Should rapists contracept?

[micahmike]

Rapists shouldn’t be rapists…but they are, because they rape. I wish they’d not rape, but they do rape.

When a man rapes a woman, would you prefer he contracept with a barrier method of contraception or would you prefer he remain open to life? Rape is a grave sin. Contraception is a grave sin. I wish people didn’t rape or contracept. I hope that my daughter never gets raped, and I hope she never contracepts. I hope that if she does get raped, the rapist wears a condom - and if he offers her a choice, I hope she’d choose to have him wear one. There was such a case in the news a few years back, so it isn’t as silly a hypothetical as some people’s first reactions might think. I may change my mind on that depending on the knowledge learned in this thread. My questions are:

1. Would it be wrong to encourage a would-be rapist to wear a condom in an effort to reduce the liklihood of pregnancy and STDs (assuming of course that you had done everything in your power to prevent the rape but failed)?
2. Would the rapist be committing a worse action by raping with a condom than if he didn’t wear a condom?

 

[ALLGIRLS]

These types of questions are just silly, and have nothing to do w/ Church teaching. A rapist is in mortal sin for raping. Can that sin be compounded by using a condom? Who knows! If he dies b/f repenting of the rape he’s going to hell anyway! How can anything make a rape better?

Yes, it would be awesome if no one was ever raped, or, if they were they didn’t get pregnant or an STD. However, if someone was raped, wouldn’t it suck if the rapist wasn’t caught b/c he used a condom, thereby not leaving any dna evidence behind? Which, btw, would be the likely motivation behind a rapist using a condom, not to be benevolent toward the victim by not knocking her up or giving her a disease. Rapists aren’t compassionate, or else they wouldn’t be rapists!

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[mommamaree]

You know, I was just considering this moral dilemma this past weekend. I think it is definitely preferable for a rapist to wear a condom, in order to reduce the likelihood that further injury result from his attack of the woman. Dealing with a brutal attack is bad enough, but to find out an STD or pregnancy has resulted from the attack would be even harder. As a woman and a mother, if I was attacked and became pregnant, I would be able to see that the baby is mine also, and I hope I would be able to keep the child instead of giving it up for adoption. But who knows how I would really feel in that situation? And what about my husband, or any husband who finds out his beloved wife was first raped and then is pregnant by the rapist? And what about if the husband and wife were not abstinant during that period preceeding the rape, and the baby could be either the husband’s or the rapist’s? In the one situation that I know of where a white woman was raped by a black acquaintance, but was married to a white husband with whom she had been trying to have a baby, they decided to keep the baby, no matter whose baby it turned out to be. The baby was born with dark brown skin and looked just like her rapist acquaintance, so it was obvious how the baby was conceived. They, as Christians, chose to raise the child as their own, and of course, had already reported the rape to police. They are my example of the loving thing to do for the sake of the child, but that doesn’t address the issue raised by the OP, unfortunately.
I don’t carry condoms around, so it is highly unlikely, if I was attacked, that I would even have the option of begging my attacker to use a condom. I suspect most Catholic women would be in a similar situation. But I have begun to wonder, if the birth control pill wasn’t so prevalent today, and more women were fertile, would there be as many rapes occurring? I have been informed (I don’t know how accurate it is) that violent crimes against women are continuing to increase, and I can’t help speculating how much of that is a result of the contraceptive mentality that is widespread in our world today. If a potential rapist knew that there was a chance that he could impregnate the woman he raped, and that she would therefore have living proof of his attack, and that the proof would be in the form of his child, would a rapist reconsider his actions? It just seems that so many of the stories I hear about date-rape or acquaintance-rape include a presumption that the women is on the Pill. Now this is all my own personal wonderings about this situation. I am not claiming any truth in what I speculate about here, but I wondered if maybe others who are thinking through such hypothetical moral dilemmas have had similar lines of thinking. And I certainly mean no disrespect to any women who have been sexually assaulted. Almost every female family member I have, and many friends, have been raped, or at the very least sexually violated or assaulted. This is a subject of great relevance for me and it breaks my heart to think about it.
But really, a man who is going to rape, in all honesty, he is not likely to care if the women ends up contracting his STD or bearing his child, will he?

