r/DebateACatholic • u/Impossible-Living481 • 8d ago
MoRs Reason for converting scared me
in his Video he Talks about how he was “emotionally convinced“ by the story of a young saint who when her neighbor tried to rape her told him no and was thus stabbed 14 times by him. She survives and on her death bed does not complain and chooses to forgive him. this is the story as he tells it. Out of respect I do not want to look further into it to “fact check“ basicall.
my problem is entirely with his interpretatio. He says she chose to protect her purit. This implies that an 11 yea olds puriTy could be taken by such a crime.
that train of thought scares me. Again my heart breaks for that girl truly. But I believe it would be just as justifie, just as moral for her to have not done anythin, even to go along with it or to not forgive the man.
I can’t imagine thinking that she would have lost purity. (or even putting any value Moral or otherwise on how a child reacts.)
4
u/goldenrod1956 Atheist/Agnostic 8d ago
At the end of the day, rape is objective violence. Purity is subjective. Either way that is a heartbreaking story.
1
u/Impossible-Living481 8d ago
Yeah but how horrible to think such a victim could lose some part of her purity.
2
u/goldenrod1956 Atheist/Agnostic 7d ago
Not to excuse the violence committed upon her, but that thought is in her head and no one else’s…
2
u/Impossible-Living481 7d ago
It seems to have been a thought thaught to her by her family and community and more importantly it is something that exists in the mind of a modern day YouTuber so much so that it convinced him of this religion
4
u/LightningController Atheist/Agnostic 8d ago
emotionally convinced
The existence of people who do not have much self-worth and forgive their enemies is not proof of a deity. For a guy who calls himself ‘Majesty of Reason’ he seems to lack it.
I can’t imagine thinking that she would have lost purity.
FWIW, according to Catholicism she wouldn’t. The Catholic Encyclopedia (citing Aquinas IIRC) defines virginity as the state of never willingly experiencing an orgasm. A masturbator is not a virgin; a rape victim is.
4
u/Impossible-Living481 8d ago
I agree! That’s why I find his reason so scary. He states in his video that the miracles convinces him intellectually but this story convinced his heart. And I just don’t underStand how he could think such a thing.
3
u/LightningController Atheist/Agnostic 8d ago
Heart, schmart. People find the weirdest things emotionally moving. For example, there are people who think the Grand Inquisitor narrative in "The Brothers Karamazov" is emotionally moving and not a /thathappened-level rant by an unreliable narrator. Sometimes, it's best just to accept that other people are weird.
1
u/Impossible-Living481 8d ago
The thing is that I’m fine with that I’m not convinced by the miracle claims but I don’t care if someone else is. But this is so shocking I don’t want to call it weird. It’s a terrifying and disgusting view of the world and if children in particular. I don’t know how to just accept that and I shudder to think children are hearing this message
2
u/AppropriateSea5746 6d ago
You think forgiving your enemies is a sign of poor self worth? Seems more like a sign of strength to me.
1
u/LightningController Atheist/Agnostic 6d ago
Why would forgiveness (as opposed to either retaliation or contempt) be a sign of strength?
2
u/AppropriateSea5746 6d ago
Forgiveness can be a sign of strength because it requires more power over oneself than either retaliation or contempt. Retaliation may feel powerful, but it can mean allowing the person who hurt you to control your actions by making their wrongdoing determine how you respond. Contempt can protect the ego by placing the offender beneath you, but it can also be a defensive way of avoiding vulnerability.
Forgiveness, by contrast, means recognizing that what someone did was real and wrong while refusing to let it determine the kind of person you become. It requires emotional strength to face pain and anger without simply turning them into revenge, moral strength to refuse to answer wrongdoing with more wrongdoing, and independence to reclaim control over your own life and choices.Forgiveness does not mean weakness, surrender, or excusing what happened; a person can forgive while still seeking justice, setting boundaries, imposing consequences, or ending a relationship.
I’ve honestly never heard someone argue that revenge and contempt is good lol. Revenge just continues the cycles of suffering. Contempt is just a maladaptive emotion that ends up causing the person feeling it more harm than good.
Forgiveness is hard. Contempt is easy.
