. 9-11; Eph., v. 1-6), since reason itself should have taught them the unlawfulness of this practice…

[…]

2526. Circumstances of Fornication.—(a) Circumstances that aggravate the malice are the condition of the person with whom the sin is committed (e.g., that the female is a widow, or the employee of the man, or his ward, or a minor). (b) Circumstances that add a new malice to fornication are of various kinds. Thus, previous circumstances are the distinct desires of the sin entertained beforehand, the solicitation and scandal of the other party or parties with whom the sin was committed; concomitant circumstances are the quality of the persons (e.g., fornication is sacrilegious if one of the parties is consecrated to God, and also, according to some, if one party is a Christian and the other an infidel; it is unjust if one of the couple is betrothed to a third party), or the quality of the act itself (e.g., if it is performed onanistically, though pollution may be excused if it results accidentally from the good purpose to discontinue the sinful act); subsequent circumstances are injury done to the partner in sin (e.g., by refusal to pay the support or restitution due) or to the offspring (e.g., by exposure, abortion, neglect)…

2530. Adultery.—Adultery is also a distinct species of lust. […] (c) Degrees of Malice.—There are three degrees of malice in adultery. The first is that in which a married man sins with a single woman; the second that in which a married woman sins with a single man; the third that in which a married man sins with another man's wife. The second is worse than the first, on account of its consequences (e.g., sterility, uncertainty of paternity, rearing of an illegitimate child in the family); the third is worse than the second, because in addition to the consequences just mentioned, it contains a double injustice (viz., unfaithfulness to an innocent wife and unfaithfulness to an innocent husband), and it multiplies the sin. If an adulterer's husband or wife is also unfaithful, the injustice is lessened, but not removed; for not merely the two married persons are to be considered, but also the children, the family, society, and God; and the wrong done by one of the parties does not take away the right to fidelity pledged absolutely to all of these in marriage…

[…]

2534. Unnatural Lust.—Worst among the sins of impurity, as such, are crimes of unnatural lust, for they exercise the sexual act, not only illicitly, but also in a manner that defeats its purpose of reproduction…(a) For procreation nature requires copulation, and hence pollution is unnatural, for it exercises semination without copulation, either alone (self-abuse, solitary vice, masturbation) or with another (softness). (b) For procreation nature requires proper copulation, that is, one that will permit of a fertile union between the two life elements, the sperma and the ovum. Hence, unnatural coition does not comply with this necessity, for it does not employ the proper organ of sexual union, substituting rectal for vaginal intercourse, or else by some form of natural or artificial onanism it frustrates the act of its destined conclusion. This sin is worse than pollution, since pollution omits to use intercourse, whereas unnatural coition positively abuses it.

[…]

2535. Pollution.—Pollution is the voluntary emission of semen apart from coition. […] (c) It is apart from coition, and thus it differs from other consummated sins. But pollution may be committed either alone (solitary vice), or with another, and in the latter case it pertains reductively to adultery, fornication, sodomy, etc., as the case may be. (d) It is voluntary directly or indirectly: directly, when one intends it as an end (e.g., for the sake of the pleasure) or as a means (e.g., as a relief from temptation or bodily itching, to obtain a specimen of semen for medical diagnosis); indirectly, when one unjustifiably does something from which one foresees that pollution will result. In all these cases pollution is formal or sinful, and it is not to be confused with material or natural pollution, which is a discharge of semen or distillation that is involuntary or unimputable.

[…]

2538. Proximate and Remote Occasions of Pollution.—It is never lawful to expose oneself to the immediate danger of sin, for he who loves the danger loves the sin (see 258, 260); but if one uses means to make the danger remote, one may lawfully encounter it for a good reason (see 258, 260, 261). It is lawful to permit an evil effect when there is sufficient justification according to the principle of double effect (see 103 sqq.). (a) Hence, if there is proximate danger of formal pollution (that is, of consent to sin), no reason excuses an act even of a non-sexual kind, such as horseback riding. But if the act is necessary, the danger must be made remote by the use of special means, such as prayer, firm resolves, etc. (see 2497 sqq.)…

