Catholic doctrine doesn’t shy away from the facts of life. Catholic doctrine teaches that the male and female sexual organs make possible a unique act of human love. This “transaction” of selves finds its culmination in the beginning of a new life. This is, in short, the purpose of sex: Love expressed and Life created.
There is a season in which this particular self-giving/self-receiving act can transpire in its fullest sense. Six-year-olds, we know, are excluded from this exact expression of love by virtue of their biological development: they lack fertility. We do not say they have deficient bodies, only that they are in a season of natural development, one that presently precludes but has on its horizon the sexual functions. In this season we call any instance of sexual activity a perversion. This season in a human’s life calls for many things, yet the sexual act is not among them. This season orients the human in a unique way.
What of the post-fertile season? What of the human post-menopause? Is this particular season to be oriented in a particular way? Does the functionality of the body, like that of the six-year-old, express something about its proper use?
Sex has, for well over two generations now, been understood in our culture as a fundamental human right. And within the Church, in response to this cultural phenomenon, there is an ever-growing debate about the essential role sex plays in married life. Much of this debate has centered around the use of contraception. Too little, I want to argue here, has been discussed about the use of sexual enhancement drugs, drugs treating erectile dysfunction (E.D.) or libido issues.
Many aging Catholics are turning to Viagra and other medicinal aides to maintain sexual functionality. Many are doing so well into their late 60s, 70s, and 80s. One 70-something I spoke with recently expressed his gratefulness for Viagra. It made him and his wife, he stated enthusiastically, “feel like we are 25 again.”
I want to question this attitude by suggesting that such a view misunderstands the distinctiveness of human seasons.
When I recounted this story to our contributor Denys, he stated with his usual wit, “this sounds like a man who is acting as though he will never die.” This, I believe, states it exactly. The six-year-old is a human soul in preparation for adulthood, for the full flourishing of bodily existence. The 70-year-old is a human soul in preparation for death, for reunion with Christ Himself. These seasons demand distinct foci. Both are as important as they are unique.
Could it be that complete abstinence in marriage during the final season of one’s life is an act of virtue? Could fidelity to Christ be expressed within the marital union by faithfully abstaining during those years? Might the body itself be encouraging such devotion and sacrifice in its natural removal of sexual functionality in old age?
Let us know what you think in the comments.
Share on Facebook
{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }
If one holds this position (that we just let the body run its course, accepting its “seasons”), then one could also argue that older folks should forego heart medication as well. Or is my logic wrong?
Isn’t sex a privilege of marriage, no matter one’s age? And hasn’t the Vatican stated that Viagra is a legitimate drug to correct the disorder of ED? I don’t believe the Church has made an exception for age.
Interesting discussion, this.
This is the question: is Viagra more like heart medication or botox injections?
Is the waning of sexual powers in old age a “disorder”? Certainly it can be a physical disorder in a younger man. (It might also be a spiritual or emotional disorder which we do poorly to treat with pills.)
But there are all kinds of unexamined assumptions lurking behind the idea that an 80-year old man should still be able to “perform” like he was 25.
Well, the question could also be: Is heart deterioration in old age a “disorder” or a natural progression?
I don’t think using medicine to have functioning body parts is akin to botox (which is cosmetic).
More questions: Are the sexual organs an integral part of our bodies which may be licitly be restored to health if they fail or falter? Or are sex organs inherently different from other organs which fail with age? What is the age past which a married man should not be treated for sexual disorders? Who decides?
I don’t believe it’s necessary to “perform” like a 25-year-old at 80 (though I doubt it’s immoral), but what about being able to perform at all? And what of the wife, to whom he has a conjugal duty? (Or does the conjugal duty end when fertility does?)
Of course, a couple may legitimately decide to deny the use of Viagra and let nature take its course. One may also decide not to intervene if one’s hearing fails (reject the hearing aid), or if one becomes blind (reject the cataract surgery). But it is also morally licit to correct those disorders with medical intervention.
