Should rapists contracept?

[mommamaree]

I agree with everything you said except this. Rape is violent assaults, yes. That doesn’t make it not sex though, or more specifically, it doesn’t make contraception not contraception - that’s where I get confused. If contraception is intrinsically evil it will be wrong always every time no matter what - like abortion. I don’t think contraception is wrong in the case of rape, so I guess maybe I don’t think contraception is intrinsically evil, because sometimes, admittedly very seldom, it could be allowed.

The poster above said it far more eloquently than I ever could, so definitely take a second look at their post. I should have said that rape is not sexual intercourse. Rape is an assault on our sexual organs, but that does not mean it is intercourse. Just like a sexual assault on a child would never be correctly called sexual intercourse, a rape on an adult person couldn’t be called that either. And contraception is wrong because it removes the procreative aspect from the marital embrace. So in a situation where a woman is being violated, there is no marital embrace, and hence, no requirement to be ordered to procreation or ‘open to life’. This is how I understand it, and that seems to be borne out by the poster who gave such a compassionate and clear explanation above.

 

[brianwalden]

Rape is mortally sinful

1 mortal sin is as damning as 100 mortal sins. Avoiding a second mortal sin does not lessen the first

It is no better, nor no worse to avoid a second mortal sin of contracepting if committing an act of rape.

Do you really believe this? Is punching someone in the head no worse than cutting someone’s head off because they’re both mortal sin? Isn’t there more to it than just venial and mortal? Doesn’t every sin have spiritual and temporal consequences?

 

[silentstar]

First of all -

from the rape, abuse and incest national network (rainn.org)

although they estimate 9 in 10 rape victims are female, the other 10% are male. This is based on reported data and may underestimate the number of male victims. I have seen estimates that 1 in 6 males is a survivor of sexual assault before age 21.

they won’t get pregnant. it’s important to keep emphasizing that male victims exist b/c many people forget that.

another 15% of rape/sexual assault victims are children, girls who are under the age of 12. It is not likely that they are old enough to get pregnant.

44% of victims are under the age of 18, while 80% are under the age of 30.

Many people don’t realize how young most rape victims are. To me, hearing about “women who are raped” always made me picture a woman in her 20s or 30s. Even though I was raped in childhood, before the age of 12, I thought growing up that it wasn’t really rape b/c I was too young and I wasn’t a woman so it didn’t count. Because the news stories were about “women.”

So this is an issue that is likely to affect children (STD risk) and teenagers (STD and pregnancy) and males as well (also STD risk). So anyone who is concerned with victims of this crime is potentially dealing with teen pregnancy and people contracting STDs at a young age.

rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

RAINN estimates that perhaps 5% of rape victims could get pregnant from one act of rape. However they say this is very uncertain and relies on a lot of factors.

I can understand the question, sort of, but I think that people who rape are not likely to care enough about the victim’s feelings to use a condom, unless that relates to avoiding leaving evidence.

It just seems to me this question about what rapists should do is a question that attempts to apply Catholic teaching to those who rape and they are already doing such wrong that I don’t see how using a condom changes things much. The reality is that they will use a condom if they feel like it and if not, they won’t.

It’s also important to realize that a lot of rapes are planned. In some cases they plan to attack a specific victim and in other cases they find someone who is vulnerable, such as at a party, and get that person drunk and commit the crime.

Also, victims may be in shock and not even thinking about STD or pregnancy risk. They may not even know about these things. Even if they do, being attacked is so shocking that many people can’t react. So the responsibility for condom use (or not) is on the offender.

Additionally, many rapists use physical violence as well. They may not need to physically subdue the victim but it’s common, unfortunately, for them to beat the victim or otherwise physically assault him/her in addition to sexual assault. I don’t know if that counts as another mortal sin, but it shows contempt and lack of respect for the person they are attacking, even if it is someone they know.

 

[PatriceA]

First of all -

from the rape, abuse and incest national network (rainn.org)

although they estimate 9 in 10 rape victims are female, the other 10% are male. This is based on reported data and may underestimate the number of male victims. I have seen estimates that 1 in 6 males is a survivor of sexual assault before age 21.

they won’t get pregnant. it’s important to keep emphasizing that male victims exist b/c many people forget that.

another 15% of rape/sexual assault victims are children, girls who are under the age of 12. It is not likely that they are old enough to get pregnant.