2539. The Theological Malice of Sinful Pollution.—(a) From its nature pollution is a mortal sin, because it is an act of impurity (1494) and a perversion of nature (2534). Moreover, its consequences are most injurious to society (it tends to self-indulgence and the avoidance of the burdens of marriage) and to the individual (when habitual, it weakens mental and will power and often brings on a breakdown of bodily vigor especially among young people), In Scripture it is represented as gravely illicit (I Cor., vi. 10; Gal., v. 19; Eph., v. 3). Hence, pollution is always a mortal sin when directly willed (e.g., when practised deliberately in order to be rid of a temptation or of bodily irritation or itch certainly due to superfluity of semen or to passion), and also when indirectly willed if there is proximate danger of consent to sin (e.g., when one who has always committed formal pollution in certain company goes into that company without necessity, or without use of means to prevent a fall) or grave danger of pollution and no sufficient reason for permitting it (e.g., undue familiarities from which nocturnal pollution is foreseen as most probable).

[…]

2541. The Moral Species of Sinful Pollution.—(a) The general species of pollution is distinct from other consummated sins of impurity, since it is unnatural, and this in a special way (see 2534, and Denzinger, n. 1124), But some authors regard equivalent pollution (see 2493, 2535) as not a consummated sin, since it is without true semination, and hence according to them it may be confessed simply as impure pleasure (see 2519 b). (b) The particular species of pollution is derived from circumstances that give it a new essential malice. If it is solitary, and committed by one who is under no bond of marriage or vow, and accompanied by no thought or desire except in reference to self or self-gratification (autoerotism, narcissism), there is the single sin of pollution. But there are other sins if it is committed by one under special obligation (i.e., adultery or sacrilege), or if committed with another person (e.g., seduction, coöperation, rape), or if committed with impure thoughts or desires about others (e.g., mental adultery, fornication, sodomy, bestiality). The manner in which pollution is performed (e.g., whether coöperative pollution is active or passive, by irrumation or concubitus or touch, with or without an instrument) is per se an accidental circumstance. According to some authors, coöperative pollution brought on by touch alone is not diversified in species, if there is no special affection for the other person, but only the desire of carnal gratification, and hence it may be declared simply as pollution from touch.


To summarize, regardless of the marital status of the individuals involved, IVF begins with an act of unnatural lust, proceeding to a form of unnatural intercourse at the point of fertilization (whether it be within a laboratory, or with a woman utilizing an artificial implement to inseminate herself). As such, even if a sacramentally married man and woman were struggling with infertility (being unable to naturally conceive a child of their own), it would not justify the use of IVF. Even appealing to the obligation of paying the marital debt will not suffice; for as McHugh and Callan say elsewhere in paragraph 2615.c, such a request would be “unreasonable” due to being "seductive (e.g., when it is an invitation to commit onanism) by its nature. This is also notwithstanding the deleterious effects on family life and society which inevitably come from such a process becoming more commonplace.

Finally, having covered some general principles behind why IVF is intrinsically sinful, we turn to authoritative magisterial teaching on artificial insemination. Courtesy of Pope Pius XII (whose words will be in red), as cited by McHugh and Callan (bolded words are emphasis mine):

2619. Nota.— 

[…]

(c) Artificial Insemination. The subject-matter of the latter part of the preceding paragraph is distinguished from several unlawful practices considered by moralists under the heading of artificial insemination. Pope Pius XII on several occasions has given a clear, accurate and complete statement of Catholic teaching on the subject. We append here his texts:

1) The practice of artificial insemination, when it refers to man, cannot be considered, either exclusively or principally, from the biological and medical point of view, ignoring the moral and legal one.

Artificial insemination, outside of marriage, must be condemned as essentially and strictly immoral. Natural law and divine positive law establish, in fact, that the procreation of a new life cannot but be the fruit of marriage. Only marriage safeguards the dignity of the spouses (principally of the wife in the present case) and their personal good. It alone provides for the well-being and education of the child.

It follows that no divergence of opinion among Catholics is admitted on the condemnation of artificial insemination outside of marriage. The child conceived in those conditions would be, by that very fact, illegitimate.

Artificial insemination produced in a marriage by the active element of a third party is equally immoral and consequently to be condemned without appeal.

