Viagra -- RCC's stance?

[drifting_away]

It is acceptable at any age…but, should we be buying pleasure? We’re not talking a simple lubricant or something of that nature, we’re talking about a pill that has harmful effects…

Put it this way–I would not want my husband to take this.

I agree. I’ve read that the Church thinks it’s okay, but in my opinion it’s part of our youth obsessed hedonistic society that wants the medical gods to cure every impediment to living a pleasure filled life with a pill.

 

[rwoehmke]

Had a seventy plus year old friend who was dying of cancer. When he was no longer able to function sexually, he apologized to his wife because he could no longer do his marital duty. Her reply was, “Good Lord Sammy(not his real name), I’ve had enough sex to last a lifetime and than some.” She shared this with my wife and I after he had died and we were discussing the topic posed by the OP. I share you’re disgust at the advertising of these products on TV at all hours and times. As another of my friends ventured,“I don’t play basketball anymore either.”

 

[Hellisreal]

victorclaveau.com/htm_html/let%20there%20be%20light/question_54.htm

From the link:

This is something many Catholics, even faithful ones, seemingly haven’t talked a lot about. Not that I blame them. It is, after all, a personal matter. Yet, the morality of such a very popular medication should be addressed. Syndicated columnist Grace MacKinnon (www.DearGrace.com) recently decided to answer this question.

"The Church has not condemned the use of Viagra, but your question is interesting and occasions an opportunity to make an important distinction. Artificial contraception, as you must know, is the intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures before, during, or after a voluntary act of intercourse. Viagra, on the other hand, is a drug that helps males to overcome a pathological condition preventing them from engaging in the conjugal act with their spouses. Destroying or denying a good (conception) is quite different from enhancing or strengthening a good (as by use of Viagra).

"Is it wrong for a married man to be assisted by medical treatment to have sexual relations with his wife? Surely it cannot be. Scripture tells us that God, out of His infinite and powerful love, created man and woman for each other. He then said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it’ (Gen 1: 28). God had a beautiful plan for marriage. And in order that they would be able to fulfill that plan, God created them with a natural desire for each other. This desire is good and noble when it is satisfied in the way that the Creator intended. Sex is a sacred and holy gift from God to a husband and wife because this is one of the means by which they can fulfill the two purposes and meanings of marriage — to be unitive and procreative. Let us not make the mistake, though, of placing all of the focus on sex. Sexual performance is not the end-all in marriage and really has little to do with the spiritual aspect of marriage.

"Use of drugs such as Viagra to help overcome pathological conditions can certainly not be immoral. The difference between use of such drugs and artificial contraceptives is that contraceptives do not help overcome a pathological condition. Being fertile is not a pathology. There is quite a difference. Viagra does not go against nature — it assists nature. Artificial contraception does not assist nature — it goes against nature.

"I assumed, of course, that you were referring to married men in your question. If, however, you were asking about all men using Viagra, then that would change the answer. The Catholic Church has always taught consistently that sexual intercourse ‘must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes grave sin and excludes one from sacramental Communion’ (CCC #2390).

(cont in the link)

My two cents:

I will research the CCC on if you object to the health risks the drug poses, if this is a reason to say its wrong to use it.

I think this would be an interesting excercise, and one worth doing.

The Catholic Church has always been a SUPPORTER of life, therefore If undue risk to one’s life, or risk to their health and ability to provide for their family ect, was taken into account, I think we could have a very interesting time with this topic!

Excellent question. I agree I would not want my husband to take it on medical side effects basis. And, the ads are too much.

I hope this helped and did not further muddy the waters.

Hell

 

[childofmary1143]

I don’t know, sometimes the Church’s teaching on sexuality seens a bit too liberal…

How so?

 

[whatevergirl]

victorclaveau.com/htm_html/let%20there%20be%20light/question_54.htm

From the link:

This is something many Catholics, even faithful ones, seemingly haven’t talked a lot about. Not that I blame them. It is, after all, a personal matter. Yet, the morality of such a very popular medication should be addressed. Syndicated columnist Grace MacKinnon (www.DearGrace.com) recently decided to answer this question.