Bottom line for me is, what does the Church say about Viagra for older men?
I’d like to pose two specific questions.
1. Denys or The Blind Commissioner: Can you distinguish between (a) the 70-year-old man taking Viagra to make himself function sexually like a 25-year-old, and (b) the same man using a hearing aid in order to hear like a 25-year old again.
2. Leila: Would you clarify your bottom line? I take the Blind Commissioner to be saying something like this: “Even if the bishops or Vatican haven’t taken a formal stand on the use of Viagra-like drugs in old age, it may be spiritually unwise for those past a certain age to use licit pharmaceuticals.” It seems to me that that is right: the Church laity can profitably discuss such a claim apart from a pronouncement from the Church’s bishops regarding the morality of drugs like Viagra.
Hanson, great clarifying questions as always.
We might distinguish between the function of a heart, an ear, and a sexual organ as follows:
1) The heart must function well in order for life to continue at all. Its function is necessary for life, its mal-function is life-threatening. Its proper function is good AND necessary.
2) The ear’s function is good and useful for life, but not strictly necessary, unless of course your survival depends upon hearing the train or the pit bull coming at you. Hearing loss in the young is definitely a disorder; hearing loss in the old is a mal-function, but not an unexpected or life-threatening one.
That having been said, deprivation of hearing in old age makes lifes very difficult–we become unable to hear the TV or enjoy a symphony, unable to communicate with our loved ones, unable to take advice from a confessor.
3) The sexual organ seems to me to be in a category by itself. The waning and cessation of a man’s sexual powers with age does not threaten his life like a heart condition. I am sure its decline is alternately embarassing, frustrating, or even heartbreaking. But it should not threaten a man’s mature Christian marriage, which, if he has lovingly maintained it through the years, is full of a lifetime of different kinds of expressions of love. It doesn’t need chemical stimulants to survive the slow waning of a man’s powers.
Leila, I couldn’t agree with you more!
As an aside, my father is 76 and while I choose not to think about his conjugal relations with my mother, I will say that just because he is 76, his soul is most definitely NOT just “a human soul in preparation for death.” Whether or not you continue having sex in your 70s and 80s, most septuagenarians and octogenarians I’ve met/know are not just waiting around to die.
“Sitting around and waiting to die” is by no means the same thing as preparing for death.
My octogenarian grandmother seems like she’s just sitting and waiting, though–in front of the TV, to be more precise. I suspect the Commissioner had something else in mind.
Hey 70 year old men-prepare for death! Sheesh.
Gwen, thank you! You said it better than I could.
Shouldn’t every Christian prepare for death, whether young or old? There is no “season” for that, and I don’t think it means letting one’s body fall apart if it doesn’t have to. And, the heart and soul remain ever young.
J., my bottom line is that I can’t think of any reason why there would be spiritual implications for an older man who wants to be able to make love to his wife. I don’t even get the question or the problem, actually. And frankly, unless the people doing the pondering are “old men” themselves, then it seems out of line to even discuss what old men should do with their wives in the confines of marriage, with a licit medication.
Not that I’m trying to shut down the discussion…. I’m just trying to understand why it’s even an issue? Help?
Leila: I think that one issue that the Blind Commissioner is raising is whether our hyper-sexualized contemporary culture (cf. Hannah Montana et al.) uses drugs like Viagra to deny in some way the reality of aging and death and, thereby, to deprive its participants of certain spiritual goods to be found in meditation on the last things. Aldous Huxley depicts in A Brave New World a society that grows its babies in test tubes and gives its elderly chemically extended sexual lives. That fictional world isn’t the world God intended; this post, I think, raises the question of whether Viagra can alter the created order to our detriment. That seems worth considering.
And careful: your objection may cut too far. Saying that younger folks are out of line in questioning a sexual practice that lies within the bounds of older couples’ married lives sounds familiar. Don’t people tell us that the Vatican and its “old celibates” are disqualified from discussing the sexual ethics of married people?