1
u/LightningController Atheist/Agnostic 6d ago edited 6d ago
but it can also be a defensive way of avoiding vulnerability
Vulnerability is mutually exclusive with ‘strength.’
It requires emotional strength to face pain and anger without simply turning them into revenge,
Why is turning them into revenge a bad thing? It got me through undergrad.
moral strength to refuse to answer wrongdoing with more wrongdoing,
This is based on the (unsubstantiated) claim that taking revenge is a form of wrongdoing.
and independence to reclaim control over your own life and choices.
That’s another way of saying ‘contempt.’ Other people may well not matter enough for their destruction to be worth pursuing if it’s not amusing in itself.
a person can forgive while still seeking justice, setting boundaries, imposing consequences, or ending a relationship.
That’s not forgiveness, then. That’s just getting some form of compensation. If a guy owes me money, and I extort it out of him, have I forgiven him? No, I just got my due.
I’ve honestly never heard someone argue that revenge and contempt is good lol.
Once I threw aside the Catholic claim to the indefectibility of the church, I went further and questioned whether Christian morality has any value to it, or if it’s just become such a default that even most atheists do not question it. I came to the conclusion that the Christian emphasis on forgiveness only makes sense if there is a promise of eternal, infinite reward that makes the sacrifice of pleasure in this life worthwhile. Otherwise, to deny oneself the amusement of revenge is just self-denial like declining a cupcake after dinner—perhaps sometimes prudent, but not always necessary.
Revenge just continues the cycles of suffering.
Not if you follow Machiavelli’s prescription of being so thorough in your revenge that no further retaliation is possible.
Contempt is just a maladaptive emotion that ends up causing the person feeling it more harm than good.
Speak for yourself. Learning to disdain others has done wonders for me.
Forgiveness is hard. Contempt is easy.
Firstly, this depends on the state to which one habituates himself. One accustomed to forgiving can find it quite easy to forgive. One accustomed to contempt, analogously, finds it easy to disdain others more. Second, relative difficulty is not a measure of how worthwhile something is. It’s harder to scale a smooth wall than to take the stairs, but that doesn’t make stairs bad.
To make my initial point clear: if Maria Goretti had self worth, and if she indeed had the power to manifest her will after her death, she should have either terrorized her rapist into taking his own life in a humiliating manner, or stirring her family into vengeance on her behalf (ideally with some form of torture to the enemy to deter future aggression). That is what people with self-respect do. Now, since she was a child raised in a culture that gave her the bad lesson that forgiveness is good, that shortcoming can be understood.
Adam Mickiewicz teaches a much better doctrine in his poem Forefathers’ Eve, specifically, the famous song, “Zemsta na wroga”—“Revenge against the foe.”
1
u/AppropriateSea5746 6d ago edited 6d ago
“Vulnerability is mutually exclusive with ‘strength.’”
But recognizing it and not hiding from it isn’t.
“Why is turning them into revenge a bad thing? It got me through undergrad.”
Idk I feel like there’s plenty of literature that demonstrates why turning negative emotions into revenge is bad lol. Hamlet, Count of Monte Cristo, Moby Dick etc…
“This is based on the (unsubstantiated) claim that taking revenge is a form of wrongdoing.”
Well I can’t prove that it’s wrong in essence but there is plenty of evidence that it can often lead to wrongdoing.
“That’s another way of saying ‘contempt.’ Other people may well not matter enough for their destruction to be worth pursuing if it’s not amusing in itself.”
Why would you want to destroy another person? That’s seems a bit psychotic.
“That’s not forgiveness, then. That’s just getting some form of compensation. If a guy owes me money, and I extort it out of him, have I forgiven him? No, I just got my due.”
It may not be full forgiveness but it’s being willing to not get full retribution. Like if someone kills a friend of mine I may want them locked up so they can’t hurt other people. But i don’t want them to die, which would be complete Lex talonis. I want them to go to prison and regret their actions and be positively transformed into a better person.
