The Moral Debate on Rape

[james03]

and I cannot argue

We can agree with that.  You can't.  You haven't addressed the points, and even tried employing two logical fallacies when you failed at refuting my points.  You then tried to derail over the definition of rape, which failed.

Weeding through your emotional wall of text (Projection), let me see if I can find any point to address for the interest of the other readers.

fat finger edit:

one grave matter being worse than another is not useful information most of the time.

agreed.

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.

All the moral theology developed and taught?  Another logical fallacy.  Either non sequitur or begging the question.  Try not to become so emotional.

[TheReturnofLive]

In my example of the gang member rape, St. Thomas would agree this qualifies as rape assuming the girl was a virgin.

You wrote:

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.

If you think that disagreement with St. Thomas Aquinas is a source of ego, then I demand that you admit the Earth is the center of the universe, the sun revolves around the Earth, and that gravity doesn't exist, but rather the heavenly bodies are upheld and moved by the angels of Heaven

[Insanis]

If you think that disagreement with St. Thomas Aquinas is a source of ego,

Source of ego?

I'm not sure that is how I'd phrase it.

And it isn't just "disagreement', but a disagreement on fundamental principles and putting gut checks and personal opinions above a highly developed theological masterpiece.

then I demand that you admit the Earth is the center of the universe,

It is. The "center" of the universe is one's own inertial frame of reference. It is called "Relativity".

the sun revolves around the Earth

Again, it does, although, it is easier to model it as as the Earth on an elliptical path with the Sun of one of its foci.

In 4 dimensions, the Earth's path around the sun is a helix as well.

, and that gravity doesn't exist,

What does "exist" mean? Gravity isn't a "thing". It is, according to the best theories of science, merely a warping of space-time around mass.

but rather the heavenly bodies are upheld and moved by the angels of Heaven

That could be one way of viewing it or expressing the glories of the Kingdom of Heaven using natural imagery.

However, whatever he wrote on any subject is not valued for the natural sciences, but for the theological development.

Versamilitude is the nature of our understanding of most things: we never hold the Truth directly, but only approach it as we are able.

All science, in this light, is "wrong", but the issue isn't about being true or false, but about being closer to truth, and that can depend heavily on available information.

Does that mean it is an error to use the available information?

[John Lamb]

I don't think Aquinas analysed these matters very well.

For example, if you look into his discussion as to why fornication is a grave sin, he says it's because an illegitimate child might result from it, a child that might not receive the care it should . . .
But what about today, when conception can almost certainly be avoided through contraceptives? Is fornication no longer a grave sin for us? Clearly Aquinas didn't fully exhaust these matters.

In my opinion, Aquinas is looking at sexual matters rather through a legal lens – which I suppose was common in his age – and doesn't analyse it much from the psychological perspective. Fornication is evil not because it might have a bad consequence (an illegitimate or abandoned child), but because psychologically it involves treating the body of another human being as an object of pleasure. This is also why rape is clearly worse than masturbation: it involves a psychological attack, a distortion, that is more violent and destructive. A man raping a woman might not be more unnatural than masturbation from the perspective of mere bodily functions . . . but when the human psyche is considered, it is more unnatural because it attacks more harshly the human relationships, the social harmony, that by nature we ought to have.

You can only arrive at Aquinas' conclusions if you consider sex to be a matter of external bodily functions that have little reference to our internal, psychological states. So you might say, arguing from Aquinas, that rape is a greater sin against charity than masturbation, but masturbation is a greater sin against the body. But even this is highly dubious because for a rape to occur a man must become aroused at the idea of inflicting violence upon a woman, and that's already a great sin against his own body as well as, of course, the woman's. Our procreative faculties are naturally ordered towards companionship, not violent rituals of humiliation.

[TheSaintsAreComing]

For example, if you look into his discussion as to why fornication is a grave sin, he says it's because an illegitimate child might result from it, a child that might not receive the care it should . . .
But what about today, when conception can almost certainly be avoided through contraceptives? Is fornication no longer a grave sin for us? Clearly Aquinas didn't fully exhaust these matters.

Hi John


I'd think that "contraceptive sex" would be categorized under "the unnatural vice" by Aquinas - and he might have very well known about the practice - since it's an act that hinders the natural end of sexuality, and thus a mortal sin

What I've got from Insanis is that Aquinas' definition of rape is something very different from what we today call rape. However even when thinking like Aquinas - what we call rape would be worse than masturbation since what we call rape is actually several sins at once

[Insanis]

I don't think Aquinas analysed these matters very well.

For example, if you look into his discussion as to why fornication is a grave sin, he says it's because an illegitimate child might result from it, a child that might not receive the care it should . . .
But what about today, when conception can almost certainly be avoided through contraceptives? Is fornication no longer a grave sin for us? Clearly Aquinas didn't fully exhaust these matters.

This is an unfair assessment. The Moral Theology is not about "cataloging the infinite ways to do evil". It is about the classifications of virtue and vice and explaining morality so people can use it.

To see it merely as a list of individual sins is wrong: it is about virtues and vices.

That being said, with the understanding of the Moral Theology, any of the infinitely possible disordered acts one can think of can be classified in it. It doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned.

