Jo O’Sullivan: Dignitas Infinita and Surrogacy
The Instrumentum Laboris for the Second Session of the Synod in October talks about the different perspectives from which the mission of the Synod is to be progressed. Among these is the lived reality of relationships where, among other things, there is a caution to resist “human temptations to abstract universalism”. If I understand this correctly, it means avoiding the temptation to assume what others will or should say or feel, and to make decisions based on that. If that is the case, it is, of course, admirable that the Synod should progress in such a way.
But isn’t “abstract universalism” the system by which the Institutional Church has been functioning down through the ages? Those making decisions do so for groups about whom they can’t possibly know how they think or feel, never having walked in their shoes, or even sought to experience life from their perspectives? Those who make decisions have always been part of an exclusive group – male, celibate and formed and immersed in a life dedicated to leading others to God.
Greater brains than mine have expounded on the impossibility of such people understanding the world from the perspective of other groups, so I needn’t repeat any of it. But I do want to talk about the way surrogacy is treated in Dignitas Infinita.
The language used to talk about surrogacy is very hard-hitting.
“I deem deplorable the practice of so-called surrogate motherhood, which represents a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child, based on the exploitation of situations of the mother’s material needs. A child is always a gift and never the basis of a commercial contract.”
It goes on to talk about the dignity of every child and “Because of this unalienable dignity, the child has the right to have a fully human (and not artificially induced) origin”.
It further claims that “the legitimate desire to have a child” cannot be transformed into a ‘right to a child’ that fails to respect the dignity of that child as the recipient of the gift of life”.
It likewise claims that the dignity of the woman bearing the child is violated as “in this practice, the woman is detached from the child growing in her and becomes a mere means subservient to the arbitrary gain or desire of others”. This, according to Dignitas Infinita, violates the right of the woman to be recognised individually and makes her an instrument for another.
As I see it, this is a fine example of abstract universalism. Here we have people who are completely outside of a situation, who cannot possibly know the world from the perspective of those who have an overwhelming need to be parents or that of the utter generous and selfless women who help such people because they are able to do so. Those who decide that their views and actions are deplorable and should be condemned are making judgements they have no right to make. A blanket condemnation of surrogacy condemns children born of this method as artificially induced commodities, rather than recognising that they are among the most cherished, wanted and loved additions to their families. Can the same be said of every baby born as a consequence of the conjugal union?
As for the experience and dignity of the surrogate mother, how can anyone claim that “the woman is detached from the child growing in her”? There are women and men who are so nurturing that they cherish and care deeply for others and then give them back – think of foster parents. I’m also quite well able to conceive of the fact that, rather than become “a mere means subservient to the arbitrary gain or desire of others” or “exploitation of situations of the mother’s material needs” many women who carry babies for others do so as a loving service. Casting such women as victims is insulting to them and to the people for whom they are carrying a child.
Having said all that, I happily concur with the condemnation of commercial surrogacy. I’m not naïve enough to believe that it cannot be abused by unscrupulous agents. I support my church’s claim that such practice is abhorrent and all efforts should be made to ban it.
However, DIgnitas Infinita doesn’t distinguish between surrogacy freely and lovingly undertaken and surrogacy which is abusive of human dignity. I fear that those who prepared Dignitas Infinita need to learn a bit more about the avoidance of abstract universalism!
Jo. You have written words that were necessary. You have made clear and necessary distinctions. When the document came out those of us who know families, who have gone through the experience, hoped and prayed, that such families, might never see or read some of the words in that document. The families that I know are overwhelmed with a sense of miracle and wonder. The depths of faith and graciousness explode from them like a volcano of awesomeness. Séamus.
I completely agree with you Jo. You politely call the document ‘active universalism’. I read it as arrogant ignorance.
How clear that is, Jo – in contrast to Vaticansplaining couplets such as ‘abstract universalism’. It had never occurred to me to take that on, so full marks!.
‘Let’s see what secular ‘isms’ we can take a pot-shot at today’ – that is so often the approach of these Vatican documents – and maybe it’s time to say that ‘Documentism’ could well be the fatal weakness of the entire Synodality process. As of now the only concrete achievement that seems likely to be significant at parish level is the commitment to canon-law change on the consultative role of parish pastoral councils.
I welcome this but am deeply disappointed by the disappearance of the Irish national synodal synthesis call in 2022 for a final reckoning on the issue of clerical abuse. The blanking of this – especially the continuing impact of the cover-up on trust – looks for all the world like old-fashioned denial – even while the importance of transparency and accountability is trumpeted. That’s only for the future it seems: there is to be no transparency whatever about the past.
So the fastest-growing church in Ireland seems set to thrive: the Church of the Lost Sheep. When people ask ‘Who needs those guys?’ – meaning the hierarchy – it is ever-harder to think of a convincing answer.
One statement regarding surrogacy seems questionable: “A blanket condemnation of surrogacy condemns children born of this method as artificially induced commodities, rather than recognizing that they are among the most cherished, wanted and loved additions to their families.” It does not seem to follow that the condemnation of an act is also necessarily a condemnation or devaluing of a child born as a result of that act. There is an important distinction at stake – one that would relate to rape, incest, artificial insemination, and cloning (not to imply morally equivalency between these). This principle may be relevant to an array of situations involving technology as well as tragic human situations. A blanket condemnation of an act can go hand in hand with deep respect and love for a child conceived or born as a result of it – as a unique person created in the image of God and as a cherished addition to a family that has yearned for its addition.