A
AveOTheotokos
Guest
Amen. Always strive to do good, and when in doubt, see your confessor!
- Status
K
Kanade
Guest
You’re seriously comparing forced sex with an extramarital affair? Being raped is not adultery.
In your example, the woman would have to chose between allowing one of two evils to happen to her. In the OP’s example, the subject commits an evil against an innocent party in order to avoid something happening to him. They’re not comparable.
O
o_mlly
Guest
One who commits an act knowing that the act in its object is evil commits sin. Proposing the situation as a choice between “murder” or “not murder” implies knowledge of the intrinsic evil involved so you could not claim ignorance. Therefore, both the act and actor are an offense to God.
The matter is grave, the knowledge is full so the only method to mitigate the mortality to your soul if you murder is in the circumstance of duress. You are not responsible for what others may do to your family. You are responsible for your own acts. Heroic virtue would move you to not act in order that you do not offend God.
N
nodito
Guest
That’s my point. “Consenting” to rape is not the same as consenting to an affair, because one is done under duress. That is, one does not consent under duress. One cannot be said to have consented to something if a gunman has a weapon trained on him.
In the OP’s example, the subject commits an evil in order to avoid an evil happening to his family. I’m not arguing that it isn’t evil or isn’t wrong. It is. But I dispute that he fully and deliberately consents to the evil and argue that, therefore, it cannot be a mortal sin.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Apply the three elements of mortal sin.
1). Grave matter. Well, murder is grave matter so, check.
2. Full knowlege. You know murder is wrong. Check.
3. Full consent. This gets dicey but I think the case can be made for full consent. by making the choice you are fully consenting to taking the action if murdering someone else on the belief that the person making you do this us a man of his word and will spare you. You kill someone to save yourself which is not the same as self defense because you are not fighting the attacker.
However the principle of double effect can come in to play if by saving one life (yours) another has to die in an unintended consequence.
If course five minutes after you kill the innocent, and a bullet pierces your head you better make an act of perfect contrition. All of which is doubtful.
" if you kill this person, another killer may have lied to you and kill you anyway, now you are faced with your maker moments after freely choosing one life over another with literal blood on your hands…
I’m not so confident it’s not mortal sin to risk hell…
A
AveOTheotokos
Guest
The problem with your rape analogy is that the woman is not the agent acting to commit the rape. Her choice is not one where she is choosing between the bad guy doing something evil or her doing something evil.
The bad guy is going to do something evil either way and her choice is only on how she is going to be victimized (murder or rape). The choice to actually commit evil belongs entirely to the bad guy, and the women’s “choice” is actually just her opinion on her potential victimization at the hands of the aggressor, should he choose to actually carry out his threats.
In the OP’s scenario, the choice is between performing an evil act yourself, or refusing to cooperate in evil and possibly having your family and you become victims. By choosing not to cooperate, you are not responsible for what happens to your family and yourself, as you are not choosing nor performing the evil act. That consent and action is on the aggressors conscience.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
The assertion that coercion necessarily removes consent is completely unjustified.
Circumstances may alter cases, and individuals are not all the same. In some cases consent might be reduced by coercion. In some cases it might be effectively removed. But the fact of coercion is not an excuse for wrongdoing.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
False equivalence. The rape victim is not being coerced to harm some other person. She is being harmed herself. It is not a sin to endure being harmed in order to save your life.
K
Kanade
Guest
By necessity, you can’t consent to rape. You can only give up fighting. It’s quite a medieval view to see the rape victim as committing a sin, so your analogy doesn’t hold.
I presume you would then argue that the guards at concentration camps were not culpable as they were merely following orders to avoid being shot themselves?
N
nodito
Guest
Ugh, I was not claiming that a rape victim commits sin. Precisely the opposite. I was trying to emphasize that it is because a rape victim does not consent that we don’t judge her for misuse of sexual faculties or whatever. I wish I hadn’t brought it up, though, because it was never meant to be an analogy for the situation OP described, even though that is how you are taking it.
