Infertility inspection

[Dolphin]

Catechism 2352
”Masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.”

It does not matter what reason it is being used for, specifically says that in the Catechism. You can’t separate the term from the action to have some grammatical semantics argument. Using sexual organs for any reason as per the catechism is wrong outside of marital act.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

You can’t separate the term from the action to have some grammatical semantics argument.

Sure I can. I’m a lawyer, this is all I know how to do.

I get that I’m just going down a rabbit hole, but if we keep pulling on the thread, we go back to “what is masturbation in the first place?” If we go by the Catechisms definition, then by definition it is stimulation of one’s own genitals to derive sexual pleasure. If we remove the element of an intent to gain sexual pleasure, it’s not that we have a case in which masturbation is permitted. It’s that we no longer have a case of masturbation at all.

 

[Wesrock]

“The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason , outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.”

Per the Catechism: “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason , outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.”

 

[Dolphin]

I’m confused why you reposted my quote identically? . Unless you are agreeing with it and reposting

 

[Wesrock]

Whoops, I meant to just take that part and direct it back to Roland.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Whoops, I meant to just take that part and direct it back to Roland.

Yeah, that one’s hard to get around.

Perhaps we could say, as @Anesti33 said, that it’s not exactly masturbation, but some other unspecified misuse of the sexual function.

 

[Lucy_1]

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”

Did you mean this comment for me? I think you meant it for @Aulef, since nothing I said previously remotely suggests this

 

[OddBird]

There is no possibility of death or serious health issues from not knowing if someone is fertile.

As someone who went through this whole infertility diagnosis thing, I can say that not knowing, going every month through the cycle of hoping for a pregnancy and seeing that hope die, can be seriously damaging for mental health.

I agree with you on the morality of the “normal” procedure, by the way – or rather the lack thereof.

 

[humbleseeker]

As someone who went through this whole infertility diagnosis thing, I can say that not knowing, going every month through the cycle of hoping for a pregnancy and seeing that hope die, can be seriously damaging for mental health.

Amen. It is soul crushing.

 

[Anicette]

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.

It may seems that there is a place for a grey area if we took the logic to its maximum.

But there is no grey area. The Church see artificial insemination as immoral. Through her all Tradition and reaffirm in the cathechism.

No Catholic group have the right to define something as possibily moral if it is clearly defined as immoral by the Church. They are submitted to the Church’s authority.

 

[edward_george1]

Do you really expect a Moral Theologian, a person whose justification for existence is nothing but hundreds of memorized pious sounding speculations should be giving opinions on such a matter?

Well, speaking as one with degrees in Theology and Medical Ethics who has care of souls as a pastor, this is where you lost me and I quit reading. It’s a good bit more than how you’re characterizing it. Flagged.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[OddBird]

Do you really expect a Moral Theologian, a person whose justification for existence is nothing but hundreds of memorized pious sounding speculations should be giving opinions on such a matter?

Do I think a moral theologian should be giving their opinion about morals?
Why, yes I do.

(As a theologian, I’m very confused about the “memorized pious sounding speculations”. I must have missed those classes.)

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

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.

It may seems that there is a place for a grey area if we took the logic to its maximum.

But there is no grey area. The Church see artificial insemination as immoral. Through her all Tradition and reaffirm in the cathechism.

No Catholic group have the right to define something as possibily moral if it is clearly defined as immoral by the Church. They are submitted to the Church’s authority.

The point is that the Church has not absolutely defined it as immoral in all cases, as there is disagreement among Catholic moral theologians on the topic and no definitive teaching. I can find the supporting documents published by the Vatican if you wish. And I’ll take the NCBC (a known orthodox institution) and the Church over anonymous posters on the internet.

 

[edward_george1]

The point is that the Church has not absolutely defined it as immoral in all cases, as there is disagreement among Catholic moral theologians on the topic and no definitive teaching. I can find the supporting documents published by the Vatican if you wish. And I’ll take the NCBC (a known orthodox institution) and the Church over anonymous posters on the internet.

Artificial insemination is actually per se morally illicit, and this has been stated in documents by the Vatican and reaffirmed by NCBC. I’m not sure what you’re talking about where there’s “gray area” here. There are methods of assisting conception that are morally licit, and some for which there isn’t a definitive ruling, but artificial insemination–and any act which brings about procreation outside of the marital act–is disordered.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

The point is that the Church has not absolutely defined it as immoral in all cases, as there is disagreement among Catholic moral theologians on the topic and no definitive teaching. I can find the supporting documents published by the Vatican if you wish. And I’ll take the NCBC (a known orthodox institution) and the Church over anonymous posters on the internet.

