Rape in marriage possible?

[Bookcat]

@Bookcat
I cited this to refer to, that the contraceptive methods can be seen as a type of defense. Though of course there is formulation mistake. Fending of the attackers sperm is a self defense act.

You are right, that inside marriage the situation might be different, especially since contraception inside marriage is named an intrinsic evil by church. But it might be that it was meant in reference to normal marriage relationship and nobody had that extreme abonimation in mind.

.

Such would still be a contraceptive act not an act of “self defense”. While one might suggest forms of self-defense in terms of the sexual "assault"or “violence”… (the terms I would use really here) of one spouse on another via acts of force and violence. The sperm are rightfully there They are acting according to their rights (hee hee)…swimming towards the egg of the wife as the sperm of the husband. They are not doing any violence.

 

[Bookcat]

@Warrior1979

You imply that if a wife due to grave reasons says “no” and the husband enforces intercourse, that that is legal according to church teaching. Why?
She must say “no” if there are grave reasons and he must then calm himself.

I do not think he is saying such at all.

He is referring to the term used.

Aside from the common use that the terms sometimes get.

Technically it is not “rape” any more than “adultery” is “fornication”.

It is *still violence *…one could call it “sexual assault” …and should never ever happen.

Of course violence of any kind should be far from any marriage!!!

 

[Personanongrata]

As PatriceA noted, yes, rape is possible, and does occur, in marriages.

How exactly are you seeing contraception as a self-defense against rape? That does not defend against rape, it only acts to prevent conception. Self-defense against rape would be to prevent to attacker from actually harming the would-be victim (fighting, a gun, a swift kick to the groin, running away, keeping ones distance if posible, etc…). A person can be using contraception and still become a rape victim.

I also voted “none of the above” because you seem to be confused that contraception is a means of self-defense and that reads into your options. Contracepetion is not a defense against anything. It cannot prevent a physical attack from happening. It can only prevent conception.

Contraception is a moral evil and you cannot justify using evil to prevent the affects (conception) of another evil (rape within a marriage).

I disagree. If for some reason, I could not leave a situation where a man could rape me at his will, I would do my best to be on some form of artificial birth control. At that time, the most important thing to concentrate on would be to remove myself from a horrible place. And yes it would be important NOT to bring a life into the world. If I can’t take care of myself, how could I possibly take care of a child???

 

[Warrior1979]

@Warrior1979

You imply that if a wife due to grave reasons says “no” and the husband enforces intercourse, that that is legal according to church teaching. Why?
She must say “no” if there are grave reasons and he must then calm himself.

I didn’t imply anything. Whether something is considered “rape” depends what the definition of “rape” is. Sometimes it is defined as any sexual assault, sometimes it is defined as only sexual assaults outside of marriage. If there is not a common definition, you get what you see in this thread…everyone using a different definition and arguing from a different viewpoint, and coming up with unfounded implications.

Just because something is or isn’t defined as “rape” does not make it acceptable. It is still a sexual assault. It could, however, make a difference in a court depending on the legal definition in that venue.

 

[EasterJoy]

If the law is written in a just manner, then rape would be defined to so that forcible sexual assault is criminal, including assault on one’s spouse.

Just as consent is deemed impossible for an underage person, the parameters of what consititutes consent might rightly differ from a spouse than for a non-spouse, but the law has to be written so that a person (male or female) can refuse to be violated sexually, even when their assailant is a spouse with marital priveleges.

 

[Bookcat]

If the law is written in a just manner, then rape would be defined to so that forcible sexual assault is criminal, including assault on one’s spouse.

As sexual assault and violence perhaps… but not calling it “rape”.

Just as sexual intercourse of a married person with an unmarried person is adultery not fornication.

In any case the name is not the main point. The main point is that such is an act of violence towards ones spouse.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Ok, since nobody is willing to read the other 5 page thread, lets get into detail, although not nice:

A rape includes among other things the following actions by the rapist and each of them individually the women did not gave her consent and would prefer them not to happen:

-the rapist touches the women
-the rapist forces his penis into her vagina
-the rapist ejaculates his sperm into her in such way, that it can travel into the uterus or further

One could list a few more things.

If a women hits an rapist unconcious while he is trying to enter her, her action did not prevent the first, she still got touched. Does this make it a non-defensive action?
No.

The same for barrier contraception. It does not help with the first two things, but certainly with the last. And she doesnt want to have his sperm in her uterus, so why shouldn’t she defend against this?

