Rape Within Marriage?

[Bookcat]

The Catholic Moral Theologian Dr. Germain Grisez notes:

“although such a violent act is nonmarital, a grave injustice, and insofar as it violates marital love (other things being equal) worse than rape, it is specifically different from rape. For the married couple truly are one flesh, and so sexual violence within marriage does not violate another person’s body. To call forcible intercourse within marriage “rape” is to use the word in an analogous sense, and this extension seems unwise inasmuch as it tends to support individualistic conceptions, according to which there is no one-flesh unity but only a dissoluble contract of marriage.”

The Way of the Lord Jesus Vol II copyright © 2008, Germain Grisez, all rights reserved
Dr. Grisez was for 30 years the Most Rev. Harry J. Flynn Professor of Christian Ethics at Mount Saint Mary’s University in Emmitsburg, Maryland.

 

[Baelor]

Rape does not fit the sin here. Rape can be said to be the forced sexual intercourse where the parties are not married to each other.

There is no reason whatsoever to restrict rape in the sense of forced sexual penetration to unmarried parties. Plus, as I very plainly stated in my last post, you can add the adjective “marital” to “rape” and achieve an adequate result.

Furthermore, if the result were in fact considered inadequate, spousal sexual assault is still not an appropriate term, for the reason I mentioned above –
"Wikipedia:

The term sexual assault is used, in public discourse, as a generic term that is defined as any involuntary sexual act in which a person is threatened, coerced, or forced to engage against their will, or any sexual touching of a person who has not consented. This includes rape (such as forced vaginal, anal or oral penetration), inappropriate touching, forced kissing, child sexual abuse, or the torture of the victim in a sexual manner.

Not only is it too broad, it does not even solve the issue of differentiating forced sexual penetration between spouses and that between unmarried persons. It is the equivalent of “marital rape” with a much broader term that actually encompasses rape in the first place.

“although such a violent act is nonmarital, a grave injustice, and insofar as it violates marital love (other things being equal) worse than rape, it is specifically different from rape. For the married couple truly are one flesh, and so sexual violence within marriage does not violate another person’s body. To call forcible intercourse within marriage “rape” is to use the word in an analogous sense, and this extension seems unwise inasmuch as it tends to support individualistic conceptions, according to which there is no one-flesh unity but only a dissoluble contract of marriage.”

“Marital rape” is deficient in none of the respects that “rape” and “spousal sexual assault” are – the first not applicable, the second a category that includes acts besides sexual penetration (since one cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint sexual penetration at all given the term “spousal sexual assault”).

 

[Bookcat]

Three I’s.

I do not plan to argue and argue over the term. It is a question that one can dispute about.

I and others (moral theologians) think that rape is not the term to use. (see Dr. Grisez) Such though does not mean a husband has a right to any such violence (again see above)

I bid all a joyful Lords Day beginning in but a few minutes time.

 

[severus68]

Rape does not fit the sin here. Rape can be said to be the forced sexual intercourse where the parties are not married to each other. Just as fornication is sexual intercourse outside of marriage that is consented to by both parties. And Adultery is sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other but with one of them at least being married to another. Their act can never be termed fornication.

Dictionaries do not always take into account theological realities.

Someone asked a more appropiate term and I suggested one.
*
Spousal sexual assault.*

Actually the general definition of rape does not exclude married people. Marital rape was just excluded specifically.

Well you have always insisted that marital rape or rape was not the right term and so I asked what you thought was the right term.

 

[severus68]

The Catholic Moral Theologian Dr. Germain Grisez notes:

“although such a violent act is nonmarital, a grave injustice, and insofar as it violates marital love (other things being equal) worse than rape, it is specifically different from rape. For the married couple truly are one flesh, and so sexual violence within marriage does not violate another person’s body. To call forcible intercourse within marriage “rape” is to use the word in an analogous sense, and this extension seems unwise inasmuch as it tends to support individualistic conceptions, according to which there is no one-flesh unity but only a dissoluble contract of marriage.”

The Way of the Lord Jesus Vol II copyright © 2008, Germain Grisez, all rights reserved
Dr. Grisez was for 30 years the Most Rev. Harry J. Flynn Professor of Christian Ethics at Mount Saint Mary’s University in Emmitsburg, Maryland./QUOTE

That is so wrong a premise. Marital rape and all rape is a violation of the body and the person.

 

[severus68]

There is no reason whatsoever to restrict rape in the sense of forced sexual penetration to unmarried parties. Plus, as I very plainly stated in my last post, you can add the adjective “marital” to “rape” and achieve an adequate result.

Furthermore, if the result were in fact considered inadequate, spousal sexual assault is still not an appropriate term, for the reason I mentioned above –

Not only is it too broad, it does not even solve the issue of differentiating forced sexual penetration between spouses and that between unmarried persons. It is the equivalent of “marital rape” with a much broader term that actually encompasses rape in the first place.

“Marital rape” is deficient in none of the respects that “rape” and “spousal sexual assault” are – the first not applicable, the second a category that includes acts besides sexual penetration (since one cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint sexual penetration at all given the term “spousal sexual assault”).

I agree, absolutely!

 

[Walking_Home]

Bookcat:

Rape does not fit the sin here. Rape can be said to be the forced sexual intercourse where the parties are not married to each other.

There is no reason whatsoever to restrict rape in the sense of forced sexual penetration to unmarried parties. Plus, as I very plainly stated in my last post, you can add the adjective “marital” to “rape” and achieve an adequate result.