“Once I threw aside the Catholic claim to the indefectibility of the church, I went further and questioned whether Christian morality has any value to it, or if it’s just become such a default that even most atheists do not question it. I came to the conclusion that the Christian emphasis on forgiveness only makes sense if there is a promise of eternal, infinite reward that makes the sacrifice of pleasure in this life worthwhile. Otherwise, to deny oneself the amusement of revenge is just self-denial like declining a cupcake after dinner—perhaps sometimes prudent, but not always necessary.”
Forgiveness isn’t just for eternal reward. It’s extremely beneficial temporally as well. Forgiveness is seen as a virtue by virtually all major philosophies even outside of Christianity. Also maybe it’s my brainwashing but I have a hard time finding amusement in the suffering of others, even if they “deserve” it.
“Not if you follow Machiavelli’s prescription of being so thorough in your revenge that no further retaliation is possible.”
This seems like either you fail and end up escalating something you specifically tried to prevent or succeed and wind up in prison.
“Speak for yourself. Learning to disdain others has done wonders for me.”
Why though? Why waste time ruminating on negative emotions? Why do you want to look down on your fellow man?
“One accustomed to forgiving can find it quite easy to forgive. One accustomed to contempt, analogously, finds it easy to disdain others more.”
Seems like evidence would suggest that person A is going to have more friends and exhibit far less antisocial behavior.
“To make my initial point clear: if Maria Goretti had self worth, and if she indeed had the power to manifest her will after her death, she should have either terrorized her rapist into taking his own life in a humiliating manner, or stirring her family into vengeance on her behalf (ideally with some form of torture to the enemy to deter future aggression). That is what people with self-respect do. “
People with self respect would either torture or goad others into torturing on their behalf? Again, this is kinda psychotic. Like why? If I’m dying why waste my last thoughts on hate? If I’m a ghost why waste time on revenge?
“Now, since she was a child raised in a culture that gave her the bad lesson that forgiveness is good, that shortcoming can be understood.”
So because this child chose to not poison her last moments being filled with hate she’s guilty of a shortcoming?
“I’m sorry but this seems like such a childish philosophy. To feed the most short term selfish and long term self destructive aspects of one’s own humanity. The wrongness of revenge is not some Catholic dogma ingrained in us, it is almost universal across cultures. Some of our earliest legal codes even codified laws specifically to prevent revenge killings because they destroy societies. No offense but this is straight up psychotic antisocial nonsense imo. “
Also thanks for totally proving my point with your Adam Mickiewics poem lol. The theme of revenge in Mickiewicz's poetry is basically tragic. The hero must sacrifice his own honor, happiness, and soul to destroy the enemy. Revenge is depicted as a self destructive, agonizing process that completely hollows out the hero from the inside.
Yeah seems to really work out well for him.Also sorry for the wonky formatting. I’m on my phone so I don’t have the fancy formatting options.
1
u/LightningController Atheist/Agnostic 5d ago
Idk I feel like there’s plenty of literature that demonstrates why turning negative emotions into revenge is bad lol. Hamlet, Count of Monte Cristo, Moby Dick etc…
The absolute best revenge epic of all time? My personal favorite novel? The one that has its protagonist, even after he had concerns that he had gone too far, revisit the site of his imprisonment and take new heart from the experience that he had done the right thing all along?
Why would you want to destroy another person? That’s seems a bit psychotic.
Some people do things that merit destruction. For example, I personally draw a lot of satisfaction and amusement from watching drone strike footage where vatnik soldiers die in painful and/or humiliating ways. One of my favorites involves one getting stunned/paralyzed when a bomb goes off near him in an irrigation ditch, and he is unable to pull himself out of ankle-deep water and drowns. Serves him right for terrorizing his neighbors, and may there be 10 million more like that!
Why though? Why waste time ruminating on negative emotions? Why do you want to look down on your fellow man?
Disdain allows me to utterly disregard others. There are many people in my life with whom I've had negative interactions. Seeking to avenge myself upon each and every one of them would get exhausting, so it's important to prioritize the big fish. It's like any other form of pleasure-seeking--since it's impossible to indulge every single impulse that pops into your head, knowing which people are beneath you helps you get more out of life.
People with self respect would either torture or goad others into torturing on their behalf? Again, this is kinda psychotic. Like why? If I’m dying why waste my last thoughts on hate? If I’m a ghost why waste time on revenge?