Gwen: The Blind Commissioner didn’t say that anyone was “just ‘a human soul in preparation for death.’” You added the word “just.” Your addition seems to change the character of his claim. I would grant that if he had claimed that, you would be right to oppose it. But he didn’t write what you attributed to him.
But J., while the “old celibates” aren’t out of line, it’s possible that young men discussing this might be. I think it’s apples to oranges: Young men implying that old men perhaps should let married sex go by the wayside is fundamentally different from the magisterial Church making a doctrinal pronouncement.
To me, a better (not perfect) analogy would be two “born” folks discussing the value or humanity of unborn folks. Interesting, yes, but from a Catholic perspective, irrelevant. Every child has a right to life. Every licitly married couple has a right to conjugal relations. These things seem obvious to me, and the Catholic Church is on board with both, no?
I see your point about the sexualized culture, and if Viagra is being used by unmarried men for illicit sex, then of course it’s obnoxious and sinful. But we are talking about married people, so I’m not sure the concern is warranted.
Again, what ages are we talking about? Who decides? What of the wife?
Again, maybe I am missing the point….
Leila,
Not only do I not think it’s out of line to discuss this, I actually think it is a VERY GOOD THING to engage in this kind of moral reasoning in conversation with other Catholics, in the light of truth and tradition.
Your comments are helping to advance the conversation. Thank you!
You might ask why we need to engage in such discussions?
The magisterium cannot pronounce on everything in real-time, nor should it, nor should we expect it to. Its pronouncements are necessarily general, and the meaning of the terms they employ is often not self-evident. We risk complacency if we read “Viagra OK to treat ED” as “Viagra is a morally uncomplicated pleasure-pill that is completely licit in all circumstances as long as it is within marriage.” (What of the wife, indeed?)
Now I wasn’t around in the bad old days, but my the impression that is often given of the Wretched Dark Ages Before Vatican II is that a stunted sense of morals prevailed, in which lists of no-nos defined Catholic morals; anything that wasn’t forbidden was viewed as good; anything that wasn’t on the naughty list was allowed until a priest told you otherwise. Precious little genuine understanding of the relationship between morality, authority, and freedom was to be found.
This flimsy structure blew to pieces in the cultural storms of 1965-8. The very fact that so many priests, theologians, and lay people thought that the Church could arbitrarily change its teaching on contraception, and that it would when the new encyclical came out, was already a problem. The mass-rejection of Humanae Vitae was merely the final chord of an dark and tragic opera that had been playing for some time.
My sense of the recent history of the Church has convinced me powerfully that we need to do MUCH MORE than be satisfied with what is explicitly defined as licit or illicit. Catholics need to understand the reasons why–it will make us better able to teach our children, to encourage and strengthen each other, and maybe avoid sin to boot.
I also believe that this discussion is not about “what other people should or shouldn’t do”. Certainly not about young presuming to instruct old. I will be the first one to say I have nothing to “instruct” anyone in. (I do have lots of questions, and kids who ask questions can be annoying!)
I’m interested in this topic because it concerns me. My own soul and my own marriage. It’s not about peeping into someone else’s bedroom…
I appreciate this, I do. I think what you are saying could be applied to any number of nuanced moral issues. I just don’t see any clarification needed on this particular issue.
1) Body parts not working up to par.
2) Licit medicine used to make body parts work.
3) Holy and good activity (marital act) restored.
Again, I don’t see the nuances, but I am interested in the discussion. I may just not be that deep a thinker on such issues. I’m not seeing where this particular issue is mysterious at all….
PS: I believe that all dysfunction, disorder and deterioration is a result of the Fall. Therefore, it is not originally what God intended. He certainly allows disease, degeneration and death, but we can’t call that God’s “intention” can we? His permissive will, yes. His original intent? No. Same for hearing loss, eyesight diminution, etc.
Leila & Gwen,
Thank you very much for the comments. Let me try to clarify.
