They speak about why. Do they speak about HOW?

Research shows that sexual excitement has the same effect on your judgment as being plastered on Coors. Get plastered AND get yourself revved up? A recipe for disaster.

Are we giving people the tools they need to live out chastity?
Christina | Homepage | 08.27.08 - 11:24 pm | #

Are we giving people the tools they need to live out chastity?

An excellent question, Christina. I can't answer for The Goretti Group, but can tell you that I have learned to leave time for "how" questions at the end of my talks, as those who are interested in chastity are bound to want practical advice. To spark such interest, however, one does have to talk about "why."
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.27.08 - 11:37 pm | #

I would change the name, too. Frankly I am creeped out by the story of Maria Goretti. I am not questioning the Church's declaration that she is a saint, but I would not want my daughter to die rather than be raped, and I didn't hear the story until I was married and had returned to the Church. I would not have been inspired by it when I was young and confused and looking for answers. I'm sorry if I offend anyone but that is my honest reaction.

How about "Purity isn't stupid" as a slogan. Seriously.
Gail F | 08.28.08 - 12:02 pm | #

Purity - because you're worth it.
nightfly | Homepage | 08.28.08 - 1:04 pm | #

The message I took from the story of Maria Goretti, was not death vs rape, that was her attacker's decision.

But rather her choice of risking death rather then give even the appearance of acquiesing to a mortal sin (by all accounts as much for the sake of her attacker's soul as her own).

And also her forgiveness and concern for her attackers soul during and after death.
Emily Bell | 08.28.08 - 4:12 pm | #

(by all accounts as much for the sake of her attacker's soul as her own).

Perfect. It's easy to read that account and forget how sublime an imitation of Christ it is: a body broken for the sake of the very people that broke Him.
Scott W. | Homepage | 08.28.08 - 6:17 pm | #

I like Nightfly's suggestion.
Christina | Homepage | 08.28.08 - 6:20 pm | #

When I just heard _of_ her story, I was pretty iffy about it. When you hear all the details, you can see that she acted sensibly as well as in a saintly way.

Of course, it'd be nice if the holy pictures would show her as more of the big strong agricultural girl she really was.
Maureen | 08.28.08 - 9:44 pm | #

St. Maria Goretti haunted some of my childhood nightmares, first of all because of her horrible story (the sexual details of which were not relayed to me as a young child, so I thought she was simply attacked and killed), but most of all because my grandmother had a book of holy sites in Italy, with a photo of her actual preserved body in it:

http://immaculata-one.com/Incorr...a% 20Goretti.JPG

The part about her forgiving her murderer is saintly. But I wholdheartedly agree that the concept that it's better to die than be raped is creepy.

My own daughter is now the same age as Maria was when she died. I would vastly prefer that she submit to a rapist than be killed, but the choice would obviuously be hers.
L. | Homepage | 08.29.08 - 12:01 am | #

My own daughter is now the same age as Maria was when she died. I would vastly prefer that she submit to a rapist than be killed, but the choice would obviously be hers.

L., had I a daughter, I believe I would be in complete agreement with you in every respect.

I find the story of Maria Goretti very moving, particularly with regard to how both she and her family forgave her murderer, but I share your and Gail F.'s discomforts regarding the use of her as a role model for teens. That said, many youths are deeply inspired by her story and grasp the Christ-like aspect Scott W. mentioned.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.29.08 - 12:10 am | #

But rather her choice of risking death rather then give even the appearance of acquiesing to a mortal sin (by all accounts as much for the sake of her attacker's soul as her own).

I'm not Catholic, so maybe I'm missing something. But isn't killing someone just as much (if not more) of a mortal sin as raping someone?

Having read her story, I'm touched that her killer was ultimately moved to ask her mother for forgiveness, but seriously, wouldn't it be better if she had lived, and the rapist (not murderer) had asked her for forgiveness instead?

I guess my question is, what kinds of actions lead toward sainthood? Does a saint necessarily know what's best and act towards the best possible outcome, or is intent enough, even if the outcome is not ideal (for the saint themselves or those around them)?
Nora Sawyer | Homepage | 08.29.08 - 2:25 am | #

Nora,

Murder and rape are both grave sins. Which is worse would depend on circumstances, but both are "grave" and therefore mortal if committed with knowledge and volition.

If you read the story, then you should know that it was her unilateral forgiveness of him that led to his conversion.

Keeping in mind the psychological nature of rapists, think about the scenario you're suggesting as an alternative: a man tries to rape a girl, she gives in, and then afterwords she is kind and friendly and forgiving toward him. How easily might he pervert this? How much do rapists secretly think already that women really "want it"? So if he had raped her and she had lived, he might never have asked forgiveness at all.

Also, I'm a little confused about the idea that it is better to be raped then martyred. Last time I checked, being in heaven was infinitely better than anything, especially being raped.

Now, if an angel came to me and said, "You can A. go to heaven right now, or you can B. --fill in the blank--" I hope would I have the grace to say, "Go and ask Our Lady which would please Her Son more, and let His will be done" but B is obviously the prima facie worse deal even if B is "win the lotto," much more so if B is "have a horrible abomination perpetrated upon you."

So, a woman is faced with a choice: she can quickly and surely be forgiven all of her sins and go straight to heaven without even a moment in purgatory, or she can be unspeakably violated, and in the scenario we are talking about actually participate in her own violation (after all, we're only talking about a scenario in which she has a choice to submit or not), then possibly be killed anyway (rapists not being a particularly dependable lot) and have to spend who knows how long in purgatory (assuming it even goes that well for her, depending on how she has lived thus far) or spend the rest of her life with the scars and feelings and memories of this desecration.

So can anyone tell me why again they would want door #2 for themselves, their daughter, or anyone?

Obviously, we're all a little (or a lot) scared of death because we only know of heaven by faith, but if we do believe in heaven, then why would we want anything else? Of course we must bear whatever crosses God asks us to bear, and if God asks someone to suffer patiently with the pain of rape, then she (or he) should do with that pain as Catholics always do: offer it up in union with the Passion in reparation for the sins of the world. But it is far better to offer up our lives, which is a still more perfect sacrifice, and yet also an easier one.

And of course, we don't want our loved ones to die, but we don't get a say in that, because they're all going to die whether we like it or not (as will we), so of all the deaths that one's daughter could die, the one that leads with absolute certainty to her salvation is obviously the best.

The only possible way to never lose our loved ones is to spend eternity with them in heaven. God grant that everyone we love should die today, if only they are saved, and we should persevere to the end to join them (and God grant us the grace to thank Him and trust in Him in the midst of the great grief that would assault us should that happen!).

Finally, in answer to your last question: saints do not always do the perfect thing, though they obviously do so very frequently, or they would not have come to anyone's attention for canonization. Yet any saint will tell you what a sinner they are.

However, with regard to St. Maria's choice: I have never heard a single Saint who spoke of martyrdom with anything other than burning desire. Some were tinged with caution, but the only caution I have ever heard expressed was along the lines of 'we should not always seek martyrdom because it is far too good for most of us, and given the lackluster lives we have led until now, if we put ourselves in such a situation we might give in to sin to preserve our wretched hide.' I have never heard a saint say that when faced with an opportunity for martyrdom that came to us, that we should respond with anything but joy that God would favor us with so great a grace and blessing.

Martyrdom is the best way that any life can end. If it does not please God to offer that crown to everyone, then His will be done. But there is nothing better than martyrdom, and nothing should be preferred to it, accept the holy and perfect will of God.
Paul | 08.29.08 - 4:51 am | #

This is completely, or nearly completely, unrelated to this post, but I thought I'd post it here, as it makes for an interesting topic and I'm curious what the followups would be from those who ponder such matters.

An employee of ours, only 19, just left our employment to return to school. Just the other day, she informed us that she's now engaged.

I didn't know her well, but one of the people here who do noted that she is a Mormon. Furthermore, he related that, at least locally, the Mormons have organized themselves so that all the adult young singles attend the same "Ward". That is, all the young adults must attend their services together, if they're single.

I'm not aware of any other Faith doing that, and certainly the Catholic Church does not. Indeed, with Catholics being "Universal", I can't see how we can do that. In a lot of places, our approach has been to have a Mass dedicated to young people, but I've often wondered how well that works, at least locally. I occasionally attend that Mass if I have no other option, as I do not care for it, and I've noticed that a fairly significant percentage of the folks attending it are far from young and definitely not "Teens", for whom the Mass is dedicated. I'll also admit that there's a lot of teens and young adults at it, but the older adults at it (and there's a lot) often give me the willies a bit, as they're sort of in the group of folks who have sort of flighty demeanors, who are often attracted to things which are aimed at the young, but whom usually you sort of want to avoid when your young.

