Rape or not?

[Sarabande]

… in fact it does raise an interesting theological quesion-does the Church condone the use of condoms in cases of rape?

That’s what I want to know… I believe it might have been brought up on this thread, but what is the exact stance on this by the Church? If I was a woman who was raped and pleaded with the assailant to use the condom, have I commited a sin by asking for this?

I agree with others that since this is an act of violence there is no conjugal act or act of love occuring and I am trying to protect myself from disease and a possible pregnancy, but what does the Church say on this? I can’t see how the Church would say that I or another abused woman/man/child would be the sinner in this case. Would we be encouraged to go to confession after this? I think that would just add insult to injury. As a victim of child molestation myself, my reasoning can’t see how this would be right to the victim, especially since many times victims will place the blame on themselves for what happened even though none of it was their fault. But perhaps I’m wrong on this?

 

[estesbob]

That’s what I want to know… I believe it might have been brought up on this thread, but what is the exact stance on this by the Church? If I was a woman who was raped and pleaded with the assailant to use the condom, have I commited a sin by asking for this?

I agree with others that since this is an act of violence there is no conjugal act or act of love occuring and I am trying to protect myself from disease and a possible pregnancy, but what does the Church say on this? I can’t see how the Church would say that I or another abused woman/man/child would be the sinner in this case. Would we be encouraged to go to confession after this? I think that would just add insult to injury. As a victim of child molestation myself, my reasoning can’t see how this would be right to the victim, especially since many times victims will place the blame on themselves for what happened even though none of it was their fault. But perhaps I’m wrong on this?

The Church forbids abortion of a child conceived by rape. Would this fall under that? I dont know the answer. Thats why i asked.

 

[Sarabande]

The Church forbids abortion of a child conceived by rape. Would this fall under that? I dont know the answer. Thats why i asked.

I agree with the Church on that. I wouldn’t abort a child if I had conceived him/her after being raped. I would never dream of doing that. It wasn’t the child’s fault. I’m wondering more about the use of a condom or other form of disease/birth control to avoid a potential pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease because of being raped. It’s really more for avoiding a disease. Who knows where that rapist has been. The violence of it by itself is bad enough. I couldn’t imagine having to live with AIDs or any other VD because of it.

 

[fix]

That’s what I want to know… I believe it might have been brought up on this thread, but what is the exact stance on this by the Church? If I was a woman who was raped and pleaded with the assailant to use the condom, have I commited a sin by asking for this?

No. The sin of contraception is intentionally separating the unitive and procreative aspect of the conjugal act. Rape is never a conjugal act. The woman has a right to repel an ujust aggressor. The rapist’s sperm have no right to be in her. There is no sin of contraception as no conjugal act has taken place.

 

[estesbob]

I agree with the Church on that. I wouldn’t abort a child if I had conceived him/her after being raped. I would never dream of doing that. It wasn’t the child’s fault. I’m wondering more about the use of a condom or other form of disease/birth control to avoid a potential pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease because of being raped. It’s really more for avoiding a disease. Who knows where that rapist has been. The violence of it by itself is bad enough. I couldn’t imagine having to live with AIDs or any other VD because of it.

I submitted the question to “Ask an Apologist” . We’ll see if we get an answer.

 

[estesbob]

No. The sin of contraception is intentionally separating the unitive and procreative aspect of the conjugal act. Rape is never a conjugal act. The woman has a right to repel an ujust aggressor. The rapist’s sperm have no right to be in her. There is no sin of contraception as no conjugal act has taken place.

I suspect you are right. the cathecism discusses ABC only in the context of the conjugal act in marriage.

It seems to me there was a discussion about whether Nuns in the Congo could go on the pill due to the rampant rape there but i cant remember the outcome.

 

[rpp]

Because the defintion is in the name, itself; CON ( with, together) JUGAL (Joining)

A Conjugal act is an act that joins as a pair.

The Church has never used that term in Moral Theology to describe anything other than consensual sex. If you feel otherwise, I would like to hear your citations.

Huh?? adultery and fornication are both Conjugal acts. the Couple seek to join to together. The seek to do so sinfully, but they do so TOGETHER. (the ‘CON’ part of ‘CONJUGAL’)

That is not true, by defintion, in rape.

See, there is your problem. Rape is not sex. It is an assault on a person’s genitalia.

See above. The ‘citation’ is ini the very definition of the word ‘conjugal’. (again, see above)

If you need any further clarifition on how the Church views the word ‘Conjugal’, I will refer you to

Modern Catholic Dictionary
Fr. John S. Hardon S.J.

review the various entries for Conjugal.

