oremus1 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) So what is being stated is that the Sacrament of Confession could not restore "loss of virginity due to veneral pleasure" (because it is a physical, mental &/or emotional experience)... but Confession can & will restore loss of spiritual virginity? I'm trying very hard to understand this... the explanation is here http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/132891-consecrated-virgin-in-the-world-50-words-or-less/?p=2657653 Edited February 27, 2014 by oremus1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 the idea that French kissing, masturbation, close dancing leads to a loss of physical virginity comes from this post and also if you scroll down: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/132891-consecrated-virgin-in-the-world-50-words-or-less/page-12#entry2657302 the dancing, which could lead to veneral pleasure with another person, thus a loss of virginity according to the above, is described here: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/133149-making-out/page-6#entry2658571 I see. I read something about "passionate" hugs. When I hug my friends (Both female and male), and my youth leaders, I pretty much do this jump thing, and I give them a great big bear hug. It's quite passionately loving. Have I lost my virginity? By the way, where did someone say "that humping dance"? I haven't been able to find it, but it sounds like a real gem that will make me laugh hysterically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oremus1 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I see. I read something about "passionate" hugs. When I hug my friends (Both female and male), and my youth leaders, I pretty much do this jump thing, and I give them a great big bear hug. It's quite passionately loving. Have I lost my virginity? By the way, where did someone say "that humping dance"? I haven't been able to find it, but it sounds like a real gem that will make me laugh hysterically. According to that standard, did you experience veneral pleasure? did they? was it intentional? once you experienced the pleasure did you stop, or wilfully continue? if you have experienced the wilful veneral pleasure by the passionate hugging then yes, according to those criteria previously mentioned, you would not be virginal. and that was me who said that about the waltz, on the making out thread, due to your description. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandelynmarie Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Thank you for your answers. :) I think I understand now that consent of the will plays the biggest part in determining whether one is eligible for CV, that it is definitely discerned upon on an individual basis... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sponsa-Christi Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Sponsa is her own woman and she is a student with the potential of tapping into the wisdom of her professors. Why she should be concerned that her opining on these threads and on her website can somehow derail her academic career is unfathomable to me unless she fears that they won't hold up to the scrutiny of said professors who are there to help her. Lillabettt, true academics are not afraid of being critiqued nor are they reluctant to provide solid evidence backing up their positions. Had she bothered to ask her professors about "moral obligations" she could have been corrected easily and swiftly or validated and she could have used the information given to her by these professors in Rome to recant her position or to prove it. It's not helpful for her to choose to only focus on her opinions when there are a lot of things about the vocation which are certainties especially when she says she is trying to teach people about the vocation. Just to be clear…I am absolutely not afraid that anything which I’ve written here will hurt my reputation. I also don’t have any problem at all with people challenging my ideas. I believe that if someone does have strong, consistent “controversial†opinions on sensitive topics which can affect people’s life choices, the responsible thing to do is to own up to these. So this is why I’ve left the most basic details of my real-life identity relatively easy to figure out. What I am worried about is that the number of posts which criticize me personally might be taken at face value by someone who (understandably!) may not have the time or inclination to read some of these longer threads in their entirety—especially since these personal criticisms are often untrue or at least very misleading. For example: - Many posts put words in my mouth and claim that I’m advocating things I don’t actually believe in (e.g., I’ve never said that CVs should “live like nuns†or follow a strict horarium, etc.) - Many posts strongly imply, or even state outright, that I’m gravely lacking in philosophical and theological formation (when in fact I have actually completed academic degrees in both these areas). - Often, posts speculate that I have some sort of malicious intention in writing my blog and posting here (e.g., I’m often accused of simply wanting to control people by imposing burdensome obligations on them). - Finally, it seems like on a regular basis I’m described as disregarding the teaching authority of the magisterium (although I’ve stated many times that “thinking with the Church†is very important to me). I know it’s not the mods’ job to babysit, and like I said earlier, I do understand the public nature of the internet. However, I had thought that there was kind of a community standard here against personal attacks. I do appreciate the very kind PMs I’ve gotten from members here, but I am wondering if leaving the phorum might really be the most prudent course of action in my particular situation. (And as a P.S.: The definition of “moral obligation†that I was using was one which I actually did learn in class, from my professors.