St Thomas and virginity

[Lilllabettt]

OK just because I think it would be extremely sad if someone came upon this thread one day and said "ugh I can't be a consecrated virgin" because they have masturbation in their past - and for that reason never pursued the consecration --pllleeeease talk to your spiritual director. Please. I am not discerning this vocation but it is BEAUTIFUL and NEEDED. And you should not let anything here shut you down prematurely.

 

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?

Credo, to answer your question: No. It does not. Of course if a woman's conscience has been formed in such a way that she  does not believe she is a virgin then she should not present herself for the Consecration. My conscience has been formed in such a way that I believe a person cannot give their virginity to a thing, or to themselves, but only to another person ( a human being. or the Trinity, God Himself.)

Mary'sLittleFlower's perspective is legit but its the minority view, I'm pretty sure, among spiritual directors. For most women who discern this vocation its not a thing. It's very much a matter of conscience though, so if anyone out there reading this is troubled about it, consult a spiritual director. Don't shrug and say "guess its not for me." OK lurkers of phatmass?

 

 

Edited July 13, 2015 by Lilllabettt
added credo's 'question

[veritasluxmea]

This is so confusing. I always wonder what a non-Catholics reaction to threads like these are. 

1. It sounds like there are different types of virginity here? Obviously masturbation doesn't "lose your virginity" the same way having sex with the opposite gender does, but it still ruins your purity. There are "anything but" types of virgins where they haven't gone all the way, but who are technically virgins although obviously not virtuous at all. Then there are married people (somewhere out there) who are pure and chaste in their sexual relationship with their spouse who are technically not physical virgins but are more like spiritual virgins in their love for the Lord. 

It sounds like when St Thomas talks about virginity, he really means purity. Perhaps he's using those words interchangeably. 

2. I think this issue needs to be cleared.  If someone had sex in the past, I don't think they are automatically disqualified from being a diocesan CV. Or if they masturbasted, for that point. could you maybe give a clearer answer @Sponsa-Christi. 

Maybe this should be moved to the adult topic table. 

Edited July 13, 2015 by veritasluxmea

[marigold]

I always wonder what a non-Catholics reaction to threads like these are. 

I feel exhausted by the reductionism and slightly icked out by the obsession with sex.

God is so much bigger than this.

[Credo in Deum]

@Lilllabettt: I was thinking along the same lines. I think this will depend on ones conscience and spiritual director. I was just curious if there was any official stance by the Church.

@veritasluxmea: Right now I don't see a need to move the topic.  There hasn't been any racy stuff in this thread.  At least not that I can see.

[veritasluxmea]

I feel exhausted by the reductionism and slightly icked out by the obsession with sex.

If I wasn't culturally raised Catholic I would honestly have no idea what everyone was talking about and even I'm icked out.

idk I just always view it through the thought of purity not physical virginity and I think that's what St Thomas means as well, but for his time period they would see and describe it as physical virginity. For example, St Theresa of Avila describes how she damaged or ruined her virginity before converting to Christ. Most scholars who have studied her life agree she didn't actually damage her physical virginity, but did something socially inappropriate at the time: held hands, talked immodestly, spent time unchaperoned with the person, ect. At the most they might have kissed, and even that's not a given. But purity and virginity kind of blend together when they talked back then, hence the confusion nowadays. 

Or maybe I'm totally off. Anyways, being concerned with the virtue of purity, and not physical virginity, works for me. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

This is so confusing. I always wonder what a non-Catholics reaction to threads like these are. 

1. It sounds like there are different types of virginity here? Obviously masturbation doesn't "lose your virginity" the same way having sex with the opposite gender does, but it still ruins your purity. There are "anything but" types of virgins where they haven't gone all the way, but who are technically virgins although obviously not virtuous at all. Then there are married people (somewhere out there) who are pure and chaste in their sexual relationship with their spouse who I would describe as spiritual virgins. 

It sounds like when St Thomas talks about virginity, he really means purity. Perhaps he's using those words interchangeably. 