Anyhow, the Mormon approach is interesting. I don't know if there's much we can pick up there, but I'm curious what others think.
Yeoman | 08.29.08 - 10:05 am | #

Martyrdom is the "best" way that any life can end? Not to denigrate it in any way, but I would think it's sometimes harder to consciously devote a whole human lifetime to something than it is to give one's life in a quick moment.

...or spend the rest of her life with the scars and feelings and memories of this desecration.

So can anyone tell me why again they would want door #2 for themselves, their daughter, or anyone?

Sorry, I'm not convinced. I still pick door #2, for both myself and my daughter. Key words: "rest of her life." Maximizing time with loved ones on earth is normal and healthy, no matter what one believes.

But I suppose it depends on the situation, and not everyone is going to feel exactly the same way.
L. | Homepage | 08.29.08 - 10:09 am | #

Paul-

You just reinforced my belief that, by far, catholicism is the creepiest and most twisted mainstream religion out there. Especially coming from a man...you did a spectacular job of re-enforcing the stereotypes of misogynistic Catholic males, who only value virgins or the super-fecund. I'm sure your daughter, if you had one, would be horrified to think her daddy would rather have her murdered then survive a rape. Rape is a heinous crime, and survivors will be forever changed. But their lives are still valuable. What if Maria Goretti had really been meant to be like Mother Theresa, caring for thousands of the poor and sick? You really think it was better for her to die at 14?

It should be noted that this likely was not the kind of rape that we think of today- in that era, in that part of Italy, marriage by rape was extraordinarily common. You liked a girl, wanted her for yourself? Rape her, so no "good man" will want her, then you'll have her family practically beg you to take her off their hands. Maria's story led to a wider societal condemnation of that particular practice. But she didn't need to DIE for that to be so.
bad catholic | 08.29.08 - 10:48 am | #

I must confess an initial instinct of distaste for the story of Maria Goretti, but that's probably due to the way it was conveyed (devotional stories of piety represented in the traditional means do have a way of trying the nerves of a girl), but I also know the church always has an intriguing reason for doing things.

Obviously, death or rape is NOT an ideal choice, and the Church wouldn't impose that as a matter of course on any and all of women found in such a terrible scenario. In fact, the Church doesn't subscribe to such "one size fits all" philosophies, as the world is wont to do (i.e. "everyone should be sexually active (including priests and nuns)! all women should work!) No, it's all about vocation, and vocation cannot be torn from a person's context, a person's unique set of personality traits and circumstances.

I suspected that context is important to the proper understanding of her story. The wikipedia article hints at this:

"In rural Italy, up until the middle of the 20th century, rape was still a popular and "honorable" means by which a man would "acquire" and marry the girl of his choice. After such a crime, it was reasoned, no one else would want to marry the raped woman.

With the canonization of St Maria Goretti before a crowd of 500,000 people, the media attention focused on the canonization, the enormous popularity of the Saint herself, and the emerging Maria Goretti Fan Clubs, Pope Pius XII strongly rebuked this awful tradition, and quite possibly contributed to its demise."

Maria's death was then an act of freedom; back then, a young girl was expected to cater to a man's demands, however brutal and uncomfortable. She, on the other hand, died for sticking to her principles.

For every martyr, then, there is one more tyrant who is defeated in owning the hearts and minds of his victims.

No, not everyone will be a martyr; not everyone is called to be a hero in such a flagrant way. Other unfortunate women are called to give a living witness of forgiveness and strength. We're all different. So not everyone is expected to follow in St. Maria Goretti's footsteps - but that shouldn't stop us from thanking God that a Maria Goretti existed.
Anonymous | 08.29.08 - 10:52 am | #

She was 11, not 14.

Let's write a happier ending for her story, okay?

The brute attacks her, and injures her....she survives, and forgives him. He is touched by her forgiveness, and founds a religious order.

She grows up and marries a man who loves her, and does not consider her "damaged goods" because of something that was done to her, thus setting an example for their community.

They are blessed with as many children as they want, and live to a ripe old age.

Better?
L. | Homepage | 08.29.08 - 11:35 am | #

Martyrdom is the "best" way that any life can end? Not to denigrate it in any way, but I would think it's sometimes harder to consciously devote a whole human lifetime to something than it is to give one's life in a quick moment.

Let's not forget the parable of the workers in the vineyard, some of whom started working in the early morning, and some of whom showed up about 10 minutes before quitting time, and they all received the same pay.

But one benefit of dying a martyr is that you are definitely faithful at the moment of death, i.e. a state of grace. One drawback to living an entire lifetime of saintly giving and then dying is that such saintliness can be thrown away at the last moment. It is a very good thing to live a life of virtue, but where you are when the buzzer sounds at the end of the game is very, very important.

Let's write a happier ending for her story, okay?

L, I think you miss the point. The physical death of Maria Goretti was NOT the end of the story. And it cannot be said that she is not living to a "ripe old age" -- she has eternal life, a life with one who is total and perfect love. That is as happy an "ending" as any of us could ever hope for.

As for St. Maria Goretti herself, I know very little about her. But I do know about early Roman martyrs who were young girls who were killed after they refused to give in to being ravished or being forced into prostitution.
Bender | Homepage | 08.29.08 - 12:32 pm | #

That is as happy an "ending" as any of us could ever hope for.

Bender, I think it's you who's missing my point. If my daughter were canonized under similar circumstances, it would be cold comfort for my loss on earth. I wasn't saying that Maria Goretti's life and death was in vain, because surely it wasn't, but that it wasn't what I would choose for myself or my daughter. Big difference. (And as I also said, it might be what my daughter would choose for herself. I hope I never find out.)

It is a very good thing to live a life of virtue, but where you are when the buzzer sounds at the end of the game is very, very important.

I have never quite believed this, but again, that's just me. I think how one plays "the game" is just as important as whether one "wins" or "loses." The idea that dying with a sin on your soul can wipe out an entire well-lived lifetime just doesn't make sense to me.

Then again, since I am quite likely going to die in a state of mortal sin, my opinion doesn't really count! I'd rather be in hell with my husband than in heaven with the saints. :)
L. | Homepage | 08.29.08 - 1:07 pm | #

L - a common sentiment, no doubt; but it's not like you would have comfort of him (or he of you) if you were both in hell together. Hell is complete emnity, spite, bitterness, and pain. Most likely you would only add to each other's torments.

I only bring it up because I can understand the feeling that, if only one partner were to go to Heaven, they would always feel the loss of their spouse, for ever - fueled by the knowledge that there are few things more painful in this life than to lose a spouse in death. But in Heaven all tears are washed, all sorrows perfectly consoled, and Love Himself is in perfect union with us. No matter what my sentiments may say, it is infinitely better to get to Heaven.

That being said, the best way to do it is to "play the game" well enough so that you're winning at the final buzzer - but take it from a guy who's played a lot of goalie, I'd rather stink out loud and have the bigger number at the end of the game than play magnificently and lose 1-0. (Not that I want to stink out loud - I love winning 1-0 too!)

In the matter of heaven, "sin on your soul wiping out a whole lifetime" sounds harsh as well - until you look at it from the other point of view. If I had worked my way up from an enlisted soldier to a 4-star general, only to use all my long service and commitment as a means to help overthrow my country, would I still be a hero? Or would my betrayal be even more monstrous?

Sin is just such a betrayal. It is the rejection of God; our free will permits us to do so even after a long life. A long and virtuous life will hopefully have built up in us a strong relationship with our God that would make such an act unthinkable; by the same logic, to commit such an act (and here I'm thinking of grave sin, not a grape snitched from the produce aisle or something) would be to indicate that all those long years didn't mean all that much to the soul in question.

If God is the goal of our whole life, then at the very end it makes all the more sense to avoid having sin on one's soul, and taking extra pains to avoid it. That's the whole point of Extreme Unction!

Extreme Unction, what's your function?
Sprucing up souls who are facing the judgment
Extreme Unction, how's that function?
I got three special chrisms for callin' the grace down
Extreme Unction, what's your function?
Hands, oils, and prayers, they get you pretty far!

;)
nightfly | Homepage | 08.29.08 - 1:42 pm | #

To the tune of "Conjunction Junction," I assume? Cute! And very nostalgic...

The best definition I ever heard of sin was that it was "a failure to love." Some people make their own hells on earth.
L. | Homepage | 08.29.08 - 2:54 pm | #

Paul-

You just reinforced my belief that, by far, catholicism is the creepiest and most twisted mainstream religion out there.

