(LifeSiteNews) — (Editors’ Note: LifeSite unequivocally condemns all forms of in vitro fertilization (IVF), which separate procreation from the sacred bond of marriage and violate the dignity of the human person. However, the fate of the countless human beings already created through IVF and now frozen in storage remains a deeply complex and painful moral issue.

The Catholic Church has not issued a definitive judgment on the licitness of embryo adoption—leaving the question open for serious, faithful debate. This LifeSite series presents that debate in good faith, with contributors who are unwaveringly pro-life and faithful to Church teaching.

LifeSiteNews is pleased to present in one article two opposed arguments on the subject of embryo adoption. The first argument is by Professor John Paul Meenan, an assistant professor of theology at Our Lady Seat of Wisdom College and the editor of Canada’s Catholic Insight magazine. The second is by Dr. Elizabeth Rex, formerly an adjunct professor of Catholic bioethics and the Assistant Director of the Saint John Paul II Bioethics Center at Holy Apostles College and Seminary. Dr. Rex recently appeared on The John-Henry Westen Show.)

RELATED: Can we adopt frozen embryos from IVF? Catholic bioethicist weighs in

Professor John Paul Meenan: It’s a moral violation

I listened with concern to the recent interview with Dr. Elizabeth Rex on LifeSiteNews, “The Moral Crisis of IVF: Can Catholics Adopt Frozen Embryos?” During the discussion, Dr. Rex quoted selectively, incompletely, and inaccurately from the two Magisterial documents cited, Donum vitae (1987) and Dignitatis personae (2008).

Here is the full relevant section of Donum vitae:

In consequence of the fact that they have been produced <in vitro,> those embryos which are not transferred into the body of the mother and are called “spare” are exposed to an absurd fate, with no possibility of their being offered safe means of survival which can be licitly pursued. (Emphasis added.)

This teaching is re-emphasized and expanded upon two decades later in Dignitatis personae:

With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what to do with them?  Some of those who pose this question do not grasp its ethical nature, motivated as they are by laws in some countries that require cryopreservation centers to empty their storage tanks periodically. Others, however, are aware that a grave injustice has been perpetrated and wonder how best to respond to the duty of resolving it.

Proposals to use these embryos for research or for the treatment of disease are obviously unacceptable because they treat the embryos as mere “biological material” and result in their destruction. The proposal to thaw such embryos without reactivating them and use them for research, as if they were normal cadavers, is also unacceptable.

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood; this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons. (Emphasis added.)

To put it simply, embryo adoption is not permitted by the Church, nor it is the same as adopting born children, as Dr. Rex implies. The two cases are inherently different.

Two primary intrinsic evils

The ‘problems’ alluded to are explained in the previous sections of the documents. The two primary intrinsic evils involved in embryo adoption are:

1. Embryo transfer – (which is always linked with IVF). The Church distinguishes between reproductive technologies that ‘assist’ the natural God-given conjugal act and those that ‘dominate’ and replace the act. Placing an embryo in a womb is dominative and not assistive. The only morally permitted way for a baby to be in a womb is by the conjugal act between a husband and wife.
2. Surrogacy – Gestating a child who is not genetically related to the mother, placed there by artificial means (embryo transfer), is also explicitly condemned. Embryo adoption is surrogacy.

Besides this, there are two added a posteriori problems. One is that anything that could be done, in the end, and in some way, should be done. Would not legions of young women have an obligation to save these babies? And which ones do they choose? Like all intrinsic evils, embryo adoption raises more problems than it may purport to solve.

Also, if we harken back to 1968 and Humanae vitae, Paul VI warns that if an intrinsic evil such as contraception were to be permitted, what’s to stop the state using such means, even coercively, for proportionate reasons? A Pandora’s box would release all sorts of evils, and a brave new world would dawn indeed.

