Adultery to save lives justifiable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fauken said:
Killing is not always murder. Sex outside of marriage is always sex outside of marriage. That’s the difference.
Click to expand...
But what about the context? Your statement puts consentual pre-marital sex and RAPE on the same level.
 
There’s a simple error being made. And it’s the failure to evaluate the circumstances in determining culpability.
Grave matter is not the only factor in culpability.
 
Is Apostasy under duress an ok thing to do?

If someone was going to slaughter your whole family if you don’t renounce God, is it acceptable to renounce Him?
[/quote]

“Acceptable” and “ok” is a different sort of bar to clear than culpability.
And those terms are vague.
 
This is a difficult thing, but God values those who die for Him and the truth than he values us living in this world.

Remember what the brothers said in 2 Maccabees when they were tortured and slaughtered for not eating pork, “we will get these hands back, you won’t.”
[/quote]

The poster acknowledged that virtue is admirable.

Culpability:
Do you know the factors that determine the mortal culpability for a sin?
 
slomotion said:
But what about the context? Your statement puts consentual pre-marital sex and RAPE on the same level.
Click to expand...
I was answering it in regards to what the difference was between killing to save a life and, as the post stated, “sex to save a life”.
 
Of COURSE he values those who die for Him. But I cannot see how a just God could condemn a woman for protecting the lives of her family by agreeing to have sex with someone who was threatening the lives of those she loves if she did not. That is rape…
 
“Ok” and “acceptable” are vague terms in the context you are trying to use them. I frankly don’t know what point you are making.
 
Fauken said:
40.png
slomotion:
But what about the context? Your statement puts consentual pre-marital sex and RAPE on the same level.
Click to expand...
I was answering it in regards to what the difference was between killing to save a life and, as the post stated, “sex to save a life”.
Click to expand...
My God.
You consider this “sex”. Really?
I’m done.
 
But with this logic, you might as well say that when I was sexually assaulted, I was consciously, willingly choosing myself over God.

From my experience, it’s self-defense. Obviously she would be an admirable and holy woman to be able to see God’s big picture under this amount of duress, and say “No”. But how could God fault her for saying “Yes” to protect her family when He designed us to protect and suffer for those we love, especially our children and spouse? What you’re saying is hard to understand.
 
So without pointing to any particular post, what I am getting from some is:

Every victim of sexual assault is sinning because they didn’t die instead of submitting to the sin of sex outside of marriage.

In the OP’s scenario, the woman is a prisoner, has no way to escape, and is at the mercy if you want to call it that, of her captors. Yep, she has a lot of options from what I can see, and is fully capable of meeting all the requirements of mortal sin.
 
farronwolf said:
So without pointing to any particular post, what I am getting from some is:

Every victim of sexual assault is sinning because they didn’t die instead of submitting to the sin of sex outside of marriage.

In the OP’s scenario, the woman is a prisoner, has no way to escape, and is at the mercy if you want to call it that, of her captors. Yep, she has a lot of options from what I can see, and is fully capable of meeting all the requirements of mortal sin.
Click to expand...
That seems to be the case…to me, if this is considered mortal sin, it doesn’t paint God to be fair or merciful.
 
I apologize for jumping to an unfounded conclusion and doing it harshly.
 
Do you understand what the factors determining the mortality of a sin are?
 
Zaccheus said:
The executioners weren’t demanding that Jesus beat or kill someone else.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say they were.

From the OP’s perspective by the situation described in the original post, Jesus had the responsibility to not allow the Romans to strip, whip, or kill Him since He had the ability to keep it from happening.

How can Jesus allow his body to be violated and killed to save us, but a prisoner who has intercourse with a commander is guilty of adultery if she allows her body to be violated to save others? As human beings, neither Jesus nor a prisoner in a concentration camp has true consent. They are both lacking capacity due to subjugation by the state.

We say that Jesus freely gave himself over because we believe He is God and human. If Jesus was only human, His bodily sacrifice wouldn’t have saved us. Because Jesus is God Incarnate, His passion, death and resurrection save us. As God, Jesus has the power to shut down the whole crucifixion process.

But just like the prisoner in the concentration camp, Jesus understood that to resist is futile. If the commander wants you stripped, whipped and crucified, it will happen. If the commander wants use of a body, commander will have it one way or another. We don’t blame Bathsheba for following her king’s orders.
Dacinom said:
I’m lost here. Jesus freely laid His life down, He even said “There is no greater love than to lay down your life for your friends.” How is the point raised by the original poster, leading you to respond that Jesus was perhaps in the wrong? Honestly, just asking.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying Jesus was wrong, though I can see how my response might make it seem that way.

Btw, I can assure you that rape (coerced intercourse) for a woman is akin to death. There is so much shame and humiliation with that violation, part of the victim dies from it. It so profoundly changes the victim’s perspective of self, fellow humans, and society that rape steals the world the victim had known and replaces it with a nightmare.

So, a scenario where a woman would “give up her body” to the concentration camp commander to save human life isn’t different than Jesus giving up his body to be violated to save humanity. In the context of the situation they are in, neither Jesus nor the prisoner really have any other choice if they want their fellow humans to live.
 
Last edited:
Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.” (CCC 1859)

Coercion does not equal consent.
If a person is coerced into signing an agreement, the agreement is null and void because complete consent is not present.

So the situation in the original post would be a form of rape, not adultery. The entire context of the scenario described does not give any room for the prisoner (victim) to make any type of consent. There is such a horrific imbalance of power between commander and prisoner, that the prisoner is the victim in the scenario given. The commander would be fully culpable, but not the prisoner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top