Only the spouses have a reciprocal right upon each other's body to generate a new life: an exclusive, inalienable right, which cannot be ceded. And so it must be, even out of consideration for the child. On whoever gives life to a small being, nature imposes, by the very strength of that tie, the duty to keep and educate it. But no ties of origin, no moral or legal bonds of conjugal procreation, exist between the legitimate husband and the child who is the fruit of the active element of a third party (even if the husband has given his consent).

As far as the legitimacy of artificial insemination in marriage is concerned, it suffices, for the moment, to recall these principles of natural law: the simple fact that the result desired is obtained by this means does not justify the use of the means itself; nor does the desire of the husband and wife, in itself perfectly legitimate, to have a child, suffice to establish the legitimacy of resorting to the artificial insemination which would satisfy this desire.

It would be erroneous, therefore, to think that the possibility of resorting to this means might render valid a marriage between persons unable to contract it because of the impedimentum impotentiae.

On the other hand, it is superfluous to mention that the active element can never be obtained legitimately by means of acts against nature.

Although new methods cannot be ruled out a priori for the sole reason of their novelty, nonetheless, as far as artificial impregnation is concerned, extreme caution is not enough; it must be absolutely excluded. Saying this does not necessarily proscribe the use of certain artificial means destined only to facilitate the natural act, or to assure the accomplishment of the end of the natural act regularly performed.

Let it never be forgotten that only the procreation of a new life according to the will and the designs of the Creator brings with it, to a marvelous degree of perfection, the accomplishment of the proposed ends. It is at the same time in conformity with corporeal and spiritual nature and the dignity of the married couple, as well as with the healthy, normal development of the child (Address to Physicians, Sept. 29, 1949, Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. xi, pp. 221 ff).

2) We also believe that it is of capital importance for you, gentlemen, not to neglect this perspective when you consider the methods of artificial fecundation. The means by which one tends toward the production of a new life take on an essential human significance inseparable from the desired end and susceptible of causing grave harm to this very end if these means are not conformable to reality and to the laws inscribed in the nature of beings.

We have been asked to give some directives on this point also. On the subject of the experiments in artificial human fecundation "in vitro," let it suffice for Us to observe that they must be rejected as immoral and absolutely illicit. With regard to the various moral problems which are posed by artificial fecundation, in the ordinary meaning of the expression, or "artificial insemination," We have already expressed Our thought in a discourse addressed to physicians on September 29, 1949 (Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. xi. pp. 221 ff.). For the details We refer you to what We said then and We confine Ourself here to repeating the concluding judgment given there: "With regard to artificial fecundation, not only is there reason to be extremely reserved, but it must be absolutely rejected. In speaking thus, one is not necessarily forbidding the use of certain artificial means destined solely to facilitate the natural act or to achieve the attainment of the natural act normally performed." But since artificial fecundation is being more and more widely used, and in order to correct some erroneous opinions which are being spread concerning what We have taught, We have the following to add:

Artificial fecundation exceeds the limits of the right which spouses have acquired by the matrimonial contract, namely, that of fully exercising their natural sexual capacity in the natural accomplishment of the marital act. The contract in question does not confer on them a right to artificial fecundation, for such a right is not in any way expressed in the right to the natural conjugal act and cannot be deduced from it. Still less can one derive it from the right to the "child," the primary "end" of marriage. The matrimonial contract does not give this right, because it has for its object not the "child," but the "natural acts" which are capable of engendering a new life and are destined to this end. It must likewise be said that artificial fecundation violates the natural law and is contrary to justice and morality. [1] (Marriage and Parenthood, May 19, 1956). See The Pope Speaks, Vol, III, No. 2, Autumn of 1956, pp. 194 ff.

And there you have it. From the mouth of the Vicar of Christ, IVF is “immoral and absolutely illicit.” Can’t get more clear than that.

In conclusion, when even the Vatican II sect opposes IVF as intrinsically evil (though for how much longer, I can only guess), its inherent illicitness should be clear enough. This post merely covered the moral principles and authoritative teaching as to why IVF is immoral; it does not provide an in-depth overview of the heinous effects that such technology allows (though a mere taste can be seen in the articles originally linked at the beginning of this post), in league with abortion and contraception: the further commodification of children and human sexuality, the increased tolerance for unnatural and sinful family arrangements, and a growth in pride at being able to play God.

