Rape in marriage possible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter carn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

carn

Guest
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?
 
I voted “none of the above” as your heading for the thread is misleading. YES, rape in marriage is possible and happens and should be punished to the fullest extent.
 
carn said:
Why?

And self-defense regarding such rape? Non-abortive contraception?
Click to expand...
Why? Because the initial heading is rape in marriage possible. You added the other components to the question afterwards. And this is the second thread you’ve started about contraception and rape. I think that issue was thoroughly debated in the other thread.
 
PatriceA said:
And this is the second thread you’ve started about contraception and rape. I think that issue was thoroughly debated in the other thread.
Click to expand...
No, it was specifically limited to rape outside marriage.

from Humanum vitae:
"Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)"

Here the church explicitely condems sterilization inside marriage as equally wrong as abortion. It excludes similarly any contraceptive action before, during or after intercourse.

Therefore from wording contraception inside marriage seems to be as sinful as abortion. As abortion is not an option in case of rape, this could mean that contraception in case of rape inside marriage is unlike in case of rape outside marriage also sinful.

But it could also mean that the authors had not rape inside marriage in mind because the rest of their text obviously means that even if there is something like rape inside marriage, it should never ever happen, and therefore spent no thought upon the implications of rape inside marriage.

Further complication is, that rape inside marriage only received legal attention from 1970-1990:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_rape
“Several countries in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia made spousal rape illegal before 1970, but other countries in Western Europe and the English-speaking Western World outlawed it much later, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s. Most developing countries outlawed it in the 1990s and 2000s.”

Humanum vitae is 1968 and even the Church is unable to address issues no one knew about at the time of a publication.

For this reasons the question of rape inside marriage and contraception regarding such rape could at least be different from rape outside marriage.
 
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.
 
carn said:
And self-defense regarding such rape? Non-abortive contraception?
Click to expand...
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).
 
ahs said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is an effective defense against the live sperm reaching the ovulum, which is a potential effect of the attack and therefore part of the attack. Even some US Bishops declared that church has nothing against non-abortive contraception as one possible form of defense against rape.
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf

“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.”

And if a means of defense only partly prevents the effects of the attack, that only makes it a not so useful defense option. If someone hits you, raising your arms to intercept the attacks won’t prevent harm, but it will lessen the harm and therefore is still a form of self-defense, although not very effective.

Furthermore assume, that the wife does not want to have intercourse because a pregnancy carries serious health risks. Then obviously contraception is a partly effective defense against the attack, as it attempts to prevent the main harm the victim fears from the attack.
ahs said:
Contraception is a moral evil and you cannot justify using evil to prevent the affects (conception) of another evil (rape within a marriage).
Click to expand...
Therefore i added the option that contraception is not among the permissable defensive options.

So you would say, that the wife is ok, to shoot the husband, but would be wrong to use barrier contraception if she deems shooting to serious?
 
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.
 
carn said:
It is an effective defense against the live sperm reaching the ovulum, which is a potential effect of the attack and therefore part of the attack. Even some US Bishops declared that church has nothing against non-abortive contraception as one possible form of defense against rape.
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf

“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.”

And if a means of defense only partly prevents the effects of the attack, that only makes it a not so useful defense option. If someone hits you, raising your arms to intercept the attacks won’t prevent harm, but it will lessen the harm and therefore is still a form of self-defense, although not very effective.

Furthermore assume, that the wife does not want to have intercourse because a pregnancy carries serious health risks. Then obviously contraception is a partly effective defense against the attack, as it attempts to prevent the main harm the victim fears from the attack.

Therefore i added the option that contraception is not among the permissable defensive options.

So you would say, that the wife is ok, to shoot the husband, but would be wrong to use barrier contraception if she deems shooting to serious?
Click to expand...
The Bishops are wrong and that is NOT the Church position.
Extract from Dignitatis Personae:

Interception and contragestation methods and medications: The Vatican uses the term: “Interception” to refers to methods that interfere “with the embryo before implantation” and result in the death of the embryo. Emergency contraception (a.k.a. EC, Morning After Pill, MAP) usually prevent the release of an ovum from a ovary, or prevent conception. However, years ago, doctors believed that there was a slim chance that EC might prevent implantation, thus ending the life of an embryo. Subsequent research has indicated that this is extremely unlikely or impossible. However, the Church continues to reject this research.

The Intrauterine Device (IUD) is an example of a real interception device.

“Contragestation” refer to methods that terminate pregnancy after implantation of the embryo in the womb. The RU-286 abortion pill and surgical abortions are two such methods.

All of these are considered: “… within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral.”
 
carn said:
So you would say, that the wife is ok, to shoot the husband, but would be wrong to use barrier contraception if she deems shooting to serious?
Click to expand...
Refer to posts #9 and #10.

I’m saying a spouse can use whatever means is necessary to defend against an attach to protect their life and their person. Contraception has absolutely no ability to protect against a physical attack.
 
Catholic90 said:
Contraception has nothing to do with rape.
Click to expand...
Look at the above quote from some bishops:
“A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault.”

Why should contraception have nothing to do with rape?

There are even laws adnregulations regarding the use of contraception in case of rape, so it certainly is something relevant for women regarding rape.

About the objection that in case of rape one cannot use contracception, check out the other thread, i describe a scenario there, where contraception is possible but other defensive means are unavailable.

Within marriage it is even more likely that a wife suspects what her husband might do. Of course she then could also prepare a gun or inform the police. But that would just mean that better options are available. The second question of this thread (the first is about whether rape in marriage can happen) is about whether contraception is among the permissable defensive options. If there are better, this does not change that it is among the permissable, and then there might be situations, where it would be morally to use.
 
carn said:
Look at the above quote from some bishops:
“A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault.”
Click to expand...
…“against a potential conception”, it does not defend against rape. Also, refer to post #11.

Contraception is not permitted because it is an entrisic evil. Contraception is not a defense against rape.
 
lizaanne said:
Exactly. I’m not sure why it’s even part of the discussion. :confused:

~Liza
Click to expand...
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?
 
carn said:
Can the crime called rape happen between husband and wife?
Click to expand...
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.
 
I am confused as to what is meant by self defense being that contraceptives are mentioned. Contraceptives are not self defense. They don’t prevent you from being raped.
 
carn said:
It is an effective defense against the live sperm reaching the ovulum, which is a potential effect of the attack and therefore part of the attack. Even some US Bishops declared that church has nothing against non-abortive contraception as one possible form of defense against rape.
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf

“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.”
Click to expand...
Huh? This is in a marriage anyhow.

…not outside of marriage.

I do not see it as the same.
 
twoangels said:
I am confused as to what is meant by self defense being that contraceptives are mentioned. Contraceptives are not self defense. They don’t prevent you from being raped.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top