Medicine & Avoiding Temptation

164 thoughts on “Medicine & Avoiding Temptation”

1. To repeat my comment from the previous thread,
   “Eliminate the desire, eliminate the temptation. The drug companies need to address the issue with proper medication.”
   Apparently the drug companies have already started.
   To repeat JA’s list of approved users of EDET drugs
   * Convicted sex offenders.
   * Individuals with strong homosexual desires that are resistant to treatment.
   * Celibate clergy who find themselves facing grave temptations.
   * Married people who cannot safely have conjugal relations with their spouse.”
   Adding a few more potential users:
   * Fanatical Muslim suicide bombers who are driven to kill themselves and others in order to have sex with 72 virgins in heaven
   * male and female teachers who have uncontrollable sexual desires for their students
   *teenagers
   * “spring-breaking” college students

2. Oh boy, I sense another long discussion on ABC coming.

3. Actually in his post Jimmy precluded teenagers/spring breakers on the grounds that their usage would frustrate the desire for marriage not that spring-breakers have marriage in mind anyways.
   Actually though that does present an interesting question if Jimmy wants to answer it. Could a spring breaker morally use it for the libido lowering effect provided that the only other option was wanton coupling (for reasons of low will power or what have you)?

4. I was at three World Youth Days during the pontificate of John Paul II, and at each, his message was the same: the Church expects great things from you, the pope expects great things from you, Christ expects great things from you, and you can do all things through Christ who strengthens you.
   We need to be careful, when discussing “low will power” not to diminish the extraordinary capacity of the baptized to achieve moral perfection through grace. To diminish the possibility of achieving moral perfection by providing a chemical solution in a situation where the battle is primarily moral (such as for your average straight teenager or young adult who simply wants to use a drug to avoid sin) diminishes the Church’s deep-seated respect for the human person.
   Additionally, a drug doesn’t help to root out the causes of sin (concupiscience, irascibility, etc.)

5. A drug to take away the sexual desire seems like a good idea to me, but there has got to be some very unpleasant side effects.

6. “”You will note that one item I did not put on that list is “single heterosexual men.” While single men (and especially young ones) often have grave temptations in this area, using medicine to diminish their libido could result in causing a problem worse than the cure: It could diminish their incentive to get married.””
   And you say that like it is a bad thing. It seems like it would be wonderful to be “asexual”. All it would mean is to be blissfully ignorant of all sexual desire. Where do I sign up for this?

7. gaucho-
   wouldn’t you rather be a human being, and sanctify what you’ve got? Sexual desire, for all folks, is a gift from God. We can suppress this gift, or sanctify it and thereby salvage it from the damage caused by original sin. I’d rather be fully alive than blissfully ignorant of what it is to be human.

8. What would be the morality of other, non-chemical “treatments” for premature ejaculation such as some of the start/stop arousal techniques that are recommended? If the arousal is done by the spouse and culminated in intercourse that would seem ok. But what about if it was during a period in which that was not possible and the couple was abstaining from intercourse due to medical reasons on the wife’s part?

9. JD
   No I would rather be asexual like many people are naturally. The only thing I need to do is find a way to do it safely. Asexuality: it’s not just for amoebas any more

10. *teenagers
    * “spring-breaking” college students
    I thought this was pretty funny. I think though an anti-alcohol drug would be more effective on both fronts though most effective would be about 500 nuns, in habits,with rulers and cell phones asking the kids if their moms and dads know what they are doing.

11. *teenagers
    * “spring-breaking” college students
    * Catholics
    That should cover it. I am really surprised that there is not more of a push to see a drug like this out on the market. I know that most religious people could really benefit from a drug like this. Anybody know of any ways to lower or eliminate libido naturally? I would love to have something available but messing with your hormones seems like it would be risky.

12. “*Celibate clergy who find themselves facing grave temptations.”
    What about celibate laity who find themselves facing grave temptations? It seems to me that a man (or woman) who makes the choice to remain celibate because that’s what he (or she) feels God is calling him (or her) to do might have a legitimate claim to be added to Jimmy’s list.
    In fact, the first two categories on that list could include such people. You (Jimmy) have merely taken the celibate lay-person (hetero or homosexual) to the “next step” of committing a sexual offense (in the first case); and a celibate lay-person (homosexual) to the extreme of not responding to treatment (in the second).

13. What is “off lable treatment”?

14. I don’t understand this! There is no virtue developed or gained in the suppression of a natural human character. Self-mastery, all other things being equal, is a vital part of sanctification. Certainly, clerics and other celibates could castrate themselves, but they would be denying the gift of sexuality God has given all of us.
    We gain nothing for the Kingdom of Heaven by merely reducing or suppressing that which makes us human. We gain everything for the Kingdom of Heaven when that which makes us human is sanctified, and drawn into the service of God.

15. It is important to distinguish between normal sexual desires and malfunctioning ones. Is it morally permissible to directly harm the body’s natural function, even as a means to avoiding temptation? If what Origen did was wrong, does it make a difference if it’s done chemically, or only partially?
    Anyone interested should look into the story of Michael Ross, repentant serial killer executed in Connecticut a couple of years ago. He was extremely grateful for the drug Depro-Lupron, a testosterone-inhibitor, that he said “chained the monsters” of the violent sexual drives that led him to commit his crimes.
    It is obvious to me that such a drug is justifiable in such a situation, because the drug was clearly treating a disorder. But in Jimmy’s example of “married people who cannot safely have conjugal relations with their spouse,” there is no disease or malfunction to be treated.
    On the other hand, pain is a normal function of the body, and we use drugs to remove it. Emotional pain is a normal response of the psyche to tragedy, but I do not think it is wrong to use drugs to decrease it, in the case, for example, of a person who is paralyzed by such pain.
    Ed Peters: “Off-label” means the doctor prescribed a drug for a reason other than the pharmaceutical company’s stated purpose. SSRIs are marketed as anti-depressants.

16. I found at least one herbal remedy. Chaste Tree or Monk’s Pepper, was said to be used as herbal remedy by monks in the Middle Ages to diminish their sex drive. I wonder if this stuff works.

17. Jimmy said:
    Temptation–like physical illness or psychological illness–is a disorder in the human condition, and God means us to deal with it as best we can. If we have medicines that can help with it, I don’t see a problem with using those medicines, just as we have medicines to help with physical or psychological disorders.
    This makes sense.
    However, I can’t help but think of the Voyager episode where that Harry Kim character (and I apologize in advance to die-hard ST fans out there, but I wasn’t too much the avid fan and, therefore, my recollection of the details here may fail) had wanted to utilize a certain medical solution (I think it was an injection) to control his “falling in love” emotions.
    In short, are we coming to a point in our Modern Day Age in reaching a certain conclusion that truly what we all are is but the sum of the chemicals that run in our bodies?
    If so, is there truly any point to anything at all, since almost anything can be reasoned away to the extent of saying it’s because of the chemical make-up of an individual that drives a person to believe the way they do, to act the way they do, to think the way they do, to feel the way they do, etc.
    In other words, there is the matter of avoidance of responsibility that can certainly be argued for in such cases that the majority of the Modern World, due to such dire conclusions, may tend to dismiss because, among other things, a means to rationalize such actions/behaviour and/or salve their conscience on the matter.

18. Thx abby.

19. I was given SSRI’s for depression, but they have so many bad side effects I am desparately trying to get off them. They are addictive! Don’t believe me? Google the side effects. Google “SSRI discontinuation syndrome.” Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paroxetine. Some of the “off label” side effects are *PERMANENT*! My marriage has suffered (*cannot* complete the act *at all*). My kids have suffered (look up “aggression” in the discontinuation syndrome). It is so bad the FDA has forced companies to put warnings about *increased* teenage suicides on the labels.
    Read and be warned…! And *pray*!

20. I was given SSRI’s for depression, but they have so many bad side effects I am desparately trying to get off them. They are addictive! Don’t believe me? Google the side effects.
    AND
    Read and be warned…! And *pray*!
    Thank-you, Suffering Guy!
    That’s one of the things I meant by my post.
    It’s almost to the point where Society has become so infatuated with so-called “Medical Miracles” that they’ll prescribe/take almost anything for almost any condition.

21. suffering guy-
    I had similar difficulties. When I got off SSRIs, I did a short bout on benzodiazepines, specifically Xanax, which balanced me out. Now I take Xanax only when I need it, and the difficulties I did have are over.

22. ask your head doc if you can get of SSRIs and try benzodiazepines–I promise you, it makes a serious difference. He might counsel you to take a low dose of SSRI while you transition (maybe 10mg) but, don’t bother. you’ll have two hellish days, but you can get through it.
    I know you can, because I did.
    And, if you can, try to see a (very) Catholic head doc. Makes all the difference in the world.