As Dr. Robert Edwards (the English physiologist who helped produce the world’s first test tube baby previously mentioned, having won the Nobel Prize in 2010 for the development of IVF) put it after the fact: “I wanted to find out exactly who was in charge, whether it was God Himself or whether it was scientists in the laboratory. It was us.

Having passed away in 2013, Edwards now knows precisely who’s in charge.

May God have mercy on us all.

44 comments:

  1. With increasing apostasy and technology, immorality is increasing too. The ungodly world does not care about the welfare of the child when it deprives it of real parents to give it up for adoption to sodomite pairs. And to justify this, they claim that the child needs love. Of course, but the child needs a father and a mother first. And there is no more moral authority to solemnly condemn these things. Sometimes I wonder if there will be another Flood or a similar catastrophe ... I think we are seeing the beginnings of this with the pandemic and climate change.

    Have a blessed Holy Week and Easter, Introibo !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,

      Given that God has already given us His word that never again would a Flood be sent to destroy mankind (Genesis 9:8-17), I think we can safely cross that possibility off.

      Though, a cursory reading of what will come in the end times per the Apocalypse of St. John might make a Flood seem preferable by comparison.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    2. Yes, these unnatural sins that have overtaken the world are, I think, most likely to be the ones that bring down the final wrath of God on the earth.

      How proper it is to air problems of this sort notwithstanding, I know people who have been open about their fertility struggles. IVF seems to be the go-to option, mostly. One or two surrender it all to God and humbly submit to His will. I commend them and all the others out there.

      I heard a very chilling analysis just this morning of the covert method the practitioners of perversity in high places are using on the rest of humanity. The bottom line is that they do not believe there is any actual legitimacy in their personal claims of gender "dysphoria" and abnormal sexual orientation, etc. They are not looking for tolerance or acceptance, and they don't really care about it. Their real desire is simply to gaslight or brainwash the whole population into going along with the most absurd theories about gender and human behavior for purposes of distorting our beliefs to try and gain control of our wills and minds. It makes sense, don't you think?
      God help us all, especially the children!
      Jannie

      Delete
    3. Jannie,

      To quote the notable anti-Communist and Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

      "The Bolsheviks, for their part, quickly put the Russian character in irons and redirected it to their own ends…I will recapitulate briefly. A paralyzing fear spread over the country, a fear not only of arrest but of any action of the leadership (given the total and utter worthlessness of anyone’s rights, and the inability to escape from arbitrary rule by relocating.) A network of informants saturated the population. Secrecy and distrust permeated the people, so much so that any overt activity was perceived as a provocation. How many denunciations there were against one’s own close relatives! or against friends who had fallen under the sword! A total, deafening indifference toward those who perished all around. An overpowering plume of betrayal. It was unavoidable: If you want to survive, lie. Lie and pretend. In place of all the good that was dying away, ingratitude, cruelty, and a thoroughly rude self-centered ambition now rose and established themselves." - From 'Russia in Collapse'

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    4. @Simon,
      A Blessed Easter to you my friend!

      @Jannie,
      "Their real desire is simply to gaslight or brainwash the whole population into going along with the most absurd theories about gender and human behavior for purposes of distorting our beliefs to try and gain control of our wills and minds." You said it all!!

      @Simple Man,
      Thank you for you (always) excellent replies!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. Could you (either Introibo or Simple Man or preferably both) write an article on the subject of individuals (such as Paul Jennings Hill, Michael Griffin, Scott Roeder, Shelley Shannon etc.) using physical violence against abortionists – how should a catholic judge their actions especially taking into account the circumstances we live in today (the state actively promoting baby-killing; people generally being afraid of nothing except physical violence; the near universal acceptance or tolerance of murdering the unborn)?