It is not my intention to suggest that those in their 70′s and 80′s should passively wait around to die. In fact, part of the point of my post is that abstinence is in fact an active expression of devotion to God. Besides, we do not want to say that a married couple not engaging in the sexual act is simply “waiting around.”
As to the loss of hearing, it seems to me that the function of the ear is the same in every season of the human life. However, menopause significantly changes the function of the reproductive organs. The womb, in a sense, closes and with it the physiological ability to accept naturally the sexual act. I’m only suggesting that this natural process might offer us a particular view of sex in old age. I do not mean to say that sex in your 80′s is sinful. What I want to put forward is the possibility that a virtue might be lost in assuming that abstinence in old age would diminish the love and testimony of married life.
Much of the criticism above stems from, it seems to me, confusion about the nature of death. This is something I hope to take up more on these pages. For now, let me say that while the death of a six-year-old is certainly tragic, the death of a 70-year-old is not. Six-year-olds should certainly be aware of death and each of us must have it before our eyes. Yet, we must except that the latest years of life should give particular and concentrated attention to death’s reality. The existential significance of that attention is what I am probing.
Right, but the point being raised by Leila and others is that your idea of accepting that “the latest years of life should give particular and concentrated attention to death’s reality” really has nothing to do with whether one should take a licit drug to engage in licit sex with his wife. Really, what do the two have to do with one another?
And the death of a 70-year-old “is” not tragic? My, that’s unequivocal. And, it would seem, demonstrably false. Do you really mean to suggest that the death of a 70-year-old person can never be tragic? I suppose you could answer in the affirmative. But if not, perhaps these broad strokes are causing some confusion.
I just looked at my reply above, and want to make clear that I didn’t intend the first question to sound as snarky as it does. My preemptive apologies, Commish.
I obviously don’t see the two as matching up (at least as posited), so I’m sincerely asking for the connection. And also where the line should be drawn. Perhaps not everyone accepts that sex alone should be singled out this way.
Again, my tone was bad. Forgive me, oh Blind One.
I agree with Leila. The question actually posed rests on the premise of a couple using a morally-licit drug to engage in licit sex within the confines of a licit marriage. (And a 70-year old man is usually no less fertile than a younger one, so that distinction doesn’t hold up either.) What’s the problem?
I think the analogy of an eye disorder is a good one. You can live without your eyes, but eyesight, like sexual function, tends to fail as we transition into the later “seasons” of life. What would be virtuous about refusing to treat your blindness? Wouldn’t your decision to have eye surgery be denying the facts of life, so to speak?
Attticus, see my enumerated responses to Hanson’s question above.
The question is whether sexual powers are INTENDED to decrease by the Creator, whether there is a meaning “written” into menopause or male decline. Given that “in Heaven they neither marry nor are given in marriage” I am inclined to see the loss of potency as meaningful rather than something along the lines of wrinkles or deafness.
Some will say, no, that sexual decline is a morally empty and meaningless loss of a functionality, just like glaucoma or kidney failure, and it is good or even NECESSARY to “treat” it.
I am inherently suspicious of any such pathologizing of sexuality, especially when it not-so-coincidentally sounds like the morally empty and therapeutic language in which so much of human experience is now described (obscured?).
Denys, I don’t see, though, that you’ve drawn any meaningful difference between sexual function and hearing (now, they’re obviously different in many senses–I’m talking about “different” for this discussion). Here’s what you said:
“That having been said, deprivation of hearing in old age makes lifes very difficult–we become unable to hear the TV or enjoy a symphony, unable to communicate with our loved ones, unable to take advice from a confessor.
3) The sexual organ seems to me to be in a category by itself. The waning and cessation of a man’s sexual powers with age does not threaten his life like a heart condition. I am sure its decline is alternately embarassing, frustrating, or even heartbreaking. But it should not threaten a man’s mature Christian marriage, which, if he has lovingly maintained it through the years, is full of a lifetime of different kinds of expressions of love. It doesn’t need chemical stimulants to survive the slow waning of a man’s powers.”
