Infertility inspection

[Pattylt]

Pattylt:

As a medical technologist that did sperm analysis for infertility for years, the usual catholic procedure was a perforated condom that is then kept at body temperature immediately to the lab.

How common was it for Catholic couples to use this technique? I am guessing that a majority would simply do it the standard way. Do you know if in strongly Catholic countries the preferred Catholic collection way is more common. I thought of Googling ‘Ireland’ ‘Poland’ and ‘Uruguay’ along with other key words but thought better of it. So I was hoping you would know.

I don’t really know…sorry. We have a fairly large Catholic community in my city as well as a large Catholic Hispanic community. Most, but not all, of the Catholic collections were amongst the Hispanics. I have no idea if that means they were more aware of rules or that more white Catholics ignored it as a typical specimen information sheet will give us their ethnicity but not their religion.

I understand why Catholics can not give the specimen per standard procedure but I do see the irony in stating that the sex act can never be separated from the procreative act when the whole point of analysis is to help them procreate!

As I mentioned, if the doctor has enough Catholic patients to know what results will be inaccurate, he can probably adjust the results mentally to compensate. The results will never match the reference ranges though as they depend on standard collection procedures. New or less experienced docs could misdiagnose if not aware…thus, why we attach specific warnings to those results.

Honestly, our pathologist felt that it was almost pointless to perform the analysis on these specimens but he was also understanding about it. The doctors will get some useful information, just not enough to rule in/out some causes of infertility.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Yes. One is doing the act, and there is no way around that.

Consider this analogy. It’s not perfect, I admit, but here goes.

Let’s say the state defines the crime of assault as striking someone, not in self-defense, for the purpose of harming them. Now let’s say you and I are walking along and I shove you because I’m a jerk who has a grudge against homeschooling retirees and I think it’d be fun to watch you fall on your butt. In this case, I’ve definitely committed the crime of assault. I struck you, not in self-defense, and because I intended to knock you over and have you suffer injury/embarrassment.

Now let’s say I shove you again, but this time it’s because unbeknownst to you, you’re about to walk into the path of a speeding car. In this case, I definitely haven’t committed assault. I struck you, but my intent was not to harm you.

The physical act in both cases was the same. I shoved you with the intent of knocking you back. But because my intent changed, the nature of the act itself is different. One is assault and one is not.

Shoving someone is not intrinsically evil. I can shove someone to, as you point out, knock them out of the path of a speeding car. I can shove someone in a play where we are actors and the script calls for it, I can shove someone as a teacher in a self-defense class to allow them to develop good fighting skills, or I can shove them to move them out of the path of a precariously hanging piece of hardware (as I had to do with my wife one time in a hardware store — I couldn’t make her understand the danger by crying out to her, I guess she was preoccupied or something, and there was some merchandise over her head that looked like it was getting ready to fall).

However, masturbation — for whatever reason — is intrinsically evil. I think what is getting the weeds wrapped around the axle here, is the Catechism’s reference to “deliberate stimulation of the genitals to derive sexual pleasure”. The question that then begs to be answered here is “does this imply that there can be such deliberate stimulation without intent of deriving sexual pleasure, and that this deliberate stimulation would then not be sinful?”. I would be very interested to know the mind of the person who wrote this passage, to be able to ask them “if this is indeed what you are saying, could you give us some examples?”. I would also be interested to know if this represents a departure from traditional Catholic teaching on the subject, and if so, how this departure is justified.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

There are times when the Catechism raises more questions than it answers, and I think this is one of those times. As I have said before on these forums, I see the tendency among some faithful Catholics, to elevate the Catechism to some sort of “super-encyclical about everything” that verges on being infallible. There have been catechisms before, and there will be more catechisms in the future. I’m reminded here of how a Lutheran minister once described their catechism to our class as the “normed norm”, as opposed to Scripture which is, in their theology, the “norming norm”. I think the CCC should be thought of similarly as the “normed norm”, with both Scripture and Tradition (including the traditional doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church, from the Didache onwards) being the “norming norm”. (The minister then commented that it sounded like we were talking about two guys named Norm…)

 

[stormer83]

Does anyone else see my point or am I just too non catholic to fully understand this? :hugs:

It does not make sense to me either, and I’m Catholic so your definitely not alone!

 

[Lucy_1]

If the main purpose of doing the act isn’t procreation, then it becomes immoral…

But the whole reason they’re doing it is to try to procreate!

 

[Weave]

I’m just going to skip the comments and address the first post as this is something my wife and I faced. Our Priest advised us to use a perforated condom. He’s a very orthodox FSSP priest. We did the act and then I rushed to the lab with the sample. Simple as that.

