A Question on Sperm Counts

[pumpkinbeast]

I see where you are going, but with this line of thinking it is easy to fall into scruples.

Every response I am trying to compose keeps getting too graphic. Please understand that the Church teaches about the sacredness of the act, not about the sacredness of each individual sperm.

Another excellent point… does anyone know if there is any official Church teaching on this? I assume it would have been brought up at some point before this if there was… it’s definitely a ligitamet question that needs to be addressed at some point.

 

[LittleDeb]

Another excellent point… does anyone know if there is any official Church teaching on this? I assume it would have been brought up at some point before this if there was… it’s definitely a ligitamet question that needs to be addressed at some point.

I wish I had a document refuting the Monty Python song, “Every sperm is sacred” to hand people when they start singing it to me. I am sure there is something addressing it. I am just not sure what exact words are used.

I have actually had people proclaim to me, (both Catholic and non) that Catholics consider it a sin if any sperm gets on a sheet or goes down a drain. Grrr. The amount of misinformation out there about Church teaching is amazing. These are usually the same people who claim that Catholic teaching is that sex is “dirty.” Messy, yes. But dirty? Not on your life!

 

[sosayi1960]

I wish I had a document refuting the Monty Python song, “Every sperm is sacred” to hand people when they start singing it to me. I am sure there is something addressing it. I am just not sure what exact words are used.

I have actually had people proclaim to me, (both Catholic and non) that Catholics consider it a sin if any sperm gets on a sheet or goes down a drain. Grrr. The amount of misinformation out there about Church teaching is amazing. These are usually the same people who claim that Catholic teaching is that sex is “dirty.” Messy, yes. But dirty? Not on your life!

“Every Sperm is sacred” is a song, that’s a riot. Well, as a nurse, I don’t believe it’s any more sacred than CSF. God made all our bodily fluids for a purpose. How many of us who a married have had our fluids on the sheets too. Including women.
I think that this whole this is funny. The main reason to check a sperm count is for conception. I’m sorry, I don’t believe that i would have to take my fluids from inside my wife, to see if I had the right count. People are being silly. Pray for Peace instead.

 

[mapleoak]

I wish I had a document refuting the Monty Python song, “Every sperm is sacred” to hand people when they start singing it to me. I am sure there is something addressing it. I am just not sure what exact words are used.

I have actually had people proclaim to me, (both Catholic and non) that Catholics consider it a sin if any sperm gets on a sheet or goes down a drain. Grrr. The amount of misinformation out there about Church teaching is amazing.

It is not a matter of “every sperm being sacred”. It is a matter of whether it frustrates the marital process. It still comes back to the question “is it okay to block half of the process?”. Is it okay for a man to ejaculate half of his emissions into his wife, withdraw and then ejaculate the rest into a vile for sampling? This would not be much different. Certainly it is not a sin for sperm to get on a sheet and possibly flushed down the drain, as long as it is not intentionally intended to be placed anywhere other than where it is supposed to go.

These are usually the same people who claim that Catholic teaching is that sex is “dirty.” Messy, yes. But dirty? Not on your life!

Hopefully you don’t consider that this is what I am saying.

 

[LittleDeb]

It is not a matter of “every sperm being sacred”. It is a matter of whether it frustrates the marital process. It still comes back to the question “is it okay to block half of the process?”. Is it okay for a man to ejaculate half of his emissions into his wife, withdraw and then ejaculate the rest into a vile for sampling? This would not be much different. Certainly it is not a sin for sperm to get on a sheet and possibly flushed down the drain, as long as it is not intentionally intended to be placed anywhere other than where it is supposed to go.

If that were the scenario then it would be wrong, yes. But this isn’t about percentage inside the spouse. This is about intention for procreation. I am trying to keep from being graphic, but what is happening with the sample is similar to what happens when the wife merely stands up. Some stays inside, but gravity does its thing.

There are basically two questions. Is the act procreative? Yes. (Some semen/sperm is in there intentionally.) Is the act unitive? Yes. (It is not a masturbatory act.) If those criteria are met then the act is valid renewal of the marital vows.