    In Xpo
    P.A.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RediWiWo,
      That's an interesting topic which I've never considered before. I will give it some serious thought.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. This is perfect for the overwhelming amount of female faggots within Gen X Gen Y and Millennials.
    God bless -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you think there are so many lesbians today within Gen X, Gen Y and Millennials compared to back in the 1950's - 60's? Is it that they are just more out in the open about it than they were back in the day? Also, there is a staggering amount of Lesbian Porn on the internet and the heterosexual men seem to be it's biggest consumers. I just don't understand the fascination by men of Lesbian Porn. It is totally disgusting!
      JoAnn

      Delete
    2. JoAnn and Andrew,
      what you write is so true!
      It's just my humble opinion but I think the reason why modern men are sickeningly attracted to lesbian pornography is because they are effeminate and submissive and thus seek dominance they themselves should be able to demonstrate (naturally, what I mean my men being dominant is them being decisive and responsible, acting with prudence and not upon emotions, taking care of their families in a just and prudent way as virtuous husbands and fathers, providing for their families and sheltering them from the evil of the modern world). Obviously, the dominance these emasculate weaklings look for is sick and perverted. Some of these men(?) will go for womanizing (though fornication is a horrible sin, it's at least not against nature...) but since being a fornicating alpha male has become a modern "virtue" and something to be proud of, horrible perversity like the one you mention, has been practiced quite shamelessly.
      When I was a young teenager there was a certain craze (I guess prediminantly in Europe) among young people about two Russian "singers" who either were posing as or indeed were lesbians. These two abominable females built their career upon this sick lesbian perversion of theirs (be it real or simply a gimmick to boost record sales). And yes, boys were disgustingly attracted to them.
      That was a time when I myself was attracted to such suggestive content - which now makes me tremble with fear at God's judgment. I think St. Mary Magdalene, the humble peintent, should be invoked as much as possible to protect us and others against impurity, to help us weep over past sins with perfect contrition.

      God Bless You,
      Joanna S.

      P.S. How are you JoAnn? I'm keeping you and your husband in my prayers.

      Delete
    3. Joanna,
      I agree about the effeminate men! What ever happened to real men? Seems not many left!! Men want to be women and it leaves some women having to take on both roles in the family! It is sickening!!
      My own family situation has escalated from emotional abuse to physical abuse this past week. I am not in a good situation by any means. Thanks for your concern and prayers!!

      JoAnn

      Delete
    4. JoAnn,
      I'm so sorry to hear that your situation is getting worse. Rest assured of my prayers! I do hope and believe that not all is lost, even in such tragic family circumstances like yours. May Our Blessed Lady in all Her motherly tenderness console you!

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    5. Joann,
      Continued prayers for you.

      Joanna,
      Thank you for your always kind and considerate comments.

      To both of you, remember my post on the "Genderbread Person" a few weeks back? Wonder no mre about screwed up kids, effeminate men and masculine women.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. This world and most people have been brainwashed that all the perversity is normal. If one goes against the gender bending and perversity then one becomes labelled as intolerant and a bigot. It is fastly getting worse and good and normal folks are few and hard to find. I truly believe we are in the days of sodom and gomorrah!! The culmination of all this perversity seemed to start when birth control pills came onto the market which led to the hippies and the free love movement and of course Vatican II was the fatal outcome. Almost everything that was normal with the sexes has been perverted in one way or another and accepted as mainstream. We must be living in the last days!! Just my 2 cents worth!
      JoAnn

      Delete
    7. Typical.
      The amount of female faggots is staggering yet it's all men's fault as usual.
      Women file for 75%-80% of all divorces.
      #2 I work physical labor,in good shape,attend trad chapels,support myself and don't receive anything from anyone except bills.
      So much for the
      "Where are the real Men" nonsequiter.
      Im out it's Holy Week.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    8. Does it really matter which came first, the amount of faggot men, or women?? They are both disgusting! Though in Sodom and Gomorrah's day, it was men faggots that the bible mentioned. Bible doesn't mention women faggots. The amount of people I know that consider themselves bi-sexual is staggering especially among the younger generations. If you happen to say that you are straight you are looked on as the odd one or as an antique by today's perverted standards.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    9. Andrew,
      I agree that women do tend to grumble about men being less "manly" than they expect them to be. However, it seems to me that most of these women are not in the trad circles but they are rather the worldly type, with the pick-me-up attitude and what they complain about is how a man is not "worthy" of their time (meaning making too little money for their the woman's selfish expenses) just because he IS like you described! They look for the gigolo, dismiss the decent guy, and are forever "dying" of a broken heart when the sissy type leaves them. To be absolutely clear, I genuinely admire men who are hard-working (yes, manual labor is what I highly respect), down-to-earth, self-reliant, generally no sissy boys and, most of all, true Catholics. I strive to meet the traditonal standards of a Catholic lady in a totally un-Catholic environment, and I'm sure so does JoAnn.
      Forgive us if we sometimes get a bit too naggy. I guess I'm not exaggerating when I say that we all suffer from a deficit of friends in our everyday environments and when we get to talk with like-minded folks on the Internet, the urge to let it all out is just too irresistible, esp. for ladies!