44% of victims are under the age of 18, while 80% are under the age of 30.

Many people don’t realize how young most rape victims are. To me, hearing about “women who are raped” always made me picture a woman in her 20s or 30s. Even though I was raped in childhood, before the age of 12, I thought growing up that it wasn’t really rape b/c I was too young and I wasn’t a woman so it didn’t count. Because the news stories were about “women.”

So this is an issue that is likely to affect children (STD risk) and teenagers (STD and pregnancy) and males as well (also STD risk). So anyone who is concerned with victims of this crime is potentially dealing with teen pregnancy and people contracting STDs at a young age.

rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

RAINN estimates that perhaps 5% of rape victims could get pregnant from one act of rape. However they say this is very uncertain and relies on a lot of factors.

I can understand the question, sort of, but I think that people who rape are not likely to care enough about the victim’s feelings to use a condom, unless that relates to avoiding leaving evidence.

It just seems to me this question about what rapists should do is a question that attempts to apply Catholic teaching to those who rape and they are already doing such wrong that I don’t see how using a condom changes things much. The reality is that they will use a condom if they feel like it and if not, they won’t.

It’s also important to realize that a lot of rapes are planned. In some cases they plan to attack a specific victim and in other cases they find someone who is vulnerable, such as at a party, and get that person drunk and commit the crime.

Also, victims may be in shock and not even thinking about STD or pregnancy risk. They may not even know about these things. Even if they do, being attacked is so shocking that many people can’t react. So the responsibility for condom use (or not) is on the offender.

Additionally, many rapists use physical violence as well. They may not need to physically subdue the victim but it’s common, unfortunately, for them to beat the victim or otherwise physically assault him/her in addition to sexual assault. I don’t know if that counts as another mortal sin, but it shows contempt and lack of respect for the person they are attacking, even if it is someone they know.

Thank you, you said it much more eloquently than I could.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

The question is ridiculous. You’re asking a person with next to none moral boundaries to suddenly have some kind of conscious or empathy for his victim. Contraception is the very, very last thing on the mind of a rapist, be it a date rape or a violent rape. Rape is not about having sex, its about power and control.

Exactly! And, like I said, if a rapist is going to wear a condom, it will likely be so he won’t leave his dna behind to decrease the likelihood of his getting caught!

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[micahmike]

Where is the data to back that claim up?

Here.

nytimes.com/1993/05/15/us/rapist-who-agreed-to-use-condom-gets-40-years.html

 

[micahmike]

I can understand the question, sort of, but I think that people who rape are not likely to care enough about the victim’s feelings to use a condom…

I agree that it is unlikely and as such, probably uncommon, but it has happened.

It just seems to me this question about what rapists should do is a question that attempts to apply Catholic teaching to those who rape and they are already doing such wrong that I don’t see how using a condom changes things much. The reality is that they will use a condom if they feel like it and if not, they won’t.

I don’t think that the contraception changes the morality of the act for the rapist much (though some might disagreee), but I think that many (perhaps most) victims would strongly prefer that the rapists contracept. I understand that most rapists don’t care about what happens to the victim, and I understand that the victim seldom gets a choice in the matter, but under the rare conditions where the victim is given the choice, do they sin if they insist on contraception?

 

[Ponyguy]

Does this thread make any real sense at all? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/ponyguy/thinking.gif

Can anyone actually imagine a rapist telling his victim: “Wait a second; stay right there while I don this condom… I don’t want you to end up pregnant or catch this nasty case of cooties that I have.” http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/ponyguy/tiphat.gif

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[micahmike]

Does this thread make any real sense at all? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/ponyguy/thinking.gif

Can anyone actually imagine a rapist telling his victim: “Wait a second; stay right there while I don this condom… I don’t want you to end up pregnant or catch this nasty case of cooties that I have.”

Cute stamp, love it! Did they not have one that said “I couldn’t be bothered to read the article that was posted”?

