Does the Church teach the moral guilt of rape victims?

[Susan731]

I am questioning the Church’s teaching with regard to rape victims. When asked face to face, the popular answer has been that rape victims are in no way responsible for the act that has been forced upon them.
However, this is not what I am finding that the Catholic Church teaches. I will attempt to condense this as much as possible.

2356 states “. . . rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity . . . that can mark the victim for life.”

A Catholic website states, "We must pray for grace to love purity. If we love purity, it will be easier to resist temptation against it. All this Maria (Goretti) knew. All this was why she would let Alessandro kill her rather than submit to him. (Alessandro was attempting to rape Maria.)

I have found at least nine women who our Church has canonized because they chose death over rape. They are considered patronesses of purity. They are also considered patronesses of rape victims, which I find strange since they were not victims of rape. In fact, they found death preferable to being raped.

I can only conclude that our Church teaches that rape victims have lost their purity; their respect and moral integrity are no longer the same because of the rape; and death is the preferable choice to rape.

I know this to be true because educators are being asked to teach a Virtus lesson to elementary school students that reflects the above beliefs.

My question is this – Am I commiting a sin against God and the Church if I do everything in my power to change these teachings of the Church?

Respectfully,
Susan

 

[Fr.Vincent_Serpa]

Dear Susan,

I can understand how you reached your conclusion regarding the answer you quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. One could conclude that it is saying that the wounding of one’s self respect, inner freedom, physical and moral integrity automatically morally corrupts anyone who has been sexually violated. But this is not what the sentence is saying.

While the dictionary defines the word “integrity” as “uncompromising adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty—its’ second definition reads: “the state of being whole or entire.” It is this second definition of the word that the Catechism is using.

One can be psychologically scarred by such a violation and physically scarred as well. This is not the fault of the victim. The Catechism goes on to state that rape can wound the “moral integrity” of the victim. Integrity here means wholeness. Rape wounds that wholeness—not that it makes the victim sinful, but that it can shatter the victim’s innocence. The Catechism then goes on to mention how evil such an act is and then refers to the horror such a violation is to children. In no way does it suggest that such children are responsible for being victims or are made morally corrupt by having been abused.

Because Maria Goretti was able to fend off her attacker to the extent that he did not complete the rape, does not suggest that all those who have succumbed to the act of rape have therefore sinned. The sin was on the part of the perpetrator—not the victim. Morality lies in the act of the will and the Catechism defines rape as “the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person.”

As to the matter of respect, often rape victims question themselves and feel guilty for an evil they did not initiate. Many lose a sense of freedom and live in fear that such an evil may befall them again.

If some members of the Church were turning victims of rape into its perpetrators, then we would all be morally bound to counter them with the truth. I just looked at the Virtus website. I had never heard of the organization before. But after seeing some of the trustworthy names of those behind it, I can’t imagine that it would condemn rape victims any more that the Catechism does.

Thank you for giving the forum an opportunity to make some clarifications on a very serious current matter.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P,.