2. I think this issue needs to be cleared.  If someone had sex in the past, I don't think they are automatically disqualified from being a diocesan CV. Or if they masturbasted, for that point. could you maybe give a clearer answer @Sponsa-Christi. 

Maybe this should be moved to the adult topic table. 

1. As a very rough-and-ready answer...I would agree that St. Thomas is using the word virginity to mean something closer to our term "purity." Which is sort of the point I was trying to make earlier about St. Thomas and modern theologians talking past each other.

2. Re. the question of who qualifes to be a CV...

Right now, the canonical qualification is worded as: "...never having lives in public or manifest violation of chastity." This has been interpreted in a few different ways. Some people read it very loosely, and take it to mean something like "...as long as your sexual sins aren't notorious (e.g., you haven't cohabited with anyone), you may be consecrated." However, the problem with this interpretation is that it ignores the obvious historical precedent of consecrated virginity meaning literal virginity.

A very strict interpretation would be something like "...you may be consecrated as long as you never sinned in the presence/with the cooperation of another person." This stricter interpretation is what tends to be favored by the U.S. Association of CVs, and by Card. Burke. But the problem with this interpretation is it doesn't really address what counts as a "violation of chastity," so it's hard to know where to draw a line for eligibility for the consecration of virgins. But it should be noted that even reading the current law as strictly as possible, "solitary sin" would not make a woman ineligible for the consecration of virgins, because this is not a PUBLIC violation of chastity. 

As a canonist, I would tend to lean towards a more strict interpretation of the law in this case. But practically speaking, what I tell women who are discerning consecrated virginity and who are confused about whether or not certain actions of theirs were disqualifying "public violations of chastity" (i.e., women who have not actually had intercourse, but may have done other unchaste actions) is to examine their conscience and talk to their spiritual director. If they feel in conscience that they cannot present themselves as virgins, then they shouldn't discern this vocation. If they do see themselves as virgins, then their past sins aren't anyone else's concern. 

But yes, overall I would agree this is a huge gap in the Church's laws that hopefully will be resolved at some point!

I feel exhausted by the reductionism and slightly icked out by the obsession with sex.

God is so much bigger than this.

I do agree that sometimes discussions on virginity here can get overly biological and, for lack of a better word, "icky."

Still, the Church has always seen literal virginity as a charism and a virtue. Granted, it's not the most important virtue, and it's not a charism which is given to everyone. But virginity is still something which is meaningful and necessary for the Church as a whole. God certainly is bigger than canonical definitions of virginity, but virginity is still a means through which God manifests His glory.

[Credo in Deum]

I feel exhausted by the reductionism and slightly icked out by the obsession with sex.

God is so much bigger than this.

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

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.

i see what you mean Sponsa Christi... I thought maybe St Thomas was talking there about states that are more perfect? Like a higher state of life. It doesn't mean of course that others aren't meant to be perfect and Saints.

I also know private revelation isn't doctrine but I'm asking the question to make sure that I'm not erring in believing this way. That's why I made this thread but now there's a whole discussion about who is a virgin etc...

My question was just about the revelation and how to understand it and the part about 'purpose of virginity'. This isn't meant against you at all or anyone in particular but I just find it kind of difficult sometimes on phatmass how a person might come witha specific question and then the thread becomes something else. I never intended for it to be a discussion on who is a virgin... Its ok if people ask but its just that my actual question didn't get addressed. I'm sorry if I sound annoyed - I'm honestly not I just really hope to find an answer

[marigold]

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

My question was just about the revelation and how to understand it and the part about 'purpose of virginity'. This isn't meant against you at all or anyone in particular but I just find it kind of difficult sometimes on phatmass how a person might come witha specific question and then the thread becomes something else. I never intended for it to be a discussion on who is a virgin... Its ok if people ask but its just that my actual question didn't get addressed. I'm sorry if I sound annoyed - I'm honestly not I just really hope to find an answer

Ok, to try to answer that original question...I think St. Thomas' idea of a "restored purpose of virginity" is sort of very roughly equivalent to our idea of "second chance virginity." As in, you may not be a literal virgin, but you are still living a life of very intentional purity and wholehearted devotion to God.