23. i believe this to be a sticky wicket in that we do not want to advocate that a pill will cure everything… we tell our kids to say no to drugs then give them a pill to make them into the child we would rather them be… there are very definate real diagnoses that mandate medication, but we need to be careful not to substitute a pill with forming the will. we need to teach our kids how to deal with the temptations of sin and how to be in the world without being of the world. we are held to a higher call.

24. This is one of the most irresponsible (and downright silly) things I have read on the Internet in a long time. Using pharmaceuticals created for one purpose to block a person’s sexual desire? Following your religious logic, why would God have given us sexual desire if it’s something we need to turn off or get rid of?
    And how can you possibly say that sexual desire exists to get people married? Have you ever read a biology book? This is simply ridiculous. Animals experience sexual desire and they don’t get married.
    You’re fully entitled to your religious beliefs, but when you start stating that gay people should be given drugs to turn them into zombies, then you’ve crossed the line. And it wouldn’t hurt to keep in mind that there’s a little something called science that stands in opposition to most of what you say. Burying your head in the sand is much easier than dealing with reality, isn’t it?

25. I would rather be asexual like many people are naturally.
    Bless you! As Jesus said, “Some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

26. Now *there’s* an intellectual response.

27. My comment was not directed at Edith.

28. i believe this to be a sticky wicket in that we do not want to advocate that a pill will cure everything… we tell our kids to say no to drugs then give them a pill to make them into the child we would rather them be… there are very definate real diagnoses that mandate medication, but we need to be careful not to substitute a pill with forming the will. we need to teach our kids how to deal with the temptations of sin and how to be in the world without being of the world. we are held to a higher call.
    Thank-you, B., for that comment!
    There are certainly legitimate reasons for taking medication in the case of an actual medical condition, particularly if it’s serious.
    It just seems that nowadays, almost anything seems to be perceived/rationalized as being such and, therefore, deemed to require a chemical solution since the underlying premise is that all such things (e.g., a person’s temper, habits, actions) are due to a person’s chemistry.
    This mistakened notion tends to reduce humanity (its very will) to nothing but a composite of its chemical makeup — which is NOT what God had intended humanity to be. God intended us to be GREATER than just the sum of our parts!
    As you rightly stated:
    we are held to a higher call.
    I recall a court case where the Defense was arguing that the person committing the heinous crime wasn’t responsible for his behaviour; but that it was due to his chemistry.
    At what point exactly, then, does it become the individual’s responsibility?

29. Posted by: JD | Apr 12, 2007 8:14:12 AM
    JD
    Some people go their entire lives without ever having a sexual thought and they are still completely human. I do understand what you are saying that using a pill to get rid of sexual desire is like cheating on an exam: you may pass but there is no glory or sense of accomplishment. What can I say, I am a coward; if I could get rid of sexual desire completely I would do it and then never have to worry again. Think of what some of the saints did to get rid of sexual desire: beating themselves with whips, throwing themselves into thorn bushes, forcing themselves into isolation. Unfortunately there is no legit way to do away with all sexual temptation, but if there were I don’t think it would be wrong for us weak people to use it.

30. Matt 19: 12 ” For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”
    Being a single attestation, makes this passage somewhat suspect as being said by the historic Jesus.
    Not the way to go in my opinion and not a good reference for promoting celibacy or a NFP method or a method to reduce sexual temptations 🙂
    Definition of a eunuch:
    1. A castrated man employed as a harem attendant or as a functionary in certain Asian courts.
    2. A man or boy whose testes are nonfunctioning or have been removed.
    3. Informal. An ineffectual, powerless, or unmasculine man.

31. There are alternatives to SSRIs MAOIs et al.
    Acupuncture will release serotonin in the brain ONLY and not in the rest of the body.
    Herbal formulae are decocted to contain the “King Herb” which has the primary effect, the “Prime Minister Herb” which modulates the effect, and the “Servant Herb(s)” which suppress side effects.
    The great thing about most herbal formulae is that they have been around for 100s if not 1000s of years and have been produced by trial and error over centuries, whereas our western drugs are released on the market only after a decade or so.

32. “…why would God have given us sexual desire if it’s something we need to turn off or get rid of?” Sexual desire is a good thing. It’s the abuse of it that is wrong. Why would God have given us the ability to speak if He didn’t want us to slander? Speech is a good thing. Slander is the abuse of speech.
    “Animals experience sexual desire and they don’t get maried.” Some of us consider ourselves to be on a slightly higher level than animals; i.e., created in the image and likeness of God.
    “…when you start saying that gay people should be given drugs to turn them into zombies…” Jimmy didn’t say that. He wrote: “…if there were a drug that eliminated homosexual temptations it would seem legitimate for people to have recourse to that.” Stating that people who *want* to use a particular drug should have recourse to it is not “saying that gay people should be given drugs to turn them into zombies”.
    “You’re fully entitled to your (non-)religious beliefs, but…it wouldn’t hurt to keep in mind that there’s a little something called (morality) that stands in opposition to most of what you say.”

33. there’s a little something called (morality) that stands in opposition to most of what you say.
    One man’s morality is another man’s party.

34. Gaucho
    you need to get with the times. Read anything on the nuptial meaning of the body, and you will know that what worked for the saints of yore is not what we are being called to today. Doctrine develops. Divine pedagogy, etc.
    Sorry, but these days, merely suppressing our sexuality instead of understanding its profound meaning is an affront to the creator.

35. “you need to get with the times.”
    not going to happen. I am Catholic 😛

36. Being a single attestation, makes this passage somewhat suspect as being said by the historic Jesus.
    Way to go, my boy.

37. And let not any eunuch complain,
    “I am only a dry tree.”
    For this is what the LORD says:
    “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
    who choose what pleases me
    and hold fast to my covenant-
    to them I will give within my temple and its walls
    a memorial and a name
    better than sons and daughters;
    I will give them an everlasting name
    that will not be cut off.

38. “”Sorry, but these days, merely suppressing our sexuality instead of understanding its profound meaning is an affront to the creator.””
    Sex is a dirty and unsavory act that should generally be avoided unless it is meant to bring children into the world. 😛 What else are you supposed to do with your sexual urge but repress it when NFP and work leave you with 5 days out the month to have sex? I read Theology of the Body and the modern teaching but I have to say that it isn’t much practical help.

39. “Sex is a dirty and unsavory act that should generally by avoided unless it is meant to bring children into the world.”
    No, sex is a holy act that is meant to bring a husband and wife closer to God and to one another. That’s why God gave us marriage and made it the symbol of His relationship with us. The whole Bible is the story of a marriage. In the Old Testament, Israel is the bride of the Lord; in the New Testament, the Church is the bride of Christ. The marriage act is the symbol of Holy Communion. In a marriage, the lover gives himself completely to the beloved, the beloved gives herself completely to the lover, and the two become one flesh. In Holy Communion, the Lover (Jesus) gives Himself completely to the beloved (each of us), we give ourselves completely to Jesus, and we become one flesh with Jesus.

40. gaucho,
    I sympathize with your desire to eliminate sexual urges. I strongly suspect you think (rightly or wrongly) that you are called to celibacy.
    Still, sexuality, though it can become disordered, fundamentally is a beautiful thing created by God. With fallen human nature it can be a struggle, but one worth winning.
    Sexuality is so important it is an inseperable part of a whole sacrament of the Church. It is a beautiful thing which has a place even in the lives of single people, in the form of wholesome normal attraction to potential future spouces. Whether you are called to renounce what it leads to for the sake of the kingdom or to marry and enjoy the gifts of creation the elimination of sexual desire is counterproductive.

41. sex is a holy act that is meant to bring a husband and wife closer to God and to one another… the Church is the bride of Christ.
    I can see it now.

42. Read the Song of Songs aka Song of Solomon. It is very erotic (not in a dirty sinful way obviously) and even more so when you know what some of the flowers mentioned smell like and so forth, but it is the inspired word of God and an expression of the relationship between Christ and the Church.
    I for one would never take a pill to eliminate one of the basic things that makes me human, much less this gift that is so tied up with some of the holiest things in the world.

43. Allergies are part of being human too, but that doesn’t stop people from taking allergy pills.

44. When practicing NFP (I write from intuition not experience) during fertile periods one should probably work on expressing your love for your wife in other ways (kind of like I have to do with my girlfriend). This can be a struggle but can also build the relationship and be an excersise in self control at the same time. Then during infertile periods you can fully express your love. Eliminating sexual desire, whether temporarily or perminantly, could only be harmful to the relationship I think.

