Rape and Contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sandi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DarkNight said:
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)
Click to expand...
Googling that I’ve found the same citation in various places…all of which is AP reporting that Monsignor responded with the words they put in quotes…all good and fine…except…

I am having a difficult time finding that April 13 article and the rest of the interview with Monsignor. One sentence does not an accurate picture paint of the entire interview nor the Vatican’s position at that time.

I’m also looking for news about this situation in the 60’s with nuns, rape and the Vatican…so far no luck…do you know where I can find out more about what happened back then?

As for the Monsignor’s statement in context of the articles in which it is used, it seems to be in response to the UN including the morning-after pill to the rape victims of Kosovo. The authors of the articles like to follow that statement with the use of contraceptives in the Congo in the 60’s as if they’re comparing apples to apples.

They are not.
The morning-after pill did not exist in the 60’s.
The morning-after pill is not just a contraceptive - it is an abortifacient first and foremost.

The Monsignor appears to be making that distinction, though not very clearly with that one statement, I concede. But that’s not to say he didn’t explain his statement further and the AP reporter chose not to include that part of the conversation (which is most likely the case).

Reading previous poster’s references to the USCCB position on authorized use of medicines pre-conception after rape it is clear the Church uses conception as the key marker for any further options - always being opposed to anything which affects an already conceived life.

Without knowing what the situation was in the 60s with the nuns and what precisely the vatican authorized in the way of contraceptive distributions back then it is difficult to debate the differences between that situation and the Balkan crisis.

Also, it is possible, and most likely, that since the 60s - when contraceptives were new to the world community - the Church, as she progressed in studying the issue grew in her understanding of the ramifications of such medicines which enabled her to change her procedure in the Congo (assuming contraceptives **were **distributed with Vatican approval and eventually stopped being distributed at some point - hard to tell right now as I can’t find any stories online yet about what happened).
 
To TantumErgo (Post #18) - “The question of nuns taking the Pill as a defence in trouble spots around the world was openly authorised long ago in the case of the Congo by Cardinal Pietro Palazzini - even if the Pope’s authorisation of the prelate himself was never publicised.”
( 2nd article - The Telegraph - Sunday, 28 April 1996 christusrex.org/www2/news-old/es4-28-96.html)

The Vatican did not openly publicise the authorization at the time.
Today, the Vatican does not deny the authorization was made.
There have been many statements by Vatican officials regarding the legitimate use of contraceptives to defend against rape. The Vatican is not trying to hide this use. They are, in fact, addressing some very serious situations.
“NUNS working in dangerous areas and mentally handicapped women may be given the contraceptive Pill as a defence against rape, a leading Vatican theologian has said.” & “Contraception is morally illicit when it accompanies a desired sexual act, but when a sexual act is imposed, and not wanted, then contraception represents the only form of protection.”
(2nd article - The Telegraph - Sunday, 28 April 1996 christusrex.org/www2/news-old/es4-28-96.html)

The reality of living is not black and white.
Just many different shades of grey.

Go with Love, Go with God!
 
DarkNight said:
According to the actions of the Vatican, contraception is NOT always considered wrong…
Click to expand...
According to the “actions?” So when past pope’s have sired illegitimate children, should we also conclude that according to their “actions” that it should be considered OK according to Catholic doctrine?
 
DarkNight said:
To TantumErgo (Post #18) - “The question of nuns taking the Pill as a defence in trouble spots around the world was openly authorised long ago in the case of the Congo by Cardinal Pietro Palazzini - even if the Pope’s authorisation of the prelate himself was never publicised.”
( 2nd article - The Telegraph - Sunday, 28 April 1996 christusrex.org/www2/news-old/es4-28-96.html)

The Vatican did not openly publicise the authorization at the time.
Today, the Vatican does not deny the authorization was made.
There have been many statements by Vatican officials regarding the legitimate use of contraceptives to defend against rape. The Vatican is not trying to hide this use. They are, in fact, addressing some very serious situations.
“NUNS working in dangerous areas and mentally handicapped women may be given the contraceptive Pill as a defence against rape, a leading Vatican theologian has said.” & “Contraception is morally illicit when it accompanies a desired sexual act, but when a sexual act is imposed, and not wanted, then contraception represents the only form of protection.”
(2nd article - The Telegraph - Sunday, 28 April 1996 christusrex.org/www2/news-old/es4-28-96.html)

The reality of living is not black and white.
Just many different shades of grey.