Some things must never be done

Pope Saint John Paul II warns in Veritatis splendor that the prohibition of intrinsic evils is the safeguard against totalitarian moral anarchy. Some things must never be done, regardless of how much good may be attained, or evil avoided. The Church is now practically alone in such prohibitions.

I agree this is an emotional topic, and the intention to ‘save’ the babies an admirable one. But Pope John Paul II in Evangelium vitae teaches that this earthly life is a penultimate good, not an ultimate one; we are made for heaven, including all those embryonic babies. Placing them in a womb, surrogate or otherwise, is an intrinsic evil, incommensurate with the spiritual harm this would entail.

If embryo adoption were an option, the Church would have said so. The technology was available when both documents were written. Rather, she says the opposite, The highest authority in the Church has explicitly declared that there is nolicit way to bring these children to birth.

To echo John Paul II, the production of artificial embryos must stop, and the IVF horror show must end.

RELATED: ‘Embryo adoption’ is a false solution to the mass destruction of children through IVF

Dr. Elizabeth Rex: Embryonic adoption is caring for the least of our brothers

John-Henry Westen invited me to be interviewed on March 9, 2025, regarding a questionable statement made by Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, the Senior Ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, to Raymond Arroyo. On his popular EWTN program, “The World Over,” Arroyo had asked Fr. Tad a question regarding the morality of embryo adoption. Fr. Tad responded to the question by claiming that the third paragraph of Dignitas personae 19 provides magisterial evidence that the Catholic Church has already condemned embryo adoption for some people, namely, infertile couples. Here is the full magisterial quote in Dignitas personae:

Proposals that these [frozen] embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood; this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

As John Henry Westen rightly pointed out at the beginning of our interview, even Fr. Tad was tacitly admitting that the Catholic Church has not formally condemned the practice of embryo adoption for “other people,” presumably meaning for other couples who are not infertile.

MRT and three parent embryos

As a Catholic bioethicist dedicated to defending the magisterial teachings of both Donum vitae and Dignitas personae, I have researched this specific text. It is referring to a highly immoral infertility treatment known as Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy (1). MRT involves the use and destruction of healthy “donor embryos” by infertile couples to cure their own IVF-conceived embryos.  MRT unethically kills the healthy donor embryo because the process replaces the diseased mitochondria of the couple’s own embryo with healthy mitochondria extracted from the donor embryo. The resulting IVF embryo is frequently referred to as a “three-parent embryo” because the baby inherits nuclear DNA from both parents and mitochondrial DNA from a donor.

MRT is a totally unethical infertility treatment that was first developed and used in the 1990’s (2) a few years after the promulgation of Donum vitae in 1987. This explains why it was formally condemned as an infertility treatment in 2008 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Dignitas personae “for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit.” Clearly, the use of donor eggs, donor sperm, and donor embryos is “not ethically acceptable.”

Embryo adoption is not an infertility treatment

MRT can also be used as an illicit infertility treatment by two women – along with donor sperm – to conceive a “three-parent embryo” who is genetically related to both women. This very specific text in Dignitas personae 19 is clearly a condemnation of a previously existing and gravely immoral infertility treatment; it most certainly is not condemning the practice of embryo adoption by either infertile or fertile married couples. Embryo adoption is not an infertility treatment for infertile couples: embryo adoption involves the entirely distinct process of adopting an orphaned frozen embryo and therapeutically transferring the child to the womb of its adoptive mother.

In response to the accusation that I quoted “selectively, incompletely, and inaccurately” I would like to respond, in the first place, by referring Professor Meehan to a newly published book which I have written with a Canadian bioethicist, Dr. Charles Robertson, “A Handbook on the Moral Arguments in the Embryo Adoption Debate: What Does the Catholic Church Teach?“

Our book faithfully presents the moral arguments on both sides of the embryo adoption debate that took place in the scholarly pages of The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly over the course of three years. The Handbook provides a very timely and important contribution to the ongoing and open debate over the morality of both embryo transfer and embryo adoption. It includes Dr. Charles Robertson’s “A Thomistic Analysis of Embryo Adoption” as well as my own “The Magisterial Liceity of Embryo Transfer: A Response to Charles Robertson.”

