Anti-sexual attraction pill

[AkronPonderer]

If science invented a drug that greatly reduced sexual attraction and preocupation, would it be licit to take per Catholic morality?

I think this is a side effect of some SSI antidepressants, but I’m talking about taking one for the sole purpose mentioned above.

 

[Caesar]

If such a pill existed, why should Catholics use it? We need Catholic children to be born!

 

[Lorarose]

What a catholic quandary!

The Church encourages large families which requires people to be interested in sex…but not too much! Else you be guilty of lust, immature, or disordered sexuality.

 

[Jeanette_L]

I assume you are talking about for persons who are not in the proper situation to be able to act on sexual attraction, like all single people?

Now, would this eliminate all attraction, which would make it difficult for single people to find marriage partners if that is their vocation?

I can see the benefit for teenagers that are out of control, or for people who have a really bad track record for keeping themselves from temptation.

I can’t see why it would be immoral to take it, not anymore than plucking out your eye, like Christ suggested for someone who couldn’t control lust!

 

[DailyBread]

I recommend Lorarose that you read Theology of the Body with Christopher West (Good News About Sex and Marriage) or JPII’s Love and Responsibility to get an excellent view on the teachings of the church in regard to sex. Sexual attraction and desire are goods that the Lord has given us and wants us to enjoy, but in their proper place. One reason why the church rejects artificial reproductive technologies is because it seperates the unitive from the procreative and eliminates the sexual act. Sexual pleasure is not in itself illicit. Eros, the desire for the true, good, and beautiful leads us to God who is TRUE, GOOD, and BEAUTIFUL so even sex is a path to sacntity and holiness, but only in the context of a lawful marriage which is open to the goods of the sexual union in the order of pleasure, companionship, and openess to life. Just as God made us stewards of this gift, we must make use of them and invest them for his sake as in the parable of the talents, this is where Agape, Love of Generousity comes in to play seen greatest in the Cross. To selfishly seek pleasure at the denial of the other goods does not even qualify as eros because one did not seek the true good and beauty of the act or the person who is objectified during an act of lust. Yes this is difficult, actually impossible for man to overcome the disordered desires of our fallen nature, but not for Christ who conquered all disordered desire on the cross (happy victory of the cross btw). But if we take up his yolk and not our own, the burden is much lighter. May the Spirit inspire you in your search for the truth in all matters of life and may God the Father always watch over us, His children. Pray for me!

 

[vince2paul]

might be dangerous, people might be dependent on it and how if one day it’s stopped being produced? =p

I think the only answer for the problem is maturity.
Just my 2 cents

 

[mosher]

If science invented a drug that greatly reduced sexual attraction and preocupation, would it be licit to take per Catholic morality?

I think this is a side effect of some SSI antidepressants, but I’m talking about taking one for the sole purpose mentioned above.

No it would not be licit. Such a drug would be contrary to human nature. We should not be taking anything that does damage to our human nature but rather only medications that help restore people to a base line natural state.

 

[Arbie]

What a catholic quandary!

The Church encourages large families which requires people to be interested in sex…but not too much! Else you be guilty of lust, immature, or disordered sexuality.

Well put!

 

[Liberian]

Akron,

From what I have heard, it’s called “saltpeter.” I have also heard that some college cafeterias used to put it into the food.

• Liberian

 

[I_A]

Akron,

From what I have heard, it’s called “saltpeter.” I have also heard that some college cafeterias used to put it into the food.

• Liberian

That sounds pretty fishy to me. I looked it up on wikipedia and found that a form of salt peter has been used as a food preservative, but nothing about affecting the libido.

 

[hasikelee]

Wow, sounds like “The Giver”

And no, that would be contrary to Catholic teaching. Our sexuality is an inherently good part of us. And just as we must learn to use our hands for good or our words for good, we must also learn to use our sexuality for good, whether this means we are called to be single or to be married.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would have major reservations about such a thing except perhaps in those persons who are destructively obsessive or compulsive about sex. 50 years of that stuff in the water supply, and no more human race!