So, what’s the difference between hearing function and sexual function here? I don’t see it. You switched from hearing to heart failure, and I agree those two don’t match up.
Would it be just as virtuous for a man to refuse treatment that would restore his hearing? Why? Why not? I really just don’t see that any persuasive distinction has been drawn.
I gotta agree with Atticus here. What’s the difference?
And where is the discussion of the wife? She’s not a part of this? A sacrifice is only meritorious when the sacrifice is ours alone. Somehow, I think sex (which is the highest form of marital communication) involves two people. If a husband would still be able to perform his marital duties with the aid of licit chemicals which he rejects, how is that honorable? How noble is it to tell his wife, “Sorry, hon, *my* sacrifice is making me virtuous. Now, run along while I make myself holy.”
Sorry, that was snarky, but really, where is the wife?
Atticus, look at the above comment I made–the one in which I asked you to look at my even earlier comment:
“The question is whether sexual powers are INTENDED to decrease by the Creator, whether there is a meaning “written” into menopause or male decline. Given that “in Heaven they neither marry nor are given in marriage” I am inclined to see the loss of potency as meaningful rather than something along the lines of wrinkles or deafness.”
I obviously think that they are intended to decrease.
I also think it is wrong to call Viagra in an 80-year old man “treatment”, unless you will also call huge doses of anabolic steroids in a 14 year old boy who really wants to get ripped “treatment”.
So you’re saying that hearing powers are not intended to decrease by the Creator? Why are you inclined to see a loss of sexual power as “meaningful” but not the loss of hearing power? I still don’t see any articulated difference.
Again, why would it be virtuous to allow the loss of one and not the other?
I’m also curious about your distinction between hearing loss and the loss of sexual function. You say, Denys, that you think “obviously” sexual function is meant to decrease. I see it as a failure of the flesh just as hearing loss, eyesight, heart malfunction, etc. If the quality of one’s life can be improved with treatment of the latter, than why not consider treatment of the quality of one’s marriage as a good as well. This is all assuming that the wife is still interested in maintaining her husband’s sexual function.
I think that the wife figures in to this question more than we have given her credit.
When menopause occurs it is a very gradual process. It can take months to years. It can happen prematurely. It can effect a woman’s libido as well as her ability to receive her husband without non-prescription aids. This can happen when she’s 35 or 50, this is much younger than 70. Does she treat her symptoms for twenty years to her her husband’s benefit only to have him stop treating his potential symptoms once he stops functioning? After all, the womb might be closed but the vagina is not. It remains open and after one stops delivering children through that outlet what else is it for?
Which brings me to pregnancy. The womb is more closed then than in menopause. What to do with sexually functioning men while their wives are pregnant?
Hmmm I can appreciate an argument about how over-sexualized our society has become but I see that much more as a problem for young people (Hannah Montana, as you rightly pointed out, lascivious princess outfits for elementary girls, etc.).
When it comes to the use of chemicals/drugs to enhance life though I’m not sure it’s always so clear cut. I take meds for hypothyroidism. sure, I could live a relatively long life without the meds but it makes me a much happier, productive, healthier person. If viagra does this (and I believe in many cases it does) for men and their wives, then maybe it’s not such a bad thing?
Also, I took exception to the sentence: ” The 70-year-old is a human soul in preparation for death, for reunion with Christ Himself.” because it implies that 70 year old people are preparing to die, which I find very untruthful of older people I know these days. Of course, mortality may be something they think about, but by no means is it the only thing that defines their soul/spiritual season.
I stand by Leila’s questions: Again, what ages are we talking about? Who decides? What of the wife?
Thanks!
Sorry, Commissioner, my response above was directed more to J. Hanson.
But in response to your latest post, I do think the death of a 70 year old is tragic. I really do.
