W
Walking_Home
Guest
That type of corrupt Christianity imposed on women – is abuse.
- Status
That type of corrupt Christianity imposed on women – is abuse.
K
Kamaduck
Guest
Yes.
I’m so glad that Catholic teaching is never like that. It’s hard to believe all of the awful things that people have done in the name of God. I know that individual Catholics can be guilty of that, too, but I’m SO, SO glad that official teachings never seem encourage it.
I understand that virginity is good, and that avoiding sexual sin is good. I understand that taking a vow and becoming a consecrated virgin is a sacrifice that people should be commended for. But over-emphasizing virginity to the point that it becomes the most important thing about a woman- in some cases, more important than her life, or salvation itself- is an awful thing to do.
Anyways. I’m glad the Church doesn’t teach that.
B
Baelor
Guest
Really? Please show us where Catholic teaching supports this.
Yes, they can. They can not have sex. The physical integrity of the body does not map one-to-one onto female virgins, so the point is irrelevant anyway.
For men, it is called celibacy. There is an obvious difference between men and women. What is not clear is why you are saying that the Church gives specific and unique honor to consecrated virgins, but not to consecrated celibates who are not part of Holy Orders. Obviously, consecrated virginity is reserved for females, while consecrated celibacy is reserved for males, with the theological underpinnings that result. What is not clear is that female virgins are valued particularly more than male celibates. If that is not what you are saying, then my apologies.
Please demonstrate that for all female virgins physical integrity – which they may not have – is particularly valued.
Qua woman, but that has nothing to do with physicality.
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
Christianity is full of many beautiful paradoxes, and one of them is that is that consecrated virginity and marriage are both prized and seen as holy and good. It is not a competition between the two vocations. Virginity consecrated to God does not consist merely of the absence of a certain sin-- rather, it is a positive act, the act of sacrificing something good (marriage and children) in order to be able to dedicate oneself wholly to serving God. (Both married people and consecrated singles/virgins serve God–just in different ways. Each can do things in their state of life that the other cannot.)
G.K. Chesterton talks a little about this in his book Orthodoxy, in the chapter “The Paradoxes of Christianity.” (For context, you can read the whole chapter here.)
G.K. Chesterton talks a little about this in his book Orthodoxy, in the chapter “The Paradoxes of Christianity.” (For context, you can read the whole chapter here.)
F
Fairwinds
Guest
and yet virgins get a gold crown and a special song.
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
Give it up already.
That was a quote from St. Augustine, not from Sacred Scripture.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
it was from St. Jerome, and it was offered by someone supporting the proposition of the OP.Give it up already.
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
Speaking of Sacred Scripture, Chapter 14 of Revelation specifically mentions men who are virgins. Chapter 7 of I Corinthians discusses, specifically for both men and women, the value of remaining single to serve the Lord.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I think people are missing the point of what a sacrifice it originally was to be consecrated a virgin. It was not just giving up a husband. It was giving up children to take care of one in one’s old age. In our age, it would be like denouncing both marriage and Social Security benefits in order to dedicate oneself to God.
Furthermore, many of those who were praised as virgins and martyrs were martyred precisely because they had decided to remain virgins. They were “outed” as Christians because they rejected suitors who were determined to marry them. They had specifically rejected a comfortable life that could better be equated with being a kept piece of property (that is, the life a Roman matron) than virginity ever would be. To be a virgin was to be free, but also to be vulnerable, legally and physically.
It is not the absence of sex that makes virgins venerable. Chastity among Christians is pre-supposed. It is preferring to depend on Christ instead of depending on husband and family that makes the virgins particularly praiseworthy. All of the woman who are canonized virgins were canonized not for the state of their bodies, but for their dedication to Christ, to lives of fasting, prayer, and almsgiving. Still, a man who did not marry was never so vulnerable to the very real hazards of the World as a woman who did not marry, and so the sacrifice of the woman has historically been the more praised of the two.
Furthermore, many of those who were praised as virgins and martyrs were martyred precisely because they had decided to remain virgins. They were “outed” as Christians because they rejected suitors who were determined to marry them. They had specifically rejected a comfortable life that could better be equated with being a kept piece of property (that is, the life a Roman matron) than virginity ever would be. To be a virgin was to be free, but also to be vulnerable, legally and physically.
