Condoms to prevent HIV infection during rape

[centurionguard]

Most rapists now use condoms to begin with because of DNA evidence.

Your belief that rapist use condoms can noway be substantiated by fact.

Any statistic that claims this is misleading. Why ? Because the majority of women, men, and children who are raped DO NOT come forward and report their rape to health professionals or police due to the unspeakable stigma.

BiologyBrain:

15-20% is not most rapists… That leaves 80-85% of rapists that DO NOT use condoms. My statement is still true - most rapists DO NOT use condoms. Most rapists WILL NOT put a condom on at the request of their victim (I’d like someone to find an instance of that).

 

[LilyM]

Second, the purpose of sex is the union of spouses and procreation. Openness to procreation is not an end in itself. If it were an end in itself, then in vitro and polygamy would be OK. But, procreation by ANY means is not morally right.

Yes, procreation by artificial means is wrong, just as contraception by artificial means is wrong. It’s the artificial nature of them that is the main problem.

Rape DOES intersect with the moral law on marriage too - in Leviticus the law is that a man who rapes a virgin is obliged to marry her - which marriage, unlike others, could not be dissolved by divorce. And follow all the marital laws as they stand afterwards - no adultery and so on. So sex in rape is not divorced so completely from marital sex as you’d seem to think.

Rather, procreation is a means to spousal union. Unless you’re open to procreation, you can’t truly be “one flesh” with your spouse.

You and others I think are operating under a questionable premise that the procreative purpose and the unitive purpose can act seperately from one another. But, morally speaking, they can not.

And you’re operating under the questionable premise that either of these can in reality be totally divorced from ANY sex act. Artificial contraception, abortion, etc, are man’s attempt to do so. Doesn’t mean they succeed.

Yes, God’s permissive will may allow a conception to take place via rape, but it is NOT his active will for conception to take place via rape. God wants children to be born to loving parents, who care for each other rather than to parents in an abusive relationship.

So it’s OK for married people who may be in an abusive relationship (to separate the issues we’ll assume the abuse is verbal and emotional rather than sexual, but nonetheless real and serious) to contracept then? I think the Church would say not.

Obviously, once conception results then we must accept that child since God permitted it to be conceived.

Why? You’ve just said God’s permissive will isn’t enough to justify allowing conception - why would it be enough to justify allowing birth? If a child shouldn’t be conceived in evil circumstances then why should it be born in evil circumstances?

 

[thistle]

First, can you provide some reference for the absolute Church ban on condoms?

How about the Church teaching?

Artificial birth control (which includes condoms) is NOT permitted by the Church.
The Pope on his African trip stated additionally condoms cannot be used to prevent someone getting HIV/AIDS.

In other words the Church teaches condoms cannot be used to prevent pregnancy or disease.
If the Church changes its mind on that of course I would accept it but the current teaching is a ban on condoms for everything.

 

[Jermosh]

“receive treatment to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm”

You only receive treatment after an event has happened.

Ahh so its ok after but not before? According to the article, it will allow IUDs, Morning after pill, spermicide etc etc, but not condoms?

Please find me an official papal, magisterium, or council stating that condoms are in fact a intrinsic evil. Meaning that they are evil at all times and never acceptable. Opinions and articles do not count BTW.

 

[Jermosh]

15-20% is not most rapists… That leaves 80-85% of rapists that DO NOT use condoms. My statement is still true - most rapists DO NOT use condoms. Most rapists WILL NOT put a condom on at the request of their victim (I’d like someone to find an instance of that).

You are correct, thanks for pointing that out to me. But in social statistics, 15-20% is not a small part of a control group, and the article is illustrating that it is becoming more and more prevalent.

 

[Jermosh]

Rape DOES intersect with the moral law on marriage too - in Leviticus the law is that a man who rapes a virgin is obliged to marry her - which marriage, unlike others, could not be dissolved by divorce. And follow all the marital laws as they stand afterwards - no adultery and so on. So sex in rape is not divorced so completely from marital sex as you’d seem to think.

This is completely wrong and both the Catechism and every other papal writing states this is wrong. Even the Bible says its wrong in Acts15.