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Some have alleged the question of the opening post is ridiculous. Even though almost no one else thinks the answer is worth seeking, they have been offering some, one of which I cannot disagree with more. The answer which seems the least tenable is from those who seem to believe that adding a mortal sin to a mortal sin is meaningless. Assuredly not. Regarding the pains of hell, we are told in the Gospels that he who is worthy of many stripes will receive many, and he that is worthy of few will receive few. Catholic theology acknowledges degrees of glory in heaven and degrees of punishment in hell. In addition, a system of justice that condemns with only one punishment no matter how multiplied are the crimes is inherently unjust and gives license to unbridled passions upon commission of the first crime.

For these reasons I have to vehemently disagree with those who adhere to this belief:

1 mortal sin is as damning as 100 mortal sins. Avoiding a second mortal sin does not lessen the first.

No one is suggesting that the first sin is lessened by avoiding a second, but it would be bad law that does not recognize the difference between rape/theft, and plain rape. Or rape/beating, and plain rape. Or rape/torture, and plain rape. Or rape/murder and plain rape. Or rape/theft/beating/torture/murder and plain rape. Thus the reasonableness of the question regarding rape/contraception and plain rape.

The answer to the question would be enlightening even if there have been no times when it has happened. But the author has demonstrated that there have been real life cases. The same information could be probably be answered if the author asked if adulterers should contracept.

1. I tend to think that contraception is only a sin between married people, who are supposed to be open to life.
2. Therefore, I tend to think that a man who rapes his own wife would compound his sin through contraception.
3. Non-married rapists would not be under any rule regarding contraception, if it only applies to married people.
4. A rapist who offers, from a motive of mercy, to do whatever might lessen the discomfort of the victim, will receive more sympathy from any judge and jury than he who is brutal. This seems to me like the kind of nuance in law that we should and must recognize in society and that God would recognize in the heavenly courts. But whteher contraception should be included among those things that would lessen the victim’s discomfort is an excellent question.

I am drawn to be interested to the answer for this question, not because, as some here seem to think, that we can catechize our children as to the most moral way to rape, but rather to deepen our understanding of justice and Catholic theology. I think those who attempt to ridicule the question fail to understand the reason for the desire of an answer.

 

[micahmike]

I am drawn to be interested to the answer for this question, not because, as some here seem to think, that we can catechize our children as to the most moral way to rape, but rather to deepen our understanding of justice and Catholic theology. I think those who attempt to ridicule the question fail to understand the reason for the desire of an answer.

Thank you Rory.

Would you say that contraception then could not be clled an intrinsic evil but a situational evil? I’m not quite ready to make that leap, but the more I consider it the more legit that oppinion seems.

This is how I learn, this is how my oppinions are formed. It is good to think, to discuss, and to understand. It isn’t about “looking for loopholes” as some uncharitable sorts have suggested as I have no interest in participating in contraception, rape, adultery, etc.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

1 mortal sin is as damning as 100 mortal sins. Avoiding a second mortal sin does not lessen the first

It is no better, nor no worse to avoid a second mortal sin of contracepting if committing an act of rape.

Would we think it was just it if while we were in the confessional we were instructed by the priest that because we had committed any one mortal sin, we were deserving of the same penance as one had brutally raped and murdered many times?

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Thank you Rory.

Would you say that contraception then could not be clled an intrinsic evil but a situational evil? I’m not quite ready to make that leap, but the more I consider it the more legit that oppinion seems.

This is how I learn, this is how my oppinions are formed. It is good to think, to discuss, and to understand. It isn’t about “looking for loopholes” as some uncharitable sorts have suggested as I have no interest in participating in contraception, rape, adultery, etc.

Mike, I think we need to check authoritative sources. I have to go to work right nowe but I have a good moral theology on the shelf. I tend to think it is a situational evil as I implied above, but like you, I am not sure. Maybe someone else can answer before I come back from work. But in any event, the kneejerk reaction shows that some folks have some real appaling ideas about justice in general. Later.

Rory

 

[silentstar]

I agree that it is unlikely and as such, probably uncommon, but it has happened.

