You have to remember that these are children and their understanding would have been limited. The Church isn’t honoring them because they are saying that is what is expected of everyone in this type of situation, the church is honoring them for the purity of their intention, with the understanding of sin they would have had at that age, to put an offense against God over and above their own life.That seems rather strange to me. Replace rape with something like theft: is a robbery victim exercising heroic virtue when he fights back against an armed mugger, since he’s “not allowing a sin against the 7th Commandment, even under threat of death”? No. He’s gambling with his life over something of infinitely lesser value. Most people would call that stupidity.
Thinking that you are “allowing” a sin against chastity to occur if you don’t refuse your potential rapist doesn’t strike me as particularly mature. Like you indicated, the recognition is probably based more on intention than anything else.there are little children who by reason of their virtues are very mature.”
Well, their thinking wouldn’t be particularly mature because they are children and children tend to think in very black and white terms. They don’t have the understanding of all the nuance of thinking the whole thing through. Children are simply taught what actions are sins and that we shouldn’t commit sin because it’s an offense against a God who is good. That’s what they understand.Thinking that you are “allowing” a sin against chastity to occur if you don’t refuse your potential rapist doesn’t strike me as particularly mature. Like you indicated, the recognition is probably based more on intention than anything else.
The intention might be pure, but I still wouldn’t look at it as a sign of mature faith. That implies people who do “give in” don’t love God as much.However, the maturity in these cases comes in when, under normal circumstances, most children and adults would give in out of fear for their life, that these children chose not to give in despite the threat because of their love for God, in that in their understanding, it’s just wrong to sin period.
This is the definition of rape in the Catholic Dictionary. It is a chastity issue for the one committing rape. The rapist is violating someone else’s chastity.Rape is not a chastity issue. It’s a violence issue. So is the murder that occurred.
In both Anna K and Maria Goretti’s cases the perpetrators ended up murdering them, so I’m struggling to see the whole “didn’t get to rape” thing as much of a win.This is the definition of rape in the Catholic Dictionary. It is a chastity issue for the one committing rape. The rapist is violating someone else’s chastity.
This is true. It does not keep them in a state of grace.Also, the intent to steal/murder/rape is still present in the perpetrator’s heart regardless of whether or not they are thwarted by their intended victim, so it’s not like the interference keeps them in a state of grace or whatever.
Yes. It would be. But in these cases, rather than physical force, it was moral force that was being used against them. They are in a position to consent (even if they can’t freely consent because of the threat) and despite that, they still refused.This would still be rape.
It just means they didn’t go above and beyond what love requires for the sake of their love for God. It doesn’t mean they don’t love God very much or that God faults them if they give in.That implies people who do “give in” don’t love God as much.
No but given the time, culture and circumstances she lived in, her understanding was probably not as advanced as a 16 yr old’s today would be. I certainly understand things better and in more detail now than I did when I was 16.Not to mention Anna K was 16 when she died, so she didn’t probably didn’t have a child’s mindset with regard to the issue.
A win for who?In both Anna K and Maria Goretti’s cases the perpetrators ended up murdering them, so I’m struggling to see the whole “didn’t get to rape” thing as much of a win.
So, basically they don’t love God as much as people who resist. That’s the argument.It just means they didn’t go above and beyond what love requires for the sake of love their love for God.
Please quit saying “are you suggesting” because I’m only going by my understanding of how the Church views these things.So are you suggesting one should choose to be murdered rather than raped to save the rapist from comitting a sin against chastity and comitt a sin against murder instead?
This sounds like nonsense to me.
For the perpetrator’s salvation.A win for who?
I’m not sure what you are saying here. If there is a threat of violence or death, then you cannot consent with full freedom of your will.here is no such thing as non-free-consent.
I also think that rape is typically easier than murderer, so that the fact that the perpetrator successfully murdered the victim demonstrates that he could also probably have successfully committed rape. (This is particularly clear in the Maria Goretti case.)In both Anna K and Maria Goretti’s cases the perpetrators ended up murdering them, so I’m struggling to see the whole “didn’t get to rape” thing as much of a win.
Don’t you believe there are degrees of love and that someone can go beyond what is required by ordinary virtue to show that love to somone? In this case, God?So, basically they don’t love God as people who resist. That’s the argument.
I don’t believe a mature person who thinks “this isn’t worth losing my life over” is any less virtuous than a naive kid who thinks “if I don’t resist, someone’s going to hell.” Remember my robbery example? I consider resisting a rapist (as opposed to “letting” yourself get raped) to not be that far removed from resisting a thief (as opposed to “letting” yourself get robbed).Don’t you believe there are degrees of love and that someone can go beyond what is required by ordinary virtue to show that love to somone? In this case, God?