45. Mark, sexuality is not a disease so your annalogy does not work.

46. What did not work was your statement.

47. also allergies like all disease is a physical evil brought about by the fall.
    Sexuality, while due to the fall we can be tempted into misusing it or in the most extremly bad cases can be redirected to someone other than an adult of the opposite sex, is fundamentally a good thing created by God and given for our benefit.
    The only time I can imagine licitly completely eliminating it would be when it has been completely and incurably redirected to people who are not your spouce or a potential spouce. Even in this case I would be warry since perhaps even such a misdirected sexuality could be sublimated and ultimately used to enhance one’s desire for God and victory in the moral battle.

48. Allergies are the immune system over reacting to something. Think of an overactive sex drive as analogous to the body’s overactive immune system and the pill puts everything back in order. The analogy works.

49. I understand Jimmy’s reasoning and all, but I’m not convinced.
    One of the arguments used against chemical artificial birth control is that proponents are of the mentality of treating a woman’s fertility as if it were a disease. Couldn’t this same logic be applied to arguments against using chemicals to treat a natural, God-given drive (libido)?

50. allergies are your immune system reacting to something it probably shouldn’t even be reacting to.
    Sexuality, at least if heterosexual and directed to your spouse or potential spouse, is a good thing. Is it possible for the attraction to be too strong? Possibly but I am highly sceptical of that. What is needed is self control, both in terms of actions and custody of the eyes, not elimination of a good human quality.

51. exactly, Catholic Mama.
    However, while Jimmy is more comfortible with the matter than I am, he hasn’t really suggested eliminating attraction to anyone who you should be attracted to (again, spouse or potential spouse) except in the case where it is too dangerous for the couple to have sex. I highly doubt that in the latter case any couple unless mentally diseased would need chemicals to control themselves, but if it is a choice between death and elimination of sexual desire perhaps you should just eliminate the desire. You are not actually corrupting the marital act like in contraception so it is perhaps not the same intrinsic evil.

52. I see nothing wrong, what good is a sexual libido without a healthy Catholic life? You are worth more to the Catholic church alive than dead, as long as you are not doing so to avoid pleasing your marital partner

53. We use medicine to correct an imbalance in the body. Chemical birth control is wrong because it creates an imbalance. However, birth control pills (not the abortificent kinds) may be used to correct a woman’s normal cycle if it has gotten out of whack(correcting the imbalance). I can see the same legitimate use for a pill that would correct a sex drive that’s out of whack.

54. Certainly if it just corrected a disorderd sexuality, like turn a homosexual heterosexual or cure someone addicted to some sexual activity, returning them to a normal healthy sexuality, I would be in favor of that.

55. Google says ‘psychotropic’ is in this Vatican document:
    EDUCATIONAL GUIDANCE IN HUMAN LOVE (Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education) http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_19831101_sexual-education_en.html
    I haven’t read it, so I won’t provide commentary.
    My speculation is that psychotropic drugs would be looked at negatively.

56. From the document M.Z. Forrest provided the link to:
    4. Sexuality is a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being, of manifestation, of communicating with others, of feeling, of expressing and of living human love. Therefore it is an integral part of the development of the personality and of its educative process: ” It is, in fact, from sex that the human person receives the characteristics which, on the biological, psychological and spiritual levels, make that person a man or a woman, and thereby largely condition his or her progress towards maturity and insertion into society “.(3)
    5. Sexuality characterises man and woman not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its mark on each of their expressions. Such diversity, linked to the complementarity of the two sexes, allows thorough response to the design of God according to the vocation to which each one is called.
    Doesn’t sound like sexuality is a quality we want to obliterate.

57. Doesn’t sound like sexuality is a quality we want to obliterate.
    Priests love it.

58. Wow, Hank! That’s so profound! Doesn’t it make you proud to be so clever?
    Tha average 12-year-old can do better than that.

59. It’s what the priest told me. He said it was ok.

60. From the same document (I’m not going to put it in italics this time because I’ve decided it’s hard on the eyes):
    “28. Since men and women in their time have been inclined to reduce sexuality to genital experience alone, there have been reactions tending to devalue sex, as though by its nature men and women were defiled by it. These present guidelines intend to oppose such devaluation.
    29. ” It is only in the Mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear”,(28) and human existence acquires its full meaning in the vocation to the divine life. Only by following Christ does man respond to this vocation and become so fully man, growing finally to reach the perfect man in the measure approaching the full maturity of Christ.(29)
    30. In the light of the Mystery of Christ, sexuality appears to us as a vocation to realise that love which the Holy Spirit instills in the hearts of the redeemed. Jesus Christ has enriched such vocation with the Sacrament of Marriage.
    31. Furthermore, Jesus has pointed out by word and example the vocation to virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.(30) Virginity is a vocation to love: it renders the heart more free to love God.(31) Free of the duties of conjugal love, the virgin heart can feel, therefore, more disposed to the gratuitous love of one’s brothers and sisters.
    In consequence, virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven better expresses the gift of Christ to the Father on behalf of us and prefigures with greater precision the reality of eternal life, all substantiated in charity.(32)
    Virginity, certainly is a renunciation of the form of love which typifies marriage, but committed to undertaking in greater profundity the dynamism, inherent in sexuality, of self-giving openness to others. It seeks to obtain its strengthening and transfiguring by the presence of the Spirit, who teaches us to love the Father and the brethren, after the example of the Lord Jesus.
    32. In synthesis, sexuality is called to express different values to which specific moral exigencies correspond. Oriented towards interpersonal dialogue, it contributes to the integral maturation of people, opening them to the gift of self in love; furthermore, tied to the order of creation, to fecundity and to the transmission of life, it is called to be faithful to this inner purpose also. Love and fecundity are meanings and values of sexuality which include and summons each other in turn, and cannot therefore be considered as either alternatives or opposites.
    33. The affective life, proper to each sex, expresses itself in a characteristic mode in the different states of life: conjugal union, consecrated celibacy chosen for the sake of the kingdom, the condition of the christian who has not yet reached marriage, or who remains celibate, or who has chosen to remain such. In all these cases the affective life must be gathered and integrated in the human person.”

61. The Vatican has defrocked a former priest accused of sexually assaulting and whipping boys as they enacted the Passion play, the Philadelphia archdiocese announced Thursday.
    The Rev. Thomas J. Smith “engaged in depraved and sadistic behavior” that included putting pins in his mouth and pricking the boys until they bled, whipping boys playing Jesus until they had welts, and coercing them to get naked with him in a hot tub, according to a 2005 grand jury report.
    Smith’s actions took place in various parishes from 1973 through December 2004, when he left active ministry amid an archdiocesan investigation involving at least one minor. He last lived at St. Francis of Assisi in Springfield, Delaware County.
    “The allegation was subsequently found credible, and he sought removal from the clerical state,” the archdiocese said in a statement released Thursday.
    The explosive 2005 grand jury report accused former Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua and other church leaders of covering up decades of abuse by at least 63 priests, a charge the archdiocese has denied.
    Smith also served as a Boy Scouts chaplain, as chaplain of Archbishop Prendergast High School in Drexel Hill, and as an associate director of youth sports, the archdiocese said.
    His current whereabouts could not be determined.
    Smith appeared before the grand jury but did not answer the allegations made against him, the report said.

62. Since the above has nothing to do with this thread, it must have been posted only to slam the Church. I hope Jimmy will delete it.

63. How is that related Philly? Don’t just copy and paste a news story.

64. J.R. Stoodley —
    Catholic MaMa is right in her comment:
    Couldn’t this same logic be applied to arguments against using chemicals to treat a natural, God-given drive (libido)?
    If the drug in question is devised to thwart the natural design of God in man, how is it even deemed permissible to actually use such agents as a means of avoiding sin when their very utilization is a sin in itself given the nature of the device?

65. Gaucho —
    Being “asexual” doesn’t work like that. It doesn’t make life easier. It makes you struggle to understand the motivations of other people. It makes it difficult to give people honest compliments on how they look, because you have to give a purely aesthetic judgement. It’s harder to relate to people. So it’s not necessarily a lot of fun.
    Also, it doesn’t cut you off from every sexual thought. Plenty of people with nonexistent libidos and an inability to be attracted to anyone or any fictional character still read smutty romance novels or watch R-rated movies.
    This is not to say that it’s the biggest cross ever, but it’s not anything you should wish on yourself.* There’s not any state in life that’s not a giant pain in the butt; and the sooner you figure that out, the happier you’ll be.
    (*Unless, of course, you’re a wannabe-friar-and-theologian named Thomas whose parents have locked him in a tower with a comely member of the oldest profession.) 🙂

66. bill912:
    There are certain issues in your comments that I would like to address:
    We use medicine to correct an imbalance in the body.
    This is rather vague since anything in the body can be perceived as an ‘imbalance’ (especially from a chemistry standpoint) and, therefore, can almost justify any means that would seemingly correct such a ‘perceived’ imbalance.
    Chemical birth control is wrong because it creates an imbalance.
    Chemical birth control doesn’t actually create an imbalance and, thus, wrong; it is wrong because it frustrates the natural procreative aspects of reproduction intended by the Creator.
    I can see the same legitimate use for a pill that would correct a sex drive that’s out of whack.
    I don’t in my view since it thwarts, likewise, the natural design.

