Condoms to prevent HIV infection during rape

[Feste_1242]

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.

The morning after pill is a form of contraception; the Church forbids its use.

The error in your argument is that rape remains sex. It is not.

If there is a penis going into a vagina, its sex.

There is nothing at all that God wills in rape, there are no ‘uses’ that God has designed for rape.

Exactly. In rape, one uses the act of sex for purposes other than the “uses” God designed for it.

 

[centurionguard]

It’s easy for many to speak behind a veil of moral certitudes and Church teachings to back ourselves up. However; how many would give it a profound thought that if YOU were the rape victim in question. How easy would it be to embrace our catholic moral certitudes if WE were the victim in question ascertaining moral implications on whether to keep a baby conceived by rape. The human soul inside a female rape victims womb is the innocent one here. Now before someone gets carried away in their thinking let me be very clear. I believe LIFE begins the very moment of conception. And yes I’m one-hundred percent Pro-Life.
But what of the rape victim. She is certainly in a state of mental shock and utter vulnerability. Who is faithful enough to step up to the plate when her vulnerable moral certitudes are screaming in pain. Is she totally responsible if she makes the wrong choice to abort ? No one is really capable of judging her for her mistake if she makes the wrong choice. I have read about an increasing trend in many catholic hospitals in the U.S. and Canada that would rather NOT take in a female rape victim who has conceived.
Why ?

 

[musicgal4jesus]

It’s easy for many to speak behind a veil of moral certitudes and Church teachings to back ourselves up. However; how many would give it a profound thought that if YOU were the rape victim in question. How easy would it be to embrace our catholic moral certitudes if WE were the victim in question ascertaining moral implications on whether to keep a baby conceived by rape. The human soul inside a female rape victims womb is the innocent one here. Now before someone gets carried away in their thinking let me be very clear. I believe LIFE begins the very moment of conception. And yes I’m one-hundred percent Pro-Life.
But what of the rape victim. She is certainly in a state of mental shock and utter vulnerability. Who is faithful enough to step up to the plate when her vulnerable moral certitudes are screaming in pain. Is she totally responsible if she makes the wrong choice to abort ? No one is really capable of judging her for her mistake if she makes the wrong choice. I have read about an increasing trend in many catholic hospitals in the U.S. and Canada that would rather NOT take in a female rape victim who has conceived.
Why ?

Well, we should start by pointing out that the percentage of babies concieved in a rape or incest is very, very small. I don’t know the exact number, but I want to say around 1% or something…
Anyway, I can certainly see why the rape victim would want to abort in this case, but that doesn’t make it right. (Which I know you understand, since you did say that you’re 100% pro-life! ) The mother can still choose to give it up for adoption, but I hope that she would realize that aborting the baby would in no way make this situation better. I really hope we can spread this message to mothers in this terrible situation- aborting the baby will not erase the pain of a rape, or make it better in any way!

Sorry, I tend to rant a little bit when I get into pro-life topics… I hope you know that I’m not accusing you of being pro-choice! Maybe I shouldn’t post at 11:15 at night…

 

[rowermath]

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.

I applaud your attempt at pointing out and correcting a misuse of grammer, but I do believe you must know what the poster whom you quoted actually meant. Most English speakers, especially in America, do not use pronoun agreement correctly, and I’m sure you know this too. Please don’t make this about grammer. The poster whom you quoted surely meant that only the person committing the rape is possessed by the devil. He/she did not mean that the person being raped is also possessed!

 

[centurionguard]

Well, we should start by pointing out that the percentage of babies concieved in a rape or incest is very, very small. I don’t know the exact number, but I want to say around 1% or something…
Anyway, I can certainly see why the rape victim would want to abort in this case, but that doesn’t make it right. (Which I know you understand, since you did say that you’re 100% pro-life! ) The mother can still choose to give it up for adoption, but I hope that she would realize that aborting the baby would in no way make this situation better. I really hope we can spread this message to mothers in this terrible situation- aborting the baby will not erase the pain of a rape, or make it better in any way!