We all agree that the person in the hypothetical commits sin if he shoots the innocent person, right? I think it’s also an extreme example of moral cowardice. The OP asked if such an action would be *mortal *sin, given the the subject did not wish to murder the innocent person but was being held at gunpoint and threatened with the death of his family. Deliberate consent is necessary for a sin to be mortal. I maintain that a person choosing to sin at gunpoint is not fully consenting to the sin, just as a person held at gunpoint cannot consent to any other number of things (e.g, marriage, sexual intercourse, medical research, legal contracts, etc). Our secular laws and our Catholic Church recognize this. But God does not?
K
Kanade
Guest
You put it forward as an analogy, that’s why it’s been taken that way. Even positing that she might be judged on misusing her sexual faculties shows that you don’t understand the difference between the two scenarios - she is not the agent, she is the victim. There is not even a remote chance of sin involved here. In the OP’s scenario, there is, which is why your scenario is a false equivalence.
The subject clearly wished to murder the innocent person, as he did so in order to save himself and his family.
Like the rape example, the actions in bold only affect the person involved, not an innocent third party (and these are not inherently sinful). You are mixing up the meanings of consent here.
As you didn’t answer it in the last post, would you would see the concentration camp guards at not being fully culpable? Yes or no?
Not true. English law does not recognise duress as a defence to murder - so the hypothetical person in the OP would be guilty of murder here. Previous posters have quoted the relvant sections of the CCC (post 33): “There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery.”
I don’t understand your last point about separating God’s opinion and the Church’s opinion.
N
nodito
Guest
I put it forward as an example of how consent changes the nature of an act.
Well, they could involve innocent third parties (a parent consenting to something on behalf of a their child, for example). I was using “consent” in plain vernacular English, to mean to agree to or give permission for something. If there are additional definitions you feel would add to the discussion, please explain them.
I thought I had answered you. If a person has a gun trained on them and is told to stand somewhere and keep guard or they will be shot, then no, I do not think them fully culpable, even if the call themselves Nazis. Since we’re keen on analogies around here, a better one might be prisoners of the concentration camp themselves, held hostage and forced to lead other Jews into the gas chamber. Are they fully culpable?
In American law, my understanding is that duress is not generally accepted as a defense to murder but does affect sentencing. For example, a person convicted but found to have been under extreme duress at the time of the crime may receive a minimal sentence. I think this mirrors my position, which is that a person who commits a crime while being held at gunpoint is guilty of sin, but does not receive an eternal punishment for it (as they would if it were mortally sinful).
Also this:
“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.” (CCC 1735)
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
I think many the rape victim analogy fell flat for many posters because, like me, they are aware of cultures where rape victims ARE shamed and seen to be guilty of at least venial sin, unless they can prove that they were just completely physically overpowered.
In many Eastern cultures, unchastity is seen as sinful, but suicide is not. So, women were expected to kill themselves if possible, rather than “submit” to rape. Or to at least kill themselves immediately afterward. And if they didn’t, their husband, father, or other male relative was expected to do it. That this was the only way to restore the honor of both the woman herself and the male relative meant to “protect” her. And guess what, this STILL happens in many cultures.
BTW, I can think of one rape case where a woman submitted because the rapist threatened to kill her child. He did not actually hold the woman at gunpoint or use violence to physically overpower her.
So, if I follow the reasoning of many people here, it seems to be the logical application to this case is that “the woman has to confess her sin of unchastity, the moral thing to do was to still refuse to have sex, and if the rapist DID kill her kid he’d be responsible for it. not her”. Much as “the moral thing to do is to refuse to kill that one person, if the murderer then kills 4 people he’d be responsible for it, not you”.
The St. Maria Goretti story is often seen as proof that the saintly course of action is to refuse to sin sexually even if that means you will die. That even if Catholics aren’t obligated to follow her example, that is optimal. I also recall the case of a martyr saint who tricked a Roman soldier into beheading her instead of raping her.