Church teaching is actually that it must have the ability and mechanics of a procreative act, objectively. But, She does not say that it is an invalid act if say, an ejaculation fails to take place subjectively.

Hopefully you don’t consider that this is what I am saying.

Oh no, not at all! Sorry if I gave that impression. I just try to tread carefully here. I never want to give any ammo to the anti-Catholics who say the Church has “such strict rules.” She really doesn’t. They are actually a lot easier to live than secular society’s random madness, which I’m sure you agree with.

 

[Jay2]

I’ll agree with the “Stop splitting Hairs” thing here.

For whatever medical reason a sperm sample is needed. period.

The problem is HOW to get it! Depending upon your convictions or Church regulations you have 4 options available to procure this sample:

1 - Direct into a cup via self or assisted stimulation
2- Indirect via “Marital Act” using a barrier that catches a percentage of the output
3 - Indirect via “Marital Act” using a barrier that catches 100% of the output
4 - Indirect by “Marital Act” using collection from the female recipient’s vagina.

The “Hair Splitting” comes from the argument/possibility that THE ONE of several MILLION sperm that COULD have fertilized an egg got trapped/diverted from it’s God-given destiny.

What if that ONE sperm that was collected from the woman’s vagina was THE ONE?? It was deposited there under every good intention, but was denied it’s swim to nirvana?
What if that ONE sperm didn’t swim through a hole in a condom…?
What if that ONE sperm got trapped inside an intact condom?
What if that ONE sperm was ejected into a clinical sample cup?

If you choose to subscribe to that 1 in Millions chance, then the “Monty Python” argument is valid.
“Every sperm is sacred… Every sperm is great.
If a sperm gets wasted…
God gets quite irate.”

Frankly… if a couple is having problems conceiving, and a test is required… What is the huge hubbubb about diverting a 100 thousand or so to be tested?

If God intended “Every sperm to be Sacred”, a man would only ejaculate ONE. This ONE would overcome every single obstacle and make it’s journey to fertilization via Devine intervention.

Why are orgasms messy? So you can remember what they feel like!

 

[LittleDeb]

I’ll agree with the “Stop splitting Hairs” thing here.

For whatever medical reason a sperm sample is needed. period.

The problem is HOW to get it! Depending upon your convictions or Church regulations you have 4 options available to procure this sample:

1 - Direct into a cup via self or assisted stimulation
2- Indirect via “Marital Act” using a barrier that catches a percentage of the output
3 - Indirect via “Marital Act” using a barrier that catches 100% of the output
4 - Indirect by “Marital Act” using collection from the female recipient’s vagina.

The “Hair Splitting” comes from the argument/possibility that THE ONE of several MILLION sperm that COULD have fertilized an egg got trapped/diverted from it’s God-given destiny.

What if that ONE sperm that was collected from the woman’s vagina was THE ONE?? It was deposited there under every good intention, but was denied it’s swim to nirvana?
What if that ONE sperm didn’t swim through a hole in a condom…?
What if that ONE sperm got trapped inside an intact condom?
What if that ONE sperm was ejected into a clinical sample cup?

If you choose to subscribe to that 1 in Millions chance, then the “Monty Python” argument is valid.
“Every sperm is sacred… Every sperm is great.
If a sperm gets wasted…
God gets quite irate.”

Frankly… if a couple is having problems conceiving, and a test is required… What is the huge hubbubb about diverting a 100 thousand or so to be tested?

If God intended “Every sperm to be Sacred”, a man would only ejaculate ONE. This ONE would overcome every single obstacle and make it’s journey to fertilization via Devine intervention.

Why are orgasms messy? So you can remember what they feel like!

I agree with you. What you are getting to in a roundabout way is a deeper understanding of objective vs. subjective.

