Actions that may promote infertility as illicit

[Dranu]

Ok, I was wondering if doing something that may promote infertility is morally illicit when not sought at all for the infertility effect.

There are many things that have a chance of causing it. Smoking, alcohol use (at least short term I think), hot tubs and very warm baths, exposure to chemicals, x-rays, certain medications, etc.

Now I know the last two or three may be covered by the Humanae Vitae:

1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

But does the word ‘necessary’ weaken that claim? For many diseases do not ‘need’ to be treated by a specific medicine that might cause inferetility as a side effect in some users or ‘need’ to be examined by x-rays as other methods may work (just less effectively/efficiently)

So perhaps the question could be answered more generally if there is any doctrinal evidence that ‘doing something that may promote infertility is okay when not sought at all for the infertility effect’. So far all I can find is specifically for therapeutic reasons and that carries the difficult word ‘necessary’ with it. So the primary question is if reducing fertility is allowed if it is not intended at all? (official sources or arguments leading from them would be great!)

 

[Dranu]

From what I can tell, I have not found any information of condemning anything that has the chance to reduce fertility if it is not at all sought for as an active tool to another end or as an end itself. It seems the immorality of removing fertility is only present if it is intended. All official statements of contraception and infertility seem to state this. Here is another example from Humanae Vitae (my emphasis):

Under #14
…Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

Intuitively (not based on any official teaching I have found mind you), it would seem that since something undesirably causing infertility is a negative effect on the body, it might be one of those things that must be weighed against the good sought. The more difficult aspect seems to be when it is only a risk factor and not actually a near guaranteed presence (as it is in most cases). So smoking too much, drinking too much, taking too many hot baths might become illegitimate as the risk increases of lower fertility perhaps? That seems difficult to say when dealing with percentages versus clear cut consequences. I myself (perhaps being a bit scrupulous) have a hard time when it is a small percentage. The chance factor makes it difficult for me to say if it is legitimate especially when it comes to a lesser good that really only brings benefits such as stress relief/relaxation, pleasure, pain killer, appearance, etc.

I would not say indirect reduction of fertility (or the chance thereof) is every illegitimate as a sexual sin, but rather as a sin against the body in the recklessness of valuing it too low(as long as it is unintended). The problem would seem to be finding that line than determines if doing something that has a chance of leading to it legitimate or not. It also raises the question of the morality of any action that involves clear and known risks to the body (not necessarily involving fertility) like driving, sailing, sky diving, bungee jumping, rock climbing, drinking, smoking, eating foods with lower health values, etc.

Any thoughts? Do you agree or disagree? Any official sources about the legitimacy of things that may cause or have a small chance of lowering fertility rates?