"The Church has not condemned the use of Viagra, but your question is interesting and occasions an opportunity to make an important distinction. Artificial contraception, as you must know, is the intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures before, during, or after a voluntary act of intercourse. Viagra, on the other hand, is a drug that helps males to overcome a pathological condition preventing them from engaging in the conjugal act with their spouses. Destroying or denying a good (conception) is quite different from enhancing or strengthening a good (as by use of Viagra).

"Is it wrong for a married man to be assisted by medical treatment to have sexual relations with his wife? Surely it cannot be. Scripture tells us that God, out of His infinite and powerful love, created man and woman for each other. He then said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it’ (Gen 1: 28). God had a beautiful plan for marriage. And in order that they would be able to fulfill that plan, God created them with a natural desire for each other. This desire is good and noble when it is satisfied in the way that the Creator intended. Sex is a sacred and holy gift from God to a husband and wife because this is one of the means by which they can fulfill the two purposes and meanings of marriage — to be unitive and procreative. Let us not make the mistake, though, of placing all of the focus on sex. Sexual performance is not the end-all in marriage and really has little to do with the spiritual aspect of marriage.

"Use of drugs such as Viagra to help overcome pathological conditions can certainly not be immoral. The difference between use of such drugs and artificial contraceptives is that contraceptives do not help overcome a pathological condition. Being fertile is not a pathology. There is quite a difference. Viagra does not go against nature — it assists nature. Artificial contraception does not assist nature — it goes against nature.

"I assumed, of course, that you were referring to married men in your question. If, however, you were asking about all men using Viagra, then that would change the answer. The Catholic Church has always taught consistently that sexual intercourse ‘must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes grave sin and excludes one from sacramental Communion’ (CCC #2390).

(cont in the link)

My two cents:

I will research the CCC on if you object to the health risks the drug poses, if this is a reason to say its wrong to use it.

I think this would be an interesting excercise, and one worth doing.

The Catholic Church has always been a SUPPORTER of life, therefore If undue risk to one’s life, or risk to their health and ability to provide for their family ect, was taken into account, I think we could have a very interesting time with this topic!

Excellent question. I agree I would not want my husband to take it on medical side effects basis. And, the ads are too much.

I hope this helped and did not further muddy the waters.

Hell

Hi Hell-thanks so much for sharing this info with us! Wow…that’s interesting stuff. The problem with Viagra is that it has no connection whatsoever to bringing new life into the picture. Men in their 50’s are not using it to bring life into the world…and that’s the typical age that the ads are highlighting. Not saying that if men cannot perform, they should just crawl into a hole and be depressed…but what did our parents do??? I mean, come on…let’s face it…if our parents were having sexual problems, they stuck together, and just coped with it. There wasn’t an instant cure to their sexual problem.

I don’t think that it’s an awful drug across the board, but it’s designed to manufacture sexual pleasure–and we need instant gratification. I just see it as having more inherent dangers, than benefits.

I do think that Viagra has caused more divorces, than it has kept marriages together…just my hunch.

 

[drifting_away]

Hi Hell-thanks so much for sharing this info with us! Wow…that’s interesting stuff. The problem with Viagra is that it has no connection whatsoever to bringing new life into the picture. Men in their 50’s are not using it to bring life into the world…and that’s the typical age that the ads are highlighting. Not saying that if men cannot perform, they should just crawl into a hole and be depressed…but what did our parents do??? I mean, come on…let’s face it…if our parents were having sexual problems, they stuck together, and just coped with it. There wasn’t an instant cure to their sexual problem.

I don’t think that it’s an awful drug across the board, but it’s designed to manufacture sexual pleasure–and we need instant gratification. I just see it as having more inherent dangers, than benefits.

