Rape (Violent Defloration)

Rape is the violent abduction of a person from a place of safety for the purpose of satisfying lust. The violence may be offered to the person abducted, or to the parents, or to those who have charge of her, and it adds a special malice of its own to the sin besides the malice against chastity.

I. Notion. Stuprum can be taken in a broad and in a strict sense. Taken in the broad sense, it is defined: intercourse with a woman - whether a virgin or deflowered - who consents in no way or not freely, for example with one resisting, sleeping, insane, or consenting from fraud or fear. Taken in the strict or canonical sense, it is: intercourse with a virgin who consents in no way or not freely (St. Alphonsus III, 443); moreover, by the name of virgin here is understood one who retains the seal of virginity, even if perhaps she has sinned.

I. Notion. Rape, as it is taken here, is the violent abduction of any person whatsoever, for the sake of satisfying libido (St. Alphonsus III, 444).¹ It is called:

1. Abduction; to this, under the moral respect, detention in the place where the person is staying is equivalent.

2. Violent. Violence, however, can be physical or moral, and can be inflicted either on the one abducted, or on those under whose power the person is, or to whose custody the person has been committed, or on both parties. Hence if some woman of full age goes away spontaneously, for example with a lover, without the knowledge of her parents, it will not properly be rape but flight (St. Alphonsus III, 444); otherwise if she is a minor (cf. can. 2353).

3. Of any person whatsoever, whether male or female, whether married or unmarried, whether virgin or corrupted (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

4. For the sake of satisfying libido, whether through intercourse or through another shameful act. Rape is had even if intercourse or another shameful work does not follow; likewise even if the abducted person afterward consents to the sin of lust. But rape, as it is here taken, that is, as a sin of lust, is not had if a person is abducted for the sake of another end, for example, in order to enter a valid marriage.

¹ Although rape - as will be clear from what is to be said - does not in its own concept involve consummated lust, nevertheless it is customarily treated in this place.

II. Morality. From what has been said, it follows that rape is opposed not only to chastity but also to justice, with respect either to the abducted person, or, if that person is a minor, to those under whose power the person is, or to both (St. Alphonsus III, 444). If a minor consents to his or her own abduction, injury persists with respect to those to whose care the minor is subject.

III. Penalties. 1. One who, with a view to marriage or for the sake of satisfying libido, has carried off an unwilling woman by force or deceit, or a woman of minor age who indeed consents but without the knowledge or against the will of her parents or guardians, is held ipso iure excluded from legitimate ecclesiastical acts and furthermore is punished with other penalties according to the gravity of the fault (can. 2353).¹

2. A layperson who has been legitimately condemned for the crime... of rape of impubescent persons of either sex... is held ipso iure excluded from legitimate ecclesiastical acts and furthermore is punished with other penalties according to the gravity of the penalty (can. 2354, § 1). A cleric is to be punished from § 2 of the same canon with various penalties according to the gravity of the fault.

General Note 1. It is clear that several of the species of sins explained can concur in one and the same act, as if someone has intercourse with a married blood-relative.

General Note 2. Insofar as acts of immodesty and of non-consummated lust contract the species of sins contained in consummated lust and explained above, we shall speak below.

¹ When it constitutes a diriment impediment of marriage, it is explained in the treatise on that sacrament.

Defloration and Rape.—Defloration and rape are distinct species of lust, for each of them in its very concept includes a special and notable deformity not found in other species of impurity.

(a) Defloration is unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman who is virginal in body (2488 a^†). It has the special deformity of depriving the woman of the physical integrity that is most highly prized among all the unmarried of her sex, or at least of her own self-respect, and of setting her on the way to become a strumpet rather than an honorable wife or spinster. Some authors do not consider defloration a special sin unless it is done by violence, or unless injury is done the parental right over the virgin; and even the authors who consider unforced defloration a special sin hold that the new or additional malice in it is slight and venial, and therefore not a necessary matter of confession. The first sin of fornication by a male is not a special sin, because the consequences are not so serious for the man as for the woman, but of course seduction is always a special sin, whether the injured party be male or female.

