The comic above is a slight, but only a slight exaggeration. Actually, Roman Catholic healthcare plans do not, and have never, subsidized vasectomy. According to Roman Catholic teaching, vasectomies and tubal ligations are all equally forbidden, as they are both forbidden forms of birth control. But, the rest is true. In fact, Roman Catholic spokesmen have been rushing to defend those clauses. More than that, already there have been various Roman Catholic organizations that have been rushing to add clauses to their healthcare plans that only will allow the future prescription of Viagra for valid medical reasons for married men. But, of course, in rushing to put those clauses in place, they show that while single women can be considered sinful fornicators for wanting birth control, single men are, uhm, simply being men if they want Viagra. You see, during the beginning part of the debates, there were various Roman Catholics who spoke up about not wanting their money to go for birth control for women who were engaging in sin. Never was there a word said about men who were doing the same with Viagra.
It is this clear and obvious discrepancy of how males and females are treated that has so incensed women’s rights advocates. I do not agree with many of the viewpoints of women’s rights advocates. Yet, I do agree that the way in which the supposedly moral Roman Catholic plans ignored male sinfulness shows a very clear bias that should not be present if their healthcare plans had been consistent with their theology. Sadly, all too many of the recent scandals in the Roman Catholic Church seem to keep over and over reinforcing a stereotype of the Roman Church as a male oriented Church in all the wrong ways.
But, this points out again that all Christians need to be consequent in their theology, in their actions, and in their demands. You cannot insist that single women must be denied birth controls methods while forgetting to insist that single men must be denied sexual enhancers. You cannot be a Roman Catholic who insists that lawmakers who are pro-choice must be denied communion while praising lawmakers who forcefully argue for the death penalty, even though the Roman Catholic Church is officially against the death penalty. Either way a human being dies and the Roman Catholic hierarchy is officially against both deaths. But, to somehow insist that one lawmaker must be excommunicated while the other can even be a lay minister of communion certainly smacks of hypocrisy and not consequent thinking. It is this lack of consequent thinking that so often gets all Christians in trouble when they begin making loud demands on the public stage, and has most certainly led to the reasonable charge against Roman Catholics that there is a “war on women” going on.
For those of you who are Orthodox, there is also an additional problem in prescribing Viagra. One can argue for using Viagra when sexual dysfunction may keep a couple from having children. But, it is another thing altogether to argue for using Viagra simply for purposes of sexual pleasure. Would there not be a time when the counsel, particularly to 0lder men, is to remember that sex is not everything and that as they have aged that perhaps this might be a time for self-control and ceasing to worry about sex? While it might be an involuntary celibacy, would it not be our Orthodox responsibility to explore the avenue of using this to grow in self-control and in the acceptance of an aging body? I say this as a married man who is 60 years old.
Thus I am troubled, not only by the obvious (if probably unintended) acceptance of male sin (wink, wink), but also by the insistence that married women must only control their body naturally while failing to advise the same to married men, in fact allowing for artificial chemical sexual enhancement usage by men, even those not married. How could I not conclude that the Roman Catholic Church has lost its balance? This is precisely what those who are truly liberal have concluded. And, sadly, they have concluded it based on very good evidence. Let me again repeat. This is why Christians must be consequent. If you use the name of a particular denomination in order to voice your demands, then you had better make sure that you fully support all the various policies of that denomination. Otherwise, you are going to be deep-fried by the people who advocate the policies that you are against.
Wow. I had no idea that some of the same plans that wanted an exception for birth control bills were offering coverage for Viagra. That’s ridiculous. My understanding of Viagra is that the side effects have the potential to cause much more damage than the condition it is intended to treat.
My understanding of Viagra is that the side effects have the potential to cause much more damage than the condition it is intended to treat.
So does Spanish Fly.
And the Inalienable Constitutional Right to Male Orgasm Whenever I Wanna is a part of a lot of societies throughout history. Expressed here an now by Baby Boomers demanding their Constitutional Right to rut right up to the grave.
Thanks, Fr.
There is a lot of discussion about birth control causing abortions. I.e. hormonal birth control. What are your thoughts on that?
Let me quote from the official website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:
Sexual relations are related to the mutual fulfillment of the spouses and then to child-bearing. The decision, therefore, to suspend fertility through the use of contraceptives is not necessarily in violation of natural law. Regarding this matter, Metropolitan Chrysostomos Zapheris notes the following:
“While the Orthodox Church fully acknowledges the role of procreation in the marital sexual act, it does not share the deterministic understanding of the act …” which ignores love as a dimension of great value in sexual intercourse between husband and wife.”
Creation of new life requires serious, prayerful, honest and sincere reflection. While some forms of contraception are more admissible than others, it is clear that abortion is not an acceptable form of birth control. The decision to regulate the size of one’s family is the personal responsibility of the spouses. A serious commitment to the Gospel, however, precludes decisions that are based solely on hedonistic, selfish and prideful reasons.
There is an acknowledgment in the second sentence of the last paragraph that there is controversy over some of the hormonal birth control methods. However, note that they are not forbidden. That is, the evidence for their causing abortions is not anywhere near strong enough for the Church to forbid them.