I do think that Viagra has caused more divorces, than it has kept marriages together…just my hunch.

I totally concur with your post.

 

[Cat]

I’m truly flabbergasted at those who are saying that sex between older couples is not worth it.

I find some of these attitudes aesthetic, even gnostic.

Sex is part of God’s plan for a husband and a wife. Temporary abstinence is allowed, and certainly in situations where the health of one of the spouses doesn’t permit sex, permanent abstinence is allowed.

But for normal couples, I don’t think sex is just an “option.”

I don’t find it overrated at all. Really.

If my husband had problems, I would encourage him to use Viagra, Cialis, or whatever worked, as long as he could safely use these products. I think it is dangerous to overlook the importance of sex between a married couple. It is the sex act that consummates a marriage (according to the Catechism). It is the sex act that God uses to create new life. And it is the sex act that I believe helps a couple to live as man and wife rather than just “pals.”

My husband and I are 50 and we love sex. We still keep a record every month and try to break it.

We always say, “We are a sacrament” when we have sex.

I realize that the time will inevitably come when one or both of us is incapacitated and unable to enjoy sex. Frankly, I dread that day, and one reason why we try to enjoy sex as often as possible is that we know the time will come when we can’t. I trust that the Lord will give us different ways to express our love to each other when that time comes, but for now, He’s given us our sexuality and we love it and each other.

I wouldn’t say we’re sex-crazed. But after 28 years of marriage, I would say, as an experienced wife, that in order to have a good sex life, you HAVE to think about sex throughout the rest of the day. A woman especially can’t just walk into a bedroom (or family room or kitchen table, etc.) and turn on desire. She has to dwell on it during the day so that she is ready when the time is right. My husband and I flirt with each other throughout the day–does this mean we’re obsessed with sex? No, it means we know how to get each other ready and how many hours it takes to get us ready.

My husband had some male problems a few years ago, and we were miserable. He went to the doctor and discovered that he had a pituitary tumor (benign) that made his testosterone level plummet. He did some chemo and everything’s fine now.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Okay–that makes sense. I’m still tired of the commercials though–I think they are too intrusive.

I’m tired of commercials. Period.

 

[whatevergirl]

I’m truly flabbergasted at those who are saying that sex between older couples is not worth it.

I find some of these attitudes aesthetic, even gnostic.

Sex is part of God’s plan for a husband and a wife. Temporary abstinence is allowed, and certainly in situations where the health of one of the spouses doesn’t permit sex, permanent abstinence is allowed.

But for normal couples, I don’t think sex is just an “option.”

I don’t find it overrated at all. Really.

If my husband had problems, I would encourage him to use Viagra, Cialis, or whatever worked, as long as he could safely use these products. I think it is dangerous to overlook the importance of sex between a married couple. It is the sex act that consummates a marriage (according to the Catechism). It is the sex act that God uses to create new life. And it is the sex act that I believe helps a couple to live as man and wife rather than just “pals.”

My husband and I are 50 and we love sex. We still keep a record every month and try to break it.

We always say, “We are a sacrament” when we have sex.

I realize that the time will inevitably come when one or both of us is incapacitated and unable to enjoy sex. Frankly, I dread that day, and one reason why we try to enjoy sex as often as possible is that we know the time will come when we can’t. I trust that the Lord will give us different ways to express our love to each other when that time comes, but for now, He’s given us our sexuality and we love it and each other.

I wouldn’t say we’re sex-crazed. But after 28 years of marriage, I would say, as an experienced wife, that in order to have a good sex life, you HAVE to think about sex throughout the rest of the day. A woman especially can’t just walk into a bedroom (or family room or kitchen table, etc.) and turn on desire. She has to dwell on it during the day so that she is ready when the time is right. My husband and I flirt with each other throughout the day–does this mean we’re obsessed with sex? No, it means we know how to get each other ready and how many hours it takes to get us ready.

