St Thomas and virginity

[MarysLittleFlower]

I'm just trying to understand a Church teaching... This is from a serious theological perspective and I'm looking for the Church teachings not just personal opinions or feelings please my intent is I just want to know if I understood correctly ie not heretically.

According to St Thomas, moral manuals etc, - virginity has a formal and material aspect. Bodily integrity - the material component - is accidental to virginity and its a sign of it - but the essence of virginity is in the will. This way, a woman who has been raped for example can still be a virgin. However, self abuse takes away virginity. This is talking about formal virginity that is needed to be a CV - that sort of thing. The definition given for virginity is never having had willfully felt venereal pleasure. If it was unwillful, the material virginiry is lost but not formal... And material virginity is not the essence but a sign.

Hopefully this makes sense... To summarize my research - a man or a woman is a virgin who has never willfully experienced venereal pleasure. If it was accidental and not willed, or if bodily integrity was lost through rape, etc, the person is still a virgin formally. Bodily integrity and material virginity is more of a sign rather than the essence. But if they did something willfully - not just the act that leads to conception but anything else or even self abuse, they are not formally a virgin (regardless of whether the medical definition applies to them or not). Maybe some people would disagree but I found this information in sources like the Summa so I'm quite sure its the actual Catholic position... However... And this is my question. I actually have 2.

1. St Thomas says that virginity can't be restored but the purpose of virginity can be. What does this mean? What is the meaning of purpose of virginity? Is that some theological term? Here is the passage: 

"Virtue can be recovered by penance as regards that which is formal in virtue, but not as to that which is material therein. For if a magnificent man has squandered all his wealth he does not recover his riches by repenting of his sin. On like manner a person who has lost virginity by sin, recovers by repenting, not the matter of virginity but the purpose of virginity.

As regards the matter of virginity there is that which can be miraculously restored by God, namely the integrity of the organ, which we hold to be accidental to virginity: while there is something else which cannot be restored even by miracle, to wit, that one who has experienced venereal lust should cease to have had that experience. For God cannot make that which is done not to have been done, as stated in I, 25, 4. ”

 2. In what I understand is an approved revelation, Jesus told a mystic named Conchita that though virginity can't be restored, in union with Christ He can supply His own virginity in some spiritual way. I guess such a person would not be eligible to be a CV cause there you need your own virginity, and they don't have their own virginity back, however, they might have some spiritual benefit just from this union with God. (Even if they don't receive the reward of virgins).

So my question is - is this ok to believe with Church teaching? Does it go with what St Thomas said? The quote to Conchita is- "Virginity is not recovered once it is lost, but the Trinity supplies its own people with it through chastity and transformation into Me..." There is more in the quote. It sounds like its not ones own virginity that you get, but some spiritual participation in His, when a soul reaches a certain union with God. Any thoughts? (I know all about private revelation not being public revelation etc. But I am just trying to understand and I tend to accept whatever the Church accepts ).  

Am I correct then that a person who has lost their virginity can still be given spiritual virginal traits through union with God and recovering the purpose of virginity? It wouldn't mean they have their virginity back and they can be a CV etc. But it might mean something else.

Also to clarify about the value of virginity - virginity is a virtue when consecrated to.God. 

Edited July 13, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

Also to add about the revelation to Conchita, there is more to it that talks about God communicating virginity to the soul (though own virginity be lost), and this happens in degrees based on.the souls union with God and transformation into Christ's likeness. However this seems to me different from the view of people who say that once you repent you're a virgin again.. Because the quote begins with the statement that virginity can't be recovered, and it seems the person never gets their own virginity back and that this is impossible. Rather, they are in union with Christ who is a Virgin and He communicates certain infused virtues? 

Another difference is that repentance doesn't seem to be enough for all of this to occur in the greatest level - rather its union with God that comes after repentance. Anyway how does all this go with what St Thomas said? Cause he said virginity can't be recovered... But the quote is saying something else yes?

[vee]

Who is this conchita?  What is her status with the Church?