I don’t think that the contraception changes the morality of the act for the rapist much (though some might disagreee), but I think that many (perhaps most) victims would strongly prefer that the rapists contracept. I understand that most rapists don’t care about what happens to the victim, and I understand that the victim seldom gets a choice in the matter, but under the rare conditions where the victim is given the choice, do they sin if they insist on contraception?

Being raped induces a state of terror in victims. There are people who die from having been raped; it is not common but it happens. One unfortunate young woman was missing for a month before her family, who had been looking for her, realized that her body was in the morgue. She had had an asthma attack while being raped and died.

Many victims are consumed with fears of death, and this happens to a lot of people which is one reason why the diagnosis of PTSD is appropriate for many rape victims. It refers to situations that are life-threatening, or are perceived to be life-threatening for the victim. Rape is pretty universally acknowledged as being perceived as life-threatening. In this case, while people are terrified of death and focused on survival, I don’t see that they have the mental capacity to choose to sin. I think it’s hard if not impossible to make a free choice for sin when you are terrified someone is going to kill you and very upset and in a lot of pain about what is happening.

While most victims don’t die, being raped tends to cause people to be flooded with panic. It is a brutal invasion and you don’t know what the person is going to do to you.

When someone is being sexually assaulted, they have already lost all control of the situation. If there is a rare case where they can ask about condom use, or accept the use of a condom, that is a way to be a little bit less helpless. I don’t see how that could be a sin. It’s not the same as using contraception in a relationship where both people have the choice to have sex.

Using contraception helps cut down on pregnancy and disease, both of which can have a very negative impact on the victim and his or her family. It is also common for rape victims to have anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, so any outcomes related to pregnancy and disease would be on top of these other conditions which often cannot be avoided.

So victims would be under physical strain from pregnancy/STD at the same time they are under psychological strain from anxiety/depression/PTSD. I cannot agree with the Church if it says that because artificial contraception is always wrong, that this double burden for some victims is justified, in the rare cases that a rapist may use a condom. PTSD, anxiety, and depression can be difficult conditions to live with and adding pregnancy and STD can make it that much worse.

There is another aspect to this: if the victim is married or planning to get married, and he or she is raped and refuses the offer of a condom because they think it’s always wrong, they might get an STD which would then require the use of a condom for the rest of their lives, including in a marital relationship. That is much closer to what the Church would not agree with. It is not possible to cure every STD that people acquire. Some of them, like genital herpes, cannot be cured.

So by not insisting on condom use if possible, victims can get into a situation where they are not able to responsibly have sex without a condom after that. And that includes several sexually transmitted diseases, not just HIV. It may also include diseases which require blood-to-blood contact, like hepatitis. Blood contact may result from some attacks. Although public attention tends to focus on HIV/AIDS as dangerous conditions that can be spread, there are other conditions which are spread by sexual and/or blood contact which are not good to have or infect a partner with.

 

[paperwight]

Regarding contraception being situationally rather than intrinsically evil, have people forgttten that during the appalling war in the (then) Belgian Congo during the 1960’s, nuns were prescribed the Pill so that pregnancy would not bring scandal to the Church in the event of rape?

 

[silentstar]

Regarding contraception being situationally rather than intrinsically evil, have people forgttten that during the appalling war in the (then) Belgian Congo during the 1960’s, nuns were prescribed the Pill so that pregnancy would not bring scandal to the Church in the event of rape?

I had not heard of this case but I know mass rape is common in war and is still happening. It is tragic and there is often little to nothing that can be done about it in a situation where civilized society has broken down and violence is everywhere.

In that situation, I would rather be on the Pill than not. As a woman, if I were fairly sure I could not avoid being raped, I would want to take precautions against becoming pregnant. Of course I’d rather not be raped but in war that is often not possible.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Would you say that contraception then could not be clled an intrinsic evil but a situational evil? I’m not quite ready to make that leap, but the more I consider it the more legit that oppinion seems.

Contraceptive sexual relations are intrinsically evil. That is, there is never a situation that makes contraceptive sexual relations not a sin.

Rape is not an exception, because rape is also intrinsically evil. That is, there is never a situation that makes rape not a sin.