My husband had some male problems a few years ago, and we were miserable. He went to the doctor and discovered that he had a pituitary tumor (benign) that made his testosterone level plummet. He did some chemo and everything’s fine now.

I understand your point, but think you missed mine. I’m in no way saying two people who are in their later years…should not be having sex, and if they are , then they are obsessed. (I said Viagra obsessed, not sex obsessed…the difference being that Viagra, like most of modern medicine today, makes something that might just be a temporary issue…turn into…YOU NEED THIS DRUG)…I just think it should be used prudently…and people should really think through before using it. Again…I have read articles where the stats show more divorced/single men…or men committing adultery using Viagra. It’s a drug designed to help men with e.d., but it seems to be abused…is what I’m saying.)

I too enjoy sex w/my husband…and I hope, like you…when I’m 50…(my husband is 48)…that we are both enjoying each other the way you and your husband are…I think your story is great!

 

[drifting_away]

TMI Cat

 

[whatevergirl]

TMI Cat

took me a minute to figure out what TMI meant…ha

 

[drifting_away]

took me a minute to figure out what TMI meant…ha

I guess I’m just not up to date. I have my problems with the Church, but if anything I’d like to see people encouraged to be more restrained, even in marriage. I don’t agree with this modern notion that sex is such a be all, end all. The Church used to encourage people to temper their passions. They drummed it into the heads of young people and so forth. Now, the Church gives a wink and nod to masturbation and echos the larger culture by giving the okay to viagra to artificially stimulate the sex drive. Basically it’s an aphrodisiac for people in their 50s who ought to be entering a different phase of life, not trying to recapture their youth.

Why can’t people age gracefully anymore. I think it’s pathetic the way my generation and up are trying to be young. What ever happened to having a little more dignity? Instead people get plastic surgery, hairtransplants, and take viagra.

 

[Cari]

Men in their 50’s are not using it to bring life into the world…and that’s the typical age that the ads are highlighting.

Come on- this is pure speculation. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s a pretty blanket statement that misses quite a few things:

1. Yes, this is a drug that is marketed primarily towards Baby Boomers.
2. Yes, Baby Boomers are not known as the most- er- self-denying people on the face of the planet (they weren’t dubbed the “Me Generation” for nothing)
3. However, with the median age for childbearing going up and up every year, it’s not fair or reasonable to automatically assume that 50-year olds aren’t open to life.

I’m with you on the side effects and the awfulness of the commercials (even on RACE CARS! Good grief!), but don’t have a problem with the drug itself.

Personally, I rue the day that drug commercials were allowed on TV at all. Just another sign that our medical institution is less focused on our health and more focused on making a buck.

 

[whatevergirl]

Come on- this is pure speculation. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s a pretty blanket statement that misses quite a few things:

1. Yes, this is a drug that is marketed primarily towards Baby Boomers.
2. Yes, Baby Boomers are not known as the most- er- self-denying people on the face of the planet (they weren’t dubbed the “Me Generation” for nothing)
3. However, with the median age for childbearing going up and up every year, it’s not fair or reasonable to automatically assume that 50-year olds aren’t open to life.

I’m with you on the side effects and the awfulness of the commercials (even on RACE CARS! Good grief!), but don’t have a problem with the drug itself.

Personally, I rue the day that drug commercials were allowed on TV at all. Just another sign that our medical institution is less focused on our health and more focused on making a buck.

You’re right…I should have said…‘most men’ …sorry.

yep to everything else you said though.

 

[PaulGH]

Men in their 50’s are not using it to bring life into the world…and that’s the typical age that the ads are highlighting.

I think that one thing that you and others might be missing here, in regard to Catholic teaching, is that the Catholic view of sexuality says that there are two purposes to sex – namely babies (i.e., the procreative aspect) and bonding (i.e., the unitive aspect). It seems that you are concentrating only on the procreative (babies) portion of the act, and not looking at the value of the unitive (bonding) portion of the act.