Objective vs subjective isn’t splitting hairs because they are so many miles apart. It doesn’t matter if even one sperm makes it through the hole because the act is objectively procreative. Whether or not a sperm (or egg) is present is purely subjective. For illustration of objective procreation: A broken condom, (a regular one,) might end up being subjectively reproductive. But the original act was NOT objectively procreative. It just ended up subjectively procreative. Subjectively a reproductive outcome can always be added to the marital act which makes it subjectively procreative too, but it is not required. Conversely an objectively procreative act can never be removed. It ceases to be an authentic renewal of marital vows if it is removed.

Why I strongly caution against condemning the perforated condom is that it leads down a slippery slope followed by the Gnostics, Puritans, and others. They believed that the only way to redeem the “dirtiness” of the marital act is by it always being subjectively procreative. Unless you are willing a pregnancy, the act was considered for lust purposes only. The gnostics then take it one step even further and say that since each and every act doesn’t result in a “purifying pregnancy” then the marital act as a whole is to be avoided. After that, everything of the physical existence becomes evil, something to be escaped. The gnostics, in their belief, thought that they were more holy as Christians.

For the marital act to be a renewal of marital vows it must be objectively procreative each and every time. Masturbation, for any reason, is not objectively procreative so it violates the act every time, regardless of intent. And since Catholics do not hold to predestination the idea that one sperm is “destined” to be the ONE is also a violation of God’s natural design. Just like until conception a person doesn’t exist, until that sperm is created it doesn’t exist. Even though God knows that it will exist, it doesn’t exist until we cooperate in His design. A deeper understanding of objective vs. subjective helps clarify why fertility testing is within God’s design while IVF is outside of it.

 

[Jay2]

A broken condom, (a regular one,) might end up being subjectively reproductive. But the original act was NOT objectively procreative. It just ended up subjectively procreative.

This is just the conundrum that’s beaten to death around here… objective, subjective…makes no difference. Semantics. The circumstances leading to the release of seminal fluid is the real question, not the fluid’s final destination. (Put rules on the supply, and you have ultimate control of the the demand).

If you get down to brass tacks, and being within total compliance of Church doctrine, there is only ONE way to obtain seminal fluid… let’s not twist things, or leave them to interpretation…

The sample must come from inside a woman’s vagina who is duly registered in the Church as the wife of a man. The sample will ONLY be obtained only after engaging in the “marital act” which was performed under the precepts of love, caring and the intent of procreation - without physical or chemical barriers, and then ONLY AFTER her egg has been fertilized.

Only then has every single step has been satisfied, and you can test all the leftovers as much as you want without regret.
(Unfortunately by this time the “sample” will probably be useless for testing).

 

[LittleDeb]

This is just the conundrum that’s beaten to death around here… objective, subjective…makes no difference. Semantics. The circumstances leading to the release of seminal fluid is the real question, not the fluid’s final destination. (Put rules on the supply, and you have ultimate control of the the demand).

If you get down to brass tacks, and being within total compliance of Church doctrine, there is only ONE way to obtain seminal fluid… let’s not twist things, or leave them to interpretation…

The sample must come from inside a woman’s vagina who is duly registered in the Church as the wife of a man. The sample will ONLY be obtained only after engaging in the “marital act” which was performed under the precepts of love, caring and the intent of procreation - without physical or chemical barriers, and then ONLY AFTER her egg has been fertilized.

Only then has every single step has been satisfied, and you can test all the leftovers as much as you want without regret.
(Unfortunately by this time the “sample” will probably be useless for testing).

Sorry, but that is not Church teaching. (Especially the part about “Only after her egg has been fertilized.”) It is about both the intent of the release AND it’s intentional destination. Something can be judged by man as objectively sinful (because God has deemed it so), yet whether someone is subjectively in a state of sin can only be judged by God.

Objective and subjective are NOT semantics. They are a reality of God’s design. Everything we do needs to be ordered objectively towards His design.

