Low sperm count

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Again, the device is not the issue, but the intent is. If the intent is not to contracept, then I would think it would be licit.

This is what I am thinking as well.

fix:

As an aside, if the holes are large enough to allow a sperm through, I would think any virus could get through. Are you making a case to “allow” condoms when one spouse has something like HIV?

I’m making a case that there is no need to perforate the condom. The intent is what determines whether the action is moral or immoral. If the intent is immoral, then the act is immoral, even if a perforated condom is used. If the intent is moral, then using a non-perforated condom would be moral, because it is still not 100% effective, and thus “open to life”.

 

[fix]

NFPfamily:

That is why I made the distinction of a likely transmission of skin to skin viral infection. I’m not sure if that’s what the poster meant though. Hopefully people thinking this would realize that HIV is transmitted through the fluid, thus a perforated condom wouldn’t offer much protection.

Well, I am not an infectious disease expert, but a condom does not seem to provide protection from any strain of herpes virus. Even though the virus is not in the seminal fluid I can see it still being transmitted through the latex pores. Not to mention other skin to skin contact.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

This is what I am thinking as well.

I’m making a case that there is no need to perforate the condom. The intent is what determines whether the action is moral or immoral. If the intent is immoral, then the act is immoral, even if a perforated condom is used. If the intent is moral, then using a non-perforated condom would be moral, because it is still not 100% effective, and thus “open to life”.

Well, I have read the comments from theologians making your point. I have read posters here refuting it with good logic.

 

[NFPfamily]

Catholic2003:

This is what I am thinking as well.

I’m making a case that there is no need to perforate the condom. The intent is what determines whether the action is moral or immoral. If the intent is immoral, then the act is immoral, even if a perforated condom is used. If the intent is moral, then using a non-perforated condom would be moral, because it is still not 100% effective, and thus “open to life”.

However, it can be 100% effective because you are creating a barrier for the purpose of preventing the sperm from entering the woman. This is the same idea that even though a woman doesn’t want to have an abortion, it is still possible if she uses hormonal BC (even though it’s not her intent). We must always remain open to life and the perforated condom allows sperm to enter the woman, whereas using an un-perforated condom you are hoping that it does not happen. I hope this makes sense to you- not sure if I said it clearly.

 

[NFPfamily]

fix:

Well, I am not an infectious disease expert, but a condom does not seem to provide protection from any strain of herpes virus. Even though the virus is not in the seminal fluid I can see it still being transmitted through the latex pores. Not to mention other skin to skin contact.

I agree that it still can occur, that is just one of the reasons I’ve seen information on why to use a perforated condom. It lessens the chance I would guess…

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Well, I have read the comments from theologians making your point. I have read posters here refuting it with good logic.

One question for those who think perforation is necessary is what is the minimum size perforation required for morality. Or in more general terms, what is the maximum effectiveness that is morally allowed: 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, etc.?

 

[Catholic2003]

NFPfamily:

whereas using an un-perforated condom you are hoping that it does not happen.

No, I’m trying to separate out the device from the intent. Suppose that the couple desparately wants to conceive, and the urologist has said that it is important to measure the volume of the sample. In this case, they would be using an un-perforated condom to avoid loss of any portion of the sample.

 

[NFPfamily]

Catholic2003:

No, I’m trying to separate out the device from the intent. Suppose that the couple desparately wants to conceive, and the urologist has said that it is important to measure the volume of the sample. In this case, they would be using an un-perforated condom to avoid loss of any portion of the sample.

Then I would strongly suggest the couple find another Dr. from a Pope Paul VI Institute Family Care Center.

 

[NFPfamily]

Catholic2003:

One question for those who think perforation is necessary is what is the minimum size perforation required for morality. Or in more general terms, what is the maximum effectiveness that is morally allowed: 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, etc.?

It is not the percentage of “flow allow” that is the issue here; rather, it is the openness to life, that there is an opening in the condom where the sperm will enter the woman, that you aren’t trying to *prevent *the sperm from entering the woman.

*Isn’t there an anti-cat bot for NFP?:whacky: *

 

[Pug]

I found support for the perforated condom on the USCCB site here.

Under “Technologies Compatible with Catholic Teachings”, they list:

Appropriate evaluation and treatment of male factor deficiency. Seminal fluid samples can be obtained from a non-lubricated, perforated condom after normal intercourse.

It is unclear to me from the discussion so far what everyone is saying about using a regular condom in marriage to prevent the transmission of disease. My understanding is that it is forbidden by the Church. It cannot be used to prevent transmission of disease, even if the couple would love to get pregnant.

 

[Barefoot_Brenda]

Giannawannabe:

When my husband and I went through infertility testing (before being fully in union with the Church), he had to give semen samples. They gave him a stack of pornographic magazines and sent him off. Disgusting, ain’t it?

It’s insulting, really, since it implies he doesn’t have a good imagination.

