St Thomas and virginity

[Sponsa-Christi]

i guess I just find it very confusing because this is like saying that only public sins take away virginity but I was under the impression it's in the will so its unclear how to connect it with tradition... Maybe they just put that in canon law to not interfere with the internal forum? But it raises some questions about virginity itself for me. I mean is the canon law a doctrinal statement or just a way to respect the internal forum. That's unclear to me but if its a doctrinal statwment how can it be linked to the historical understanding... 

When people talk about virginity being a matter of the will, generally this is an attempt to clarify the fact that a rape victim can still be considered a virgin. (Which is why I prefer the term "literal virginity" rather than "physical virginity," by the way.) The point is that virginity is a matter of what you chose to do, rather than something that could be done to you by force. When I talk about virginity as being a matter of the will, I know that I'm NOT talking about "the will" as being a person's unspoken thoughts and desires, but rather their freely-chosen actions.

Yes, the particular wording of this part of canon law probably was worded in such as a way so as to protect the internal forum. But while canon law itself isn't doctrine, it is based on doctrine. There won't be anything in canon law which would directly (or even indirectly) conflict with the Church's teaching on matters of faith or morals.

Also, I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I don't think you have a truly solid grasp on the "historical understanding" of what constitutes "virginity." I'm saying this not to be unkind, but only so that your conscience won't be troubled, but it seems like you're taking an idiosyncratic understanding of one small section of St. Thomas' writings and then identifying it with the whole of the Church's tradition. (I know that sounds blunt, but again, I really am not saying that to be mean!)

[Lilllabettt]

sure if anyone has questions they can talk to their SD. It just bothers me that now so many people are talking like I'm wrong when my view is the traditional view? Or saying it all depends on your conscience... But doesn't it matter if the conscience was formed correctly or not? If Im incorrect in my interpretation I do want to know. I don't want it to be up to my maybe erring conscience... Or any false understanding... So now we have the Thomist view that virginity deals with never having experienced venereal pleasure willfully and the newer view that its only lost if you gave yourself to someone. I agree that marriage is self giving etc. But to me the Thomist interpretation is more solid because chastity is not only lost through sins with other people so why is virginity different? BUT if I'm wrong I want to know. So is there no Church teaching to answer which view is correct?

So there is no rulebook where you can find this written down. As you spend more time living in the Catholic Castle you realize more and more that only a tiny sliver of topics is covered by a rule or a "traditional" understanding.  This can be an extremely stressful discovery for folks who like rules or like to know "what 'they' did before" because these things provide a kind of safety net: stay within the lines and you won't go wrong.

I have been there and I understand the stress. I also understand really wanting to know the truth so you can follow the truth and being totally frustrated with the fact that so many things in Catholicism are a judgment call. But its actually a way God asks us to grow. You have to be humble and courageous at the same time, to be able to say "this is what my conscience says, and I am open always to correction, but this is the truth as I see it" and then live in congruence with that.

This is why St. Thomas was able to write his opinions about things without going nuts. He did not fear, even knowing there was a good chance some of what he wrote might be wrong. (and was wrong. about the immaculate conception, for example.)  

Edited July 13, 2015 by Lilllabettt

[MarysLittleFlower]

When people talk about virginity being a matter of the will, generally this is an attempt to clarify the fact that a rape victim can still be considered a virgin. (Which is why I prefer the term "literal virginity" rather than "physical virginity," by the way.) The point is that virginity is a matter of what you chose to do, rather than something that could be done to you by force. When I talk about virginity as being a matter of the will, I know that I'm NOT talking about "the will" as being a person's unspoken thoughts and desires, but rather their freely-chosen actions.

Yes, the particular wording of this part of canon law probably was worded in such as a way so as to protect the internal forum. But while canon law itself isn't doctrine, it is based on doctrine. There won't be anything in canon law which would directly (or even indirectly) conflict with the Church's teaching on matters of faith or morals.

Also, I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I don't think you have a truly solid grasp on the "historical understanding" of what constitutes "virginity." I'm saying this not to be unkind, but only so that your conscience won't be troubled, but it seems like you're taking an idiosyncratic understanding of one small section of St. Thomas' writings and then identifying it with the whole of the Church's tradition. (I know that sounds blunt, but again, I really am not saying that to be mean!)

 

no problem of course I could be wrong. I agree canon law doesn't contradict doctrine.. And about the will and rape. As for the rest I could be wrong but I wish I could know... I can't even speak to my priest right now and he'd probably know. i have basically been trying to understand this  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3152.htm  it seems to me like my understanding of what takes away virginity goes with this and with commentary I read on it but who knows.. But of course I'm sure there's more that was written on the topic that I don't know about.

So there is no rulebook where you can find this written down. As you spend more time living in the Catholic Castle you realize more and more that only a tiny sliver of topics is covered by a rule or a "traditional" understanding.  This can be an extremely stressful discovery for folks who like rules or like to know "what 'they' did before" because these things provide a kind of safety net: stay within the lines and you won't go wrong.

I have been there and I understand the stress. I also understand really wanting to know the truth so you can follow the truth and being totally frustrated with the fact that so many things in Catholicism are a judgment call. But its actually a way God asks us to grow. You have to be humble and courageous at the same time, to be able to say "this is what my conscience says, and I am open always to correction, but this is the truth as I see it" and then live in congruence with that.