(b) Rape is physical or moral coercion (i.e., force or fear) employed against any person (male or female, married or single, pure or corrupt), or against his or her guardians, to compel him or her to an act of lust. It has the special deformity of inflicting bodily injury on the person ravished. The sin of rape should not be confused with the canonical crime of rape, which consists in abduction, and which is an impediment to marriage (Canon 1074); nor with seduction, as when an innocent person is deceived into believing that an act of impurity is lawful, or is tricked into sin by false promises of marriage. Equivalent to rape is the carnal knowledge of a person drugged, hypnotized, or otherwise unconscious, or the seduction of an infant. A person who is ravished is obliged to deny all consent internally, and to resist or make outcry when this is possible (see 2497 a).

39. 2. Concerning rape. Rape is distinguished as threefold: in the strict, or canonical, sense, it is the defloration³ of a virgin, she being unwilling; in the less strict sense, it is the defloration of a virgin, even if she is consenting; in the broad sense, it is intercourse with any woman whatever, she being unwilling.

³ A virgin is deflowered when through first carnal intercourse she loses the flower of virginity.

(A) Rape is called violent not only when a woman is oppressed by force, but also when intercourse is extorted by threats or by fear unjustly inflicted, or by deceit or fraud, e.g., by abusing the ignorance of a girl, by falsely promising marriage, by carnally knowing a woman in sleep or drunkenness. Now every violent rape, even with a woman who is not a virgin, includes a twofold malice, one against chastity and the other against justice, since the right of the woman over her own body is violated.

(B) But rape which is punished by canonical penalties is the defloration of a virgin, she being unwilling, unless another thing is expressly noted. - When a virgin is deflowered with her consent, there is indeed a notably aggravating circumstance, but the species of the sin is not changed.

(C) Related to rape is abduction, or the violent carrying off of a person, for the sake of fulfilling lust. Therefore it differs from the impediment of abduction, which is incurred when the carrying off is done for the sake of entering marriage. It likewise includes a twofold malice, namely against justice and chastity.

N. B. A woman to whom violence is brought is always held not only to resist internal delectation, but also exteriorly to manifest dissent, by crying out and, according to her strength, by repelling the aggressor; nevertheless she is not held to resist in that external manner which exposes her to danger of death or infamy, provided the proximate danger of internal consent is absent.

I. Stuprum (viol, verkrachting, maagde- of vrouweschennis), as a distinct species of lust, is violent concubitus. And indeed:

1. by more recent authors it is taken in the stricter sense, and is the violent or unjust defloration of a virgin, she being unwilling;

2. among the ancient scholastics, as Saint Thomas, it is taken in a less strict sense, as the illicit defloration of a virgin existing under paternal power, even when she herself consents;¹

¹ II-II, q. 154, art. 6. The etymology of the name, which indicates violent concubitus, is nevertheless preserved; for there is a physical breaking of the seal of virginity. Violence is done to the body, not to the consenting person.

3. but in a broad sense, it is so called as the oppressive or injurious seduction of an honorable and unmarried woman, even one not a virgin or not a minor.

But in the aforesaid cases a virgin is understood not in the moral sense, but in the physical sense, as one who, although perhaps she has sinned, preserves the seal of virginity.

II. Stuprum exercised with violence, even with one not a virgin, is evidently a distinct species of lust, because it imports grave injustice, since the right of the woman over her own body is violated; but if the woman is a virgin, a twofold injury is committed, since the seal of virginity is violently taken away. Stuprum is called violent not only when the woman is oppressed by physical force, but also when other unjust means are employed, as if copulation is extorted by threats or by fear unjustly inflicted, or by touches brought about by force, or by prayers so importunate that they are equivalent to violence, or by deceit or fraud, for example by abusing the ignorance of a girl who did not know copulation to be illicit, by fictitiously promising marriage, by oppressing a woman in sleep or in drunkenness, and so forth; but not if it is obtained by mere prayers, persuasions, blandishments, gifts.

III. Stuprum in the less strict sense, according to Saint Thomas,² is also a distinct species of lust, both because it is against paternal power, which exercises solicitude concerning the guarding of the virgin, and thus tends to the dishonor and grief of the father; and because the girl can be impeded from legitimate marriage and is placed on the road to fornicating further and acting as a prostitute, from which she was drawn back by the seal of virginity. Hence, even if the father were to consent and renounce his right, to which, moreover, he cannot fully renounce, this other malice would still remain.

² Ibid., a. 6.