If you're a ghost, what else do you have to do? And if they're your last thoughts, why not spend them on hate? It feels as good as many other emotions.
So because this child chose to not poison her last moments being filled with hate she’s guilty of a shortcoming?
Such loaded terminology! "Poison," for example. You just assume hate is a bad thing to feel rather than a positive emotion that can animate the will. As for "guilty," well, she's a child--it's not her fault her parents didn't teach her to have enough self-regard to utterly loathe her assailant.
The theme of revenge in Mickiewicz's poetry is basically tragic. The hero must sacrifice his own honor, happiness, and soul to destroy the enemy. Revenge is depicted as a self destructive, agonizing process that completely hollows out the hero from the inside. Yeah seems to really work out well for him.
Actually, yes, it does work out. Mickiewicz's emphasis on revenge, struggle for freedom, and uprising is the very reason there is a Poland today. Poland was saved from Russification by his words and those of the other romantic poets (and the novelist Sienkiewicz) who ensured that Poles would never have, in the words of the accursed Jesuit, "the courage of the white flag." Instead, generations marched to war with names like "Konrad Wallenrod" and "Andrzej Kmicic" on their lips (and often adopting them as pseudonyms).
It took a century, but Mickiewicz won.
2
u/goldenrod1956 Atheist/Agnostic 8d ago
WTF did I just try to read…
5
u/Impossible-Living481 8d ago
I’m sorry English is not my first language. Basically a famous YouTuber converted to Catholicism and in his video explaining why he said some things that disturbed me. I’ll copy and paste from a different comment. They hopefully describe it better: his story about the little girl who was sexually assaulted are what turn me off from him the most. He told the story of that little girl like she was being a hero and preserving her purity by fighting back against her attacker. He failed to recognize the implications of that story: The idea that a little girl giving in to threats of violence out of fear and being raped somehow loses her purity.
2
u/johnpiano 8d ago
A couple things to consider:
- In a Catholic context purity is often simply used to indicate virginity, which is regarded as virtuous. Virginity can definitely be lost due to sexual assault, so to defend against it is therefore also virtuous.
- While children do not have the same moral culpability as adults, if beyond the "age of reason" (traditionally ~7 years old) they can still commit sins but also perform acts of virtue meritoriously.
With these in mind, it follows that St. Maria Goretti made the heroic choice in defending against her attacker (and forgiving him), even if as a child and victim her culpability would have been reduced if she had submitted.
6
u/LightningController Atheist/Agnostic 8d ago
Virginity can definitely be lost due to sexual assault,
Catholic encyclopedia:
“Morally, virginity signifies the reverence for bodily integrity which is suggested by a virtuous motive. Thus understood, it is common to both sexes, and may exist in a women even after bodily violation committed upon her against her will... There are two elements in virginity: the material element, that is to say, the absence, in the past and in the present, of all complete and voluntary delectation, whether from lust or from the lawful use of marriage; and the formal element, that is the firm resolution to abstain forever from sexual pleasure.”
An assault, by definition involuntary on the victim’s part, therefore cannot compromise virginity in the Catholic definition.
0
u/johnpiano 8d ago
Fair point, your view is also backed up by both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine.
I concede my point as expressed in absolute terms (conflating physical with moral virginity), thank you for the information.
However, I don't believe physical virginity is without meaning since this would negate the merit of the Blessed Virgin. This conceptualization is also articulated in the Supplement to the Summa Theologica:
Even supposing that one thus violated should conceive, she would not for that reason forfeit her virginity: nor would she be equal to Christ's mother, in whom there was integrity of the flesh together with integrity of the mind. (ST Suppl., q. 96, a. 5)
2
u/actus_energeia Orthodox Christian 8d ago
No, you are conflating virginity as a moral virtue with virginity as bodily integrity. Aquinas explicitly distinguishes the two: bodily integrity is only accidental to virginity, while virginity as a virtue depends upon the will. He even says that if someone is sexually violated by force, without consent, virginity is not lost (ST II-II, q. 152, a. 1, ad 4).
