Rape in marriage possible?

[carn]

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.

1 out of an infinite number of examples:

Doc tells wife,another pregnancy would be lethal for her. Wife implies she is uncertain whether her husband can constrain himself. Doc (being non-catholic) gives her diaphragm,since she can use them without him knowing. She takes them, with intent to throw away later. In discussion of abstinence husband grows more and more unreasonable, so she suggest serperating for some time (e.g. during her fertile days she stays with relatives). Unfortunately then his mental disorder finally manifests, he rapes her. Fortunately its still an infertile day, but he locks her in some room to rape her also the next days, where she isn’t infertile anymore. Screaming for help, arming herself or escaping is without success for the moment, but she hopes in the next days a possibility will arise. She realizes she did not find yet time to throw away her diaphragm and she knows when her husband is likely to return to rape her.

None of this examples is what i woulc call a “nice story”, so from my point of view it would be a lot preferable if objections “using contraception in anticipation of rape as only option is impossible” are not further raised. I can counter them all, but might have to think up more stories, which are not “nice stories”, so i prefer not to.

 

[TraderTif]

I, too, was under the impression that completely-nonabortive contraception could, in theory, be employed in a rape situation. (But, I’m also under the impression that in reality, this is relatively impossible for most cases.)

Isn’t contraception intrinsically wrong because it artificially separates the loving unity from the procreative unity? And, well, doesn’t rape already DO that??

So, I was always under the impression that it is not intrinsically wrong for a husband who is being raped, to wear a condom?

 

[thistle]

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.

I’m confused. Maybe I simply misunderstand what you are talking about.

Are you claiming that the Church forbids a husband and wife to use any ABC for birth control purposes but that a wife can use ABC to prevent pregnancy (i.e. for birth control puposes) in case her husband or another man might rape her?

 

[carn]

I’m confused. Maybe I simply misunderstand what you are talking about.

Are you claiming that the Church forbids a husband and wife to use any ABC for birth control purposes but that a wife can use ABC to prevent pregnancy (i.e. for birth control puposes) in case her husband or another man might rape her?

Please distinguish between non-abortive contraception and “abortive contraception”, nobody in this thread so far suggested the latter might be morally right.

And is i understand underacloud correctly, he just says that the church has not said that non-abortive contraception is morally wrong in case of rape.

Church undeniable said that it is wrong in marriage relationship because it intercourse has to be unitive and procreative and contraception destroys the later. As far as i can see humanum vitae contains no explicit information regarding contraception, if the unitive aspect is already missing, probably because that was not the subject of humanum vitae.

 

[carn]

Beside claims to the contrary, the first part of the poll question (which is the thread question due to my laziness) is quite satisfactory answered. While the issue of non-abortive contraception is somwhat open according to poll results, this non-representative sample shows that if there are catholics who think rape cannot happen in marriage or must be endured by the women are at worst a minority even among conservative catholics (which i assume hang around here).
As the church teaching also condems rape inside and outside marriage (as with rape the unitive aspect is absent), i can in good conscious tell the next feminist, that while it might be open whether or not the women might use pills, condoms, diaphragm or whatever in that direction is in her cupboard, if faced with an abusive husband, there is nothing in catholic teaching or opinion, that in principle should keep her from using the tear gas, taser or even gun, that is in her cupboard. (except of course that gunning down the father of your children in self defense should be avoided if possible).

 

[DJ_Pius_X]

To me rape in marriage is the vilest, cruelest form of sexual assault by a non-parent. Your husband is supposed to love you and protect you. I can’t tell you all how awful it is when that trust is broken.

I think the consequences should be worse than for nonspousal rape.

Just thought I’d point out that husbands are not the only perpetrators of spousal rape.

 

[ScareBear]

Just thought I’d point out that husbands are not the only perpetrators of spousal rape.

I get that; I guess I’m speaking from personal experience here.