Women are capable of raping men, also women are capable of raping women and men are capable of raping men.

 

[centurionguard]

Your poll options don’t offer the choice I would choose, so I did not vote.

Rape in marriage is possible. Abusive spouses should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Contraception has nothing to do with rape.

Totally Agree

I don’t even no why there’s an argument when the answer is obvious.

 

[centurionguard]

The answer lies in the definition of “rape.” If it is simply defined as sexual assault, then the answer is “yes.” If the definition includes or implies “unlawful sexual relations,” then the answer might be “no,” since sexual relations between husband and wife are by default lawful.

Lawful yes. But should sex become non-consensual between one of the two couples in marriage, a husband for example can’t force himself on his wife.

This is where the ramifications on secular law tends fain or ill define itself in legal jargon between consensual sexual relations with married couples. Its always automatically assumed.

 

[thistle]

Berrier contraceptive, e.g. diaphragm, hinder the sperm getting to the uterus or further.
As rape victim does not want to have the attackers sperm there and as a diaphragm might achieve this, it is a form of defense against part of what happens in a rape. It is not the best form of defense, but not being the best form of defense does not change that it is a defense.

@Bookcat
I cited this to refer to, that the contraceptive methods can be seen as a type of defense. Though of course there is formulation mistake. Fending of the attackers sperm is a self defense act.

You are right, that inside marriage the situation might be different, especially since contraception inside marriage is named an intrinsic evil by church. But it might be that it was meant in reference to normal marriage relationship and nobody had that extreme abonimation in mind. Is church teaching even claiming validity for situations the pope/bishops never thought and never could have conceived when writing the words as long as the words are applicable?

And you are right that violence should be far from marriage. But the difficult cases in regard to laws (and catholic teaching are in a way law) arise, when things are running completly different than the law writers had in mind (though of course church laws to some extent are authored by God who does not have this fault. But i do not think its church teaching that every word must be infallibe in humanum vitae.)

@Warrior1979

You imply that if a wife due to grave reasons says “no” and the husband enforces intercourse, that that is legal according to church teaching. Why?
She must say “no” if there are grave reasons and he must then calm himself.

Did you not read my post #11?

The Church teaching is against everything you are saying. No form of contraception at all is allowed for any reason whether it is prior to any sexual act (consensual or non-consensual) or after a sexual act (consensual or non-consensual), e.g morning after pill.

The US Bishops got it wrong because they did not fully understand what a morning after pill meant and the Vatican clarified it and it is forbidden.

Whether you like it or not that is the Church teaching and the Church does not get it wrong in matters of faith and morals.

 

[white_sheep]

Did you not read my post #11?

The Church teaching is against everything you are saying. No form of contraception at all is allowed for any reason whether it is prior to any sexual act (consensual or non-consensual) or after a sexual act (consensual or non-consensual), e.g morning after pill.

The US Bishops got it wrong because they did not fully understand what a morning after pill meant and the Vatican clarified it and it is forbidden.

Whether you like it or not that is the Church teaching and the Church does not get it wrong in matters of faith and morals.

I think you are wrong.

 

[underacloud]

No form of contraception at all is allowed for any reason whether it is prior to any sexual act (consensual or non-consensual) or after a sexual act (consensual or non-consensual)

The Church does not teach this. The Church has taught that contraception within the marital act is forbidden. Humanae Vitae concerns only marital relations and does not speak one way or the other regarding sex outside of that.

The US Bishops got it wrong because they did not fully understand what a morning after pill meant and the Vatican clarified it and it is forbidden.

Whether you like it or not that is the Church teaching and the Church does not get it wrong in matters of faith and morals.

The Vatican has forbidden the morning after pill because they see it as abortifacient. This is a matter of both science and morals, and some have pointed out that the science is debatable. The faithful are not bound to follow the Church on matters of science. Most interestingly, the fact that the Vatican has attacked the morning after pill on the grounds of it being abortifacient implies that the morals around its use if it were purely contraceptive remain grey.

Moreover, I am yet to see the Church directly teach that contraception as a defense against rape is wrong.

 

[Bookcat]

Aside from the common use that the terms sometimes get.

Technically it is not “rape” any more than “adultery” is “fornication”.

It is *still violence *…one could call it “sexual assault” …and should never ever happen.

Of course violence of any kind should be far from any marriage!!!

 

[thistle]

The Church does not teach this. The Church has taught that contraception within the marital act is forbidden. Humanae Vitae concerns only marital relations and does not speak one way or the other regarding sex outside of that.

