The Moral Debate on Rape

Started by Insanis, June 07, 2021, 11:04:57 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Insanis

Edit: To be clear, this is not a debate on rape. It is about the importance of understanding moral theological terms when one is exposed to them and the dangers of absorbing cultural and social values and allowing one's emotional reactions to dictate your views on morality.

This is a renewal of a post that was made in response to the admin's request for this thread to be placed here if it were to be discussed.

The last thread had a lot of information in it to set the grounds for discussion, but the two conclusions I was aiming for were:


  • Precise formal language in moral theology (law, science, etc) often has words used differently than in society at large and this needs to be understood and appreciated, lest we allow society to taint our understanding of moral theology. This four letter word is especially good at demonstrating this. For example, my state legal code doesn't list battery as a crime, because what everybody would call battery is assault (with statutory degrees for different actual crimes).
  • The changing means of words means that sometimes a word is very difficult to use formally outside of strictly controlled formal circumstances. For example, insisting on the correct use of the word robbery in all circumstances is usually futile and almost everybody interprets it based on context, rather than its actual meaning, so it actually results in very little miscommunication.
  • The species of sins are not usually that important for everybody to understand, but it can be useful to know the distinctions and people open to learning should know that there are theological distinctions which are using criteria which the world doesn't typically use. For example: acts which cause harm to others are rated as more evil than those that don't by most people (aside from laws bought by special interests, ie, copyright infringement).
  • And the last actual practical thing for everybody to understand: using social values to judge evil is wrong. It is relativism, emotivism, or Paganism. To put this kind of judgement above the doctrines of the Church is gravely sinful. Exactly which sin depends on the specific act. Being able to distinguish moral theology, the fullness of the moral values in light of the revelations of God through the Church and use of reason, from knee-jerk paganism is a useful thing for all Catholics.
Now, to the subject at hand. Previously, the instance of rape being an act of lust was contended, and the specific acts called rape were also contended.

The two main points I pointed out for discussion were:

QuoteMen cannot be raped (by women, but also true in general).

Masturbation is worse than rape

These are true statements and to deny them is to fail to understand the words being used, the reasons being used, or blatant hostility to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

However, here are the basic explanations:

Men cannot be raped because the word "rape" in this sort of context does not mean what most people think it means. The term comes from Latin, and in the Summa, you see it being used in a very particular way. The original Latin uses the word Raptus wherever you see "rape". Raptus means:

Quote from: A Latin Dictionary
(n) (1) a carrying off, robbing, plundering
(n) (2) abduction and rape of a virgin
(n) (3) rapture, ecstasy

From the start, everybody should see: rape does not mean rape. It is a word being used in a very clearly defined formal setting of moral theology, just like "rape" is used in actual legal codes. Many things others may call rape are not called rape in my state, but they are called something else. Even the dictionary uses "rape" as a definition, even though raptus is the source of the English word (actually, the verb, and I'm not sure what came first in English).

Despite my knowledge of the PA and NY criminal statutes and the Model Penal Code, if you ask me about the criminal elements of a state law (or federal law), I will not be able to answer even if they use the same words as the codes I am familiar with, the exact definitions and distinctions need to be known before using those words. This is, incidentally, the job of lawyers most of the time: to know these things and how they apply. If I don't know for sure the elements of a crime in my own state, I'll consult the statutes themselves before assuming. It is precise and technical: one cannot assume.

The same goes doubly for Moral Theology. This isn't a bunch of people talking about their views spuriously, or coming up with ad hoc arguments, or reacting to feelings. It is scientifically and precisely developed.

In particular, one might note that in the Summa that the distinction of Rape and Seduction is significant, because they are related. How are Rape and Seduction related one might ask? Because they are species of vice/sin under Lust, which is under Temperance. But isn't Temperance about drinking alcohol? No, that is Sobriety.

I could go on...and in fact I do encourage people to be familiar with the moral theology in general, even if they don't study it in depth. However, this is enough about that I think unless someone wants to discuss it in a semi-scholarly way with respect to the rules of this subforum.

So why is masturbation worse?

Well, it is also a species of vice/sin under Lust, but it is unnatural, ie, it violates nature itself. Fornication is "natural". It is an act that is good by nature done in the wrong setting or circumstances. Masturbation is unnatural: it is an abuse of a thing that is good by nature that is never appropriate.

The actual practical use of this knowledge for most people is pretty low. The actual judge of sin is the grave matter and these are all grave matters, coupled with knowledge and intent.

The bigger purpose is to be aware that we shouldn't judge sins by whether they have an identified victim, especially when it comes to the lower appetites. It is easy to this and it actually makes excuses for very unnatural acts that are gravely sinful.