Rape is an intrinsic evil on all accounts and is never justified.

 

[Jermosh]

How about the Church teaching?

Artificial birth control (which includes condoms) is NOT permitted by the Church.
The Pope on his African trip stated additionally condoms cannot be used to prevent someone getting HIV/AIDS.

In other words the Church teaches condoms cannot be used to prevent pregnancy or disease.
If the Church changes its mind on that of course I would accept it but the current teaching is a ban on condoms for everything.

Do you have a link specifically stating this, or that condoms or other ABCs are an intrinsic evil.

 

[LilyM]

This is completely wrong and both the Catechism and every other papal writing states this is wrong. Even the Bible says its wrong in Acts15.

Rape is an intrinsic evil on all accounts and is never justified.

The OT has a lot to say about the matter. Let’s see:

‘When a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall pay her
marriage price and marry her. If her father refuses … he must still pay him the
customary marriage price for virgins.’ (Ex. 22:15-16)

‘If you see a comely woman among the captives and … wish to have her as wife, you
may take her home ot your house…However, if later on you lose your liking for her,
you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it … since she was married to you under
compulsion’ (Deut. 21:11-12, 14)

‘If a man comes upon a maiden that is not betrothed, takes her and has relations with
her, and their deed is discovered, the man … shall pay the firl’s father fifty silver
shekels and take her as his wife … Moreover, he may not divorce her as long as he
lives’ (Deut 22:28-29)

None of this is to say that rape, sex slavery or fornication, is in any circumstances
acceptable. What it DOES say is that the proper remedy, where available, for such
sins - is marriage. Why? As I said, it’s because marital sex IS related to other
kinds of sex. They are wrong because they are perversions of the marital act, sure, but they are not so unlike that the procreative fruit of ANY sex act should be contracepted out
of existence.

By the way - from Humanae Vitae:

"Unlawful Birth Control Methods

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the ***generative process *** [note, not ‘marital act’, but ‘generative process’ - ie any sex] already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, [again, ANY sexual intercourse] is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)"

Now remember the American Bishops only possess full teaching authority when in union with the Holy Father. So HV, being a Papal teaching, would appear to trump the USCCB document, since it appears not to be in union with the Holy Father on this issue.

 

[Sunflower15]

<…

He doesn’t actively will children to be born of rape.

…

Yes, IF the rape results in pregnancy, for NO LIFE can come into existence without HIS WILL…

I’m not disagreeing with your arguments regarding God willing union & procreation at the same time. Or that rape violates both at once, since it is not what God intended either.

I’m only arguing that since not every sexual intercourse [loving or not] necessarily leads to pregnancy, then whenever it DOES lead to pregnancy, it is due to HIS WILL. [The pregnancy, not the rape!]

Obviously, God does NOT will any harm upon anyone!
God routinely turns our bad actions into blessings…He is VERY good at that! ANY pregnancy is a GIFT of God’s LOVE!

My argument is that the child resulting from the act is NOT THE ACT itself…the child does NOT inflict violence upon the mother. No violence should be inflicted upon the child either…at least it shouldn’t be morally acceptable. Two wrongs do NOT make a right!

God’s gift of LIFE should not be prevented…it is similar to refusing to accept a wonderful gift someone lovingly offers!

I’m also arguing that the resulting child may be a gift or mercy from the Holy Spirit…how we look at this differs according to how we understand the LIFE principle and the Will of God.

If we think that EVERY child is intrinsically a GOOD…then, it is easier to see that even such children, and ALL children, are intrinsically gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Since rape is an evil, it’s original source must be traced to the Evil One.
Since Life is a good, it’s original source must be trace to the ONLY source of LIFE and of GOOD…God!

The Evil One CANNOT create, for he is a creature himself. Even if he could, he would NOT because he hates humanity…he seeks to kill as many humans as possible…he has NO interest in bringing any to life.

If under ANY circumstance [by love or by violence], sexual intercourse results in pregnancy…it is ALWAYS the by the WILL of God…especially since NOT every sexual intercourse results in pregnancy…

We need to move from a mindset of a culture of DEATH to a mindset of a culture of LIFE…where ALL human life is intrinsically GOOD regardless of the intentions of the man and woman through whom LIFE comes into existence.