This is why St. Thomas was able to write his opinions about things without going nuts. He did not fear, even knowing there was a good chance some of what he wrote might be wrong. (and was wrong. about the immaculate conception, for example.)  

i think I do have a fear of getting something wrong and being some material heretic... Perhaps its a response to my ex Protestantism lol. I do value purity of doctrine but sometimes I'm too fearful even investigating things. This topic is also hard to approach totally objectively.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I don't know... I think this thread is probably confusing / scandalous to many people - I'm even confused by myself. Lol. Is there any way it could just be deleted? Also if anyone is confused from all this please just talk to a good priest. I want to speak to my priest anyway. Whether my understanding of St Thomas is correct or incorrect... And any possible implications... Should be discussed with a priest. I also don't want to cause people to be confused or troubled by their past. Just trust in God's love and speak to a knowledgeable priest if this is troubling you  even if this understanding of St Thomas is correct, God's love is no less for you. And if I'm mistaken in my understanding Im really sorry. Most of all I just don't want to cause people to go through such pain over their old sins as I go through over my sinful pre-Catholic past and all the scruples I have wanting to be 100% certain and correct.

Edited July 14, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Maggyie]

MLF don't worry! This is an interesting thread and a good read. I enjoy reading these different perspectives. Not scandalous at all :)

[MarysLittleFlower]

MLF don't worry! This is an interesting thread and a good read. I enjoy reading these different perspectives. Not scandalous at all

I'm glad its not scandalous for you Maggyie.. I just don't want people to get confused and spread my confusion to them. Lol. If anyone has questions like if they want to be a CV please speak to  priest I'm just a random person online with zero theological training and I have nothing to prove, rather I only post about my own difficulties.  I can be wrong. And even if i happen somehow to be right, nothing is hopeless and God's love doesn't change for anyone.

 

Edited July 14, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[veritasluxmea]

I don't know... I think this thread is probably confusing / scandalous to many people - I'm even confused by myself. Lol. Is there any way it could just be deleted? Also if anyone is confused from all this please just talk to a good priest. I want to speak to my priest anyway. Whether my understanding of St Thomas is correct or incorrect... And any possible implications... Should be discussed with a priest. I also don't want to cause people to be confused or troubled by their past. Just trust in God's love and speak to a knowledgeable priest if this is troubling you  even if this understanding of St Thomas is correct, God's love is no less for you. And if I'm mistaken in my understanding Im really sorry. Most of all I just don't want to cause people to go through such pain over their old sins as I go through over my sinful pre-Catholic past and all the scruples I have wanting to be 100% certain and correct.

I said earlier I was confused so I'll address you.

I can only speak for myself, but what I meant was, I'm confused about what you are thinking. The way you write and think is beautiful, but it is rather flowing and feminine. To me, I read it as being here, then there, then somewhere else... A lot of great writers wrote like that (JPII, for instance, in Theology of the Body). That is a great thing; it just perplexes me and if I'm totally honest it can make me feel frustrated and more confrontational.  I tend to value logical, objective, "scientific" writing as superior to anything else and see people/writing that doesn't follow that as lesser than me or not worth my attention. (what can I say, I'm part German). Same with writing that is more feminine or "soft" sounding, I don't get it. Due to life circumstances and my personality I've taken a more masculine, adult role in my family and life most of the time. I'm struggling with how to phrase this, but it has made me more comfortable acting in a masculine role (protective, more confrontational, so on) Things that are "soft and flowery" can almost threaten my identity and image that I've built for myself; hence make me sound aggravated. Thanks be to God and His mercy, I'm learning to discern truth from falsehood in my identity and relationship with God, learning how to have a relationship with Him as my God, rely on Him and grow into the women He created me to be. But it takes a lifetime and if I sometimes sounds blunt, harsh, or so on in the meantime, please forgive me. And point it out gently- it doesn't bother me and I'll greatly appreciate it! 

So anyway, I don't care if I don't understand you and it doesn't bother me a bit that this topic is hard for me to understand what the point of the questions are. I don't have anxiety or stress about anything here and I'm even a bit amused at how the thread has turned out; I think things have been explained well and are wrapping up nicely. I'm glad to see that. Am I still perplexed at what happened? Yes. Do I care? not really. Am I happy with phatmass community right now for their charity in discussion? Very much yes. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

No problem! and I see what you mean about my writing... Haha. Just to help maybe I'll say it a bit more directly St Thomas SEEMS to say that any willful completed experience of lust takes away virginity. I mean formal literal virginity. This can mean more than just the marital act. Whether this interpretation is accurate I'd check with a priest. He also says that virginity cant be restored, unlike chastity. Then a Venerable had a revelation that though virginity can't be restored, Christ can somehow communicate His own virginity maybe giving the soul virginal qualities. (Even though theyre not a virgin). This doesn't restore their own virginity or make them eligible to be a CV but it can be a special union with God. I was trying to check if my understanding is correct to avoid some theological error. I'll ask my priest later cause he's very knowledgeable.  Maybe that's not any more clear  i often talk in a way that isn't precise enough its true.

Edited July 14, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[julianneoflongbeach]

I was gunna throw in my two cents about how they didn't contradict each other, but it seems you've got it figured out now.

 

 

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

I was gunna throw in my two cents about how they didn't contradict each other, but it seems you've got it figured out now.

 

 

 

Do you mean St Thomas and Ven Conchita?  

[Gabriela]

We usually hold conversations like this in the VS for a good reason.