Rape and Contraception

[Sandi]

What is the Church’s stand when it comes to the question of contraception during the commission of rape?

What I mean is, if a woman who is about to be raped notices the attacker intends to use a condom, would she be morally responsible to ask him to not use it so the act of forcible sexual intercourse would be open to the transmission of life? (And unfortunately, also open to the transmission of disease) If she doesn’t, is she sinning?

It hardly seems right that a woman being so assaulted should be held responsible to also make sure that an attack against her person should conform to the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception when her own rights and safety are being wantonly violated by a rapist.

It also seems fair that she has a right to self-defense which would be constituted by the rapist’s decision to use a condom, since it would protect her from disease, some of which are life-threatening or fatal.

 

[Island_Oak]

What is the Church’s stand when it comes to the question of contraception during the commission of rape?

What I mean is, if a woman who is about to be raped notices the attacker intends to use a condom, would she be morally responsible to ask him to not use it so the act of forcible sexual intercourse would be open to the transmission of life? (And unfortunately, also open to the transmission of disease) If she doesn’t, is she sinning?

It hardly seems right that a woman being so assaulted should be held responsible to also make sure that an attack against her person should conform to the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception when her own rights and safety are being wantonly violated by a rapist.

It also seems fair that she has a right to self-defense which would be constituted by the rapist’s decision to use a condom, since it would protect her from disease, some of which are life-threatening or fatal.

There are many exisiting threads which discuss this at length. And despite the seemingly ridiculous suggestion posed in your question, it is worth reminding folks rape is not a consensual, sexual union. It a forcible physical attack. Thus, a woman overpowered by a man has no culpability for what evil the man inflicts upon her–whether it could be cast as fornication, birth control, sodomy, etc. were the acts voluntary.

As to the right to self defense, this is recognized by the church as well, which is why women who are raped are given permission to use emergency contraception after the attack for purposes of preventing ovulation and thus a pregnancy that might occur from the attack.

 

[HailMary]

There are many exisiting threads which discuss this at length. And despite the seemingly ridiculous suggestion posed in your question, it is worth reminding folks rape is not a consensual, sexual union. It a forcible physical attack. Thus, a woman overpowered by a man has no culpability for what evil the man inflicts upon her–whether it could be cast as fornication, birth control, sodomy, etc. were the acts voluntary.

As to the right to self defense, this is recognized by the church as well, which is why women who are raped are given permission to use emergency contraception after the attack for purposes of preventing ovulation and thus a pregnancy that might occur from the attack.

Really? Where can I read more about this? Please provide any resources you have. Thank you.

 

[Island_Oak]

Check the archives of these forums. There are numerous threads and citations within them. Or wait 10 minutes…

 

[Sandi]

**ridiculous suggestion **

What was ridiculous? And that is a very unkind, uncharitable way to respond to an honest question.

It’s a genuine inquiry since I’m not Catholic (which you’d know if you check my profile) and I have no way of knowing what the Church’s teaching on this would be.

Your words are very offensive.

 

[fix]

Really? Where can I read more about this? Please provide any resources you have. Thank you.

We should define these things. Contraception is always wrong. Medications that prevent ovulation post rape may be licit depending on certain variables.

The difference between using such drugs is the difference between repelling an unjust aggressor and taking a pill to contracept. I do not know if I am making this clear or not but you can read some about it here:

Fact Sheet
Emergency Contraception and Treatment
of Victims of Sexual Assault

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.2

Hospitals should develop appropriate protocols to determine whether administering emergency contraception would have an abortifacient effect. Tests are available to determine whether ovulation has occurred.3

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It is on the usccb.org site or linked to it, that is my memory. It may be this site but the company system blocks the site so I am not sure.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html

My memory is if a woman has been raped and is NOT known to have conceived she can take treatments to flush out all things possible to prevent various diseases and such.

 

[Island_Oak]

**ridiculous suggestion **

What was ridiculous? And that is a very unkind, uncharitable way to respond to an honest question.

It’s a genuine inquiry since I’m not Catholic (which you’d know if you check my profile) and I have no way of knowing what the Church’s teaching on this would be.

Your words are very offensive.

NOTE: THE ** ACTUAL** RESPONSE SAID “SEEMINGLY ridiculous”–meaning other than ridiculous /or/ not as obvious as it might appear upon first impression…

…and just to be perfectly clear: in this context I meant to **affirm **your concern that no one could/should/ever hold a violated woman morally culpable–YET ACKNOWLEDGING that as obvious as this SHOULD BE, people do. My comment goes on to say it is “worthwhile” to disabuse people of this tendency and REMIND them that rape is violence, not consensual sex.