[MarysLittleFlower]

OK just because I think it would be extremely sad if someone came upon this thread one day and said "ugh I can't be a consecrated virgin" because they have masturbation in their past - and for that reason never pursued the consecration --pllleeeease talk to your spiritual director. Please. I am not discerning this vocation but it is BEAUTIFUL and NEEDED. And you should not let anything here shut you down prematurely.

 

Credo, to answer your question: No. It does not. Of course if a woman's conscience has been formed in such a way that she  does not believe she is a virgin then she should not present herself for the Consecration. My conscience has been formed in such a way that I believe a person cannot give their virginity to a thing, or to themselves, but only to another person ( a human being. or the Trinity, God Himself.)

Mary'sLittleFlower's perspective is legit but its the minority view, I'm pretty sure, among spiritual directors. For most women who discern this vocation its not a thing. It's very much a matter of conscience though, so if anyone out there reading this is troubled about it, consult a spiritual director. Don't shrug and say "guess its not for me." OK lurkers of phatmass?

 

 

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?

[Sponsa-Christi]

MLF, I don't have the citation handy, but I believe St. Thomas said that virginity is lost through completed acts of venereal pleasure. I don't want to venture too far into a biological discussion, but there are mortally sinful unchaste acts which still fall short of being "complete" in a certain important respect. (Hoping you can read though the forest of euphemisms here!) 

[MarysLittleFlower]

This is so confusing. I always wonder what a non-Catholics reaction to threads like these are. 

1. It sounds like there are different types of virginity here? Obviously masturbation doesn't "lose your virginity" the same way having sex with the opposite gender does, but it still ruins your purity. There are "anything but" types of virgins where they haven't gone all the way, but who are technically virgins although obviously not virtuous at all. Then there are married people (somewhere out there) who are pure and chaste in their sexual relationship with their spouse who are technically not physical virgins but are more like spiritual virgins in their love for the Lord. 

It sounds like when St Thomas talks about virginity, he really means purity. Perhaps he's using those words interchangeably. 

2. I think this issue needs to be cleared.  If someone had sex in the past, I don't think they are automatically disqualified from being a diocesan CV. Or if they masturbasted, for that point. could you maybe give a clearer answer @Sponsa-Christi. 

Maybe this should be moved to the adult topic table. 

Sure it could probably should be moved to adult topic table... Any moderators? I think to me its pretty clear though if someone had sex they lost virginity and can't be a CV. I don't think St Thomas is talking about different types of virginity because his basic definition is a willful completed act. He didn't mean the medical view as Iunderstand because he talked about the will as defining it notparticular types of acts. The difference with married people is that they are chaste and not sinning - but they are not formal virgins... It just means that losingvirginity can be done with proper married chastity or through sin... Thats my undertanding... if only purity was necessary for CV then a widow could be a CV but she cant... I dont know if i have it right. 

If I wasn't culturally raised Catholic I would honestly have no idea what everyone was talking about and even I'm icked out.

idk I just always view it through the thought of purity not physical virginity and I think that's what St Thomas means as well, but for his time period they would see and describe it as physical virginity. For example, St Theresa of Avila describes how she damaged or ruined her virginity before converting to Christ. Most scholars who have studied her life agree she didn't actually damage her physical virginity, but did something socially inappropriate at the time: held hands, talked immodestly, spent time unchaperoned with the person, ect. At the most they might have kissed, and even that's not a given. But purity and virginity kind of blend together when they talked back then, hence the confusion nowadays. 

Or maybe I'm totally off. Anyways, being concerned with the virtue of purity, and not physical virginity, works for me. 

there is a view that virginity has more sides than physical which is more like what we mean by purity... I don't know how it all works with the other idea...   

[Sponsa-Christi]

Sure it could probably should be moved to adult topic table... Any moderators? I think to me its pretty clear though if someone had sex they lost virginity and can't be a CV. I don't think St Thomas is talking about different types of virginity because his basic definition is a willful completed act. He didn't mean the medical view as Iunderstand because he talked about the will as defining it notparticular types of acts. The difference with married people is that they are chaste and not sinning - but they are not formal virgins... It just means that losingvirginity can be done with proper married chastity or through sin... Thats my undertanding... if only purity was necessary for CV then a widow could be a CV but she cant... I dont know if i have it right. 