      A blessed Good Monday and Holy Thursday to All,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    10. Joanna,
      You said it way much better than I could have!! Thanks!
      Happy Easter,
      JoAnn

      Delete
    11. JoAnn,
      thank you for your kind words! I very much enjoy reading your comments, and there's always something we can learn from each other, courtesy of Introibo!

      God Bless You and Our Lady protect You!
      Blessed Easter to You and All!

      Joanna S.

      Delete
    12. @JoAnna S + JoAnn,
      Im sorry for being so rude crass presumptous insulting and assuming.
      (About women in general
      I have no friends and 1 brother who is worldly but co-raising 2 grandchildren so he has to stat level headed in his daily live so we talk sometimes.
      Im the only traditional catholic at my workplace,among my neighbors,and family.
      1 older adult nephew is beginning to truly entering a spiritual awakening.
      All i can do is pray for him + have Holy Mass offered for him,his wife,and children.
      Being a Traditional Catholic in the former Catholic Western Hemisphere is akin to being in the desert.
      Ive lost social skills and the ability to laugh which i used to do a lot to get through the day,plus the average person seems to not speak much unless they're angry or upset.
      (Like my original comment Im just as guilty) I apologise and sorry for my rude effeminate behaivor.
      Happy Easter to my Catholic Bros + Sisters.
      He is Risen he has Risen indeed!
      P.S. Pray for the Holy Souls in Purgatory.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    13. Andrew,
      Happy Easter! I hope you will consider me your friend in Christ, so please never say again "I have no friends."

      God Bless you my friend,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    14. Andrew,
      you're a real gentleman, and how I wish I had such good men around! I'm in a somewhat similar situation; the only people I can turn to in real life are my older brother (a very reasonable and good-willed man who's stopped attending Novus Ordo under my influence but is still not very willing to learn the True Faith on his own which actually makes my cry out of helplessness and fear for his soul) and my mother (baptised a true Catholic before Vatican II but went along with the flow although stayed conservative and has her doubts about what is going on). We've had much family turmoil over more than 20 years but with God's grace managed to patch up our family ties and stay together in these crazy times. The rest of my family and people I used to know don't care whether I'm dead or alive. I have much remorse about my selfishness and harshness, the latter, I guess, typical of neo-converts, towards my brother and my mother. I try to make it up for them by praying daily for their conversion and for my late father who died years ago after a long battle with cancer with only the bogus Novus Ordo sacraments though he also was born into the true Catholic Church. God knows how useless a tool I am in preaching the Faith, esp. in deeds.

      I cannot agree more with what Introibo said, and I consider all of the kind souls here at this beautiful Catholic site my true friends and dear brothers and sisters. I always keep all of you in my prayers and God forbid if I ever fail to do so! Had it been not for Introibo's blog and your interactions with me in the comments, I would have become a total misanthrope by now!

      God Bless and May the Risen Lord Jesus Christ give us true Peace,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    15. Thank you all for the kind words.
      May your Guardian Angel be with you all of your days.
      You are my Friends too.
      Happy Easter God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    16. Andrew & Joanna,
      I understand wholeheartedly your situations. I am an only child, parents deceased, no kids, one cousin in family to talk with who is a Lesbian. It is lonely out here. I have no Trad Church in my area to attend and none close. The only religious resource I have is this blog and the fine people here as well as a pre-Vatican II 90 year old NO Priest who I go to for confession.
      We really need to stick together, pray for one another and try to support one another as the times are bleak, dark and getting darker. I pray God helps each and everyone of us to be a light in this dark and lonely world! Prayers for all!!