The Vatican has forbidden the morning after pill because they see it as abortifacient. This is a matter of both science and morals, and some have pointed out that the science is debatable. The faithful are not bound to follow the Church on matters of science. Most interestingly, the fact that the Vatican has attacked the morning after pill on the grounds of it being abortifacient implies that the morals around its use if it were purely contraceptive remain grey.

Moreover, I am yet to see the Church directly teach that contraception as a defense against rape is wrong.

The Church has made it abundantly clear that contraception is forbidden completely. It cannot be used for birth control. It cannot be used for prevention of HIV or any other disease. It cannot be used against rape to prevent a pregnancy (that is birth control).

 

[severus68]

The answer lies in the definition of “rape.” If it is simply defined as sexual assault, then the answer is “yes.” If the definition includes or implies “unlawful sexual relations,” then the answer might be “no,” since sexual relations between husband and wife are by default lawful.

With respect, I do not think that is accurate. Rape is still called rape under the penal laws in the UK for instance. With the call to see rape as a crime of violence and power rather than a sex crime, Canada for instance now calls rape 'sexual assault". In some places, mostly in the West, forced sex even within a marriage is rape. In some countries, it is only rape if the couple is judicially seperated. I am told that under Islam, there is no such thing as rape in a marriage as a man is entitled to compel his wife. I am not sure if that is a very convenient interpretation of Islamic rules.

Unlawful sexual relations would really refer to crimes of incest, bestiality etc. There can never be force in a Christian marriage.

 

[underacloud]

The Church has made it abundantly clear that contraception is forbidden completely. It cannot be used for birth control. It cannot be used for prevention of HIV or any other disease. It cannot be used against rape to prevent a pregnancy (that is birth control).

Please provide evidence.

As stated, Humanae Vitae only refers to marital sex. What other sources, from the Magisterium, can you offer?

 

[severus68]

Can the crime called rape happen between husband and wife?

The question is not whether enforced sex might happen, but whether it could be maybe dpendeing on circumstances regarded as the crime.

The question arises for me, since many criminal codes prior 1960-70 simply did not punish rape in marriage or assumed whatever happened in marriage not to meet the definition of rape. This was changed in recent decades and today nearly all criminal codes in western countries punish rape in marriage. As i see somewhat a moving away from christian ideas of criminal and other laws from 1960 till today,it might be possiblethat the idea, that rape does not happen in marriage has its roots in some christian thought. Therefore the question.

For the arguments why rape is not term in regard to marriage, one could argue, that by the marriage vow an effective “yes” to reasonable request to intercourse was given already and that therefore a “no” does not count anymore. But even then in case of unreasonable rejected request it would be rape.

So even in this view, rape can happen in marriage.

Your opinion?

And regarding that against rape, self-defense is moral, the question arises whether the full options as in non-martial rape are avaible or not. Specifically i have in mind, that in case of rape non-abortive contraception is not forbidden ( see thies thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=606578&page=6 ). Would this also be true in case of rape in marriage?

While your topic is on rape within marriage, you appear to be more focussed on using contraception in anticipation of or after spousal rape.

 

[Warrior1979]

Please provide evidence.

As stated, Humanae Vitae only refers to marital sex. What other sources, from the Magisterium, can you offer?

FWIW, I believe this is an issue that was addressed by the USCCB that may be in conflict with the Vatican, but the Vatican has not formally addressed the USCCB on the matter. I had read about this a while ago so it may have since been formally addressed.

 

[StarFireKK]

Umm…if the wife has no control over whether or not she has sex, how is she going to have control over whether or not contraception is involved?

She can’t control it during the act.

As for taking something afterwards to prevent conception, I’ve never heard that being the Church’s position.

 

[underacloud]

FWIW, I believe this is an issue that was addressed by the USCCB that may be in conflict with the Vatican, but the Vatican has not formally addressed the USCCB on the matter. I had read about this a while ago so it may have since been formally addressed.

As far as I know, the Vatican has only addressed the issue of the morning after pill, on the basis that it is abortifacient.

If there is a moral issue with using contraception in the case of rape, surely they would have addressed that, rather than focus on whether the morning after pill is abortifacient. The argument around the mechanisms of the morning after pill would be entirely moot if contraception to prevent conception following rape was proscribed.

I will repeat what I said earlier: I am yet to see the Church directly teach that contraception as a defense against rape is wrong.

Of course if I am incorrect, I hope to be corrected.