That is not correct. The Vatican has never considered that. Any time I ask for documentary support for such a claim the claimant has not been able to produce anything. Its simply hearsay. I give you the same chance to show me any document from the Church on this subject, even at discussion level.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.
You can only use defensive actions including violence to defend yourself. In the example you gave, I would call the police. I would not be have been subject to violence or in fear of violence. I could not and would take a machete and kill you. I may think you were insane.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.)
I’m not sure I really understand your point.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.
I don’t believe the Bishops are wrong. I believe they are right. I have not seen the Church deny or condemn the statements made by the US Bishops.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.
It does fit if he raped her. Rape is forced sex. Period. It doesn’t matter if the two are married or not. If a woman says no and physically forced into having sex because she is being physically overpowered and despite her attempts to stop it from happening, it’s rape. Doesn’t matter if the rapist is her husband or not. It’s still rape.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.
Oh and I think one could say that “spousal sexual assault” can be more evil than rape. Due to the reality of marriage…I’m not sure I really understand your point.
Just because a spouse should not withhold relations does not give the other spouse the right to force the relations. Very correct
That would be what is called marital rape. I know people do …but I would say it ought not be…rather the other terms I suggested…
Where are you getting the idea that a married person cannot rape their spouse? just like they can not commit fornication with their spouse…
I know in the US the idea that the “marriage vows are a blanket consent to relations” is no longer good law. Since it is the law (and not the Church) that prosecutes the crime I think the legal term should be used.
This is a forum for theological discussion hence my points…see my comments in posts above…
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.
(…)
Rape is not a result of mental illness*. It’s about power and control, humiliation and degradation. The rapist chooses to rape and has the mindset that it is acceptable, it’s the victims fault, or whatever.A wife fearing her husband cannot restrain himself is something different from a wife knowing her husband is mentally ill.
Extreme cases are helpful to test the strength of any moral position. If the moral arguments don’t hold up to scrutiny, they need to be reviewed.This is a bizarre situation anyway. Extreme cases make bad rules.
Did you not read Dignitatis Personae which is the instruction released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? It updates Donum Vitae.I don’t believe the Bishops are wrong. I believe they are right. I have not seen the Church deny or condemn the statements made by the US Bishops.
Carn, I can see a rape victim utilizing plan B after a rape. But I can’t see how any other methods would apply to a married woman unless she is being held prisoner by him against her will. Therefore, I don’t think taking contraceptives as a form of defense applies – unless she’s in a dangerous situation in which she is being held against her will. And if you know of someone in this situation, they don’t need contraceptives, they need help getting out of danger. So if you know this hypothetical person, please get her help.
Yes, all very true.Rape is not a result of mental illness*. It’s about power and control, humiliation and degradation. The rapist chooses to rape and has the mindset that it is acceptable, it’s the victims fault, or whatever.
The thing that makes my mind swim is how people who use sexual violence seem know it is how to wound a person to their soul. If they didn’t “know” this they would stop at physically beating them.
*Yes, sometimes rapists/perps are mentally ill but that is not what causes them to rape.
Oh and I think one could say that “spousal sexual assault” can be more evil than rape. Due to the reality of marriage…
Just as adultery is more evil than fornication…
Within marriage its definately domestic violence. But both are grevious so I wouldn’t necessarily say it deserves a harsher sentence.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.
I am willing to bet money that the Catholic Bishops have read Dignitatis Personae. If Plan B is allowed it is because we can be morally certain that it is not a means of interception but works by preventing ovulation.Did you not read Dignitatis Personae which is the instruction released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? It updates Donum Vitae.
Extract from Dignitatis Personae:
QUOTE
New forms of interception and contragestation
There are methods of preventing pregnancy which act after fertilization, when the embryo is already constituted.
“Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation” (n. 23); for example, the IUD (intrauterine device) and the so-called ‘morning-after pills’ (footnote 42). They are “contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted” (n. 23); for example, the pharmaceutical known commercially as RU-486 (footnote 43). Even if such interceptives may not cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse, it must be noted, however, that “anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion”. In the case of contragestatives “what takes place in reality is the abortion of an embryo which has just implanted…** the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral” **(n. 23).
UNQUOTE
The official Church position is that Plan B is FORBIDDEN. That overrules any group of bishops in a country who may think otherwise.
There is not a single “Plan B”.D
The official Church position is that Plan B is FORBIDDEN. That overrules any group of bishops in a country who may think otherwise.
If one wants to know about the impact of medical developments on moral theology, the place to go is the National Catholic Bioethic Center. Let us remember that Church teaching is not medical teaching, but moral teaching. The bishops in America can err in medical matters, but then so can those in Rome.I am willing to bet money that the Catholic Bishops have read Dignitatis Personae. If Plan B is allowed it is because we can be morally certain that it is not a means of interception but works by preventing ovulation.
Dignitatis Personae is the CDF instruction forbidding the use of ALL morning after pills.There is not a single “Plan B”.
If one wants to know about the impact of medical developments on moral theology, the place to go is the National Catholic Bioethic Center. Let us remember that Church teaching is not medical teaching, but moral teaching. The bishops in America can err in medical matters, but then so can those in Rome.
I found this topic specifically discussed on the NCBC website.
ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1009
The primary action of the most available “morning-after pill,” Plan B, (sometimes referred to as emergency contraception, or EC) is anovulatory, that is, it suppresses ovulation—the release of the woman’s ovum. This prevents the engendering of an embryo by the sperm of an unjust aggressor. …
The National Catholic Bioethics Center holds that administration of EC must be consistent with ERD, n. 36—to “prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization.” Current research indicates that the impact of EC on sperm capacitation is not fast enough to prevent fertilization. Therefore, the only reason for which EC morally can be given is to prevent ovulation.
This is in concert with the instructions given at the USCCB website. There is not contradiction with Catholic teaching. Direct abortion in any form is forbidden, including drugs that stop implantation of a fertilized embryo.
That is not my opinion, that of the USCCB or the NCBC. It is yours. It is not a pill that is immoral, or when it is taken. It is abortion, in this case through interception. According to the NCBC, interception is not the result of all medicines. Those medicines that are anovalatory are not addressed in Dignitatis Personae.Dignitatis Personae is the CDF instruction forbidding the use of ALL morning after pills.
On the first…I was speaking morally…Within marriage its definately domestic violence. But both are grevious so I wouldn’t necessarily say it deserves a harsher sentence.
and yes the spouse has every right to contracept but it would be much better for her to leave the relationship of course.
“seperation for at least a time”? Only a masochist would go back to a husband who rapes/abuses her. Rape is a heinous crime, it is an assault of the body, mind and dignity of a person. For spousal rape add betrayal of trust and love.On the first…I was speaking morally…
on the second…no I do not think so…
on the third…separation for at least a time may be in order…
There is not denying the evil of sexual assault. Not down playing it at all.“seperation for at least a time”? Only a masochist would go back to a husband who rapes/abuses her. Rape is a heinous crime, it is an assault of the body, mind and dignity of a person. For spousal rape add betrayal of trust and love.