A correspondent writes:
Have you ever heard that the Church teaches that ultra-sounds are immoral? My wife had one to determine the age of our new child and she was exorted by one of the gals at our parish that my wife should not be doing ultra-sounds and if she does one that would constitute active sin and lending herself to the "abortion culture in general." In fact her and her husband were so upset by it that they called us yesterday and told us that if my wife chose to have the ultrasound that they would not longer be able to remain friends with us.
Unfortunately after the ultra-sound that my wife had we found out yesterday that she lost the baby. He or she was 8 weeks old.
First, let me say how sorry I am that the baby passed on. It is a human tragedy, and the Church knows the pain that you are feeling. To try to help those who have experienced miscarriage, the Church has a special blessing for those who have had a miscarriage. It’s in the Book of Blessings (every parish has one of those), and you and your wife may wish to have this blessing done. You can ask about having it done at your parish.
As regards to ultrasound, your friends are misinformed.
The Church most definitely does not teach that ultrasound is immoral or that it fosters the culture of death. To the contrary, the Church recognizes the moral legitimacy of pre-natal testing methods, even (in some cases) where there is no therapy available for a condition that the testing may reveal (see below).
The Church does have a problem with is prenatal testing that poses a disproportionate risk to the health of the mother or child, but ultrasound is a routine medical procedure that has been used for decades, and we would know it if it were fundamentally unsafe.
The Church also has a problem with using prenatal testing as a means of determining whether a child should be aborted, but that obviously is not what you and your wife were doing in this case.
Let me give you a couple of quotations from magisterial documents.
The first comes from a document that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued when Cardinal Ratzinger was its head. The document, Donum Vitae ("The Gift of Life"), states:
Is prenatal diagnosis morally licit? If prenatal diagnosis
respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and
is directed toward its safeguarding or healing as an individual, then
the answer is affirmative [sec. I, no. 2].
John Paul II also addressed the subject in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae ("The Gospel of Life"). Regarding prenatal diagnostic techniques, he wrote:
When they do not involve disproportionate risks for the child and the mother, and are meant to make possible early therapy or even to favor a serene and informed acceptance of the child not yet born, these techniques are morally licit (63).
You’ll note that he says they can be legitimate even just to "favor a
serene and informed acceptance of the child not yet born.” That means that you don’t even have to have a therapeutic goal for the procedure. As long as the procedure doesn’t pose disproportinoate risks to the child and as long as you aren’t going to abort, it can be used even if there is no therapeutic goal in view.
Notice something else, here: The parents’ ability to emotionally adjust to the child and his situation can be a valid motive for prenatal diagnostic techniques. John Paul II applied this to the case of parents facing the possibility of a child with an untreatable birth defect, so that they don’t have the emotional shock of learning about it only at birth but have some time to adjust emotionally.
It seems to me, however, that the principle can be applied in other situations. For example, many parents who see their child in 3D or 4D ultrasound have their emotional attachment to the child fostered. As long as the procedure is safe for the baby (and we have no reason to think this one isn’t after who knows how many tens or hundreds of millions of ultrasounds have been performed in the last thirty years) and the parents aren’t going to abort then it seems to me that the procedure is legitimate for those purposes.
Determining the age of the child is also a valid reason, since this can enable one to better plan the prenatal care of the child and to better plan for the birth.
(I recognize the importance of that in a special way because of my role at Catholic Answers. I oversee our speakers’ bureau, and whenever one of the speakers or one of the speaker’s wives gets pregnant we need to accomodate that in the calendar since speaking events are planned months in advance. Since speaking events won’t be able to be accepted for a certain period before and after birth, knowing when delivery is likely to occur enables us to plan things so that the speakers can have the time they need for the joyful event and parishes don’t have conferences cancelled on them at the last minute so that speakers can care for their family needs.)
In any event, the idea that the Church considers ultrasound immoral and a fostering of the culture of death is simply false.
God bless you, and I encourage readers to pray for you and for the baby, who is now in the merciful hands of God.
20
Thanks, Jimmy.
The last thing we need is well intentioned hyper-legalism that makes it more confusing or difficult to follow the true teaching of the Church.
Yes, sometimes prenatal testing is abused, but this is not always the case.
We are very happy to have ultrasound video of our kids, and if a major problem had been detected, it would have given us valuable time in which to make plans. We would never have aborted.
Many pro-life crisis pregnancy centers have ultrasounds so that they can offer this service free to the women they serve, in hopes of fostering a motherly attachment to the child.
I wonder whether, somehow, somebody confused ultrasound with amniocentesis, which procedure, under some circusmtances, might fail to pass a prudential moral anlysis test, though even there, a “Church teaching” issues is not raised.
I’m with Ed. From my experience this is the most common problem.
Crisis magazine (december, 2002) had a great article on the power of an ultrasound to foster attachment between mother and child (exactly what jimmy describes–good article). I’m sure there has been others, but this one was
actually on a nearby desk while I was reading the blog.
