W
whm
Guest
I can see no culpability for the woman, the entire incident is against her will.
- Status
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
So in order to theoretically protect herself against a possible STD (and of course, against a possible pregnancy) it’s all right to say to the rapist, “Please kind sir, even though you’re already violating me, it will be a ‘better’ violation if you use the condom which I hope you have on you?”
Here’s the thing, Amber. . .as others have noted (just so it doesn’t seem to you to only come from me), condoms are not something that most of us have lying around. (Or they shouldn’t be, because their only normal use is for contraception, not ‘protection against rapists.’)
So either you’re saying that we should hope the rapist has one or you’re saying that we should ‘be prepared’.
That is as others have noted a real problem.
If we are carrying around condoms ‘for protection’, we are doing two things.
We are tacitly and explicitly saying that condoms have a high moral purpose --that of ‘protection against STDs’
We’re blurring the line and saying that while condoms are wrong when it comes to employing them against pregnancy, they’re perfectly hunky dory to use as a ‘protection’ against disease.
My point. . .which appears to have been lost. . .is that more you have people proposing this type of argument, the more rapists you are going to ultimately have. Because you aren’t addressing the cause. And you are taking away a possible ‘cause’ that might make them think twice.
You’re putting a band-aid onto an arterial wound that is gushing blood. You’re not going to wind up doing anything to staunch the wound.
This is situational ethics with a vengeance. Obviously as a woman I know that were I to be attacked I’d want to do everything I could. . .but it’s just like any other thing (cloning, in vitro, etc.) Just because theoretically I ‘could’ do something, does it follow that I morally can or SHOULD do something?
I might–and I say might–ask a rapist if he had a condom and would consent to use it because in that case, and in that case alone, the rapist would already have the means (condom) and would probably have employed it anyway (why bring it along otherwise). At 53 I’m not likely to get pregnant so it would in my case too be purely a ‘disease’ help (although again, it is not 100% effective by any means.)
But I draw the line at stocking my house, purse, car etc. with ‘in case of rape break seal’ condoms. I think that having them ‘for’ that type of use only encourages rapists to continue and to JUSTIFY their actions, plus it makes for legal situations that make it MORE difficult for the woman to prove that this was not consentual.
Here’s the thing, Amber. . .as others have noted (just so it doesn’t seem to you to only come from me), condoms are not something that most of us have lying around. (Or they shouldn’t be, because their only normal use is for contraception, not ‘protection against rapists.’)
So either you’re saying that we should hope the rapist has one or you’re saying that we should ‘be prepared’.
That is as others have noted a real problem.
If we are carrying around condoms ‘for protection’, we are doing two things.
We are tacitly and explicitly saying that condoms have a high moral purpose --that of ‘protection against STDs’
We’re blurring the line and saying that while condoms are wrong when it comes to employing them against pregnancy, they’re perfectly hunky dory to use as a ‘protection’ against disease.
My point. . .which appears to have been lost. . .is that more you have people proposing this type of argument, the more rapists you are going to ultimately have. Because you aren’t addressing the cause. And you are taking away a possible ‘cause’ that might make them think twice.
You’re putting a band-aid onto an arterial wound that is gushing blood. You’re not going to wind up doing anything to staunch the wound.
This is situational ethics with a vengeance. Obviously as a woman I know that were I to be attacked I’d want to do everything I could. . .but it’s just like any other thing (cloning, in vitro, etc.) Just because theoretically I ‘could’ do something, does it follow that I morally can or SHOULD do something?
I might–and I say might–ask a rapist if he had a condom and would consent to use it because in that case, and in that case alone, the rapist would already have the means (condom) and would probably have employed it anyway (why bring it along otherwise). At 53 I’m not likely to get pregnant so it would in my case too be purely a ‘disease’ help (although again, it is not 100% effective by any means.)