We’re on the same page here. Nothing uncharitable or offensive written, intended nor reasonably deduced with a careful read.

 

[Seatuck]

What is the Church’s stand when it comes to the question of contraception during the commission of rape?

What I mean is, if a woman who is about to be raped notices the attacker intends to use a condom, would she be morally responsible to ask him to not use it so the act of forcible sexual intercourse would be open to the transmission of life? (And unfortunately, also open to the transmission of disease) If she doesn’t, is she sinning?

It hardly seems right that a woman being so assaulted should be held responsible to also make sure that an attack against her person should conform to the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception when her own rights and safety are being wantonly violated by a rapist.

It also seems fair that she has a right to self-defense which would be constituted by the rapist’s decision to use a condom, since it would protect her from disease, some of which are life-threatening or fatal.

No she would not be morally responsible to convince her rapist to take off a condom. This is not consensual sex. She is allowed to protect herself from conception. See the medical directives .

nccbuscc.org/bishops/directives.shtml

Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.19

 

[Neo_Canaan]

We wouldn’t be having stuff like that if there was no sex.

 

[fix]

We wouldn’t be having stuff like that if there was no sex.

What does that mean?

 

[Orionthehunter]

What does that mean?

Neo Canaan thinks that sex shouldn’t exist despite it being a direct gift from God as it was He who tells us to be fruitful and multiply.

 

[fix]

Neo Canaan thinks that sex shouldn’t exist despite it being a direct gift from God as it was He who tells us to be fruitful and multiply.

Really? How do we come to such a conclusion?

 

[DarkNight]

According to the actions of the Vatican, contraception is NOT always considered wrong.
In the 1960’s, they distributed contraceptives to nuns in the Congo. The Vatican stated it was a legitimate defense against the possibility of rape. (“The Man Behind the Curtain - Pope John Paul” findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_4_59/ai_55100722 - reference is at bottom of page 1. For other references - use Google with keywords Nuns, Contraceptives, Congo)

The rules, unfortunately, are never simple and straightforward.
Go with Love, Go with God!

 

[fix]

According to the actions of the Vatican, contraception is NOT always considered wrong.
In the 1960’s, they distributed contraceptives to nuns in the Congo. The Vatican stated it was a legitimate defense against the possibility of rape. (“The Man Behind the Curtain - Pope John Paul” findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_4_59/ai_55100722 - reference is at bottom of page 1. For other references - use Google with keywords Nuns, Contraceptives, Congo)

The rules, unfortunately, are never simple and straightforward.
Go with Love, Go with God!

Contraception is intrinsically evil. It is always wrong. Repelling an unjust aggressor is a different moral issue.

 

[DarkNight]

To FIX (post #15) - your belief that “contraception is intrinsically evil” and “always wrong” does not alter the facts.
The Vatican did distribute contraceptives to nuns in the Congo.
Vatican official Monsignor Ello Sgreccia did call it a “legitimate defense” against rape.

These are facts.
They shift the question from a simple black & white answer into the shades of grey.

Go with Love, Go with God!

 

[fix]

To FIX (post #15) - your belief that “contraception is intrinsically evil” and “always wrong” does not alter the facts.
The Vatican did distribute contraceptives to nuns in the Congo.
Vatican official Monsignor Ello Sgreccia did call it a “legitimate defense” against rape.

These are facts.
They shift the question from a simple black & white answer into the shades of grey.

Go with Love, Go with God!

It is not my private belief it is Church teaching hence it is God’s teaching. This is known from the natural moral law.

Medications used to prevent an unjust attack are not contraceptive acts.
Contraceptive acts are always wrong.

Medicines are not good or evil. Acts are good, evil, or neutral. So the action of certain medications are not necessarily evil as in taking ovulation suppressants to prevent an unjust aggressor.

What do you disgaree with?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Show me the document FROM THE VATICAN that okayed the distribution of contraceptives to nuns in the Congo in the 1960s–because that article was nothing but hearsay.

 

[fix]

Show me the document FROM THE VATICAN that okayed the distribution of contraceptives to nuns in the Congo in the 1960s–because that article was nothing but hearsay.

I have seen the allegation several times, but I cannot see how such a thing makes the case contraceptive intercourse is ever licit. Rape is not mutual intercourse.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s a rape. Her first duty is to escape, by whatever means. Disable him, and then immediately run, screaming.

Rapists don’t typically have civilized conversations with their victims, I wouldn’t think.