I think Ed is right – this couple probably has ultrasound mixed up with amnio. Though you’d think they’d take the trouble to spend five seconds on Google verifying their facts before threatening to cut off their friends like that!
With friends like that…
I want to thank Jimmy from the bottom of my heart for writing this article. My wife and I are the people to whom this article was about. Unfortunately the couple does not have amnio confused with ultra-sounds. They told my wife that both procedures are wrong. We are thankful to Jimmy for clarifying this issue for us. Thank you Jimmy for letting us know about the blessing that can be done for our baby at the parish. We decided to name our baby Riley and we know that we will see Riley some day with Jesus.
Thanks to everyone for the comments and concern.
In Christ,
Keith and Adelina
We decided to name our baby Riley and we know that we will see Riley some day with Jesus.
Good for you, Keith. It is so sad to lose a baby to miscarriage, but that kind of an outlook can help a lot. I remember how much is helped me when a friend reminded me that I now had a child in heaven interceding for the rest of our family AND that I had one more reason to want to get to heaven.
God Bless.
Like Louise I have also heard of crisis pregnancy groups using an ultrasound to “prove” to the mother that her baby is a person and not just a group of cells. I treasure the ultrasound videos I have of my kids, especially the one that shows my oldest child yawning in utero. Was he tired or bored? From his personality, I’d guess bored.
We too have one waiting for us in Heaven and I am comforted and encouraged by that thought. Our prayers are for you and your wife, Keith!
My husband was just talking to an ob-gyn last week who does a free ultrasound for moms who are not sure whether they’ll keep their baby. He believes that since he has started this, more moms have decided to have the baby. (and he is a Catholic dr. who I believe would know if the church taught that ultrasounds were immoral.)
Also, Jimmy, ask any woman who’s had kids — they will tell you that the doctors REALLY want to be sure about dates for medical reasons, to make sure the pregnancy is progressing normally. (some of us would say they get a little too worked up about it.) 😉
Our Priest says that if a Priest or anyone else makes a statement that something is right or wrong according to Church teaching just ask for the person to show you the written document where is says that. They should at least be able to give you the reference to the document so you can look it up. Yet another wonderful aspect to the Catholic Church is that we have over 2,000 years of history and Tradition that is written. If they can’t prove it, it is not worth worring about.
For reasons of clarity and to be fair. Neither one of the couple that are referred to said that the Church specially taught against ultra-sounds like quoting chapter and verse. Their reasoning is this. Since it is obvious from research that ultra-sounds are dangerous and that the medical community encourages abortions. It is wrong and immoral to have an ultra-sound and they reason that since the Church prohibits anything that may cause damage to a baby-and to them ultra-sounds do, therefore my wife and I are actively engaged in willful sin. So it was necessary for them-according to their reasoning to cut us off as friends.
I felt it necessary to present what they said accurately. Thank you.
Why on Earth would someone think it is necessary (or even reasonable) to cut off a friendship because the people sinned???
Louise, I think the key word is ‘reasonable’.
Ultrasounds are NOT dangerous.
And furhermore, diet soda is NOT killing us, Paul McCartney is ALIVE, and we really DID land on the moon.
I’m not much for conspiracy theories.
Riley, in Irish, as a family name, is spelled “Ragheallaigh” (or “Reille” in modern spelling – you can see why they have modern spelling). It is the name of the descendants of Ragheallach, an O’Rourke chief who fought and died in the Battle of Clontarf in 1014, which freed Ireland from the Norse.
Ragheallach means “of a gregarious people”. (And it pretty much sounds like Riley, so you can see how the anglicizations happen.)
It’s a lovely Christian name.
Keith – I’m sorry, I should have given you my sympathies in my first post. I’ve been down the miscarriage road and it’s a hard one; I hope that little Riley is praying for you in heaven right now.
I’m also sorry to hear about your former friends. Ultrasounds have most certainly not been shown to damage the baby – but you already know this. I hope they realize their error eventually, because in my opinion, they were very cruel to you.
Please support your local crisis pregnancy center. In most states, CPCs must ‘go medical’ – obtain a state medical license to be able to provide ultrasound services under the supervision of a licensed physician.
Does anyone know where this theory that ultrasounds are dangerous is coming from? I have never heard it and I have associated with quite a few “nature and nuts” alternative medicine kind of people. I had multiple ultrasounds with each child and never was given a waiver to sign. I would think that if there was even the slightest chance of risk the medical community would be right there to cover their backsides.
Ultrasound technology has probably done more to avert abortions than any other recent medical advance. Thank You, Jesus, for ultrasounds–the technology that gives the lie to the “lump of tissue” deception.
Blessings,
Diane
I also neglected to give my condolences to Keith and Adelina. Please know that our prayers are with you.
Again Adelina and I really appreciate all the kind words and thoughts. Baby Riley will be included in the prayer of the faithful today at mass. Everyone here is awesome.
