Rape or not?

[estesbob]

Friends and I are discussing this, with various viewpoints.

A woman is attacked, in her own home or elsewhere.
No one to help.
The man may or may not have a weapon.
He is going to rape her, no question about it.
She asks him to use a condom, he does.
Is it still rape? Or did she consent?
What do you think? What would you do, if you were her?

It is rape and has been so adjudicated by the Courts

 

[estesbob]

I remember a case like this too, and I thought the guy was not found guilty because of it. I hope I’m remembering it incorrectly.

Of course it’s rape!

He did find him not guilty which caused a firestorm of crtiticism. Since then the courts have uniformly ruled it is rape.

 

[SeekerJen]

From this website: morningafterpill.org/mapinfo1.htm

How do emergency contraception/morning-after pills work?

The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three possible ways in which it can work (as does the regular birth control pill):

Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released;
The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first and second actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the human being created will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.
In other words, if the third action occurs, her body rejects the living human embryo, and the child will die. This result is a chemical abortion. (Abortion is an act of direct killing that takes the life of a living preborn human being—a life that begins at fertilization.)

It is my understanding of Church teaching that if blood tests for hormone levels indicate that the rape victim has not yet ovulated in her cycle, she may be given the morning-after pill to stop ovulation and prevent a conception. If ovulation has occured, she may not take such a pill because then she runs the risk of it acting as an abortifacient. This policy seems the most merciful to both potential victims, IMO.

Topic: of course it’s rape. Why would it not be? She knows he’s going to rape her either way so if she can convince him to use a condom then she won’t have secondary medical issues or a child to deal with along with the initial physical trauma and long-term psychological damage.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It is my understanding of Church teaching that if blood tests for hormone levels indicate that the rape victim has not yet ovulated in her cycle, she may be given the morning-after pill to stop ovulation and prevent a conception. If ovulation has occured, she may not take such a pill because then she runs the risk of it acting as an abortifacient. This policy seems the most merciful to both potential victims, IMO.

Topic: of course it’s rape. Why would it not be? She knows he’s going to rape her either way so if she can convince him to use a condom then she won’t have secondary medical issues or a child to deal with along with the initial physical trauma and long-term psychological damage.

Can you give us a Church document where this Teaching is stated because it seems to go against the infallible Teaching that Contraception is a moral evil.

 

[thistle]

It is my understanding of Church teaching that if blood tests for hormone levels indicate that the rape victim has not yet ovulated in her cycle, she may be given the morning-after pill to stop ovulation and prevent a conception. If ovulation has occured, she may not take such a pill because then she runs the risk of it acting as an abortifacient. This policy seems the most merciful to both potential victims, IMO.

Topic: of course it’s rape. Why would it not be? She knows he’s going to rape her either way so if she can convince him to use a condom then she won’t have secondary medical issues or a child to deal with along with the initial physical trauma and long-term psychological damage.

You would have to direct us to this teaching because as far as I know it is NOT a Church teaching at all but rather only the opinion of some local bishops and this does not constitute a Church teaching.

 

[SeekerJen]

You would have to direct us to this teaching because as far as I know it is NOT a Church teaching at all but rather only the opinion of some local bishops and this does not constitute a Church teaching.

Well then, I stand corrected. I don’t have a citation nor do I know how to wade through the piles of Church documents to find one. I seem to remember hearing that Catholic hospitals had been given permission to do this- hence the local bishops. I still don’t see how giving a drug which prevents ovulation before ovulation is against Catholic teaching. I wasn’t aware that bishops were allowed to go against the Church on such a major issue, so I assumed that it was in accordance. Sorry for the confusion.

And yes, the original example is still rape.

 

[Brendan]

Absolutely this is rape. The woman’s plea would be similar to a man who is about to be murdered asking his murderer to “make it quick”.

While I completely agree with this statement, even if it were contraception, that is also against Church teachings and should not be approved.

It only has abortificant properties when there has been a recent ovulation ( by defintion)

A blood test can be done to detect if the woman has ovulated recently ( there is no test for conception that early, but if there is no ovulation, there can be no conception, again by defiintion)

If there has been no ovulation, it is licit to surpress ovulation using hormonal means. And THAT is what the bishops have approved.