It is not the absence of sex that makes virgins venerable. Chastity among Christians is pre-supposed. It is preferring to depend on Christ instead of depending on husband and family that makes the virgins particularly praiseworthy. All of the woman who are canonized virgins were canonized not for the state of their bodies, but for their dedication to Christ, to lives of fasting, prayer, and almsgiving. Still, a man who did not marry was never so vulnerable to the very real hazards of the World as a woman who did not marry, and so the sacrifice of the woman has historically been the more praised of the two.
S
Shin
Guest
‘Christ is the head of the male virgins; Mary is the head of the female virgins. She is their author; she is the mother of our head, who is both son of a virgin and bridegroom of virgins. Hence masses of men and holy young women, male and female followers of perpetual continence, have sprouted, chastising themselves not only in body, but also castrating themselves in the very root of concupiscence, pondering the heavenly and angelic life in earthly mortality and holding perpetual incorruptibility in corruptible flesh.’
St. Isidore of Seville, Father and Doctor of the Church
'However, to demonstrate how great a gift of sanctity there is in virgins, John also ordered only those “who have not defiled themselves with women” [Apoc. 14:4] to cling to the feet of the Lamb. These are the hundred and forty-four thousand of the saints playing on their harps, of unimpaired virginity in their body, of inviolate chastity in their heart, “who follow the Lamb whereever he goes” [Apoc. 14:4]
St. Isidore of Seville, Father and Doctor of the Church
'Virgins, are the vitals of the Mystical Body, comparably close to God as the vitals of a physical body are close to the human heart. If only the swillers, gluttons and lechers among the heretics understood how pleasing is virginity in the eyes of God, how “they follow the Lamb wherever He goes, singing a new song before the throne which no one else can sing” (Apoc., xiv. 3, 4)!
If only they would read the promise which the Lord had spoken through the prophet Isaias: "Let not the eunuch say: ‘Behold I am a dry tree.’ For thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs; “I will give to them in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than sons and daughters. I will give them an everlasting name which shall never perish” (Is., lvi. 3, 4).
But the enemies of the Church will not read and will not understand. If only they realized that, by forcing consecrated virgins to marry, they are tearing at the very entrails of the Mystical Body and robbing it of its dearest possession. If only they realized this, I say, they would not so readily debauch the minds of the young with their devilish doctrine about the unchristian character of celibacy.’
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church
‘If anyone says that the married state is to be preferred to the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and happier to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be united in matrimony [cf. Matt. 19:11 f.;1 Cor. 7:25 f.;28-40]: let him be anathema.’
Council of Trent, Can. 10.
Note former quotations also many cases from Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
St. Isidore of Seville, Father and Doctor of the Church
'However, to demonstrate how great a gift of sanctity there is in virgins, John also ordered only those “who have not defiled themselves with women” [Apoc. 14:4] to cling to the feet of the Lamb. These are the hundred and forty-four thousand of the saints playing on their harps, of unimpaired virginity in their body, of inviolate chastity in their heart, “who follow the Lamb whereever he goes” [Apoc. 14:4]
St. Isidore of Seville, Father and Doctor of the Church
'Virgins, are the vitals of the Mystical Body, comparably close to God as the vitals of a physical body are close to the human heart. If only the swillers, gluttons and lechers among the heretics understood how pleasing is virginity in the eyes of God, how “they follow the Lamb wherever He goes, singing a new song before the throne which no one else can sing” (Apoc., xiv. 3, 4)!
If only they would read the promise which the Lord had spoken through the prophet Isaias: "Let not the eunuch say: ‘Behold I am a dry tree.’ For thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs; “I will give to them in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than sons and daughters. I will give them an everlasting name which shall never perish” (Is., lvi. 3, 4).
But the enemies of the Church will not read and will not understand. If only they realized that, by forcing consecrated virgins to marry, they are tearing at the very entrails of the Mystical Body and robbing it of its dearest possession. If only they realized this, I say, they would not so readily debauch the minds of the young with their devilish doctrine about the unchristian character of celibacy.’
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church
‘If anyone says that the married state is to be preferred to the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and happier to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be united in matrimony [cf. Matt. 19:11 f.;1 Cor. 7:25 f.;28-40]: let him be anathema.’
Council of Trent, Can. 10.
Note former quotations also many cases from Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Remember that consecrated virgins purposefully gave up any chance of the crown of motherhood and the praises of their husbands and children, in order to be dedicated to God. It was not so long ago that this was practically asking for a life of poverty, as well.