 

[Aulef]

Aulef:

If the main purpose of doing the act isn’t procreation, then it becomes immoral…

Then by that definition, sexual intercourse between husband and wife who are past the age of conceiving a child, marital intercourse between couples where the wife has had a hysterectomy (or for that matter is already pregnant) would all be considered immoral, since procreation isn’t the main purpose, but bonding with each other is.

Well, certainly imperfect to say the least. The Church recognizes the marital act can serve more than one purpose, even being ‘an antidote by which to avoid the sins of lust’ (Catechism of the Council of Trent). However, it highlights it’s main purpose: procreation.

Pope John Paul II again:

1652 “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”

It is in procreation (and education of the offspring) that marriage finds its crowning glory, that is, its perfection. Since the only action inside marriage that allows procreation is the marital act, it follows that its main purpose is procreation even if it is impossible or highly unlikely to happen, for these two states are mere ‘accidents’ (Saint Thomas metaphysics) that can be overturned by a miracle (Saint Sara and Saint Elizabeth) or a very low probability happening (medical registries of pregnancies outside the womb or after years fallopian tubes were removed).

 

[paperwight]

Now let’s say I shove you again, but this time it’s because unbeknownst to you, you’re about to walk into the path of a speeding car. In this case, I definitely haven’t committed assault. I struck you, but my intent was not to harm you.

The physical act in both cases was the same. I shoved you with the intent of knocking you back. But because my intent changed, the nature of the act itself is different. One is assault and one is not.

Well, exactly - context alters the case.

The scenario I have posted before on other threads, and not received a satisfactory rebuttal of is that of injections.
Deliberately stab a helpless baby’s arm with a needle - how cruel. Use the needle to deliver a lifesaving vaccine - a good thing.
If something which in other circumstances is considered bad has to be done to achieve a good end, it changes the morality.
In other words, commonsense aka prudential judgment should prevail.

 

[Aulef]

Aulef:

If the main purpose of doing the act isn’t procreation, then it becomes immoral…

Then by that definition, sexual intercourse between husband and wife who are past the age of conceiving a child, marital intercourse between couples where the wife has had a hysterectomy (or for that matter is already pregnant) would all be considered immoral, since procreation isn’t the main purpose, but bonding with each other is.

Saint Augustine on this matter

And yet not to these themselves is marriage a [sin]; which, if it were chosen in comparison of fornication, would be a less [sin] than fornication, and yet would be a [sin]. But now what shall we say against the most plain speech of the Apostle, saying, Let her do what she will; she [sins] not, if she be married; and, If you shall have taken a wife, you have not [sinned]: and, if a [virgin] shall have been married, she [sins] not. Hence surely it is not lawful now to [doubt] that marriage is no [sin]. Therefore the Apostle allows not marriage as matter of pardon: for who can [doubt] that it is extremely absurd to say, that they have not [sinned], unto whom pardon is granted. But he allows, as matter of pardon, that sexual intercourse, which takes place through incontinence, not alone for the begetting of children, and, at times, not at all for the begetting of children; and it is not that marriage forces this to take place, but that it procures pardon for it; provided however it be not so in excess as to hinder what ought to be set aside as seasons of [prayer], nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men. For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity, no longer follows reason, but [lust]. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage, not to exact this, but to yield it to the partner, lest by fornication the other [sin] damnably. But, if both are set under such [lust], they do what is plainly not matter of marriage. However, if in their intercourse they [love] what is honest more than what is dishonest, that is, what is matter of marriage more than what is not matter of marriage, this is allowed to them on the authority of the Apostle as matter of pardon: and for this fault, they have in their marriage, not what sets them on to commit it, but what entreats pardon for it, if they turn not away from them the mercy of [God], either by not abstaining on certain days, that they may be free to [pray], and through this abstinence, as through [fasting], may commend their [prayers]; or by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife.

 

[paperwight]

Saint Augustine on this matter

Care to provide a brief summary, Aulef? That would be very helpful as tbh his views do not coincided with most people’s understanding of real life marriage, the way I read it.

 

[Aulef]

I can’t be too brief or my post will be either deleted or edited again.

I’ll try to be as objective as I can atm.

Saint Augustine had a tough take on this issue as you can see and this is why this text I posted causes us some mixed reactions at first. Although tough, he was not wrong.

Saint Thomas Aquinas further developed this issue later on and his position was adopted by Popes for they were clearer and more ‘digesteable’ than Augustine’s. He doesn’t contradict Saint Augustine; he just explores in a clearer way possibilities regarding marital act with and without its two goods namely procreation and fidelity.

When discussing about the marital act itself, he asks himself three questions:

1 - Whether the marital goods excuse the marital act so that it is not a sin at all
2 - Whether without these goods it might ever be excused from sin
3 - Whether when it is without them it is always a mortal sin

short answers in sequence are: 1) yes, as long as these goods are present; 2) no; 3) no, sometimes it could be a venial sin.