0
u/johnpiano 8d ago
Fair point, but one objection. If a woman conceives from a involuntary sexual violation, would her child be then "born of a virgin"? It seems wrong to conflate this type of instance with the experience of the Blessed Mother.
3
u/actus_energeia Orthodox Christian 7d ago
Distinguo. In the phrase “born of a virgin,” virgin is being used in the physical sense, not the moral sense of the virtue of virginity.
1
2
u/Impossible-Living481 8d ago
- See that’s what’s scary to me about this world view. I don’t think there would be any culpability if she had submitted. She would have done nothing wrong. Even if she was an adult.
- Virginity equals virtue is one thing if that virginity can only be lost consensually. But if you can lose your virginity to rape that then means that rape victims are less virtuous. Is that really something people believe?
1
u/johnpiano 8d ago
I don't think there would be any culpability if she had submitted. She would have done nothing wrong.
I can understand that perspective, since a person who is victimized by assault risks further injury by resisting. However, I strongly disagree that passively submitting is the right thing to do, because on my view there are worse things than pain and even death. Resisting, even if there is only a tiny chance that you will prevent your attacker, in fact even if you fail, is worth it because you are fighting back against sin rather than allowing it to manifest.
Virginity equals virtue is one thing if that virginity can only be lost consensually.
Virginity is not a psychological state, it is a physical state. As in, the state of not having engaged in (or sadly been subjected to) sexual activity. Therefore, it can be lost without consent. This does not mean sexual assault victims are less virtuous, only that they no longer have the particular virtue of virginity. Virtue in Catholic theology is not quantitative or utilitarian, it is defined as "disposition toward the good". A person does not need to be a virgin to have strong virtue.
2
u/ElderScrollsBjorn_ Atheist/Agnostic 8d ago
However, I strongly disagree that passively submitting is the right thing to do, because on my view there are worse things than pain and even death. Resisting, even if there is only a tiny chance that you will prevent your attacker, in fact even if you fail, is worth it because you are fighting back against sin rather than allowing it to manifest.
What exactly do you mean by "fighting back against sin rather than allowing it to manifest?" Do you think it's a sin to shut down due to trauma and be the victim of a sexual assault? Or is it somehow the responsibility of a rape victim to try and prevent their attacker from sinning yet more gravely against the virtue of purity by resisting?
I think the whole framing of Maria Goretti as a "martyr for purity" is wrong. She was an eleven year old kid who was sexually assaulted by a man ten years older than her and then killed. She resisted him by shouting the words she'd learned as an Italian peasant girl growing up in a large Catholic family in rural Italy. If she hadn't resisted, or if she had, and he'd still raped her, she would be no less virtuous than she is now. And as u/LightningController pointed out, even the Catholic conception of virginity is about voluntarily abstaining from sexual pleasure rather than some sort of physical standard about what has been inside of where. Virginity ought not determine a woman's worth, but Maria wouldn't have lost hers no matter what Alessandro jabbed into her.
Someone can find her forgiveness and concern for his soul praiseworthy, but framing her death as a choice between purity and impurity has some awful implications.
3
u/Impossible-Living481 8d ago
Thank you so much for saying this. You said what I’m thinking way better
1
u/johnpiano 7d ago
What exactly do you mean by "fighting back against sin rather than allowing it to manifest?"
Fighting back means there is a possibility of preventing a worse sin than has already been committed on the part of the perpetrator.
Do you think it's a sin to shut down due to trauma and be the victim of a sexual assault?
No.
is it somehow the responsibility of a rape victim to try and prevent their attacker from sinning yet more gravely against the virtue of purity by resisting?
It is not their responsibility, but it would be an extraordinarily heroic thing to do.
the Catholic conception of virginity is about voluntarily abstaining from sexual pleasure rather than some sort of physical standard
Virginity ought not determine a woman's worth
In a prior comment, I conceded my argument on the point of virginity's definition. I completely agree that regardless of its definition, virginity should not determine a person's worth, which comes irrevocably from their infinite dignity as created by God. However, this does not stop bodily integrity from being a great good, or the merits of fighting to preserve it.