      Happy Easter,
      JoAnn

      Delete
    17. Yeah,in the same boat as both of you.
      Never been close to my family & had a twisted abusive childhood.
      I hope you all receive blessings in life.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
  4. With regards to IV fertilization my understanding is that the doctors fertilize many eggs and throw away all but the one that is chosen to be most viable.

    https://edmonton.pacificfertility.ca/our-resources/guide-to-ivf-lab-results/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ryan,
      In almost all cases you are correct. It results in the murder of innocents.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Any thoughts on the subject of ensoulment in regards to IVF or early miscarriages? Since the catechism of the Council of Trent adopts the teaching of St. Thomas, in that ensoulment happens a certain period after conception, does God create us all as soulless vessel's or like an animal at first? Would the fate of a failed IVF or early miscarriage be nothing in regards to the baby which was just conceived but died since they have no soul yet? Perhaps God gives them some kind of test similar to the angels?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,
      Trent was superseded by further understanding of both theology and biology. In the dogmatic definition of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception ("Ineffabalis Deus") in 1854, the pontiff infallibly defined, “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the FIRST INSTANCE OF HER CONCEPTION, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” (Emphasis mine). Notice the Immaculate Conception (which consists in the SOUL of Mary) took place at the FIRST INSTANCE OF CONCEPTION, not "ENSOULMENT." Since that time, all theologians taught that ensoulment was simultaneous with conception.

      As to the possibility of a test like the angels, see my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/01/can-unbaptized-infants-achieve-salvation.html

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Does FIRST INSTANCE OF CONCEPTION, not "ENSOULMENT mean it is now dogma that we have souls at conception? Could it be possible that Mary had a soul at conception but that does not apply in all cases?

      Sometimes two fertilized eggs merge into a single person it seems that would be tricky to explain without any type of delayed ensoulment. Also identical twins.

      Delete
    3. @anon7:10
      While not ex cathedra, it is the unanimous teaching of the theologians since the time of Pope Pius IX. If ensoulment being simultaneous was unique to Mary (and Christ) then you would expect the theologians (especially those contemporaries like Franzelin) to have expounded upon it--but there is nothing. While silence doesn't necessarily imply consent in theology, it is a weighty argument in favor of immediate ensoulment.

      As to your 'twinning' scenario, the great pro-life biologist Dr. Thomas L. Johnson (a devout Catholic) tackles this situation. Twinning occurs when identical twins are reproduced. If the zygote is human, how can it split and become two humans? Sometimes the process does not complete and recombine; how could two humans become one? It would seem that delayed ensoulment is needed to make sense of it. Dr. Johnson replies that the "twin" can be regarded as the offspring of the original zygote and grandchild of the parents. In recombination, one of the twins dies, and his/her matter is rejoined to the other. Science would lend support to both ideas.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. 1. What is the proofs of the divine origin of the Catholic religion? Is there a short and concise handbook on the subject?
    2. Is the Comma Joanneum Authentic?

    ReplyDelete
  7. @anon2:02
    1. At Amazon.com you can purchase a classic work "Catholic Apologetics: A Course in Religion" by Fr. John Laux--easy to understand for beginners and very orthodox.

    2. In a decree of June 2, 1927, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office declared that scholars may be inclined to doubt or reject the authenticity of the Johannine Comma subject to any forthcoming judgment of the Church. There was no decision from that time. Even if inauthentic, it is a firm witness to the fact that the faith of the early Catholic was fully Trinitarian.

    God Bless,

    ---Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is there any Mass in Holy Saturday, or the Mass happens at Midnight like in Christmas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:04
      Mass takes place during Holy Saturday in pre-Pian Rites; in Pian Rites, like Midnight Mass at Christmas.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. In his Holy Saturday sermon, Bishop Dolan gave an interesting lesson about the Vigil Mass celebrating the revelation of Christ's Resurrection to His chosen few in the hours before dawn on Easter Sunday. He explained that in ancient times the Church held it's Holy Saturday rites in the evening. Over time, Rome's churches became an attractant for thieves, and, as he put it, "assorted low-lifes", so the Churched moved the Rites to earlier in the day for fear of violence and robbery of the Holy places.
    I didnt know any of this and found Bishop Dolan's sermon very interesting, so I thought I'd share that tidbit.
    (St. Gertrude the Great Church archives all it's masses and sermons at it's website: sgg.org)

    I wish a Happy and Blessed Easter to you, Intro, ASM, and all the commenters here!
    Jannie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      To you and all my readers, A Blessed Easter!!