[MarysLittleFlower]

Who is this conchita?  What is her status with the Church?

i was just going to say! She is a Venerable and there's a Cause for her Beatification. She was a wife and mother and also a mystic and victim soul. Pope St Pius X approved her mission apostolate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concepcion_Cabrera_de_Armida  

http://spiritualmotherhoodforpriests.blogspot.ca/2010/06/wife-mother-and-mystic-of-mexico.html?m=1 

 

[vee]

Also, when I think of St Thomas Aqunias and chastity I think of the Angelic Warfare Confraternity

http://www.angelicwarfareconfraternity.org/about/

[MarysLittleFlower]

Also, when I think of St Thomas Aqunias and chastity I think of the Angelic Warfare Confraternity

http://www.angelicwarfareconfraternity.org/about/

i have some friends in that Confraternity and it sounds great I'd join but I'm in the St Philomena Archconfraternity and I wear her cord. Its also for purity. She's amesome

Edited July 13, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Credo in Deum]

Regarding self abuse, does this mean a man/woman losses his/her virginity when he/she masturbates? 

[Sponsa-Christi]

At the risk of making things even more confusing...one thing to keep in mind is that just because St. Thomas wrote something, it doesn't follow that it's automatically the official, non-negotiable teaching of the Church. Like all theologians. St. Thomas wrote some things which were simply his own educated (albeit VERY educated!) opinions. Also, St. Thomas had a very distinctive style of writing, and the frame of reference from which he approached certain questions was influenced by his historical context. I.e., he might have emphasized issues which were hotly disputed open questions in his era, while not addressing issues to which more attention is paid today. So if you compare the Church Fathers. St. Thomas, and a contemporary theologian's writings on certain issues, they might all seem to be talking past each other!

With all that being said, the Church currently doesn't really have an official unified doctrine of virginity per se, nor does it have a clear-cut definition in canon law right now. So I'm wondering if it might be more helpful for you to relate your theological questions about virginity to specific questions (e.g., who is qualified to become a CV? How would one describe a spirituality of consecrated virginity? What exactly does St. Thomas mean by XYZ?) rather than to try to articulate the whole big picture right at this moment.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Regarding self abuse, does this mean a man/woman losses his/her virginity when he/she masturbates? 

according to St Thomas yes that's what I meant. Its any willful experience of 'venereal pleasure', including this sin. St Augustine seems to agree that its anything willful. 

Edited July 13, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

At the risk of making things even more confusing...one thing to keep in mind is that just because St. Thomas wrote something, it doesn't follow that it's automatically the official, non-negotiable teaching of the Church. Like all theologians. St. Thomas wrote some things which were simply his own educated (albeit VERY educated!) opinions. Also, St. Thomas had a very distinctive style of writing, and the frame of reference from which he approached certain questions was influenced by his historical context. I.e., he might have emphasized issues which were hotly disputed open questions in his era, while not addressing issues to which more attention is paid today. So if you compare the Church Fathers. St. Thomas, and a contemporary theologian's writings on certain issues, they might all seem to be talking past each other!

With all that being said, the Church currently doesn't really have an official unified doctrine of virginity per se, nor does it have a clear-cut definition in canon law right now. So I'm wondering if it might be more helpful for you to relate your theological questions about virginity to specific questions (e.g., who is qualified to become a CV? How would one describe a spirituality of consecrated virginity? What exactly does St. Thomas mean by XYZ?) rather than to try to articulate the whole big picture right at this moment.

I think I'm just a Thomist at heart and I tend to believe things he said (unless they were speculations that the Church later made a pronouncement on and then I give Church pronouncements more weight).. Same thing with old moral manuals. Its probably how in my mind everything needs to be organised and Thomism is very organised and reasonable.

Currently I think I do have a more specific question... Given what St Thomas said and virginity not being restored, how does the revelation to Venerable Conchita fit in. I mean she didn't talk about getting ones own virginity back, if I understand, like some people do. She spoke of Christ's virginity being communicated to the soul in some higher level of sanctity. So the person is not a virgin but union with God gives them virginal qualities in some way? Im not saying such a person can be a CV. I think a person needs to have their virginity to offer to be a CV.. But im trying to understand what it would mean.

