The National Catholic Register portal reports on an interview with Leigh Fitzpatrick Snead, an EWTN radio host and author, who during National Infertility Awareness Week encourages Catholic couples facing infertility to seek support, avoid isolation, and adhere to Church teaching against IVF, while also discussing adoption as one path to fruitfulness. The article, while superficially orthodox in its rejection of IVF, ultimately reduces the profound mystery of human suffering and God’s will to a therapeutic narrative of emotional management, community support, and personal fulfillment, conspicuously omitting the indispensable supernatural framework that alone gives meaning to the cross of infertility.
The Medicalization of a Spiritual Cross: From Supernatural Vocation to Psychological Burden
The article’s foundational premise, as articulated by Snead, is that infertility is a “particularly private cross” involving “intimate parts of your marriage,” leading to “hard stuff experienced in silence and even shame,” and a feeling that is “almost humiliating.” While acknowledging the pain, the framing is overwhelmingly naturalistic and psychological. The primary solutions offered are “good medical care that aligns with your values,” “parish support groups or a group online,” “frequent confession, spiritual direction, and counseling,” and the advice to “communicate with each other and make time to enjoy your marriage even though you’re struggling.” This approach, while not inherently evil, dangerously sidelines the primary and essential supernatural dimension of suffering, reducing a potential participation in the Passion of Christ to a problem of emotional resilience and social support.
The Church has always taught that suffering, when united to the Cross of Christ, has immense redemptive value. Pope Pius XII, in his address to the World Medical Association (1958), emphasized that “suffering is not an evil to be eliminated at all costs, but a reality to be understood and transcended in the light of faith.” The Catechism of the Council of Trent unequivocally states that afflictions are sent by God to “prove, exercise, and crown” the faithful. By focusing on “relief and comfort” through openness and community, the article implicitly diminishes the higher calling to embrace the cross as a means of sanctification and union with God, transforming a potential pathway into divine intimacy into a challenge of personal well-being.
The Obedience of Faith vs. The “Why” of Prohibition
Snead correctly states that couples should “learn and develop a good understanding of what the Church teaches, especially about the prohibition of IVF,” and stresses the importance of understanding the “why” – “not just the fact that it’s ‘not allowed’.” This is a crucial point, yet the article itself fails to articulate the profound theological and moral reasons behind the Church’s teaching. The prohibition of IVF is not merely a disciplinary rule but flows from the very nature of marriage, the dignity of the human person, and the inseparability of the unitive and procreative dimensions of the conjugal act, as definitively taught in Pope Pius XI’s encyclical *Casti Connubii* (1930) and reaffirmed by Pope Paul VI in *Humanae Vitae* (1968).
The Church teaches that every human life must be conceived through the loving act of intercourse between husband and wife, not manufactured in a laboratory. IVF routinely involves the destruction of embryonic lives, the commodification of human beings, and the separation of procreation from the marital act. By reducing the Church’s teaching to a matter of “values” and “views on marriage, sexuality, procreation, and human dignity,” the article subtly undermines the objective moral law, implying that adherence is a matter of personal alignment rather than an absolute divine command. The call for priests to become “fluent in the language of Catholic infertility” is commendable, but this fluency must extend beyond pastoral sensitivity to a robust proclamation of the objective moral truth, even when it is counter-cultural and demanding.
The All-Embracing Silence on God’s Will and the Primacy of Grace
Perhaps the most glaring omission in the article is any substantive discussion of God’s sovereign will and the primacy of grace in the life of a Christian couple. While Snead mentions praying together and choosing a saint to accompany them, the article lacks a clear affirmation that God is the Lord of life and death, that He alone opens and closes the womb (cf. Genesis 30:22, 1 Samuel 1:5-6), and that His grace is sufficient for every trial (2 Corinthians 12:9). The emphasis remains on human action: seeking medical care, joining support groups, communicating, and considering adoption.
The Church has always taught that children are a gift from God (Psalm 127:3), not a right to be claimed or a problem to be solved. Infertility, like any suffering, is an invitation to deeper trust in Divine Providence and to recognize that human fulfillment is not contingent on biological parenthood but on union with God. Pope Pius XII, in his allocution to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives (1951), stated that “the transmission of human life is entrusted by nature to a personal and conscious act, and as such is subject to the all-holy, inviolable, and immutable laws of God, which no man may ignore or infringe.” The article’s silence on the acceptance of God’s will, even in the face of profound longing, represents a significant theological void, leaving couples without the ultimate source of peace and strength.
Adoption: A Vocation, Not a “Cure” or an Obligation
Snead’s personal testimony about adoption is presented with admirable nuance: “infertility and adoption are not to be lumped together,” and “the arrival of my sons did not ‘cure’ my infertility, nor did it take away the scars infertility can leave behind.” She correctly states that “not everyone with a diagnosis of infertility will be called to adopt a child” and that “there are so many ways to be fruitful!” This is a vital correction to the common misconception that adoption is the automatic or expected solution for infertile couples.
However, even here, the article could delve deeper into the spiritual nature of adoption as a distinct vocation, a call from God to extend familial love and provide a home for a child in need, rather than primarily a response to personal loss. The Church teaches that adoption is a noble act of charity, reflecting God’s own adoption of us as His children (Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:5). While acknowledging that adoption does not “cure” infertility, the article still frames it within the context of “fruitfulness” and “motherhood,” rather than emphasizing its primary character as an act of selfless love and service, irrespective of the adoptive parents’ fertility status.
The “Growing Conversation” and the Danger of Secular Frameworks
Snead’s aim to “add to the growing conversation and awareness about infertility, especially among Catholics” is presented positively. However, the very concept of “National Infertility Awareness Week” and the statistic “1 in 6 globally” who experience infertility are products of secular, often medicalized, frameworks. While raising awareness can be beneficial, the Church must be cautious not to adopt the world’s metrics and priorities uncritically. The “conversation” must be framed by faith, not by secular notions of reproductive rights or societal pressures.
The article’s reliance on such secular frameworks, even while attempting to provide a Catholic perspective, subtly shifts the focus from God’s eternal plan for each soul to a societal issue requiring collective action and awareness. The true “awareness” the Church should foster is an awareness of God’s presence in suffering, the redemptive value of the cross, and the boundless possibilities for spiritual fruitfulness beyond biological procreation. The “growing conversation” must be one rooted in prayer, sacrifice, and unwavering trust in Divine Providence, not merely in shared experiences and emotional support.