Paul,

Your explanation had the exact opposite effect on me. It reminded me why I so dearly love our faith. For me, Catholicism first and foremost is the Way to Heaven. I am not Catholic to be part of the Catholic Club (although to be part of something is nice) but because I believe Jesus died to open up the gates of Heaven and left His Church to lead us to those gates. You comment reiterated those sentiments perfectly for me.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.29.08 - 6:06 pm | #

Given this comment

It should be noted that this likely was not the kind of rape that we think of today- in that era, in that part of Italy, marriage by rape was extraordinarily common. You liked a girl, wanted her for yourself? Rape her, so no "good man" will want her, then you'll have her family practically beg you to take her off their hands. Maria's story led to a wider societal condemnation of that particular practice. But she didn't need to DIE for that to be so.
bad catholic

My gut reaction is that death might well be considered better then being forced to have an abusive husband for the rest of my LIFE. A man who would stab a girl multiple times for resisting his advances sounds like a nightmare of a husband.

My apologies in advance but I find continued emphasis on Maria's choice;p as if she ASKED to be stabbed to death rather upsetting. She might well given the circumstances, seen her choices as being raped with her cooperation or without her cooperation-not being killed (as that would and did lead to her attacker's longterm imprisonment, something that apparently may not have happened with rape).
Emily Bell | 08.29.08 - 8:03 pm | #

Maria did have a choice: to submit, or to resist. She was still a child --we will never know for sure the extent to which she was aware of the consequences of either choice. Did she know she have to wed any man who raped her? Did she know this rapist would stab her?

We will never know. What we do know: she forgave him. That part is beautiful. The rest....not so much.
L. | Homepage | 08.29.08 - 9:11 pm | #

bad catholic: You just reinforced my belief that, by far, catholicism is the creepiest and most twisted mainstream religion out there.

To a certain extent, that is perfectly true. Catholicism is "twisted" from the standpoint of the world. To say that poverty is better than wealth, that persecution is better than fame, and that death in Christ is better than life on earth is of course inexplicable from a worldly perspective.

It is, of course, precisely a matter of perspective. As L said, "it would be cold comfort for my loss on earth." Death is a temporary parting, and there is nothing good about it.

But by the same token, there is nothing good about saving or investing money, except that you get to enjoy it more later. But there are plenty of people who would rather max out their credit cards, so they can have their toys now. Likewise, there is nothing good about eating healthy food, except that in the long run you feel better and happier. But there are plenty of people on the fast food and twinkie diet.

In the same way, there are many people who will cling to their loved ones (or loved things) until the end, only to be alone forever in "the darkness outside where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth."

I think another of L's comments would shed some light on this: "Maximizing time with loved ones on earth is normal and healthy, no matter what one believes."

Really, L? Do you ever let your daughter spend time with anyone but you? Isn't that losing time? If you knew someone who never permitted their children to leave the house, would you say that that was "normal and healthy"?

For that matter, do you ever let her sleep? If someone kept their children awake 24 hours a day in order to spend time with them, until after a few weeks they died of sleep deprivation, would you say that was "normal and healthy"?

I doubt you would. Why? Because when your children sleep, or leave the house they come back. The time you lose by letting them sleep is nothing compared to the time you gain by their living a long and healthy life. The time you lose by letting them go about their own lives is nothing compared to what you gain from a healthy relationship with your children.

And here's the thing about people who die: they come back. And the time you might lose on earth is nothing compared to love and unending happiness in heaven.

Especially coming from a man...
The truth or falsehood of an assertion is obviously unaffected by the identity of the person making it.

you did a spectacular job of re-enforcing the stereotypes of misogynistic Catholic males, who only value virgins or the super-fecund.
Out of curiosity, what about that is misogynistic? Wouldn't that only apply if I had a different standard for males? If the "stereotype" of a Catholic male is one who only values women who practice the virtue of chastity, which does indeed proscribe either virginity or marriage, then of course that is mostly true. But there is nothing misogynistic about it, because it is the same virtue for men and women alike. One may either marry, or remain a virgin, or sin.

It is only "mostly" true, because obviously the greatest sinner in the world is still made in the image of God, and redeemed by the blood of Christ, and thus has a great deal of value indeed. Also, of course, marriage does not necessarily involve being "super-fecund" since a married person may or may not be particularly fertile. And by "virginity" I mean only the virtue, not the physical state, which is of secondary importance.

But if by "value" you are not referring to the person but to the virtue, then yes: the only sexual lifestyles I have any respect for are virginity and marriage, regardless of whether we are speaking about a man or woman. That is not a "stereotype" -- it is Catholic doctrine. And it is not "misogynistic," because it has nothing to do with femininity, but humanity.

By the same token, I should mention that the only financial lifestyles I have any respect for are evangelical poverty or honest work - I have no respect for con men or thieves. And the only communication styles I have respect for are silence or honesty - I have no respect for liars. And the only approaches to violence I have any respect for are pacifism or chivalry - I have none for random brutality. Am I "misogynistic" for any of these views?

I'm sure your daughter, if you had one, would be horrified to think her daddy would rather have her murdered then survive a rape.
Well, I have no daughter, but if I did I would say to her the same thing King St. Louis IX's mother said to him, "I love you very much, but I would rather see you dead at my feet than know that you had ever committed a mortal sin."

Do you suppose she was "misogynistic" for saying that?

Rape is a heinous crime, and survivors will be forever changed. But their lives are still valuable.
Of course they are. But I would submit that their lives are considerably less pleasant than those of the saints in heaven. So if you have the choice, it is a much wiser and more cheerful choice to choose martyrdom. If that choice is not available, than there is a much value in a life of suffering, but it is a much greater ordeal, and nowhere near as pleasant.

What if Maria Goretti had really been meant to be like Mother Theresa, caring for thousands of the poor and sick? You really think it was better for her to die at 14?
Of course it was. All things that happen are better than the alternative. That's what it means that there is a God.

It is better that Adam fell than if he had remained in Paradise. It is better that Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers than if he had remained in freedom. It is better that Pharaoh enslaved the Israelites than if he hadn't. It is better that the Babylonians destroyed the Temple than if it had remained standing. It is better that Judas sold Christ than if he had stayed faithful. It is better that the Sandhedrin condemned Him than if they acquitted Him. It is better that Peter denied Him. It is better that Pilate crucified Him. It is better that Peter was crucified, that Paul was beheaded, that Matthew was flayed, that James was stoned. It is better that Christians were burnt and eaten. It is better that St. Maria Goretti was attacked and killed than if she had lived to "a ripe old age."

And it is better that everything that has ever happened to you, or to me (even the very worst things) happened than that they didn't. And on the day that you or I die, it will be better that we die than that we live.

All things that happen, happen according to the Providence of God. If Maria had been meant to be like Mother Theresa, than that's where being faithful to grace would have lead her. The only way we can end up as anything other than what we were meant to be is by our own sins.

We never need to be afraid. All that God has to give us is good. Some of His gifts might be harder than others, but all of them exist to lead us to the perfection of our own person, fulfillment of all we have ever been destined to be, and unending joy.

And finally, Pansy Moss said: Your explanation had the exact opposite effect on me. It reminded me why I so dearly love our faith. For me, Catholicism first and foremost is the Way to Heaven.
Thank you for your kind words, Pansy. One of the hardest things to comprehend is just how much love and joy Our Lord has in store for us, and I know I cannot do Him justice.
Paul | 08.30.08 - 12:39 am | #

Really, L? Do you ever let your daughter spend time with anyone but you? Isn't that losing time? If you knew someone who never permitted their children to leave the house, would you say that that was "normal and healthy"?

Ha! I guess qualifying my already general words with "But I suppose it depends on the situation..." weren't enough for you?

Not all of us agree that martyrdom is always a "much wiser and more cheerful choice" --- that is something individuals need to determine for themselves. And clearly you have very well-formed opinions on the subject!
L. | Homepage | 08.30.08 - 1:11 am | #

Ha! I guess qualifying my already general words with "But I suppose it depends on the situation..." weren't enough for you?

They certainly were. My question was rhetorical. I would never seriously accuse you of such nonsense.

Not all of us agree that martyrdom is always a "much wiser and more cheerful choice"

Ah, yes, but you are so clearly wrong! :)

that is something individuals need to determine for themselves..

This is, of course, pure nonsense. :)

Individuals never determine anything for the themselves. Things are determined by facts. It is the duty of the will to be formed by the intellect, and the intellect to be informed by reality.
Paul | 09.01.08 - 6:28 am | #

Individuals never determine anything for the themselves.