My article, which was published in the NCBQ’s Winter 2015 issue, includes two important chapters: “The Magisterial Liceity of Embryo Transfer in Donum vitae 1.3 Faithfully Resolves Donum vitae 1.5″ (pages 50-52); and “The Magisterial Liceity of Embryo Transfer in Donum vitae 1.3 Faithfully Resolves Dignitas personae 19″ (pages 52-56). It would be an ideal academic textbook to initiate an in-depth discussion of the magisterial arguments regarding embryo transfer and embryo adoption in Catholic colleges and universities. (The link to my NCBQ 2015 article is provided in the Academic Resources page at the end of this essay.)

The Catholic Church has never condemned the practice of embryo adoption

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, it is an undeniable and certain fact that the Catholic Church has never condemned the practice of embryo adoption. In fact, both the Vatican and the USCCB issued formal, well-documented statements confirming this very important truth on December 12, 2008, the exact same day that Dignitas personae was officially promulgated.

As evidence, I would like to quote from my own Letter to the Editor which was published in the Winter 2011 issue of the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly:

According to the Catholic News Service article published on December 12, 2008 – the very day Dignitas personae was publicly released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – Archbishop Rino Fisichella, the then-president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, told reporters at the Vatican’s official press conference that “the discussion is still open” on the matter of embryo adoption. In addition, the CNS article reported that “the Vatican has not ruled out the possibility of embryo adoption” and even specifically stated that “the Vatican did not rule out the practice.” (3)

In its own carefully worded statement of December 2008, the United States Conference   of Catholic Bishops reinforced the Vatican’s clear position on the matter of embryo adoption, stating that while Dignitas personae “raises cautions and problems” about proposals for the adoption of abandoned frozen embryos, it “does not formally make a definitive judgment against them.” (4)

It should be noted that before Dignitas personae was authoritatively promulgated in 2008, there were many theologians and ethicists who actively debated each other, both in favor and against embryo adoption.  However, after the authoritative promulgation of Dignitas personae in 2008, both the Vatican and the USCCB issued official public statements that “the debate is still open” and that Dignitas personae did not rule out the “practice” of embryo adoption.

Simply put, therefore, there should be no further personal attacks or censorship against those of us who strongly support the “practice” of embryo adoption which is currently allowed – it is not prohibited! – by both the Vatican and the USCCB. In fact, Meenan’s assertion that “embryo adoption is not permitted by the Church” directly contradicts the Catholic Church’s most recent and official position that allows the “practice” of embryo adoption. This is an undeniable fact.

Not intrinsically evil, not surrogacy

Thirdly, I would like to briefly respond to “the two primary intrinsic evils involved in embryo adoption” – namely, embryo transfer and surrogacy – which are mentioned in Meenan’s “letter of concern”:

1. Embryo transfer is not intrinsically evil; in fact, “one must uphold as licit” embryo transfer as a morally licit, therapeutic, medical procedure when used to save the life of the human embryo who has been illicitly conceived outside of the womb. Donum vitae 1, 3 – which is cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2275 – affirmatively answers this key moral question:

Are Therapeutic Procedures Carried Out on the Human Embryo Licit? “As with all medical interventions on patients, one must uphold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it but are directed toward its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.” (Emphasis in original.)

2. Embryo Adoption is not Surrogacy. Magisterial definitions definitely matter. Here is the Church’s official definition of “Surrogate Motherhood” that can be found in Donum vitae II, A, 3:

By “surrogate mother” the Instruction means:

a. the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo implanted in her uterus and who is genetically a stranger to the embryo because it has been obtained through the union of gametes of “donors.” She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the baby once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy.

b. the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo to whose procreation she has contributed the donation of her own ovum, fertilized through insemination with the sperm of a man other than her husband. She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the child once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy.

