And yet marriage remains the natural vocation (cf. Genesis) and virginity is an especial sacrifice, hence the value in virginity. It is a vocation, hence the elevation. Virginity is something that only some individuals are called to preserve. Everyone is called not to steal, murder, blaspheme, etc.for certain kinds of personalities, I’d say its quite normal, even expected.
I don’t disagree in any serious way, and I’m not trying to be argumentative. but for some, the sacrifice is easier than for others.And yet marriage remains the natural vocation (cf. Genesis) and virginity is an especial sacrifice, hence the value in virginity. It is a vocation, hence the elevation. Virginity is something that only some individuals are called to preserve. Everyone is called not to steal, murder, blaspheme, etc.
No doubt, but this is true of everything.I don’t disagree in any serious way, and I’m not trying to be argumentative. but for some, the sacrifice is easier than for others.
St. Paul speaks of us offering up our bodies as living sacrifices (see Romans 12:1). In 1 Corinthians 6:18, St. Paul tells us that sexual sins are distinct from other sins in that you sin against “your body” in some way. Essentially, while the heart is ultimately the most important criteria by which God will judge us, in an objective sense the body does matter. The Church has always praised the act of a woman offering her physical virginity to God (as a physical reality corresponding to the spiritual offering). Remember that Jesus comes to us through physical sacraments in our Catholic faith - everything we do in the Church, His body, is an extension of the Incarnation in one sense or another.Thank you for the information. I now know that there are different words for men and women, but I suppose I was more asking about the substance of the difference.
The CE begins by stating that virginity is common to both men and women.
Again, I am not asking about the details of anatomy. I am familiar with them. I am wondering rather what theological difference it makes that women can have physical proof of virginity. The entry does not actually state (perhaps I did not read carefully enough) what difference this really makes.
At a more pedestrian level, it is possible for a female virgin to have her hymen torn, i.e. a female virgin whose body is not integral.
Not to be annoying, but does that mean the honor only goes to female virgins who happen to have the hymen still intact?St. Paul speaks of us offering up our bodies as living sacrifices (see Romans 12:1). In 1 Corinthians 6:18, St. Paul tells us that sexual sins are distinct from other sins in that you sin against “your body” in some way. Essentially, while the heart is ultimately the most important criteria by which God will judge us, in an objective sense the body does matter. The Church has always praised the act of a woman offering her physical virginity to God (as a physical reality corresponding to the spiritual offering). Remember that Jesus comes to us through physical sacraments in our Catholic faith - everything we do in the Church, His body, is an extension of the Incarnation in one sense or another.
The article does say that in one sense, a spiritual, moral sense, virginity can be attributed to both men and women, but then it goes on to point out that the Church only honors women for physical virginity…
Okay, I’ll come back to answer this. No. It goes to those who have either dedicated their virginity to Christ through a vow or promise OR those have been consecrated as virgins by the bishop. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that virginity is only a virtue when it taken on as a lifelong commitment, often through vow. He comments elsewhere on the consecration to a life of virginity by the bishop and talks about the requirements for that to occur. For the special “crown” or aurole of virginity he goes into detailed explanation as to why they exist. If you’re interested in that discussion, here’s a link.Not to be annoying, but does that mean the honor only goes to female virgins who happen to have the hymen still intact?
Ah. It’s good that virginity can only be lost through consensual sexual experience. Otherwise this would all be a bit creepy.No. It goes to those who have either dedicated their virginity to Christ through a vow or promise OR those have been consecrated as virgins by the bishop. They cannot have voluntarily had sexual experience. Thus, many virgin martyrs were raped (involuntary on part of the martyr) because a virgin could not suffer capital punishment in ancient Rome. Medical procedures and accidental tearing due to things like horseback riding do not disqualify someone from being a virgin.
I never disputed this, so why mention it?St. Paul speaks of us offering up our bodies as living sacrifices (see Romans 12:1). In 1 Corinthians 6:18, St. Paul tells us that sexual sins are distinct from other sins in that you sin against “your body” in some way.
I never denied that either.Essentially, while the heart is ultimately the most important criteria by which God will judge us, in an objective sense the body does matter.