( FYI, Fr. Hardon was a professor of Systematic and Moral Theology at St. John’s University in New York. He passed away in 2001 and actually has a cause for sainthood open for him)

First, let me start by saying that I have tremendous respect for Father John Hardon SJ. He is a great communicator and explains the Catholic faith exceptionally well. In fact it was one of his book, A Pocket Catechism, that helped me to gain an overview of the Catholic faith while I was in the RCIA. I will check out your source.

No. The sin of contraception is intentionally separating the unitive and procreative aspect of the conjugal act. Rape is never a conjugal act. The woman has a right to repel an ujust aggressor. The rapist’s sperm have no right to be in her. There is no sin of contraception as no conjugal act has taken place.

Okay, the more I think about this, the more research I do, the more I think my initial knee-jerk reaction, which was ABC to defend against rape is wrong, may be incorrect.

It does seem logical that rape is in a category all by itself because it is not actually a sexual act, despite the fact that a child may result. It is an act of violence, degradation and and humiliation.

My inability to find any documents, other than the implication by the bishops in Connecticut to permit the use of Plan B “contraceptive” in Catholic hospitals makes me wonder if the Church has issued any kind of finding. The fact that no one else on this thread has been able to provide any either adds to this tentative conclusion.

At this point, I think I am going to change my conclusion and say that the victim’s desire that the attacker use of a condom would not be wrong; the gender of the victim and attacker notwithstanding.

However, should the someone point out some Church document that is in conflict with this, as with all other issues of morality, I will adjust my conscience to be in conformity with the Church.

 

[tcay584]

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?

By the same logic…someone is going to murder me, and I simply ask that it’s done quickly. I don’t think I’m consenting…just saying “Please don’t disembowel me and leave me to die a slow and painful death if you could just shoot me in the head”. If there is no chance that someone will refrain from forcibly exerting their will on you, I don’t think that asking for mercy is consent. I’m just saying "You’re going to do what you’re going to do. I’m not strong enough to stop you. There’s no one to help me. Please be “compassionate” and don’t let me linger…or leave me to die of AIDS. If you were her…you don’t have a choice…period.

 

[latinmasslover]

Part of the reasoning behind the Bishops approval of the morning after pill in certain rape cases is that it is not contraception because the rapist has no right to force sexual activity on the victim. There is nothing mutual about it as one would have in the marital act. No problem here for the girl to request the use of a condom.

What do you mean by the bishops approving the morning after pill? Are you referring to a select group of bishops or the Synod? (I’m not trying to spark a debate, I just never heard that and hope you can tell me where to find that info.)

 

[rpp]

What do you mean by the bishops approving the morning after pill? Are you referring to a select group of bishops or the Synod? (I’m not trying to spark a debate, I just never heard that and hope you can tell me where to find that info.)

He is referring to the Bishops in Connecticut who approved the use of Plan B in Catholic hospitals in response to a new law targeting Catholic hospitals that required them to provide Plan B in the case of rape without taking any tests for pregnancy or ovulation. The bishops caved in and announced that they would permit the hospital to administer Plan B without taking an ovulation test in order to comply with the law. The concern is the debate as the whether Plan B is abortifacient (which it seems to be in certain situations where fertilization has taken place but implantation has not yet occurred).

Please see the link on the opening post of this thread.

 

[Gamera]

The Church forbids abortion of a child conceived by rape. Would this fall under that? I dont know the answer. Thats why i asked.

No way, that is completely different. An unborn child is a human being with inherent rights, regardless of how he or she came into being. Here the issue is preventing pregnancy and the spread of disease from the attacker to the victim.

I don’t see how the use of articifial means to minimize damage to a rape victim could possibly be considered bad. It certainly is not the same as the typical practice of artifical contraception. The goal here is not to have sex without pregnancy — the rape survivor had no intention of ever having participated in the sexual act in the first place. You cannot be guilty of contracepting if you never intended to engage in the sexual activity in the first place.

 

[latinmasslover]

He is referring to the Bishops in Connecticut who approved the use of Plan B in Catholic hospitals in response to a new law targeting Catholic hospitals that required them to provide Plan B in the case of rape without taking any tests for pregnancy or ovulation. The bishops caved in and announced that they would permit the hospital to administer Plan B without taking an ovulation test in order to comply with the law. The concern is the debate as the whether Plan B is abortifacient (which it seems to be in certain situations where fertilization has taken place but implantation has not yet occurred).

Please see the link on the opening post of this thread.

Thank you.