Besides, Saint Thomas clearly states (see below) that procreation is the most important good of marriage and thus not intending it doesn’t seem to be a good thing.

procreation of children is most essential in marriage, and second is fidelity (proles est essentialissimum in matrimonio, et secundo fides)

Lastly, this is what Saint Thomas says regarding someone seeking marital act for pleasure:

since the marital act is not evil per se , neither will seeking its pleasure always be a mortal sin. And therefore it should be said that if pleasure were sought outside the dignity of marriage, such that, for example, someone did not turn to his wife because she was his wife, but only because she was a woman, prepared to do the same with her as if she were not his wife, that is a mortal sin. And such a man is called a too ardent lover of his wife , for in fact that ardor is borne outside the goods of marriage. If, on the other hand, pleasure were sought within the limits of marriage, namely so that such pleasure were not sought in any woman but one’s wife, then it would be a venial sin.

 

[Dolphin]

I find the line of argument that “if masturbation is done without pleasure, then it’s fine” to be rather absurd.

You can call it whatever you want but pleasure is needed for the act to be used to collect a sperm sample.

Imagine someone does this act and says “ah whoops it was pleasurable again this time, guess it’s a sin then.”

 

[Dolphin]

Marital sexual acts are about procreation and unity. If it was just procreation then rape is morally fine since rape can be procreative but not unitive. Sarah got pregnant at what 97? Infertility or “past the age of conception” do not end the possibility for procreation.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

You can call it whatever you want but pleasure is needed for the act to be used to collect a sperm sample.

Pleasure is needed but not intended. Similar to a woman having a hysterectomy to treat a medical issue. It’s permissible because even though the foreseen consequence is that it’s going to prevent her from conceiving, that’s not the reason she’s doing it. Her intention is medical treatment, not contraception.

 

[Dolphin]

But that procedure is done because the woman might die without it or have serious health issues. There is no possibility of death or serious health issues from not knowing if someone is fertile. One procedure is potentially necessary, the other is elective.

Apples and oranges.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

But that procedure is done because the woman might die without it or have serious health issues. There is no possibility of death or serious health issues from not knowing if someone is fertile. One procedure is potentially necessary, the other is elective.

Apples and oranges.

Then let’s imagine a single woman taking artificial BC because she wants to regulate excessively painful, erratic periods. My understanding is that is also allowed for the same reason: her intention is a medical one. The contraceptive effect is a foreseen but unintended by-product.

 

[Dolphin]

But the whole reason they’re doing it is to try to procreate!

Catechism 2377
"Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union.”

Openness requires unity for the act to be perfection. Therefore, it is wrong of you to say couples who are infertile or too old to have children are “imperfect”

 

[Wesrock]

Please read carefully these paragraphs from the Catechism of Pope John Paul II (1992), especially paragraphs 2377 and 2379.

The former says it is morally unacceptable to dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act (this includes doing the marital act in order to collect semen; by doing it one would be impeding the best chance of procreation at that moment). By its turn, the latter invites you and your wife to take up your Cross and even exercise generosity by adopting abandoned children.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center has taken the articles linked above and others to determine that there is a little gray area here, in which artificial insemination may be morally licit if the sperm is collected using the perforated condom method mentioned and there is not too long a time between the insemination and the conjugal act. I know, because I personally brought this up with them a few years ago and they answered me.

But, yes, we do have to accept that we do not have a right to children and there are moral limits to what is permissible to aid in conception.

 

[Dolphin]

Catholic Infertility Organization - Catechism

 

[edward_george1]

The principle of double effect can only be invoked in situations where the moral object, the thing which is acted for, is itself morally good or morally neutral. A hysterectomy is the moral object of “removing a diseased organ.” There is never a case where masturbating is not morally illicit. We aren’t consequentialists. The good that might come of an act doesn’t render a bad act good. A hysterectomy is not of itself a bad act. A hysterectomy for sterilization would be, since the intention is bad (to say nothing of the act being disproportionate; there are much less invasive and much safer ways to sterilize someone).

As a bit of an extreme example, there is the case of the child who has hydrocephaly, which will make it difficult to pass through the birth canal without serious injury to himself or his mother. Some moralists, following the same line of thought that doesn’t distinguish the two things being compared here (masturbation to obtain a sample and hysterectomy to treat a disease with sterility as a foreseen side effect) will argue that you can take forceps and “reshape the skull” of the baby. They claim that since you aren’t choosing to kill the child, this makes it morally licit. The problem is that there is no way to “reshape the skull” of a child that doesn’t kill it. The act is always disordered, and always ordered toward an illicit end. Thus, to choose it, even under a good pretext, does not negate the fact that an evil act is chosen.