 

[micahmike]

But really, a man who is going to rape, in all honesty, he is not likely to care if the women ends up contracting his STD or bearing his child, will he?

Most often? Probably not. It has happened though, so it isn’t all that far out there.

 

[Ponyguy]

This must be a hypothetical question…

Rapists don’t give two spits about anything or anyone besides their own fiendish urges.

Rapists should be castrated… with a 12 gauge shotgun… or maybe just Kindergarten scissors…

I’m sorry… that was unkind.

Or, maybe it wasn’t…

 

[KostyaJMJ]

I’m thinking rapists shouldn’t rape.

 

[micahmike]

I’m thinking rapists shouldn’t rape.

You’re right, they shouldn’t…but so far my efforts to eliminate rape have been futile. Sometimes, thought admitedly not often, the rapists will offer to wear a condom. If he does, is he contraception andwould his soul be better off if he hadn’t added the contraception to the sin of rape, and if the victim were given the choice of condom or no condom, would she be sinning if she chose the condom?

Of course we don’t want there to be any rape ever. There is, and sometimes the rapist chooses to contracept, other times they let the victims chose. Most often he doesn, t and in those cases the question doesn’t come up. Those are not the cases that this thread is about.

 

[PatriceA]

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.

 

[micahmike]

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.

I’m not really asking that person anything. I’m asking the population of this board.

Contraception is the very, very last thing on the mind of a rapist, be it a date rape or a violent rape.

And yet, rapists have offered victims the choice (and on at least one other occasion, a victim begged her attacker to use one and he consented). Not often I grant you.

 

[PatriceA]

I’m not really asking that person anything. I’m asking the population of this board.

And yet, rapists have offered victims the choice (and on at least one other occasion, a victim begged her attacker to use one and he consented). Not often I grant you.

Where is the data to back that claim up?

 

[mommamaree]

And yet, rapists have offered victims the choice (and on at least one other occasion, a victim begged her attacker to use one and he consented). Not often I grant you.

Yes, I have heard of that particular case. It made national news a few years ago, and had people going crazy with debating the nature of the assault. People who didn’t know the whole story assumed that by virtue of the fact that she asked him to wear a condom and he consented, that she was not actually raped. That flabbergasted me, quite frankly. It seemed so many people were ready to judge the poor woman and find her at fault, instead of being amazed at her courage and her ability to hold it together enough to plead for one small concession in the face of overwhelming violence. It was that very case that was on my mind this past weekend when I was pondering these questions.
I don’t think your question is ridiculous at all, micahmike. But I think it really boils down to women who fear such a thing happening to them and wishing to minimize the longterm physical consequences (like contracting HIV or getting pregnant) because the trauma and longterm emotional consequences are bad enough. The soul of the rapist is probably the last thing a person is thinking about, although in truth, we are to pray for our enemies. But praying for our enemies, IMO, does not extend to discerning how to keep them from compounding their sin when they are in the middle of violently attacking you. I think during those times, it is sheer survival instinct that takes over, even for the most devout among us. But I could be totally wrong here, as I said before, this is all sheer speculation.

 

[micahmike]

Where is the data to back that claim up?

I will try to dig up the case tonight if you like. It made national news, perhaps some others here remember it? The rapist was intent on doing his thing, but his female victim asked him to please wear a condom and he complied. a side tradgedy of this case was that the defense argued that since he agreed to use a condom, it couldn’t really be rape, as getting him to wear a condom was some sort of consent - it wasn’t of course, it was just her trying to reduce the chances of an already terrible situation being made worse with unwanted pregnancy or disease.

ETA: D’oh! Beaten to the punch!

