What does the Catholic Church mean when it says In-vitro Fertilization separates the procreative act from procreation?

In a Catholic Theology class, we were taught that IVF is wrong for 2 reasons: 1) It separates procreation from the procreative act and 2) Spare embryos are destroyed in the process. **Question 1**: I get #2, but I don't really get #1. I don't really see the point of mentioning #1 in this context. **#2 is already sufficient to reject IVF right?** I actually find this really annoying. It's actually like this in Wikipedia too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation#Religious_response **Question 2**: Suppose there was a way to separate procreation from the procreative act while embryos were not destroyed in the process. For simplicity, let's say there are no bad side effects to doing such and focus solely on the separation of procreation from the procreative act. **What is "wrong" with that?** Oh sorry. I was unclear. Why is procreation without the procreative act wrong if say couples are either a) unable to perform the procreative act, b) unable to procreate while performing the procreative act or c) have a sufficiently long history of not procreating while performing the procreative act? Also, in the first place, why would anyone want to have biological babies without sex? Isn't it usually the other way around? If they would want bb w/o sex, then most probably they CAN'T have bb w/ sex...I think?