Contamination of Souls?

[Insanis]

This is an emotionally charged subject being discussed not as a psychological or social analysis, but as a moral and spiritual subject.

EDIT: Commentary has been removed because people who responded were incapable of conducting themselves rationally and were responding emotionally to the title and their ideas of what someone might have written, but didn't.

St. Augustine wrote in:

Chapter 16.— Of the Violation of the Consecrated and Other Christian Virgins, to Which They Were Subjected in Captivity and to Which Their Own Will Gave No Consent; And Whether This Contaminated Their Souls.

But they fancy they bring a conclusive charge against Christianity, when they aggravate the horror of captivity by adding that not only wives and unmarried maidens, but even consecrated virgins, were violated. But truly, with respect to this, it is not Christian faith, nor piety, nor even the virtue of chastity, which is hemmed into any difficulty; the only difficulty is so to treat the subject as to satisfy at once modesty and reason. And in discussing it we shall not be so careful to reply to our accusers as to comfort our friends. Let this, therefore, in the first place, be laid down as an unassailable position, that the virtue which makes the life good has its throne in the soul, and thence rules the members of the body, which becomes holy in virtue of the holiness of the will; and that while the will remains firm and unshaken, nothing that another person does with the body, or upon the body, is any fault of the person who suffers it, so long as he cannot escape it without sin. But as not only pain may be inflicted, but lust gratified on the body of another, whenever anything of this latter kind takes place, shame invades even a thoroughly pure spirit from which modesty has not departed — shame, lest that act which could not be suffered without some sensual pleasure, should be believed to have been committed also with some assent of the will.

Chapter 18.— Of the Violence Which May Be Done to the Body by Another's Lust, While the Mind Remains Inviolate.

But is there a fear that even another's lust may pollute the violated? It will not pollute, if it be another's: if it pollute, it is not another's, but is shared also by the polluted. But since purity is a virtue of the soul, and has for its companion virtue, the fortitude which will rather endure all ills than consent to evil; and since no one, however magnanimous and pure, has always the disposal of his own body, but can control only the consent and refusal of his will, what sane man can suppose that, if his body be seized and forcibly made use of to satisfy the lust of another, he thereby loses his purity? For if purity can be thus destroyed, then assuredly purity is no virtue of the soul; nor can it be numbered among those good things by which the life is made good, but among the good things of the body, in the same category as strength, beauty, sound and unbroken health, and, in short, all such good things as may be diminished without at all diminishing the goodness and rectitude of our life. But if purity be nothing better than these, why should the body be perilled that it may be preserved? If, on the other hand, it belongs to the soul, then not even when the body is violated is it lost. Nay more, the virtue of holy continence, when it resists the uncleanness of carnal lust, sanctifies even the body, and therefore when this continence remains unsubdued, even the sanctity of the body is preserved, because the will to use it holily remains, and, so far as lies in the body itself, the power also.

For the sanctity of the body does not consist in the integrity of its members, nor in their exemption from all touch; for they are exposed to various accidents which do violence to and wound them, and the surgeons who administer relief often perform operations that sicken the spectator. A midwife, suppose, has (whether maliciously or accidentally, or through unskillfulness) destroyed the virginity of some girl, while endeavoring to ascertain it: I suppose no one is so foolish as to believe that, by this destruction of the integrity of one organ, the virgin has lost anything even of her bodily sanctity. And thus, so long as the soul keeps this firmness of purpose which sanctifies even the body, the violence done by another's lust makes no impression on this bodily sanctity, which is preserved intact by one's own persistent continence. Suppose a virgin violates the oath she has sworn to God, and goes to meet her seducer with the intention of yielding to him, shall we say that as she goes she is possessed even of bodily sanctity, when already she has lost and destroyed that sanctity of soul which sanctifies the body? Far be it from us to so misapply words. Let us rather draw this conclusion, that while the sanctity of the soul remains even when the body is violated, the sanctity of the body is not lost; and that, in like manner, the sanctity of the body is lost when the sanctity of the soul is violated, though the body itself remains intact. And therefore a woman who has been violated by the sin of another, and without any consent of her own, has no cause to put herself to death; much less has she cause to commit suicide in order to avoid such violation, for in that case she commits certain homicide to prevent a crime which is uncertain as yet, and not her own.