Sorry, I tend to rant a little bit when I get into pro-life topics… I hope you know that I’m not accusing you of being pro-choice! Maybe I shouldn’t post at 11:15 at night…

I can genuinely appreciate your reply. However; like so many people in the general public few realize just how serious rape is as an epidemic like wildfire around the world. In United States and Canada alone a woman, child, or man is raped every three minutes. On the continent of Africa rape statistics are staggering, (“the highest in the world”) with someone being raped every (((“eight”))) seconds. I do agree with your assertion that women who are raped do have the option of adoption. However; I am not so sure how many in the instance of rape will make that moral option. I (“do not”) agree with your guesstimate that only one percent of women who are raped conceive human life within them. Given the ever growing statistics of rape numbers from R.A.I.N.N. in the U.S. alone the pregnancy rate is far greater. As for the trend of Catholic Hospitals who would rather not deal with women who are raped is because most women who are raped and conceive, regrettably choose recourse to abort. Finally; as for statistics by itself, does not take into consideration how many women, children, and men who do not come forward to report their rape.

 

[Newbie2]

Well, we should start by pointing out that the percentage of babies concieved in a rape or incest is very, very small. I don’t know the exact number, but I want to say around 1% or something…
Anyway, I can certainly see why the rape victim would want to abort in this case, but that doesn’t make it right. (Which I know you understand, since you did say that you’re 100% pro-life! ) The mother can still choose to give it up for adoption, but I hope that she would realize that aborting the baby would in no way make this situation better. I really hope we can spread this message to mothers in this terrible situation- aborting the baby will not erase the pain of a rape, or make it better in any way!

Sorry, I tend to rant a little bit when I get into pro-life topics… I hope you know that I’m not accusing you of being pro-choice! Maybe I shouldn’t post at 11:15 at night…

Statistics don’t matter to that woman who finds herself in that position, but an excellent point otherwise. The Almighty can make something good come of a terrible situation.

 

[maryjk]

The morning after pill is a form of contraception; the Church forbids its use.
If there is a penis going into a vagina, its sex.
Exactly. In rape, one uses the act of sex for purposes other than the “uses” God designed for it.

Do you have a link to Church teachings that show this? Because everything that I have read, say that if the woman has not ovulated and is raped, the morning after pill is approved.

On another note, I wonder how many rapists will use a condom, without prompting, to prevent his DNA to be left behind. In this day and age, everyone knows about DNA.

 

[Newbie2]

Never underestimate the stupidity of a criminal. I agree, though. VERY unlikely scenario.

 

[graceandglory]

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.

I heard Fr. Thomas Loya say that “in the Catholic Church” (ie: within Catholic marriage),
we don’t “have sex.” But we do come together as man and wife.

Rape is so far outside of the context of Catholic marriage, an intimate community of life and love, where both spouses commit to loving freely, totally, faithfully, and fruitfully, that it’s kind of a moot point. It’s violent. The genitals aren’t expressing anything remotely close to life and love. The rapist just happens to be using his genitals as an attack weapon. A rapist is expressing hatred and violence and power with his body.

It would not be against the “language of the body” to protect from assault with a condom.

I vote for Dr. Janet Smith’s response.

 

[graceandglory]

The morning after pill is a form of contraception; the Church forbids its use.

If there is a penis going into a vagina, its sex.

Exactly. In rape, one uses the act of sex for purposes other than the “uses” God designed for it.

Only we don’t separate sex from the marital act as Catholics.
Our genitals are a part of what makes us total human beings. The marital embrace is about the coming together completely of man and wife. Not just their genitals.

What you mean to say is that “in rape, one uses their body for purposes other than how God designed it.” It’s not the act of sex. It’s the language of the body. (In Catholic theology.)

