Police Illegally Taped Nursing Home Sex, Wisconsin Court Rules - non-consensual rape or marital right?

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,421043,00.html

Technically the wife can’t consent but then again she can’t say no. How do we know if she would have cosented or would have objected? She can’t consent to being fed, turned, having her limbs moved or having the Bible read to her for that matter. I guess if a new act of consent has to accompany every act of intercourse it would be considered rape. However, I have read that marriage is giving the perpetual right of one’s body to one’s spouse so in reality she consented when she married. I have also heard that refusing this marital right can be considered a grave sin because it could lead to the temptation of adultery and masturbation for one’s spouse. The marriage doesn’t end just because she is comatose. What if a spouse is demented or has a brain injury that limits consent to some degree? Does that make intercourse rape and illicit?

:ehh:
I’m not sure what to think of this.

Rape is a sexual act done without consent. The victim does not need to say ‘no’ for the act to be rape. The mere lack of consent in some form is sufficient.

A man does not have an unqualified right to sex with his wife; they both must give their consent in some form.

From the point of view of Catholic moral theology, this man is raping his wife. She is in a coma and so she cannot consent. Rape is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, so it doesn’t matter what his intention is, or what the circumstances are.

Why is this even a question???

If one spouse is injured to the point of a coma and is not able to consent to having sex, i wonder how many spouses would even think of having sex with their comatose spouse? Their mentally incapacitated spouse from a severe accident?

To exercise my “marital right” is not something I think I would need in this situation.

To answer your question, one’s inability to consent to sex (what ever the reasons.) constitutes rape when the “marital right” is forced.

where did you read this?

I am sure the Vatican has a statement on this type of event. Now who is volunteering to research it.:smiley:

I read it in the old Code of Canon Law cormacburke.or.ke/node/612
"Matrimonial consent under the old Code was described as an act of the will “by which each party gives and accepts a perpetual and exclusive right over the body, for acts which are of themselves suitable for the generation of children” (c. 1081, § 2). "

Personally, it’s obvious this husband needs help psychologically. Although he is a daily visitor to his wife’s bedside and assists in her physical care…his own is taking a very serious hit, if he has resorted to using his wife’s inert body to fill his needs. Instead of beating this man up…I think we need to get him some serious help…I don’t think his intentions are to hurt her, but he’s obviously not handling this whole situation in the right frame of mind, especially in the sexual acting out dept. I don’t think it’s a crime, but I do think he needs serious mental help.

I read about this yesterday. It bothered me.

A comatose woman cannot consent (nor can a woman incapacitated in any other manner).

The marital embrace is supposed to be a mutual free exchange, this scenario did not fit the criteria.

I am also not sure how much privacy he should have had reasonably expected. Wouldn’t anyone visiting her with the door closed have the right to have intercourse with her?

Just a very odd scenario.

What kind of sicko would enjoy this?

My DH would rather not continue if it’s obvious that while consenting, I am not really into it. I don’t even think he would be physically capable of performing the act if I were in a coma!

That dude needs some serious mental help.

and BTW, the idea that a man cannot rape his wife is repugnant. Thank God that has been rectified in the laws of all 50 states now, with my good ol’ AZ bringing up the rear just TWO YEARS AGO! :mad:

Could the argument be made that consent is presumed? For example, it is not a sin for me to borrow my friends calculator when he is not home because it is reasonable to say that consent is presumed. Can this apply here?

EDIT: Whether he is right or wrong, he seems to motivated by love for hs wife, not his own needs. As sick as it may sound, it would seem that, in his own mind, he is merely expressing his love.

The Church has some things to say about marital consent, and only poster 7 referred to Church teaching in the matter. I don’t see this matter as a matter of personal opinion because for this reason, but I would rather hear more about what the Church says.

Under the law, consent is always required to engage in sexual activities with another person or people. All parties must give consent before and during the activity. Among/between sexual partners who are used to each other, verbal consent seems unnecessary (a wife saying to her husband, “I’m still interested,” is mostly not needed) but basically: one should never have sex with someone legally unable to consent!

That seems to answer the legal aspect of the matter, but I’m more interested in the moral aspect. Is it a sin (for any reason other than violating a ‘just’ law)?

Is it physically possible for a comatose woman to conceive? I mean, her body is kind of in standby mode, so would she ovulate? And could she carry to term? Obviously, if she did there would have to be a C-section, but that’s not important. I’m wondering if it’s possible for there to be a threat to a baby’s life in this situation.

disturbing to say the least. i don’t know what the church teaches on this. on one hand, we are supposed to love our wives which means we don’t do physical harm to them. but, in the eyes of the church, this couldn’t be considered equal to rape.

yes.

yes. There was a famous or should i say infamous case in Germany a few years back. When a German woman who was already pregnant, had a accident and went into a coma. she was declared brain dead. Her parents wanted to keep the child. but the father said no, he wanted life support switched off. there was a court case. I don’t think there was a final decision. because the baby was born before the case was over.
well maybe there was a final dicision, made by God?

It’s sick and twisted. She was in a coma. If I came out of a coma and found out a husband of mine did that I would vomit on the spot.

Marital Rights
(n) Marital right is the right of a husband to have normal sexual relations with his wife and a general control of management of the household activities.

From the Catechism
1643 "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens** them**, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values."150

I am not a Catholic scholar, but from reading this from the catechism, I find that conjugal love is supposed to be mutual and an aspiration of the spirit and of will. Notice the conjugal act demands indissoulubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving.

I don’t think a comatose woman has a will to consent to a conjugal visit by her husband. How then, can the conjugal act be mutual? How can she give of herself "totally to her husband? How can it purify and strengthen the comatose wife? How can non-consensual sex be an expression of Christian values?

Legally the man raped his wife, and I can’t imagine the pope testifying in the court of law that he was just exercising his “marital right”. How is sex with a comatose spouse defined as normal sexual relations, if perhaps, you only use the argument of the definition of “marital right”

I could be wrong, but I’ve always been under the impression that spouses were not to lust after each other, nor to use each other simply for sexual gratification. How could it be argued that this man was using his comatose wife for anything other than sexual gratification? She could not consent, she could not offer herself in love, there could be no unitive marital embrace.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.