However, rape is a sin for the rapist, not for the person being raped. This is true even if the victim uses contraception, whether before, during, or after the attack. (The before case is the Belgian Congo nuns; the after case would be a spermicidal applied in the hospital.)

 

[micahmike]

Contraceptive sexual relations are intrinsically evil. That is, there is never a situation that makes contraceptive sexual relations not a sin.

Rape is not an exception, because rape is also intrinsically evil. That is, there is never a situation that makes rape not a sin.

However, rape is a sin for the rapist, not for the person being raped. This is true even if the victim uses contraception, whether before, during, or after the attack. (The before case is the Belgian Congo nuns; the after case would be a spermicidal applied in the hospital.)

That’s precisely where I struggle with all this. Silentstar’s fine posts illustrate that a rape victim is probably not very culpable for the sin of contraception - that’s clear as day to me. what isn’t so clear is whether that acct of contraception is still evil, is still sin.

I understand that rape is a violent act - but it is still a sex act, and contracepting is still contracepting, even when being raped…or at least it seems to me to be so. It is possible that as some have suggested, the rules against contraception only aply to married couples - that terms like “the conjugal act” and “the marriage act” only apply to married couples engaging in intercourse by mutual consent. Some here strongly oppose that line of thinking - though they have not in this thread.

You JL, seem to take a 3rd view - that contraception is always evils - but it ceases to be contraception in cases of rape. I don’t think you’re wrong, but I’m not convinced you’re right. Can you explain further how you determined that a rape victim who chooses to contracept is not contracepting?

 

[PatriceA]

That’s precisely where I struggle with all this. Silentstar’s fine posts illustrate that a rape victim is probably not very culpable for the sin of contraception - that’s clear as day to me. what isn’t so clear is whether that acct of contraception is still evil, is still sin.

I understand that rape is a violent act - but it is still a sex act, and contracepting is still contracepting, even when being raped…or at least it seems to me to be so. It is possible that as some have suggested, the rules against contraception only aply to married couples - that terms like “the conjugal act” and “the marriage act” only apply to married couples engaging in intercourse by mutual consent. Some here strongly oppose that line of thinking - though they have not in this thread.

You JL, seem to take a 3rd view - that contraception is always evils - but it ceases to be contraception in cases of rape. I don’t think you’re wrong, but I’m not convinced you’re right. Can you explain further how you determined that a rape victim who chooses to contracept is not contracepting?

Clearly you will never understand that rape is a crime. IT IS NOT A SEX ACT.

 

[Just_Lurking]

You JL, seem to take a 3rd view - that contraception is always evils - but it ceases to be contraception in cases of rape. I don’t think you’re wrong, but I’m not convinced you’re right. Can you explain further how you determined that a rape victim who chooses to contracept is not contracepting?

Just FYI, I’m explaining a 3rd view, not necessarily accepting it myself.

Secondly, I don’t think you’ve accurately summarized this view, so let me try again.

Contraceptive sexual relations are intrinsically evil, e.g., always a sin. This is because God meant for sex to (1) always occur within the context of marriage and (2) always be open to life. Now, given a particular instance of the sin of contraceptive sexual relations, it remains to determine how much of the sin is due to the violation of (1), and how much of the sin is due to the violation of (2).

Here is the 3rd view: Violations of (1) are always sinful in and of themselves. Violations of (2) are sinful to the extent that the requirement to be open to life still applies given the violation of (1).

Thus, Catholics in a civil marriage are sinning every time they have sex, because they aren’t married in the eyes of the Church. Because they are assuming the appearance of civil marriage, they have also assumed the requirement to be open to life, so they are sinning worse if they use contraception.

A destitute woman who is driven to prostitution to feed her children is sinning every time she has sex with a “client”. However, because prostitution is nothing like marriage, she has no additional requirement to be open to life, and in fact may be mitigating the sin by using contraception to reduce the incidence of STD transmission. In places where prostitution is legal, the use of a condom is often required by law.

Rape also fits into this model, as there is certainly no additional requirement to be open to life in the case of rape. However, rape is more a crime of violence than an act of sex.