Be very sure that all of those who were faithful to what God called them to do will be justly praised, whether they marry or not and whether they have children or not. No one is going to go without a crown befitting his or her merit, to throw down as an offering before the glory of the throne of God. God knows our sacrifices, and those who choose fidelity even when it hurts will not go without their reward.
S
SerraSemper
Guest
Not necessarily “consensual”… It could be a solitary sin… It is sexual pleasure deliberately, completely and willingly experienced.
S
SerraSemper
Guest
Let’s be very clear here. The crown that is being referred to is not the essential crown of glory, but the special aureole given to virgins, doctors, and martyrs. Yes, all who go to Heaven will get a crown of glory. But special crowns will be given to the virgins, doctors, and martyrs according to long standing teaching of the Church. I linked to the passages in St. Thomas explaining these aureoles earlier. He explains why virginity chosen for the sake of the Kingdom (as opposed to default chastity) gets a special crown in Heaven. I am going to link to it once more but also quote a tiny part of it so that people who don’t want to bother to click can have a glimpse of what is being discussed.
LINK
Article 5. Whether an aureole is due on account of virginity?
Objection 1. It would seem that an aureole is not due on account of virginity. For where there is greater difficulty in the work, a greater reward is due. Now widows have greater difficulty than virgins in abstaining from the works of the flesh. For Jerome says (Ep. ad Ageruch.) that the greater difficulty certain persons experience in abstaining from the allurements of pleasure, the greater their reward, and he is speaking in praise of widows. Moreover, the Philosopher says (De Anim. Hist. vii) that “young women who have been deflowered desire sexual intercourse the more for the recollection of the pleasure.” Therefore the aureole which is the greatest reward is due to widows more than to virgins.
Objection 2. Further, if an aureole were due to virginity, it would be especially found where there is the most perfect virginity. Now the most perfect virginity is in the Blessed Virgin, wherefore she is called theVirgin of virgins: and yet no aureole is due to her because she experienced no conflict in being continent, for she was not infected with the corruption of the fomes [Cf. III, 27, 3]. Therefore an aureole is not due to virginity.
Objection 3. Further, a special reward is not due to that which has not been at all times praiseworthy. Now it would not have been praiseworthy to observe virginity in the state of innocence, since then was it commanded: “Increase and multiply and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28): nor again during the time of the Law, since the barren were accursed. Therefore an aureole is not due to virginity.
Objection 4. Further, the same reward is not due to virginity observed, and virginity lost. Yet an aureole is sometimes due to lost virginity; for instance if a maiden be violated unwillingly at the order of a tyrant for confessing Christ. Therefore an aureole is not due to virginity.
Objection 5. Further, a special reward is not due to that which is in us by nature. But virginity is inborn in every man both good and wicked. Therefore an aureole is not due to virginity.
Objection 6. Further, as widowhood is to the sixtyfold fruit, so is virginity to the hundredfold fruit, and to the aureole. Now the sixtyfold fruit is not due to every widow, but only, as some say, to one who vows to remain a widow. Therefore it would seem that neither is the aureole due to any kind of virginity, but only to that which is observed by vow.
Objection 7. Further, reward is not given to that which is done of necessity, since all merit depends on the will. But some are virgins of necessity, such as those who are naturally cold-blooded, and eunuchs. Therefore an aureole is not always due to virginity.
S
SerraSemper
Guest
On the contrary, A gloss on Exodus 25:25: “Thou shalt also make a little golden crown [coronam aureolam]” says: “This crown denotes the new hymn which the virgins sing in the presence of the Lamb, those, to wit, who follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth.” Therefore the reward due to virginity is called an aureole.
Further, It is written (Isaiah 56:4): “Thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs”: and the text continues (Isaiah 56:5): “I will give to them . . . a name better than sons and daughters”: and a gloss [St. Augustine, De Virginit. xxv] says: “This refers to their peculiar and transcendent glory.” Now the eunuchs “who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:12) denote virgins. Therefore it would seem that some special reward is due to virginity, and this is called the aureole.