Ah, then I shouldn't bother trying. I should just go take a nap. ;)
L. | Homepage | 09.01.08 - 6:39 pm | #

Well, I have no daughter, but if I did I would say to her the same thing King St. Louis IX's mother said to him, "I love you very much, but I would rather see you dead at my feet than know that you had ever committed a mortal sin."

Being raped is not a mortal sin. To rape is a mortal sin. Christianity is meant to be based on the teaching of Christ and not the misogynist ramblings of Paul (formerly Saul).

I am Catholic but it disgusts me to see the message being twisted like this. Christ forgave sins. Christ embraced the lepers, sex workers and sinners, thieves. Christ's commandment was to love one another as he loved us. He also commanded us not to judge. Who are you people to judge the life of somebody else?
SD | Homepage | 09.08.08 - 8:42 am | #

Please tell me how the story of Maria Goretti does NOT justify rape and murder? As I understand it, her murderer wasn't punished by the state, and the only evidence for forgiveness is WHAT HE SAID. There was no independent confirmation of the tale. I agree with L, this kind of thing is why I will never be Catholic and why I will never allow my sons to attend Catholic services as long as they live with me. I don't want them ever to think it's okay to kill someone.
Karen | 09.08.08 - 11:49 am | #

Paul, you do realize that you're saying that a double-digit percentage of U.S. women would be better off dead?

You'll excuse me if that doesn't thrill me as a healthy message.
Tapetum | 09.08.08 - 1:33 pm | #

Karen, you understand wrong. Her murderer served a sentence in jail after being convicted, and she survived the attack for several hours, dying in hospital, where she forgave her murderer.
Eileen R | 09.08.08 - 3:33 pm | #

Thank you for the correction Eileen.

Tapetum, thanks. Paul compares being a victim of a terrible crime with being in a state of mortal sin. Maria Goretti would have been no more sinful had she been raped and survived, but she would have had a chance to live a life.
Karen | 09.08.08 - 3:39 pm | #

You know, I find it really intriguing that there seems to be an uptick in anti-Catholic screeds and postings like this on the Internet around Marian feast days.
Matthew | Homepage | 09.08.08 - 3:48 pm | #

To be more clear, I should have wrote, "You know, I find it really intriguing that there seems to be an uptick in anti-Catholic screeds and postings like the one on Feministe responding to Dawn's post on St. Maria Goretti on the Internet around Marian feast days."

Also, I find it interesting that "tolerance" only goes in one direction. Catholics who hold to the Church's teaching and other orthodox (small "o") Christians are asked to be more "tolerant" of differing perspectives, but leftists can be as close-minded as they want to be towards orthodox Christians and their viewpoints.
Matthew | Homepage | 09.08.08 - 4:10 pm | #

I confess up front that I am responding to Dawns Sept 8 post, and I did not read all of the preceding comments--so if mine is redundant, sorry.

It seems to me that Maria's heroic sanctity was demonstrated not so much in that she resisted rape, as in the fact that she resisted it for the sake of Alonzo's soul. Her protest was not 'No, I don't want to sin' but 'No, Alonzo, God does not wish it, you could go to hell for this.' That is pure goodness, if you ask me.

Whether teens should be taught to resist rape or not is another matter.
Carole | 09.08.08 - 5:05 pm | #

I think several comments here (and sorry Dawn, including your most recent post) have misinterpreted what Paul was saying when he said:

But rather her choice of risking death rather then give even the appearance of acquiesing to a mortal sin (by all accounts as much for the sake of her attacker's soul as her own).

The key words there being even the appearance of acquiescing to a mortal sin, not committing one by being raped.

Remember Eleazar in 2 Maccabees 6 (and who could forget him!), who, even when faced with the option of eating meat that was not pork (disallowed by his faith), but instead offered a way to fake eating pork, rather chose death, saying,

"Should I thus pretend for the sake of a brief moment of life, they would be led astray by me, while I would bring shame and dishonor on my old age. Even if, for the time being, I avoid the punishment of men, I shall never, whether alive or dead, escape the hands of the Almighty. Therefore, by manfully giving up my life now, I will prove myself worthy of my old age, and I will leave to the young a noble example of how to die willingly and generously for the revered and holy laws."

He was then tortured and killed as "an unforgettable example of virtue not only for the young but for the whole nation."

Certainly, Maria Goretti would not have been sinning by allowing her attacker to rape her, but others may have thought she was.

This is certainly not the same in every circumstance of rape, and to say that it is always better to die than to be raped is a mischaracterization of our faith. However, if it comes down to death or giving the faithful serious scandal, I for one pray to be brave enough to choose death, and hence life.
Andy | 09.08.08 - 6:43 pm | #

Andy, I'll still take door number 2, thanks. Give me serious scandal over death ANY day. :)
L. | Homepage | 09.08.08 - 6:51 pm | #

I'm one more of those, who unfamiliar with the tale -- I grew up in the UK & spent my career in Germany), was decidely uneasy with its "evangelization potential" among teens. However I do believe that the sanctity component comes from the "mutual" aspect of Maria's love - she desired purity for her attacker as much as she was committed to preserving her own. Predating JPIIs theology of the body, this was (and is) a hard teaching.

With time, I have come to see today's teens could be introduced to the teaching first and Maria's tale second to illustrate it: the opposite of love is not hate, its "use." Maria resisted Mr Serenelli's using her since she knew God valued purity as highly as life. Feminine receptivity is not a lesser good than male eligibility. Would that more girls and boys, and their parents, were aware of how precious and irrevocable their consent is to unconditional exclusive espoused love.

As BXVI says in Chapter 8 of Jesus of Nazareth, we are the fruit of the vine: either barren in need of pruning; sour grapes in need of purification; or yielding in sweetness for the festal offering. In her youth Maria's innocence yielded the sweetest and purest fruit to her beloved Lord: joined with His sacrifice, her heart was full of the grace of Divine Mercy, not a bitter drop or barren bough to defile the forgiveness proferred to her defiler. What a remarkable thing purity is... not necessarily demanding the kind of heroism Maria was born to, but worthy of it...

In Maria's case she came from suitably heroic stock: her widowed mother was permitted to experience "love thine enemy" in a most demanding fashion, yet she too yielded her own good fruits in due season. Perhaps this part of the story is as important for parents of raising teens to honor purity: being blessed to witness the certainty of elevation of her daughter to that company of heroes of Blessed Memory, while most of the rest of us will die in humble hope that our progeny will follow, even with their faults, faithfully unto death, aware that the path is narrow and the terrain treacherous... it took me a long time to realize this story has a happy ending for each person involved, one we should all yearn for - to know like Abram that our children and our children's children will number among the saints in heaven!
Clare Krishan | Homepage | 09.08.08 - 9:04 pm | #

Well, I have no daughter, but if I did I would say to her the same thing King St. Louis IX's mother said to him, "I love you very much, but I would rather see you dead at my feet than know that you had ever committed a mortal sin."

Please don't ever have kids.

Seriously -- if you had a child, you would rather see that child dead than have survived rape? (And can someone please explain to me why having sex forced upon you is a "mortal sin" on behalf of the victim? I thought mortal sins had to be committed with full consent, but maybe I'm missing something here).

You would rather your child be dead than have sex before marriage? You'd rather they be dead than be gay?

That's pretty screwed up -- especially on the blog of someone who I'm pretty sure has committed at least one of those mortal sins.
Jill | Homepage | 09.08.08 - 11:47 pm | #

Being a victim of rape is NOT a mortal sin. Or a venial sin. Or any sin at all.

The weird thing about the whole St Maria Goretti story (and she's a saint I really love, actually) is that, here's a kid who is murdered and NOT raped, instead of the usual raped and murdered. If this Alessandro character was 20 and had a knife, I'm fairly sure he could have easily raped the little girl, regardless of hers or God's wishes. So what happened? She protests, he flies into a rage, stabs her numerous times, and doesn't actually bother to rape her, though she survives the knife attack long enough to go to the hospital. It makes me suspicious -- maybe Alessandro wasn't able to actually do what he wanted, and so flew into a murderous rage thanks in part to his own impotence. That's just a guess on my part, but otherwise, I just don't see what stopped him from raping and then murdering, as so many cruel men have done through human history. I doubt very much that St Maria Goretti ever really had much say in this little drama. So, I always thought her rather lucky in that she did get her way, in not being raped at least. Sure, that desire of hers may be one plenty of other women do not share, and do not want their daughters to share -- they'd understandably rather them all recover and go on to live full and happy lives. But I don't think it's even all that realistic to think rapist/murderers leave that decision up to their victims, anyway.

