tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-253865779660854699.post8386303763392179425..comments2023-10-15T09:36:12.013+01:00Comments on Countercultural Father: A strange silence...Ben Trovatohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15299230935468606845noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-253865779660854699.post-58635688665615605702012-02-05T15:23:18.303+00:002012-02-05T15:23:18.303+00:00Vinent
I don't think you made too much of it:...Vinent<br /><br />I don't think you made too much of it: it says what it says and was clearly very relevant to refuting my argument.<br /><br />I don't think we need to double-guess why it was written the way it was written. What it says is actually very clear.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I had looked in the CCC for anything it had to say about marital consent but had not looked up 'rape.' Had I done so, I could have saved you and me both a lot of time. However, it has been valuable for me - and possibly others - to have thought this through more thoroughly. Thanks once again for your contribution.<br /><br />(I take it you have seen the follow-up post to this one...)Ben Trovatohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15299230935468606845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-253865779660854699.post-23496529367496933482012-02-05T14:55:05.511+00:002012-02-05T14:55:05.511+00:00I wonder if I might have been reading too much int...I wonder if I might have been reading too much into the Catechism definition of rape. Was there a reason for defining it by force not consent, perhaps based on some moral theology or European legal history that I'm not aware of? Is it formulated that way for the very purpose of avoiding arguments over 'presumed consent'? Or is it not significant at all? Still, I think it's interesting enough to merit noting.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07580535732531566110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-253865779660854699.post-23790929618317247652012-02-05T14:34:00.379+00:002012-02-05T14:34:00.379+00:00Mark
That's fair enough - as indeed was your ...Mark<br /><br />That's fair enough - as indeed was your comment on James' blog. There were others more vociferous and less constructive...<br /><br />And I am glad, too, that someone was around to help me think this through more thoroughly.Ben Trovatohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15299230935468606845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-253865779660854699.post-32377127595773611762012-02-05T13:37:49.843+00:002012-02-05T13:37:49.843+00:00"Some seem to have read it more carefully and..."Some seem to have read it more carefully and said it is wrong.<br /><br />Nobody has told me why it is wrong."<br /><br />I daresay you saw my comment on James' blog, which didn't say why I thought you were wrong.<br /><br />In my case it was ignorance - I only had the strong impression that you were barking up the wrong tree. I'm glad wiser heads than mine have been on the case.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01622526446634630256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-253865779660854699.post-50813983961251384162012-02-01T21:37:30.332+00:002012-02-01T21:37:30.332+00:00Vincent
Thanks for this informative comment. I wi...Vincent<br /><br />Thanks for this informative comment. I will think further on the implications of this...Ben Trovatohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15299230935468606845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-253865779660854699.post-67820244365163094842012-02-01T21:31:11.187+00:002012-02-01T21:31:11.187+00:00I think you are basically correct that the Church ...I think you are basically correct that the Church believes marriage to involve the transfer of the <i>ius in corpus</i>. However, that does not completely address the issue which you seemed to ask, “is rape in marriage possible?”.<br /><br />Firstly, the Church knows that her definition of marriage is not universally accepted or understood. Marriages are declared null in Church tribunals due to the failure to properly transfer the <i>ius in corpus</i>; usually because one or both of the parties was really thinking “I retain the ability to revoke the right to the sexual act, at a time of my own choosing”. Surely, in a civil legal marriage in which the <i>ius in corpus</i> had not been properly transferred in this way, perpetual consent would not have been intended to be given, and therefore rape is possible?<br /><br />Secondly, I do not think that the <i>ius in corpus</i> must include 24/7 availability. Rotal jurisprudence has held that the limitation of the right to sexual acts at certain times e.g. illness does not vitiate matrimonial consent. Even if sexual refusal in a certain case is sinful, that does not necessarily legitimise forceful attempts to redress the situation. Theft is wrong; that does not mean we can always use violence to get our property back.<br /><br />Thirdly, there is the jurisprudence and theology surrounding <i>ratum sed non consummatum</i>marriages. This refers to the power of the Roman Pontiff alone to dissolve the bond of a sacramental but non-consummated marriage, whereas a marriage <i>ratum et consummatum</i> is dissoluble by no human power; only death. For many years the question was debated whether or not sexual intercourse with violence or against protests (i.e. rape, by most people’s understanding of the word) could qualify as the consummation needed to make a marriage extrinsically indissoluble. The 1983 Code of Canon Law settled this question by requiring the act to be performed <i>humano modo</i> i.e. with the voluntary consent of both parties. This interpretation of <i>humano modo</i> is supported by the December 20th 1986 circular letter of the Congregation for the Sacraments, which is itself pretty similar to a <i>responsum ad dubium</i> of the Holy Office of February 2nd 1949. The point of the diversion is this: the Church makes provison for for the possibility of non-consensual sexual intercourse as early as the wedding night. Furthermore, it judges that such non-consensual intercourse is apparently not the object of the consent to <i>ius in corpus</i> exchanged in marriage.<br /><br />Finally, trying a different tack, let’s look at the <i>Catechism of the Catholic Church</i>. 2356: “Rape is the <b>forcible</b> violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act.” or “<i>Stuprum ingressum indicat per <b>vim</b>, cum <b>violentia</b>, in sexualem alicuius personae intimitatem...</i>” Note that the definition is based on force or violece, not on ‘consent’. It seems to me that your argument against the existence of marital rape is based on a legalistic application of ‘presumed consent’, when consent – presumed or actual - is not part of the definition of rape.<br /><br />As an aside, I think you are subconsciously mixing your modern and older understandings of marriage. Quoting the Council of Trent, you speak of the “marital covenant”. In fact, the idea of marriage as a covenant basically begins with Vatican II, at least for the Western Church. <br /><br />All that said, I think you are correct to note the increasing trend to decouple marriage from sexual intercourse, which we see has resulted in the current epidemic of contraception, abortion, homosexual unions <i>et cetera</i>. Keep up the good work!Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07580535732531566110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-253865779660854699.post-51204985224812061012012-02-01T21:28:00.983+00:002012-02-01T21:28:00.983+00:00Ben
I was going to try to expand on my rather col...Ben<br /><br />I was going to try to expand on my rather colourful (and perhaps unhelpful) metaphor in response to your last post but I don't think I could say anything as erudite and accurate as Vincent. I too will think further on what he has postedPart-time Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11183889477468203531noreply@blogger.com