If the test has shown that the woman has ovulated, or ovulation is pending, then hormonal means cannot be used, and the bishops have confirmed that as well.

 

[Darrel]

Friends and I are discussing this, with various viewpoints.

A woman is attacked, in her own home or elsewhere.
No one to help.
The man may or may not have a weapon.
He is going to rape her, no question about it.
She asks him to use a condom, he does.
Is it still rape? Or did she consent?
What do you think? What would you do, if you were her?

How does the condom imply consent at all? If I were her I would I take him out.

-D

 

[Brendan]

Can you give us a Church document where this Teaching is stated because it seems to go against the infallible Teaching that Contraception is a moral evil.

Contraception is a moral evil during the marital act.

For example, is it licit for a woman to take hormonal medication ( ie, the Pill) for other medical reasons, as long as she refrains from the marital act, due to the abortifacnt properties.

Heck, there is nothing morally wrong if a man decides to wear a condom playing soccer if he’s using it to keep from chafing.

There are no morality issues regarding those at all, do we agree on the soccer player at least

Where it becomes morally illicit is when contraception is used during the marital act. Humane Vitae is very clear on that.

Rape is not the marital act. It is an assualt upon the victim, (which is not the case in fornication or adultery) and under self defense, the victim is entitled to defend her body, and that includes defending themselves from the rapists sperm.

Now, if conception occurs, self defense does not apply to the child, the child is innocent of fault, and is not assaulting the woman.

 

[rpp]

Contraception is a moral evil during the marital act.

For example, is it licit for a woman to take hormonal medication ( ie, the Pill) for other medical reasons, as long as she refrains from the marital act, due to the abortifacnt properties.

Heck, there is nothing morally wrong if a man decides to wear a condom playing soccer if he’s using it to keep from chafing.

There are no morality issues regarding those at all, do we agree on the soccer player at least

Where it becomes morally illicit is when contraception is used during the marital act. Humane Vitae is very clear on that.

Rape is not the marital act. It is an assualt upon the victim, (which is not the case in fornication or adultery) and under self defense, the victim is entitled to defend her body, and that includes defending themselves from the rapists sperm.

Now, if conception occurs, self defense does not apply to the child, the child is innocent of fault, and is not assaulting the woman.

Can you provide some citations to Church teaching to support this view?

 

[franco_antonio]

Friends and I are discussing this, with various viewpoints.

A woman is attacked, in her own home or elsewhere.
No one to help.
The man may or may not have a weapon.
He is going to rape her, no question about it.
She asks him to use a condom, he does.
Is it still rape? Or did she consent?
What do you think? What would you do, if you were her?

it is still rape… the sinful act/intention is already determined whether he was ask to use condom or not by the victim, the offense does not reflect they way it was done but because it is done. even it is attempted rape, rape or frustrated rape… it is still rape… and the punishment must be reclusion perpetua or else death penalty.

 

[Sarabande]

Can you provide some citations to Church teaching to support this view?

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the question you pose or the point you are making, but are you saying that you would prefer a woman who is about to be violently raped to be open to sexually transmitted diseases, as well as AIDS if her attacker would actually put on a condom? So, do you think it is a sin for her to request her attacker to use a condom?

I’m not trying to start an argument or anything like that. I’m just trying to understand where you were coming from with this.

I guess if the Church actually teaches that a rape victim cannot use condoms to protect herself from diseases that would have been passed on by the attacker, I would accept that. I suppose that if I were being raped, I’d have to fight my way to the death or just pray that my attacker doesn’t have some sort of horriable VD and won’t murder me afterwards.

 

[fix]

Friends and I are discussing this, with various viewpoints.

A woman is attacked, in her own home or elsewhere.
No one to help.
The man may or may not have a weapon.
He is going to rape her, no question about it.
She asks him to use a condom, he does.
Is it still rape? Or did she consent?
What do you think? What would you do, if you were her?

How does one consent to rape? The act is unjust. The woman has a right to repel an unjust aggressor. The sperm have no right to be in her.

The sin of contraception involves separating the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act. Rape is not a conjugal act.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This is rape, no two ways about it.

However, if the woman doesnt get to confession to confess her sin of using artificial birth control(the condom), she will burn in hell for all eternity.

I’m being sarcastic, for those who may not notice.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

Can you provide some citations to Church teaching to support this view?