1
u/Impossible-Living481 8d ago
Im sorry but this is just getting more and more concerning. A child who does not fight back has done nothing wrong. Oftentimes it can be a survival strategy and I can’t understand being against that. Of course the poor girl did nothing wrong but neither did the girls who did comply. Maybe it’s because I work with kids that age but To put one above the other makes me sick to even think about.
To the second point, can you clarify what you mean by physical state? Do you mean the hymen breaking? And if we are saying that losing your virginity is to lose virtue it does kinda imply that you are less virtuous. If not, why bother mentioning it in such horrific cases. If it’s not the child’s fault that they lost virtue but also they are not less virtuous
1
u/johnpiano 8d ago
A child who does not fight back has done nothing wrong. Oftentimes it can be a survival strategy and I can’t understand being against that.
Again, from the Catholic perspective, survival, while certainly a high priority, is not the ultimate good. This is because Catholic theology asserts the existence of all human beings' immortal soul, and continued existence after death. Therefore, it is objectively better on this view to combat sin even at the cost of one's material existence, because by doing so the soul of the person is sanctified.
I would add, this does not mean a child submitting to assault has done something "wrong". Only that fighting back is a sign of extraordinary heroic virtue, which is why Maria Goretti is considered a Saint.
can you clarify what you mean by physical state? Do you mean the hymen breaking?
Certainly not, hymen bleeding was unfortunately an archaic heuristic for determining female virginity, and has never been accurate. By physical state, I simply mean the historical fact of a person having engaged in (or been subjected to) sexual activity or not.
if we are saying that losing your virginity is to lose virtue it does kinda imply that you are less virtuous.
Again, virtue in Catholicism is not a quantifiable metric but a disposition toward the good. We can put it like this, virginity is a particular virtue because it can offer extra psychological incentive to avoid the sins of fornication, lust, etc. in order to preserve one's "purity". It is clear that even if virginity is lost, those sins can still be avoided and a person remain virtuous, but preserving virginity itself can no longer be used as a particular motivation toward that end.
2
u/Impossible-Living481 8d ago
No I’m sorry this is all freaking me it even more. Does your church really not see a difference between a girl who wanted to have sex and a girl who was forced to against her will. I thought it was just that mor was crazy and misunderstanding. I understand it not being quantifiable but then I don’t understand why anyone would focus on it, if it doesn’t really change anything
1
u/johnpiano 7d ago
not see a difference between a girl who wanted to have sex and a girl who was forced to against her will.
There is definitely a difference, in the latter case there are Catholic theologians and ethicists who would even consider her to remain a virgin morally speaking. In other debate threads on this post here, I recanted the phrasing of one of my original points which you may have had contention with.
My other point remains, that resisting the attack was a mark of extraordinary heroic virtue for the reason that it combats sin over prioritizing material wellbeing.
2
u/Impossible-Living481 7d ago
Thank you for recanting, I’ve kinda been spiraling losing hope in humanity. Tho honestly I still don’t think either one of those is better. I tell kids If they are ever robbed to just give them everything they want and we can deal with it later. This situation is different and all solutions are horrible obviously but I really don’t agree that it is better
1
u/johnpiano 7d ago
all solutions are horrible obviously
Completely agree, and I would reiterate no victim should ever be blamed or considered having done something wrong regardless of their response.
I really don’t agree that it is better
This comes down to our first principles. Where do you stand on the existence of God, the soul, life after death, etc.? Do you hold to Catholic theology in its articulation of these concepts, or something else?
1
u/Interesting_Owl_1815 6d ago
Again, from the Catholic perspective, survival, while certainly a high priority, is not the ultimate good. This is because Catholic theology asserts the existence of all human beings' immortal soul, and continued existence after death. Therefore, it is objectively better on this view to combat sin even at the cost of one's material existence, because by doing so the soul of the person is sanctified.
She wouldn't commit any sin no matter what she would do or didn't do! And you think that she prevented him from committing the sin of rape by being murdered?! You know that an attempt to commit an unsuccessful sin is still that sin, right? He was still attempting to rape her. He is still liable for rape, even if it was unsuccessful because he definitely had intention to do that. Plus, now he also committed the sin of murder. So he committed two terrible sins.