St Augustine (City of God) wrote quite a bit about rape, since some Romans thought it a good idea to rape Christian women who had taken vows of virginity. Two major points were 1) that it is not the woman's fault, and that the sin is entirely the rapist's -- even in the extremely unlikely event that somehow she might feel some sort of physical pleasure and 2) that she should still be considered a virgin regardless of rape, because her soul and will do not consent to this act. So, ancient Catholic teaching goes even farther in its defense of rape victims than our society does, even now.

Does Maria Goretti's story really make so much less sense than the stories of other virgin martyrs? Why didn't they just go ahead and marry those rich guys, anyway, especially the ones who didn't have to renounce Christ? Who wouldn't rather see their daughters married with kids than tortured and dead? The truth is, the priorities of the saints are generally weird to us non-saints. So St Maria Goretti's story kind of confuses me. So what else is new?
Hannah | 09.09.08 - 12:39 am | #

I have no issues with Maria Goretti herself. She's a fascinating figure. She experienced a terrible ordeal, and found it in herself to forgive her attacker before her death (and there were witnesses to this). I do have issues with the way that her story is being used to teach young girls - and if it was being used to teach young boys, I would be no less disturbed by it (there are many male survivors of rape, folks).

But Paul? I say this to you as a survivor of assault and abuse:

You're a sick man. And the sad thing is, I've met guys like you before, you're not a rarity either.

I'd say more, but I have too much respect for the author of this blog to start telling you just exactly what I think about you.

You don't have a daughter? Good.
Natalia | Homepage | 09.09.08 - 5:32 am | #

re: a certain confusion about rape and sin, mostly through my imprecise language.

Obviously, being raped is not, in itself, a mortal sin, or a sin of any kind. Sin is always an act of the will, and without an act of the will, there is no sin. If someone overpowers someone and perpetrates some perverted act upon them, it is obviously the sin of the overpowering, not the overpowered.

I apologize if anyone was mislead by me in that respect.

However, we have to be very clear that in Catholic theology a mortal sin does not become not sinful because someone is threatening to kill you.

For example: when Christians were told, "offer incense to this idol, or we kill you," those who did so were excommunicated. If they died impenitent, they were assumed damned.

To give a concrete example, 40 Christians were condemned to lie naked on a frozen lake. A large steaming Roman hot tub was set up nearby, and they were told that any of them could enter at any time if they would just acknowledge the Emperor's divinity. After several hours, one of the Christians ran to the baths, leaped in, and died from the shock. The martyrology casually states that he lost both his earthly and eternal life.

This is a very important point: if someone says to you, "commit such and such a sin or I will kill you," and you do it, then it is still a sin.

Why is this? Because a threat does not take away our free will. If someone says to me "do X or die" they have not taken away my choice, they have just given me a choice. If I choose X, then it is I who have chosen it, and not them. If X is a sin, then they clearly sin by putting me to that test. But if I choose X to save my own life, their sin does not absolve me of my own.

All of scripture and tradition clearly indicate that this is true. The Maccabees died rather than eat pork (or even pretend to do so, lest others think they could eat pork w/out sin, as Andy mentioned), and did not hesitate to kill their fellow Jews who did. The early Christians died rather than burn a stick of incense to an idol, and excommunicated those who did. Our Lord clearly said, "whoever seeks to save his life will lose it."

So just to be clear: in Catholic Moral Theology, when given a choice between death and sin, it is morally obligatory to choose death (it is not a work of supererogation). If one does not, and chooses sin, one remains guilty of sin, although one's guilt is mitigated, since one did not choose the sin through desire or malice.

Here is St. Thomas:

"if through fear a man were to avoid evils which according to reason are less to be avoided, and so incur evils which according to reason are more to be avoided, he could not be wholly excused from sin, because such like fear would be inordinate. Now the evils of the soul are more to be feared than the evils of the body. and evils of the body more than evils of external things. Wherefore if one were to incur evils of the soul, namely sins, in order to avoid evils of the body, such as blows or death, or evils of external things, such as loss of money; or if one were to endure evils of the body in order to avoid loss of money, one would not be wholly excused from sin. Yet one's sin would be extenuated somewhat, for what is done through fear is less voluntary,"

Please see Summa, II II q125 article 4.

Can anyone possibly present a single rational reason why that would suddenly cease to be the case if the sin in question were sexual in nature?

I would also recommend taking a look at article 3 in the question above, "Whether fear is a mortal sin?" (hint: the answer is 'yes')

Re: a few other comments:

Paul, you do realize that you're saying that a double-digit percentage of U.S. women would be better off dead?

Actually, I am not saying anyone would necessarily be better off dead. I'm saying they would be better off martyred. And the percentage is triple digit (100%), and applies to all people, men and women, in whatever country they happen to be living in.

Martyrdom is preferable to all things, because heaven is preferable to earth.

You would rather your child be dead than have sex before marriage? You'd rather they be dead than be gay?

Of course. Why wouldn't I want my child to die in a state of grace than a state of sin? How foolish would I be to want to spend another 50 or so years with my loved one at the loss of eternity with them? Or even the potential loss (for admittedly they might repent and be saved, but why would I want the risk)?

Of course, by "be gay" I am reading that to mean "commit sodomy" - obviously, a person no more commits sin by being gay than by being raped.

But then again, by certain arguments presented here, I suppose committing sodomy can't be a sin either, because the choice to accept or reject sodomy is put on homosexuals without their consent.

especially on the blog of someone who I'm pretty sure has committed at least one of those mortal sins.

I'm pretty sure that Dawn and pretty much everyone else here has committed those sins or ones like them enough as to make no difference. What's your point? Dawn used to be a Jew, I'm sure she is well aware of the fact that she has earned approximately 817 death sentences under the Law of Moses, as has just about everyone. That's why we are very fortunate that there is forgiveness of sins.

That all men are sinners and that God is merciful doesn't change the fact that death is a lesser evil than sin. We shouldn't allow our horror of the evil of sin to be lessened by the fact that He has granted a stay on the executions our sins have deserved.
Paul | 09.09.08 - 6:12 am | #

Sorry for the double post, but I would like to also offer this in response to Dawn's blog entry:

So, I hope to learn from what you have to say about why the Church and, by extension, Catholic organizations, specifically cite her as a model of chastity—one whose witness, like that of all the saints, is intended to teach us how to grow in holiness.

I believe it is because the Church knows that especially in this day of materialism and worldliness, that people really need to hear, and even have shoved in their face, that heaven is not only better, but more important, than earth -- that virtue is more important than life, that sin is worse than death, and that "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26)
Paul | 09.09.08 - 6:21 am | #

I'm sure she is well aware of the fact that she has earned approximately 817 death sentences under the Law of Moses

Hey! Hey! Enough of that!

I didn't mind being labeled a sinner, but does the peanut gallery now have to estimate the NUMBER of my transgressions? Only my confessor knows for sure.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.09.08 - 7:38 am | #

Paul - your examples are quite clear, and an excellent reason why I will never be a Catholic, and absolutely not one of a strict, conservative bent. To all appearences you worship a God who is both arbitrary and sadistic. Irrespective of His reality (I.e. even if you're completely right about his nature and identity), I can't fathom why anyone would deem a sadist worthy of worship.
Tapetum | 09.09.08 - 7:58 am | #

**Paul, you do realize that you're saying that a double-digit percentage of U.S. women would be better off dead?

You'll excuse me if that doesn't thrill me as a healthy message.
Tapetum | 09.08.08 - 1:33 pm | # **


It would be in double digits, Notice how raping a girl to get a wife fell out of pratice after her death.

So many woman are raped now because it is tolerated. It has alot to do with Kinseys reports and the empowerment of men, and yes I am referring to the feminist/birth control movement as having empowered men and not woman, who at this point can do anything they want and expect not to have consequences. The exception is that now men are pushing woman for sex for pure pleasure and not for a spouse.

I will say as a victim of childhood sexual abuse, if put in this situation again... I would fight to the death. I cannot even begin to describe the damage all the things in my childhood has done. Frankly I would rather be dead and in heaven. The only thing that ties me here are my children whom I want to be happy. In fact, due to me inability to relate to people who had a normal upbringing, had it not been for my first daughter I would have killed myself.