On the first point ( re: hormonal theropy use by the woman)

Humanae Vitae.

1. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed [19].

On the second point, in fact, the second point ( the soccer player and chafing) would fall under that.

Would you really consider a soccer player wearing a condom during a game to prevent chaffing to be an immoral act? If so, do you have any Church documents to back that up?

So we can see from Church documents that not all use of contraceptives is immoral.

We can also see, later on in HV, that the deliberate infecundity of the CONJUCIAL ACT is being condemmed.

To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil to promote a greater good [17], it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom [18]; that is to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life.

Rape is not Conjugal, both parties are not joining themselves, but rather one party is assaulting the genitalia of the other other party. There is no conjoining.

Pope John Paul reiterated exactly where HV applies to, acts of conjugal love

The doctrine expounded in the encyclical Humanae vitae thus constitutes the necessary defence of the dignity and truth of conjugal love."

And in Veritatas Splendor, he also refers to the intrinsic evil of contraception WITHIN CONGUJAL LOVE

"With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile,

It is the rendering of the CONJUGAL ACT infertile that in instrinsically evil, not in every single use of contraceptives.

 

[rpp]

On the first point ( re: hormonal theropy use by the woman)

Humanae Vitae.

On the second point, in fact, the second point ( the soccer player and chafing) would fall under that.

Would you really consider a soccer player wearing a condom during a game to prevent chaffing to be an immoral act? If so, do you have any Church documents to back that up?

So we can see from Church documents that not all use of contraceptives is immoral.

We can also see, later on in HV, that the deliberate infecundity of the CONJUCIAL ACT is being condemmed.

Rape is not Conjugal, both parties are not joining themselves, but rather one party is assaulting the genitalia of the other other party. There is no conjoining.

Pope John Paul reiterated exactly where HV applies to, acts of conjugal love

And in Veritatas Splendor, he also refers to the intrinsic evil of contraception WITHIN CONGUJAL LOVE

It is the rendering of the CONJUGAL ACT infertile that in instrinsically evil, not in every single use of contraceptives.

Thank you for the citations. I will ignore the strawman arguments regarding the use of devices normally intended for contraception put to non-contaceptive use.

However, you have notprovided any citations that define what the conjugal act is. By the very narrow definitions you have here, you could also argue contraceptive devices can be used during the acts of adultery and fornication. Using contraception during those acts makes them all the more evil.

While I am not claiming that rape is somehow okay. No, I do not say that at all. I think rape is an horrific crime and that rapists deserve far worse punishment that the current US justice system generally meets out today.

But if you want to claim that the Church supports the use of contraception during this particular type of (hyper-sinful and utterly evil) sexual encounter, you must explain why it is permissible here while not permissible during fornication and adultery. AND you need citations.

What you posted here is a good start, but it does not address the issue of rape in contrast with forms of illicit sex.

 

[Katie1723]

This is rape, no two ways about it.

However, if the woman doesnt get to confession to confess her sin of using artificial birth control(the condom), she will burn in hell for all eternity.

I’m being sarcastic, for those who may not notice.

Jim

That’s a pretty stupid thing to say. Try telling a woman who has been raped that you were “only being sarcastic”

Kathy

 

[rpp]

This is rape, no two ways about it.

However, if the woman doesnt get to confession to confess her sin of using artificial birth control(the condom), she will burn in hell for all eternity.

I’m being sarcastic, for those who may not notice.

Jim

Sarcastic or not, there are some things that should never be joked about. This was beyond “insensitive” and well into cruel.

 

[turtle18]

This whole thread is beyond bizarre. Some rapists would be happy to oblige a woman a request like that, just so they won’t leave irrefutable DNA evidence behind.

You must not understand how easy it is for a man to overpower a women just by sheer force. They are physically stronger; even the most wimpy of them. Obviously, you’ve been brainwashed by all the stupid pop culture movies that show women beating men up but I guarantee you in real life in doesn’t work that way. I’d say a good 95% of men can overpower a woman anyday of the week.

 

[Nordar]

This is rape, no two ways about it.

However, if the woman doesnt get to confession to confess her sin of using artificial birth control(the condom), she will burn in hell for all eternity.

I’m being sarcastic, for those who may not notice.

Jim

I fail to see the sarcasm, what I see is cruelty!