67. An out-of-whack sex drive is not the natural design.
    Creating an imbalance is exactly what chemical birth control causes.

68. Esau – the Star Trek: Voyager episode you’re referring to is the fifth season’s “The Disease.” In that case, the biology of the alien female courted by Harry Kim caused them to become biochemically interdependent as a result of copulation, and he actually REFUSED treatment during his “withdrawl period.” (Huge STV fan here. :P)
    guacho – where on earth did you get the idea that there’s only a five-day window for sex when couples use NFP? A woman’s normal luteal phase is 10-12 days, so that gives couples at least seven days in the post-ovulatory period (sometimes more), and often there’s opportunity for intercourse in the pre-ovulatory phase. Having intercourse during one’s menstrual period can be icky sometimes, but that can also be done.

69. To finish: It’s the chemical imbalance that causes ovulation to halt.

70. Being “asexual” doesn’t work like that. It doesn’t make life easier. It makes you struggle to understand the motivations of other people. It makes it difficult to give people honest compliments on how they look, because you have to give a purely aesthetic judgement. It’s harder to relate to people. So it’s not necessarily a lot of fun.
    Funny, I don’t find it harder, or a struggle, or more difficult to give compliments or any of the things you list. Perhaps what you’re calling “asexual” is just a form of repression.

71. JoAnna —
    Esau – the Star Trek: Voyager episode you’re referring to is the fifth season’s “The Disease.” In that case, the biology of the alien female courted by Harry Kim caused them to become biochemically interdependent as a result of copulation, and he actually REFUSED treatment during his “withdrawl period.” (Huge STV fan here. :P)
    Thanks for the Info, JoAnna! ;^)
    Bill912 —
    About:
    An out-of-whack sex drive is not the natural design.
    It’s too easy to rationalize something as an out-of-whack this or an out-of-whack that.
    I know you mean well, bill912.

72. “guacho – where on earth did you get the idea that there’s only a five-day window for sex when couples use NFP?”
    JoAnna,
    I said between work and NFP we are only left with 5 days. My wife’s infertile cycles and I work opposite shifts. I work 14 on and 14 off so when I am gone she is infertile and when I am home she is fertile. That schedule leaves us with 5 days or less which I am a little miffed about. 😛

73. Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 12, 2007 4:29:46 PM
    Thanks Anonymous, I guess it is true the grass is always greener. I didn’t know St. Thomas had it so easy though. I always imagined the women he drove out of his room with a branding iron was the most beautiful women in the world. I guess if she had been a little more appealing the whole history of the Catholic Church would be just a little different today.

74. JoAnna (or ANYBODY):
    Having intercourse during one’s menstrual period can be icky sometimes, but that can also be done.
    In the case you stated above, would it be permissible to use a CONDOM?
    I mean, you wouldn’t actually be utilizing it for its contraceptive effects but rather for sanitary reasons.
    The contraceptive effects would only be a side effect.

75. Who needs the Eucharist or God’s Mercy when chemicals are all that is needed to defeat concupiscence?

76. Sex during mentruation isn’t that nasty Esau and a condom would just make things worse anywho. I really doubt that anybody will agree that a condom is permissible in that case.

77. A-M-E-N, egf!
    That’s what I’m talking about!
    Society has put TOO MUCH FAITH on CHEMICALS and NOT ENOUGH FAITH on GOD!
    It’s fine to utilize chemicals for legitimate reasons, but not for almost every thing imaginable or even to the point of substituting the act of the will.

78. Sex during mentruation isn’t that nasty Esau…
    gaucho:
    Have you? If you have, how?
    (Please don’t answer if it’s too personal)

79. Just a comment on SSRIs and decreased libido:
    I was put on SSRIs for a problem I’ve had with panic attacks and anxiety since my early teens (I’m over 50 now). To me they’re a complete Godsend. They’ve turned my life around completely and I don’t know how I lived without them. One of the side effects is, alas, decreased sexual function. Having said that, my wife and I love each other deeply and are content that I can live a normal life with this one problem. While sexual relations are a big part of marriage they are not THE marriage, and we continue to grow in love with each other and with God.
    Perhaps the example of Catherine and Eddie Doherty might be a good example to trot out when people get too critical about marriages without sex.

80. Esau, you have been ordained? A degree in marriage/sex therapy? Or simply a “blogging know-it-all”, the raving on-line “hatcheteering” confessor?

81. Sparky-
    I truly thought SSRI’s were the best thing ever until I realized how many side effects there were. benzodiazepines seemm like a new springtime. ask your doctor.(i am not a Xanax salesguy, just someone who feels a million times better on Xanax than he ever did on Lexapro.)

82. Anon anti SSRI guy – I’ve used every benzo on the market, aphabetically from Ativan to Xanax, and they all provided very temporary relief. They are also some of the most addictive anti-anxiety meds ever created, and I’ve worked with people being weened off of them – not pretty. I appreciate how you respond to Xanax as opposed to Lexapro, but everyone is different and reacts differently. No, I know about the reported withdrawal problems of SSRIs. It only makes sense as they change the level of chemicals in the brain and thence how the brain responds to things. As far as I’m concerned there’s a chemical-related problem in my brain without them and the med I’m on fixes that. After 30+ years of using every other med in the book, unsuccessfully, to try to deal with the problem, that’s all I care about. It works. But thanks for your concern.

83. The idea of taking a pill to reduce sexual desire sounds a bit creepy and big-brother-ish to me (though I can certainly sympathize with those who have a strong sexual desire and no legitimate means to express it.)
    On the subject of “it’s better to marry than to burn with passion” – I’ve always had trouble understanding this. It seems to me that such a philosophy would cause people to rush into marriage before they were ready or to someone who wasn’t right for them just because they wanted to have sex.

84. This discussion already made it to another blog.
    http://www.queerty.com/queer/gay/diagnosis-terminal-horseshit-20070412.php

85. I think that perhaps the posting from Philadelphia is not an anti-Catholic slam but more a point that the drug therapy would not have worked so well on the priest in question. I am catious about this approach of medication ( to be honest though, I don’t like taking aspirin when I have a headache) as it does say that God’s grace in insufficient to help us overcome tepmtation. Medication does seem to be an easy answer though; for it easier, I would suppose, to take a pill than to exercise correctly one’s free will. Not that there wasn’t problems before the 60’s, but it seems that this is another example of sowing the wind and reaping the whilrwind: the hypersexualization of the 60′ and on have weakened us significantly. How long, as we have watched one sexual domino after another fall, will it be before these aberrant behaviors are seen as normative as well? Babylon the great is indeed falling!

86. Sorry fopr the misspellings. I have had only one cup of coffee. Must…get…more…caffiene!

87. Gaucho –
    It seems that NFP isn’t the problem for you, then; it’s your crazy work schedlues that are the problem. My husband and I had a similar situation at one time and we just learned to really utilize my infertile times!
    But my question is, why do you want to become asexual if you have a spouse? Wouldn’t becoming asexual effectively cause you to lose all desire for your spouse, to her detriment?
    Esau — I supposed if you poked holes in the condom you could use it for that purpose, but it wouldn’t help anyway so there’s no point. We just put a dark-colored towel down under us and wash up afterwards if necessary.

88. JoAnna:
    Esau — I supposed if you poked holes in the condom you could use it for that purpose, but it wouldn’t help anyway so there’s no point.
    Actually, the proposed use I asserted above in my comment wouldn’t be quite unlike the proposed use that was undergoing investigation by the Decastry called by the Pope in Rome to see if whether or not using condoms to prevent AIDS, or the AIDS virus, from being transmitted from one person to another, and, specifically, in places like Africa and so forth, would be okay.
    That means that in that case the condom would not be used as a contraceptive — because you’re not trying to prevent conception –- it does prevent conception as a side effect (as long as the condom doesn’t fail). But, that’s not the purpose it’s being employed for in this case. It’d be employed as an anti-viral agent.
    We just put a dark-colored towel down under us and wash up afterwards if necessary.
    Thanks for your being candid, JoAnna.
    I really appreciate it!
    I didn’t mean to be intrusive as I know my question to gaucho was of a very personal nature (that’s why I insisted that he not answer it if it was too personal for him to do so), but I really wanted to know from someone who’s had experience actually performing under those conditions.
    As always, I appreciate your sincere response!