 

[Catholic2003]

Pug:

It is unclear to me from the discussion so far what everyone is saying about using a regular condom in marriage to prevent the transmission of disease.

I’m not saying so much as asking. I still don’t see the big picture as to what is moral and what is immoral.

Humanae Vitae says, “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”

From the USCCB approval that you have located, I must conclude that marital intercourse using a perforated condom “retains its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” But if this is the case, then it is always acceptable for a married couple to use a perforated condom. Yet some on this forum have a problem with this conclusion.

 

[Corinthians]

Is it possible to purchase an already perforated condom? Because I’m not sure I’d know how to put holes in one.

 

[NFPfamily]

Corinthians:

Is it possible to purchase an already perforated condom? Because I’m not sure I’d know how to put holes in one.

As far as the information I have seen, I have never come across anyone selling them. My guess would be to use a sterile needle to poke several holes into it, but I would check with the Fertility Care Center where your sample is going to be taken to.

 

[Pug]

Corinthians:

Is it possible to purchase an already perforated condom? Because I’m not sure I’d know how to put holes in one.

Oh, I don’t know, the poster who mentioned the firearms gives a good pointer.:whacky:

Seriously, though, I suspect you remove an individually wrapped condom from a box of condoms, lay the condom while still in the wrapper on the bed, grab a thin pin or needle, and poke it through the center of the package until it comes out the other side. Bingo, the tip will have a decent hole in it when it is unwrapped. If you really have to do this, I’d ask your doctor how big/small the hole needs to be, first.

I doubt you can buy them that way or they’d get sued.

 

[Pug]

Catholic2003:

From the USCCB approval that you have located, I must conclude that marital intercourse using a perforated condom “retains its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” But if this is the case, then it is always acceptable for a married couple to use a perforated condom.

I don’t have a clear picture of this issue either. I agree, it seems they must think that using the perforated condom for sample collection need not indicate an attempt to interfere with the procreative nature of that instance of them doing the marital act.

But I don’t think it thus follows that a married couple could always use one in whatever circumstance. It surely can decrease the number of sperm transmitted, so if they were to use it for the purpose of being less fertile, it would be wrong. You are not supposed make it your end (goal) to impede the fertility of a marital act.

I have had the same question as you mentioned in your percents post (about the size the hole is required to be). Just flailing here , but maybe a hole of any size represents a desire to transmit some sperm, whereas a decent condom represents a desire to transmit no sperm. The actual transmission or not of the sperm in either case being irrelevant. Usually Catholic morality is somewhat unconcerned with actual outcomes, i.e. if you tried to murder someone, it is still the grave sin of murder, even if you botched the job.

 

[mjdonnelly]

Go ask your priest, making sure he knows it is for a medical procedure.

 

[Catholic2003]

I agree, it is puzzling. Let me try to summarize the problem.

For the use of a perforated condom in gathering a medical sample to be moral, it must fit into one of the following two exceptions:

• The double-effect/moral-intention exception. The perforated condom has a contraceptive function which destroys the intrinsic relationship to procreation, but its use in this circumstance is morally acceptable because that is not the main intended effect, but only a secondary side effect.
• The not-a-contraceptive-device/intrinsic-relationship-to-procreation exception. The perforation of the condom restores the instrinsic relationship of its use to procreation.

These are the only two exceptions contained in Humanae Vitae that I am aware of.

However, if it falls into the first case, then the use of a non-perforated condom to gather a medical sample would also be acceptable. On the other hand, if it falls into the second case, then the use of perforated condom would be generally acceptable in ordinary marital relations.

I don’t know which case holds. But I think one of them must.

 

[Pug]

On your second point, I would phrase it that the use of a perforated condom during marital intercourse does not in and of itself destroy the intrinsic relationship to procreation. You stated it differently, with the word “restore”. Does my wording suffice?

On your first point, if the use of a perforated condom during the marital act does in and of itself destroy the intrinsic relationship to procreation, then double effect could not apply. With no relationship to procreation, you by definition do not have a marital act, which means that the couple would be engaging in non-marital relations, which is forbidden in and of itself. Double effect does not apply to such things. However, I am not really trained in double effect.

If the analysis is correct, it is definitely not the first case you mention.

You probably don’t need to see this, but here is the first online definition of double effect that I found:

We may perform an act that has at least two effects, one good and one evil, if it meets four criteria:
1. The act itself, independent of its consequences, must be good or at least morally neutral.

1. The good effect must not result from the evil effect. The evil effect must be an incidental by-product of the good effect.

1. The evil effect must not be intended but only permitted.

1. There must be a proportionately grave reason to permit the evil effect.

All four criteria must be met. If even one is not met, the act is evil.

secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/doubleeffect.htm

 

[Catholic2003]

Pug:

On your second point, I would phrase it that the use of a perforated condom during marital intercourse does not in and of itself destroy the intrinsic relationship to procreation. You stated it differently, with the word “restore”. Does my wording suffice?

Yes, this is a better way to word it.