We also need to move from a mindset that Humans create Humans…because it is NOT true…GOD creates Humans***through ***humans! Proof of that is that humans cannot cause pregnancy at will [by sexual intercourse]…sometimes it happens, sometimes it does not.

The GOODNESS of the new LIFE is NOT the result of the goodness of the man/woman/act, but rather the result of the GOODNESS of the LORD giving the LIFE an existence!

 

[Jermosh]

The OT has a lot to say about the matter. Let’s see:

The OT only pertains to those of the old Covenant, not the True one. Please read the Acts scripture I quoted.

I will state again:
**2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

Do you understand what a intrinsic evil is? It is never allowed period, no matter what the outcome. God will never will an act of Evil to promote something of good.

Even the Humanae Vitae speaks only about the marriage conjugal act, in which both parties must act freely in. Which rape is not in any form since its not an act of procreation and unity, but of violence and power.

 

[LilyM]

The OT only pertains to those of the old Covenant, not the True one. Please read the Acts scripture I quoted.

Uh huh. So we’re no longer bound by OT strictures against bestiality and suchlike? The NT doesn’t speak to them, but we are nonetheless bound by them.

Do you understand what a intrinsic evil is? It is never allowed period, no matter what the outcome. God will never will an act of Evil to promote something of good.

Do you understand that I’ve been acknowledging the intrinsic evil of rape all along? Of course rape is an intrinsic evil that we can’t condone rape under any circumstances. I’m saying that preventing conception after rape just adds additional sin to the sin of the rape.

Newsflash - God wills ALL acts of evil. It’s called His permissive will, read up on it sometime. And you say He never wills an act of evil to promote something of good? You completely sure about that? I’d call the heinous murder of Jesus a crystal clear example of an intrinsically evil act that was indeed willed by God because good could be brought out of it.

A better way of putting it is that God certainly can and does will to BRING some good consequences even out of evil acts. No, the consequences don’t justify or allow the evil, but neither should we throw out the good consequence merely because the act that brought it about was evil. Otherwise we’d throw away the fruits of the Crucifixion - our salvation - just because the act of crucifying Jesus was evil.

Even the Humanae Vitae speaks only about the marriage conjugal act, in which both parties must act freely in. Which rape is not in any form since its not an act of procreation and unity, but of violence and power.

Where does Humanae Vitae say that its ONLY concern is marital sex and that other kinds of sex are exempt from its provision? Do you think that extramarital sex should be free from the restrictions as to contraception as well, since adultery is also surely an intrinsically evil act?

Of course rape can be an act of procreation, I’m surprised you would think it can’t be. In the Bosnian war of the ‘90s, as part of the policy of ‘ethnic cleansing’, female prisoners of war were repeatedly raped with the avowed intention on the part of the attackers that the victims conceive children of mixed nationality, thus ‘diluting’ their race in the long term and increasing numbers of people who were (at least partially) of the attackers’ ethnicity. That they were violent and sinful makes such acts none the less procreative - the intent was to create children.

Unity? Certainly unity of body exists. Is not the whole reasoning behind the restrictions on illicit sex that the body (and the sex act) speaks a language of its own, and it behoves us not to speak falsely with this language of sex?

In the case of premarital sex, for example, the act express, in and of itself, the unity and that isn’t borne out by the circumstances under which that sex act takes place. So by your logic people having premarital sex also should be exempt from restrictions on contraception, since they too are not having marital sex. Is this what you believe?

 

[thistle]

Ahh so its ok after but not before? According to the article, it will allow IUDs, Morning after pill, spermicide etc etc, but not condoms?

Please find me an official papal, magisterium, or council stating that condoms are in fact a intrinsic evil. Meaning that they are evil at all times and never acceptable. Opinions and articles do not count BTW.

So you don’t believe the Church teaching as laid down in the CCC??
So you don’t believe the Pope when he made the announcement in Africa??