89. I am catious about this approach of medication ( to be honest though, I don’t like taking aspirin when I have a headache) as it does say that God’s grace in insufficient to help us overcome tepmtation. Medication does seem to be an easy answer though; for it easier, I would suppose, to take a pill than to exercise correctly one’s free will.
    THANK-YOU, FR. BP!
    Like I said, it’s TOO EASY to place blame on something other than ourselves and/or to avoid responsibility in the matter and/or just pop a pill and be done with it, reducing the act of will (and, not to mention, our very humanity) to nothing but the sum of our chemistry.
    I acknowledge, as I have, that for actual and real medical conditions (particularly if they’re serious ones), medical treatment is understandable by such chemical means.
    However, it seems that pharmaceutical companies are developing drugs for almost anything these days in order to make money.

90. I have to throw in with JD above, when he says;
    “There is no virtue developed or gained in the suppression of a natural human character. Self-mastery, all other things being equal, is a vital part of sanctification. Certainly, clerics and other celibates could castrate themselves, but they would be denying the gift of sexuality God has given all of us.”
    But reading Jimmy’s post, I don’t see him presenting this as a cure-all for everyone, but as POSSIBLY morally permissible in extreme cases.
    To wish to be an asexual being when God has made you a sexual being seems to be problematic, unless your sexuality is really out-of-whack in some way… so overwhelming that you think of little else, ordered toward the wrong things (same sex, children, animals, etc…), or if you are in a situation where you simply MUST NOT have sex (a spouse with AIDS, maybe, or if you were an astronaut on the space station).
    Also, there are often effects from these kinds of things that are not physical, but are subtle, long term, psychological, interpersonal, social… we simply can’t see all ends and tinkering with these things on a massive scale through chemicals seems extremely risky, as once the geenie is out of the bottle, it will be almost impossible to put back (as with abortion).

91. Tim J.:
    That’s just it — to thwart the Natural Design by God in humans (e.g., sexual drives, etc.) through means of drugs that undermine such; this would be, in my view, just as wrong as the utilization of artificial contraceptives (e.g., birth control pills) that likewise do the same.
    Also, not only because of this, but the very act as well as the underlying premise of the act itself tends to reduce the will and, not to mention, the very dignity of humanity to nothing more than merely chemical.

92. Sorry, that’s “genie”.
    Really, the whole idea reminds me of Soma.

93. What I mean when I say we can’t see all ends is that maybe sex drive is linked to other things like concrete reasoning or assertiveness – the same way that maybe my being a disorganized slob might be linked to my artistic sensibilities. If I take a pill that makes me more efficient and organized, might it make me less contemplative or creative? And how would we recognize if this were happening subtly over a broad population?
    It gives me the crawlies.

94. “…how can you possibly say that sexual desire exists to get people married? … This is simply ridiculous. Animals experience sexual desire and they don’t get married.”
    Animals also don’t build hospitals, paint pictures or play poker. Your point is?
    OF COURSE the desire to pair off – at least in men – is experienced first as sexual desire. It grows and matures, eventually (thank God) but that initial spark in most men is physical (I really can’t say how important that physical spark is to young women, as they have kept that a closely guarded secret).
    I expect a fair number of people with SSA wouldbe glad enough if there were a pill to help them control that. As the catechism states, for most it is a trial.

95. Tim J.:
    It just seems to me that these days, almost anything ordinary and natural and human can be seen and even justified as a malady of sorts by society and even the medical community and, in particular, Big Pharma (especially if there’s money involved).
    Also, if something is found to be an inconvenience, even that can be seen as a malady by society and, therefore, needing medical treatment, a chemical solution.
    It just seems there is no stopping to where you can draw the line between something natural and normal and human and something that is actually deserving of medical treatment especially these days.
    “Have you fallen madly in love and your emotions for that special girl has taken a toll on your life? Have no fear! We have the drug that will provide a solution to this imbalance in your life and heal you of this disorder!”
    “Do you experience bad tempers which cause you to loose it and commit things that really aren’t your fault but a result of bad chemistry in your body? Have no fear! We have the drug that will heal you of this imbalance and disorder!”
    “Having problems raising the flag when you’re with your girlfriend? Have no fear! We have the drug that will heal you of this incredible disorder and restore balance in your life!”

96. Actually many drugs are not chemical but biological.
    e.g. antibiotics, vitamins, vaccines, insulin, caffeine, alcohol. IMHO, God expects personkind to use their gifts of wisdom and thinking to develop pharmaceuticals to lessen the burdens of life so bless the drug companies for the development of said drugs that ease pain, eliminate diseases to include now many cancers, eradicate plagues, reduce depression and other neurological conditions, reduce blood pressure, increase libido and increase/decrease fertility.
    Buy some stock in these drug companies to show your support.

97. “God expects personkind to use their gifts of wisdom and thinking to develop pharmaceuticals to lessen the burdens of life”
    Pass the Soma.

98. This seems like medical Buddhism to me.

99. Pass the Wine or is it the Blood of the 24/7 filicide?

100. Pass the gas anyone?
     “A wind went out from the LORD.”

101. Ah, the intellectuals have come out this afternoon!

102. God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.

103. I know pagans who are fra more respectful of the Catholic faith than you are, Realist.
     On top of being offensive, your post is breathtakingly ignorant, which is hardly a surprise. You really should try cracking open a Catechism some time.
     So, do you recite the creed? Do you receive the body and blood with a knowing smile? Do you enjoy your hypocrisy? I hope you do, because that is all you have in the end.
     Go ahead and keep your faith in the analloyed goodness of the human heart (which is so evident in the papers), I’ll keep mine in Christ.
     I do hope you will consider becoming a Christian one day.

104. “Ah, the intellectuals have come out this afternoon!”
     They’re just ticked because Christian morality is a threat to pelvis worship.

105. Actually many drugs are not chemical but biological.
     e.g. antibiotics, vitamins, vaccines, insulin, caffeine, alcohol.
     Really Realist?
     I could’ve sworn the chemical structure as well as the reaction mechanisms as regards antibiotics, vitamins, vaccines, insulin, caffeine, alcohol has something to do with it.
     You mean to say all those tidbits about hydrocarbon chains, aromatic structures, sterol chemistry, chemical moeities, enzymatic activation/inactivation, energy of activation barriers, transition state arguments, steric hinderance, free radical chemistry, etc., has nothing to do with any of these things?
     That’s certainly news to me and most certainly to my Biochem./Org. Chem professors!
     But, then again, these things concern actual and real medical realities, not supposed ones.

106. “In pathological cases (as …or people with strong homosexual desires that are resistant to other treatments)…, the use of medicine as part of temptation management would be legitimate.”
     If the people with homosexual desires are resistent to treatment, who has the right to force them into taking medicine against their will? The Church? The government? The medical community? The latter which doesn’t find homosexuality to be pathological – see the American Psychology Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association websites.
     I think better wording would be that if a person with homosexual desires is NOT resistent to treatment then the use of medicine as part of temptation management would be legitimate.

107. Anonymous —
     I think you misunderstand the use of the word “resistant” in your quote.
     I interpreted it as meaning “resistant to other treatments” as in other forms of treatment –therapy, etc. — weren’t successful and stronger measures are needed, not that the person him/herself was resistant to seeking treatment in the first place.

108. Ah, good point JoAnna. It seemed out of character for the rest of the post, so I should have read through it again more carefully before I posted.

109. Wow, the “hatcheteers” are hard at work today trapped in their orthodoxy boxes of catechisms written by old white, “celibate”, European men every 400 years. How sad!!!
     Biological agents/drugs are derived from biological processes e.g. aspirine is a chemical agent, wine (filicidal blood?) and its drug, ethanol, are biological agents.
     And don’t forget to invest in pharmaceutical stocks. It is something all of us good capitalistic Christians do.

110. Realist,
     I’m not real up on pharmaceutical terminology. Esau’s point I think is just that anything biological by definition is chemical.
     Also, I’m not sure why I’m doing this but if you want to make more sense with your insults it should probably be “deicidal” not “filicidal”.

111. “Wow, the “hatcheteers” are hard at work today trapped in their orthodoxy boxes of catechisms written by old white, “celibate”, European men every 400 years. How sad!!!”
     What’s sadder, Realist, is that you have torn yourself from the roots of Truth, and are swaying in the winds of false teachings. A tree that is not planted on solid ground will perish in the constantly changing winds of knowledgeable men. For all their words, these men do not teach the truth. They subvert it. They offer no one anything. In return, men give up their eternal lives for their promises. Their ideas will not live long after their deaths, but flee far away, like the winds, and are heard of again. After that, what shall happen to those who believed their lies?