In many Eastern cultures, unchastity is seen as sinful, but suicide is not. So, women were expected to kill themselves if possible, rather than “submit” to rape. Or to at least kill themselves immediately afterward. And if they didn’t, their husband, father, or other male relative was expected to do it. That this was the only way to restore the honor of both the woman herself and the male relative meant to “protect” her. And guess what, this STILL happens in many cultures.
BTW, I can think of one rape case where a woman submitted because the rapist threatened to kill her child. He did not actually hold the woman at gunpoint or use violence to physically overpower her.
So, if I follow the reasoning of many people here, it seems to be the logical application to this case is that “the woman has to confess her sin of unchastity, the moral thing to do was to still refuse to have sex, and if the rapist DID kill her kid he’d be responsible for it. not her”. Much as “the moral thing to do is to refuse to kill that one person, if the murderer then kills 4 people he’d be responsible for it, not you”.
The St. Maria Goretti story is often seen as proof that the saintly course of action is to refuse to sin sexually even if that means you will die. That even if Catholics aren’t obligated to follow her example, that is optimal. I also recall the case of a martyr saint who tricked a Roman soldier into beheading her instead of raping her.
A
AveOTheotokos
Guest
My problem with the rape analogy, as I stated before, is that the rape victim’s “choice” is not between her actions, but just her preference of victimization. The fault lies only with the aggressor.
With the OP’s scenario, the choice is between victimization (family and self being killed) or becoming a co-operator in evil and killing someone else. It is a choice to do evil to avoid harm or refusing to do evil and potentially being murdered.
The analogy is flawed because the rape victim is not choosing to act out a morally evil act to prevent an arguably worse evil act. The rape victim is a victim either way and the fault lies with the aggressor. In the OP’s scenario, the victim has the potential to act out a moral evil and inflict death on another person to avoid being victimized themselves. For this reason, it is flawed and the two situations are not really analogous.
With the OP’s scenario, the choice is between victimization (family and self being killed) or becoming a co-operator in evil and killing someone else. It is a choice to do evil to avoid harm or refusing to do evil and potentially being murdered.
The analogy is flawed because the rape victim is not choosing to act out a morally evil act to prevent an arguably worse evil act. The rape victim is a victim either way and the fault lies with the aggressor. In the OP’s scenario, the victim has the potential to act out a moral evil and inflict death on another person to avoid being victimized themselves. For this reason, it is flawed and the two situations are not really analogous.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
There are cases of rape that involve the perpetrator demand that the victim perform oral sex to completion - a morally evil act per Catholic morality. This is an act that requires the victim to actively participate, not merely lie back and think of the loved one they are hopefully protecting.
Or what about the classic “quid pro quo” scenario, where a boss demands a woman perform sex acts on him, otherwise he will get her fired? The boss does not have a gun to the woman’s head, he’s not even threatening to hurt anyone. Merely get her fired. Would you find the woman to be sinning if she submits, even if getting fired would leave her destitute?
No, I think you are assuming that performing illicit sex acts is obviously a lesser evil than performing murder. But that the murder of one person is not obviously a lesser evil compared to murdering 4 people.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
PS: I can also think of a case that involved a man kidnapping a woman and raping her. The victim was interviewed for a “true crime” documentary show, and stated that she was indeed raped the first day of the ordeal. But she also stated that later on, hoping to get the man to trust her, and give her more of a chance to escape, that “I consented” to having sex with him.
Now, I don’t remember if the man actually wound up being tried for rape, or just for kidnapping. But anyway, would you say that this woman sinned when she consented to sex with her kidnapper? I think many would think that if (1) it doesn’t matter if she thinks she consented, she really didn’t or that (2) even she did sin, it was only venial, but it seems that again, using some of the benchmarks mentioned here, that some would state it was a mortal sin to engage in illicit sex to merely throw the kidnapper off his guard.