 

[John_Taylor]

“salt peter” is potassium nitrate…a chemical used in the formulation of explosives and fertilizers which may have a diuretic effect (an increase in urine production and fluid loss from the body) and was once used to treat fever (and thus maybe the thought that it might reduce “sexual fever” (?))…my high school FFA teacher (1970’s) told us the story that when he was in the US army (during WWII) saltpeter was sprinkled into the soldier’s food to decrease their sex drive…Wikipedia considers this unlikely but it’s what he told us:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antaphrodisiac

as to the OP’s question:

Medroxyprogesterone (a female hormone) is used to induce “chemical castration” in male sex offenders and could reasonably be used to induce sexual quiescence in most any male. Depo-Provera is a long acting injectable form of the drug (the “long duration of action” being used to insure compliance to therapy in men likely to be non-compliant) and is dosed between 100-500 mg once a week. But the drug does come in 5 mg and 10 mg tablets which may (but I don’t know) when given in correct doses work just as well in men who are motivated to be and remain “on vacation from their sex drive”.

After discontinuation of the drug, the sex drive returns in 7 to 10 days. I don’t know for sure, but it’s my understanding that the conjugal act is still possible for the man on medroxyprogesterone but it literally renders him “uninterested”. I imagine it being like returning to the state of being (with regards to the sex drive) that we had as young children before the onset of puberty (when girls were universally considered “yuk”).

On Catholic moral principles I see no problem with the proposed use of such drugs for the purpose of being freed from temptation. The use of drugs is morally neutral - drugs as not intrinsically evil - the morality of their use depends on the intention of the will. As I understand the situation (I’m just a lay Catholic of no special training, so seek confirmation of anything you want to take from this) concupiscence is a consequence of Adam’s fall from grace and as such is not a part of what it means to be “truly and fully human”…our glorified bodies in heaven will be freed by grace from this tension…it remains a part of our human experience during the time of our probation for the purpose of “moral testing”…the use of a medication in order to be freed from the conflict of our sex drive against right reason would seem to me to fall into the category of other coping strategies recommended to dull the sex drive (exercise, manual labor, cold showers, avoidance of all images that entice the eyes, sleeping fully covered, ect…)…granted there is less merit to be obtained from the more rigorous defense of the virtue of chastity to be had by not employing such a medication…but merit may still be obtained by the practice and perfecting of other virtues as Our Blessed Mother did (who was freed from the disorders of concupiscence by virtue of her Immaculate Conception)…and if a man found himself repeatedly falling into sins of the flesh then for the salvation of his soul, as another poster mentioned, our Lord advises:

And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell (Mark 9:47)

and considering that an “eunuch” is a “emasculated man”,our Lord’s words in Matthew 19:12 may help:

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Hope this helps.

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[CatholicMC]

If they invented a pill that could stop pregnancy the morning after conception would you use it?

No, because it goes against the natural order. I feel the same applies for the pill you mentioned.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Morally licit? I don’t know.It seems contrary to Natural Law and I think spiritually dangerous.

Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Colossians 2:20-23

 

[Jeanette_L]

If they invented a pill that could stop pregnancy the morning after conception would you use it?

No, because it goes against the natural order. I feel the same applies for the pill you mentioned.

But there is a huge difference between: taking a pill to avoid the consequence of a sin already committed, plus adding sin on top by reason of abortion; and taking precautions to avoid sin, thus even the Lord’s advice to pluck out your own eye if needed, which is contrary to the natural order also.

I guess it all boils down to whether we truly believe that we can be damned for our sin, thus willing to do something extreme to avoid it, or do we not believe in damnation and don’t take extreme measures when needed.

And of course, we are talking here of someone who is obviously having a problem with a disordered sex drive and looking for help. Kind of like the old days with their chastity belts. We laugh, but look around, our culture has some serious problems that they didn’t have (on the scale we see today) when chastity belts were used.

 

[John_Taylor]

If they invented a pill that could stop pregnancy the morning after conception would you use it?

No, because it goes against the natural order. I feel the same applies for the pill you mentioned.

I may be wrong but for now I respectfully disagree. If suppression of sexual desire “goes against the natural order” then the practice of chastity would be immoral, would it not?

Also, as I see it, the analogous situation you propose - the employment of “morning after pills” - is in no way similar to the proposed use of a medication to reduce or quiet the sex drive in a man to the point he may exercise mastery over his body with greater ease.

There are “morning after pills” (eg., “Plan B”) that “prevent pregnancy” (and not conception) by inducing a “silent abortion” in the event conception had occurred (by blocking the process of nidation, the attachment of the ovum - the conceived child - to the uterine wall) and the mere intention of using such a drug, and any so called “contraceptive”, for the purpose of rendering the conjugal act unnaturally unfruitful is intrinsically evil (in and of itself) - even if conception did not occur as a result of the conjugal act:

as when a man throws a knife with the intent of unjustly killing a person behind a curtain but as it turns out there was actually no one behind the curtain to be harmed…still the man in his heart intended murder and is guilty before God of such…

and even if conception did occur and the “morning after pill” failed to “prevent the pregnancy”:

as when the man throws a knife but misses the person behind the curtain.