[TheReturnofLive]

Insanis, I say this out of charity - rape is a very sensitive topic, and if you aren't extraordinarily precise and careful on what you mean, people can interpret it in a very wrong way.

I think you may genuinely want to try to reconcile moral theology with the insufferable evil of rape, and because you know deep down how horrible rape is, you really want to figure this out.

Without knowing the context of your previous postings, and based on just the headline title alone, one is left with the impression or tone or theme that "rape is no big deal because you go to heaven', and "here are the Church Fathers justifying rape is not a big deal." You will get flack for it

Rape is one of the most evil acts an individual can commit against another individual, and even if (huge if) per se there were no spiritual effects, the mental effects (which include PTSD, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, traumatic flashbacks, and other psychological disorders) and physical effects (pregnancy, STDs, damaged body functionality, injuries, etc.) will affect the soul.

I would ask Kaesekopf to delete this thread

[Insanis]

Redacted: Anti-Catholic troll doesn't respond to what was written.

[TheReturnofLive]

Insanis, I say this out of charity - rape is a very sensitive topic, and if you aren't extraordinary precise and careful on what you mean, people can interpret it in a very wrong way.

Please read my revised post.

[Insanis]

I am responding to the edit as requested.

Without knowing the context of your previous postings, and based on just the headline title alone, one is left with the impression or tone or theme that "rape is no big deal because you go to heaven', and "here are the Church Fathers justifying rape is not a big deal." You will get flack for it

But that is not what "semi-scholarly" means: you cannot respond to the title alone.

You cannot focus on tone or theme: you have to read what is written.

Yes, it takes intellectual effort: put the emotional aside and exercise the intellectual.

[Insanis]

Redacted

[TheReturnofLive]

How traumatic any physical event is depends on a lot of factors and using this as a measure of evil is wrong: it is putting flesh above soul, material above spiritual.

A true appreciation of truth comes from looking beyond the animal.

Wow.

1. Are you seriously contending that rape is no big deal?
2. This is an absolutely ridiculous argument, because the "spiritual" (I presume you mean theological and Church authority).relies on the "material" in determining the measure of evil. For example, homosexual sex is much more immoral than heterosexual sex, because the latter in some sense is much closer to the proper natural use of sex - reproduction - while the former can never result in reproduction and therefore is unnatural. This entire analysis RELIES ON THE MATERIAL to make a spiritual judgment. And yes, determining the act of a specific evil requires using the circumstances in which the act occurred.

However, without knowing the context of your previous postings, and based on just the headline title alone, one is left with the impression or tone or theme that "rape is no big deal because you go to heaven'

That is not a semi-scholary response and not what I wrote.

Please don't jump to conclusions and rely on impressions: that is not what this subforum is for.

I'm warning you other people will if you aren't careful. However, it seems to me now that you are unironically arguing rape as "no biggie", and that reveals a lot about a person.

[TheReturnofLive]

That is false. Physical and psychological traumas aside, the soul is not subject to the flesh in this way. Many great saints have suffered great physical and psychological trauma. Our Lord suffered great physical and psychological and spiritual trauma on our behalf.

The soul is subject to the flesh insofar as sin is concerned, and sin becomes easier to commit when the flesh becomes weaker, even if the sin is unintentional or has its intent mitigated; the flesh becomes weaker as a result of rape. It's not hard to see. And I hate to tell you this, but not everyone is God Incarnate or a perfect Saint. And the Saints sinned too (with the exception of Christ's Mother).

Because the title offended you?

Because you are digging your own grave in this community and I'm trying to help you.

[Insanis]

Redacted because responses are emotional and anti-Catholic in nature and not responding to what I wrote and making up imaginary statements.

[Insanis]

The soul is subject to the flesh insofar as sin is concerned, and sin becomes easier to commit when the flesh becomes weaker, even if the sin is unintentional or has its intent mitigated; the flesh becomes weaker as a result of rape. It's not hard to see. And I hate to tell you this, but not everyone is God Incarnate or a perfect Saint. And the Saints sinned too (with the exception of Christ's Mother).

Other sins are easily committed when the flesh is strong.

Who commits most sins of pride? Who commits most sins of immodesty and other vanities? Those who feel they are gloried in their own selves.

