Duress and culpability

[Bookcat]

If you believe that a woman who is being raped by a man is participating in a sexual act, then I don’t know what to say. Rape is an act of violence. The woman is being violated. How can you apply the same rules as someone willingly engaging in the act?

No, let’s discuss this one, because there is much disagreement. You are right, we need to be dispassionate in our discussion. However, there is being unemotional and there is being disconnected from reality. We are trying to help you connect your academic knowledge to reality, and you are trying to explain how the Church evaluates certain moral situations.

Ron, I’ve perused your web site and it’s contents of a highly speculative and wacky theological nature. Don’t attempt to accuse the rest of us of anything.

Besides, maybe we’re just speculating.

Right, Ron, but I disagree on your definition of what the act is. Rape is not a sexual encounter. You can not apply sexual morality to it. Wouldn’t you say that rape is an intrinsically evil act?

PAUL – I believe that this is one of them things that is still being discussed by moral theologians…so it may not be the best thing to discuss here…for there may be more heat than light

 

[PaulinVA]

PAUL – I believe that this is one of them things that is still being discussed by moral theologians…so it may not be the best thing to discuss here…for there may be more heat than light

Well, if professional theologians can’t agree on this, then it would seem the amateurs shouldn’t be making pronouncements, huh?

I think that 'Theology" is settled - it’s application to specific situations seems to be less certain. We are searching for the Truth - we know it exists.

 

[Bookcat]

Well, if professional theologians can’t agree on this, then it would seem the amateurs shouldn’t be making pronouncements, huh?

I think that 'Theology" is settled - it’s application to specific situations seems to be less certain. We are searching for the Truth - we know it exists.

Theology is reasoning about revelation…so it is not all ‘settled’ …

however certainly certain things are ‘settled’ …some defined…some clarified…some commonly taught etc.

in the matter being addressed…it would just bring more heat than light to this forum…

better to discuss a less problematic example.

 

[PaulinVA]

Theology is reasoning about revelation…so it is not all ‘settled’ …

however certainly certain things are ‘settled’ …some defined…some clarified…some commonly taught etc.

in the matter being addressed…it would just bring more heat than light to this forum…

better to discuss a less problematic example.

Hmm. Isn’t God’s revelation complete? But, our reasoning about it is not? I guess I can handle that.

As for the example at hand - sure, I’m willing to let it drop if the conclusion is that we can’t determine the answer here.

 

[Bookcat]

Getting back to the original topic…

this is what the Catechism says about duress…

I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:

Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: "What is this that you have done?"29 He asked Cain the same question.30 The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.31

An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother’s exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.32

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm#I

 

[Bookcat]

Hmm. Isn’t God’s revelation complete? But, our reasoning about it is not? I guess I can handle that…

Yes.

 

[Pug]

A sexual act is any deliberate use of the genital sexual faculty. This is clear, for example, in Persona Humana. It is also implicit in other teachings of the Magisterium on various sexual sins.

Again, redefining an intrinsically evil act, within a particular circumstance, or based on a particular intention, has the effect of nullifying the teaching of the Church that certain kinds of acts are always immoral. If you can change the kind of act based on intention and circumstances, then you are left with the erroneous system of ethics called proportionalism.

I do not wish to redefine an intrinsically evil act. Although I accept that it might be clear to you that the Magisterium considers rape to be sexual intercourse, and also clear to you that the woman may not have recourse to a spermicide or barrier, it is not clear to me that they consider this to be the case. It would require too much extrapolation on my part to say that they so consider it. I could turn out to be completely wrong if I tried to say rape is sexual intercourse and spermicide forbidden. That is not an attempt to turn an intrinsically evil act into one that isn’t. Rather, it is an attempt to understand and correctly apply what has been said, neither too far, nor too short.

It seems clear to me that a woman’s intentions not to have foreign fluids on her body are not specific to sexual fluids. If a man threatened to spit on her, I think she’d like a barrier in place. The problem is that those cells are his and the woman does not want any cells of his on any part of her. Hence the desire to bathe and scrub any part of him off afterwards. Each cell is an intrusion and represents his force. Even if the cells are from saliva, and not sex. Cells from sex are more intrusive, though, I suspect, because they represent an attempt to force an type of intimacy.

I can’t say the Church has answered the question. There exist only hints about the topic, like from the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), which is not a definitive source. I reproduce a hint below, for those who have not seen it, from their fact sheet about EC and sexual assault victims:
USCCB FACT SHEET:

A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm. If conception has occurred, however, a Catholic hospital will not dispense drugs to interfere with implantation of a newly conceived human embryo.

 

[Pug]

Contracepted sexual acts are always immoral. A woman pushing away a rapist is not a sexual act; this example is self-defense. It is a type of violence against an attacker in defense of an innocent person.

Whereas using a contraceptive during a sexual act is obviously a contracepted sexual act, not a type of self-defense. It is not a type of self-defense because the rape is not prevented or stopped by that act.

