| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
questions answered by wm. b. smith G.I.F.T.? Question: What is the morality of G.I.F.T.? Is it a procedure that a Catholic facility should promote? Answer: First, some definitions. GIFT means Gamete Intra-Fallopian Transfer. Many procedures are required: 1) ova are collected from the wife through laparoscopy; 2) semen is collected from the husband either illicitly by masturbation, or licitly by using a perforated condom or silastic sheath after intercourse; 3) sperm are “washed” (“scrubbed down”) to remove prostaglandins and antibodies and by centrifuging to capacitate better sperm with more potential for fertilization; 4) the ovum and processed sperm are placed in a catheter separated by an air bubble and deposited in the fallopian tube. If successful, conception takes place in vivo rather than in vitro which is how it differs from in vitro fertilization. The Vatican Instruction on bioethics, CDF, Donum Vitae (2/22/87) did not explicitly consider GIFT. Indeed, at the press conference presenting DV in 1987, one Vatican presenter said the document left GIFT open to further research and theological discussion. And discussion there has been. The Dallas workshop for Bishops (February 1988) was published as a book, Reproductive Technologies, Marriage and the Church (1988) with two opinions: D. T. DeMarco (against GIFT) pp. 122-139, and D. G. McCarthy (pro GIFT) pp. 140-145. Both authors (DeMarco and McCarthy) accept Church teaching, where they disagree is whether or not GIFT “assists” or “replaces” a marital act in this procedure. If it assists, one can argue it is a licit procedure; if it separates so as to substitute and/or replace a marital act, it is not a licit procedure. This debate has continued especially in Ethics & Medics (EM) and the Linacre Quarterly (LQ). For example, J. M. Haas argues NO to GIFT (EM 18:9 [1993] 1-3), while D. McCarthy argues YES to GIFT (Ibid. 3-4). T. J. O’Donnell in his Medicine & Christian Morality (1991; p. 263) argued against GIFT but saw it open to discussion (also his 3rd ed. [1996] p. 263). G. Grisez argues that “since the ovum and semen . . . do not pertain to any act of marital intercourse, this procedure, when successful, produces a baby by technology rather than contributes to a marital act’s fruitfulness” (The Way of the Lord Jesus v.3 [1997] 244-249 @ p. 245). Similarly, Ashley-O’Rourke, in Health Care Ethics (3rd ed. 1989), argue that “the technology involved seems to replace the conjugal act as the sufficient cause of the uniting of the sperm and ovum rather than simply to assist it” (HCE, p. 285). Similar arguments against the moral permissibility of GIFT can be found in W. E. May, The Gift of Life (1990) p. 80 and his Marriage (1995) 89-90; N. Tonti-Filippini LQ 57:2 (1990) 74-75; and J. F. Doerfler LQ 64:1 (1997) 16-29. On the other hand, P. J. Cataldo, of the Pope John Center, considers most of these criticisms and argues for GIFT in brief EM 21:1 (1996) 1-3, and more fully, chapter 6 in The Gospel of Life (Pope John Center, 1996) pp. 61-94. Cataldo summarizes these criticisms as two: ontological and numerical. Ontological in the sense of causality: does GIFT assist or replace the marital act? When sperm is collected another way (e.g., masturbation—a method not advocated by Cataldo) in that order of causality, a marital act is not essential at all to GIFT. Further, most of the above critics see GIFT and its mechanics as the principal cause of conception and the marital act as only a subordinate cause—more and more remote depending on the number of interventions and clinical preparations prior to injection into the fallopian tube. Apparently in response to T. O’Donnell, Cataldo rejects the argument that the sheer number of interventions is relevant or decisive in severing the required link between the marital act and fertilization (p. 90). I would not argue that the sheer number of interventions is decisive in itself, but the kind of interventions is surely relevant. What is politely called “washing” or “scrubbing” sperm is no mere aid to facilitate a marital act. These are separate and separable human acts that seem to me to be no different from artificial insemination—which all of the above authors agree is not morally permissible. If, indeed, the technical mechanics of processed sperm and