Thanks again
Do we need to backlash against our “hyper-sexualized” culture to such an extreme as to deprive old men (and women) of one of the gifts of marriage? I think not. It seems that the commisioner is implying that the expression of sexuality is counterproductive to spiritual growth. Of course it can be virtuous to deprive ourselves of many things, at any age, but shouldn’t we begin with our vices rather than our marital privileges?
Atticus, it has everything to do with procreation. Hearing is not designed by the creator to stop–but isn’t procreation?
Not for men, no, procreation is not intended to stop in this lifetime. God made men fertile for pretty much their whole lives.
As for women, well, there is Sarah and others….
Okay, I now see the distinction you’re drawing. I’m not sure that I agree with you. I’m just not inclined to see one but not the other as imbued with symbolic meaning. Who can say that a man’s sexual powers are designed to fail but that a man’s hearing powers are not? I don’t see any way to know this.
One merely biological fact weighing against your view is a man’s fertility till death. As far as I know, there’s no male equivalent to menopause (please correct me, if I’m wrong). I suppose you could view loss of sexual function as the equivalent, but the true equivalent would be a loss of actual fertility (for example, a complete loss of sperm production). This suggests to me that sexual-organ failure is more akin to hearing loss–and is thus a morally-neutral failure that is no more virtuously permitted.
I do appreciate the pondering, ladies and gentlemen of the blog.
I do think that the signs of our bodies are important and that we should consider its symbols carefully. The theology of the body is replete with this kind of consideration. Can we say that the aging of our bodies is indeed a signal of mortality but not necessarily one that must be retained in order to bear its fruit? The fact that modern medicine props up our aging, restoring some of its vitality, does not need to mean that we are eschewing the spiritual lesson or avoiding the reminder of death. Could it be like the 50 year old that develops cancer, is treated and yet carries with him a brush with death that can bear spiritual fruit?
Perhaps what I mean is that that very fact that a person uses medical props (a heart monitor, eye surgery, hearing aids… etc.) to enhance his later years, does already put him in touch with mortality in a way that the hale are not.
Excellent point, Kristen. Wish I’d thought of it. I hereby incorporate it by reference.
Am I the only one who’s noticed that all the women commenters are on the side of preserving and prolonging the marital act? How about a post on the implications of that fact?
I noticed this earlier today as well, Leila. “Complementarity” is always grounded in difference…
I’m not sure that season is the proper term here — it implies a temporary hiatus or period.
We’re basically talking here about permanent winter.
I, for one, am very happy to see this topic addressed with sensitivity & openess to the truly Catholic take on it. Let me tell you why:
It seems that my spouse & I are in the demographic that your post addresses so no one will be able to say that I have no right to comment on a situation that I’m not directly involved in! We were married 39 yrs ago & have been faithful to each other everyday since.
The comments above seem to assume that life without sex is not as great as life with sex, which is a normal assumption, I guess. The surprising fact of the matter, at least in our marriage, is that God saves the best wine for last. I.e., as the sexual expression of our love has diminshed, the sensual expression of our love as grown exponentially. Given the fact that its not possible to watch TV (except EWTN!) without watching Viagra/Cialis/Progene etc etc ads, I don’t really expect anyone to believe me when I say this.
But that doesn’t matter. The fact is what it is. I’m reminded sometimes of CS Lewis’ statement something to the effect that, when comes to sex, we’re like children who can’t imagine life without chocolates until we come to realize that there’s something much more amazing than chocolates (or sex) available to us!
Well,
I shall be the first lady then to chime in with the gentlemen. But first, may I compliment gb above and his most beautiful and qualified response. Experience may outweigh revelation in this category.
I think what the Commissioner is suggesting but may have stated in different terms is that as we progress into areas that are out of our immediate control, no matter what our age or season, we are called to examine it carefully as an opportunity from God.
I have often pondered this regarding what is within our means to change and what certainly is not. The discussion above well illustrates what we should be doing: questioning! Ultimately, God has allowed our physical and mental breakdown (the fall) as opportunities to move closer to him. We righteous individuals have been blessed with the ability to reason but still thirst for righteousness in the end. Every medical situation presents a class opportunity for this, and to stay within moral means. It is the intent of the heart and the purpose behind our decision that is most important. Everything should be for the glory of God, and not for our own personal purpose. I think this is the intent of all the comments, although it may have not been explicitly stated.