In my opinion, Aquinas is looking at sexual matters rather through a legal lens – which I suppose was common in his age – and doesn't analyse it much from the psychological perspective. Fornication is evil not because it might have a bad consequence (an illegitimate or abandoned child), but because psychologically it involves treating the body of another human being as an object of pleasure. This is also why rape is clearly worse than masturbation: it involves a psychological attack, a distortion, that is more violent and destructive. A man raping a woman might not be more unnatural than masturbation from the perspective of mere bodily functions . . . but when the human psyche is considered, it is more unnatural because it attacks more harshly the human relationships, the social harmony, that by nature we ought to have.

Again, this is not the purpose of Moral Theology and the mistake of view moral matters this way, because it focuses on other people rather than God and His creations.

You can only arrive at Aquinas' conclusions if you consider sex to be a matter of external bodily functions that have little reference to our internal, psychological states.

Certainly any individual instance of human activity can display many species of vice at once. The same goes for laws: any individual crime likely fulfills the statutory requirements for more than one crime (but whether or not to prosecute for them all is up to the discretion of the prosecutor).

And you do bring up an interesting point: do internal constructs matter? For Behavioral Science, they are mostly disregarded: actions and patterns of activity are what matter. For Moral Theology, the classification of vice is about the nature of the act, not about an individual case of knowledge and intent and circumstances.

This is important to appreciate and I even tried to address it in my first post: the classification of virtues and vices does not always have practical application, but it is useful to know the distinctions so one doesn't fall into error and just take on whatever social values one is exposed to.

[Insanis]

I'd think that "contraceptive sex" would be categorized under "the unnatural vice" by Aquinas - and he might have very well known about the practice - since it's an act that hinders the natural end of sexuality, and thus a mortal sin

What I've got from Insanis is that Aquinas' definition of rape is something very different from what we today call rape. However even when thinking like Aquinas - what we call rape would be worse than masturbation since what we call rape is actually several sins at once

Exactly!

What we call rape is almost always a collection of various vices, not the singular vice that is described in Moral Theology. The same goes for laws: a single act of rape usually involves at least a few other actual crimes in most jurisdictions.

The ancients knew of contraception and abortion. It is even referenced in the Bible. However, the specifics of conception were a bit of a mystery and you can find errors in fact in the old writings occasionally, but the physical details of conception were not known.

[Insanis]

For analyzing individual sinful acts, we can see that the principles are all we need. We do not need to have a singular name for a particular vice.

If there is something that is defined, like fornication, that is involving contraception, we can see that the perversion of what is naturally good, which makes it worse than it is already.

This isn't just the Summa Theologica. Despite its name, it is not complete. It isn't even finished (others did, however, finish the volumes, but the work itself is not complete).

We are not taking a singular work fixed in time and expecting to see everything in it.

There are many, many more works all compatible, and those will address individual acts, whenever the writer was dealing with those particular questions.

St Thomas Aquinas did not exist in a vacuum. His theology is not idiosyncratic to him.

[Insanis]

And none of my views are my own opinions: it is just an application of Moral Theology (and law) and an attempt to better understand them and how to use it in real life.

That was what this thread was about: it wasn't about presenting new individual ideas, elevating "gut checks" above intellectual examination, and accusing someone not presenting personal opinions of being emotional, while explicitly relying on emotional reactions to judge intellectual matters.

I am not the author of any Catholic doctrine or theology and I avoid sharing opinions on questions that are open to discussion, such as the issue of the Co-Redemptrix (note: I posted that shortly after joining the forum and I was unaware of some of the history here). A proposition with more than one interpretation is true in the ways it is true, and false in the ways it is false. Without a clear concrete declaration, we can share opinions, but I prefer not to, because I'm not able to do so effectively.

So whenever I make declarative statements about doctrine or theology, it is not mine. I'm not sharing opinions: I am sharing the source. I had expected there to be many who were better able to do the same and would join in.

[james03]

The other forum members can compare Insanis's statement:

elevating "gut checks" above intellectual examination

which is a comment on my statement:

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 spot his error, either deliberate, or due to a failure to comprehend a logical argument.

[Insanis]

The other forum members can compare the arguments of the above poster with my original two posts and see his naive "original" views are already addressed in full and his confidence is unfounded.

[james03]

It is. The "center" of the universe is one's own inertial frame of reference. It is called "Relativity".

This would require Pluto violating the speed of light limit, which is not allowed in any frame of reference.  For more distant objects, it gets much worse.  Orbits are an acceleration.  This would be another problem due to the forces needed to keep Pluto in orbit, which would tear apart the planet.

[james03]

So no retraction on your post.  Let me make it simple:

"This is not conclusive" does not correspond with "elevating "gut checks" above intellectual examination".

[Insanis]

This thread was not for posturing and arguing. It was for discussion of the points of the original post.

If you want to argue with the base texts, go do that elsewhere. The point of this thread was the importance of being aware of moral theology, the dangers of being influenced by social values and feelings, and being able to exercise the intellect by being able to distinguish that some usages of words are quite different from other usages, despite being the same word.

It was not for presenting disagreements with any particular part of any school of moral theology. I could have used Temperance itself as the main virtue of discussion as it is used precisely in Moral Theology, and has a different (but related) meaning in common usage.

[james03]

Still no comment on your false statement.  At this point it is willful.  Reflect on it and then consult with your confessor.  You don't have the temperament to be commenting in this section of the forum.