 

[pseudoanselm]

<So sex in rape is not divorced so completely from marital sex as you’d seem to think.>

I disagree. Marriage is based upon consent. There is no consent in rape. So, rape is antithetical to marriage. It’s the opposite of marriage.

<And you’re operating under the questionable premise that either of these can in reality be totally divorced from ANY sex act. Artificial contraception, abortion, etc, are man’s attempt to do so. Doesn’t mean they succeed.>

So rape fosters union between spouses? I think it actually harms union. It drives them further apart because we are by nature free. That’s why I said union and procreation can not be seperated “morally speaking” in sexual acts. Also, I didn’t say procreation can’t happen during rape. I said it is an evil circumstance under which procreation happens.

I don’t think it’s a sin to attempt to prevent conception under evil circumstances like rape.
I don’t think consensual partners in or outside of marriage are so justified, just so you know. If sex is consensual, the act is much less an evil circumstance than a rape act.

<So it’s OK for married people who may be in an abusive relationship (to separate the issues we’ll assume the abuse is verbal and emotional rather than sexual, but nonetheless real and serious) to contracept then? I think the Church would say not.>

First, a spouse has a right to say no to sex, which is normally a duty of marriage, if the other spouse verbally or physically beats them regularly. The Church teaches it’s OK to seperate. The conjugal duties and thus “openness to procreation” can be suspended until circumstances improve.

If the spouse is being raped, I think she’d have a right to insist on anal sex or a condom, independant of the chances the rapist will comply. Such extreme circumstances would mitigate greatly or even totally nullify culpability in the contraceptive act.

If she decides to be a hero and be open to procreation even in rape, then God bless her.

<Why? You’ve just said God’s permissive will isn’t enough to justify allowing conception - why would it be enough to justify allowing birth? If a child shouldn’t be conceived in evil circumstances then why should it be born in evil circumstances?>

Simple. Because after conception a child exists. Before conception a child does not exist. Thou shall not kill.

Finally, if you can please point me to any church documents or statements addressing extreme cases such as this, please do. I’m just learning…

 

[pseudoanselm]

<Artificial birth control (which includes condoms) is NOT permitted by the Church.
The Pope on his African trip stated additionally condoms cannot be used to prevent someone getting HIV/AIDS.>

I agree with the Pope’s comments. Teaching abstinence and self-control worked in Uganda to lower AIDS rates. I’m not talking about disease transmission between consensual partners. I’m talking about rape whether there is disease or not.

But hasn’t there been some comment at least by the Church responding to the rape question? I would like to rely on that rather than on your extrapolation from humana vitae.

Does the Church expect all of us to come to the right conclusion on extreme cases without ever addressing them?

I can see your point on this question. But, I wouldn’t condemn a raped woman for attempting to block conception during or prior to rape. You have to look at circumstances as well as principles.

 

[twf]

Lilly:
Your Old Testament references are invalid for one very important reason. You are forgetting that the natural marriage of the Old Testament and the sacramental marriage of the Church are quite different from one another…

Even in the Church today, natural marraiges (in which one or both of the partners are NOT baptized) can be DISSOLVED by an actual divorce (the Pauline and Petrine privileges). Valid sacramental marriage, between two baptized persons, can never ever be dissolved by any power on earth…they are two completely different ball games. A marriage in which the bride was chosen from among POWs would NEVER in a million years hold up as valid before any Church tribunal today. Sacramental marriage requires 100% mutual consent…under OT law, which we know was an imperfect law that simply foreshadowed the far greater mysteries of the Church, this was obviously not the case.

 

[BiologyBrain]

But, I wouldn’t condemn a raped woman for attempting to block conception during or prior to rape.

I don’t think any of us are condemning the woman. What we’re saying is that the Church does NOT allow contraception PERIOD (check the CCC and just type in Catholic Church condoms or contraception to find countless articles both for & against the Church’s well-established stance on the issue). If a rapist were using a condom, the victim is under no obligation to submit or to ask him to take it off (if Catholic). No one could possibly fault a victim for the use of contraception (of whatever sort) by the perpetrator. Even in marriage, if the spouses differ on their contraception, the faithful (to the Church) spouse is allowed to perform the marital embrace w/ the contracepting spouse - as long as the faithful spouse is not the one using the contraception. By your reasoning, the woman should be allowed to have an abortion after conception by rape as well. Afterall, she didn’t ask for the baby and it was conceived in an act of evil. That’s NOT the case at all.

However, the gist of the whole question is actually illogical and irrational. I have NEVER heard of a rape where the victim was able to tell the rapist to do anything for her protection or good. Rapists aren’t concientious people. THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT THE VICTIM. Even if they are using a condom to prevent/reduce their DNA being left at the ‘scene’, they **AREN’T **doing it out of compassion or concern for the woman. They are doing it selfishly.

Although there is no explicit statement barring the use of contraception extra-maritally, it is simply logical based on the teachings about extra-marital sex & marital sex. Extra-marital sex is condemned by the Church (everyone knows that - some just choose to ignore it). Contraceptive sex w/n marriage is condemned by the Church (everyone knows that - some just choose to ignore it). Since sex outside of marriage is disallowed, contraception outside of marriage would be disallowed as well. Contraception is labeled as an intrinsic/inherent evil. The intrinsic/inherent part of that means that no matter what he circumstances, it is evil. While it may be possible to remove unity from the sex act (via rape, etc), it is impossible to remove the evil from contraception b/c it is a part of it (as per the Church’s teachings).

intrinsic = belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing
inherent = involved in the constitution or essential character of something

Definitions curtesy of Miriam Webster’s Dictionary online.

 

[Jermosh]

So you don’t believe the Church teaching as laid down in the CCC??
So you don’t believe the Pope when he made the announcement in Africa??

I believe them fully, but they do not say what you want them to say. If you cannot supply a link, then just say so.

 

[Jermosh]

Uh huh. So we’re no longer bound by OT strictures against bestiality and suchlike? The NT doesn’t speak to them, but we are nonetheless bound by them.

Actually the scripture speaks of that directly, so its basically telling me you did not read it, or you do not want to believe it. I really see no further need on this discussion, rape has nothing to do with sex, it has nothin to do with a marital act, and it has nothin to do with Gods will. So Humanae Vitae does not in any way possible have any bearing on rape.

 

[Jermosh]

I agree with the Pope’s comments. Teaching abstinence and self-control worked in Uganda to lower AIDS rates. I’m not talking about disease transmission between consensual partners. I’m talking about rape whether there is disease or not.

Just to clarify, Ugandas ABC program did allow and promote condoms as a last resort. But it was also a secular Govt program and I think they have every right to do as such. I do not think the Church should ever promote condoms as such as well.
heritage.org/research/africa/bg1692.cfm

 

[LilyM]

Actually the scripture speaks of that directly, so its basically telling me you did not read it, or you do not want to believe it. I really see no further need on this discussion, rape has nothing to do with sex, it has nothin to do with a marital act, and it has nothin to do with Gods will. So Humanae Vitae does not in any way possible have any bearing on rape.

The NT talks specifically about having sex with animals? That is news to me, for rsure. Enlighten me - which chapter and verse of the New Testament specifically refers to the issue of sex with animals?

From the Catechism:

“2398 Fecundity is a good, a gift and an end of marriage. By giving life, spouses participate in God’s fatherhood.”

Note - four separate benefits of fecundity. It does not say ‘fecundity is a good and a gift BUT ONLY in marriage and is not an end of other types of sex’ It does not day ‘By giving life, non-spouses do NOT participate in God’s fatherhood, but only spouses do’.

ALL who have heterosexual sex so participate, by the mere act of potentially bringing life into the world as He does. And children ARE a good and a gift in all circumstances. Contraception in any circumstances is a slap in God’s face rejecting that gift of fecundity and that chance to participate in His fatherhood. How can that ever be acceptable?

For the fifth time (since you seem particularly thickheaded on this point) I am NOT condoning rape in any way. Neither do I condone the murder of Christ, yet I gratefully accept the glorious and inherently good fruit of that evil act, as do you.

So should we gratefully accept our fertility which is an inherent and glorious good in all circumstances, and any potential child that might be the inherently good fruit of an evil act (rape).