I agree that the majority of the violence is not prevented. But a small portion is, that of contact between a portion of her skin and his, and in a very emotionally important location of contact. Also, she will not have his cells left inside her, which is creepy and intrusive. Though, I think it unlikely that a rapist would agree to a condom. Her remedy is more likely to be removal after the fact. I’d expect the rapist who would use a condom would already have brought several along to prevent himself from getting AIDS or from a cop matching his genes to a database.

I think that this particular hypothetical is not very useful because it has a tendency to cause the reader to respond emotionally, rather than with faith and reason. And I notice that some posters are making emotion and merely rhetorical arguments, not arguments based on faith and reason. Perhaps we could discuss other hypotheticals on the subject of intrinsic evil and dire circumstances.

I find a number of the intrinsically evil with duress scenarios to be emotional, myself. People often put forward lying and the Nazis (please, please let us not go there) as an example. I’m not saying it is or it isn’t an example, but that is often put forward as one. The same with someone holding my family at gunpoint to get me to do something. I would probably break. I would be overwhelmed by the danger to those I love. I guess it is hard for me to imagine real duress without being somewhat distressed, mostly because it is distressing to imagine breaking down and doing something wrong, a wrong I would never, ever do normally (with the help of grace). A wrong I find repellent.

One may not do evil so that good may result from it."

Complete agreement here, Ron.

 

[fix]

Contraception is intrinsically evil, and always gravely immoral. No good intention, and no dire circumstance, can cause an intrinsically evil act to become moral. That is all that I will say about that question.

Contraception is intrinsically evil, but the case asked about is not contraception. Rape is not a conjugal act. A condom in such a circumstance is not contraception. It is repelling an unjust aggressor.

 

[StillWondering]

Let me ask you this:
If a woman is about to be date raped and she asks the creep to use a condom, is she committing a sin? If so, is it a mortal sin or a venial sin?

I think this is a weird question and it came up in another topic. First of all, if the creep is willing to use a condom, what is going on? Is she in chains so she can’t get out. Is she protesting and he says I’ll kill you and you can’t get out. And then she says, okay, if you must, use a condom?!

How many people while they are honestly being rape, as in this is assault have time to think about the need for the other person to use a condom? And how many guys raping people will stop their action to put on a condom.

This is just a ridiculous set up question.

Let me ask in return a more outlandish question. What if I were to decapitate your father and rape your mother, would you insist I use a condom!?

 

[fix]

So, I could kill the person seeking to deprive the children of their lives in my example, but I couldn’t tell him an untruth to misdirect him to save their lives and his, potentially giving him an opportunity to repent of his evil ways?

That makes no sense in the real world at all. To protect the children I have to take a life? Conversely, are you actually trying to tell me that if I told the killer the kids were in the closet (since I didn’t want to lie) there would be no sin in sending him to kill them?

I am shaking my head in disbelief.

Well, here is what the CCC says:

[2482](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2482.htm’) "A *lie *consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281

[2488](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2488.htm’) The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

[2489](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2489.htm’) Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.283

I have not even mentioned mental reservation, but to reconcile the above quotes it would seem that while one may not lie, that does not mean one must reveal the truth to one who has no right to the truth.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I have a previously-stated position on the use of various interventions at a hospital to prevent conception after a rape. But I will not state it here.

The main issue is not any particular hypothetical, but the definitive teaching of the Church that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention (purpose) and regardless of circumstances (consequences).

It is directly contrary to the teaching of the Church to take any position on any question in ethics (even if hypothetical) which implies that an intrinsically evil act can be transformed into a different type of act, one that is moral, due to circumstances or intention (purpose).

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.”

Those posters who claim that any purpose, no matter how good, or any circumstance, no matter how dire, can cause an intrinsically evil act to become moral, are contracting the teaching of the Magisterium.

 

[fix]

You can call an apple a dog, but that cannot change it into an dog. You can call rape a conjugal act, but it is still an unjust aggressor.

I sugggest you see things like this. And this. And this.

 

[fix]

This too.

 

[OraLabora]

Actually, what you are proposing is an erroneous approach to ethics called proportionalism, in which no type of act is intrinsically evil and always immoral. The Magisterium definitively rejected this approach in Veritatis Splendor, and in the Catechism. The intention and the circumstances cannot justify any act that is inherently immoral, such as contraception, abortifacient contraception, abortion, murder, theft, lying, blasphemy, adultery. I’ve quoted VS and the CCC on this point many times, and the response is always to ignore the quote, and to respond rhetorically.

Proportionalism bases morality only on the purpose (the intented end) and on the circumstances. Nothing is always wrong, because in one situation or another, with one intended purpose or another, any act is considered to be justified. Either the concept of moral object and intrinsic evil is rejected, or the idea is that the intended purpose and the circumstances can change the nature of the act (and its moral object) to be no longer intrinsically evil. Proportionalism is a serious doctrinal error.

She may use deadly force against an attacker because killing an attacker is not intrinsically evil. She may not lie or commit any other intrinsically evil act, because such acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances.