Yet because the virgin herself consented, stuprum is not proved to import a new grave malice; and therefore it seems to be only a venial species, which per se does not have to be declared necessarily in confession.

776. Definition. Stuprum, in the broader sense, is the violation or oppression of any woman, even a widow, or otherwise corrupted. In the stricter sense, as in canon law, it is "the deflowering of a virgin, she being unwilling." But a virgin is said to be deflowered when, for the first time, through the concubitus of a man, she is deprived of virginity or integrity of flesh. The malice of stuprum is found, although in an imperfect mode, in the shameful touching of an unwilling woman.

Principles. I. Stuprum, in each sense, has special malice. The reason is that besides fornication it contains grave injury, on account of violence brought in. This malice is increased (but more probably within the same species) when someone takes integrity away from a virgin: for this is reputed, and deservedly, as a good of the greatest price, by which virgins are especially honored, and are sought for suitable marriages. And hence it is why stuprum of a virgin is punished by special penalties in canon law (cf. Craisson, n. 6266).

777. II. Moral and interpretative violence suffices for the crime of stuprum. For commonly he is judged guilty of stuprum who has led a virgin into evil by fraud (for example by a false promise of marriage or of a great dowry) or by grave fear, even reverential fear; as also he who has dishonored a girl not yet having obtained perfect use of reason, or one drunk, foolish, or sleeping, without her previous consent.

778. Questions. Q. 1. What ought a woman oppressed by force to do, so that she may be immune from sin?

Resp. She cannot behave negatively or permissively, but is held to resist, both internally, lest she consent to pleasure, and externally, with at least ordinary resistance, namely by repelling force by force, so that thus she may report victory, and deserve to be crowned by God (cf. n. 736 and 755, end). See Salmant., tr. 25, c. 1, n. 29.

Q. 2. Whether she is also held to cry out?

Resp. Distinguish: Affirmatively (and even with manifest danger to life), if proximate danger of consent is imminent; for then extraordinary resistance also is necessary. But negatively, very probably, with such danger excluded (as can happen when there is question only of touches) with danger of notable harm, whether of infamy, or excessive shame. Yet the contrary opinion, as safer, is to be counseled; and it becomes plainly obligatory if the woman, on account of past experience, or on account of known frailty, is in special danger of afterward consenting to the consummated act (III, 368, 430).

Note. For practice, it is to be noted that cases of a woman oppressed, without her own fault, by reason of irreligiosity that always increases, the condition of labor in workshops, etc., in some regions, become more frequent day by day. Hence women are to be warned not to return home without a companion, and to show themselves strong and circumspect. "Besides, the natural timidity of women, and often confusion from an unforeseen case, can effect that a woman does not oppose a great and manly resistance, and nevertheless is immune at least from formal fault" (Berardi, Praxis, 266).

On restitution on account of stuprum, see n. 956 ff., in the treatise on the Seventh Precept.

497. Definition. - Stuprum strictly taken (as in Canon Law) is the defloration of a virgin, she herself being unwilling. In a broader sense (as in civil law) it is the oppression of any woman whatever, even a married one.

Principles. - I. Stuprum in each sense has a special malice; because beyond fornication it contains an injury certainly grave on account of violence inflicted on the modesty of a woman; which malice is increased, but more probably within the same species, when someone violently takes integrity from a virgin: for this is reputed, and deservedly indeed, as a good of the greatest price, by which especially virgins are honored and are sought for suitable nuptials. Therefore the stuprum of a virgin is punished in canon law with special penalties.⁵

498. • II. For the crime of stuprum, moral and interpretative violence suffices. - For commonly even he is judged guilty of stuprum who has oppressed a girl not yet enjoying the use of reason, a drunk, foolish, or sleeping woman. - Likewise he is called a violator who has induced a virgin to evil by fraud (for example, by a false promise of Matrimony or of a great dowry), or by grave fear, even reverential fear.¹

Indeed, even if more commonly and more probably it is taught that of itself it is not a special sin if a virgin plainly consents, because properly speaking an injury is not done to one consenting; nevertheless it can be such from elsewhere, "namely by reason of infamy or sorrow of parents, or of quarrels, hatred, etc."²