 

[Bookcat]

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 terms of marriage I would use the term “sexual assault” from the theological terms point of view… and I think the legal term should likewise use it. Though I would still keep “rape” side by side with the term in the case what we would ordinarily call rape.

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

If a person who is not married has sexual relations with someone who is not married it is called “fornication”. If he is married it is “Adultery”. If it is his relative it is “incest” and either adultery or fornication depending on the marital status.

In terms of such physically forced acts in marriage…It is still violence …so one could call it “sexual assault” or “violence against one spouse” …and should never ever happen.

 

[severus68]

In terms of marriage I would use the term “sexual assault” from the theological terms point of view… and I think the legal term should likewise use it. Though I would still keep “rape” side by side with the term in the case what we would ordinarily call rape.

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

If a person who is not married has sexual relations with someone who is not married it is called “fornication”. If he is married it is “Adultery”. If it is his relative it is “incest” and either adultery or fornication depending on the marital status.

In terms of such physically forced acts in marriage…It is still violence …so one could call it “sexual assault” or “violence against one spouse” …and should never ever happen.

I agree with all of what you say here except your making a distinction between forced sexual assault by a husband or by someone else. Rape is rape. I would prefer that the term sexual assault be used instead of rape.

 

[severus68]

Just thought I’d point out that husbands are not the only perpetrators of spousal rape.

Yes, it is possible but how often does a wife drug her husband and or ties him up and has her way with him?

 

[Bookcat]

I agree with all of what you say here except your making a distinction between forced sexual assault by a husband or by someone else. Rape is rape. I would prefer that the term sexual assault be used instead of rape.

Tis a distinction theologically. We are discussing theology here not common parlance. One could of course argue regarding if the term ought to be applied in that case as well but I think the it is more correct to call it instead “sexual assault” et al. in this regards.

 

[severus68]

Tis a distinction theologically. We are discussing theology here not common parlance. One could of course argue regarding if the term ought to be applied in that case as well but I think the it is more correct to call it instead “sexual assault” et al. in this regards.

“Sexual assault” is a legal term so is “rape”. Does the Church have a term for ‘rape’ by a spouse then? We can all have our own views. Whatever the term used, in many countries, it is a crime.

 

[Bookcat]

“Sexual assault” is a legal term so is “rape”. Does the Church have a term for ‘rape’ by a spouse then? We can all have our own views. Whatever the term used, in many countries, it is a crime.

I think it would be seen in theological circles as various things “an act contrary to charity” “an act of violence” “spousal abuse” etc

My point is that the term rape just does not really fit in such an act of violence by a spouse. Just as I can not commit an act of “fornication” cause I am now married. It would be adultery.

Perhaps a good term would be “spousal sexual assault” or similar.

 

[severus68]

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.

There was a recent thread where the issue of whether nuns in missions in parts of the world where rape is a distinct possibility, being allowed to use ABC by the Vatican, was discussed.
However, in the case of possible spousal rape, the wife of such an abusive man would best seperate from and stay away from such a man. The thought of contraception would, in my opinion, be the last thing on her mind.

 

[carn]

However, in the case of possible spousal rape, the wife of such an abusive man would best seperate from and stay away from such a man. The thought of contraception would, in my opinion, be the last thing on her mind.

As a said several times in this thread, there are way better defensive options. But something that is a bad defense option is nonetheless one. And if its the only available, its normally moral. Unless of course it cannot be a defensive option, but that is not a question of effectiveness.

@Bookcat
"The sperm are rightfully there "

How can they be if they got there in an illegal way?

“They are acting according to their rights (hee hee)…”
Sperms do not have rights.

" They are not doing any violence. "
Please do not make the common mistake to assume that self defense is only allowed due to violence. If i (assuming you do not know me) get a copy of your house keys and one day coming home you find me with a bottle of your beer on your sofa using your TV greeting you with “I’ll just watch that show for 10 mins, then i go.”, i did not commit any act of violence against you nor do i threaten and yet by laws of all civilized countries you are allowed to drag me forcefully out of your house - self defense although nothing violent was going on. (And in Texas and a few other places you would have even more nserious options available.)