112. “and are [never] heard of again.”

113. Biological agents/drugs are derived from biological processes e.g. aspirine is a chemical agent, wine (filicidal blood?) and its drug, ethanol, are biological agents.
     WoW!
     Please proceed to enlighten me with your sophisticated knowledge of these things — that is, they’re not actually being chemical in nature.
     Let’s take, for example, the matter of antibiotics. For that matter, how about Vancomycin, a glycopeptide antibiotic.
     Do you know how Vancomycin works?
     Let me try to make it simple.
     It is said that it has to do with inhibition of the synthesis of peptidoglycan, which is what cell walls of certain bacteria is made of.
     Now, how does it do this?
     Vancomycin has the ability to complex with particular moieties (more precisely, D-Ala-D-Ala) of peptidoglycan precursors.
     It’s this peptide binding characteristic of this antibiotic that prevents transfer of these precursors to form the cell wall via transglycosidases.
     Now, unfortunately, there has been antibiotic resistance to vancomycin.
     One way around this dilemma has been to have modified carbohydrates in their analogs wherein these compounds interact more directly with the bacterial proteins involved in the transglycosylation step of peptidoglycan biosynthesis.
     Now, can’t you see that much of what’s mentioned here actually has to do with chemistry?
     (Note: To those with more sophisticated knowledge of the mechanism, I apologize; I wanted to make this as simple as reasonably possible without sacrificing essentials.)

114. What’s sadder, Realist, is that you have torn yourself from the roots of Truth, and are swaying in the winds of false teachings. A tree that is not planted on solid ground will perish in the constantly changing winds of knowledgeable men. For all their words, these men do not teach the truth. They subvert it. They offer no one anything. In return, men give up their eternal lives for their promises. Their ideas will not live long after their deaths, but flee far away, like the winds, and are [never] heard of again. After that, what shall happen to those who believed their lies?
     David B.
     Is that actually you????
     Can’t be — it sounds too profound! ;^)

115. “And don’t forget to invest in pharmaceutical stocks. It is something all of us good capitalistic Christians do.”
     Well, you know, “Where your treasure is…”
     Oh, and – much as I hate to correct anyone’s grammar – you inadvertantly included the word “us” in that sentence when it obviously doesn’t make sense.

116. I was somewhat disappointed that of all the comments to Jimmy’s post regarding my question that none dealt with the specific reason that I was willing to accept the decrease in sexual desire. The fact is that without the medication I will often find difficulty with completion of the marital act. I certainly wouldn’t consider these meds if it were only to reduce the libido but in this particular case – and it seems to me that the discussion should focus a bit more on the particular situation – I believe the positive effect would justify it. The real question I had of Jimmy, which I felt he would be able to effectively answer, was whether the Church would have any official teaching on this matter. Also, I was sure someone would comment on my belief that the sacrament of confession helped to control unwanted lustful thoughts. I’ve been amazed ever since I faced the issue honestly in the confessional how much easier it became to deal with this. But, again, the somewhat lessened sexual desire has been an effect not sought after but on some level it has been welcome. I still have plenty of desire for my wife and if that stopped so would the meds.

117. More biological drug processing:
     “The Control of Filicidal Cannibalism by Vitamin B12 — Hankin 71 …
     The effect of adding crystalline vitamin B12 to the Bills breeding diet, in order
     to control filicidal cannibalism, has been investigated. …
     jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/71/2/188
     “Filicidal Cannibalism by Female Albino Rats — Hankin 66 (3): 377 …
     The effect of adding whole liver powder to the Bills breeding diet in order to
     control filicidal cannibalism was investigated. …
     jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/3/377”
     Catholic daily “filicidal” blood letting- the killing of one’s Son to atone for the sins of others.
     A better view:(from Who is Jesus?)
     “Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us.”
     “Traditionally, Christians have said, ‘See how Christ’s passion was foretold by the prophets.” Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus’ last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God.”
     “In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life.”

118. John H:
     I think Jimmy did a good job answering your particular situation. Use of a drug to treat p.e. in order to be able to fulfill your marital duty is not only morally OK, I think it is a pretty noble effort on your part do this for your wife and your marriage (despite the fact that the choice of drug therapy may not be what some of us consider the best approach). You are to be commended for addressing the issue, “owning it”, as they say, and taking what you think is the best course of action. May God bless you for it.
     The hypothetical situation you raised, on the other hand, is one that is more open for discussion and different ideas and opinions. I have been enjoying thinking about it and reading the discussion, and I thank you for bringing it up (and thank Jimmy for posting it).
     I, for one, would not recommend using pharmaceutical chemicals except as a last resort, and only in truly life threatening situations and diseases. I understand that this is more opinion than moral theology, and I am no theologian, but my instincts tell me it is better to avoid them unless absolutely necessary. As far as a solution to resisting temptations I would certainly never recommend them. But it takes an effort to research the alternatives (such as diet and exercise and other alternative remedies). It also takes more effort and patience to actually utilize those methods.
     In the case of addressing temptations, we should not overlook the spiritual aspect. Avoiding the occasions of sin is probably the most important thing to do . Practicing custody of the eyes and controling of one’s thoughts are hard to do these days, but practice makes perfect and builds virtue. Effort and hard work bring rewards.
     I think that looking for the quick fix-it pill (that solves everything from hunger to libido to fertility) stems from our modern disease of always expecting immediate gratification for everything, and this can be very spiritually harmful to us. If we continue on with this spoiled-brat attitude, I’m afraid we are headed to the future that all spoiled brats face: a life of complete self-centeredness, void of virtue and character.
     C.M.

119. Realist, is there any topic where you would feel abashed to spout that nonsense?

120. David B.
     Is that actually you????
     Can’t be — it sounds too profound! ;^)
     It was. I was listening to some thought-provoking music at the time. Go figure 🙂

121. It is obvious that I wrote it. It is full of glaring grammatical errors.

122. Catholic Mama, I would really disagree. Mental illness is not exactly rare, and from my own personal experience people’s constant recommendation to find alternatives in diet exercise etc. often does a lot more harm than good.
     I myself am on Effexor for depression/panic disorder, and it’s made a huge improvement for me, without many side-effects.
     I wouldn’t hold my personal experience up as a model, but what *does* cause my concern about people’s wariness of pharmaceuticals is seeing people with severe depression/bipolar who’ve been persuaded not to go on medicine, and pursue some “healthy” alternative, against their doctors’ recommendations. And the “healthy” alternatives end in disaster, often in the pscyh ward on 24-hour suicide watch.
     When you’re dealing with mental illness, even “mild” mental illnesses like depression, the alternatives are pretty dire.

123. Mary,
     The comments on atonement theology are not mine. Note the quotes and reference. I am not allowed to mention the author’s name as per JA rules. The thinking is not unique to this author with such thinking being quite commonly taught in major Catholic university theology classes. Read it again and pause for a few minutes to reflect about God sending his Son to be killed i.e. a form of filicide.

124. Despicable. May God have mercy on you.

125. Realist can’t fathom the idea of anyone willingly giving their life for another. He can’t understand “sacrifice” as anything but the kind of blood letting you see in Aztec carvings, and for that he is to be pitied.
     His ignorance of real Catholicism is exceeded only by his colossal pride. The meaning of the cross is opaque to him, like a pig looking at a watch.
     He doesn’t believe in Hell, and he had better hope he is right.

126. He may hope he’s right, but that won’t change reality.

127. you forgot unrepentant child molesting priests. If you’re going to gay bash, lets really be honest, gay men are not the real problem – its child molesters, the vast majority of whom are straight.

128. No on bashed gays, but an anti-Catholic bigot dropped by.

129. I resent the implication that I’ve seen in this thread that trying to alleviate psychological problems with medication is somehow un-Catholic.
     It’s not nullifying someone’s will or self or personality to realize that they have a disorder that doesn’t allow them to function. It’s not taking the easy way out to take an anti-depressant that prevents you from seeing every good memory as something terrible and every bad memory as nothing but your due. It’s no different than someone with schizophrenia taking medication to prevent hallucinations or someone with epilepsy taking medication to prevent seizures.
     People on antidepressants aren’t sedated into stupid happiness. For me, sadness is deeper and happiness is brighter because my emotions aren’t being flattened into a narrow range between misery and despair. I will probably be on one antidepressant or another for the rest of my life, but people with heart conditions or hypertension or liver disease will probably be on medication for the rest of their lives, too. Yes, many medications for mental illnesses cause dependence (some are outright addictive, like benzodiazepines and amphetamines) — but someone on blood pressure medications should not just stop them because they think if they just had more willpower they’d be fine; if they do they’ll be worse off than they were before they started the medication, because their bodies became dependent.