Regarding the letter’s two a posteriori problems, my responses are as follows:

1. “Would not legions of young women have an obligation to save these babies?” No. There is no obligation whatsoever to adopt an “orphaned” child that has been abused and abandoned by its own parents. But, likewise, what we do – or fail to do – to the least of our brethren, we do unto Jesus himself. The adoption of an “orphan” is, however, an opportunity to practice virtually all the works of mercy: shelter the homeless, welcome the stranger, feed the hungry, etc.

Furthermore, Donum vitae II, B, 5 actually “mandates” accepting and bringing up every embryo:

Although the manner in which human conception is achieved with IVF and ET cannot be approved, every child who comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love.

2. Humanae vitae rightly condemns artificial contraception as “intrinsically evil” because it separates the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. Likewise, Donum vitae and Dignitas personae condemn all forms of artificial procreation as “intrinsically evil” because they, too, separate the unitive and the procreative meanings of the marital act. Once again, however, magisterial definitions matter: The Church condemns artificial homologous and heterologousfertilization and surrogacy; but the Church has never condemned either embryo transfer and/or embryo adoption:

Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2377: Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo to the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children. (CDF, DV II, 5)

Dignitas personae 18 is dedicated to condemning cryopreservation as gravely immoral:

Cryopreservation is incompatible with the respect owed to human embryos; it presupposes their production in vitro; it exposes them to serious risk of death or physical harm, since a high percentage does not survive the process of freezing and thawing; it deprives them at least temporarily of a maternal reception and gestation; it places them in a situation in which they are susceptible to further offense and manipulation. (Emphasis added.)

DP 18 also condemns parental abandonment: “The majority of embryos that are not used remain ‘orphans.’ Their parents do not ask for them and at times all trace of the parents is lost.”

In Evangelium vitae, Saint Pope John Paul II never states that placing an embryonic child in a maternal womb is an intrinsic evil. Evangelium vitae n. 98 does, in fact, encourage adoption:

A particularly significant expression of solidarity between families is a willingness to adopt or take inchildren abandoned by their parents or in situations of serious hardship. True parental love is ready to go beyond the bonds of flesh and blood in order to accept children from other families, offering them whatever is necessary for their well-being and full development.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2274 emphatically states, “Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other person.”

In Veritatis splendor, Saint Pope John Paul II defines the concept of intrinsic evil in paragraph 80, which can be applied to the moral duty of defending “the good” of every human embryo, who, from conception, must also be treated as a “person” made in God’s own image:

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature ‘incapable of being ordered’ to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image.

And Donum vitae I, 1 further unequivocally states:

This doctrinal reminder provides the fundamental criterion for the solution of the various problems posed by the development of the biomedical sciences in this field: since the embryo must be treated as a person, it must be defended in its integrity, tended and cared for, to the extent possible, in the same way as any other human being as far as medical assistance is concerned.

Finally, the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae concludes with this beautiful and scriptural exhortation: “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me.” (Mt. 18:5)

_________________________

(1) “Development of mitochondrial replacement therapy: A review,” Heliyon 6 (2020). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7492815/pdf/main.pdf (Accessed on March 29, 2025)

(2) “Research into Policy: A Brief History of Mitochondrial Donation,” National Library of Medicine. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4855617/ (Accessed on March 29, 2025.)

(3) Cindy Wooden, “Adopting Embryos Raises Moral Questions, Vatican Officials Say,” Catholic News Service, December 12, 2008, https://catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0806229.htm, emphasis added.

(4) U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Questions and Answers: The Instruction ‘Dignitas personae’: On Certain Bioethical Questions” (December 9, 2008), 2, https://old.udccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Q_and_A.pdf.