And that same offer is available to men.The Church has always praised the act of a woman offering her physical virginity to God (as a physical reality corresponding to the spiritual offering).
No one is denying the role of the body.Remember that Jesus comes to us through physical sacraments in our Catholic faith - everything we do in the Church, His body, is an extension of the Incarnation in one sense or another.
I do not see anything in the article that states that. Please cite.The article does say that in one sense, a spiritual, moral sense, virginity can be attributed to both men and women, but then it goes on to point out that the Church only honors women for physical virginity…
Super-creepy.The obsession with female virginity is almost creepy at some points.
Agreed. I barely see male virginity ever mentioned.Super-creepy.
Control of women through sex has been happening for years and years. Women are “sluts” for sleeping around, while guys are seen as cool, and this is in the secular world.I checked a list of female saints. I found the following included: Saints Julia, Leocadia, Margaret, Bibiana, Seraphia, and Eulalia. Each of these was listed as “Virgin, Martyr.” Per the topic of this thread, what puzzled me was the fact that in so honoring these women, the Church appears to put the fact that they did not have sex ABOVE the fact that they gave their lives for the Faith. I truly don’t understand that priority.
If you’re female as well, then I can see how this entire board could often make you feel like this. If you’re male, then I commend you for noticing this issue and how it is unfair to women.I feel like robbing a bank.
I’m just an ordinary bank robber, trying to make his way in the universe.If you’re female as well, then I can see how this entire board could often make you feel like this. If you’re male, then I commend you for noticing this issue and how it is unfair to women.
The obsession with female virginity is almost creepy at some points.
Super-creepy.
Have to agree with this.Agreed. I barely see male virginity ever mentioned.
This is a completely unfair comment, in the context of this strictly theological discussion, because it is clear from everyone’s comments that the Church teaches that both men and women are to be chaste according to their state of life. It is not a greater sin for a woman to have illicit sexual relations than it is for a man and no one has indicated otherwise. The Church has always highly valued male celibacy as well - why else would we have the predominantly celibate priesthood? The only point that I was making was that women who are called to consecrated virginity, a lifelong vocation involving solemns vows and a consecration by a bishop, are given a special glory and honor that no man can ever share. Celibate priests have their own glory…but it is distinct.Control of women through sex has been happening for years and years. Women are “sluts” for sleeping around, while guys are seen as cool, and this is in the secular world.
I didn’t say you disputed those points, I was simply providing context - physical virginity is valued in women because all physicality is valued…men are also called to offer up their bodies as living sacrifices, but cannot do so in the same manner. Obviously the heart is most important…and women (or men) who engage in illicit sexual relations and later repent of course can be holy and be saints…but we are talking about the unique and specific honor the Church gives to consecrated virgins, a vocation and an honor that is not available to men. (Just as the vocation of the priesthood is not available to women).I never disputed this, so why mention it?
I never denied that either.
And that same offer is available to men.
No one is denying the role of the body.
I do not see anything in the article that states that. Please cite.
The point remains that bodily integrity is not required for virginity, nor does bodily integrity make a female virgin superior or more laudable in any way than a virgin whose body is not integral.
I didn’t say you disputed those points, I was simply providing context - physical virginity is valued in women because all physicality is valued…men are also called to offer up their bodies as living sacrifices, but cannot do so in the same manner. Obviously the heart is most important…and women (or men) who engage in illicit sexual relations and later repent of course can be holy and be saints…but we are talking about the unique and specific honor the Church gives to consecrated virgins, a vocation and an honor that is not available to men. (Just as the vocation of the priesthood is not available to women). It isn’t simply a difference in terminology either…while both men and women can be called to celibacy, the callings are not identical. In the rite of consecration of virgins, the language of the Church is clear: the virgin is configured to mystically represent the Church as the virgin (pure) bride of Christ. A priest, on the other hand, in his ordination, is configured to represent Christ the groom. His “virginity” is a different “animal”, if you will, even if similar on practical levels.
You may be right regarding the virginity article in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I will revise my earlier statements to concede that virginity can apply to both men and women, but my comments still stand in regards to the specific vocation of consecrated virginity.
Et Cetera:
Super-creepy.The obsession with female virginity is almost creepy at some points.