130. People on antidepressants aren’t sedated into stupid happiness. For me, sadness is deeper and happiness is brighter because my emotions aren’t being flattened into a narrow range between misery and despair. I will probably be on one antidepressant or another for the rest of my life, but people with heart conditions or hypertension or liver disease will probably be on medication for the rest of their lives, too. Yes, many medications for mental illnesses cause dependence (some are outright addictive, like benzodiazepines and amphetamines) — but someone on blood pressure medications should not just stop them because they think if they just had more willpower they’d be fine; if they do they’ll be worse off than they were before they started the medication, because their bodies became dependent.
     Wonderful statement. I’ve come to accept that I’ll be dependent on an SSRI for the rest of my life. I have very good quality of life now instead of wanting to die almost every moment of every day. No amount of ‘willpower’ can help, but this does. The attendant side-effect is bad, but my wife and I can live with that as our love for God and each other allows us to make this sacrifice. Truly, that was more or less the answer to the original question before the discussion veered off-topic to whether or not it was sinful to use these meds for the attendant side-effects rather than for their true purpose.
     (And this isn’t a slam of any kind, anon anti-SSRI guy, but I suspect you aren’t old enough to remember the horrible addiction problems that occurred with the granddaddy of the benzos, Valium, in the 1970s. The addictive potential of benzos hasn’t changed since then. All that has changed is the synthesis of new benzodiazepines that have different half-lives as they are further down the chemical conversion scale as well as a few new ones that have the same addictive potential. Believe me, I’ve used them all in over 30 years of trying to live with my problem without any treatment success. One still has to be very, very careful taking them.)

131. Certainly there is nothing wronge with anti-depressant medication.
     Getting back to the subject of the post, the difference with the idea of an anti-sexuality pill is that sexuality is a good, natural thing, whereas depression is a medical condition that should be treated.

132. I certainly know that many people can benefit from the judicious use of drugs. My concern is with the tendency to over-diagnose certain conditions, or over-prescribe certain drugs, when there may be broader factors at work (lifestyle, unresolved conflict, unrealistic expectations, etc…).
     My son was diagnosed ADHD long ago, and though I eventually broke down and went along with medication, I have always wondered whether it was really necessary. It seems, in some cases, to be a medicine formulated for the benefit of parants and teachers rather than kids. He has been off any medication for some time, now, and is doing great (he’s now 15).
     I know some people find a new lease on life with these treatments, and I thank God it is there for them. I just have a natural resistance to the tendency to see the Human Condition as something that can be “cured” by drugs and the therapy couch.

133. “you forgot unrepentant child molesting priests. If you’re going to gay bash, lets really be honest, gay men are not the real problem – its child molesters, the vast majority of whom are straight.”
     THis is manure. It is a fact that the majority of those abused were males who had already reached puberty.

134. A caution on Xanax.
     This is a VERY addictive drug. When I worked in the hospital, the people who were on it, if they could get out of bed, were hanging out the door of their rooms waiting for the nurse to come bring their next dose, ten minutes before it is due.
     Some people can take an occasional Xanax when they feel particularly anxious. (Some people don’t get hooked on Cocaine, either.) But in general, this drug is very addictive.
     Other drugs in this category, such as Valium, are also addictive. But in my experience as a nurse, Xanax was the worst in terms of creating a desperate need for the next dose. This is partially because it is faster acting than Valium.
     As for SSRI’s, I took Prozac for 6 years and think it made a big difference to my life. It only moderately depressed my libido, but it did make it much harder for me to have an orgasm. I tried taking Welbutrin (a non SSRI antidepressant) to counteract this side effect but it didn’t work that well, and taking two of them, together with Adderall for adult ADHD, made me a bit manic. I had to take a few months off work and go off all of the drugs. Now I just take Strattera, which works on norepinephrine, is approved for ADHD but has antidepressant effects. It doesn’t make me feel as serene as Prozac, but it prevents the miserable depths of depression that I spent so much of my life in, and it does work for the ADHD. The days I forget to take it, I don’t feel the difference, but I get much less done at work.
     I think depression is a defect which medication remedies. They meds aren’t perfect and they can be used unwisely. But for those who need them they are a great blessing. I tend to think that those who feel that depressed people in general just ought to make more effort, haven’t been clinically depressed.
     The original guy, I agree with Jimmy that he is not doing anything wrong taking the med the way he is.
     I think it isn’t the best thing to take a drug to deal with a normal human feeling. Was someone up above saying his priest was taking it for that reason? One can’t help but be sympathetic, but at the same time….isn’t something missing from this picture? Isn’t there a CS Lewis thing where the nastly little lizzard of lust on a man’s shoulder, once he was willing to kill it, became a strong and beautiful horse he could ride. I admit I don’t have personal experience of this, I know it is an ideal which must on many days seem far away to those attempting it, but I think celibacy is supposed to work something like that.
     Susan Peterson

135. Susan Peterson,
     Many of the comments, including yours, give the impression that I was taking the meds solely to reduce sexual desire. That is not the case. They were prescribed as on off-label treatment to delay orgasm. The unintended side-effect was decreased libido for which another drug in small doses helps alleviate. The intended use has alleviated much of the frustration that I’ve dealt with for many years for which I think general anxiety has been much of the cause. As I asked of Jimmy, since the side effect of reduced libido was not intended and the original intent of the drug does have a marital benefit, isn’t the result worth while?
     This does raise another question regarding taking these for the sole purpose of reducing libido. What about Jesus’s teaching that “if the eye causes you to sin pluck it out?” If a married person struggles with sinful thoughts of other women and takes drugs to help with that but still has a strong desire for his wife, wouldn’t he be following this teaching?

136. If a married person struggles with sinful thoughts of other women and takes drugs to help with that but still has a strong desire for his wife, wouldn’t he be following this teaching?
     John:
     Not to be insensitive, but a similar argument could be reached for taking illegal drugs.
     For example (in a similar format to your question above), if a person struggles with violent tendencies and takes drugs (e.g., smokes pot) to help with that, wouldn’t he be following this teaching?

137. “Not to be insensitive…”
     Oh, it was, Esau. Very.

138. Oh, it was, Esau. Very.
     I didn’t mean it to come off that way.
     I was just interested in how that would be different.

139. bill912:
     To help clarify, I actually had a college professor who said that ‘smoking pot’ was acceptable since the worst it could do is make folks relax and unwind and perhaps if everybody took it, the violence observed frequently in the world these days might, for once, subside.

140. John H.
     My own comments and I think those of most others were discussing the issue of taking a pill to intentionally reduce or eliminate libido. I’ll put in that your own case seems quite legitimate, with the reduction of libido only an unintended side affect of the medication.
     Indeed, I am under the impression that similar side affects are possible for antidepressants and some other drugs. My instinct is that as long as this negative second effect does not outweigh the positive benefit from the drug it is ok, whereas if reduction or elimination of a healthy libido were the puropose of the drug or the means to an end it would not be permissible.

141. I’ll mention as a side note that I suffered from moderate depression in high school and took Prozac for just a few months and it worked very well. I decided to stop after a few months because I didn’t want to be dependant on a medication if I could help it, and in fact the depression did not come back, thanks be to God. I didn’t experience any noticible sexual side effects by the way, perhaps because a teenaged boy is likely to be very resistant to such thing.
     Also one of my closest friends is on some antidepressant medication and one time he ran out and for some reason couldn’t get more. I didn’t know at the time that that was the problem but I knew that suddenly he was very sad and stressed and beating himself up over stuff.
     On the other hand I had a professor last semester who since childhood had had ADD or ADHD (I forget which) but had never been medicated for it. You could see a bit of it in his personality I think and he was very strict about not talking in class because not only is it rude but he said he really couldn’t concentrate on what he was trying to teach us if there are side conversations going on. In general though he is quite a successful silviculturist. He said his parents were shocked when he got his Ph.D. because he had been such a bad student in grade school. In his opinion it was something that could and should be overcome through personal effort and growth not medicated away.

142. The Virginia Tech massacre is a major tragedy. Was sex addiction involved(i.e.the killer taking the life of his lover)??
     If so, it adds to the list of those in need of anti-libido medication.

143. Jimmy, I think it’s time for the Phantom Zone for this barbarian. What a despicable sick-o!

144. I am sick and tired people trying to talk us out of “eliminating libido”
     People say, “oh sex is a gift” and “sex is natural” and this and that, and yada ya and so fourth!!!!
     Please tell us how to suppress the libido or don’t say anything at all!
     I have made my decision; I will suppress my libido if it is possible! I was using subliminal technology to do it at first, but I stopped because I am not an expert and I didn’t want to cause harm to myself using something that powerful carelessly and unprofessionally.
     This should be a yes or no forum, and there should be a second forum dedicated to MORAL debate for those who wish to endure
     THANK YOU!