Furthermore, if the result were in fact considered inadequate, spousal sexual assault is still not an appropriate term, for the reason I mentioned above –

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia, citing legal definitions
The term sexual assault is used, in public discourse, as a generic term that is defined as any involuntary sexual act in which a person is threatened, coerced, or forced to engage against their will, or any sexual touching of a person who has not consented. This includes rape (such as forced vaginal, anal or oral penetration), inappropriate touching, forced kissing, child sexual abuse, or the torture of the victim in a sexual manner.

Not only is it too broad, it does not even solve the issue of differentiating forced sexual penetration between spouses and that between unmarried persons. It is the equivalent of “marital rape” with a much broader term that actually encompasses rape in the first place.

Bookcat:

“although such a violent act is nonmarital, a grave injustice, and insofar as it violates marital love (other things being equal) worse than rape, it is specifically different from rape. For the married couple truly are one flesh, and so sexual violence within marriage does not violate another person’s body. To call forcible intercourse within marriage “rape” is to use the word in an analogous sense, and this extension seems unwise inasmuch as it tends to support individualistic conceptions, according to which there is no one-flesh unity but only a dissoluble contract of marriage.”

“Marital rape” is deficient in none of the respects that “rape” and “spousal sexual assault” are – the first not applicable, the second a category that includes acts besides sexual penetration (since one cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint sexual penetration at all given the term “spousal sexual assault”).

---

 

[Walking_Home]

Bookcat;9106578:

The Catholic Moral Theologian Dr. Germain Grisez notes:

“although such a violent act is nonmarital, a grave injustice, and insofar as it violates marital love (other things being equal) worse than rape, it is specifically different from rape. For the married couple truly are one flesh, and so sexual violence within marriage does not violate another person’s body. To call forcible intercourse within marriage “rape” is to use the word in an analogous sense, and this extension seems unwise inasmuch as it tends to support individualistic conceptions, according to which there is no one-flesh unity but only a dissoluble contract of marriage.”

The Way of the Lord Jesus Vol II copyright © 2008, Germain Grisez, all rights reserved
Dr. Grisez was for 30 years the Most Rev. Harry J. Flynn Professor of Christian Ethics at Mount Saint Mary’s University in Emmitsburg, Maryland.

That is so wrong a premise. Marital rape and all rape is a violation of the body and the person.

---

Most certainly agree.

 

[Bookcat]

Actually the general definition of rape does not exclude married people…

I am again not referring to what a particular secular court or country or dictionary calls this or that. This is the “Catholic Answers Forum --Moral Theology”. Such is what I was discussing.

 

[Bookcat]

The Catholic Moral Theologian Dr. Germain Grisez notes:

“although such a violent act is nonmarital, a grave injustice, and insofar as it violates marital love (other things being equal) worse than rape, it is specifically different from rape. For the married couple truly are one flesh, and so sexual violence within marriage does not violate another person’s body. To call forcible intercourse within marriage “rape” is to use the word in an analogous sense, and this extension seems unwise inasmuch as it tends to support individualistic conceptions, according to which there is no one-flesh unity but only a dissoluble contract of marriage.”

The Way of the Lord Jesus Vol II copyright © 2008, Germain Grisez, all rights reserved
Dr. Grisez was for 30 years the Most Rev. Harry J. Flynn Professor of Christian Ethics at Mount Saint Mary’s University in Emmitsburg, Maryland.

 

[Bookcat]

Three I’s.

I do not plan to argue and argue over the term. It is a question that one can dispute about.

I and others (moral theologians) think that rape is not the term to use. (see Dr. Grisez) Such though does not mean a husband has a right to any such violence (again see above)

I bid all a joyful Lords Day.

 

[Baelor]

“although such a violent act is nonmarital, a grave injustice, and insofar as it violates marital love (other things being equal) worse than rape, it is specifically different from rape. For the married couple truly are one flesh, and so sexual violence within marriage does not violate another person’s body. To call forcible intercourse within marriage “rape” is to use the word in an analogous sense, and this extension seems unwise inasmuch as it tends to support individualistic conceptions, according to which there is no one-flesh unity but only a dissoluble contract of marriage.”

There is no reason whatsoever to restrict rape in the sense of forced sexual penetration to unmarried parties. Plus, as I very plainly stated in my last post, you can add the adjective “marital” to “rape” and achieve an adequate result.

[Note that in my response to the post where you put forward this passage, my definition of rape *deliberately excluded mention of “another person” in order to avoid the criticism put forward by the theologian mentioned. Furthermore, “marital rape” clearly is different from rape, because they have different labels – “marital rape” fulfills every concern put forward by the theologian himself. His objection to rape does not stand against “marital rape” because the latter has no mention of “another person,” and it can apply only to marriage. Once can certainly compel one’s spouse toward sex, which fulfills my very reasonable and unchallenged definition of “rape,” which I even narrowed for the sake of total clarity to “marital rape.”]

 

[Bookcat]

Again there I am not going to argue and argue here about terms.

I bid all a joyful Lords Day.

 

[Bookcat]

Again I am not going to go round and round on the term. I have given my thoughts (and those of a Moral Theologian more fitted to the task than I). And do not wish to have a protracted conversation on the matter.

I bid all a joyful Lords Day.

 

[Baelor]

You are more than welcome to stop posting – but you continued to post the same thing, and so I responded accordingly. If you truly wish not to involve yourself in a “protracted conversation,” I would humbly suggest not posting.

 

[Bezant]

I’m shocked that anyone could even ask this question. Of course it’s wrong!!! My gosh. Catholics are not monsters.

~Liza

I know. What a daft question.