Low sperm count

[puzzleannie]

the first problem here is speculating on the proposed actions of a friend - that is out, we never in charity make such speculations about even the appearance of sin in another person. you can make an objective determination or discussion, but except for the priest in the confessional, no one has the right to make such a particular judgement about any certain person’s actions or disposition.

 

[Pug]

puzzleannie:

the first problem here is speculating on the proposed actions of a friend - that is out, we never in charity make such speculations about even the appearance of sin in another person.

Are you talking to me? You posted a similar statement on two threads that I am mainly following right now, and I think I am one of the few people on both threads.

If you are, I don’t get what you are posting in relation to what I am thinking on either topic. It seems out of left field from my perspective.

I do understand what rash judgment is, but I thought that was when I was judging someone, not when I’m trying to learn/discuss about morality and what makes things right and wrong in a hypothetical situation.

 

[Pug]

Scott_Lafrance:

Isn’t one of the 3 qualifiers for a sin to be mortal intent? Since the intent is not contraception, but actually conception, then this could not be a mortal sin, right?

I wasn’t sure what you were asking, so I avoided your question. (my real-life personality is showing, how embarassing).

Yes, for a sin to be mortal, you have to have a real clue that you are dealing with dangerous matter (a grave or serious sin) and you have to will to do it anyway.

The USCCB is saying that it is not wrong to use the perforated condom to collect a sample, thus, we should not tell people it would be a mortal sin to do it for that purpose.

However, in a generic sense, it might be possible to turn a harmless action into a mortal sin because the person doing it truly thinks it is a mortal sin and decides to willingly do the action anyway, accepting that degree of sin.

And what about a woman who has a historectomy as the only viable recourse to treat fibroid tumors, or worse, cancer. Is this act illicit, because it will effectively render her sterile?

Definitely not a sin. This is a case of the double effect rule. Removing a uterus is not fundamentally wrong. It is wrong to remove it for contraception as the purpose, but it is fine to remove it for cancer.

These next two didn’t come from Scott’s posts:

Does the morality depend on the purpose?

Yes. For example, one must have a purpose. Lying around all day for no reason is wrong in part because it lacks a reason. Lying around all day to recover from the flu is fine.

Does this mean that contraception is not intrinsically wrong?

Some Catholic moralists (not just the wackos) think that if a woman is raped and it can be determined that it will not cause an abortion, then she can take a pill to prevent contraception.

if it falls into the second case, then the use of perforated condom would be generally acceptable in ordinary marital relations.

Catholic2003, what general use are you thinking of in ordinary marital relations besides the sample collection?

 

[mjdonnelly]

I don’t think it is a sin. Masturbating to obtain a sample as part of a medical procedure that is.

 

[Catholic2003]

Pug:

Catholic2003, what general use are you thinking of in ordinary marital relations besides the sample collection?

If using a perforated condom maintains the intrinsic relationship with procreation, then it is on the same level as NFP, which is moral precisely because it maintains the intrinsic relationship with procreation.

So one possible use might be for married couples who are just starting out using NFP, and are not completely sure of their charting. To give an added degree of assurance, they might use a perforated condom during the periods they believe to be infertile.

 

[Gordon_N]

I can speak from my own experience on this one -

After having a vasectomy, and a subsequent reversal after entering the Church, a semen analysis was required. What a dilemna for a new Catholic!

After many consultations with a very staunch “old school” priest at my parish, I followed the perforated condom plan. The counts were way off, but not totally gone (as they were before with the vasectomy…)

There are special kits on the market for just such occasions, and my reversal doctor provided me with a couple of them (he was a “Catholic friendly” doctor) The lab that I dealt with kind of looked at me funny, but the sample collection method (although not the norm) was within their standards.

Long story short, the use of the perforated condom for analysis purposes is not in the mindset of contraception, so fits within morally justifiable parameters.

Catholic2003 brings up an interesting point with the NFP newbies using them while establishing their initial charts… Me, I just had to suffer through a couple of months of abstaining while my wife got it all figured out… :crying:

Peace,
Gordon

 

[Genesis315]

Catholic2003:

If using a perforated condom maintains the intrinsic relationship with procreation, then it is on the same level as NFP, which is moral precisely because it maintains the intrinsic relationship with procreation.