145. The Virginia Tech massacre is a major tragedy. Was sex addiction involved(i.e.the killer taking the life of his lover)?? If so, it adds to the list of those in need of anti-libido medication.

     Realist, do you have any reason for saying or suspecting this?
     Have any media reports or analysis referenced “sex addiction,” or are you just using the occasion of the Virginia Tech massacre to talk about a personal hobby horse?
     If the latter, that’s sick, man.
     FWIW, I’m no expert, but it seems unlikely to me that “sex addiction” is likely to be a factor in a lover’s murder. “Sex addicts” can get what they want from a variety of sources. People who murder their lovers, I think, are driven by emotions and compulsions rooted in other places in the human person than the sex drive.

146. “This should be a yes or no forum, and there should be a second forum dedicated to MORAL debate for those who wish to endure”
     Isn’t that up to the blogmaster?

147. Wow, Joyous occasion… you don’t sound very joyous.
     Nobody here is debating that the original questioner is justified in using medication the way he is. We ARE debating the idea that Sexual Suppressants should be in the vitamin aisle right next to Appetite Suppressants and magic Fat Burning Pills… in other words, that the best way to handle the sex drive is to medicate it away.
     In my opinion, that is just ASKING for some huge problems, and at the same time eliminates the possibility of heroic faith or meaningful suffering in that area. And I know what I’m talking about.

148. Realist:
     If anything, the Virginia Tech tragedy ACCENTUATES all the more THE NEED FOR GOD!
     You want to make it as though drugs are king and, in fact, preferable over the grace of God; that drugs beat the grace of God, hands down, any day of the week.
     This is the kind of belittling of God’s grace that society has reached at this point in time, with Modern Science taking the place of God, and Drugs taking the place of His Grace.
     It is this very attitude, this absence of God in the thoughts and minds of men that we’ve arrived at this horrible junction where folks are more likely to place their FAITH ON SCIENCE rather than place their FAITH IN GOD!
     Thus, we reach the point where the pleasures of man takes precedent over the pleasure in God and everything we do starts revolving around ourselves, over those things that will make us happy, that will cure what ills us in terms of what is momentarily an inconvenience for us or even a “cross”; to the point where ultimately all of this self-absorbed mentality finally leads to self-destruction.
     That’s EXACTLY why I don’t find this proposed use of drugs in order to reduce the likelihood of temptation (e.g., decrease libido) so inviting.
     It’s almost like saying to God, “No thanks, God; I prefer the drugs over your Grace any day.” and, even further, “I’ll forego the cross of actually enduring these temptations for your greater glory and, instead, pop the pills and be done with it.”.
     I mean, is this actually the message that Saint Paul taught us when he said:
     2Cor:12:9:
     9 And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee: for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. (DRV)
     I guess, along with society, we should say: “Screw you, God; I have something better than what you can ever give me — DRUGS!”

149. This whole topic reminds me of the (violent) movie Equilibrium with Christian Bale: “A thrilling look at a future where the only crime is being human! When the top enforcer misses a dose of an emotion-blocking drug, he begins to realize that things are not as they seem…”
     Euh, Esau, please never write “S*** you, God” in big bold letters (!), even if you’re being sarcastic… We understand your point.

150. Euh, Esau, please never write “S*** you, God” in big bold letters (!), even if you’re being sarcastic… We understand your point.
     Apologies, Andrew, but I’m glad you kinda get where I’m coming from.
     I just think that we’ve placed too much trust in our own human inventions and not enough in God. It almost seems as if God’s grace has become but a myth in our modern society — a nice thought, but otherwise not real in the actual sense.
     Again, to clarify, I have nothing against legitimate medication being taken for legitimate medical reasons. I am more so referring to those being taken/being considered for (or even being designed/manufactured) as a matter of convenience.

151. Strange no one mentions ED drugs?
     There are drugs for nicotine addiction. Unfortunately there are no drugs of eating addictions.
     Anybody using Rogaine?

152. “You will note that one item I did not put on that list is “single heterosexual men.” While single men (and especially young ones) often have grave temptations in this area, using medicine to diminish their libido could result in causing a problem worse than the cure: It could diminish their incentive to get married.”
     Is libido a valid incentive to marry? I find that quite degrading of marriage. Surely the perfect relationship is one where sex is irrelevant (perhaps enjoyed, but irrelevant), and our expression of divine love is the priority?
     “I’m marrying you because I love you” is good.
     “I’m marrying you because I need a sexual outlet” is just a huge insult.
     “St. Paul tells us that it’s better to marry than to burn with passion, and extending that principle to the age of modern medicine, it’s better to marry than to medicate away one’s passions.”
     Are those not just compromises, falling short of the ultimate perfection none of us can live up to?

153. Surely the perfect relationship is one where sex is irrelevant (perhaps enjoyed, but irrelevant), and our expression of divine love is the priority?
     I think this statement is well intentioned, but it’s not what Church teaches about sex and marriage. The marital act is the expression of divine love between a husband and wife. Through it they share in the same love that the Persons of the Trinity share with each other.

154. Sorry Stephen, I don’t mean to rip apart your post, but the more I think about it I don’t see any reason why libido can’t be a valid incentive to marry (although I wouldn’t recommend it).
     We, as Americans, have this fairytale idea of falling in love with the one person in the whole world we were meant to be with and then marrying them and living happily ever after. But Christian marriage doesn’t explicitly require love before marriage. It requires that the persons love each other after they’re married and that they treat their marriage as the sacrament and vocation God created it to be.
     For example, arranged marriages are allowed as long as the two people freely agree to it. While marrying purely because of libido isn’t a rock solid foundation for a marriage, as long as both people are committed to selflessly giving themselves to their partner I don’t see what’s wrong with it.
     Besides I don’t think Jimmy’s point was that people marry purely for a sexual outlet, but that our libido is what fuels us to search for a mate. With a diminished libido we may not have any incentive to date or fall in love or do any of the things people do on the road to marriage.

155. We, as Americans, have this fairytale idea of falling in love with the one person in the whole world we were meant to be with and then marrying them and living happily ever after.
     I see that as the ideal 🙂
     While marrying purely because of libido isn’t a rock solid foundation for a marriage, as long as both people are committed to selflessly giving themselves to their partner I don’t see what’s wrong with it.
     In an ideal world, marrying purely because of libido would always be accompanied by that commitment.
     In this world? Libido tends to be something that makes such a commitment seem like something to bother about when the time comes to address it.
     I agree … libido IS an incentive. That’s human nature. It’s how God ensured that we breed. But libido morally requires that commitment. That commitment can stand alone.

156. I agree … libido IS an incentive. That’s human nature. It’s how God ensured that we breed. But libido morally requires that commitment. That commitment can stand alone.
     I agree with you 100 percent. But then you don’t really have a problem with people getting married for libido. You have a problem with people getting married when they aren’t committed to living that marriage. And so do I.
     Even being in love is a terrible reason to get married if the commitment is missing. And many more people enter into bad marriages because they’re in love than because of libido.

157. And many more people enter into bad marriages because they’re in love than because of libido.
     Bad marriages because of love?

158. Bad marriages because of love?
     Take your best guess at the percentage of marriages in the U.S. where people get married because they’re in love. Let’s make it low and say 80%. Now look at the divorce rate. Conclusion: Being in love alone does not make a good marriage.
     It’s not the feeling of love that makes a marriage work, its the commitment to true love: Charity.
     The reason you get married isn’t as importatant as what you intend to do after you get married. If I may be so bold, marriages fail because people think they will be in love forever instead of intending to always put what is Good before their own desires.

159. Love is forever, otherwise it’s not love. What you’ve called “falling in love” obviously wasn’t if it didn’t last.

160. I’m sorry, I think we disagree only because my language wasn’t clear.
     By “in love” I meant the popular meaning of it. You know the kind of love they make all the songs and movies about.
     I was trying to say that it’s not that type of love that makes marriages work. It’s the virtue of Charity.

161. Pretty much nothing seems worth thinking about. Maybe tomorrow. My life’s been generally bland today. Such is life. I’ve just been sitting around doing nothing, but eh.

162. College education is a basic need today

163. My life’s been bland. I’ve basically been doing nothing to speak of, but what can I say? Not that it matters. Eh. Such is life.

164. Looking very good to me. I would like to use the drug to cure my sexual temptations

Comments are closed.