 

Virginity is a different virtue than married chastity, or even purity more generally. Not everyone is called to a life of virginity, but not everyone in the Church needs to be.

Again, unless you have an academic theological background, I wouldn't let St. Thomas' exact words be a cause for scruples. Besides translation issues, he might have been using certain terms in a slightly different way than we would today. (Also, I suspect St. Thomas also used quite a few euphemistic expressions for topics like this one.) 

[MarysLittleFlower]

1. As a very rough-and-ready answer...I would agree that St. Thomas is using the word virginity to mean something closer to our term "purity." Which is sort of the point I was trying to make earlier about St. Thomas and modern theologians talking past each other.

2. Re. the question of who qualifes to be a CV...

Right now, the canonical qualification is worded as: "...never having lives in public or manifest violation of chastity." This has been interpreted in a few different ways. Some people read it very loosely, and take it to mean something like "...as long as your sexual sins aren't notorious (e.g., you haven't cohabited with anyone), you may be consecrated." However, the problem with this interpretation is that it ignores the obvious historical precedent of consecrated virginity meaning literal virginity.

A very strict interpretation would be something like "...you may be consecrated as long as you never sinned in the presence/with the cooperation of another person." This stricter interpretation is what tends to be favored by the U.S. Association of CVs, and by Card. Burke. But the problem with this interpretation is it doesn't really address what counts as a "violation of chastity," so it's hard to know where to draw a line for eligibility for the consecration of virgins. But it should be noted that even reading the current law as strictly as possible, "solitary sin" would not make a woman ineligible for the consecration of virgins, because this is not a PUBLIC violation of chastity. 

As a canonist, I would tend to lean towards a more strict interpretation of the law in this case. But practically speaking, what I tell women who are discerning consecrated virginity and who are confused about whether or not certain actions of theirs were disqualifying "public violations of chastity" (i.e., women who have not actually had intercourse, but may have done other unchaste actions) is to examine their conscience and talk to their spiritual director. If they feel in conscience that they cannot present themselves as virgins, then they shouldn't discern this vocation. If they do see themselves as virgins, then their past sins aren't anyone else's concern. 

But yes, overall I would agree this is a huge gap in the Church's laws that hopefully will be resolved at some point!

I do agree that sometimes discussions on virginity here can get overly biological and, for lack of a better word, "icky."

Still, the Church has always seen literal virginity as a charism and a virtue. Granted, it's not the most important virtue, and it's not a charism which is given to everyone. But virginity is still something which is meaningful and necessary for the Church as a whole. God certainly is bigger than canonical definitions of virginity, but virginity is still a means through which God manifests His glory.

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... 

Ok, to try to answer that original question...I think St. Thomas' idea of a "restored purpose of virginity" is sort of very roughly equivalent to our idea of "second chance virginity." As in, you may not be a literal virgin, but you are still living a life of very intentional purity and wholehearted devotion to God.

 Ok thank you!

MLF, I don't have the citation handy, but I believe St. Thomas said that virginity is lost through completed acts of venereal pleasure. I don't want to venture too far into a biological discussion, but there are mortally sinful unchaste acts which still fall short of being "complete" in a certain important respect. (Hoping you can read though the forest of euphemisms here!) 

i see what you are saying I think... If I remember correctly he did mention things like the sin that was mentioned here before. I guess completed could be understood in different ways - but i don't know what he meant. Not going to go into more detail though yes 

I'm sorry to anyone if this discussion has been confusing or icky to read... I honestly just trying to find an answer about how to understand the revelation with Church teachings... The part about virginity being spiritually communicated though not restored as ones own. I don't want to go into biology etc either. If someone is confused if they can be a CV or not from reading this I'm also sorry... Just speak to a good priest not to me I'm trying to understand. I am having trouble reconciling some newer interpretations with the traditional interpretation about the will though.