www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Should I ask a question on sexuality and viagra

I have a question regarding sexual issues, really a couple of questions, and what the churches (Catholic and Orthodox) actually teach. But I hesitate to ask because I don't want to start another thread that offends and gets folks worked up. I was browsing Catholic answers forums and I noticed that questions about sexual practices were not handled very well and usually shut down quickly. I am afraid that topics in sexuality are usually too intense and threads dealing with sexuality deteriorate quickly. So, though I have a few questions, I will only ask one question that I think is the most benign.

Do the Churches have anything official to say on using medications such as Viagra to treat certain problems? I read an article by an Antiochian priest who said that it was sinful to use Viagra. I know what the patristic and monastic tradition teaches and it is very severe in matters of sexuality. It is universal among the early Church fathers that sex is for procreation only and that sexual passions must be moderated in marriage. Also, it was generally accepted that couples past child bearing age would stop having marital relations or, at least, do so minimally. I have much more I could say and more questions to ask but I should stop...

Joe

Joe,

I don't know the answer to your basic question but am curious about your reaction to CA. I find that about every fourth thread on CA is about masturbation, sexual fantacies, etc. Over and over again. They are even trying to get a masturbation support group going. I find that preoccupation with a subject increases the desire for it. I've never been in a religious group so preoccupied with masturbation. Oy Vey!!

CDL

Carson,

I agree with your assessment. Also, I found that nothing said in the threads was really that helpful, except that it has allowed me to tentatively conclude that there is no official, undivided opinion among Catholic and Orthodox christians on a number of sexual issues. I do find the attitude of many CA posters on this subject to be disturbing and somewhat, immature.

I will tell you why the subject of sexual issues interests me. In graduate school, I took two seminars on ancient Christian asceticism and spirituality. We studied the desert fathers, etc. We also looked at the decisions of local and ecumenical councils, pastoral rules, and penitentials for lay people. I've done a good bit of secondary reading on this as well, mainly the standard sources, Peter Brown, "The Body and Society," John Noonan? "Contraception," etc. I am fairly certain that the Church fathers would be appalled by what is taught in the Churches today regarding sexual matters, even within marriage. It goes without saying, that there is almost universally a negative view of sex in marriage. To sum up the fathers:

1). Sex is not intrinsically sinful, but it is only given to us (in light of the Fall) for procreation. Adam and Eve would have never had sexual intercourse had we not fallen. Or, in Augustine's opinion, they would have had sexual intercourse, but with no sensual desire.

2). Sex is for procreation. To do anything to provoke sensual pleasure beyond what is necessary to complete the act of procreation is at least venially sinful, sometimes gravely sinful.

3). Intending to avoid procreation is sinful.

4). Sex to allievate concupiscience is permissible, but venially sinful.

5). Augustine explicitly condemns what today would be called "Natural Family Planning," and it seems to be the case that all of the Church fathers would concur.

Finally, it seems that St. John Chrysostom is the only Father who suggests that marital relations actually have some spiritual purpose outside of procreation.

Historically, these were the views of nearly all Christians until the 20th century. All of the Churches seem to have done an about-face (even Rome) but in varying degrees. It all bothers me, because I'm looking for the continuity and I just don't see it. Also, because, I think that the most severe views (which would entail a condemnation of such things as Viagra) is probably most in keeping with the spirit of the Church fathers. Finally, I did find this quote on a forum that is suggestive,

"�But happily married women are undoubtedly the rarest breed of saints.�
I dare say that happily married men are probably the 2nd rarest breed of saints.
Sexuality and sanctity are like oil and water"

and I think that this is the implicit view of the Fathers. Marriage is permissible, but celibacy is the only truly holy path. Like I said, there were exceptions (St. John Chrysostom & St. Clement of Alexandria). But even St. Clement of Alexandria sees marriage as holy because it is a kind of monastery, a superior monastery he thinks, because it is much harder to practice asceticism when you have children, worldly concerns, etc. His view that sex is only for procreation is still the same as most of the Fathers.

Anyway, this presents quite a puzzle for my mind to put together. God bless

Joe

My only reply as far as viagra goes is that the disclaimer says that viagra is only for those healthy enough for sexual activity. In my estimation if you need viagra, you aren't healthy enough to have sex.

The consensus is that as far as sex goes, the man must "finish" where he's supposed to. If you know what I mean.

Please don't ban me!

How do they suggest that we get more members after 2 or 3 generations?

Sometimes I think that some of the Holy Fathers went a bit overboard when it came to marriage and women.