I answer that, Where there is a notable kind of victory, a special crown is due. Wherefore since by virginity a person wins a signal victory over the flesh, against which a continuous battle is waged: “The flesh lusteth against the spirit,” etc. (Galatians 5:17), a special crown called the aureole is due to virginity. This indeed is the common opinion of all; but all are not agreed as to the kind of virginity to which it is due. For some say that the aureole is due to the act. So that she who actually remains a virgin will have the aureole provided she be of the number of the saved. But this would seem unreasonable, because in this case those who have the will to marry and nevertheless die before marrying would have the aureole. Hence others hold that the aureole is due to the state and not to the act: so that those virgins alone merit the aureole who by vow have placed themselves in the state of observing perpetual virginity. But this also seems unreasonable, because it is possible to have the same intention of observing virginity without a vow as with a vow. Hence it may be said otherwise that merit is due to every virtuous act commanded by charity. Now virginity comes under the genus of virtue in so far as perpetual incorruption of mind and body is an object of choice, as appears from what has been said above (Sent. iv, D, 33, 3, 1,2) [Cf. III, 152, 1,3]. Consequently the aureole is due to those virgins alone, who had the purpose of observing perpetual virginity, whether or no they have confirmed this purpose by vow–and this I say with reference to the aureole in its proper signification of a reward due to merit–although this purpose may at some time have been interrupted, integrity of the flesh remaining withal, provided it be found at the end of life, because virginity of the mind may be restored, although virginity of the flesh cannot. If, however, we take the aureole in its broad sense for any joy added to the essential joy of heaven, the aureole will be applicable even to those who are incorrupt in flesh, although they had not the purpose of observing perpetual virginity. For without doubt they will rejoice in the incorruption of their body, even as the innocent will rejoice in having been free from sin, although they had no opportunity of sinning, as in the case of baptized children. But this is not the proper meaning of an aureole, although it is very commonly taken in this sense.
Reply to Objection 1. In some respects virgins experience a greater conflict in remaining continent; and in other respects, widows, other things being equal. For virgins are inflamed by concupiscence, and by the desire of experience, which arises from a certain curiosity as it were, which makes man more willing to see what he has never seen. Sometimes, moreover, this concupiscence is increased by their esteeming the pleasure to be greater than it is in reality, and by their failing to consider the grievances attaching to this pleasure. In these respects widows experience the lesser conflict, yet theirs is the greater conflict by reason of their recollection of the pleasure. Moreover, in different subjects one motive is stronger than another, according to the various conditions and dispositions of the subject, because some are more susceptible to one, and others to another. However, whatever we may say of the degree of conflict, this is certain–that the virgin’s victory is more perfect than the widow’s, for the most perfect and most brilliant kind of victory is never to have yielded to the foe: and the crown is due, not to the battle but to the victory gained by the battle.
Reply to Objection 2. There are two opinions about this. For some say that the Blessed Virgin has not an aureole in reward of her virginity, if we take aureole in the proper sense as referring to a conflict, but that she has something more than an aureole, on account of her most perfect purpose of observing virginity. Others say that she has an aureole even in its proper signification, and that a most transcendent one: for though she experienced no conflict, she had a certain conflict of the flesh, but owing to the exceeding strength of her virtue, her flesh was so subdued that she did not feel this conflict. This, however, would seem to be said without reason, for since we believe the Blessed Virgin to have been altogether immune from the inclination of the fomes on account of the perfection of her sanctification, it is wicked to suppose that there was in her any conflict with the flesh, since such like conflict is only from the inclination of the fomes, nor can temptation from the flesh be without sin, as declared by a gloss St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei xix, 4 on 2 Corinthians 12:7, “There was given me a sting of my flesh.” Hence we must say that she has an aureole properly speaking, so as to be conformed in this to those other members of the Church in whom virginity is found: and although she had no conflict by reason of the temptation which is of the flesh, she had the temptation which is of the enemy, who feared not even Christ (Matthew 4).
Further, It is written (Isaiah 56:4): “Thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs”: and the text continues (Isaiah 56:5): “I will give to them . . . a name better than sons and daughters”: and a gloss [St. Augustine, De Virginit. xxv] says: “This refers to their peculiar and transcendent glory.” Now the eunuchs “who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:12) denote virgins. Therefore it would seem that some special reward is due to virginity, and this is called the aureole.