An intrinsically evil act cannot be done for the purpose of self-defense, because intrinsically evil acts are always immoral. An intrinsically evil act cannot be done for a medical purpose for the same reason.

No I am not referring to proportionalism. I am saying the degree of force used was proportionate (pushing the attacker off, thereby forcing coïtus interruptus).

What I am saying though is that this is not an act of contraception (intrinsically evil, which I agree with) but is rather an act of self-defense, which is not intrinsically evil. It is the same as the murder/killing in self-defense duality. One is illicit (murder), the other is legitimate (self-defense.

In self-defense, you may use a proportional force up to and including killing your attacker, to defend yourself from bodily harm.

In this case the woman is not voluntarily engaging in intercourse, she’s being raped. The man is violating her violently, doing physical damage, and perhaps inflicting a fatal disease on her. It is a violent assault and the woman is entitled to use a proportional force to defend herself. If she has a weapon, killing the attacker is acceptable. If she does not have a weapon, shoving her attacker off and thus interrupting his illicit act is not intrinsically evil.

 

[OraLabora]

Whereas using a contraceptive during a sexual act is obviously a contracepted sexual act, not a type of self-defense. It is not a type of self-defense because the rape is not prevented or stopped by that act.

It sure as heck is if the rapist is HIV positive, and this is her only line of defense. Then the act becomes self-defense (against a fatal disease being violently thrust on her).

And as she cannot know for certain if he is or not, and given its relative prevalence in society, she can safely act as if he were and consider it self-defense.

I sure as heck hope there aren’t too many women reading us men splitting hairs over an issue we are unlikely to encounter ourselves.

In any event even if you were right, Ron, her culpability would be reduced to a minimum as it it would be under duress and with no time to properly discern the moral implications. She certainly is unable to consult HV, the CCC and magisterial documents while deciding what to do…

 

[Bookcat]

I have a previously-stated position on the use of various interventions at a hospital to prevent conception after a rape. But I will not state it here.

The main issue is not any particular hypothetical, but the definitive teaching of the Church that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention (purpose) and regardless of circumstances (consequences).

It is directly contrary to the teaching of the Church to take any position on any question in ethics (even if hypothetical) which implies that an intrinsically evil act can be transformed into a different type of act, one that is moral, due to circumstances or intention (purpose).

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.”

Those posters who claim that any purpose, no matter how good, or any circumstance, no matter how dire, can cause an intrinsically evil act to become moral, are contracting the teaching of the Magisterium.

certainly not referring to my posts. I never said such a thing.

IF such an act is permitted it is NOT due to circumstance or intention but to it being a different object. But I leave that to the Church to decide what is what.

 

[Bookcat]

**Germain Grisez **(one of the Sources that Ron recommended) who is an orthodox Catholic moral theologian …says that yes one is morally justified in a rape …to act to prevent conception …even potential victims may act to prevent conception and that this per se is not contraception…but in the order of self defense as has been argued here…

All can read it here section 2 letter f. make sure you read too the footnote 103 which says among other things that of course abortion is not permitted…

twotlj.org/G-2-8-E.html the Way of the Lord Jesus vol 2.

so while a condom is not explicitly mentioned…it may be the case that it could be…since other non-abortive things can be done to prevent conception in the case of rape…or anticipated rape…including spermacide…withdrawal…anti fertility drugs before the rape…

but i do not think a rapist is going to really listen to a victims request anyhow…even if it is legit…

 

[Pug]

Germain Grisez

OH COOL! I’ve had those texts for so long and I’ve never known they were online! OOOOH, are they searchable??? I agree GG says what he does (having read the first three volumes), but he is a theologian, not the Magisterium. And yes, I agree he is orthodox. But he could be wrong. I had assumed Ron would not accept him as a citation.

 

[LittleSoldier]

If you lie, it is always a sin.
Use of violence in defense of the innocent is not always a sin.
You need not reveal the location of the innocents, you can be silent, or use force, or use mental reservation.
All hypotheticals aside…

It is the teaching of the Church and required belief that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, and that killing is not always immoral. It is wrong for you or other members to represent these teachings as if they were my unique ideas. If you reject the teaching that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances, then you are rejecting the teaching of the Church. If you reject the teaching that killing in self-defense is not intrinsically evil, and is not always immoral, then you are rejecting the teaching of the Church.

I can quote the Catechism and various magisterial documents on these points, but I already have done so many times, and all these quotes are just ignored. Instead of discussing the teaching of the Church, people are discussing their own foolish ideas, based on what seems right to them, without any theological basis.

Whoever believes that intrinsically evil acts are not always immoral, but are sometimes justified by intention or circumstances, has fallen into a serious doctrinal error which is directly contrary to the definitive teaching of the Magisterium on morality.

Why don’t you go ahead and post those quotes? I haven’t seen them and I would like to know if it is a sin to tell the Nazi soldiers that I don’t have any Jewish people hidden in my attic.