So one possible use might be for married couples who are just starting out using NFP, and are not completely sure of their charting. To give an added degree of assurance, they might use a perforated condom during the periods they believe to be infertile.

Do condoms take away from the unitive aspect also though? I would think a husband and wife putting a latex barrier between each other would be bad regardless of the contraceptive properties.

 

[kmktexas]

For the discussion in the OP, it isn’t necessary to seperate intent and device. Both masturbation or use of a condom are sinful methods of obtaining a sperm sample. The method that is consistent with Catholic teaching is to use a device that is especilly designed for this purpose and to be used during the marital act. It is called a Silastic sheath. It is similar to a condom in basic construction but it is designed and sold for the express purpose of allowing sperm to flow through while at the same time preserving a sample for testing. It is not a case of taking a condom, designed to prevent conception, and poking holes in it.

Use of a Silastic sheath is moral with repect to both intent and device.

 

[Gordon_N]

kmktexas:

It is called a Silastic sheath. It is similar to a condom in basic construction but it is designed and sold for the express purpose of allowing sperm to flow through while at the same time preserving a sample for testing.

Yes- That’s what it was called in the kit! Thank you - I was trying to remember exactly what it was, and it was bugging me.

Peace,

Gordon

 

[NFPfamily]

kmktexas:

For the discussion in the OP, it isn’t necessary to seperate intent and device. Both masturbation or use of a condom are sinful methods of obtaining a sperm sample. The method that is consistent with Catholic teaching is to use a device that is especilly designed for this purpose and to be used during the marital act. It is called a Silastic sheath. It is similar to a condom in basic construction but it is designed and sold for the express purpose of allowing sperm to flow through while at the same time preserving a sample for testing. It is not a case of taking a condom, designed to prevent conception, and poking holes in it.

Use of a Silastic sheath is moral with repect to both intent and device.

I’ve never heard of that- thanks! I learned something new! :tiphat:

 

[gelsbern]

I wonder about this, it seems to me that the method of obtaining Sperm would in and of itself, no matter how done, because it is counted from an ejaculation would be against the teachings of the Church.

Also, even if he did have a low sperm count, one must be satisfied with the plan God has in one’s life. Either you will have children or you won’t but it’s not up to the couple it is up to God.

Try wearing boxers, avoid strenuous exercise and pretend that you are rabbits. If God desires for there to be children in a family He will provide them.

 

[Gordon_N]

gelsbern:

I wonder about this, it seems to me that the method of obtaining Sperm would in and of itself, no matter how done, because it is counted from an ejaculation would be against the teachings of the Church.

Actually, that was a thought of mine when I was discussing this issue with my priest. He pointed out that I was in the process of putting things back into God’s hands. Any “help” that I could give myself in doing that was a bonus. In my case, the low counts were easily countered with a 3 day course of medicine. My wife and I were actively trying to get pregnant, and lo and behold! It happened shorlty after that. Unfortunately, both of the babies were given back to God in their 6th week. Two more saints in heaven.

Long story short, it is the mentality that counts. If you have a vasectomy, and confess that sin, you are forgiven. If you continue to use the fact that you are sterile to live a “contraceptive lifestyle” (i.e. - sex whenever) you are sinning again. So, it is not in the physical nature of what you are doing, rather it is in the intent of which you are doing it. If the man (or woman) is sterile, it is still a solid idea to adhere to NFP to show that you are not abusing your sterility.

Peace,

Gordon

 

[tcay584]

Scott_Lafrance:

What troubles me is that there seems to be a contigent of people out there who insist on having their OWN children, even taking part in activities that have been deemed unsuitable for Catholics, like IVF and artificial insemination. What about adopting? Isn’t that a bigger mark of love but to take a child that is not your own and make her your own child? Isn’t that what God does for us? When we submit ourselves to the will of God, we become adopted sons and daughters, brothers and sisters of Jesus?