But I draw the line at stocking my house, purse, car etc. with ‘in case of rape break seal’ condoms. I think that having them ‘for’ that type of use only encourages rapists to continue and to JUSTIFY their actions, plus it makes for legal situations that make it MORE difficult for the woman to prove that this was not consentual.
A
Amber2
Guest
Tantum ergo
I think comparing a woman asking the rapist to use a condom, with a person who is using cloning or IVf is well … nonsense.
I also think that in countries around the world, especially in Africa, this is a very real problem. In South Africa where statistically every second man has raped a woman I would not find it strange if women would want to carry a condom around. And as for saying that this way of acting would only make more men rape women …nah I really don’t buy that. Also I think that condoms must be okay to use for protection against the terrible consequences of a rape, possibly HIV. I really can’t imagine if you had to choose between a man with AIDS raping your daughter, if he should use a condom or not, that you would say : no. I really don’t believe that you would not want to protect your daughter, or yourself as much as possible…I can’t see any sense or love in doing anything else.
Thanks for all your replies guys. I had my answer: that the Church don’t have a stand on this issue. Only some people preach in the name of the Church as if it did, and that is what made me come inhere and ask about it.
Thanks,
Amber
I think comparing a woman asking the rapist to use a condom, with a person who is using cloning or IVf is well … nonsense.
I also think that in countries around the world, especially in Africa, this is a very real problem. In South Africa where statistically every second man has raped a woman I would not find it strange if women would want to carry a condom around. And as for saying that this way of acting would only make more men rape women …nah I really don’t buy that. Also I think that condoms must be okay to use for protection against the terrible consequences of a rape, possibly HIV. I really can’t imagine if you had to choose between a man with AIDS raping your daughter, if he should use a condom or not, that you would say : no. I really don’t believe that you would not want to protect your daughter, or yourself as much as possible…I can’t see any sense or love in doing anything else.
Thanks for all your replies guys. I had my answer: that the Church don’t have a stand on this issue. Only some people preach in the name of the Church as if it did, and that is what made me come inhere and ask about it.
Thanks,
Amber
D
dixieagle
Guest
When the Church teaches that barrier methods of contraception such as condoms may not be used, it is in the context of the marital act…an act that must be both unitive and procreative.
An act of rape is in no way similar to the marital act, and a woman certainly could with a totally clear conscience attempt to get the rapist to use a condom, though I suspect the chances of compliance are between slim and none. Stranger things have happened, I suppose.
Some common sense is called for here.
L
lada
Guest
I don’t have condoms. However, I do have lamps, knives, and sledgehammers. If I could convince my rapist to stop long enough to get a condom, I’d get one of those instead and bash his head in. If I did have condoms, but no sledgehammers, and could convince him to use one, then I’d do that. All I know is that the church’s teachings on contraception or killing would be the farthest thing from my mind in that situation. I’m assuming the survival instinct would kick in and you’d do whatever you could to protect yourself, both in the moment, and in the future (STDs or pregnancy). Then afterward, you’d go to confession and talk about what happened, at which point any priest worth his salt would tell you you’re not culpable for a sin you may have committed while under the duress of being raped, for Pete’s sake.
D
dixieagle
Guest
The poster is talking about RAPE here, not normal marital relations. This has nothing to do with “infidelity and the breakdown of the family”; this has to do with a woman attempting to use any means possible to protect herself during a violent attack, even if the means is imperfect. No sane person - in or out of the Church - could possibly object.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Well, that’s why I said I’d be open to authoritative teaching.
When we get into murky waters (and yes, this is a very deep and painful situation) one needs even more than common sense, though.
I’m the ‘awful’ woman who in another thread, when asked if some gunman came up and pointed his gun at my child and said, “Deny Jesus or I’ll kill her”, would I deny Jesus–and I got flak up the wazoo for saying, "No, I’m not going to deny Jesus.’
