Nuns allowed to go on pill "to prevent rape"

[entropy_rising]

No, it certainly is not. At least not in the situation described in the Congo, even if it was "Vatican approved," which I still haven't seen any conclusive evidence of. The intended goal of preventing rape is somewhat different, don't you think?

The goal was not preventing rape: you arguing that is ludicrous. I can't believe you could possibly try sell that as a logical argument with a straight face. Oh, I'm sure those Congo "savages" would decide not to rape a nun since she's taking birth control.

The goal was to prevent pregnancy if they were raped. That's pretty closed to life to me. That's pretty "culture of death" to me. At least, in the sense the church defines.

Why are nuns to be excepted from the rules applied to everyone else? Even if a nun has sex without her consent, how come she is allowed to use birth control? She should be open to life, and have the child, just like all the other couples who are financially incapable to have a child but aren't allowed to use contraception.

 

[geocajun]

But they are not sexually active. To be a victim of rape does not mean you are sexually active.
Would you call a 12 year old rape victim...sexually active? Of course not.

well said Annabel.

 

[Skripper]

Geo, where did you hear there is such thing. I think the reason you don't know is because there is no such thing. In which case if the nuns (or anyone) think they may be raped, they have a moral obligation NOT to be on contraceptive.

Why would you say that? Especially if, as the situation in the Congo was as described, where the specific reason of the intended rape was to make them pregnant. If the nuns were being targeted for rape for the specific reason of impregnating them, as the liked articles claim . . .then why would you make the above argument?

 

[geocajun]

The goal was not preventing rape: you arguing that is ludicrous. I can't believe you could possibly try sell that as a logical argument with a straight face. Oh, I'm sure those Congo "savages" would decide not to rape a nun since she's taking birth control.

The goal was to prevent pregnancy if they were raped. That's pretty closed to life to me. That's pretty "culture of death" to me. At least, in the sense the church defines.

It was stated earlier in this thread that the goal of the rapists was to impregnate the nuns.
If this is true, then making it public that the nuns could not be made pregnant is in fact a deterent to rape.

 

[QuagDabPeg]

Why would you say that? Especially if, as the situation in the Congo was as described, where the specific reason of the intended rape was to make them pregnant. If the nuns were being targeted for rape for the specific reason of impregnating them, as the liked articles claim . . .then why would you make the above argument?

I'm sure your not saying that abortion is ok in this case. Birth control pills can cause abortion. If you know you have a high chance of being raped, you should not take contraceptive becasue of the chance that your egg will be fertilized and then be aborted.

 

[Skripper]

The goal was not preventing rape: you arguing that is ludicrous. I can't believe you could possibly try sell that as a logical argument with a straight face. Oh, I'm sure those Congo "savages" would decide not to rape a nun since she's taking birth control.

The goal was to prevent pregnancy if they were raped. That's pretty closed to life to me. That's pretty "culture of death" to me. At least, in the sense the church defines.

Why are nuns to be excepted from the rules applied to everyone else? Even if a nun has sex without her consent, how come she is allowed to use birth control? She should be open to life, and have the child, just like all the other couples who are financially incapable to have a child but aren't allowed to use contraception.

First off, we can do without the snide comments and insults. You mean to say the intent wasn't to prevent rapes to begin with but rather to prevent pregnancy in the event of rape? And my interpretaion of the article, in your view, is ludicrous?

But I'll go back and reread the article. Because it seemed to me, from what I read, that the point was indeed to prevent rapes since the nuns were being targeted with the specific intent to impregnate them. The logic seemed, to be, to be quite sound: Reduce/eliminate the possiblilty of pregnancy, reduce/eliminate the possiblity of being targeted for rape. But I'll take another look at it.

 

[RhetorTheo]

What if a teenage girl says this: "I have no intention of having sex before marriage, and I've made a pledge to wait until marriage. But I have heard others say the same thing, and the vast majority end up failing. So, I am taking the Pill. It's not for any medical reason, but because if I were to have sex, I don't want to get pregnant."

Obviously, so far in her life, she has not consented to having sex (while using a contraceptive or otherwise). Is she contracepting?

But the raped nuns did not consent to sex or even have sex. They were raped. Never confuse rape with sex. Rape is an act of violence. I would no more condemn the nuns for taking the pill than I would condemn someone wearing a bullet proof vest in a war zone.

I thought I was clear that the teenage girl did not "consent to sex or even have sex," either. Neither the teenage girl, nor the nun, is consenting to sex, and neither is intending to have sex. Both are taking the Pill "just in case."

I don't think having children is comparable to getting shot by enemy fire. Rape is an act of violence, but bearing a child is not an act of violence.

 

[geocajun]

Rhetor, you said

"What if a teenage girl says this: "I have no intention of having sex before marriage, and I've made a pledge to wait until marriage. But I have heard others say the same thing, and the vast majority end up failing. So, I am taking the Pill."

Perhaps I misunderstood. "end up failing" by this do you mean "are raped" or do you mean "freely give in to pressure and consent to have sex" ?
Obviously if they freely consent to having sex while taking contraceptives then they are still sinning like anyone else doing that is.