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 the idea that French kissing, masturbation, close dancing leads to a loss of physical virginity comes from this post and also if you scroll down: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/132891-consecrated-virgin-in-the-world-50-words-or-less/page-12#entry2657302 the dancing, which could lead to veneral pleasure with another person, thus a loss of virginity according to the above, is described here: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/133149-making-out/page-6#entry2658571 So I've lost ALL of my different virginities... Can I get any of them back or am I out of luck? :think2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbTherese Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) However, I had thought that there was kind of a community standard here against personal attacks I think that there is - and transcending and overriding the rules of debate in a Debate Forum on Phatmass or anywhere else whatsoever, there is the standard of Christ and His Gospel applying in ALL situations without exception and certainly for Catholics. Overriding and transcending physical virginity or any other virtue is the degree of Love, of Charity, (for God IS Love) according to which holiness exists, or does not exist, to some degree or other - and according to which any virtue approaches virtue in Truth for God IS Truth. For me the above is the message of the Ten Virgins, five who were wise and five who were not (the whole Chapter worth the read - Matthew Ch25............V45 "Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me"). Edited February 28, 2014 by BarbaraTherese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 According to that standard, did you experience veneral pleasure? did they? was it intentional? once you experienced the pleasure did you stop, or wilfully continue? if you have experienced the wilful veneral pleasure by the passionate hugging then yes, according to those criteria previously mentioned, you would not be virginal. and that was me who said that about the waltz, on the making out thread, due to your description. ;-) I was probably being too subtle with it, but I was being sarcastic with my questions. I don't think I've lost my virginity even if I did experience 'venereal pleasure'. :P And thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) I understand the theology behind it. But I don't buy it. Honestly ... sometimes theology gets lost in its own thought. To me virginity means you have not been united with another created person and become "one flesh" with them in sex. A virgin is someone who has not given their body and soul and willingly had that intense, intimate union with another created person. Someone who consecrates their virginity forsakes that union with created persons in favor of union with the divine person - that union of which sex is merely a foretaste. Another thing that strikes me. Union. Takes 2. Something seems deeply off about the idea that a human person can give their virginity to their hand or a romcom or a dance move or whatever. Virginity and sex are both more powerful and sacred than that. I really think in this area we are in the realm of persons not things or imagination. Edited February 28, 2014 by Lilllabettt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I understand the theology behind it. But I don't buy it. Honestly ... sometimes theology gets lost in its own thought. To me virginity means you have not been united with another created person and become "one flesh" with them in sex. A virgin is someone who has not given their body and soul and willingly had that intense, intimate union with another created person. Someone who consecrates their virginity forsakes that union with created persons in favor of union with the divine person - that union of which sex is merely a foretaste. Another thing that strikes me. Union. Takes 2. Something seems deeply off about the idea that a human person can give their virginity to their hand or a romcom or a dance move or whatever. Virginity and sex are both more powerful and sacred than that. I really think in this area we are in the realm of persons not things or imagination. Theologically speaking, doesn't it cheapen the beauty of the conjugal act to say that you can lose your virginity to your hand or a dance move? Isn't sex so much more than that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 So am I stuck never being a virgin again ever or are you folks going to help me out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbTherese Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Zoloft? :sad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 you know, thinking about the title of this thread... I'm pretty sure many posters have written more than 50 words on the subject. lol :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oremus1 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I understand the theology behind it. But I don't buy it. Honestly ... sometimes theology gets lost in its own thought. To me virginity means you have not been united with another created person and become "one flesh" with them in sex. A virgin is someone who has not given their body and soul and willingly had that intense, intimate union with another created person. Someone who consecrates their virginity forsakes that union with created persons in favor of union with the divine person - that union of which sex is merely a foretaste. Another thing that strikes me. Union. Takes 2. Something seems deeply off about the idea that a human person can give their virginity to their hand or a romcom or a dance move or whatever. Virginity and sex are both more powerful and sacred than that. I really think in this area we are in the realm of persons not things or imagination. @Lillabett - I agree. But what about women who are lsbian? or what about people who participate in Bill Clinton style "i did not have relations with that person"? are they still virgins? CVs cannot have "lived in public or open violation of chastity". what do you think this means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 @Lillabett - I agree. But what about women who are lsbian? or what about people who participate in Bill Clinton style "i did not have relations with that person"? are they still virgins? CVs cannot have "lived in public or open violation of chastity". what do you think this means? If a woman has sex and lies about it, that's her deal. But the difference is she actually had sex, not watched a rom-com and did the Tango. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now