COMMON SENSE (many posters took pains to tell me) argued that since I wasn’t really in my HEART denying Jesus, I should just go along and do everything possible to ‘save a life’ even if it meant the loss of my soul.
I guess I’m thinking the same thing here. If–notice, I keep saying if, and I defer to the Church, not common sense per se–it were morally licit to use the condom that the rapist had on him, I would do so.
Where I draw the line, pace Amber, is that I do not think it is morally licit to carry around condoms with the idea that, were I ever IN the situation, I would then have the means to ‘protect’ myself. To me, my purchasing condoms --and thus supporting their manufacture-- as a ‘protection’ is morally blurring the lines. It will keep on contributing to the culture of death.
Of course to me the bottom line is that while death from HIV/AIDS is certainly horrific, there is something worse–and that is damnation. We are all going to die at some point, after all. Sure, I’d like it to be both as ‘late’ and as ‘painless’ as it could possibly be. . .but not (I pray) at the expense of committing a mortal sin.
When we get into murky waters (and yes, this is a very deep and painful situation) one needs even more than common sense, though.
I’m the ‘awful’ woman who in another thread, when asked if some gunman came up and pointed his gun at my child and said, “Deny Jesus or I’ll kill her”, would I deny Jesus–and I got flak up the wazoo for saying, "No, I’m not going to deny Jesus.’
COMMON SENSE (many posters took pains to tell me) argued that since I wasn’t really in my HEART denying Jesus, I should just go along and do everything possible to ‘save a life’ even if it meant the loss of my soul.
I guess I’m thinking the same thing here. If–notice, I keep saying if, and I defer to the Church, not common sense per se–it were morally licit to use the condom that the rapist had on him, I would do so.
Where I draw the line, pace Amber, is that I do not think it is morally licit to carry around condoms with the idea that, were I ever IN the situation, I would then have the means to ‘protect’ myself. To me, my purchasing condoms --and thus supporting their manufacture-- as a ‘protection’ is morally blurring the lines. It will keep on contributing to the culture of death.
Of course to me the bottom line is that while death from HIV/AIDS is certainly horrific, there is something worse–and that is damnation. We are all going to die at some point, after all. Sure, I’d like it to be both as ‘late’ and as ‘painless’ as it could possibly be. . .but not (I pray) at the expense of committing a mortal sin.
L
lada
Guest
You’ve got to be kidding. You honestly think that God would condemn a woman to eternal damnation for asking her rapist to wear a condom? And you call yourself a Catholic?
R
Rach620
Guest
To quote the document of our bishops directly:
This doesn’t speak clearly on the issue of the use of a condom during a rape because, well, it’s not something over which a rape victim typically has control. Because the rape is a violent attack and not the loving act between husband and wife, I would say, based on this document, that the use of a condom (or other non-abortifacient contraceptive method) during or after a rape is licit, as it falls in the realm of self-defense.
Just because rape is a specifically sexual violent attack does not mean that the sexual morality of the Church and the need to preserve the integrity of the unitive and procreative meanings of sex, which always applies to the marital embrace of husband and wife, applies in this case. The unitive meaning has been frustrated by (a) sex taking place outside of marriage, and (b) the violent nature of the attack. There is no responsibility on our part to preserve the procreative meaning of sex, as there really is no meaning to “sex” between a rapist and his victim. It is a violent attack that is sexual in nature; I hesitate to even call it “sex,” as the word refers to the loving embrace of husband and wife. By a similar token, NFP use by an unmarried couple does not make their sex any more licit; condom use by a rape victim or her rapist does not make the sex forced upon her any more illicit.
In case any of you were unaware, treatment of a rape victim at a Catholic hospital typically consists of a rape kit, to gather evidence, followed by the elimination of seminal fluid as soon as possible, use of spermicides, and testing to see if ovulation has occurred. If ovulation has not occurred, it is my understanding that “anti-fertility drugs” and even Plan B *can *be administered. See here as well, from the USCCB.