 

[entropy_rising]

You mean to say the intent wasn't to prevent rapes to begin with but rather to prevent pregnancy in the event of rape? And my interpretaion of the article, in your view, is ludicrous?

Yes, in my view.

"Yet Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, an expert in moral theology at Rome’s prestigious Alphonsiana Academy, told NCR that in the early 1960s, the Vatican gave permission for religious women in the Belgian Congo to use contraceptives as a defense against rape.

“It was seen as a protection against pregnancy arising from unwanted, unfree sexual intercourse,” Johnstone said."

And in another article quoted in this thread:

"Several years ago, nuns in Congo were administered contraceptive pills as a defense against pregnancy in case of rape."

Hey, I'm just going off of what's linked. Heh.

 

[QuagDabPeg]

There is one side reference about preventing rape and multiple references to preventing pregnancy. Did this whole concept that the nuns were being raped to make them pregnant and not for the sake of raping them, grow out of that? I think you're streatching it a bit.

 

[geocajun]

Also, I really don't like arguing mysterious things like "vatican approval to thus" without having read the approval itself - we really do not have access to the rational.
Can anyone show evidence from the Vatican of supporting what it has been implicated of in this thread?

 

[Skripper]

"

Yet Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, an expert in moral theology at Rome’s prestigious Alphonsiana Academy, told NCR that in the early 1960s, the Vatican gave permission for religious women in the Belgian Congo to use contraceptives as a defense against rape.

“It was seen as a protection against pregnancy arising from unwanted, unfree sexual intercourse,” Johnstone said."

And in another article quoted in this thread:

"Several years ago, nuns in Congo were administered contraceptive pills as a defense against pregnancy in case of rape."

Hey, I'm just going off of what's linked. Heh.

The Vatican official said it was important to distinguish between "the act of violence suffered and the reality of new human beings who have begun their life."
He rejected any comparison with the distribution of contraceptive pills to nuns in the Congo in the 1960s, which he called "a legitimate defense" against the possibility of rape.

As am I. There appears to be some ambiguity.

 

[entropy_rising]

If there is some ambiguity, let's think logically. Rapers rape for sexual pleasure, not children. Contraception does nothing ot combat that.

 

[Skripper]

Where does it say it was to prevent rape? I see prevent pregnancy.

See above.

Quag, what is the purpose of this thread? It seems, to me, to simply be intended to stir up trouble and division. If that is the case, I may just shut it down, at least until some senior staff can take a look at it. If not, what is the point?

 

[QuagDabPeg]

The purpose of the thread is to dicuss the implications of this action. I don't understand why no one else seems to find this action very disturbing.

 

[RhetorTheo]

If the woman is not using it to prevent pregnancy but for medical reasons, that is another story. If she's not having sex, but using the pill to prevent pregnacy in the case of rape, she's using it with the wrong motive.

wouldn't a big stun gun be a smarter idea or some other means of trying to stop the rape in the first place? Or a chastity belt. Whatever happened to those?

OK two evils: -The rape - Preventing or (sometimes) destroyng life
Contraception will not mitigate the first.

Contraceptives prevent life. Born through love or lust, life is life, and cannot be prevented from being that which God destines it to be, which is, a living human in His image.

There are for instance other ways to protect yourself from putting yourself into situations that could be of high risk...for one..
to add one to another point from before even though the child may have come from the circumstance of rape, the point is that the child does not just carry the genes and DNA of the rapist it also is part of the Mother as well. so then she is aborting or using Birth control to prevent the possibility of her child being born. I do understand the pyschological effects of rape and that it is very traumatic. I also realize that due to that some people transfer those feelings through no fault of their own to the child but that is no reason or justification for anything that would prevent or put an end to life.

What makes the life of a child less valuable whether it comes from two parents or from a rape victim? Answer: nothing.

It isn't about being uncaring of the womans feelings, the baby can be adopted once born if the person does not feel able to raise the child, due to the trauma of the situation in which the baby was conceived.

Try telling this to most ppl. You'll get bashed majorly.

I can't imagine the torture of carrying a child conceived in such tragic circumstances as both my children were born from love, but i know that i could not in good conscience abort my baby, we don't get to pick and choose which elements of Catholicism to adhere to and which we don't. It hurt's, not all truths are easy to accept.

 

[QuagDabPeg]

Amen to RhetorTheo - that is exactly my point. I'm surprised to see the traditional Catholics here defending the possible abortion of children.

 

[Skripper]

The purpose of the thread is to dicuss the implications of this action. I don't understand why no one else seems to find this action very disturbing.

***Mod Hat On***

Very well. Discuss the implications. The thread will remain open . . . for now.

But just so everyone is clear on this, if this turns into a flame-fest, or if it becomes apparent that the thread is actually an attmpt to disrupt OBOB, it will be closed.

***Mod Hat Off***

 

[Skripper]

Amen to RhetorTheo - that is exactly my point. I'm surprised to see the traditional Catholics here defending the possible abortion of children.

Careful, Quag. Calling anyone in this thread "Traditional Catholics" often has negative connotations as it often implies those so-called "Traditionalists" who are in schism. Moreover, some nobody here is advocating or defending "possible abortion," so you would do well not to accuse anyone of that. Please heed this friendly advice . . .

 

[entropy_rising]

.