A reader writes:
Has the Church given a moral teaching on Viagra and other similar drugs? It seems to raise sex beyond it’s sacredness.
The Magisterium has not said anything specific about viagra or similar drugs to my knowledge, but its attitude toward such drugs would be positive provided certain conditions are met.
Overcoming physical evils is the purpose of all medicines, and the Church regards this as praiseworthy provided moral goods or comparable physical goods are not thwarted.
Viagra and similar drugs are meant to overcome the physical evil of impotence, and so the Church’s general regard for medicines–and its general cautions about them–will apply.
If the drugs perform their intended function of helping to alleviate male impotence (a humiliating reality that I’m given to understand the great majority of men suffer at one time or another), then all things being equal they would be praiseworthy.
They would not be praiseworthy if all things are not equal. F’rinstance:
- If the drug causes the guy’s blood pressure to skyrocket, putting him at risk of a stroke.
- If it causes his heart to beat wildly, putting him at risk of cardiac arrest or other heart-related ailment.
- If it causes other alarming and/or embarrassing side effects that aren’t compensated for by what it does for his conjugal life (e.g., the rare, uncontrollable four-hour period of tumescence that you hear about in commercials for some drugs–though not Viagra specifically).
- If it causes the guy to be so inflamed with passion that he can’t keep his mind on his wife and he is driven crazy by every woman he sees.
- If it is used not to correct for impotence but for purposes of leading a wanton and irresponsible sex life (possibly extra-marital, possibly contraceptive).
(NOTE: This list is not exhaustive but illustrative.)
If the latter kinds of conditions apply then use of such drugs would not be praiseworthy, but then if any drug had comparable side effects its use would not be praiseworthy.
If such drugs are used, however, to correct for impotence and side-effects of the above-mentioned kind are not present for a particular individual then its use is morally non-problematic and the drug may play a useful role in building the union of the two spouses.
Now, just for the sake of completeness (and heading off questions folks might want to ask as follow-ups), let’s kick it down a notch.
What if we aren’t talking about pharmaceuticals but something weaker. What if we’re only talking about what in human society have commonly passed as aphrodisiacs?
I don’t know if there are any genuinely effective aphrodisiacs. My suspicion is that most of them that have been suggested in human history have simply be snake oil and have no effect beyond that of a placebo (not that the placebo effect is entirely to be discounted). I know that there are some nutritional supplements for which claims are made in this regard, though I don’t know if any are actually effective.
But suppose some are?
Again, it seems to me that the moral status of using such substances will depend on the way in which they are used:
- If they are used to overcome impotence or frigidity then their moral status will be evaluated in the same way as the drugs dealt with above.
- If they are used to enhance the experience of conjugal union then they would seem not in principle different than other things that enhance the experience (perfume, etc., etc.).
- If they are used, though, so as to engage in marital (or non-marital!) relations more wantonly and irresponsibly then their use will be sinful.
So it seems to me that all of these things–from Viagra-like drugs to more traditional aphrodisiacs–may potentially play a role in reinforcing and assisting the conjugal relationship that exists between husband and wife, but they may also be abused and used in imprudent and even sinful ways.