This is also another concern…The only cases I have heard of rapists using condoms has been to prevent DNA evidence from being left in the victim. The use of condoms does not originate from the desire to be benevolent and prevent the transmission of disease or pregnancy.
And yes, I agree that it is a very bizarre request.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Your answer made me smile, because it makes sense.
If I needed something to protect me from rape, I’d prefer a weapon not a condom. An ex boyfriend once showed me how to headbut a guy in the nose. God forbid I’m in that situation, hope I can remember how.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Well, yes, I call myself a Catholic. I happen to be one. Whether you agree or disagree with my opinion, friend, doesn’t give you the right to both misunderstand what I said or to stand in judgment over me, does it? I don’t recall that I was standing in judgment over anybody, having been at pains to point out that this was what I understood and that I would welcome authoritative teaching.
Furthermore, I have been at pains on other threads to make it clear that nobody is ‘condemned by God to eternal damnation’. I just said that I believe–and this applies to other situations if you had read the whole of the post–that it is not right to commit a mortal sin in order to ‘save a life’ -mine or another’s.
So it’s simply the authentic Catholic teaching that one may not do evil in order to achieve a ‘good’.
You’re perfectly free to disagree with me, but may I respectfully suggest that you attack my arguments and not my 'personhood"? You can find all the fault you want with my words and reasoning but don’t tack that on into a personal judgment of me as a Catholic, s’il vous plait.
1
1ke
Guest
Amber,
While the Church does not currently have a definitive teaching on this, it might one day. Until such time we do our best to form our conscience based on the available teachings, the writings of the bishops and moral theologians, and the use of our reason. We form our conscience and then we act on that. But, our conscience can be wrong. Never forget that. And, moreover, if new information becomes available-- especially if it is an authoritative teaching of the Magesterium-- we are obligated to form our conscience again based on this new information.
For example, when IVF became possible the Church had no teaching on the subject. There were theologians that came down on both sides of the argument using available Church teaching on other, related issues. The Church took its time studying the issue and eventually issued the encyclical Donum Vitae which specifically condemned IVF.
Now, in that intervening 10 years, there were many Catholi couples who likely formed their consciences according to what was available and had IVF done. They were wrong objectively, but they were honestly following the consciences and did not commit a sin. Once the Church definitively spoke on the matter, those same couples were bound by the Church’s teaching regarding any future actions. They are not free to act without conforming their conscience to the authoritative teaching of the Church.
So, no, the Church doesn’t currently have a teaching. And, yes, the Church might someday have a teaching. And, it may or may not be to your liking. But, it will be binding.
R
Rach620
Guest
I, too, question the prudence or need to carry around condoms as protection against rapists…Rape might be very common in some African countries, but I don’t think a male condom is the best protection against a rapist, as I don’t think Mr. Nice Rapist can be depended on, during his attack, to pause and put on a condom. If we’re talking about contraceptive defense from the attack of a rapist, I think there are better ways to go about it, in circumstances where this is really necessary. A young woman inserting a diaphragm if she feels she is in real danger of attack comes to mind as a potentially licit means of self-defense, “if all else fails”. Thank goodness I do not live in such desperate circumstances!
I don’t quite understand what lines you see being blurred. A condom is not an intrinsically evil thing, just like a gun is not intrinsically evil; its use in marriage (or in the case of a gun, in murder) is an intrinsically evil act. My husband and I are undergoing fertility testing, and our Catholic OB-GYN sent us home with a condom and seminal fluid collection kit, and instructions to puncture it with a needle, use it during the marital embrace, and collect the seminal fluid for testing. This is morally licit, according to the Church; the involvement of a condom (perforated, to be clear, so that the procreative meaning of sex is preserved) does not all of a sudden make it evil.