I answer that, Where there is a notable kind of victory, a special crown is due. Wherefore since by virginity a person wins a signal victory over the flesh, against which a continuous battle is waged: “The flesh lusteth against the spirit,” etc. (Galatians 5:17), a special crown called the aureole is due to virginity. This indeed is the common opinion of all; but all are not agreed as to the kind of virginity to which it is due. For some say that the aureole is due to the act. So that she who actually remains a virgin will have the aureole provided she be of the number of the saved. But this would seem unreasonable, because in this case those who have the will to marry and nevertheless die before marrying would have the aureole. Hence others hold that the aureole is due to the state and not to the act: so that those virgins alone merit the aureole who by vow have placed themselves in the state of observing perpetual virginity. But this also seems unreasonable, because it is possible to have the same intention of observing virginity without a vow as with a vow. Hence it may be said otherwise that merit is due to every virtuous act commanded by charity. Now virginity comes under the genus of virtue in so far as perpetual incorruption of mind and body is an object of choice, as appears from what has been said above (Sent. iv, D, 33, 3, 1,2) [Cf. III, 152, 1,3]. Consequently the aureole is due to those virgins alone, who had the purpose of observing perpetual virginity, whether or no they have confirmed this purpose by vow–and this I say with reference to the aureole in its proper signification of a reward due to merit–although this purpose may at some time have been interrupted, integrity of the flesh remaining withal, provided it be found at the end of life, because virginity of the mind may be restored, although virginity of the flesh cannot. If, however, we take the aureole in its broad sense for any joy added to the essential joy of heaven, the aureole will be applicable even to those who are incorrupt in flesh, although they had not the purpose of observing perpetual virginity. For without doubt they will rejoice in the incorruption of their body, even as the innocent will rejoice in having been free from sin, although they had no opportunity of sinning, as in the case of baptized children. But this is not the proper meaning of an aureole, although it is very commonly taken in this sense.
Reply to Objection 1. In some respects virgins experience a greater conflict in remaining continent; and in other respects, widows, other things being equal. For virgins are inflamed by concupiscence, and by the desire of experience, which arises from a certain curiosity as it were, which makes man more willing to see what he has never seen. Sometimes, moreover, this concupiscence is increased by their esteeming the pleasure to be greater than it is in reality, and by their failing to consider the grievances attaching to this pleasure. In these respects widows experience the lesser conflict, yet theirs is the greater conflict by reason of their recollection of the pleasure. Moreover, in different subjects one motive is stronger than another, according to the various conditions and dispositions of the subject, because some are more susceptible to one, and others to another. However, whatever we may say of the degree of conflict, this is certain–that the virgin’s victory is more perfect than the widow’s, for the most perfect and most brilliant kind of victory is never to have yielded to the foe: and the crown is due, not to the battle but to the victory gained by the battle.
Reply to Objection 2. There are two opinions about this. For some say that the Blessed Virgin has not an aureole in reward of her virginity, if we take aureole in the proper sense as referring to a conflict, but that she has something more than an aureole, on account of her most perfect purpose of observing virginity. Others say that she has an aureole even in its proper signification, and that a most transcendent one: for though she experienced no conflict, she had a certain conflict of the flesh, but owing to the exceeding strength of her virtue, her flesh was so subdued that she did not feel this conflict. This, however, would seem to be said without reason, for since we believe the Blessed Virgin to have been altogether immune from the inclination of the fomes on account of the perfection of her sanctification, it is wicked to suppose that there was in her any conflict with the flesh, since such like conflict is only from the inclination of the fomes, nor can temptation from the flesh be without sin, as declared by a gloss St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei xix, 4 on 2 Corinthians 12:7, “There was given me a sting of my flesh.” Hence we must say that she has an aureole properly speaking, so as to be conformed in this to those other members of the Church in whom virginity is found: and although she had no conflict by reason of the temptation which is of the flesh, she had the temptation which is of the enemy, who feared not even Christ (Matthew 4).
S
SerraSemper
Guest
Reply to Objection 3. The aureole is not due to virginity except as adding some excellence to the other degrees of continence. If Adam had not sinned, virginity would have had no perfection over conjugal continence, since in that case marriage would have been honorable, and the marriage-bed unsullied, for it would not have been dishonored by lust: hence virginity would not then have been observed, nor would an aureole have been due to it. But the condition of human nature being changed, virginity has a special beauty of its own, and consequently a special reward is assigned to it. During the time of the Mosaic law, when the worship of God was to be continued by means of the carnal act, it was not altogether praiseworthy to abstain from carnal intercourse: wherefore no special reward would be given for such a purpose unless it came from a Divine inspiration, as is believed to have been the case with Jeremias and Elias, of whose marriage we do not read.