I had tried several times since I was 9 to do so. I was not raised in a Christian faith and had no real understanding of heaven or hell but I wanted to be out of this place. There was no comfort for me until I was an adult and still the comforts are few and far between.
JosephineMo6 | 09.09.08 - 8:00 am | #

Josephine - I do understand the kind of pain childhood sexual abuse puts people in. Not all of us think we would have been better off fighting to the death.

I wish you comfort and healing in this life, not just beyond it.
Tapetum | 09.09.08 - 8:03 am | #

***In fact, due to me inability to relate to people who had a normal upbringing, had it not been for my first daughter I would have killed myself.***

Most people, once you manage to dig deep enough, have not had a normal upbringing.

You have a purpose in this world, and your children are part of that. Never forget that. God put you here for a reason, and none of us know better than God.

As for some people's excessive zeal for martyrdom - it is a sign of deep arrogance, if not worse.
Natalia | Homepage | 09.09.08 - 8:18 am | #

As for some people's excessive zeal for martyrdom - it is a sign of deep arrogance, if not worse.

Take it up with Jesus. Apparently He was arrogant...

Paul (the apostle) wasn't kidding when he said that Christ crucified (in whose death we are baptized) is a stumbling block to the Jew and the Greek.

Zeal for martyrdom? Do you believe in baptism of blood?

Paul (the combox warrior) is right when he says

that heaven is not only better, but more important, than earth -- that virtue is more important than life, that sin is worse than death, and that "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26)

If all sin is acceptable simply because you are being threatened with death, then the death of all martyrs has been in vain. They could have taken the easy way out, apparently.

Tell that to the Christians fed to the lions when you see them. All they had to do was reject Christ. After all, they had kids at home, right?
Andy | 09.09.08 - 9:29 am | #

Reading this thread makes me understand why certain militant pro-life men I know would not allow abortion exceptions if the mother's health (but not immediate life) is in danger.

"So your friend's doctor said there was a chance she would have survived that pregnancy, even with her blood pressure off the charts and her kidneys in danger of shutting down? Then they never should have permitted that abortion," etc.

It always struck me that they believed a mother should be legally compelled to risk her life for her child. Sure, many of us would do so willingly in many situtaions, but the unwilling? It seemed like a very harsh point of view to me.

But now that I see evidence of this zeal for martyrdom, and I think I understand it better.

Most of my opinions are about as far from mainstream Catholic thought as you can get and still be Catholic (in fact, many people say I have no right to even call myself one).

But I would venture to say that the folks with the zeal for martyrdom are also far from the mainstream.
L. | Homepage | 09.09.08 - 9:59 am | #

Take it up with Jesus. Apparently He was arrogant...

Nope. He was God. Different.
L. | Homepage | 09.09.08 - 9:59 am | #

**Most people, once you manage to dig deep enough, have not had a normal upbringing.**

Most people had a good childhood and upbringing. There are knock in life that do not include being savagely beaten or raped.

They do not include being pinned in the corner of a room and kicked in the stomach because you might be pregnant when it is really amenorrhea due to starvation.

They do not include being told my your mother as often as she can get it out of her mouth that she wish she had aborted you.

Please do not minimize the real suffering that occurs in a abuse by saying that everyone is not normal.

I can tell a plain difference between me and everyone else but I cannot fix the damage or see a way to be like them.

I know I and my children have a purpose and we are here for a reason. I don't know what it is, right now I feel like it is to be a punching bag, but eventually I will know. Have to sufer through this life first but thats OK.

As for Zeal to be a martyr. I suppose there is a difference between seeing an issue and fighting against it knowing you may die and creating a situation similar. I don't go looking for trouble but I do hope if it ever finds me I will do the right thing by God.

I don't have any zeal to be a martyr or to kill myself, in case you thought that was my point, I want to live and for my children to live. I would like to do it without all this pain though. It is really hard to be useful to anyone when you can't relate.
JosephineMo6 | 09.09.08 - 10:30 am | #

Please pardon my spelling. My dyslexia shows a bit when I am stressed.
JosephineMo6 | 09.09.08 - 10:32 am | #

You have a purpose in this world, and your children are part of that. Never forget that. God put you here for a reason, and none of us know better than God.

Amen to that.

I am sorry to have raised a subject that has brought up pain. Being a survivor of abuse myself, I can sympathize with those who have been hurt.

For those who have been severely put to the test by the violent sins of others, I believe reminders of God's mercy and lovingkindness are more important than those of His judgment. To begin to love God's judgment, one must first know one is loved by Him.

"Win an argument, lose a convert." - Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
Dawn Eden | 09.09.08 - 12:14 pm | #

Josephine, if you can find a local support group, even an informal one, or an online one, I'm sure you will eventually find people who can relate to you, or, at the very least, won't treat you like an outcast or a weirdo. You don't have to take me up on this advice, but please know that it's offered in good faith.

My comment about zealotry wasn't directed at you.

Andy, "take it up with Jesus?" *snort* None of us are Jesus. Now, I don't go to church much, but most of my immediate family is fairly religious, and I do meet people who think they're going to be saints one day on a regular basis through them. I can only shake my head at that. We get by on God's grace, God's mercy, and God's ultimate plan for us, not on actively seeking holy status. Arrogance indeed.
Natalia | Homepage | 09.09.08 - 12:38 pm | #

I want to put this delicately, because I don't think that Paul's zeal for God is reprehensible, but I would like to challenge him to re-examine his understanding of the Church's teaching. Not necessarily by engaging in further combox argument over the examples given, but by going back to the sources. Can you find theological agreement with your theories here?

The argument concerning apostacy at pain of persecution strikes me as very deficient here. It's true that many ancient Christians would have taken the line you do, but does the Church indeed teach this? No. It doesn't.

This is what Canon Law says about Penal Sanctions (Cann. 1321-1330 is the relevant section.)

"Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:

1/ a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;

2/ a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

3/ a person who acted due to physical force or a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or, if foreseen, avoid;

4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

5/ a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;

6/ a person who lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. ⇒ 1324, §1, n. 2 and ⇒ 1325;

7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present."

All of which goes to show that the Church takes a much more understanding view of this subject than you seem to think. It's inarguable that certain ancient Christians were less understanding, but their defect in understanding of what can impair free will can not be presented as doctrine.

Nevertheless, even the Church Father Augustine came to the defence of women raped by the barbarian invaders who sacked Rome in his time. He completely demolished the idea it was better for them to die, and noted that all things work to the good of those whom God loves.
Eileen R | 09.09.08 - 1:03 pm | #

I'm sorry, I haven't read the previous 50+ comments, so if I repeat someone, please forgive!

I don't think her saintliness is embodied in her resisting rape. Most stories I have read actually emphasize her suffering patiently in the aftermath, and the forgiveness she extended to her attacker, Alexander.

I also think that the crux of the story is in her legendary cry, "Stop! It is a sin!"

She realized what an objective evil sin is, and with all her might tried to prevent her attacker from sinning - at the cost of her own life. An embodiment of "hate the sin, but love the sinner". Love always wants the good of the other - and out of love, she resisted in order to prevent HIS sinning.

I'm not a theologian, this is just how this silly housewife has always viewed the circumstances of her death.
Milehimama | Homepage | 09.09.08 - 1:49 pm | #

I should add, I don't think St. Maria Goretti, a young woman, actually THOUGHT her attacker would or could kill her. I don't think she thought it out and said, "I will choose death over rape". When these things happen, even the most logical and calm mannered adult would be hard pressed to think through all of the ramifications of their actions, let alone a girl.
Milehimama | Homepage | 09.09.08 - 1:52 pm | #

I have read the whole life of St. Maria Goretti in the book written about her story, "Lily of the Marshes". It was written in 1951 and contained all the facts and details.

Maria knew what she was doing. She was already aware of Alessandro's motives because he had been making advances at her for days.

Maria knew she had to make a choice. Alessandro held the dagger above her and made it clear, his words were "sin or I will kill you". Maria said it was a sin, that he shouldn't touch her or he would go to hell.
He yelled at her twice, "nod your head".

Maria did not because she decided she rather die than loose her purity.

It takes faith to understand it. It is the ultimate example of how seroius purity, virtue, and faith in God is.

As a young adult who is not married and therefore a virgin, I take a tremenordous pride in St. Maria Goretti as a role model. She is a great patron saint.

There are things in life worth dying over.

If someone were to place a gun to my head and tell me I had to commit a sexual act and loose my virginity, I would rather take the bullet in the head.
Rafael | 09.09.08 - 4:41 pm | #

There are things in life worth dying over.

I agree -- but clearly, people don't agree on what such things are, and they are naturally going to vary from person to person.