But how is a man who takes a medication to quiet the sex drive - precisely for the purpose of not engaging in “sins of the flesh” - guilty of any moral wrong? (I’m thinking here of the use of such a drug by unmarried men.)

If a man has an inordinate desire for food and is tempted to gluttony…may he licitly take an appetite suppressant?

If a man is troubled by obsessive thoughts to commit murder (as in some mental illnesses) may he licitly take a medication that “quiets the mind” from such thoughts?

I would say “yes”. Given that the “inordinate” desire for sex may be likened to a mental illness or an imbalance between the mind and body, the use of a medication in an attempt to restore “good balance” would seem to me to be a licit use for such a drug (as is being done for sex offenders, some of whom truly desire to be free from their addiction).

Are we forbidden to “suppress” our “natural” (but disordered) sex drive?

I agree that maturity and a deepening awareness of the sublime meaning of our sexuality as a participation of the life of the Trinity (Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”) is the better remedy but for the as yet immature…may they licitly seek relief through the use of such a drug as proposed until such time as they have matured to the point of having mastery over their passions?

To clarify, I’m not recommending medroxyprogesterone for such a purpose…it is a serious drug with serious possible side effects…I’m just exploring the morality of such use based on the Catholic moral principles I’m aware of.

God Bless

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[I_A]

I’d have to go through my notes, but I’m pretty sure one of the early councils dealt with the subject of people who made themselves eunichs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, taking Christ’s words literally about better to loose one part than to have your whole body go into ghenna. Anyway the council decided that those who castrated themselves couldn’t be priests. I might be wrong though.

 

[mosher]

I may be wrong but for now I respectfully disagree. If suppression of sexual desire “goes against the natural order” then the practice of chastity would be immoral, would it not?

No, because the practice of chastity is not contrary to our human nature and the natural order but rather returns us to the natural state.

On Catholic moral principles I see no problem with the proposed use of such drugs for the purpose of being freed from temptation. The use of drugs is morally neutral - drugs as not intrinsically evil - the morality of their use depends on the intention of the will. As I understand the situation (I’m just a lay Catholic of no special training, so seek confirmation of anything you want to take from this) concupiscence is a consequence of Adam’s fall from grace and as such is not a part of what it means to be “truly and fully human”…our glorified bodies in heaven will be freed by grace from this tension…it remains a part of our human experience during the time of our probation for the purpose of “moral testing”…the use of a medication in order to be freed from the conflict of our sex drive against right reason would seem to me to fall into the category of other coping strategies recommended to dull the sex drive (exercise, manual labor, cold showers, avoidance of all images that entice the eyes, sleeping fully covered, ect…)…granted there is less merit to be obtained from the more rigorous defense of the virtue of chastity to be had by not employing such a medication…but merit may still be obtained by the practice and perfecting of other virtues as Our Blessed Mother did (who was freed from the disorders of concupiscence by virtue of her Immaculate Conception)…and if a man found himself repeatedly falling into sins of the flesh then for the salvation of his soul, as another poster mentioned, our Lord advises:

I am glad that you mention concupiscence because sometimes it is misapplied. The sex-drive (so called) is not a function of concupiscence. Rather, the sexual appetite is intrinsic to the human person and not a result of sin. However, that being said concupiscence is the word used to define the disorder of all the passions (lower appetites). While it may be licit to promote the use of medication to help a person with a seriously disordered passion it is not licit to do so for just basic disorder brought about by the effects of Original Sin. Rather, the practice of virtue is what is licit for such “normal” concupiscence in this context. Perhaps the most important reason is because treating sin as a medical condition is not only incorrect but it does not profit a person seeking the life of holiness because it does not give that person the opportunity to habitually practice the virtue of chastity which will lead them to greater virtue - holiness.

 

[wjp984]

this is a bad idea since it gives the abortionists and artifical birth control people a counterargument to the one Catholics use in opposition to ABC. It was stated how the side effects of the pill and stuff can be harmful to the women and therefore any kind of chemical and stuff like that is a reason for the church to be against it. Well, if this pill is allowed, that throws that argument right out and honestly, I would rather live a life of sin myself than be on a potentially dangerous pill which I think coud lead to even more sinfullness if something goes wrong with a side effect and you are upset about it and start going against God.