Reply to Objection 4. If a virgin is violated, she does not forfeit the aureole, provided she retain unfailingly the purpose of observing perpetual virginity, and nowise consent to the act. Nor does she forfeit virginity thereby; and be this said, whether she be violated for the faith, or for any other cause whatever. But if she suffer this for the faith, this will count to her for merit, and will be a kind of martyrdom: wherefore Lucy said: “If thou causest me to be violated against my will, my chastity will receive a double crown” [Office of S. Lucy; lect. vi of Dominican Breviary, December 13th]; not that she has two aureoles of virginity, but that she will receive a double reward, one for observing virginity, the other for the outrage she has suffered. Even supposing that one thus violated should conceive, she would not for that reason forfeit her virginity: nor would she be equal to Christ’s mother, in whom there was integrity of the flesh together with integrity of the mind [Cf. II-II, 64, 3, ad 3; II-II, 124, 4, ad 2; II-II, 152, 1].
Reply to Objection 5. Virginity is inborn in us as to that which is material in virginity: but the purpose of observing perpetual incorruption, whence virginity derives its merit, is not inborn, but comes from the gift of grace.
Reply to Objection 6. The sixtyfold fruit is due, not to every widow, but only to those who retain the purpose of remaining widows, even though they do not make it the matter of a vow, even as we have said in regard to virginity.
Reply to Objection 7. If cold-blooded persons and eunuchs have the will to observe perpetual incorruption even though they were capable of sexual intercourse, they must be called virgins and merit the aureole: for they make a virtue of necessity. If, on the other hand, they have the will to marry if they could, they do not merit the aureole. Hence Augustine says (De Sancta Virgin. xxiv): “For those like eunuchs whose bodies are so formed that they are unable to beget, it suffices when they become Christians and keep the commandments of God, that they have a mind to have a wife if they could, in order to rank with the faithful who are married.”
Reply to Objection 4. If a virgin is violated, she does not forfeit the aureole, provided she retain unfailingly the purpose of observing perpetual virginity, and nowise consent to the act. Nor does she forfeit virginity thereby; and be this said, whether she be violated for the faith, or for any other cause whatever. But if she suffer this for the faith, this will count to her for merit, and will be a kind of martyrdom: wherefore Lucy said: “If thou causest me to be violated against my will, my chastity will receive a double crown” [Office of S. Lucy; lect. vi of Dominican Breviary, December 13th]; not that she has two aureoles of virginity, but that she will receive a double reward, one for observing virginity, the other for the outrage she has suffered. Even supposing that one thus violated should conceive, she would not for that reason forfeit her virginity: nor would she be equal to Christ’s mother, in whom there was integrity of the flesh together with integrity of the mind [Cf. II-II, 64, 3, ad 3; II-II, 124, 4, ad 2; II-II, 152, 1].
Reply to Objection 5. Virginity is inborn in us as to that which is material in virginity: but the purpose of observing perpetual incorruption, whence virginity derives its merit, is not inborn, but comes from the gift of grace.
Reply to Objection 6. The sixtyfold fruit is due, not to every widow, but only to those who retain the purpose of remaining widows, even though they do not make it the matter of a vow, even as we have said in regard to virginity.
Reply to Objection 7. If cold-blooded persons and eunuchs have the will to observe perpetual incorruption even though they were capable of sexual intercourse, they must be called virgins and merit the aureole: for they make a virtue of necessity. If, on the other hand, they have the will to marry if they could, they do not merit the aureole. Hence Augustine says (De Sancta Virgin. xxiv): “For those like eunuchs whose bodies are so formed that they are unable to beget, it suffices when they become Christians and keep the commandments of God, that they have a mind to have a wife if they could, in order to rank with the faithful who are married.”
S
SerraSemper
Guest
Difference according to St. Thomas between the essential reward of the Blessed and the aureole of virginity (and martyrdom and being a doctor):
I answer that, Man’s essential reward, which is his beatitude, consists in the perfect union of the soul with God, inasmuch as it enjoys God perfectly as seen and loved perfectly. Now this reward is called a “crown” or “aurea” metaphorically, both with reference to merit which is gained by a kind of conflict–since “the life of man upon earth is a warfare” (Job 7:1)–and with reference to the reward whereby in a way man is made a participator of the Godhead, and consequently endowed with regal power: “Thou hast made us to our God a kingdom,” etc. (Apocalypse 5:10); for a crown is the proper sign of regal power.