For me, Maria Goretti is a role model for forgiveness. I truly don't believe sexual purity is a virtue unto itself, but I respect that other people do.
L. | Homepage | 09.09.08 - 5:06 pm | #

I was happy to see that St. Agustine has already been mentioned in this discussion. Below is an important passage from the City of God, Book I, Chapter 18, where this issue is addressed directly:

“But is there a fear that even another’s lust may pollute the violated? It will not pollute, if it be another’s: if it pollute, it is not another’s, but is shared also by the polluted. But since purity is a virtue of the soul, and has for its companion virtue, the fortitude which will rather endure all ills than consent to evil; and since no one, however magnanimous and pure, has always the disposal of his own body, but can control only the consent and refusal of his will, what sane man can suppose that, if his body be seized and forcibly made use of to satisfy the lust of another, he thereby loses his purity? For if purity can be thus destroyed, then assuredly purity is no virtue of the soul; nor can it be numbered among those good things by which the life is made good, but among the good things of the body, in the same category as strength, beauty, sound and unbroken health, and, in short, all such good things as may be diminished without at all diminishing the goodness and rectitude of our life. But if purity be nothing better than these, why should the body be perilled that it may be preserved? If, on the other hand, it belongs to the soul, then not even when the body is violated is it lost. Nay more, the virtue of holy continence, when it resists the uncleanness of carnal lust, sanctifies even the body, and therefore when this continence remains unsubdued, even the sanctity of the body is preserved, because the will to use it holily remains, and, so far as lies in the body itself, the power also.

For the sanctity of the body does not consist in the integrity of its members, nor in their exemption from all touch; for they are exposed to various accidents which do violence to and wound them, and the surgeons who administer relief often perform operations that sicken the spectator. A midwife, suppose, has (whether maliciously or accidentally, or through unskillfulness) destroyed the virginity of some girl, while endeavoring to ascertain it: I suppose no one is so foolish as to believe that, by this destruction of the integrity of one organ, the virgin has lost anything even of her bodily sanctity. And thus, so long as the soul keeps this firmness of purpose which sanctifies even the body, the violence done by another’s lust makes no impression on this bodily sanctity, which is preserved intact by one’s own persistent continence. Suppose a virgin violates the oath she has sworn to God, and goes to meet her seducer with the intention of yielding to him, shall we say that as she goes she is possessed even of bodily sanctity, when already she has lost and destroyed that sanctity of soul which sanctifies the body? Far be it from us to so misapply words. Let us rather draw this conclusion, that while the sanctity of the soul remains even when the body is violated, the sanctity of the body is not lost; and that, in like manner, the sanctity of the body is lost when the sanctity of the soul is violated, though the body itself remains intact. And therefore a woman who has been violated by the sin of another, and without any consent of her own, has no cause to put herself to death; much less has she cause to commit suicide in order to avoid such violation, for in that case she commits certain homicide to prevent a crime which is uncertain as yet, and not her own.”
b | 09.09.08 - 5:57 pm | #

These things are not optional. Purity, virrtue, and chstity are reqiured for every human being. God reqiures chastity and purity from both the unmarried and the married. Without chastity, purity of heart, and holiness, no one can see the face of God and enjoy eternal happiness.

Of coarse people are going to disagree what is worth dying for, but these are the secular people and the pagan people of the world. The Catholic faith and the Church teaches Catholics what is worth dying for. Catholics informed by the truths of the faith, should know exactly what is worth dying for.

While she is a model for forgiveness, no one can discount her role as model for purity because she is an official patron saint for youth, purity, virgins, and victims of rape.
This "problem" of purity that many Catholics are feeling over her story shows that there are immanent forces due to culture of people's own hangups.
Rafael | 09.09.08 - 6:14 pm | #

I would not want my daughter to die rather than be raped

I don't know what hagiography you've been reading but I think St Maria was not resisting rape, she was resisting seduction, at least initially - she was really resisting the young man's advances and telling him it's a sin to do what he was trying to do, which initially, I think, was to seduce her. Both seduction and rape are sins, obviously, so I'm inclined to think that the Church holds her up as a model of virtue because she new that the young man had feelings of attraction for her. He ended up raping her because his own morality was very bad at that time and in the end he just gave in to his more animalistic tendencies.

I think she is held up as a model of purity, because she was trying to save the young man from committing a sin himself and unfortunately it went pear-shaped when he decided to kill her in his anger.

At least, when reading her story, I have never considered that we uphold her as virtuous because she resisted rape.

Incidentally, it was the Church in the early days which gave raped women their dignity. Only the Church had ever, until that time, considered raped women as still having dignity as persons. To all others, a raped woman was considered "damaged goods."

It is generally wise IMO to have a good think about these things before making pronouncements about the Church's judgement.
Louise | Homepage | 09.09.08 - 10:46 pm | #

I don't believe St. Maria Goretti was raped. She was murdered after resisting the forcefull advances of her (eventual) murderer. He was trying to get her to succomb to his aggressive advances, and those advances turned quickly not to rape, but to murder.

She was only an 11 year old girl, and he was a 19 year old man. If he wanted to overpower her and rape her I'm sure he could have and would have. It was incensed rage at being sexually rejected (after months of trying to seduce her) that led him to murder her in a moment of (violent) passion.

Therefore, she was a martyr for purity, for her martyrdom began when she was constantly persecuted for resisting his seductions and ended violently when she resisted his physical advances.

That she defended her own purity even to her own death (whether or not she saw that violent death coming) is indeed a formidable example to young people of just how important and precious their purity is.
Kim | 09.10.08 - 1:52 am | #

does the peanut gallery now have to estimate the NUMBER of my transgressions?
Sorry :) But there are a LOT of death penalty offenses in the Law. My personal favorite is talking back to your parents in public. Pretty sure I earned at least 132 stonings there...

To all appearances you worship a God who is both arbitrary and sadistic.
Appearances can be deceiving. There is nothing arbitrary. God demands that we love what is better more than what is lesser. When someone loves their dog more than their children, is it "arbitrary" to demand that they cease? Of course not. And we would certainly demand a person take care of their child even if it would result of the death of even the most beloved dog.

Likewise, a person must love souls more than bodies. And the death of the soul must be avoided more than the death of the body.

Nor is this "sadistic." If a doctor in the 19th century amputated a patient's gangrenous leg while he screamed in pain (for there was no anesthesia at that time) and continued meticulously sawing through inch after inch of flesh and muscle and bone while the patient begged him to stop, would he be being "sadistic"?

Again, obviously not. The doctor would simply be saving the greater (the whole body) at the expense of the lesser (the leg). This is both rational and kind.

Paul (the combox warrior) is right
Thanks, Andy!

certain militant pro-life men I know would not allow abortion exceptions if the mother's health (but not immediate life) is in danger.
One note: I do not believe the loss of life has to be "immediate." If anyone has a choice between two people dying, they are allowed to pick "the other guy" without sin. But just as in the amputation example above, if the choice is between injury on one side, and death on the other, than clearly injury must be chosen, even if the injury is to oneself.

But now that I see evidence of this zeal for martyrdom...
To clarify, I would not consider myself to have a "zeal for martyrdom." St. Francis of Assisi had a zeal for martyrdom; he stowed away aboard a crusader ship, marched into the Muslim camp and challenged the Sultan to build two bonfires - he would walk into one, any Muslim could walk into the other, and they would see who God would save.

Another saint had a zeal for martyrdom when he was standing in the crowd and, seeing Christian being led away to be beheaded, stepped out of the crowd and proclaimed to the legionaries, "I too am Christian!"

That is zeal for martyrdom, and I don't measure even close to that. I am merely observing the rather obvious theological points that A. of all the deaths one can die, martyrdom is by far the best and B. being in heaven is much better than being on earth C. sin is always sin, and thus can never be deliberately committed, whatever the consequences.

This hardly deserves the name "zeal," much less "excessive zeal," as another commenter called it. This is the watered-down broth, which is being mistaken for the meat.

I am being accused of going too far, when in reality I have barely taken the first step. I merely pointed at the road and said, "look, there's a road" and already come the cries, "whoa, slow down there, that's enough!"

"But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8)

I would like to challenge him to re-examine his understanding of the Church's teaching.
Thank you, that is very kind of you. I would like to mention that I utterly and unconditionally submit everything I have ever or will ever say, write, or think, to the judgment of the Catholic Church, with which I agree regardless of my own understanding on this or any matter.

Whatever I say, I say because I think it is not only true, but a truth which people need to know so that they may have everlasting life. But the Church is the judge of truth, and not myself.

