A reader writes:

I’m one of your blog readers, and I’ve got a dilemma/question.  You recently
posted your thoughts regarding the issue of adopting frozen embryos.  You
pointed out that the Church has not taken a formal stand on the issue as of
yet.  A lively discussion ensued in the combox.  My wife and I had one
lovely daughter using this method.  Since the birth of our daughter, we have
converted from evangelicalism to Catholicism, and want to submit ourselves
to the teachings of the Church in this (and all) matters.  We are
contemplating attempting the procedure again, and have reserved a set of
embryos in preparation. 

My wife has raised a potential moral concern that I
have not seen addressed anywhere.  Part of the transfer process involves
drugs that regulate a woman’s cycle for several months prior to the
transfer, in order to be able to transfer the embryos at the woman’s most
fertile time. 

My wife argues that these drugs are technically a form of
birth control, since they prevent pregnancy until the time of transfer.  She
thus believes that taking these drugs as part of the process would be
illicit. 

I have countered however that even if the doctor would agree to an
unmedicated transfer (unlikely), this might reduce the chances that the
embryos would implant, leading to their demise.  The good that could be done
(providing the best chance for the embryos to live) outweighs any potential
evil from the short period of "birth control". 

Further, since we are
infertile anyway (unfortunately, I am sterile), the fact that she may
receive drugs that would act in a contraceptive manner is moot.  I argue
that the intent of the Church’s ban on birth control is not a problem with
the chemicals themselves, but rather that the Church doesn’t want to inhibit
the potential of conception.  Since we can’t have children anyway, that
isn’t an issue. 

My wife counters that God could work a miracle by curing my
sterility, and we shouldn’t hinder that possibility by even a short period
of possible contraception.  I then counter that she’s being too idealistic .
. . We are meeting with the doctor soon, and need to make a decision.  Would
you care to comment on this issue?

I’ll be happy to provide what insight I can.

First, as you note, the Church has not made a determination of the moral status of frozen embryo adoption and there are orthodox Catholic moralists on both sides of the issue. Until there is an official determination, individuals may pursue their own conscience regarding the morality of the action provided they do not violate other, established principles in the process. This does not mean doing whatever you want, though. It means doing the best to inform your conscience on the matter even in the absence of a Church declaration (e.g., reading arguments for and against the relevant positions, doing a novena if the reading doesn’t convince you one way or the other, etc.)

What you’re asking here is whether there is another established principle–i.e., that contraception is immoral–that would be violated by doing the procedure in the proposed way.

While you are correct that saving the lives of the embryos is a very grave matter, one should not think in terms of this good outweighing the evil of contraception. Contraception is one of those things that is always and intrinsically wrong and is not permissible no matter what the circumstances. It cannot be done as an end in itself, nor can it be done as a means to a good end–even a very good one.

That said, there is the question of whether the use of hormones to regulate your wife’s fertility cycle would constitute contraception in this case.

In the Church’s official documents (starting with Humanae Vitae, though the passage is also quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 2370), contraception is defined as:

every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible

From this definition, it would appear that the use of hormones to regulate a woman’s cycle in order to facilitate implantation does not involve contraception.

It is true that, by regulating her cycle, there will be infertile periods, but these periods are not being created in order "to render procreation impossible," which is a sine qua non of contraception. If you’re not trying to render procreation impossible, what you are doing is not contraception. It’s something else.

Such non-contraceptive use of hormones can, however, have a contraceptive effect. This is the case with women who use hormones to treat a medical condition and the hormones simultaneously prevent them from getting pregnant. Such usage is permitted under the law of double-effect as long as the usual conditions for this law are satisfied (e.g., the contraceptive effect is not an end in itself, the contraceptive effect is not a means to the therapeutic end, the condition being treated is serious enough to endure the contraceptive side-effect, there is not a better treatment for the condition). Some debate whether couples should have intercourse during such treatment due to increased possibility of miscarriage, though this is something that the Church has not yet addressed one way or the other.

In your case, the use of hormones to regulate your wife’s cycle in order to achieve pregnancy would not be contraceptive. It would create infertile periods, but these are undesired and the fact that you are infertile renders the question moot. Catholic moral theology would not hold that it is necessary to withhold medical treatment in this area in hope of the miraculous happening any more than it would be necessary in any other area to withhold medical treatment in hope of the miraculous happening.

Some moralists might disagree with elements of the reasoning above but, since the Church has not yet addressed the matters at hand, we are left to try to figure out such matters for ourselves, informing our consciences as best we can by reading different perspectives on the matter, weighing the arguments they use, entrusting the matter to God in prayer, and then following our best determination.

Hope this helps!

20