…the parent of an existing child rather than creating new ones via an arrangement with the moral pitfalls of surrogacy (not least of these, the potential for exploitation of the surrogate).

grounds that sex has two aspects procretive and unitive (emotional or spirtual) and dividing those is wrong. As someone whose children were born with the assistance of science i can assure the decison to reproductive technology is every bit as unitive as having sex and in some cases more so.

The decision to use those technologies does not just happen and takes a lot of discussion between the couple that is every bit as unitive as having sex. When we were going through the decisoin I reached out to a priest who was a long time family friend. I think he point is still a good one that what the Chruch doctrine is missing is the fact that what my wife and i were doing was a result of the same love of married couple having children having love every day.

I get that the Church does not want labs creating babies (neither do I) but I also will tell you the Church does not understand what it means to family's like ours.

As for adoption I can tell you we discussed that. It was not the right decison for us in part because an adopted friend had found her birth mom and we wateched pain it caused her adoptive mom, I have great respect for adoptive parents but not everyone has the emotional ability to do that.

...for understanding that it was not for you. Adoptees often have to bear the weight of their adoptive parents emotional wellbeing. It's entirely unfair as we did not choose to be adopted. If we need some kind of unification to heal our trauma, that is our right.

Edit: I am going to add an edit because that sounded much harsher than intended. It's no secret I am an adoptive parent, too. But you absolutely should not adopt without being open to and prepared for whatever the needs are to ensure the emotional wellbeing of the child, the one person in the adoption triad with no agency.

they have wondrerful relationships with their children who are simply members of our family. It was something that as a couple simply wasnt the right decision for us and quite frankly probably says more about us and our fears / personal shortcomings than anything else.

And how that relates to Catholic teaching on IVF, etc?

Agree or disagree, Pipe Francis's statement does not come out of a vacuum.

Pope Francis's response to your statement on allowing those who cannot conceive to have children might point to the option of adoption. I understand how people might feel in this situation, but I don't think the Catholic Church is treading new ground when it says "even when things are particularly unpleasant there are certain rules you cannot violate," aka "the ends do not justify the means." You may feel that surrogacy has no moral qualms, but for those who do, that is the applicable statement.

I perceive the statement by the Pope to be yet another attempt by the church to control its members without any acknowledgement of the advancement of science and how it affects our lives. It's not the 14th century anymore.

Adoption vs ivf vs artificial insemination have been covered in other posts here and point to the fact that there is not a one size fits all solution to this problem. Basically, the church is saying "if you don't want to adopt, you can't have a family"--which is ridiculous. Any of these options should be available to those who can proceed in an ethical, moral manner. They don't need the church (hardly a bastion of ethical or moral behavior) to validate that.

My subject may sound a bit flippant, but I think it's worth commenting that these moral issues have been looked at quite recently, and the church is not just aware of scientific advance but can claim quite a bit of credit for scientific advancement throughout the last 1000-2000 years (depending on when you think the "Catholic Church" came into existence).

The history of those in power trying to control is a very long one (in fact, just as long as history is) and I know one can certainly point to many, many examples of the Catholic hierarchy doing just that, but the IVF/surrogacy concern raises specific moral concerns. Artificial insemination is a different (lower) level of concern. Specifically, according to the Catholic argument the injury done by artificial insemination is to the people who are choosing that injury, whereas the injury done by IVF and the like is done to others (obviously this is based on the concept that fertilized eggs are people).

Personally, I am not Catholic but I do believe in an objective truth. That objective truth means there will be conclusions that are not pleasant. That does not invalidate the conclusions. Now, I agree with you that if someone can proceed in an ethical, moral manner they should be allowed to. Interestingly, the Catholics would also agree with you, they would simply say this is not ethical or moral.

All of them. It’s possible my anti-church bias allowed me to take my eye off the ball a little here. I appreciate the back and forth and your thoughts. Thank you.