The fact is that even if a married couple is past childbearing years, or even if a married couple is young but the husband or wife is infertile for whatever reason, that does not mean (according to Catholic teaching) that marital relations are no longer meaningful or important to this couple’s marriage. Because even if the procreative aspect is missing (through no intention of the married couple), the unitive aspect still remains. So if a man is incapable of performing the marital act due to a physical problem of one kind or another, and if a drug like Viagra can help him to overcome this limitation, then this is a good thing, because it allows the husband and wife to share in this wonderful unitive aspect of marital relations, even if they are of an age where the procreative aspect is likely no longer present.

Now, I do agree that the way that Viagra is advertised is not at all in line with the Catholic vision of sexuality. But that is a knock against the advertisements, not against the drug itself. I certainly agree that Viagra could be used for the wrong reasons, either inside or outside of marriage, and that the ads seem to promote only these wrong reasons (i.e., looking at sex as being all about pleasure, not about bonding or procreation). But again, this is a problem with the ads, not with the drug. It is certainly possible for Viagra and similar drugs to be used for the right reasons as well, according to my understanding of Catholic theology.

Paul

 

[CCM08]

What is “the age range that sexual relations are normal?” I thought that intimacy was acceptable between married couple of ANY age, including post-menopausal couples. Is marital intimacy above a certain age considered sinful?

No one is laying down exact ages. However, as men and women grow into their 40’s, 50’s, and beyond it’s perfectly natural to lose interest in sex. Viagra is not marketed as a means for people in their child having years with problems. It’s marketed to older men in order to accomplish something that is unnatural. Selling men erection pills and setting them lose without regards for whether their partners are even interested is immoral.

Getting older is a gift from God, a time in life when it becomes easier to distance oneself from the pleasures of the flesh and grow in personal holiness.

 

[drifting_away]

No one is laying down exact ages. However, as men and women grow into their 40’s, 50’s, and beyond it’s perfectly natural to lose interest in sex. Viagra is not marketed as a means for people in their child having years with problems. It’s marketed to older men in order to accomplish something that is unnatural. Selling men erection pills and setting them lose without regards for whether their partners are even interested is immoral.

Getting older is a gift from God, a time in life when it becomes easier to distance oneself from the pleasures of the flesh and grow in personal holiness.

Exactly, that was what I meant to say.

 

[CCM08]

I’m truly flabbergasted at those who are saying that sex between older couples is not worth it.

I find some of these attitudes aesthetic, even gnostic.

Sex is part of God’s plan for a husband and a wife. Temporary abstinence is allowed, and certainly in situations where the health of one of the spouses doesn’t permit sex, permanent abstinence is allowed.

But for normal couples, I don’t think sex is just an “option.”

I don’t find it overrated at all. Really.

If my husband had problems, I would encourage him to use Viagra, Cialis, or whatever worked, as long as he could safely use these products. I think it is dangerous to overlook the importance of sex between a married couple. It is the sex act that consummates a marriage (according to the Catechism). It is the sex act that God uses to create new life. And it is the sex act that I believe helps a couple to live as man and wife rather than just “pals.”

My husband and I are 50 and we love sex. We still keep a record every month and try to break it.

We always say, “We are a sacrament” when we have sex.

I realize that the time will inevitably come when one or both of us is incapacitated and unable to enjoy sex. Frankly, I dread that day, and one reason why we try to enjoy sex as often as possible is that we know the time will come when we can’t. I trust that the Lord will give us different ways to express our love to each other when that time comes, but for now, He’s given us our sexuality and we love it and each other.

I wouldn’t say we’re sex-crazed. But after 28 years of marriage, I would say, as an experienced wife, that in order to have a good sex life, you HAVE to think about sex throughout the rest of the day. A woman especially can’t just walk into a bedroom (or family room or kitchen table, etc.) and turn on desire. She has to dwell on it during the day so that she is ready when the time is right. My husband and I flirt with each other throughout the day–does this mean we’re obsessed with sex? No, it means we know how to get each other ready and how many hours it takes to get us ready.