Though I understand your desire to stay away from the culture of death in your shopping, in our world this is almost impossible. My guess is that you support condom manufacturers whenever you shop. Trojan, the most popular brand of condoms in the US, is manufactured by “Church and Dwight,” which also owns the popular brands Arm & Hammer, Arrid, Brillo, Close Up, First Response, Mentadent, Nair, Orajel, Orange Glo, OxiClean, Pepsodent, SnoBowl, and Xtra Laundry Detergent. The parent company of Durex condoms also owns “Scholl” companies, so you’d better stay away from Dr. Scholl’s inserts for your shoes. I’m not trying to be snide, I’m just saying that “death by association” isn’t really a prudent way to make moral judgments.
I’m sorry, but you need to read up on the ‘requirements’ of a mortal sin. Defending oneself against a violent sexual attack is certainly not in the realm of mortal sin–it’s no sin at all.
L
lada
Guest
It doesn’t feel so grand to be the judged instead of the judge, does it? Catholicism is a black and white religion. The rules apply to everyone. Your opinion is that the use of a condom during a rape is a mortal sin and therefore (and I have no idea where you came up with this idea if you did indeed go through 2nd grade catechism class) the person who does so is subject to damnation. Your interpretation is that the Church teaches that such “contraception” is a mortal sin, not just that YOU feel it’s a mortal sin. The mortality of a sin is not dependent on the opinions of a layperson. If it’s a mortal sin for you, as a Catholic, then it’s a mortal sin for ALL Catholics. And, ergo, you are saying that ANY Catholic who commits such and action is, in fact, sinning…mortally.
And…what I’m saying is that if that really is your opinion, not only are you exceedingly conceited, you’re also sadly lacking in an understanding of the teachings of the Catholic church.
If it makes you feel better, I can edit that statement so you don’t feel personally attacked. How’s this:
Any person who holds the opinion that the use of a condom during a rape is a mortal sin and therefore a rape victim who does so is subject to damnation is exceedingly judgmental, and also sadly lacking in an understanding of the teachings of the Catholic church.
Better?
D
dixieagle
Guest
As always, an intelligent, well-thought out and dead-on assessment. You’re pretty smart for one so young, Rach!!!
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Sure is, especially because I never said it was.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Dear folks, I apologize on bended knee for my shocking lack of clarity in a previous post where I had spoken of two things --one, of carrying around condoms to ‘protect’ in case of rape, and one of refusing to deny Jesus in the case of a gunman threatening to kill someone unless I did.
In discussing apparently I gave the impression that when I spoke of death and dying in a state of mortal sin, that I somehow implied using a condom was a mortal sin in the case. I had been thinking more, as I had just been speaking in the post, of denial of Christ in order to ‘save a life’ which I said was a mortal sin. I just didn’t make it clear and apparently it appeared that I was saying a woman using a condom in a rape was damning herself, which I state I neither specifically SAID THEN nor do I say it NOW.
Thank you.
In discussing apparently I gave the impression that when I spoke of death and dying in a state of mortal sin, that I somehow implied using a condom was a mortal sin in the case. I had been thinking more, as I had just been speaking in the post, of denial of Christ in order to ‘save a life’ which I said was a mortal sin. I just didn’t make it clear and apparently it appeared that I was saying a woman using a condom in a rape was damning herself, which I state I neither specifically SAID THEN nor do I say it NOW.
Thank you.
R
Rach620
Guest
That does help clear things up.
So contraceptive use (given that it is non-abortifacient) during or after rape…not a sin?
L
lada
Guest
If that’s the case, then I’d like you to clarify this statement:
Because, from where I’m standing this statement says that while it would be awful to not ask a rapist to wear a condom during a rape and therefore die of AIDS, it would be less horrible to ask the rapist to wear the condom and thus risk damnation.
W
whm
Guest
For what its worth, I read her last statement to mean she was not willing to create scandal by buying condoms to store all over the place just in case…
All sin puts us in danger of damnation, venial sins weaken our relation and can eventually lead to greater sins.
- Status