Interestingly enough, you can look at John Noonan's study, "Contraception." He documents how the early churches believed that the world was overpopulated and how it was the end of the age. And so, since they were looking for Christ to return, they weren't thinking generations down the road. I think that Noonan's assessment is correct. The large, boistrous, Jewish family of the Old Testament was not an early Christian ideal. In Christ,

Joe

Doesn't that get into the whole thing with the 24th or 25th Chapter of Matthew's Gospel in which Our Lord says that the signs will come to pass within the generation?

Joe,

Interesting post.

It is hard for me to see the reasoning behind the condemnation of viagra as a treatment for ED. Is the issue that one should just abandon himself to providence when it comes to the ability to perform sexually? Or that one should not actively seek means to sexual union, even with one's spouse. Either way I think the argument is weak. (I was going to say something else, but resisted THAT ONE!)

Your points about the father's views on sexuality in marriage are interesting. Clearly there is an eschatalogical dimension that factored heavily in their thinking - celibacy as the great sign of the kingdom. The fact that the tradition of marriage as an eschatalogical sign (as taught in the Gospels and in the Pauline epistles) did not develop as strongly (so it seems) should not preclude us from fully developing it theologically today.

But even St. Maximos the Confessor seems to have a view, if I recall correctly, that the Fall was somehow tied to sexuality. I find that somewhat problematic if true, but then again, I am a modern (not a modernist, of course!).

David Ford from St. Tihkons has written an interesting book on St. John Chrysostom's views on men and women and marriage. Of all the early fathers, he seems to be the most balanced when it comes to Christian marriage and family life, IMHO.

Carson,

Sounds very strange. I have not run across that obsession on the site you mentioned. Maybe you should just start a no-MSG Catholic site?

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo, here is a link to the article by Fr. Josiah Trenham on sexuality:

http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/TrenhamSexuality.php

Essentially, the claim is that what we call ED is just the natural, biological process and that we should see that as a relief from the need to have sex. To be honest, most of the ancient stoics and christians would have agreed. God bless. I'm going to have to check out that book by David Ford, thanks.

Joe

Sexual relations between husband and wife are not merely allowed, they are a holy thing.

If you (or anyone else, if it's not you personally) plan to use Viagra or other medication to treat ED so you can give yourself to your wife in a better, more generous way, then by all means, use it.

However, if you have something else in mind when you think about these medications, it is this something else ***and not the medications in themselves*** what needs a careful second look.

Shalom,
Memo

If it were not for Holy Old Couples cooperating with God's Grace in Marital Union, including Old Testament Priests and their wives (whatever cool name Old Testament Priests' Wives have, where's Orthodox Catholic when you need him?), we would not be Blessed with Great Saints such as The Theotokos and St. John the Forerunner.

It is up to God when couples will bear fruit. It is not up to mankind to determine "child bearing age."

Diligently keep Fasting times with Prayer, the renunciations of sin, and abstaining from all of the things that we are to abstain from in these times. Otherwise, do all things for the Glory of God!

I totally disagree with this. I think that while sex is primaraly for procreation it is also an expression of love and can be a beutiful act pleasing to both body and soul when it is between 2 merried people. Saying that everything that has to do with the human body is Sinful and Fallen is wrong. Christ came to redeem both body and soul, thus the body and all its functions can be sanctified in His name.

If sex is only for procreation does that mean women don't get to have fun? For it matters not if a woman gets anything out of it if all you want is conception.

Just to clarify things, folks: I was not saying that I thought that sex was only for procreation. I was giving the view of the Church fathers on the matter. On this matter, I think that the fathers are wrong, or at least, their perspective is out-of-balance. The one Church father who got it right, I think, was St. John Chrysostom. For the rest, they were too influenced by stoicism and platonism. That being said, there are some clergy and theologians still advocating the rigorous view of the Church fathers, as witnessed by the link I posted. My understanding is that Father Trenham is even opposed to natural family planning. The rigorous view is consistent I think, but it is not biblical. I personally think that the whole notion that procreation is the primary end of marriage is mistaken. Rather, I think it is a secondary end. The primary end of marriage is the recovery of the original unity of man-woman in one person. My long term goal is to write a substantial article on this, or perhaps a book. But I have to finish the dissertation first. God bless.

Joe

A good article that argues for the primacy of the unitive purpose of marriage is:

Fr. Paul O'Callaghan, "Pseudosex in Pseudotheology," Christian Bioethics 4.1 April 1998: 83-99. For those of you with access to a good academic library, it shouldn't be hard to find. It was not available for free on the web last time I checked.

Joe