My husband had some male problems a few years ago, and we were miserable. He went to the doctor and discovered that he had a pituitary tumor (benign) that made his testosterone level plummet. He did some chemo and everything’s fine now.

Honestly, if you have been married for nearly 30 years and can’t think of any way to express love without sex you’ve got more than a few problems. It’s really sad when people have no clue that marriage isn’t about sex. And yes, when you spend your whole day thinking about sex that would tend to be a sign of obession. When it takes that long to become aroused a reasonable person might think their body is trying to tell them something.

Sex isn’t what makes a marriage, I feel sorry for anyone that thinks it does. I know the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that garbage either.

 

[Rach620]

It’s marketed to older men in order to accomplish something that is unnatural. Selling men erection pills and setting them lose without regards for whether their partners are even interested is immoral.

Getting older is a gift from God, a time in life when it becomes easier to distance oneself from the pleasures of the flesh and grow in personal holiness.

I think the problem here is that sex between a husband and wife isn’t merely the ‘pleasure of the flesh’. It is the renewal of the sacrament of marriage, the complete gift of self that is the supreme expression of physical human love. I don’t think it’s right to say that married sex is something that should be discarded in favor of ‘holiness,’ because that sounds like sex and holiness are mutually exclusive things–when this is farthest from the truth.

Of course the way Viagra, Cialis etc. are marketed is often entirely inappropriate (if not completely disgusting, when it comes to the laundry list of possible ‘side effects’), and the target audience does not seem to be married couples wishing to express their love for one another. But I don’t think that this means that a married couple, still feeling called to share of themselves in sex but unable to because of age-related impotence, should be prevented from seeking a medical remedy to that situation.

Perhaps the onset of this condition could be seen as a ‘sign from God’ that a married couple is being called to a different ‘phase’ of life or kind of intimacy, but I’m not sure that a blanket statement that this is the case is correct. Married sex is a gift at any age, as long as its true unitive end is being sought (rather than physical pleasure, as is so often the case today).

But what do I know…I’m a young’un intruding on this thread Intrigued by the title and a few posts, what can I say…

 

[PaulGH]

Getting older is a gift from God, a time in life when it becomes easier to distance oneself from the pleasures of the flesh and grow in personal holiness.

I do think that there is some truth to this statement. However, if you mean to take this statement so far as to completely condemn the use of Viagra and to downplay the value and benefits of marital relations for older married couples, then to me that sounds like a rather Gnostic attitude toward sex and marriage. (But perhaps I am reading more into your statement than what you meant, and if so, I apologize.)

I think one issue that deserves clarification here is that the people posting on this thread seem to have two different views as to what Viagra does. One view is that it increases sexual desire above whatever level is natural for a man of a given age. The other view is that it renders a man capable of performing the marital act, which he is physically incapable of doing without medication. I am concentrating on the latter effect, and saying that it is this effect which can be both good and permissible for a married man.

However, others seem to be concentrating on the former effect, and thus assuming that the purpose of taking Viagra is only to increase sexual desire. I agree that it is potentially problematic for a man to be taking Viagra if this is his main or sole intent. I think that in this case the man must obviously consider how his wife feels about the situation. If she tends to have more desire than he does, then it could be a positive thing for him to take a medicine that will increase his desire as well. Otherwise, it probably is not positive for him to take the medication for this reason alone (i.e., assuming that he is physically capable of performing, but that he just wants something to act as an aphrodisiac, so to speak).

I think the problem here is that sex between a husband and wife isn’t merely the ‘pleasure of the flesh’. It is the renewal of the sacrament of marriage, the complete gift of self that is the supreme expression of physical human love. I don’t think it’s right to say that married sex is something that should be discarded in favor of ‘holiness,’ because that sounds like sex and holiness are mutually exclusive things–when this is farthest from the truth.

Exactly! I couldn’t agree more.