Can you find theological agreement with your theories here?
I believe so. There is first, Sacred Scripture:

Matthew 10:24-8,34-9, 16:24-7; Mark 8:34-38; Luke 9:23-6, 60-2, 14:26-33, 17:32-3; John 12:4-5, 24-5, 15:18-20; 1 Timothy 5:11-12; 2 Machabees 7:1-42

Secondly, there is Sacred Tradition, which I have already eluded to, in the lives of the many martyrs and virgins who would not sin whatever the cost.

Also, there are the Doctors of the Church, such as St. Thomas, quoted above, et al.

I would also reference the Catechism, especially CCC 2471: "In situation that require witness to the faith, the Christian must profess it without equivocation, after the example of St. Paul."

Also worth of note is CCC2474's quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch: "Neither the pleasures of the world nor the kingdoms of this age will be of any use to me. It is better for me to die [in order to unite myself] to Christ..."

It's true that many ancient Christians would have taken the line you do, but does the Church indeed teach this? No. It doesn't. This is what Canon Law says about Penal Sanctions
I believe you have made an error here. Canon law can be a great teacher, but it is not the norm of moral theology. Canon law, by its nature, concerns itself with such crimes against the Church as can be known and judged by men. It by no means sets the limits of what will be known and judged by God. The standard of Christian morality is much higher than the standard of ecclesiastic law (see Mattew 5:17-48).

But your point is very well taken that the Church has always taken a very light touch with sinners of all stripes. Even in the early Church, when apostates were expelled, their punishment was only for a time if they repented. So while we must be uncompromising with those who "that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter" (Isaias 5:20) we must also remember that any sin, no matter how bad it seems to us, is insignificant compared to the mercy of God.
Paul | 09.10.08 - 3:57 am | #

i agree Re: "purity at all cost" for it implies we have the power to set the price, and that's heresy pure and simple, since Christ's life was, is and will be the only "ransom" demanded for "captive Israel" worthy of he who does the demanding.

"True obedience is a matter of love, which makes it voluntary, not compelled by fear or force" Dorothy Day

from theanchoressonline.com banner

The "cost" part smacks too much of fear or force, and is indeed repellent, as it should be. The beauty of St Maria is that she recognised in her innocence that the burden was light for it was not a two-way battle where her feminine weakness succumbs to masculine physical power (coincidentally the M.O. of many other patriarchal societies, particularly the infantilization of women under Islam where they are valued as only half a person), there was a third power at play upon which she placed her total trust - Christ carried her in her hours of trial, and he carried her mother in her subsequent sorrowful tribulations, and he carried the "perp" during his years of incarceration, his gentle compassion converting even that horrorendous memory into "happy are they who are called to his supper" at the altar of reconciliation at the beatification.

The price is Christ's death, the cost is simply our voluntary obedience, not our death. Each day we are given new life until that day God choses to reunite us with Him at His Judgment Seat. Most of us will not get there as instantaneously pure as Maria, we will need a "final rinse" of fabric softener in Purgatory to acquire such obedient tender-hearted compassion as she practiced in her trinitarian three-cornered love of her neighbor.
Clare Krishan | Homepage | 09.10.08 - 11:42 am | #

Kim, you are right. I mistakenly said that he raped her, but he did not. I had meant to say that he attempted it, but I think your telling of the story is correct.
Louise | Homepage | 09.11.08 - 7:04 am | #

An interesting point was raised which I would like too see clarified further. Paul points out that, given a choice between death and sin, one ought to choose death, for the sin is mitigated but not eliminated. The real question is whether submitting to the will of the person who is threatening to kill you is sinful EVEN UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, and that depends on the act he is asking you to commit. An armed escaping bank robber who carjacks you and orders you to drive him somewhere (as long as he is not asking you to drive him unsafely fast which would endanger others) is coercing you to do something (driving) which is not *intrinsically* sinful, even though it facilitates the completion of his own sin. Therefore you do not sin by complying.

Sex is also not *intrinsically* sinful, though it is sinful in some contexts. If Maria had given in to Alonzo's attempted unarmed seductions, she would have sinned. If she had been forcibly overpowered and raped, she would not have sinned.

There are really two questions:
1) whether giving in at knifepoint is like being overpowered, or like being seduced.
2) whether losing one's virginity is intrinsically evil

In this case the two questions are intertwined, but it's still useful to try to distinguish them. Because of the ignorant confusion in Maria's culture between the distinct concepts "virginity", "purity", "sinlessness", and "having an intact hymen" it is easy to misunderstand Maria's situation. Augustine makes clear that having been physically violated does not imply one sinned. Fear of death is a motivating factor that mitigates but does not excuse sin, but the question is whether there is sin at all in not offering physical resistance to sex when the motive is fear of death rather than sexual desire.

Sex is special because it is a physical act that has a spiritual meaning, a meaning dependent on the states of mind of the participants. Giving in to a knife-wielding rapist because of fear of dying doesn't change that what occurred is "rape", and our own culture regards being this kind of rapist as legally punishable and being this kind of rape victim as morally blameless. That's because we, unlike some other cultures even today, recognize that the moral meaning of a sex act depends on the state of mind and the motivations of the participants.

However, from a Catholic point of view, accepting this means we have to draw a line somewhere between acceptable and unacceptable degrees of coercion for allowing someone to have sex with you. If Alonzo, rather than threatening Maria with death, had made a lesser threat such as "if you don't do this I'll tell everyone you're a slut" or "if you don't do this I'll take your necklace", with no threat of physical harm, it would obviously have been sinful for her to fail to resist.

The simplest place to draw the line is to say "one should always resist even to the death" -- this is, theologically, the right place to draw it when the coerced act is intrinsically sinful, but I don't think that's the case here.

Paul can maintain that, even though the law properly does not regard knifepoint duress as a kind of "consent" that defines a sex act as consensual rather than rape, Christianity does in fact make a distinction between offering no resistance to sex at knifepoint and being physically overpowered. He may be wrong, but those who would show him wrong must then draw a line themselves somewhere in between "I'll kill you" and "I'll tell everyone you're a slut".
Joseph | 09.13.08 - 10:23 am | #

I should add that in Maria's case she was worried about Alonzo's sin and not her own -- her resistance was heroic and saintly and she is therefore a model of forgiveness and of concern for the souls of others. Even if giving in at knifepoint would not have been sinful, saints usually do more than just avoid sin. (Another way of putting this: in ANY situation whatsoever there is at least one course of action that is not sinful, though it might be a very painful or deadly course of action; but the virtuous acts demonstrated by the saints were not always the only ways they could have avoided sin.)
Joseph | 09.13.08 - 10:34 am | #

Very well reasoned, Joseph, but with one minor flaw:

Sex is also not *intrinsically* sinful, though it is sinful in some contexts.

One of those contexts being, of course, "when you are not married to the person you are having sex with."

Granted, you never asserted the contrary, but that is a rather large omission.

So another interesting question is this:

Does fornication differ essentially or accidentally from the marital act?

Or to put it another way, is the act "having sex," with the fact of who you are having sex with relegated to circumstances, or is the act "fornicating" a different act as such from the act of "conjugal relations"?
Paul | 09.16.08 - 6:35 am | #

The purity that Saint Maria Goretti strove so mightily to save,to her last breath, was not purity in purely a sexual sense. Saint Goretti had such a closeness with Jesus that she wished to give her all to Him - a desire often found among the Saints and expressed in their writings of the Saints. That all would surely include her body, but also the totality of her humanity: her thoughts, desires, dreams, feelings, acts and her very essence - her soul. Such closeness to Jesus is mystical and something that can hardly be conceived of by those that do not have such closeness. Doubtless, had she lived, Saint Goretti would have become a nun and as part of that process would have formally given her all to Jesus her Spouse as part of her vows. Such did no happen formally within the Church, but it did happen informally between Jesus and Saint Goretti, and it happened much more deeply and completely than many religous accomplish after many years in a contemplative life.

Given Saint Goretti's closeness to Our Lord,the thought of virtually any sin was so ananthama to her that she would do anything, including dying if need be, to avoid such act. If some sought to force her to lie or steal, she would have refused to the point of death just as she fought to avoid rape.

The above needs to be understood by those learning about Saint Goretti so that her decision as to the prospect of rape is understood, and more importantly, so that people know that it is possible for all of us to aspire to - an even obtain - the closeness to Jesus that Saint Goretti did. That is the most edifying and enlivening role of learning about the Saints - to give us example and hope to aspire in our walk to Sainthood to which we are all called.

God Bless,
Rich
Rich Luke | 09.18.08 - 12:23 pm | #