Cf. https://dioceseofraleigh.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/Q-and-A_on_Dignitas_Personae.pdf (Accessed on March 29, 2025)

RESOURCES ON THE MORALITY OF EMBRYO ADOPTION

Fr. C. Ryan McCarthy, What to Do with the Least of Our Brothers: Finding Solutions to the Problem of Endangered Embryos published by Saint Benedict Press, LLC, 2013.  Dissertatio ad Lauream in Facultate Sacra Theologiae apud Pontifificam Universitatem S. Thomae in Urbe.

Vidimus et approbavimus,

            Romae, apud Pont. Universitatem S. Thomae

            Die 3, Julii, anno 2013

            Prof. Basil Cole, O.P. (moderator)

            Prof. Srephen Rehrauer, C.SsR. (censor)

Imprimatur

            Indianapoli

            Die 4, mense, Decembri, anno 2013

            Mons. Joseph W. Tobin, C.Ss.R.

            Archbishop of the Archdiocese

            of Indianapolis, Indiana

ACADEMIC ARTICLES AVAILABLE ONLINE

The Moral Licitness of Adopting Frozen Embryos, with Answers to Objections by Monica Lopez Barahona, Rev. Ramon Lucas Lucas, L.C., and Salvador Antunano Alea.

The Only Moral Option is Embryo Adoption by Br. Glenn Breed, MSA. Published in The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 14.3 (Autumn 2014), pp. 441 – 447.

The Magisterial Liceity of Embryo Transfer: A Response to Charles Robertson by Elizabeth Bothamley Rex, PhD. Published in The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 15.4 (Winter 2015), pp. 701 – 722.

ACADEMIC WEBINARS AVAILABLE ONLINE

Embryo Adoption: Pro (Part I) with Fr. Ryan McCarthy: presented by Doctor, Doctor Podcast in 2023, by Dr. Tom McGovern and Dr. Andrew Mullally.

 The Moral Arguments in the Embryo Adoption Debate: A Webinar hosted by ITEST (Institute for the Theological Encounter of Science and Technology) presented on May 8, 2021.

Treating Human Embryos as Human Patients: The Magisterial and Medical Facts: A Webinar hosted by ITEST (Institute for the Theological Encounter of Science and Technology) presented on June 24, 2023, the First Anniversary of the Dobbs Decision, with Dr. George Mychaskiw II, DO, FAAP, FACOP, FASA and Dr. Elizabeth B. Rex, PhD (ThD cand.)

The Most Controversial Pro-Life Issue: Embryo Adoption. Dr. Rafael Gonzalez, ThD interviews Dr. Elizabeth Rex, PhD regarding the ongoing Embryo Adoption controversy.

Spares: Second Chance Stories of Frozen Embryos. A documentary produced by Real Clear Politics.

ACADEMIC BOOKS

Human Embryo Adoption: Biotechnology, Marriage, and the Right to Life edited by Rev. Thomas V. Berg, L.C. & Edward J. Furton, PhD. The National Catholic Bioethics Center and The Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, 2006.

The Ethics of Embryo Adoption and the Catholic Tradition: Moral Arguments, Economic Reality and Social Analysis edited by Sarah-Vaughan Brakman & Darlene Fozard Weaver. Springer, 2007.

A Handbook on the Moral Arguments in the Embryo Adoption Debate: What Does the Catholic Church Teach? Co-authored by Elizabeth B. Rex, PhD, and Charles Robertson, PhD. EnRoute Books and Media, LLC, 2025.

What Should Be Done with “Orphaned” Frozen Embryos? Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) with Magisterial Answers Quoted Directly from Donum vitae and Dignitas personae. Co-edited by Dr. Alicia Thompson, DO, MPH, and Dr. Elizabeth Rex, PhD. En Route Books and Media, LLC, 2025

A Snowflake Named Hannah: Ethics, Faith, and the First Adoption of a Frozen Embryo (A Unique True Story that Ignited a New Pro-Life Movement) by John Strege. Kregel Publications, 2020.