 

[StarFireKK]

1 out of an infinite number of examples:

Doc tells wife,another pregnancy would be lethal for her. Wife implies she is uncertain whether her husband can constrain himself. Doc (being non-catholic) gives her diaphragm,since she can use them without him knowing. She takes them, with intent to throw away later. In discussion of abstinence husband grows more and more unreasonable, so she suggest serperating for some time (e.g. during her fertile days she stays with relatives). Unfortunately then his mental disorder finally manifests, he rapes her. Fortunately its still an infertile day, but he locks her in some room to rape her also the next days, where she isn’t infertile anymore. Screaming for help, arming herself or escaping is without success for the moment, but she hopes in the next days a possibility will arise. She realizes she did not find yet time to throw away her diaphragm and she knows when her husband is likely to return to rape her.

None of this examples is what i woulc call a “nice story”, so from my point of view it would be a lot preferable if objections “using contraception in anticipation of rape as only option is impossible” are not further raised. I can counter them all, but might have to think up more stories, which are not “nice stories”, so i prefer not to.

Ok, in that story the wife is acting out of fear for her life and safety. I’m not a priest but I’m pretty sure that factors into whether or not her actions become a sin.

But, please! In a circumstance where a wife fears being raped, she needs to leave the home. Not just when she’s fertile. Catholics don’t believe in divorce but we don’t believe separation is allowed when the safety of the spouse is in jeopardy.

Honestly, that contraception does nothing to protect her EXCEPT prevent a pregnancy that might not even occur. Leaving the home is the best defense.

 

[carn]

Ok, in that story the wife is acting out of fear for her life and safety. I’m not a priest but I’m pretty sure that factors into whether or not her actions become a sin.

And the question is, whether it could be actually a sin, independent of fear for her life, in such situations.

But, please! In a circumstance where a wife fears being raped, she needs to leave the home.

A wife fearing her husband cannot restrain himself is something different from a wife knowing her husband is mentally ill.

Honestly, that contraception does nothing to protect her EXCEPT prevent a pregnancy that might not even occur. Leaving the home is the best defense.

Of course there are better ways. But a not very effective defense is not immoral or a sin, because its not very effective.

 

[StarFireKK]

A wife fearing her husband cannot restrain himself is something different from a wife knowing her husband is mentally ill.

This isn’t a husband deciding to have three cookies instead of just one. This is a husband committing a heinous act of violence against the very person he is suppose to love, cherish and protect above all others.

The first example is a lack of restraint. The second is violence.

I never mentioned mental illness so I’m not sure what your point is. The wife can separate from her husband when she fears for her safety- even if her husband is completely sane.

 

[underacloud]

And is i understand underacloud correctly, he just says that the church has not said that non-abortive contraception is morally wrong in case of rape.

Yes, this is what I’m saying.

Are you claiming that the Church forbids a husband and wife to use any ABC for birth control purposes but that a wife can use ABC to prevent pregnancy (i.e. for birth control puposes) in case her husband or another man might rape her?

I’m not claiming that. I’m just saying that the matter of contraception in the case of rape has not been clarrified by the Church. The matter of rape within marriage is especially difficult to determine.

 

[thistle]

Please distinguish between non-abortive contraception and “abortive contraception”, nobody in this thread so far suggested the latter might be morally right.

And is i understand underacloud correctly, he just says that the church has not said that non-abortive contraception is morally wrong in case of rape.

Church undeniable said that it is wrong in marriage relationship because it intercourse has to be unitive and procreative and contraception destroys the later. As far as i can see humanum vitae contains no explicit information regarding contraception, if the unitive aspect is already missing, probably because that was not the subject of humanum vitae.

Condoms are non-abortive. They are forbidden.