Actually, I’ll go a bit further. Traditionally, up until the last few decades, the earliest anyone considered “conception” was the implantation in the uterus. I’ll note that is still the technical, precise, scientific definition of conception (implantation of the blastocyst in the uterus) by the academy of obstetricians. In the late 19th century we began to understand the technical process of fertilization as something that occurs distinctly separate from and earlier than implantation. By the mid-20th century, that understanding led some groups to associate conception with fertilization instead. There are a number of problems with that approach, not least the fact that studies indicate as many as 60% of blastocysts fail to implant naturally. From a Christian perspective, the modern knowledge of fertilization as a separate process and subsequent effort to associate conception with fertilization rather than the traditional association with what we now call implantation creates something of an anachronistic reading/understanding of the tradition of the church. Nor, even with our modern knowledge, can we really assert what many now try to assert — that life begins with fertilization. I would tend to say that a blastocyst is one step closer to realizing its potential to be a human being than an individual ovum or spermatozoa, but just one step closer. I believe the coincidence of the traditional and modern, scientific definition of conception accurately capture its reality.
However, the idea that hormonal birth control methods might interfere with the implantation of a blastocyst is hypothetical. It’s included in the description, but there’s no clinical evidence to prove it one way or another. We know it doesn’t prevent implantation, since people still get pregnant while taking the pill. Beyond that we don’t really know much. It might or might not increase the odds that a blastocyst won’t implant. It’s a theoretical possibility. But it’s a hard one to prove. Remember, a high percentage of blastocysts do not implant naturally. So a study would have to establish a control group to establish the natural rate and another to show the rate of those on the pill. But ethical considerations in any attempt to do that as a human study aside, the primary effect of the pill is to prevent ovulation and a secondary effect makes fertilization more difficult, which makes blastocysts pretty rare. Even using animals (the only way such a study could be attempted — even with the obvious difficulties extrapolating to human conception) such a study would be exceedingly difficult to construct in a way that yielded meaningful data.
So when people call the pill an abortifacient, they are significantly overstating the case.
I am glad that you gave the more scientific explanation. In fact, if you go to websites that claim that the pill is an abortifacient, they not only significantly overstate their case, they also claim that the decision to equate implantation with conception was a liberal plot to undermine Church teachings. Since prior to the 20th century there was no understanding of the process of fertilization and implantation, it is hard to see how this could possibly contradict Church teaching. This is why the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website does not speak to that subject, other than to say that, “some forms of contraception are more admissible than others.” Even that statement is said out of an overabundance of caution, since if the Church in any way believed that hormonal birth control had the possibility of being abortifacient, they would have banned it in precisely that overabundance of caution.
More than that, the findings on the failure to implant fertilized eggs, verified by more than one study that point to up to an average of 60% of fertilized eggs not implanting, also make it extremely difficult to make any responsible claim about hormonal birth control being abortifacient. Again, this is why there is no prohibition against it on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website. This means that either the non-Roman Catholic Christian world is quite wrong and sinful, or perhaps it means that some of the groups that are pushing the pill being an abortifacient have over-reached in an overzealous attempt to ban the evil of abortion.
Thank you to both of you! Some of the most painful discussions I’ve had surrounding this immediate issue, as well as my own moments of doubt, have been because of this notion.
This is a reasoned and reasonable response. Thank you, again.
I also thank both of you. Very clarifying explanation, Scott. I’m afraid the “pill-is-abortifacient” argument is so solidly planted in the Christian pro-life community, though, that I can’t see the more prudent scientific view that you describe getting any traction. I know plenty of people, probably including my priest, who consider that view as dogma and would reflexively react with deep suspicion to anyone who questioned it. On the other hand, I guess we just keep pressing on. Maybe this will become clearer over time; maybe younger pro-lifers will be more open to recognizing it.
I don’t mean to get too far afield, but this reminds me of the “dogma” among many pro-lifers that abortion increases one’s risk for breast cancer. From what I’ve read, there’s not a single reputable medical body in the world that affirms that view, and many that have definitively disproved it, and yet it’s brought up by pro-lifers all the time as settled fact. I think I just saw it again recently in an article in our archdiocesan magazine. Believe me, as a breast cancer survivor, I don’t take this issue lightly. Yet I see no good and only harm in pushing this as part of anti-abortion propaganda if it’s not true.
Stella, personally I believe that as Christians it’s critically important that we speak truth as best as we are able on matters like this. I think it’s a problem when Christians fail to speak the truth, even if their intentions are good.
Well that would be bearing false witness, I think. We’ve not been terribly concerned about that one. I feel, strongly, that it is immoral for Christians to listen to any outlet, be it Rush or whomever, that they know is not telling the truth. And it is doubly problematic for them to then share that information as if it was true.
I truly fear for our nation. I do.
This is precisely the behavior that pushes people away from Jesus. As Christians, it is imperative that we are aware of the way we are expressing our opinions. Jesus commands us to love one another. At this point, there is not alot of love evident if you are not part of the club and that does not encourage people to be around us long enough to share our hope.
I speak the language and share the hope, and yet, I do not feel welcome. It is no wonder the secular do not understand what is so great about this Jesus thing.
But if husband have problems and can’t fulfill his wife’s sexual needs without viagra why would it be wrong to use ut? If husband can’t sleep with his wife, wife could be suffering. Other way around woman is easily told that she has to sleep with his husband even though she is not able to get proper physical reactions which make her ready to intercourse..so why are woman’s sexual needs less important than man’s?