We need to quit putting human respect above living the cross of being Catholic.

Yes, that is the main/largest issue, but there are others as well, which no one has mentioned in this thread.

The onanism, for example. It's a testament to how debase, decrepit, and degenerate our society has become, that it's actually true that "most guys do it" -- so no one sees a problem with how they "acquire" the seed for the test tube babies.

There should be some major embarrassment, etc. especially on the part of the man involved in that "congratulations! We conceived by IVF!" situation. But there's not. Because we're living in modern-day Sodom or Gomorrah.

I agree with this, but struggle ask "Where do you draw the line?" 

1.  So if you avoid the baby shower, do you also avoid the child/parents for the rest of their life?  The child will always be an IFV child. 
2.  Or can you see the family, just not publicly?  This seems like an odd message you're sending.
3.  Or do you wait for the baby to be born, then ignore the IVF issue after that?

Practically speaking, IVF is not an ongoing sin, so immoral as it is, it's in the past.  So how long is one obligated to protest an immoral act from the past?  This is my issue.

I would just skip the shower, precisely because it's a celebration of the child having been conceived.  After that, I wouldn't feel the need to avoid them altogether, etc.  But the CONTEXT is what's important here.  Just running into them, being social, even attending the child's Baptism (where you're celebrating his entry into the Church and supernatural life).  But the entire context of the baby shower is to congratulate them on the conception of new life.

Let's say someone stole a car, and was having a party to celebrate his acquisition of the car.  Going to the party would be to condone the theft.  But that wouldn't necessarily prevent me from going out to have a few beers with the guy outside of that CONTEXT.

It's all about the message you're sending.  Now, if you showed up at this shower and publicly denounced the IVF, making it clear you didn't condone it, but were merely there because of the child, that would be another thing.

Let me make another analogy.  Back in the day if an unmarried young woman (say, teenager) got pregnant out of wedlock, there was a social stigma involved, and the child was usually hidden from sight and mainstream society, etc.  Now people have gone to the opposite extreme, where the unwed mothers are celebrated at baby showers, as if there were nothing wrong with it, sending the message that pre-marital fornication is something to celebrate.  Then there's the Pro-Life angle, where they overdo things to the other extreme, claiming that shaming the girl might lead them to have an abortion, so basically they throw wild parties to celebrate the fact that someone didn't murder a baby.  But the message gets conflated, where it becomes an implicit endorsement of fornication and having children out of wedlock.

  Then there's the Pro-Life angle, where they overdo things to the other extreme, claiming that shaming the girl might lead them to have an abortion, so basically they throw wild parties to celebrate the fact that someone didn't murder a baby.  But the message gets conflated, where it becomes an implicit endorsement of fornication and having children out of wedlock.

Practically speaking, IVF is not an ongoing sin, so immoral as it is, it's in the past.  So how long is one obligated to protest an immoral act from the past?  This is my issue.

OP here: I asked 5 traditional priests, and 3 responded with 3 different answers. 

In any case, because of the muddiness surrounding the issue, and my personal discomfort, I informed the couple that “I’d forgotten we have a serious conflict” and cannot attend.

I did not feel it necessary to explain, since it is nearly certain they’d scoff at the religious objection.

Thank you for all your contributions.