Now, I don’t remember if the man actually wound up being tried for rape, or just for kidnapping. But anyway, would you say that this woman sinned when she consented to sex with her kidnapper? I think many would think that if (1) it doesn’t matter if she thinks she consented, she really didn’t or that (2) even she did sin, it was only venial, but it seems that again, using some of the benchmarks mentioned here, that some would state it was a mortal sin to engage in illicit sex to merely throw the kidnapper off his guard.
A
AveOTheotokos
Guest
No matter what the victim does or “chooses”, they are being victimized. They are not acting out evil that is causing someone else to be a victim, but are just enduring the victimization, suffering, and torture of their aggressor. Resistance does not necessarily even prevent the act from happening.
To compromise your morals for financial security of the future would be wrong. There is not an immediate threat of death or immediate duress. Many people around the world live jobless, homeless, and are forced to beg. While not an easy, enjoyable, or ideal lifestyle, it is still life. We must always remember the temporal nature of this world. We should never place the priority of building up earthly treasures above building up our spiritual treasures.
This shows that you are the one who is assuming. I never stated any of the above and you have simply assumed that is my train of thought.
The rape victim is not being given a choice to choose between the morality of performing sex acts or performing murder. Their choice is be raped or be murdered. They are the victim, not the aggressor. Rape victims are not choosing anything, and the illusion of choice in the scenario is only just a further twisted and sick part of the aggressors already disordered actions.
The OP scenario is not about choosing whether one person being murder is a lesser evil compared to four people being murdered. It is about choosing whether YOU murder someone or you choose not to.
If four (or 2 or 7 or how ever many people are in your family) people are murdered because you refuse to perform murder, that sin is purely on the aggressor.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
But AFAIK, the Catholic definition of “evil” goes far beyond “causing someone else to be a victim”. If that was the definition, then consensual sex acts, drug abuse, etc., wouldn’t even be an issue, since they do not cause “someone else to be a victim”. (And St. Maria Goretti would be an idiot, not a saint.)
I also noticed that you did not address the case of the rapist who got his victim to cooperate, not by threatening her with physical harm, but by threatening her child with harm. That I think is the most appropriate analogy to the OP’s scenario.
I agree, but if this was the case all prostitutes would be guilty of mortal sin, and the only exception would be those who are literally kidnapped into sexual slavery. But AFAIK the Church does NOT reach that.
Again, what about the scenario of a rapist threatening to harm his victim’s child? If the victim hadn’t capitulated, but, say, had fought back, only to be overpowered, or had run away and called the police, and the rapist had followed through on his threat. Would she be at all responsible for his sick actions?
I agree that there is only the illusion of choice in this scenario. But I would also say that is the case for the OP’s scenario.
A
AveOTheotokos
Guest
My response to this scenario would be similar to my response in posts #33 and #34.
It is ultimately something that would need to be worked through by the victim with their confessor/spiritual advisor/counselor/etc… along with prayer. We cannot judge the morality or state of grace of someone because we are not omniscient, but we can judge the morality of an act.
Sexual acts outside of their proper context within marriage are morally evil acts, but as I posted before from the catechism:
We can never know the exact circumstance, the consequences, real or perceived, nor can we ever know the exact interior condition of the victims heart, so we cannot definitively declare the level/state of sinfulness of the victim.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
I completely agree with that, BUT I would also apply this to the victim in the original scenario.
And while I can’t think of any real life scenarios that completely mirror the OP. I can think of cases where a bank manager helped bank robbers to rob the bank she worked at, because they were holding her family hostage. She was actually almost arrested herself, though in the end the authorities decided to let her go. I believe she was fired, or at least demoted, from her job however.
Then there was the case of the man who robbed a bank with a bomb strapped around his neck. Interestingly, although he claimed to be a completely innocent victim, who was coerced to commit the crime, the people who had strapped the bomb around his neck claimed he had actually been complicit in the crime and he actually wanted to use the bomb as a way to get off scot-free by claiming he was coerced. But I’m not sure if I believe them, either.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Douglas_Wells
- Status