 

[revert_jen]

1. Would it be wrong to encourage a would-be rapist to wear a condom in an effort to reduce the liklihood of pregnancy and STDs (assuming of course that you had done everything in your power to prevent the rape but failed)?

Personally I think that you are only required to be open to life if you are choosing to have sex, not if you are forced. I would encourage women to choose the condom.

OTOH, it is wrong to take the morning after pill even after rape because that is abortifacient. Whatever the sins of the father, the baby, once it exists, has a right to live.

1. Would the rapist be committing a worse action by raping with a condom than if he didn’t wear a condom?

I agree with others that this is a pointless question. It is like asking if a person is more dead because they were killed with both a knife and poison than if they were just killed with a knife. Dead is dead.

Also, it would depend on whether the rapist knew he had an STD. In that case, he is inflicting more harm on the woman without a condom than with one.

These are just my own opinions; I don’t know if the Church has a position on this specific issue.

–Jen

 

[micahmike]

Yes, I have heard of that particular case. It made national news a few years ago, and had people going crazy with debating the nature of the assault. People who didn’t know the whole story assumed that by virtue of the fact that she asked him to wear a condom and he consented, that she was not actually raped. That flabbergasted me, quite frankly. It seemed so many people were ready to judge the poor woman and find her at fault, instead of being amazed at her courage and her ability to hold it together enough to plead for one small concession in the face of overwhelming violence. It was that very case that was on my mind this past weekend when I was pondering these questions.
I don’t think your question is ridiculous at all, micahmike. But I think it really boils down to women who fear such a thing happening to them and wishing to minimize the longterm physical consequences (like contracting HIV or getting pregnant) because the trauma and longterm emotional consequences are bad enough. The soul of the rapist is probably the last thing a person is thinking about, although in truth, we are to pray for our enemies. But praying for our enemies, IMO, does not extend to discerning how to keep them from compounding their sin when they are in the middle of violently attacking you. I think during those times, it is sheer survival instinct that takes over, even for the most devout among us. But I could be totally wrong here, as I said before, this is all sheer speculation.

Thanks for backing up my memory! sometimes it does get a bit fuzzy
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I'm not so much trying to discern how to keep rapists from compounding their sin by contracepting as I am wondering *if* they are. I don't know for sure. similarily, I don't know for certain if the woman who requested the contraceptive was wrong to do so. I tend to think not, but I keep hearing that double effect cannot apply to an intrinsic evil like contraception - so I made the thread to hear from others and share and learn.

 

[micahmike]

Whatever the sins of the father, the baby, once it exists, has a right to live.

Without a doubt. Great responses Jen, thanks!

 

[mommamaree]

FYI, there was also a recent news story regarding a man who purposefully infected many women with HIV, while posing as a legitimate lover. They each thought they were his one and only woman and were discussing possible marriage, only to find out that not only was he a womanizer and a liar, but he was also lying about his HIV status (he knew he was HIV-positive) in order to infect all those women. They were all having unprotected sex of course. The last I heard is that he was being brought to trial for six or seven counts of assault with a deadly weapon (one count for each woman). I haven’t heard the outcome of that trial.
Hope that doesn’t derail the thread too much, micahmike, but I thought it might be pertinent to your topic, because the question of condom use in your OP was regarding preventing STDs and pregnancy during sexual assault. And in this story, the man was secretly assaulting them with a deadly virus without using a condom.

 

[SenorSalsa]

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.

 

[mommamaree]

Thanks for backing up my memory! sometimes it does get a bit fuzzy

I don't disagree with anything you've said.  I'm not so much trying to discern how to keep rapists from compounding their sin by contracepting as I am wondering *if* they are.  I don't know for sure.  similarily, I don't know for certain if the woman who requested the contraceptive was wrong to do so.  I tend to think not, but I keep hearing that double effect cannot apply to **an intrinsic evil like contraception **- so I made the thread to hear from others and share and learn.