[TheReturnofLive]

The soul is subject to the flesh insofar as sin is concerned, and sin becomes easier to commit when the flesh becomes weaker, even if the sin is unintentional or has its intent mitigated; the flesh becomes weaker as a result of rape. It's not hard to see. And I hate to tell you this, but not everyone is God Incarnate or a perfect Saint. And the Saints sinned too (with the exception of Christ's Mother).

Other sins are easily committed when the flesh is strong.

Who commits most sins of pride? Who commits most sins of immodesty and other vanities? Those who feel they are gloried in their own selves.

The soul is subject to the flesh insofar as sin is concerned, and sin becomes easier to commit when the flesh becomes weaker, even if the sin is unintentional or has its intent mitigated; the flesh becomes weaker as a result of rape. It's not hard to see. And I hate to tell you this, but not everyone is God Incarnate or a perfect Saint. And the Saints sinned too (with the exception of Christ's Mother).

Other sins are easily committed when the flesh is strong.

Who commits most sins of pride? Who commits most sins of immodesty and other vanities? Those who feel they are gloried in their own selves.

I'm quoting Jesus here:

Matthew 26:40-41
"And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

And just because sin can be committed when the flesh is strong, doesn't mean that the flesh's strength or weakness is irrelevant to one's temptation to sin.

It's actually one of the main reason one fasts:

From Saint John Climacus's Ladder of Divine Ascent:

"Fasting is the coercion of nature and the cutting out of everything that delights the palate, the
prevention of lust, the uprooting of bad thoughts, deliverance from dreams, purity of prayer, the light
of the soul, the guarding of the mind, deliverance from blindness, the door of compunction, humble
sighing, glad contrition, a lull in chatter, a means to silence, a guard of obedience, lightening of sleep,
health of body, agent of dispassion, remission of sins, the gate of Paradise and its delight."


I encourage you to read "Sayings of the Desert Fathers" or read the "Ladder of Divine Ascent" if you haven't done so.

[Gardener]

How traumatic any physical event is depends on a lot of factors and using this as a measure of evil is wrong: it is putting flesh above soul, material above spiritual.

A true appreciation of truth comes from looking beyond the animal.

The fact that you wrote this belies your holistic ignorance of the subject beyond the material act, which is patently ironic given you took umbrage with the concept.

Very often, rape victims experience what is known as moral injury which does transcend the physicality of the crime against them. Moral injury is being heavily researched within the sphere of military and war related trauma as a distinction from PTSD, but it is obvious from looking at it that it is a component of rape survival. One can read more about it here, and they will recognize certain concepts (commission vs omission, etc.): https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/treat/cooccurring/moral_injury.asp

Moral injury effectively touches on not merely the emotions, but the actual moral conscience of a person and thus is due to the rational nature of humans. It has such symptoms as guilt, shame, anger (though an emotion, can have rational aspects as well such as anger at injustice which is obviously something which transcends the animal soul into the rational sphere), etc.

Further, going back to the physical, rape can include sodomitical aspects, and even spiritual violence (such as in the context of satanic rituals).

To title this thread "rape does not violate the soul" is not only completely ignorant of the packaged reality of rape, but also seemingly ignorant of moral theology:

Rape is a mortal sin against another via lust realized in a deed or pride (power seeking, specifically), and thus certainly violates the soul of the perpetrator in committing the act. Moreover, it is an injustice against the person, who is due charity. Even more grievously, it wrongs God, as Aquinas states:

Reply to Objection 2. As the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 6:20) in speaking against lust, "You are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body." Wherefore by inordinately using the body through lust a man wrongs God Who is the Supreme Lord of our body. Hence Augustine says (De Decem. Chord. 10 [Serm. ix (xcvi de Temp.)]): "God Who thus governs His servants for their good, not for His, made this order and commandment, lest unlawful pleasures should destroy His temple which thou hast begun to be."

ST, II-II, Q153, Art3, Obj 2
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3153.htm#article3

[Insanis]

Redacted due to the responses being inappropriate and speculative and accusatory and off topic.

[Insanis]

Redacted due to the responses being inappropriate and speculative and accusatory and off topic.

[Insanis]

This thread is demonstrating emotivism and materialism.