Go with Love, Go with God!
Click to expand...
The reality is that contraceptive acts are always evil. The reality is that medicines used to repel an unjust aggressor are not contraceptive acts. What do you disagree with?
 
fix said:
The reality is that contraceptive acts are always evil. The reality is that medicines used to repel an unjust aggressor are not contraceptive acts. What do you disagree with?
Click to expand...
Significant distinction.
Thanks for pointing it out. 👍
 
Why Can’t We Love Them Both?

Pregnant from rape?
Why not abort her?
First it is important to define terms. This issue concerns assault, or forcible, rape, not consensual, not marital rape. In recent years semantics have muddied the water, particularly regarding “date rape.”
Rape is the forcible imposition of a man on a woman for sexual intercourse. Whether it occurs behind the bushes or on a date, it should be reported to the police and charges filed. (College students, are you listening?)

more…
 
YinYangMom said:
Significant distinction.
Thanks for pointing it out. 👍
Click to expand...
After someone at this site educated me about the topic I have tried to inform myself more. It is hard to find articles that discuss the issue in depth.

  1. *]Since the sperm in the case of rape is the result of unjust aggression, steps may be taken to prevent conception and that may include treatment of the victim with medications which prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization.

    *]Any medical procedure, the purpose and/or effect of which is abortive, is never permissible. This includes any treatment which has as its purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.
    Hygienic procedures, including vaginal douching, are morally permitted since they are not abortifacient in effect…
Click to expand...

  1. Guidelines for Catholic Hospitals
    Click to expand...
    Code: 
     **[Treating Victims of Sexual Assault](http://www.pacatholic.org/bishops%27%20statements/guidelines.htm)**
    Click to expand...
 
The link above ( post #26) didn’t work for me so I found it here.

What are the authors saying here:
This issue concerns assault, or forcible, rape, not consensual, not marital rape.
Click to expand...
There is an implication that marital rape is somehow consensual or not forcible or assault. Am I reading it wrong?
 
Just an FYI. Contraception or contraceptive acts are not what is forbidden. Using artificial contraception is what is forbidden. NFP is allowed for grave reasons to limit the number of children, and NFP is contraception. The pill, condoms, diaphragms, Norplant, etc. are forbidden because they deliberately interfere with God’s plan for life.

Peace,
Linda
 
No pressure…
but I’m still waiting for the answer about ‘marital rape’…
that was a good catch by Bruised Reed and has my curiosity peaked…

still trying to find reference to the distinction via vatican/usccb/catholic sites…

so far not so good…I find lots of articles by pro-choice organizations slamming the church for it’s policy of rejecting marital rape as on offense against women, but hey, that’s no surprise…

even on those links they don’t cite where they got that impression (that would be a great help in my search, but nope)…
 
YinYangMom said:
No pressure…
but I’m still waiting for the answer about ‘marital rape’…
that was a good catch by Bruised Reed and has my curiosity peaked…

still trying to find reference to the distinction via vatican/usccb/catholic sites…

so far not so good…
Click to expand...
Actually a man and woman must make themselves available whether they be in the mood or not. That is the essence of marriage - self giving and self donation.
 
buffalo said:
Actually a man and woman must make themselves available whether they be in the mood or not. That is the essence of marriage - self giving and self donation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think most of us here get that ‘mood’ is not a qualifier for determining whether or not a marital act is ‘rape’…but certainly you aren’t suggesting there is no such thing as marital rape?

What I’m finding in my search of documents is that the Catholic church is behind much of the legislative push around the world for making marital rape a crime (particularly in Mexico) with prison sentences as a consequence…

which does affirm that the Catholic Church recognizes a distinction between self-giving/donating marital relations and marital rape…

I’m trying to find out where that distinction lies in the teaching of the church…

if anyone would like to help here’s something I just came across:

From the USCCB When I Call for Help: A Pastoral Response to Domestic Violence Against Women

“Some examples of domestic abuse include battering, name-calling and insults, threats to kill or harm one’s partner or children, destruction of property, marital rape, and forced sterilization or abortion.8”

I then scrolled down to the footnotes and picked up these references which I’m about to explore:

8 In regard to sexual abuse, see Catechism of the Catholic Church (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2000), no. 2356;

The Gospel of Life, nos. 3, 23 and 99;

and Pope John Paul II’s "Letter to Women no. 5,

and “Welcome to Gertrude Mongella, Secretary General of the Fourth World Conference on Women,” no. 7, in Pope John Paul II on The Genius of Women (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1997).

In regard to verbal abuse, see Catechism nos. 2477, 2479, 2482-2487, and 2507-2509.
 
YinYangMom said:
Yeah, I think most of us here get that ‘mood’ is not a qualifier for determining whether or not a marital act is ‘rape’…but certainly you aren’t suggesting there is no such thing as marital rape?