Artificial insemination is actually per se morally illicit, and this has been stated in documents by the Vatican and reaffirmed by NCBC. I’m not sure what you’re talking about where there’s “gray area” here. There are methods of assisting conception that are morally licit, and some for which there isn’t a definitive ruling, but artificial insemination–and any act which brings about procreation outside of the marital act–is disordered.

My wife and I did not use it, but we did consult with the NCBC back in 2015 or 2016, and this was not the feedback we received. I will see if I saved the email and search for the Vatican documents they referenced (they ended up referring to the same ones I had found in my personal research prior to contacting them).

The point of issue is the separation of conception from the marital act. The gray area was in regards to whether sperm collected in the marital act from a perforated condom should be considered separate from the marital act. I know there are some definitive views on the subject that it is considered absolutely separated, but the NCBC referred to some documents suggesting that if it was collected in that way and the insemination was not too delayed, it may be considered licit assistance to the act rather than separate.

 

[OddBird]

Artificial insemination is actually per se morally illicit, and this has been stated in documents by the Vatican and reaffirmed by NCBC. I’m not sure what you’re talking about where there’s “gray area” here.

I’m curious, Father.

I recalled reading somewhere that artificial insemination was permissible when it is used as a help for the marital act to reach its natural end. I searched around a bit to source it back, but it’s from the Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation:

1. HOW IS HOMOLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION TO BE EVALUATED FROM THE MORAL POINT OF VIEW?

Homologous artificial insemination within marriage cannot be admitted except for those cases in which the technical means is not a substitute for the conjugal act but serves to facilitate and to help so that the act attains its natural purpose.

Now, my husband and I did not end up reading up much more than that on the artificial insemination path because it wasn’t relevant for our particular situation, but wouldn’t that give some leeway, in the way @Wesrock hints at?

 

[Wesrock]

edward_george1:

Artificial insemination is actually per se morally illicit, and this has been stated in documents by the Vatican and reaffirmed by NCBC. I’m not sure what you’re talking about where there’s “gray area” here.

I’m curious, Father.

I recalled reading somewhere that artificial insemination was permissible when it is used as a help for the marital act to reach its natural end. I searched around a bit to source it back, but it’s from the Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation:

1. HOW IS HOMOLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION TO BE EVALUATED FROM THE MORAL POINT OF VIEW?

Homologous artificial insemination within marriage cannot be admitted except for those cases in which the technical means is not a substitute for the conjugal act but serves to facilitate and to help so that the act attains its natural purpose.

Now, my husband and I did not end up reading up much more than that on the artificial insemination path because it wasn’t relevant for our particular situation, but wouldn’t that give some leeway, in the way @Wesrock hints at?

Thanks, @OddBird. This is one of the documents I personally found years ago and which the NCBC referenced when I asked (as I didn’t want to rely on just my personal judgment, I reached out to them).

I’m kind of running around all busy today, so you citing that makes it a little easier on me.

 

[edward_george1]

There’s a difference between the couple performing the marital act and then using some artificial means to assist in conception, and using artificial means outside of the marital act to conceive. The former includes techniques which are definitely morally licit or at least not yet ruled upon. The latter would be disordered. When I hear “artificial insemination,” what I’m hearing is that the man’s sperm is artificially inserted into the woman to fertilize her eggs, with the sperm attained usually by masturbation. And this would not be morally licit. If there’s something else that is considered “artificial insemination” that is morally licit, then obviously that would be different.

 

[edward_george1]

1. HOW IS HOMOLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION TO BE EVALUATED FROM THE MORAL POINT OF VIEW?

Homologous artificial insemination within marriage cannot be admitted except for those cases in which the technical means is not a substitute for the conjugal act but serves to facilitate and to help so that the act attains its natural purpose.

There’s a distinction being made here between a technical means which substitutes for the conjugal act, and one which helps to facilitate the natural end of the act. In the former, the act isn’t done–again, sperm attained by masturbation is inserted into the woman artificially, usually after being washed and otherwise processed. In the latter, the act takes place as normal, but some outside means is employed to assist.

 

[OddBird]

Thank you, Father.

If there’s something else that is considered “artificial insemination” that is morally licit, then obviously that would be different.

I think the other way is what @Wesrock described – semen collected in a perforated condom during the act, then the insemination performed as quickly afterwards as possible so as to be as little separated from the act as can be.