I see the natural breakdown of the body as an opportunity to move on from the physical world, and for some this can be a beautiful gift of suffering if premature. For others, God has allowed us the intellectual ability to enhance, if the reasons are pure and holy. As long as our focus is God, I would humbly think both are credible in His eyes.
Everyone here is on the same page. It can be such an individual response. I thank the Church for its wisdom on matters that still present much confusion. If the Church is not clear, then it is out of respect for our free will choice, which can really only be advised (when asked for) by God.
My husband and I are in our late 60′s . We have six children, one in heaven. We have made our mistakes in the past regarding chastity in Holy Matrimony. I am catholic my husband non-practicing christian. Now that our libido’s are slowing down, I would never want my husband to take Viagra because this drug and other like it have not been tested long enough and there are many serious side effects. It is not worth the risk. Yes, we have frustration with our bodies slowing down, but I, at least, (can’t speak for my husband) enjoy other displays of physical affection not involving sex. And, yes, I believe it is the time of our married life for other important aspects of our relationship to take center stage. I hope we make the best of time together as the Holy Spirit accompanies us each day. One thing we need to learn more about………..the virtue of chastity in the Sacrament of Matrimony at this stage of life. Married 43 years.
gb posted on Sept. 11……..I posted before I read the comments. Your insights and comments make sense and give me peace. Of course, we can always count on G.K. to cut through the and hit the mark. Thanks. (Maybe a genuine catholic baby-boomers blog will spring up somewhere)
I cant see any contradiction between (married) sex and holiness. Esp if that love is truly total self giving. Nor is there any conflict between sex and a profound spiritual life. Sex takes up a very small part of the day; the marital relationship however is 24/7.
John.
Everyone,
As suggested by my loving wife I have read the entire post. I am pondering my current position more than ever. Let me give you some history. My wife and I have been married 20 years we have six children both practicing Catholics. I’m 42 years old. Between children 2 and 3 I was severely injured in an industrial accident. It left me impotent. Occasionally over the years I have used E.D. medicines (that make Viagra and the others look like aspirin, side effects are severe and sometimes painful) and we obviously have had 4 more children after the accident. When not using a stimulant I am still able to achieve orgasm and ejaculate outside of but against her vagina. We practice NFP and have done so for several years. We do everything we can to have a natural, loving, and healthy sex life. I have come to justify this by thinkng this must be OK with God because this is the situation He left us in. I have begun studying my faith more, and John Paul II’s TOB and am more torn than ever on how to proceed…… I cherish my wife and our sexual union. At this point I am not willing to give up even our meager attempt at sex. So here’s my questions (I think I know the answers).
1) Should I give up sex completely and just write it off as a suffering?
2) Should we only have intercourse with the use stimulants?
3) Am I in mortal sin when I ejaculate outside of her body?
4) There are surgical procedures that can eliminate the need for chemicals, a mechanical device could function for the rest of my life how is that any different from chemical medicines?
I sincerely am looking for help from a moral and Catholic perspective. I believe prayers and the Holy Spirit have brought my questions here.
God Bless,
Brian
Brian, I was listening to Catholic Answers a couple of weeks ago and was reminded of this post when Jimmy Akin answered a caller’s question about Viagra.
The podcast is here: http://www.catholic.com/system/files/audio/radioshows/ca120119b.mp3?download=1
and he gets to that question at about the 21 minute mark.
You may find it informative.
Brian, it pains me to hear that you are so troubled about this. God loves you and from the sound of it, He has blessed you with a loving family, even as He has given you challenges to overcome. My observation for whatever it’s worth: You can ask as many people as you want for their opinion, but it’s the Lord who continues to bless you. I think He has already given you your answer.