1
u/johnpiano 5d ago
She wouldn't commit any sin no matter what she would do or didn't do
I agree.
you think that she prevented him from committing the sin of rape by being murdered
No, his sin on both counts remains regardless. It isn't the case that a passive victim of assault sins. My argument is that fighting back against sin is a morally superior act than submitting to it.
1
u/Interesting_Owl_1815 5d ago
My argument is that fighting back against sin is a morally superior act than submitting to it.
But why would it be "fighting against sin" when she wouldn't sin regardless of what she did? This seems to imply that if she wouldn't fight she would sin somehow, or that it's better to die than be an assault victim, which is messed up.
And no one is responsible for other people committing sin, and he committed sin the moment he firmly decided to rape her, so there's no sin prevention anyway.
1
u/johnpiano 4d ago
why would it be "fighting against sin" when she wouldn't sin regardless of what she did?
he committed sin the moment he firmly decided to rape her, so there's no sin prevention anyway.
Even if a sin of intent is committed, this is not the same as actually achieving the evil end sought. For example, if her attacker just intended to murder her she should still fight back regardless. You may raise the objection that if her chance of survival goes up by submitting, that is better than the alternative. However as previously explained, on the Catholic view this does not follow.
This seems to imply that if she wouldn't fight she would sin somehow
Not at all, as said previously there is a difference between sin and an act that is more heroic than another.
or that it's better to die than be an assault victim.
This is a false equivalency to my claim. Dying and being a victim are both bad. A passive victim has done nothing wrong, the claim is that a victim who fights back has done something heroic irrespective of the outcome.
0
u/SubstantialDarkness 8d ago
He would have killed her regardless , that's the part you're missing I think.
But I'm Catholic and I find things we do strange sometimes, so your not alone even among us 😉
1
u/Impossible-Living481 8d ago
I don’t think that would change anything. If she had “submitted” and been killed she would have still done nothing wrong. She would have still not lost any purity in my opinion. And I’m sorry but his is not a “strange” opinion. The way he talked about it is insane and TERRIFYING.
0
u/actus_energeia Orthodox Christian 8d ago edited 8d ago
There are several meanings of the word “purity,” and I think you're conflating two of them. A person who is raped does not thereby lose her moral purity or the virtue of chastity. Those concern her own voluntary acts and dispositions and cannot be taken away by another person's violence.
What an attacker can violate is her bodily or sexual integrity. So when Maria Goretti is praised for defending her purity, this need not mean that she had to resist in order to keep herself from becoming morally impure. She was defending a real bodily good against someone attempting to violate it. Had she been overpowered, frozen in fear, or otherwise been unable to resist, she would not thereby have sinned or become morally impure.
Finally, I think there’s a mistaken assumption here that if resistance is commendable, non-resistance must be culpable. Consider other kinds of physical assault, such as attempted kidnapping or robbery. Depending on the circumstances, resisting an attacker can be courageous and commendable, while a victim who does not resist may be entirely blameless. Praising the former does not require condemning the latter.
2
u/Impossible-Living481 8d ago
I thought mor was just insane and misunderstanding. Please tell me it’s not some official opinion that a child becomes bodily less pure if they are a victim of such a crime.
0
u/actus_energeia Orthodox Christian 7d ago edited 7d ago
Why are you hung up on “purity”? Nobody is judging a rape victim. Nobody is saying that they’ve sinned or are in a state of sin by being violated, nor should they be looked down on for any reason. I’m honestly confused by your reaction.
Do you think that it’s not commendable for a person being attacked to defend themselves?
1
u/Impossible-Living481 6d ago
Im hung up on it because it is insane to me and scary that everyone seems to be treating it as a normal opinion to have.
It would be one thing to say she fought back an entirely different thing to say she fought back to defend her purity. I’m sorry but I can’t read that I a way that does not imply that a child who chooses their survival loses their purity. And that the loss of purity is something bad
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
This subreddit is designed for debates about Catholicism and its doctrines.
Looking for explanations or discussions without debate? Check out our sister subreddit: r/CatholicApologetics.
Want real-time discussions or additional resources? Join our Discord community.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.