 

[mapleoak]

Whether or not a sperm (or egg) is present is purely subjective. For illustration of objective procreation: A broken condom, (a regular one,) might end up being subjectively reproductive. But the original act was NOT objectively procreative. It just ended up subjectively procreative. Subjectively a reproductive outcome can always be added to the marital act which makes it subjectively procreative too, but it is not required. Conversely an objectively procreative act can never be removed. It ceases to be an authentic renewal of marital vows if it is removed.

Very well said.

 

[pumpkinbeast]

I agree with you. What you are getting to in a roundabout way is a deeper understanding of objective vs. subjective.

Objective vs subjective isn’t splitting hairs because they are so many miles apart. It doesn’t matter if even one sperm makes it through the hole because the act is objectively procreative. Whether or not a sperm (or egg) is present is purely subjective. For illustration of objective procreation: A broken condom, (a regular one,) might end up being subjectively reproductive. But the original act was NOT objectively procreative. It just ended up subjectively procreative. Subjectively a reproductive outcome can always be added to the marital act which makes it subjectively procreative too, but it is not required. Conversely an objectively procreative act can never be removed. It ceases to be an authentic renewal of marital vows if it is removed.

Why I strongly caution against condemning the perforated condom is that it leads down a slippery slope followed by the Gnostics, Puritans, and others. They believed that the only way to redeem the “dirtiness” of the marital act is by it always being subjectively procreative. Unless you are willing a pregnancy, the act was considered for lust purposes only. The gnostics then take it one step even further and say that since each and every act doesn’t result in a “purifying pregnancy” then the marital act as a whole is to be avoided. After that, everything of the physical existence becomes evil, something to be escaped. The gnostics, in their belief, thought that they were more holy as Christians.

For the marital act to be a renewal of marital vows it must be objectively procreative each and every time. Masturbation, for any reason, is not objectively procreative so it violates the act every time, regardless of intent. And since Catholics do not hold to predestination the idea that one sperm is “destined” to be the ONE is also a violation of God’s natural design. Just like until conception a person doesn’t exist, until that sperm is created it doesn’t exist. Even though God knows that it will exist, it doesn’t exist until we cooperate in His design. A deeper understanding of objective vs. subjective helps clarify why fertility testing is within God’s design while IVF is outside of it.

This makes so much sense, thank you!!! ^^

 

[marybee]

I haven’t read all the post and apologise if the question has already been asked…

WHAT IF A MAN WANTS SPERM COUNT **BEFORE **HE IS MARRIED???

 

[pumpkinbeast]

I haven’t read all the post and apologise if the question has already been asked…

WHAT IF A MAN WANTS SPERM COUNT **BEFORE **HE IS MARRIED???

He’ll have to wait until he is. Why would he want a sperm count if he’s not married, pretending that he’s a Catholic that cares about right and wrong? He wouldn’t be having sex, and therefore wouldn’t be worrying about if he could be a father.

 

[marybee]

He’ll have to wait until he is. Why would he want a sperm count if he’s not married, pretending that he’s a Catholic that cares about right and wrong? He wouldn’t be having sex, and therefore wouldn’t be worrying about if he could be a father.

There are people who have genetic problems that make them infertile. Women can have fertility tests done before they are married, so its not like its evil to know if you can have children or not.

I think saying a person shouldn’t care until they are married is just a ridiculous statement. Maybe they want to know if they will have to adopt, isn’t that a possibilty, wouldn’t you want your partner to knwo?> I would. What about a person who was told that due to Chemo or some other treatment there fertility is likely to disappear??? Who wouldn’t want tto know if they couldn’t ever have kids?

The curiousity itself would kill me.

 

[pumpkinbeast]

There are people who have genetic problems that make them infertile. Women can have fertility tests done before they are married, so its not like its evil to know if you can have children or not.

I think saying a person shouldn’t care until they are married is just a ridiculous statement. Maybe they want to know if they will have to adopt, isn’t that a possibilty, wouldn’t you want your partner to knwo?> I would. What about a person who was told that due to Chemo or some other treatment there fertility is likely to disappear??? Who wouldn’t want tto know if they couldn’t ever have kids?

The curiousity itself would kill me.

