G
goout
Guest
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
And yes. All day long yes.
Catholic apologists need to stop treating every hypothetical that comes along as fodder for serious discussion.
- Status
Yes.
Yes.
And yes. All day long yes.
Catholic apologists need to stop treating every hypothetical that comes along as fodder for serious discussion.
S
Socrates92
Guest
Giving your money away does not constitute grave matter.
Last edited:
C
CathoRick
Guest
No, I don’t believe sleeping with the camp commander for the benefit of your family is justified. You might as well phrase your question “Is prostitution for a good cause justifiable?”. At the end of the day, you will have to answer why you chose the renouncement of Christ and his teachings over martyrdom.
G
goout
Guest
Rape is grave matter, for the rapist. The victim is not culpable for the crime.Zaccheus:
Giving your money away does not constitute grave matter.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
Submitting to rape does not constitute consent to be raped.Zaccheus:
Giving your money away does not constitute grave matter.
blackforest
Well-known member
I haven’t read all of the replies, but I can say that the Number One objective of the concentration camps was to kill the inmates. For this reason alone, I can’t imagine a scenario of offering to spare anybody. But also, anybody who wanted to rape women would just “help themselves” to the brutality.
But just to play with your scenario, let’s flip it around a bit. Would you be an accomplice to murder if you had a chance to save your family through a brief and survivable bodily sacrifice . . . . but instead allowed them to be gunned down? I’d say that the gravity of going through with this option would be no different than the gravity of going through with “consenting” to sex. Either way, there’s a mitigating factor. Given the criteria for mortal sin - a grave sin committed with full knowledge and deliberate (i.e. not coerced) consent - the victim simply wouldn’t be in that state. If anyone is in such a state, it would more likely be the perpetrator.
Indeed. “Consent to be raped” is self-refuting.
U
Usagi
Guest
Yes — to us, considering the matter clear-eyed in the abstract, the correct answer is “don’t give in.” But it is also true that someone actually in that situation, who does give in under such conditions of coercion, is almost certainly not culpable for the sin due to defect of consent. We call the people who do resist even in that situation saints and martyrs because they have gone above and beyond the normal human responses with the aid of God’s grace.
The Church’s moral theology already has this covered from both ends. There is no need to either condemn individuals who made the “wrong” choice in the moment in order to uphold the principle, nor to invent a double-effect justification that makes that response always okay in order to defend those people.
Last edited:
T
TheAdvocate197
Guest
Nope. Do you actually think those in position of authority of prisoners never used sexual coercion and offer something in return? First of all, I never explicitly said it had to be a Nazi camp in my original post, although I did acknowledge that a Nazi camp comes to mind.
Do you actually think a situation such as this never ever happened in history? One of those who replied, by the way, made reference to this actually happening—in a Nazi camp, by the way.
No, not so far fetched. But this situation is tough enough that it leads some to simply say don’t even bother with it.
Other analogous scenarios could also be used to test ends vs means. This is a good one. So a woman with a family held prisoner never was put in such a quid pro quo relationship? Really? Never? Unusual situation? Yes. Impossibly far fetched? No.
Do you actually think a situation such as this never ever happened in history? One of those who replied, by the way, made reference to this actually happening—in a Nazi camp, by the way.
No, not so far fetched. But this situation is tough enough that it leads some to simply say don’t even bother with it.
Other analogous scenarios could also be used to test ends vs means. This is a good one. So a woman with a family held prisoner never was put in such a quid pro quo relationship? Really? Never? Unusual situation? Yes. Impossibly far fetched? No.
B
BlueMaxx
Guest
Oh, please do not even begin to think about what I have seen, where I have been and what atrocities I have witnessed.
As to the Nazi’s, my father was one of the first American soldiers to liberate the first concentration camp.
My point is there is no reason to sensationalize the topic.
He and by proxy the rest of the family suffered through his anguish over what he witnessed.
I cannot even fathom what the Jews being extinguished and tortured went through.
Do not think me so naive.
My point is creating threads that in one sense sensationalize a grotesque scenario is not healthy…the darkness and depth of mankind are well recorded throughout history.
Your argument is redundant. Trying to discern what a person would do in such a scenario is fruitless and unhealthy. Almost a surrogate form of voyerisom.
Instead how about focusing on Saints who have talked the talk, and ultimately walked the walk…
Instead of debating the morality of a woman put in a hellish position?
“Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” – John 15:13**
http://www.auschwitz.dk/Kolbe.htm
Last edited:
- Status