A man and a woman living together and fornicating and even raising children together is a sinful situation for many reasons and I think we all know this. But it is natural.

A man and a man living together and using each other for their own venereal pleasure is a gravely disordered sinful situation, and I think we all know this. This is unnatural.

A person living alone and using their own methods to stimulate venereal pleasure is committing a gravely disordered sinful act, however, although we all know this, it is also something that has a major spectrum of degrees of sinfulness depending on knowledge and intent. It, as a species of sin, is worse than fornication (note: I am not using the word "rape" here because I would have to be sure that people understand it in context and I cannot do that on this forum yet).

So, back to the issue:

Quote
Men cannot be raped (by women, but also true in general).

Masturbation is worse than rape

With knowledge of the words used, it should be clear that what we would call a "rape" of a man is an entirely other type of situation. There are other words for it, although, the distinction of individual words might be more or less precise depending on exactly what act is being described. The word "rape" is used very, very loosely for almost any res in re situation where the intent is venereal pleasure, humiliation, or harm of some sort against the consent of the individual.

And masturbation as a species of sin is worse than raptus as a species of sin.

I hope that most people here don't actually need to know the full list of sins and their definitions and where they stand in Moral Theology. Most of the sins of lust are either very easy to identify, or are a pervasive part of the fallen nature of humanity (concupiscence) and can easily be venial sins, habitual, or even compulsive, as well as being possibly mortally sinful, and sometimes, in the fullness of the act, acts of lust which have no "victim" are more sinful than acts which do.

In conclusion: if you want to discuss the acts commonly called rape, I am willing to do that, but that is not really the purpose of this thread so it is not expected. That is, however, an aspect of moral theology that can be explored. The real value is understanding the use of precise language in a formal setting, and knowing the dangers of letting feelings and society dictate one's moral values.

I have a pretty good background in criminal law (civil law is boring) and the moral theology being discussed, so I can engage on any subject here that doesn't actually become legal advice or spiritual direction: this is just information that anybody can learn being applied in a forum discussion.

If you read to this end without reading everything before it, please do not comment. I hope the admin enforces this subforum's purpose this time and that people can actually discuss moral theology, particularly the aspects which may be difficult to do without prior preparations. The previous thread was written so the information in this post could be presented in response.




Insanis

#1
An instant follow up distinction is what does "natural" mean? People sometimes protest this word by pointing to something in nature as demonstrating that unnatural things are natural, eg, an example of animals with disordered sexual behavior.

This is not what "natural" means. Everything that exists in nature is "natural" in this sense, and to make the distinction between unnatural and natural can make no sense with this usage. Sometimes it means something was found in nature, rather than made in a lab, and although this distinction becomes blurry easily (after all, a chemical is a chemical, whether it is found on the ground or made in a lab), it does make sense for some purposes (natural flavours, artificial flavours, etc, are legally defined).

In moral theology, natural means in accordance with the proper end. So, using a hammer to hammer a nail into a board is a "natural" use of the hammer. To use the hammer as a bookmark, is unnatural. On a fundamental level, it refers to God's creation. All the animals are "natural" and have "natural" disorders and "natural" lives. The only beings that can do unnatural things is man not because we are not animals too, but because we have reason, and intellect, and an immortal soul.

We can do unnatural things because we can choose to. Apparently, even demons find unnatural sins to be rather repugnant.


TheSaintsAreComing

Hi Insanis


Reading the parts of Lust from the Summa on New Advent it would seem you're correct about Aquinas defining "rape" in a specific way that wouldn't apply to men being violated, and he did consider masturbation worse than rape. He describes "the unnatural vice" - which he considers the worst of all sins of lust - as "acts from which generation cannot follow", which covers both sodomy and masturbation

I got 3 thoughts:

1. Has any Catholic moral theologian come at this question from another angle, or do they all pretty much stay in the boundary Aquinas set up?

2. The language Aquinas uses seems to imply that it's only a question of rape if a virgin (someone of the female sex that has never had sex) is being violated. Have I misunderstod the text, or is this correct?

3. While he defines it in a very narrow rape, isn't rape actually two or several sins at once?

I. Commiting the sexual act with someone that is not your spouse
II. Using force on your victim so that they can't hinder you from performing the act and getting away, or
III. Black-mailing your victim so that they don't resist you when you perform the act with them

So while masturbation is worse than fornication because it's more unnatural and counter to the reason God gave us sexual organs, rape could be considered worse because it's actually several grave sins committed at once.