What I’m finding in my search of documents is that the Catholic church is behind much of the legislative push around the world for making marital rape a crime (particularly in Mexico) with prison sentences as a consequence…

which does affirm that the Catholic Church recognizes a distinction between self-giving/donating marital relations and marital rape…

I’m trying to find out where that distinction lies in the teaching of the church…

if anyone would like to help here’s something I just came across:

From the USCCB When I Call for Help: A Pastoral Response to Domestic Violence Against Women

“Some examples of domestic abuse include battering, name-calling and insults, threats to kill or harm one’s partner or children, destruction of property, marital rape, and forced sterilization or abortion.8”

I then scrolled down to the footnotes and picked up these references which I’m about to explore:

8 In regard to sexual abuse, see Catechism of the Catholic Church (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2000), no. 2356;

The Gospel of Life, nos. 3, 23 and 99;

and Pope John Paul II’s "Letter to Women no. 5,

and “Welcome to Gertrude Mongella, Secretary General of the Fourth World Conference on Women,” no. 7, in Pope John Paul II on The Genius of Women (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1997).

In regard to verbal abuse, see Catechism nos. 2477, 2479, 2482-2487, and 2507-2509.
Click to expand...
No, there is marital rape. Just wanted to be clear.
 
buffalo said:
No, there is marital rape. Just wanted to be clear.
Click to expand...
Oh, good. I really would have been shocked if you had responded differently.

I don’t get why it’s so difficult to find any writing from the Church on the subject though. I thought Googling ‘marital rape Catholic’ would have turned up some Catholic source documents along with the feminist stuff floating about, but no…

considering the Church is named in several articles as backers of legislation against marital rape you’d think we’d at least be able to find the source documents the Church wrote (or interviews/speeches perhaps) which address the topic…

I’m miffed… :confused:
 
and Pope John Paul II’s "Letter to Women no. 5,

The Catechism was about rape in general.

The Gospel of Life didn’t address marital rape but other injustices, it seemed to me.

But this Letter to Women is interesting:

"5. Then too, when we look at one of the most sensitive aspects of the situation of women in the world, how can we not mention the long and degrading history, albeit often an “underground” history, of violence against women in the area of sexuality? At the threshold of the Third Millennium we cannot remain indifferent and resigned before this phenomenon. The time has come to condemn vigorously the types of *sexual violence *which frequently have women for their object and to pass laws which effectively defend them from such violence. Nor can we fail, in the name of the respect due to the human person, to condemn the widespread hedonistic and commercial culture which encourages the systematic exploitation of sexuality and corrupts even very young girls into letting their bodies be used for profit.

In contrast to these sorts of perversion, what great appreciation must be shown to those women who, with a heroic love for the child they have conceived, proceed with a pregnancy resulting from the injustice of rape. Here we are thinking of atrocities perpetrated not only in situations of war, still so common in the world, but also in societies which are blessed by prosperity and peace and yet are often corrupted by a culture of hedonistic permissiveness which aggravates tendencies to aggressive male behaviour. In these cases the choice to have an abortion always remains a grave sin. But before being something to blame on the woman, it is a crime for which guilt needs to be attributed to men and to the complicity of the general social environment."
 
buffalo said:
**It may fall under legitimate defense. **

Contraception & Extra-Marital Sex
Click to expand...
THE TELEGRAPH - Sunday, 28 April 1996

Nuns at risk of rape can take the Pill, says Rome

**By Bruce Johnston in Rome **

Ah, finally something in print about the ROME’s ruling (not necessarily the Pope’s)! THANKS! Good ol’ Jimmy! 👍

Which gets us back on topic…
interesting how that article speaks about Rome theologians and the Pope ‘side-stepping’ the issue…
What do you make of that?
 
So, at least the Telegraph gives us the names of the cardinals, both in 1996 and in the 1960s, who supposedly “authorized” the use of the contraceptive pill.

So it was not “from the Vatican” and, in fact, John Paul in 1996 (as well as Paul VI in the 60s) did not address the issue other than supposedly to leave it to ‘individual conscience’, and that LAST is of course hearsay because it is only a verbal report that either Pope said this, and in regards to what, and with who knows what information or MISinformation given to him.

Which is about what I thought in the first place.
 
LindaS said:
Just an FYI. Contraception or contraceptive acts are not what is forbidden.
Click to expand...
Actually, they are always forbidden.
Using artificial contraception is what is forbidden. NFP is allowed for grave reasons to limit the number of children, and NFP is contraception. The pill, condoms, diaphragms, Norplant, etc. are forbidden because they deliberately interfere with God’s plan for life.
Click to expand...
Peace,
Linda
Click to expand...
NFP is not contraception. The distinction is important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top