Have you ever examined the costs of adoption? I have. A friend of mine paid 20K in legal fees, and another got a “bargain” child for 13K (very unusual). Everyone says…just adopt. If you have the cash, the attorney (who’d better be good or “mommy” will be knocking at your door asking for her baby some day), the pedigree, the references…you get the picture. It’s not an easy process.

 

[surfinpure]

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?

God Bless
Giannawannabe

That’s absolutely horrifying! That type of thing could cause a huge problem in a marriage, even the one incident. I thank God we haven’t had problems conceiving, but in the event that we ever did, I would want to be VERY careful about where he went for testing!

 

[surfinpure]

Gordon N:

Catholic2003 brings up an interesting point with the NFP newbies using them while establishing their initial charts… Me, I just had to suffer through a couple of months of abstaining while my wife got it all figured out… :crying:

My husband had to cry it out for a month, too, while we studied NFP after our first child. Then we decided that pregnancy was easier than NFP, so whammo here comes kiddo number two!!

 

[surfinpure]

Here’s my confusing scenario :

Because of complications with my first birth, my doctor firmly believes (as do I) that it is safer for the both the infant and me if we do a C-section this time (I’m due in September). The problem is that we want to continue to have as many children as God has planned for us, but having C-sections from here on out means my risk of requiring a hysterectomy goes up with each one.

So the moral issue is, do I…

1. Do what is safest for the baby and me and have C-sections, trusting God to protect my body in the long run, or
2. Try for a vaginal delivery and risk the life of my child, but trust Him in that case to see the baby and me to safety?

AND furthermore … If I did have to have a hysterectomy, would there be sin in that?

We’re going round and round with this, and my priest is pretty liberal and far too busy to talk with us about it. These issues were so much easier when we were Protestant. LOL

Help!

 

[bogeyjlg]

1. It only takes one sperm to fertilize the egg.
   (I never thought I’d say something like that on an internet forum).
2. Pray. The Bible is filled with accounts of improbable pregnancies. Abraham and Rebecca, Elizabeth and Zacheria.
   As the angel told Mary, “All things are possible with God.”

As for the matter of the sinfulness of scenarios:

1. Any intrinsically disordered (evil) act is always evil reguardless of the intention (don’t masterbate).
2. Any evil intention corrupts even the most holy of acts (I don’t think this one applies).

 

[Pug]

Catholic2003:

So one possible use might be for married couples who are just starting out using NFP, and are not completely sure of their charting. To give an added degree of assurance, they might use a perforated condom during the periods they believe to be infertile.

I was hoping tonight to get to ask a good priest about this issue, so I waited on this until tonight, but it was not meant to be and I didn’t get the question in. I probably won’t get the chance again for awhile.

I can only give my gut, and my gut says no to this. My gut would also go against putting the scrotum on a heater for twenty minutes before relations, too. (I mean in order to reduce sperm count).

 

[Pug]

Surf(name removed by moderator)ure,

Remember, there is nothing immoral in a C-section to increase safety for yourself and the infant when it is medically appropriate. So, honestly, I wouldn’t see it as going towards reducing the number of kids God plans for you. God knew about the possibility of a C-section. Just think how awful you would feel if you or the baby died because you didn’t get one! If either you or the baby were to die, well, then you’d have fewer kids anyway. I don’t think you can truly know which way (C-section or not) would lead to more kids. Either way could reduce kids.

Also, you do have a large responsibilty to the child currently living in your womb. I think that takes precedence if the risk to her is large. But if the risks are very small, then a natural birth to preserve fertility and to preserve basic natural-ness might be the better choice.

Morally speaking, if your womb eventually becomes unstable through repeated surgeries, the Church would say that you cannot have it removed merely to prevent becoming pregnant. Now, if the womb is dangerous or bleeding or causing cancer just by sitting there, then it can be removed. But if the doctor tells you that you are perfectly fine unless you get pregnant, then it can’t be removed just for that, to my understanding. Abstinence would be the probable course in that case.

You could try the ask an apologist forum on that one. Best of Luck!

 

[surfinpure]

Pug:

My gut would also go against putting the scrotum on a heater for twenty minutes before relations, too. (I mean in order to reduce sperm count).

You’re kidding! Men actually DO that?! :ehh: