I think you are correct. The sin of contraception involves altering the conjugal act. That is an act where both mutually consent. Rape is never a conjugal act. You cannot separate the unitive and procreative aspects in such a case as neither is present.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.
Then you have exactly the same right to call a child who is a result of rape an ‘unjust aggressor’ as well, and seek an abortion to ‘defend yourself’ from that child. The rapist is the aggressor. The sperm are every bit as innocent as any conceived child would be. Sperm are NOT aggressors of any kind, let alone ‘unjust aggressors’ by any definition of the terms.I think you are correct. The sin of contraception involves altering the conjugal act. That is an act where both mutually consent. Rape is never a conjugal act. You cannot separate the unitive and procreative aspects in such a case as neither is present.
There is a right to self defense. There is a right to repel an unjust aggressor. The sperm are an unjust aggressor. They have no right to be there and there is no right to attempt to place them there.
No, a child is a new life and that is a different issue.Then you have exactly the same right to call a child who is a result of rape an ‘unjust aggressor’ as well, and seek an abortion to ‘defend yourself’ from that child.
They have no right to be there. Once conception happens the moral dimension changes.The rapist is the aggressor. The sperm are every bit as innocent as any conceived child would be. Sperm are NOT aggressors of any kind, let alone ‘unjust aggressors’ by any definition of the terms.
Take it up with the Church and moral theology. There is no slap in the face to God in repelling them as the act is disordered.Such thinking makes me sick and is a slap in the face of God who is the author of all life and the giver of the gift and blessing of our human reproductive ability, even when the gift is abused during rape
What does this have to do with rape? Please see post #9 which is consistent with other moral theology pieces I have read.Sperm are NOT ‘sacred’ (as Monty Python put it) only within marriage - sperm are sacred as a source of life full stop. That’s part of why masturbation is wrong even for unmarried men - and why the sin of Onan was wrong even when it was not his own wife he was sleeping with but his brother’s.
But a baby that is the result of rape, by your logic, IS equally an agressor invading the mother’s body, no? Just like its father the rapist (who, being a living person, surely has the same rights as the baby to invade - ie none)?No, a child is a new life and that is a different issue. They have no right to be there. Once conception happens the moral dimension changes.
Then there is no harm in aborting a child conceived of rape either, since the act that produced it is disordered.Take it up with the Church and moral theology. There is no slap in the face to God in repelling them as the act is disordered.
Written by who? You know most moral theologians prior to the release of Humanae Vitae were of the opinion that artificial contraception by married couples was OK - they were urging Paul VI to approve it. And they were flat out wrong.What does this have to do with rape? Please see post #9 which is consistent with other moral theology pieces I have read.
No, not all all. The baby is growing as babies grow. The baby is not an aggressor. The baby grows as intended by nature.But a baby that is the result of rape, by your logic, IS equally an agressor invading the mother’s body, no? Just like its father the rapist (who, being a living person, surely has the same rights as the baby to invade - ie none)?
No, the baby is a new life. This is not morally equal to sperm.The act that introduced that baby into the mother’s body is disordered, and it’s the same act that introduced those sperm. The mother would thus have every bit as much right to ‘self-defend’ against a growing baby of a rapist as against the sperm or the rapist by your logic.
Again, the a new innocent life changes the moral dimension. How is killing and innocent person morally equal to stopping an unjust aggressor?Then there is no harm in aborting a child conceived of rape either, since the act that produced it is disordered.
The moral theologian referred to in that post is as orthodox as they come.Written by who? You know most moral theologians prior to the release of Humanae Vitae were of the opinion that artificial contraception by married couples was OK - they were urging Paul VI to approve it. And they were flat out wrong.
That has nothing to do with the issue here. Where does the Church teach rape is equal to the conjugal act? Where does the Church teach the sin of contraceptioon applies to rape?Church law matters more than the opinion of moral theologians, and since Church law doesn’t distinguish AFTER conception between the right to life of offspring of rape, incest, adultery or marriage, then there’s no good reason to distinguish BEFORE conception between our attitude towards fertility - POTENTIAL children - whether these are the result of rape, incest, adultery or marriage.
Yes, and I defend his words on this very forum.By the way, the topic is AIDS and not conception. And didn’t Pope Benedict just last week say that condoms are not a solution to the problem of AIDS?
He did not give a moral theology text. He spoke generally.Sounds like he’s very much of the opinion that they are NOT to be used in an attempt to prevent the disease - and he doesn’t distinguish between AIDS transmitted by rape and that transmitted by any other kind of sex. And if they are no solution to the problem of disease, then why the problem of conception?
Please do not put words in his mouth.There’s some moral theology for you, from the highest of all possible sources. Higher than your moral theologians, higher than the USCCB. God bless the Pope!
So, if it is a sin for a woman to convince her attacker to put on a condom – the Church totally banning them – does that mean once the rapist has penetrated her, she should stop fighting, lest she make him withdraw and spill his seed on the ground?Then you have exactly the same right to call a child who is a result of rape an ‘unjust aggressor’ as well, and seek an abortion to ‘defend yourself’ from that child. The rapist is the aggressor. The sperm are every bit as innocent as any conceived child would be. Sperm are NOT aggressors of any kind, let alone ‘unjust aggressors’ by any definition of the terms.
Such thinking makes me sick and is a slap in the face of God who is the author of all life and the giver of the gift and blessing of our human reproductive ability, even when the gift is abused during rape.
Sperm are NOT ‘sacred’ (as Monty Python put it) only within marriage - sperm are sacred as a source of life full stop. That’s part of why masturbation is wrong even for unmarried men - and why the sin of Onan was wrong even when it was not his own wife he was sleeping with but his brother’s.
And the sperm that produced that baby fertilised the egg - equally as intended by nature.No, not all all. The baby is growing as babies grow. The baby is not an aggressor. The baby grows as intended by nature.
And what IS morally equal to sperm? You think a sperm is morally on the level of a smallpox virus or a cholera germ, bringing pure evil, death and disease. It isn’t - a sperm brings no evil at all, and is no aggressor. It brings nothing but God’s greatest gift, the gift of life, whether that be within or without marriage, within or without rape.No, the baby is a new life. This is not morally equal to sperm.
And how is killing a sperm morally equivalent to stopping a cholera germ or a smallpox virus?Again, the a new innocent life changes the moral dimension. How is killing and innocent person morally equal to stopping an unjust aggressor?
And I’m sure most of the ones I’ve referred to were as well - just wrong in this instance.The moral theologian referred to in that post is as orthodox as they come.
Then the question of this thread is answered and it should be closed - condoms are never acceptable to prevent AIDS.Yes, and I defend his words on this very forum.
He lives and breathes theology - every speech of his could be a moral theology text.He did not give a moral theology text. He spoke generally.
Isn’t that what you are doing when you make false distinctions between using contraception in the case of rape and in the case of other sex, where he has made none?Please do not put words in his mouth.
No - for one penetration doesn’t guarantee ejaculation, for another most women couldn’t hope to judge exactly the right time or how hard to struggle etc, and so couldn’t hope to induce withdrawal at the right time or to prevent pregnancy by such a means. So such a consideration, I’d venture to bet, doesn’t even enter the heads of any rape victim.So, if it is a sin for a woman to convince her attacker to put on a condom – the Church totally banning them – does that mean once the rapist has penetrated her, she should stop fighting, lest she make him withdraw and spill his seed on the ground?
A little off-the-subject but I’m confused. I thought maybe I just didn’t read your previous e-mail correctly when you said “if no conception has taken place” but now I see that is what you meant. If she has not ovulated and there is no chance for conception why in the world would she even need a morning after pill??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.
Because sperm can live for 3-5 days inside a woman and she might ovulate later that day, night or the next day… There is a chance for conception for up to 5 days.A little off-the-subject but I’m confused. I thought maybe I just didn’t read your previous e-mail correctly when you said “if no conception has taken place” but now I see that is what you meant. If she has not ovulated and there is no chance for conception why in the world would she even need a morning after pill??
usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts15.htmThe 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?
No nature does not intend on a violent attack. There is no right for the sperm to be there. It is a grave violation.And the sperm that produced that baby fertilised the egg - equally as intended by nature.
There is a distinct moral difference between an innocent life and sperm placed where they have no right to be.And what IS morally equal to sperm? You think a sperm is morally on the level of a smallpox virus or a cholera germ, bringing pure evil, death and disease. It isn’t - a sperm brings no evil at all, and is no aggressor. It brings nothing but God’s greatest gift, the gift of life, whether that be within or without marriage, within or without rape.
The sperm have no right to be there. They may be repelled.And how is killing a sperm morally equivalent to stopping a cholera germ or a smallpox virus?
Then produce some evidence.And I’m sure most of the ones I’ve referred to were as well - just wrong in this instance.
That much is true. That has nothing to do with rape as stated.Then the question of this thread is answered and it should be closed - condoms are never acceptable to prevent AIDS.
You can repel the AIDS virus. What you cannot do is contracept during the cunjugal act. When two people consent to the act there is a moral difference than when it is forced.Now you need to tell me why, since the AIDS virus could equally be seen as an ‘unjust aggressor’ - and IS morally much more equivalent to smallpox or cholera than sperm that will create a baby and do no harmful act - condoms are NOT acceptable to prevent AIDS in rape, but ARE acceptable to prevent conception in rape?
That is just silly and does a disservice to him.He lives and breathes theology - every speech of his could be a moral theology text.
The sin of contracpetion involves a cunjugal act.Isn’t that what you are doing when you make false distinctions between using contraception in the case of rape and in the case of other sex, where he has made none?
Nature (God) absolutely intends sperm to potentially fertilise egg as a result of any heterosexual vaginal sex occuring during a woman’s fertile time. If it (He) didn’t, pregnancy would be impossible after a rape! There is no ‘violent attack’ involved in the act of sperm fertilising an egg - the process is the same in every case where an egg is fertilised, and I can assure you doesn’t involve a violent attack by the sperm upon the egg. Why should insensible sperm be treated differently based on an unrelated issue - the violence of the rapist who produced them?No nature does not intend on a violent attack. There is no right for the sperm to be there. It is a grave violation.
Sperm are innocent too! A sperm has every bit as much right to be wherever God has allowed it to end up as a baby does.There is a distinct moral difference between an innocent life and sperm placed where they have no right to be.
What is this? You’re morally making them the equivalent of the armies of Nazi Germany or a deadly plague virus or something. Sperm are NOT an unjust aggressor and they have, as I said, every right to be wherever God allows them to be put.The sperm have no right to be there. They may be repelled.
It has everything to do with rape. As per Benedict’s teaching that you’ve assented to, condoms are unacceptable to prevent AIDS full stop. That includies AIDS resulting from rape.That much is true. That has nothing to do with rape as stated.
Not with a condom you can not - that’s the whole POINT of what Pope Benedict has just said! They are not to be used to prevent AIDS - not within marriage, not outside of it.You can repel the AIDS virus.
It’s the highest compliment to him - I’m not saying that’s ALL the Pope is, far from it, but his theological mind is second to none, and even his off-the-cuff remarks show it.That is just silly and does a disservice to him.
Again, Benedict doesn’t distinguish the sin of contracepting to avoid AIDS in cases of rape from the sin of using it within marriage. So NOT all sins of contraception involve the conjugal act.The sin of contracpetion involves a cunjugal act.
I agree and Humana Vitae governs contraceptive acts in conjugal relations.No nature does not intend on a violent attack. There is no right for the sperm to be there. It is a grave violation.
There is a distinct moral difference between an innocent life and sperm placed where they have no right to be.
The sperm have no right to be there. They may be repelled.
Then produce some evidence.
That much is true. That has nothing to do with rape as stated.
You can repel the AIDS virus. What you cannot do is contracept during the cunjugal act. When two people consent to the act there is a moral difference than when it is forced.
That is just silly and does a disservice to him.
The sin of contracpetion involves a cunjugal act.
I haven’t seen a Vatican document stating that the Bishop’s are wrong and contraception cannot be used in the case of rape.But this goes beyond what can be shown from the language of HV. The way HV is phrased in the original Latin (and in the literal translation of the passage given in the Catechism), all you can say with certainty is that Paul VI condemned all use of contraception within marriage.
He did not address–or cannot be ascertained certainly as addressing–the situation of sexual relations outside of marriage.
Thus, some have held that at least some forms of contraception (ones that aren’t abortifacient, for example) might not compound the evil of non-marital sex. Some might argue that, although non-marital sexual acts are gravely wrong, contraceptive non-marital sex might be less gravely wrong than non-contraceptive non-marital sex since it has a lesser risk of bringing a child into the world outside of wedlock.
By divine law, children have a right to be conceived only within a family that has a father and a mother who are married to each other. To the extent that they may cause children to be conceived outside of wedlock, non-marital sexual acts can be viewed as grave sins against charity regarding the child that may be conceived, as well as other affected parties (such as innocent spouses).
In case of rape, one pursuing this line of argument might maintain, there is no sin in the victim using at least certain forms of contraception since the victim is not married to the rapist (apart from cases of marital rape) and did not consent to the sexual act.
Teaching direct from the Pope’s own mouth - such as his recent statement that condoms can’t be used to prevent AIDS full stop - would indicate the contrary of what the Bishops have said. Their teaching is only authoritative when they are on the same page as His Holiness, which it appears they aren’t.I haven’t seen a Vatican document stating that the Bishop’s are wrong and contraception cannot be used in the case of rape.
I think there is a difference between the treatment for rape and the prevention of a disease that could be prevented from abstinence. I’m sure a woman would choose to be abstinent when presented with rape but she is not given that choice.Teaching direct from the Pope’s own mouth - such as his recent statement that condoms can’t be used to prevent AIDS full stop - would indicate the contrary of what the Bishops have said. Their teaching is only authoritative when they are on the same page as His Holiness, which it appears they aren’t.
Unfortunately, the word contraception is used in differing contexts. The medical use of the word contraception is not always equal to the use in a theological context. Medication used post rape, applied locally, to repel the sprem may be called “contraceptive” in the medical field but that does not translate into the sin of contraception.I agree and Humana Vitae governs contraceptive acts in conjugal relations.
Jimmy Akin discussed this on his blog at one time.
jimmyakin.org/2007/09/bad-news-in-c-1.html
I haven’t seen a Vatican document stating that the Bishop’s are wrong and contraception cannot be used in the case of rape.
Please see this and this .Nature (God) absolutely intends sperm to potentially fertilise egg as a result of any heterosexual vaginal sex occuring during a woman’s fertile time. If it (He) didn’t, pregnancy would be impossible after a rape! There is no ‘violent attack’ involved in the act of sperm fertilising an egg - the process is the same in every case where an egg is fertilised, and I can assure you doesn’t involve a violent attack by the sperm upon the egg. Why should insensible sperm be treated differently based on an unrelated issue - the violence of the rapist who produced them?
Sperm are innocent too! A sperm has every bit as much right to be wherever God has allowed it to end up as a baby does.
What is this? You’re morally making them the equivalent of the armies of Nazi Germany or a deadly plague virus or something. Sperm are NOT an unjust aggressor and they have, as I said, every right to be wherever God allows them to be put.
It has everything to do with rape. As per Benedict’s teaching that you’ve assented to, condoms are unacceptable to prevent AIDS full stop. That includies AIDS resulting from rape.
Since, as the Pope indicated, condoms aren’t to be used to prevent nasty AIDS viruses from invading your body, even if you’ve been raped, then on what basis do you assert that they CAN be used to prevent nasty sperm, which are far less ‘unjust aggressors’ than any AIDS virus?
Not with a condom you can not - that’s the whole POINT of what Pope Benedict has just said! They are not to be used to prevent AIDS - not within marriage, not outside of it.
It’s the highest compliment to him - I’m not saying that’s ALL the Pope is, far from it, but his theological mind is second to none, and even his off-the-cuff remarks show it.
Again, Benedict doesn’t distinguish the sin of contracepting to avoid AIDS in cases of rape from the sin of using it within marriage. So NOT all sins of contraception involve the conjugal act.
The question IS about use of contraceptives and HIV, why would we NOT talk about those things? Contraceptives are designed to prevent sperm meeting egg, why would we NOT talk about those things?This thread is beginning to reach the outermost proportions of argumentative stupidity.
All people can talk about here is Condoms, Contraceptives HIV, Sperm and the Female Ovalum and who knows what else.
Do people here really give a damn about the Rape Victim ?