      God Bless you all,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. Can anyone scan a pre.vatican II missal to the Internet Archive?
    Having an account is free and anyone can upload.
    Thanks and God Bless you Happy Easter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon12:48
      I'm not a copyright attorney and I'm not certain. If one of my readers is a copyright attorney or can cite legal information relating to same, could you please send it to me in the comments for publication? Thank you!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  11. Scenario 1, hypothetically if you could take a single sperm from a man and inject it into his wife’s egg would that be sinful and if so how?


    Scenario 2, does that change if the sperm were put into a dish and mixed with the single egg then that put back into the wife.


    Scenario 3, Hypothetically if a man were in prison and his wife visited but were not allowed direct contact. Would it be morally permissible for the man to provide and hand off to his wife semen that she would then use to complete the “fertile union between the two life elements, the sperma and the ovum.” In this case the end may bring procreation and there is not real delay, etc. In these cases no frustrated conclusion and still seeking primary end of marriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:49
      Pope Pius XII answered these above:

      Scenario 1: Artificial insemination, outside of marriage, must be condemned as essentially and strictly immoral. Natural law and divine positive law establish, in fact, that the procreation of a new life cannot but be the fruit of marriage. Only marriage safeguards the dignity of the spouses (principally of the wife in the present case) and their personal good. It alone provides for the well-being and education of the child.

      Scenario 2:As far as the legitimacy of artificial insemination in marriage is concerned, it suffices, for the moment, to recall these principles of natural law: the simple fact that the result desired is obtained by this means does not justify the use of the means itself; nor does the desire of the husband and wife, in itself perfectly legitimate, to have a child, suffice to establish the legitimacy of resorting to the artificial insemination which would satisfy this desire.

      It would be erroneous, therefore, to think that the possibility of resorting to this means might render valid a marriage between persons unable to contract it because of the impedimentum impotentiae.

      On the other hand, it is superfluous to mention that the active element can never be obtained legitimately by means of acts against nature.

      Although new methods cannot be ruled out a priori for the sole reason of their novelty, nonetheless, as far as artificial impregnation is concerned, extreme caution is not enough; it must be absolutely excluded. Saying this does not necessarily proscribe the use of certain artificial means destined only to facilitate the natural act, or to assure the accomplishment of the end of the natural act regularly performed.

      Let it never be forgotten that only the procreation of a new life according to the will and the designs of the Creator brings with it, to a marvelous degree of perfection, the accomplishment of the proposed ends. It is at the same time in conformity with corporeal and spiritual nature and the dignity of the married couple, as well as with the healthy, normal development of the child

      Scenario 3: In this case you are seeking an evil means to obtain a good end. Masturbation is intrinsically wrong and cannot be used as a means to obtain a good end. In similar fashion, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office decreed on August 2, 1929 with approval of Pope Pius XI that it is sinful, illicit, and gravely immoral to obtain sperm via masturbation in order to detect and cure gonorrhea. The ends may never justify the means.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. I have a question regarding the collection of semen for testing. Would it be legal to collect a portion of the semen after a husband and wife's natural intercourse?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon3:12
      As there is no on-point Magisterial decision, all I can do is offer conjecture. It seems that after natural intercourse open to procreation any sperm outside the woman could be used for medical testing. That is just my layman's opinion.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  13. I read an article in The Epoch Times which cited a book written by Shanna San, a reproductive epidemiologist at Mount Sinai's Icahn School of Medicine, entitled "Count Down", in which she did a study in 2017 which found that male fertility is declining, where sperm counts in samples from men in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, had the most significant decline. In her study, she found that sperm counts dropped by 59.3 percent from 1973 to 2011.

    The reason for this is thought to be all of the chemicals in our environment, used in everything we eat and purchase, which disrupt and interfere with endogenous hormones.

    Also, chemical exposure during pregnancy has been found to affect both masculinization and long-term fertility in males. Men may be exposed to to birth control pills through contaminated water and other sources. In the wild, fish, frogs, and reptiles are also increasingly being born with both ovaries and testes.

    My point is that it could be the exposure to these chemicals, particularly those found in plastic, that has damaged the hormones of children which have led to an increase in their attraction to those of the same sex.

    ReplyDelete