In Christ,
Keith and Adelina
Keith and Adelina —
My deepest sympathy – I can only imagine what a difficult loss this is for you both. I pray that you will in fact see Riley in Heaven some day, and want you to know that I will keep all of you in my prayers.
L
Hi Keith and Adelina,
My most sincere sympathy on your loss. My husband and I miscarried our 5th child almost 3 years ago (thank God, we have four children with us on earth). There is a beautiful “Miscarriage Prayer” on EWTN (not sure if this is the same prayer mentioned in an earlier post). I’m always amazed to see how many people have had this experience and I find it very helpful in dealing with the grief. It is easier now to see newborn babies and to not constantly wonder about the “what ifs.” My prayer for you, and especially your wife, is that you will find comfort in knowing that others have walked this same road and that God knows of your suffering.
I have no evidence to support this, but my hunch is that the few medical officials who lend support to the efforts to regulate ultrasounds because of the alleged medical risks are mostly primarily motivated by pro-choice concerns about the viability of the pro-choice position when everyone is passing around pre-natal ultrasound photos of “their baby.”
Just a hunch.
PVO
To further the point that has been made many times over, that ultrasounds are a powerful tool in helping prevent abortions, Planned Barrenhood and their friends actively REFUSE to let potential “clients” see an ultrasound of their baby before they start the abortion. This is particularly bothersome because they HAVE to use the ultrasound during the abortion to make sure they sucked all the parts of the baby that they just tore apart, out. (So it’s not like they have the excuse of “we don’t own any” or something like that.)
And I’d love to see a link, ANY link, to a site that suggests ultrasounds are unsafe…
I do NOT think getting an ultrasound is a sin (venial or mortal).
That being said, I know there is some controversy in the natural-health world over ultrasounds, and as a matter of fact we asked to have less ultrasounds with our last pregnancy because of the controversy. (But I’m NOT saying it’s a sin!)
By the way, did you know that every time you have a prenatal care appointment and they put a “doptone” on your belly to listen to the baby’s heartbeat that that is an ultrasound? So we’re all getting lots of ultrasounds.
But anyway, for Ken Crawford, who just wanted to see “ANY link,” here’s one to paruse:
http://www.birthlove.com/free/ultrasound.html
And I don’t mean to start a natural-health big argument here. Just a little link for Ken. 🙂
Personally, my wife and I are very thankful for ultrasound technology. She is eight months pregnant with our little girl. Three months ago during a routine ultrasound we found out that she has anencephaly. This is normally terminal (I say normally because there is always the miraculous intervention of God, for which we are praying). This has made these past few months difficult but it has allowed us to enjoy her, pray for her, have many other friends and family pray for her in a way that would not have been possible without the ultrasound. Yes, one of the doctors did push “termination” as an option but most everybody has been very supportive. But that doesn’t seem to be grounds to not use this technology because some people will misuse it. As was said in earlier posts, many people on the edge of abortion have seen their baby and chosen life instead of death.
Danny-
There have sadly been many other parents in your situation and I just want to say that I think you and your wife have an incredible amount of courage. Those of you who are strong enough to refuse to give in to the culture of death must be the bravest people I know. Thank you for your example! Your little girl is truly blessed to have you as parents as I am sure you are blessed to have her for how ever long she is yours.
Danny,
I also want to thank you for adding the Miraculous-Intervention-of-God point, which many of us routinely forget. You are right–we just never know what God’s plans are.
May God bless your family.
Hello Danny, God bless you and your wife for your bravery and sweet and godly spirits. Your daughter is so fortunate to have parents like you and it will and already has made a difference in her life even now, though you may not realize it. If you wouldn’t mind sharing, if you have chosen her name, I would be priviledged to pray for her by name. Also, you may already have htis website but I found one that may be some help to you in some way. it is a Yahoo group that you have to join. groups.yahoo.com/clubs/anencephalyblessingsfromabove
Anencephaly Blessings from Above – A PRO-LIFE Anencephaly Support Group. A Christian forum to encourage and support families whose baby has been newly diagnosed; who are currently carrying a baby to term or have carried a baby to term; who are considering, in the midst of, or having experienced a subsequent pregnancy; and any others who have been touched by anencephaly – parents, relatives, professionals, or friends who wish to share their stories and support. This forum respects the sanctity of life from conception to natural death.
Again, blessings on your family, adelina
We have named her Angela Marie. And for those who want to join in, we are doing a “running” novena (done every day until our baby’s birth) through the intercession of Venerable Solanus Casey for her healing:
O God I adore you. I give myself to us. May I be the person you want me to be. May your will be done in my life today.
Thank you for the gifts you gave to Father Solanus. If it is your will, glorify him on earth so that others will carry on his love for the poor, lonely and suffering in our world.
In order that others will joyfully accept Your divine plan, I ask you to hear this prayer… (insert request here: we say “for the complete healing of Angela Marie”) … through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.
More information about his life can be found at http://www.solanuscasey.org/