We define marriage, but not “sex.” In the Catholic Church, sex means gender. I am my sex, but I don’t do sex.

See my previous post.

 

[Jermosh]

Any person has absolutely every right to defend themselves in a case of violence like this. Condoms are actually defined as a Personal Protection Device and are certainly allowed in this manner to protect from a STD. A woman is also allowed to protect herself from pregnancy as well in the form of the morning after pill or other forms of contraceptives. usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml

 

[GraceDK]

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.

This is interesting… is this what Janet said… ? Because well the fact is that a lot of wives in Africa are just being treated like sexslaves by their husbands. they are not given a choice to say no to them when they want sex, even if the husband has AIDS. So, these women would in a way also be allowed to ask their husband to use a condom?
Lets get clear here: a man who has AIDS and takes his wife to bed is in no way showing her love and having a moment of unity with her. He is acting like an animal and does not care about anyone but himself.

The Western ideas about romantic love, selfgiving and unity in sex are exactly that: ideas of Western Christianity that have yet to penetrated into Africa.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

For legalists - 1 Corinthians 13 applies. Ask yourselves if your opinions are charitable, or Pharisaic.

As a practical matter, rape can involve more than just the vagina too.

Sorry, when dealing with IS and TS people in support fora, you get far far far far far too used to being a de-facto rape councillor. Also good at helping people deal with brain damage from assault. Suicide prevention too.

You know, it gives me hope that there are still people to whom the concept of rape is not something they have experience with? That they just think of it as “non-consensual sex” and don’t think about sub arachnoid haemorrhage and permanent “cognitive impairment”, or complete bowel and vaginal reconstruction, or the long-term effects of various hypnotic drugs used, or oral syphillis…

May you remain in your innocence. But please, for the sake of all that is holy, be charitable.

 

[rwoehmke]

Bredan is correct. in his answer. Nuns who were in danger of being raped during some past wars were allowed to contracept. The whole matter has been debated and settled by the teaching authority of the Church so long ago that I cannot document it for you, but Brendan is absolutely correct in his answer…

 

[Mintaka]

Actually, nobody is able to trace it. There was apparently a cardinal who mentioned this back in the sixties as being true of some unnamed group of African nuns, but apparently he had heard some kind of Catholic urban legend and didn’t know what he was talking about, either. Nobody has ever tracked down the African nuns. (Just like nobody ever meets the friend of a friend who found spider eggs in his Bubble Yum.)

We really need some kind of Catholic version of Snopes.

 

[thistle]

Bredan is correct. in his answer. Nuns who were in danger of being raped during some past wars were allowed to contracept. The whole matter has been debated and settled by the teaching authority of the Church so long ago that I cannot document it for you, but Brendan is absolutely correct in his answer…

That was a false story circulating and had no basis at all. Condoms are not permitted under any circumstances. The reason you cannot find such a document is because it does not exist.

 

[fix]

Objects are not intrinsically evil, but actions can be. Rape is not mutual, consenting, relations. How can the sin of contraception apply to a situation where there is not the conjugal act?

The Church allows for defending against an unjust aggressor.

 

[Middleman]

This is a pretty hypothetical situation, indeed. I’m certain that if the rapist, by a long stretch of the imagination, agreed to use a condom, then it would be okay with the Pope. The whole scenario is implausible however.

 

[thistle]

Objects are not intrinsically evil, but actions can be. Rape is not mutual, consenting, relations. How can the sin of contraception apply to a situation where there is not the conjugal act?

The Church allows for defending against an unjust aggressor.

To restrain the aggressor if possible, but if not a weapon can be used to wound or kill as a last resort.
A condom is not acceptable against a rape or disease. The Church has made that clear.

 

[Middleman]

I absolutely cannot believe what I’m reading here. This site has some unbelievable things written on it. It makes the Catholic Church, frankly, look ridiculous in some cases.

I thought I was fairly conservative before coming to this site.