1008. Defloration (viol; verkrachting), according to more recent authors, is violent intercourse, so that, if a virgin consents, it is not properly defloration; hence it is the violent or unjust defloration of a virgin. But according to St. Thomas and the ancients it is every illicit defloration of a virgin, whether she consents or does not consent. A virgin is understood in the physical sense, one who retains the seal of virginity. Now:

1. Defloration of an unwilling virgin, or violent defloration of a virgin, adds to simple fornication a mortal malice distinct in species, not only by reason of the violence by which she is compelled to fornicate, such as can exist with respect to a corrupted woman, but also by reason of the natural integrity which is violently taken from an unwilling woman. For this integrity violently taken away is of sufficient moment to constitute in the violator a grave sin of unjust damaging.

Violence is understood not only as physical, but also as moral, such as fraud, fear, importunate prayers and blandishments, such as those which are accompanied by great promises, kisses, touches, and incentives of venery, which a freeborn woman cannot easily resist.

2. Defloration of a virgin consenting of her own accord is a distinct species of luxury. For where, concerning the matter of some vice, some special deformity occurs, there a determinate species of that vice must be placed. But in the defloration of a virgin, even one consenting of her own accord, there is a special deformity concerning the matter of luxury: a) on the part of the girl, who, from the fact that she is corrupted, is impeded from legitimate marriage and is placed on the path of prostitution, from which she was held back lest she lose the signet of virginity; b) on the part of the father, who bears solicitude for her custody.

Hence if it happens that the parents consent, nevertheless defloration would remain, because the same reasons would remain on the part of the virgin; moreover, parents cannot consent to this.

Yet it seems more probable that the defloration of a virgin consenting of her own accord does not add to simple fornication a mortal malice which must be explained in confession, because injury is not done to one knowing and consenting, but only a venial one.

1009. Rape, as it is a species of luxury, is force inflicted upon any person whatever, or upon that person's parents, for the sake of fulfilling lust; while moderns take it more restrictively, defining it as the violent abduction of any person whatever for the sake of fulfilling lust (enlevement; oplichting). But the former definition is more conformable to St. Thomas, who says, a. 7: in whatever way violence is present, and therefore even without abduction, the account of rape is preserved.

For it is not of the account of rape as such that the thing taken be led away from place to place, but only that it be violently taken away in the presence of the lord or guardian, or while he resists, even if it is not led away, but is consummated in the same place, or detained by force, so that violence alone is essential to rape and distinguishes it from theft. Thus, for example, he who by force took bread or wine from someone present and resisting and consumed it in the same place would be a true robber and not merely a thief.

In the definition it is said:

1. Force inflicted, or violence, by which is understood not only force or physical violence properly so called, but also fear which is judged grave, at least relatively to the person, for example, reverential fear with respect to a girl; but not fraud or importunate prayers, because he is not properly called a robber who extorts another's property by deceit or importunate prayers, but one who does so by open force or at least by grave fear unjustly inflicted.

2. Upon any person whatever, because here the question is not, as in defloration, of a virgin alone, but whether she is a virgin or corrupted, unmarried or married, male or female, indeed in a word whatever the person may be, there is matter of rape, which is graver according as the person taken brings in graver qualities. Thus if she is married, there is rape and adultery; if sacred to God, rape and sacrilege; if of the same sex, rape and sodomy, etc.

3. Or upon that person's parents, because for the account of rape, as it is in the species of luxury, it is not necessary that violence always be done to the person taken. It suffices that it be done to the parents or guardians, or to custodians constituted by them, under whose care the person taken exists, namely a minor, because then violence is had. But in whatever way violence is present, the account of rape as a species of luxury is preserved. Therefore whether the one taken consents to the taker while the parents resist, or whether the parents consent while the one taken resists, there is rape.

But if the one taken or led away consents while the parents do not know, it is not properly rape, because there is no violence, in which the account of rape essentially consists. It is called by some the rape of seduction, but by others it is better called flight; nevertheless it can be reduced to rape, because, although it happens without violence, it nevertheless does not happen without injury to the parents.

4. For the sake of fulfilling lust, because if it is from another motive, for example, that the person taken become a slave or maidservant, or be sold, it will not be a species of luxury, but another species of rape, which is called kidnapping. Although lustful rape has its complement through the fulfillment of lust, nevertheless there will be true rape from the intention alone, even if copulation does not follow.