Regarding the revelation - theologically would St Thomas have agreed? Does it go against what he said? (I would ask how it relates to Church teaching but you said the Church isn't very detailed on this right now). The place of private revelation and that we dont have to believe it doesnt change my question though... (Im saying that cause people usually bring it up). And my other question what does St Thomas mean by "purpose of virginity" being restored by repentance. 

[CatherineM]

I've known three CV's. The requirements don't technically include the kind of virginity you're talking about. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

I've known three CV's. The requirements don't technically include the kind of virginity you're talking about. 

my understanding is that in the traditional sense that's how virginity is seen... Thats why I tend to go with that. Its not the easiest for me thinking that way and how it affects my discernment.. Because I just don't have a spotless past. But I'm not actually making this thread about the CV vocation per se cause I don't think I'm qualified sadly. I am just wondering mostly what Conchita wrote and how it relates to St Thomas. I'm not using that as a reason to be a CV cause I think it needs to be ones own virginity that is offered as a CV. But I'm just wondering about that question for another reason... 

Edited July 13, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Credo in Deum]

according to St Thomas yes that's what I meant. Its any willful experience of 'venereal pleasure', including this sin. St Augustine seems to agree that its anything willful. 

I wonder how the Church decides on CVs if there is no unified doctrine of virginity? Do past sins of masturbation for example, preclude one from being a CV?

[MarysLittleFlower]

I wonder how the Church decides on CVs if there is no unified doctrine of virginity? Do past sins of masturbation for example, preclude one from being a CV?

I don't know much about the CV vocation but if St Thomas is correct about virginity than a person who did this sin can't offer their virginity so how can she be a CV. That's how I've been seeing it... They can still be a nun or consecrated soul in any case. I know there are people who have another interpretation. I'm just go with Thomism in my own mind and that's what I tend to trust. I don't know if the Church has defined this. I just can't argue around it.. 

 

Edited July 13, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Sponsa-Christi]

I think I'm just a Thomist at heart and I tend to believe things he said (unless they were speculations that the Church later made a pronouncement on and then I give Church pronouncements more weight).. Same thing with old moral manuals. Its probably how in my mind everything needs to be organised and Thomism is very organised and reasonable.

Currently I think I do have a more specific question... Given what St Thomas said and virginity not being restored, how does the revelation to Venerable Conchita fit in. I mean she didn't talk about getting ones own virginity back, if I understand, like some people do. She spoke of Christ's virginity being communicated to the soul in some higher level of sanctity. So the person is not a virgin but union with God gives them virginal qualities in some way? Im not saying such a person can be a CV. I think a person needs to have their virginity to offer to be a CV.. But im trying to understand what it would mean.

Regarding the revelation - theologically would St Thomas have agreed? Does it go against what he said? (I would ask how it relates to Church teaching but you said the Church isn't very detailed on this right now). The place of private revelation and that we dont have to believe it doesnt change my question though... (Im saying that cause people usually bring it up). And my other question what does St Thomas mean by "purpose of virginity" being restored by repentance. 

I'm not talking so much about cases where St. Thomas was "wrong" about anything. It's more like St. Thomas might not have answers to specific questions a contemporary theologian might be asking, because St. Thomas thought in terms of different categories than we would.

For example, in St. Thomas' writings on "the state of perfection," he identifies only two vocations as being calls to "perfection": bishops and religious. A superficial reading of this would make it seem like St. Thomas was arguing against a universal call to holiness. However, the idea of a common baptismal call to Christian perfection wasn't as much of a point of major theological concern in medieval society as it is in the Church today, so we can't read St. Thomas' writings as though he was intending to comment on a theological discussion that would occur many centuries after his time. He simply wasn't aware of all the nuances that would arise. (Sort of like how you can't just jump in and comment intelligently at the end of a ten-page phatmass thread unless you've gone back and read the OP---inevitably, you'll be misinterpreting the points people are trying to make.)

Also, private revelations are never taken at face value as doctrine. Even in cases where a private devotion might influence Church teaching later on (e.g., the revelation of the Sacred Heart to St. Margaret Mary), the revelation only serves as sort of an initial prompting. So I wouldn't worry too much about trying to reconcile the writings of a visionary to St. Thomas' writings.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Sponsa-Christi