Condoms to prevent HIV infection during rape

[Riley259]

I’m very clear and agree with the Catholic Church’s position on contraception including the Pope’s recent condemnation of the use of condoms in Africa as a means of preventing HIV infection. However, I was wondering about the Church’s position on the use of condoms during a specific situation when a rape was about to occur and the woman, although powerless to prevent the rape, pleads with the assailent (who she strongly suspects or knows is carrying the HIV virus) to use a condom and he agrees to do so. Since rape is truly an act of violence and not necessarily about the sex, in an objective sense, would the use of a condom in this situation be considered licit (ex., defending oneself from harm) by the Church’s own standards of moral theology? I’d appreciate some feedback. Thanks.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I am not a theologian and I think this is a bit of a corner case as well.

This is one of those times that the ends do not justify the means, I think. The issue is that the rape shouldn’t take place to begin with and since that’s the case, the issue of using a condom becomes moot. 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

I’m going to draw a (bad) analogy - 2 consenting adults who are not married have relations and use some form of contraception. They shouldn’t be having relations in the first place.

 

[maryjk]

I’m very clear and agree with the Catholic Church’s position on contraception including the Pope’s recent condemnation of the use of condoms in Africa as a means of preventing HIV infection. However, I was wondering about the Church’s position on the use of condoms during a specific situation when a rape was about to occur and the woman, although powerless to prevent the rape, pleads with the assailent (who she strongly suspects or knows is carrying the HIV virus) to use a condom and he agrees to do so. Since rape is truly an act of violence and not necessarily about the sex, in an objective sense, would the use of a condom in this situation be considered licit (ex., defending oneself from harm) by the Church’s own standards of moral theology? I’d appreciate some feedback. Thanks.

Someone will be by soon, to quote the Canon or writing of the Pope. Until then, no the Church would not have a problem with the use of a condom during rape. It comes down to the rapist and his sperm being an unjust invader.

 

[hawkeye]

Since they’re momentarily possessed by the devil, I expect they’ll listen to no-one else except him.

 

[Leopard]

A woman (or man for that matter) being raped is not consenting to a sexual act. The moral culpability for the act falls on the rapist, whether that rapist is a man or a woman. Thus whatever additional sin may be attached to the use of a condom would fall on the part of the rapist.

 

[Leopard]

…'m going to draw a (bad) analogy - 2 consenting adults who are not married have relations and use some form of contraception. They shouldn’t be having relations in the first place.

The analogy isn’t necessarily bad, but it is imperfect. The difference here is that two persons who consentingly have an illicit sexual relationship are both morally culpable for the act, so would both be morally culpable for whatever additional sin may be attached to the use of the condom.

 

[Newbie2]

Admittedly, this would be a very unusual scenario. I guess the question needs to be clarified a bit; I’m assuming that the OP is asking if it would be licit, sinful, etc. whichever terminology one prefers for the woman in the case of such a rape.

Again, I would guess that such a woman would not be offered a choice in the matter, and I’m assuming that she would, otherwise the moral question is moot; she would be raped with or without a condom i.e. there would be nothing she could do about it. Sort of like getting beaten with a baseball bat; it really wouldn’t matter if it were wood or aluminum.

From a Moral Theology perspective, such a scenario would not constitute a consensual sexual act, rather an act of violence, and the use of a condom in such an instance would be morally neutral. Sort of like if someone were going to beat you with their fists, and they asked if you would like them to wear latex gloves so as to prevent you from being exposed to cuts and their blood on their hands when they administer the beating.

In fact, from a moral perspective, it may be morally objectionable to not help prevent transmission of a potentially fatal disease and protect one’s own life if one has a choice in the matter.

 

[Leopard]

Since they’re momentarily possessed by the devil, I expect they’ll listen to no-one else except him.

I’m not sure what you mean here by using the plural. I would not disagree with you that a rapist may be actively cooperating with, if not actually possessed by the devil, but I would strongly disagree with categorizing a rape victim in this manner without independent evidence of said possession.

 

[Brendan]

We covered this in Moral Theology class, with no less a proponent of Humane Vitae than Dr. Janet Smith.

Rape is not the sexual act, but rather one of the most physical assaults that can happen.

The prohibition against the use of condoms apply only to consentual acts. In a consentual act, the participants are engaging in what God designed as a complete sharing and union of the partifcipants, an earthly model of the Trinity, including it’s creative power. That is why contraception is so wrong.

That is not true in rape, no one can truthfully say that the Trinity is being modeled then. What is actually happeing is that one persons body is being assaulted by anothers. And steps may certainly be taken to protect one’s body from assault.

 

[Riley259]

We covered this in Moral Theology class, with no less a proponent of Humane Vitae than Dr. Janet Smith.

Rape is not the sexual act, but rather one of the most physical assaults that can happen.

The prohibition against the use of condoms apply only to consentual acts. In a consentual act, the participants are engaging in what God designed as a complete sharing and union of the partifcipants, an earthly model of the Trinity, including it’s creative power. That is why contraception is so wrong.