See bolded. Yeah, I think I understand you micahmike. And with regards to the use of contraception before, during or after rape, my understanding is that it is not an intrinsic evil. At Catholic hospitals, if a woman comes in who has been raped, she may still be provided with Plan B oral contraceptives to prevent ovulation, but only if the doctors can determine that she neither is already pregnant, nor has she already ovulated. I was informed that ovulation can be detected medically, and if she has already ovulated it is assumed she could have already conceived, in which case she would not be provided the contraceptive. However, if they can be reasonably certain she has not ovulated, then she may take the contraceptive to prevent ovulation. In that way, the doctors may assist in the prevention of conception without using the Plan B as an abortifacient. I came across this somewhere a few months ago when learning more about the Catholic Church’s stance on contraception. If anyone needs me to, I will try to find links for the information I provided.
The reasoning is, as I understand it, is that rape is not sex, it is a violent assault. A woman is not required to be open to life when being violently assaulted and may protect herself from becoming pregnant. However, if there is a question about whether or not she is already pregnant, then no action could be taken that would not potentially have an abortifacient action.
Again, this is not coming from any expert here. As a woman who has seen the fallout in the lives of dear female relatives and friends, and as a new Catholic, I have just done a lot of reading for my own sake. I wanted to know how the Catholic Church (and its hospitals) treat rape and sexual assault, and anything I said in this thread is out of a desire to participate in this discussion, but is not meant to be an expert opinion.

 

[runningdude]

It is a touchy subject and answers either way are bound to cause riled feelings. Sadly many readers probably have first hand knowledge of these situations, whether the attack happened to oneself or loved one.

Sin is about destroying relationships. The actions are almost meaningless. It is the intentions and resulting pain and destruction that are hurtful. Rape is a devastatingly grave and terrible sin, because the act itself obviously destroys the relationship between the raper and victims, but also damages the victims relationship with themselves, their families, their friends, co-workers, and maybe even their relationship with God Himself.

The rapists also live with the inflated ego and superficial relationships that were bolstered by the crime, isolating themselves from true authentic relationships, and destroying their own relationship with God.

Contraception by comparison is only sinful because it facilitates immoral actions, such as sexual relationships between the unmarried, and married relationships that aren’t open to life and mutual self giving. These kind of relationship are deeply flawed and won’t produce the kind of love that God wants for humanity.

In the case of a rape, mutual self giving is far lost, becoming taking and destruction, violating commandments against lust, stealing, and killing the spirit and soul. Condoms both facilitate the rape, but also give the victim some form of protection from disease, and if female, from unanticipated pregnancy. Contraceptive in the case of rape is morally neutral; as it is, Catholic hospitals are allowed to offer emergency hormonal contraception if ovulation tests are negative.

Wearing a condom during a rape to protect against disease and a child from being conceived during such a painful moment might actually be the slightest bud of compassion in rapists hearts, but that compassion is by far beaten and overshadowed, overruled and ignored by their subsequent actions. This tiny bit of compassion might aid in healing the subsequent destroyed relationships, but in no way diminishes the responsibility and culpability of the rapist for the evil he committed.

Even in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, sinners are called to make penance and work to undo the evil and brokenness their sins have caused for the absolution to be effective. In the case of grave sins such as rape, sinners are called to begin the penitentiary process even before absolution is given by turning themselves into the civil authorities, submitting themselves to temporal punishment to offset the eternal punishment caused by their destroyed relationship with God. They are called to submit to all counseling, imprisonment, and post monitoring, using these as opportunities to rebuild the relationship they destroyed with God and humanity.

To answer the question, a condom might be the slightest sign of compassion for the victim, possibly reducing some of the physical suffering left by the act. But rape is evil primarily for the spiritual damage done to the victim.

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea…” Mathew 18:4-5

Sin destroys relationships, and only by working to rebuilt the relationships, can healing take place.

 

[micahmike]

The reasoning is, as I understand it, is that rape is not sex, it is a violent assault.

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.