Versión de HTML Básico
70
Stanley J. Grenz
insemination, the Catholic magisterium in effect spoke against any type of
technological assistance in the procreative process.
Foundational to the rejection of technological means is the statement’s
reaffirmation of the traditional church position concerning the goal-
directedness of the sex act as demanding an “inseparable connection . . .
between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the
procreative meaning.” Technological fertilization undermines the origin of
the human person as the result of “an act of giving,” the fruit of the parents’
love; it results in the child being “an object of scientific technology.” In
short, “such fertilization entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the
power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technol
ogy over the origin and destiny of the human race.”
b. The case for openness to technological assistance.
. . . All Christians ought
to applaud the Roman hierarchy for launching a commendable attempt to
maintain the mystery of human procreation in the face of the unchallenged
intrusion of technology into human life. Yet, the wholesale rejection of all
types of technological assistance in the natural human drive to produce off
spring is unfortunate. . . . [T]he rejection voiced by
Donum vitae
reflects a
truncated and therefore damaging understanding of the meaning of the sex
act within marriage. By insisting that the “unitive meaning” of the sex act
cannot be separated from the “procreative meaning,” the magisterium is
maintaining virtually unaltered the Augustinian-Thomist understanding
that works to limit sexual activity to procreation.
The document’s understanding of the meaning of the sex act is truncated,
for within the marriage bond sexual activity can carry other equally signifi
cant meanings. . . . The sex act may serve as an expression of the marriage
covenant the partners share, and thereby as the “sacrament” of the marriage
covenant, an outward act which repeatedly seals and signifies their inward
commitment. It can be an illustration of the mutual submission that is to
characterize marriage, thereby forming a spiritual metaphor, a beautiful
reminder of the self-giving love of Christ. These aspects of the meaning of
the sex act may exist apart from the procreative intent. In fact, rather than
the procreative meaning being central for the unitive meaning, as is implied
in the Vatican statement, the other aspects of the sex act are what form the
context for procreation. As self-giving love is creative, so the giving of oneself
in the marriage act can be procreative within the context of the marital cov
enant. Even the meaning most closely bound to the procreative process,
namely, the couple’s openness to the broadening of their love beyond the
marital bond, remains when there is no possibility that pregnancy will result
from the sex act.
In contrast to the position of
Donum vitae,
therefore, it would seem that
a fuller understanding of the meaning of the sex act within the marital bond
would welcome as God’s gift, rather than discourage, technological assis