its subsequent injection are not artificial insemination—what is? If catheter-delivered processed sperm were injected without air bubble and ovum, it would surely be described morally as artificial insemination. If that is true of the simpler, is it not also true of the more complicated delivery? I would agree with Grisez and Ashley-O’Rourke that this procedure “replaces” rather than “assists” a marital act. And that GIFT in its clinical execution is really a form of high tech insemination. For these reasons, I do not believe a Catholic facility should promote or provide this procedure. Let your conscience be your guide? Question: Our Catholic paper carries The Question Box by Fr. J. Dietzen. A recent enclosed answer is entitled “Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide.” How would you answer it? Answer: My local Catholic paper (Catholic NY 16:41 [7/17/97] p. 13) carried the same column which I judge to be sorely incomplete and quite misleading. The mantra—“Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide”—has apparently gone national via ABC’s Nothing Sacred at least according to one Op Ed in the NY Times (9/24/97; p. A-27). According to Maureen Dowd, when a woman in that show tells Fr. Ray that she’s going to have an abortion, the priest replies, “You’re an adult with your own conscience.” Ms. Dowd doubted that even a liberal cleric would be that tentative re abortion, but her loose religious source quickly quoted the wrong paragraph from the Catechism back to her in support of the absolute autonomy of conscience. Back to the Question Box. Fr. Dietzen also quotes the Catechism re conscience but so selectively as to mislead. In our society, the expression “Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide” is an easy invitation to subjectivism; i.e., I have a “right” to do what my conscience tells me to do because my conscience tells me to do it. As John Courtney Murray taught: this is a perilous theory! The particular peril is subjectivism, the notion that, in the end, it is my conscience (my decision) (my choice), and not the objective truth that determines right or wrong, true or false. The QB column does refer to the Catechism, but the wonderfully balanced and complete treatment of “conscience” in the Catechism (CCC##1776-1802) is not accurately reflected in that QB answer. For example, the Catechism’s treatment of “Erroneous Judgment” of Conscience (##1790-1794) is conveniently omitted. Also, it’s a bit misleading to pull one sentence from the young theologian, Father Ratzinger in 1968, while ignoring the masterful treatment of the same subject by the Cardinal-Prefect Ratzinger, “Conscience and Truth” (1991). What is missing from the QB column is the place, importance and emphasis on “truth” in the formation and function of a true Catholic conscience. Perhaps a short newspaper column does not provide the space for clear teaching with adequate distinctions. However, instead of mantras and slogans, we are blessed with excellent and clear Catholic teaching on Conscience and Truth. Both the Catechism (##1776-1802) and Pope John Paul’s encyclical, Veritatis Splendor (1993) nn. 54-64 “Conscience and Truth” do this well. The status of an erroneous conscience is not to be denied; but it must be seen for what it is—“erroneous.” Erroneous judgment is not a desired privilege, it is an aberration in need of correction. Allowing for culpable or inculpable ignorance, one is responsible for erroneous judgments of conscience and correct judgments of conscience; but they are not morally ex aequo. To exalt an erroneous conscience, without necessary distinctions, is tantamount to saying we are better off ignorant of the truth, that it’s just fine to be unburdened by the truth of Revelation which is exactly the distortion Cardinal Ratzinger refutes (1991). Error needs to be corrected, as the Catechism teaches (##1790-1794), as Veritatis Splendor nn. 54-64 supremely teaches. Indeed, the Catechism teaches strongly: “But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man” (#1860). Without qualification, “Let your conscience be your guide” can mean: “Let Error Be Your Guide.” That may be a media favorite but it is not sound teaching and cannot help sound personal practice. Please address questions to Msgr. Wm. B. Smith, St. Joseph’s Seminary, Dunwoodie, Yonkers, N.Y. 10704. |