That is not true in rape, no one can truthfully say that the Trinity is being modeled then. What is actually happeing is that one persons body is being assaulted by anothers. And steps may certainly be taken to protect one’s body from assault.

Thank you. That seems to make sense and I know we can trust someone like Janet Smith on this kind of thorny issue.

 

[hawkeye]

I’m not sure what you mean here by using the plural. I would not disagree with you that a rapist may be actively cooperating with, if not actually possessed by the devil, but I would strongly disagree with categorizing a rape victim in this manner without independent evidence of said possession.

Sorry, meant the rapist, the plural was for rapists, not the victims.

 

[Feste_1242]

Rape is a perversion of the sexual act. Using a condom simply perverts the act further.

God gave us sex for two reasons: unity of the couple, and procreation. In rape, there is no unity. When a rapist uses a condom, the act is no longer open to life. The act would then be refusing both “uses” that God wills, making it even more wrong than before.

 

[musicgal4jesus]

Maybe it’s just me, but it doesn’t seem likely that this rapist would stop to put a condom on just to favor his victim.

 

[Friend_forever]

I am not 100% sure but I think it might be permissible.

The church allows for the “morning after” pill in cases of rape as long as no conception has occured. If this is the case I think condom use could be used in the same context.

 

[Quarles47]

I was wondering about the Church’s position on the use of condoms during a specific situation when a rape was about to occur and the woman, although powerless to prevent the rape, pleads with the assailent (who she strongly suspects or knows is carrying the HIV virus) to use a condom and he agrees to do so.

First of all rape is never permissible so why should the use of a condom be condoned in such a situation? The woman being raped is the one being wronged, and therefore the one being sinned against. No conditions that the rapist does will make the rape right.
Also, if a woman did plead with her attacker to use a condom then, and we’ve seen it before in the court system, the rapist’s lawyer can argue that the act was consensual. Besides, why should the rapist consent to such conditions unless the rapist thought it would lessen its crime if not outright erase it. If the rapist was to be considerate to its victim then the rapist would never commit its nefarious crime.
I see no reason for The Church to condone the use of condoms in any situation because, once She does the that’ll be a crack that the misguided will use to try and force the use in a much broader sense.

 

[Brendan]

Rape is a perversion of the sexual act. Using a condom simply perverts the act further.

God gave us sex for two reasons: unity of the couple, and procreation. In rape, there is no unity. When a rapist uses a condom, the act is no longer open to life. The act would then be refusing both “uses” that God wills, making it even more wrong than before.

The error in your argument is that rape remains sex. It is not. There is nothing at all that God wills in rape, there are no ‘uses’ that God has designed for rape.

 

[hawkeye]

Maybe it’s just me, but it doesn’t seem likely that this rapist would stop to put a condom on just to favor his victim.

Exactly, hence it being demonic desired.

 

[centurionguard]

The error in your argument is that rape remains sex. It is not. There is nothing at all that God wills in rape, there are no ‘uses’ that God has designed for rape.

True God does not condone rape affliction on any woman, man , or child.
However; maybe it’s because that I myself am a victim of a horrid gang rape at gunpoint.
And I find it difficult to believe perhaps due to lack of faith that God will go of his way to stop the affliction of rape to multi-millions of people in this wretched world. God “permits” rape to happen to good people for reasons that I think few theologians will ever be able to fathom.
Rape affliction is a suffering hell that ravages the human soul. But if there is any comfort that a rape victim can identify with is…it’s.the sufferings that Jesus accepted on the Cross.
Rape is a mortal selfish sin. And for many who are “rapist” it’s answerable in hell fire.

WHICH IS EASIER TO SAY THAT JESUS DID HANG ON THE CROSS or
THAT JESUS HANGS ON EACH ONE OF US

 

[hawkeye]

True God does not condone rape affliction on any woman, man , or child.
However; maybe it’s because that I myself am a victim of a horrid gang rape at gunpoint.
And I find it difficult to believe perhaps due to lack of faith that God will go of his way to stop the affliction of rape to multi-millions of people in this wretched world. God “permits” rape to happen to good people for reasons that I think few theologians will ever be able to fathom.
Rape affliction is a suffering hell that ravages the human soul. But if there is any comfort that a rape victim can identify with is…it’s.the sufferings that Jesus accepted on the Cross.
Rape is a mortal selfish sin. And for many who are “rapist” it’s answerable in hell fire.

I admire you, I’ve been asked a few times how could God allow this or that evil to take place in the world ?

Well the weeds and the flowers are allowed to grow until the time of picking,and yes like you, Jesus suffered an horrific death for you and me.

And that is what keeps me going, The servant is not greater than the Master"

We shall arise to a new life like Him.

 

[centurionguard]

I admire you, I’ve been asked a few times how could God allow this or that evil to take place in the world ?

Well the weeds and the flowers are allowed to grow until the time of picking,and yes like you, Jesus suffered an horrific death for you and me.

And that is what keeps me going, The servant is not greater than the Master"

We shall arise to a new life like Him.

Thank You Hawkeye

Your sentiments are genuinely appreciated.

Faith is all we have in the End