While you raise some legitimate points, there would be no moral way to obtain a sample. He could not have sex, morally, and neither could he masturbate, morally. Unless he wants the electric shock version I mentioned earlier then I can’t think of any moral way a sample could be obtained.

 

[LittleDeb]

There are people who have genetic problems that make them infertile. Women can have fertility tests done before they are married, so its not like its evil to know if you can have children or not.

I think saying a person shouldn’t care until they are married is just a ridiculous statement. Maybe they want to know if they will have to adopt, isn’t that a possibilty, wouldn’t you want your partner to knwo?> I would. What about a person who was told that due to Chemo or some other treatment there fertility is likely to disappear??? Who wouldn’t want tto know if they couldn’t ever have kids?

The curiousity itself would kill me.

Actually women don’t have fertility testing done before marriage. Women have tests done to determine health problems. As someone who has been there, I had to do the same thing as everyone else. I didn’t know if I was infertile until I attempted to conceive. That is the real test.

Sperm is tested for things like sperm agglutination after conception has not happened, same with sperm count. Actual true sterility is very rare. What they call “sterility” after chemo is a very significant drop in the count of live sperm or a rise in disorders like agglutination. As has been pointed out in this thread, all it takes is ONE sperm.

Fertility is mutual. A man with a low sperm count might be just fine with a woman who has few problems herself. Timing is very important in a man with a low count. Since his count is so low he has fewer chances of sperm living long enough to wait for ovulation. And sometimes the tests show everything to be fine in both sides of the couple and they still don’t conceive.

The main point is that true “fertility testing” makes no sense in the unmarried. Since fertility is mutual it won’t necessarily prove anything.

 

[villagefish]

There are however, moral ways to collect sperm for analysis. I don’t have my references right here to give you a link, but it in involves something called a ‘perforated silicon condom.’ It allows some semen to be deposited in the vagina during the marital act and have some still available for the sperm count. Check into the Catholic Medical Association and the Pope Paul VI Institute for references to medical practices in union with Church teaching.

The couple-to-couple league’s website (ccli.org) might have perforated silicon condoms for sale.

 

[tamccrackine]

I just found this… USCCB- Reproductive Technology when I googled perforated condoms.

So I guess just buying a non-lubricated condom and putting pin pricks in it work? I don’t know, thankfully I’ve never reached this point. I’m a fertile myrtle and so is my DH.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Seems to me there was a step skipped. While masturbation is not allowed, the first question should be: Is the collection of a sample by means other than intercourse “masturbation” at all? The CCC defines masturbation as

2352 By *masturbation *

is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.
To me, this does not fit either stimulation–electric or otherwise–for the sole purpose of obtaining a sample. Such action is not “in order to derive sexual pleasure” and therefore is not masturbation at all.
I know that some will disagree with me on that point, but, if so, will they agree that if the intention is not controlling and the definition does encompass and activity not done for pleasure at all, then the source of the stimulation–i.e., electricity or otherwise–is not relevant and all such acts including electro-stim would be masturbation.

 

[mapleoak]

Seems to me there was a step skipped. While masturbation is not allowed, the first question should be: Is the collection of a sample by means other than intercourse “masturbation” at all?

Yes it is.

To me, this does not fit either stimulation–electric or otherwise–for the sole purpose of obtaining a sample. Such action is not “in order to derive sexual pleasure” and therefore is not masturbation at all.

Because sexual pleasure must be sought in order to accomplish the desired result, it fits the full definition as defined in the catechism. Because sexual pleasure is inherently linked to the process, it is most definitely masturbation. Even if some good result is reached or obtained, such as a sample for collection, it in no way excludes that sexual pleasure is being sought.

I know that some will disagree with me on that point, but, if so, will they agree that if the intention is not controlling and the definition does encompass and activity not done for pleasure at all, then the source of the stimulation–i.e., electricity or otherwise–is not relevant and all such acts including electro-stim would be masturbation.

Of course. If it were possible to separate the pleasure from the act, what would be the problem?