Hence if it is done solely with a view to marriage, rape is not a sin of luxury; but then it is an impediment diriment of marriage, as long as it endures (can. 1074).

That rape constitutes a distinct species in the sin of luxury is manifest from this, that it implies a grave personal injury, or violent violation of the person taken or of that person's parents.

1010. Remarks. - 1. A woman upon whom violence is inflicted cannot bear herself merely passively, but is bound to resist internally and externally: namely by dissenting and by manifesting her dissent outwardly, and by crying out and repelling the aggressor according to her strength. Yet she is not bound to resist in that mode which would expose her to danger of death or infamy, provided the proximate danger of internal consent is absent.

2. An oppressed woman can and ought to move and turn herself and in every way impede and break off copulation lest she receive seed, although it is to be poured out, because she has the right and obligation of impeding copulation, and the effusion of seed is to be ascribed solely to the malice of the man.

3. Whether she can also expel seed already received before conception, as pleases some modern authors according to an opinion recently introduced, because they say the seed has the manner of an unjust aggressor?

a) Certainly she cannot, if she has admitted copulation altogether voluntarily; or even if she was deceived by fraud or deceit, or yielded to force or fear, so that the oppression began by force, deceit, or threats, to which subsequent consent was added: for then there will no longer be place for inculpable defense, since the woman ought to have used other licit means. Hence the disputed question does not have much bearing on practice, since the case in which the oppression of the woman is to be attributed to violence alone and was altogether involuntary is very rare.

b) But even then we hold it illicit to expel the seed, both because man does not have dominion over seed, and therefore every action which is exercised directly concerning seed is illicit, except that which is intended by nature, namely conjugal copulation; and because, if it were licit directly to expel seed, this would also be licit concerning the fetus after conception, because in the case it would be more an aggressor and unjust; and because it is a greater injury against human generation and the common good to expel seed from its final seat destined by nature for this, than to procure pollution by which it is expelled from its instrumental seat. But this is always illicit; therefore also the first.

c) Besides, the argument brought by those affirming this does not hold. For it is licit to repel aggression during the action of copulation, but not after copulation has been posited, because then the aggression has ceased and the seed is already in its place to which it is destined by nature. But copulation is finished by the very introduction of seed into the vessel of the woman, because once the seed has been ejaculated, the voluntary work of man ceases and the work of nature alone begins, by which it happens that the seed naturally penetrates more deeply into the organs of the woman for fecundation. But to break off the work of nature in human generation is illicit.

Nor should you say that the effect of injustice remains, since the seed was deposited there unjustly. For from this it follows that the effect can be removed by licit means, but not that illicit means can be used, such as an action exercised directly upon seed or upon the fetus; just as neither is it licit directly to kill an innocent person in order to protect oneself against unjust harm.

Man does not have dominion over seed, but it belongs to the species; and in the whole process of generation the individual is altogether subordinated to the species.

Raptus in the theological sense, and for the internal forum, is violence inflicted upon a person, or upon those under whose power the person is, for the sake of satisfying lust. - But in the sense used in the external forum, it is the abduction of a person from a safe place to an unsafe place, through force inflicted upon that person or upon those under whose power the person is, for the sake of satisfying lust or contracting marriage. - Cf. Sanchez, de Matrim., lib. 7, disp. 12, n. 30.

Violence in each definition is understood as either physical or moral, or inflicted through grave fear; but the person, as to theological fault, is understood to be any person, male or female, unmarried, married, or widowed, honorable or a prostitute; as to the external forum and penalties to be undergone, also any person, provided the person is of honorable life. - Hence in every stuprum the malice of raptus is found, but not vice versa. These things having been noted:

I say 1st. Raptus is a special sin, although the wicked act of lust does not follow; and it consists chiefly in the injury which is inflicted through violence inflicted for the sake of lust. Wherefore the circumstance of raptus is necessarily to be disclosed in confession, whether fornication, adultery, etc., follows, or whether it does not follow.

I say 2nd. It is not to be judged raptus if the woman fully consents both to the abduction and to the violation, unless nevertheless she is a minor and at the same time her parents or guardians or curators suffer this unwillingly. But raptus will be present if she gives consent only to the abduction and not to the violation, or to the violation and not to the abduction. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 444.