I'll admit I'm only a layman when it comes to moral theology, so if I've missed something I'm open to being corrected.
I'm gone

Insanis

#3
Quote from: TheSaintsAreComing on June 07, 2021, 01:04:33 PM
Reading the parts of Lust from the Summa on New Advent it would seem you're correct about Aquinas defining "rape" in a specific way that wouldn't apply to men being violated, and he did consider masturbation worse than rape. He describes "the unnatural vice" - which he considers the worst of all sins of lust - as "acts from which generation cannot follow", which covers both sodomy and masturbation

It is important to understand: it is not idiosyncratic to him. It is part of Moral Theology.

It is also consistent with words used at the time of the writing and translations.

The word has greatly expanded in usage since then.

Quote
1. Has any Catholic moral theologian come at this question from another angle, or do they all pretty much stay in the boundary Aquinas set up?
It is important not to think of this as specific to St Thomas Aquinas.

I am unaware of any Catholic theology that treats this subject in as great detail as this, so probably not, but you can find Catholic moral teachings that don't delve into details like this, especially when it comes to seeking moral perfection.

Quote2. The language Aquinas uses seems to imply that it's only a question of rape if a virgin (someone of the female sex that has never had sex) is being violated. Have I misunderstod the text, or is this correct?

The word raptus (and rape) specifically refer to carrying something away.

The original use did not actually require a sexual element or even non-consent. This is why land can be raped, and why the Rape of the Sabines is not actually about sexual assault.

In the use in moral theology as used here, it does refer specifically to virginity being taken away, which is why it is related to Seduction and sometimes a part of it.

Quote
3. While he defines it in a very narrow rape, isn't rape actually two or several sins at once?
If you use the word rape to cover more than one sin at once, yes. Everybody who has any formal use of language must strictly define the terms used.

Quote
So while masturbation is worse than fornication because it's more unnatural and counter to the reason God gave us sexual organs, rape could be considered worse because it's actually several grave sins committed at once.

That depends on how you define rape, again.

The typical view of a man being raped is usually several sins and at least one unnatural act by the perpetrator and would be worse, however, a woman being "raped" in the modern sense could be far worse as well, and not actually be considered "rape" in moral theology, but instead of unilateral (by the rapist) commission of any number of sinful acts natural or otherwise.

QuoteI'll admit I'm only a layman when it comes to moral theology, so if I've missed something I'm open to being corrected.

You seem on your way to appreciate that words can have technical meaning in different fields.

I looked up my states laws for some references, and I found I made a mistake which I will correct in my original post. I had to look up the actual legal code and review it and its definitions (it has, however, been over a decade since I considered this, so my mistake is understandable).

Moral Theology is the same as law in this regard: you have to have the terms defined, and the elements strictly enumerated to have a "crime". The laws usually have all this written down. You can look up your criminal laws and see. It is easier to pick a law like larceny or theft and examine rather than one that has a lot of personal assault details. It is far easier to examine property than human life.

Insanis

For law, we can easily see that strictly defined legal codes with all terms defined and tested in court cases for reference make sense: it makes the law something that can be applied to everyone.

Look up your criminal legal code (for USA, look up your state laws or just use the Model Penal Code).

Every critical term is defined (usually, before the crimes using those terms are listed).

The same goes for Moral Theology. It is a precise examination and classification.

But, who needs to know this? Very few people actually need to know. In fact, it might be harmful to study it in depth without a good reason. Many people find such things very tedious too.

However, the main purpose for online discussions is that: being aware of this can help one avoid falling for the errors of the world. To ground oneself in a systematic and complete Moral Theological view is to protect oneself against pervasive errors that we are all exposed to.

And this is how this started: the original thread contained people just echoing the modern opinions without realizing that they were just parroting non-Catholic talking points.

Now, those talking points may have a point, but they are not grounds for a well formed conscious.

For example, you see people claim that sex and gender are different, but this is actually a relatively modern opinion and not at all universal. They just repeat it, but anybody can repeat anything. That doesn't make it true.

I don't follow those philosophies. I don't think people have these hidden "identities". Recreational sex shouldn't be that important to society, even if it is allowed by law. Yet, the world has made it their god, to enshrine these self-worship and abuses as a human right and a fundamental identity.

But when they confront me, I say I don't really care about recreational sex and it doesn't serve society. Venereal pleasure is not a "human right". To equate this with procreation is illogical.

Of course, all of this is possible because even relationships and "marriages" have been come recreational in nature, not for the rightful purpose of a natural marriage. So their illogical argument does make sense: if it is all about people finding others to have voluntary fun, what does it matter who does it? In this sense, they are right: couples who are using contraceptives or abortion or primarily abusing their bodies purely for recreation aren't that different from people of the same sex doing the same sorts of things, so why shouldn't the laws for marriage and such apply to them as well.

This is the fruit of a bigger breakdown in society and values.

The good thing though is that it is non-sustainable. The cultures which formed these views are unable to sustain themselves and are dying out. We might see them disappear, but history will (assume the future is there).

So ultimately, the key point is to be careful about where one draws one's moral judgements and distinctions, because it is very easy to be influenced by an unholy culture.

The issues of rape were just a way to illustrate this: repeating feminist talking points and being ignorant of moral theology is a dangerous position to be in. Although, in practice, we don't really need to change how we use the words if they are understood in context.

james03

St. Thomas definitely held this belief.  Here is the money quote:

QuoteTherefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all.

See the Summa, II, II, Q154, especially A12.  I disagree with him. 

First he's using a natural law argument.  I find natural law arguments very helpful, however they sometimes leave you unsatisfied.  The natural law argument for what evil is, is an example.  That's an aside.

Note above he states that masturbation violates nature.  We can point to apes where young adult males masturbate when they can't breed.  So if we want to stick with this line of argument, we have to say that it is fine to masturbate since this occurs in nature.

Some might object and claim that we are talking about human nature.  To be honest, this severely weakens natural law arguments, but we'll take that track.  The natural use of sex in humans is within marriage.  This is not speculative, the Lord tells us that God instituted marriage and forbids fornication.

So I am now free to make a natural law argument against rape.  It violates the natural use of the sex act, and therefore is at least as severe an offense as masturbation.

And then there is the gut check.  The argument put forth by St. Thomas doesn't even come close to passing the gut check.  We can consider a case where a gang member rapes a girl as part of an initiation.  He uses violence and also causes lasting psychological harm.  We compare that to a 17 year old healthy man with a testosterone level of 1500.  He masturbates.  To say the act of the 17 year old is a bigger offense against God than the rape doesn't past the gut check.  This is not conclusive, but indicates we need to take a hard look at the argument, which I've done above.

And for completeness, masturbation is usually a mortal sin.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Insanis

Quote from: james03 on June 07, 2021, 03:50:53 PM
I disagree with him. 

Quote
Note above he states that masturbation violates nature.  We can point to apes where young adult males masturbate when they can't breed.  So if we want to stick with this line of argument, we have to say that it is fine to masturbate since this occurs in nature.

This was addressed before any responses were made.

QuoteSome might object and claim that we are talking about human nature.  To be honest, this severely weakens natural law arguments, but we'll take that track.  The natural use of sex in humans is within marriage.  This is not speculative, the Lord tells us that God instituted marriage and forbids fornication.
Some might say your disagreement and reasons are already addressed. Please read the posts before responding.

QuoteSo I am now free to make a natural law argument against rape.  It violates the natural use of the sex act, and therefore is at least as severe an offense as masturbation.
That is not logical, because you are defining "natural" in your own way, not the way it was being used.

QuoteAnd then there is the gut check. 
Emotivism is not a valid moral system.

QuoteThe argument put forth by St. Thomas doesn't even come close to passing the gut check.  We can consider a case where a gang member rapes a girl as part of an initiation.  He uses violence and also causes lasting psychological harm.  We compare that to a 17 year old healthy man with a testosterone level of 1500.  He masturbates.  To say the act of the 17 year old is a bigger offense against God than the rape doesn't past the gut check.  This is not conclusive, but indicates we need to take a hard look at the argument, which I've done above.

And for completeness, masturbation is usually a mortal sin.

You need to review what you are commenting on before commenting on it.

You are using your own definition of "rape" and ignoring the actual meaning of the words you were criticizing.

Emotional judgements and lack of knowledge and understanding of the words being used were the main issue here and you demonstrated why this is an issue.

This is exactly the issue: people get hung up on words, without knowing their meaning, and then respond emotionally to it.

First, to use a word with different meanings as if they had one meaning is equivocation. it is not logical.

Second, to make arguments that were already addressed means you didn't read or care to read what you were responding to. Your entire "natural" definition is faulty and was actually addressed for the specific example already!


james03

#7
The example of the ape shows a natural end to masturbation for the ape.  Relieving sexual tension, resulting in less conflict in the troop.  St. Thomas was likely completely unaware of this case.

edit:  This is the part I am responding to:
Quoteman transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions,
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Insanis

#8
Quote from: james03 on June 07, 2021, 06:12:28 PM
The example of the ape shows a natural end to masturbation for the ape.  Relieving sexual tension, resulting in less conflict in the troop.  St. Thomas was likely completely unaware of this case.

I would treat this as a continuation of the issue of language, but it does sound like you are saying masturbation is "natural" and that St Thomas, the Angelic Doctor who was proclaimed to be the exposition of Catholic doctrine, and in Aeterni Patris, Catholic educations were urged to reconcile themselves with it. And you disagree with the basic words used by the ancient Greeks and other philosophers and theologians with the concepts of "natural" and "end".

He was completely aware that irrational beings did irrational things. That is why it is "unnatural" for a rational being to do them!

Apes will also overeat, engage in violence, and get addicted to drugs if they have access to them.

Animals will on occasion engaging in self-harm, homosexual activities, and other disordered behaviors.

The fact you see masturbation as somehow naturally ordered and natural in contrast to the greatest philosophers and theologians that the pagan world as well as the Christian world have ever had is quite disturbing.

Please reconsider this. I wouldn't want to think you really understand what you are saying. Try to reconcile your understanding with the truth.

You are not finding an error in his writings concern a matter of facts or revelations he couldn't have known for sure at the time: you are disagreeing with the fundamental theological concepts behind much of the entirety of the theology he presents and which the Church teaches.

james03

argumentum ad verecundiam doesn't address my point.

I was addressing St. Thomas's argument:
Quoteman transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions

I hold masturbation to be sinful for other reasons.  Though those reasons would rank it below rape, but still mortal sin.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Insanis

Quote from: james03 on June 07, 2021, 06:31:05 PM
argumentum ad verecundiam doesn't address my point.

I was addressing St. Thomas's argument:
Quoteman transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions

I hold masturbation to be sinful for other reasons.  Though those reasons would rank it below rape, but still mortal sin.

You aren't using the word "rape" as it was defined. You are equivocating.

Using this post to interject your own views and novel theologies is not what this forum is for. You clearly didn't read or address what I wrote. You picked your quotes and made up spurious rejections and stood by them.

If the Summa is wrong, and yes, applying your reasoning would cause most of it to collapse, you have to replace all of it.

And again, you aren't using the word rape the same way, so your comparisons are meaningless.

Just because raptus is translated to rape and rape has many meanings, that doesn't mean you can discard the clear meaning and definition given in the particular treatment!

Your point is nonsense at best, and anti-Catholic at worst. I am assuming Dunning?Kruger effect is here, as you clearly do have good knowledge on other topics, but you are extremely weak on this subject with just enough knowledge to make extremely basic errors.

james03

ad hominem attacks don't address my argument.

My argument still stands, unrefuted. 
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Insanis


james03

A species of lust, thus dealing with a venereal matter.  St. Thomas uses the term when violence is used to violate a virgin.

In my example of the gang member rape, St. Thomas would agree this qualifies as rape assuming the girl was a virgin.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Insanis

Quote from: james03 on June 07, 2021, 06:59:36 PM
In my example of the gang member rape, St. Thomas would agree this qualifies as rape assuming the girl was a virgin.

You wrote:

Quote from: james03 on June 07, 2021, 03:50:53 PM
And then there is the gut check.  The argument put forth by St. Thomas doesn't even come close to passing the gut check.  We can consider a case where a gang member rapes a girl as part of an initiation.  He uses violence and also causes lasting psychological harm.  We compare that to a 17 year old healthy man with a testosterone level of 1500.  He masturbates.  To say the act of the 17 year old is a bigger offense against God than the rape doesn't past the gut check.  This is not conclusive, but indicates we need to take a hard look at the argument, which I've done above.

You don't use the word rape the same way, and even though it could be applicable, it is not part of your criteria. You focus on the harm it causes on the victim.

You then say the masturbating man is committing a bigger offense against God doesn't past the gut check in comparison, yet, the issue is offense against God, not against Man. Also, my post clearly pointed out that the comparison of species of sin doesn't necessarily matter when intent and knowledge are important: one grave matter being worse than another is not useful information most of the time.

Yet, you ignored all this to go by a gut check based on physical harm and judging it according to feelings.

And you resisted correction to reconsider and to ensure one is understanding what one is claiming fully.

So it is clear: you are putting your thoughts and gut above that of St Thomas's works and all the moral theology developed and taught, because it doesn't feel right to you, regardless of your actual understanding of the words used.

You are right. I cannot refute this. It is a matter of your ego and I cannot argue against that effectively.

I have no new thoughts on this matter. I have a lot of books and studying behind it, and I am careful not to put any feeling or thought above a greater thinker's no matter how strongly I feel because it is far more likely I am making a mistake I do not see.

You have a naive argument you feel strongly about and defend, but no actual intellectual argument to support it besides those of novices who do not yet appreciate the importance of intellectual development.