In like manner the accidental reward which is added to the essential has the character of a crown. For a crown signifies some kind of perfection, on account of its circular shape, so that for this very reason it is becoming to the perfection of the blessed. Since, however, nothing can be added to the essential, but what is less than it, the additional reward is called an “aureole.” Now something may be added in two ways to this essential reward which we call the “aurea.” First, in consequence of a condition attaching to the nature of the one rewarded: thus the glory of the body is added to the beatitude of the soul, wherefore this same glory of the body is sometimes called an “aureole.” Thus a gloss of Bede on Exodus 25:25, “Thou . . . shalt make another little golden crown,” says that “finally the aureole is added, when it is stated in the Scriptures that a higher degree of glory is in store for us when our bodies are resumed.” But it is not in this sense that we speak of an aureole now. Secondly, in consequence of the nature of the meritorious act. Now this has the character of merit on two counts, whence also it has the character of good. First, to wit, from its root which is charity, since it is referred to the last end, and thus there is due to it the essential reward, namely the attainment of the end, and this is the “aurea.” Secondly, from the very genus of the act which derives a certain praiseworthiness from its due circumstances, from the habit eliciting it and from its proximate end, and thus is due to it a kind of accidental reward which we call an “aureole”: and it is in this sense that we regard the aureole now. Accordingly it must be said that an “aureole” denotes something added to the “aurea,” a kind of joy, to wit, in the works one has done, in that they have the character of a signal victory: for this joy is distinct from the joy in being united to God, which is called the “aurea.” Some, however, affirm that the common reward, which is the “aurea,” receives the name of “aureole,” according as it is given to virgins, martyrs, or doctors: even as money receives the name of debt through being due to some one, though the money and the debt are altogether the same. And that nevertheless this does not imply that the essential reward is any greater when it is called an “aureole”; but that it corresponds to a more excellent act, more excellent not in intensity of merit but in the manner of meriting; so that although two persons may have the Divine vision with equal clearness, it is called an “aureole” in one and not in the other in so far as it corresponds to higher merit as regards the way of meriting. But this would seem contrary to the meaning of the gloss quoted above. For if “aurea” and “aureole” were the same, the “aureole” would not be described as added to the “aurea.” Moreover, since reward corresponds to merit, a more excellent reward must needs correspond to this more excellent way of meriting: and it is this excellence that we call an “aureole.” Hence it follows that an “aureole” differs from the “aurea.”
I answer that, Man’s essential reward, which is his beatitude, consists in the perfect union of the soul with God, inasmuch as it enjoys God perfectly as seen and loved perfectly. Now this reward is called a “crown” or “aurea” metaphorically, both with reference to merit which is gained by a kind of conflict–since “the life of man upon earth is a warfare” (Job 7:1)–and with reference to the reward whereby in a way man is made a participator of the Godhead, and consequently endowed with regal power: “Thou hast made us to our God a kingdom,” etc. (Apocalypse 5:10); for a crown is the proper sign of regal power.
In like manner the accidental reward which is added to the essential has the character of a crown. For a crown signifies some kind of perfection, on account of its circular shape, so that for this very reason it is becoming to the perfection of the blessed. Since, however, nothing can be added to the essential, but what is less than it, the additional reward is called an “aureole.” Now something may be added in two ways to this essential reward which we call the “aurea.” First, in consequence of a condition attaching to the nature of the one rewarded: thus the glory of the body is added to the beatitude of the soul, wherefore this same glory of the body is sometimes called an “aureole.” Thus a gloss of Bede on Exodus 25:25, “Thou . . . shalt make another little golden crown,” says that “finally the aureole is added, when it is stated in the Scriptures that a higher degree of glory is in store for us when our bodies are resumed.” But it is not in this sense that we speak of an aureole now. Secondly, in consequence of the nature of the meritorious act. Now this has the character of merit on two counts, whence also it has the character of good. First, to wit, from its root which is charity, since it is referred to the last end, and thus there is due to it the essential reward, namely the attainment of the end, and this is the “aurea.” Secondly, from the very genus of the act which derives a certain praiseworthiness from its due circumstances, from the habit eliciting it and from its proximate end, and thus is due to it a kind of accidental reward which we call an “aureole”: and it is in this sense that we regard the aureole now. Accordingly it must be said that an “aureole” denotes something added to the “aurea,” a kind of joy, to wit, in the works one has done, in that they have the character of a signal victory: for this joy is distinct from the joy in being united to God, which is called the “aurea.” Some, however, affirm that the common reward, which is the “aurea,” receives the name of “aureole,” according as it is given to virgins, martyrs, or doctors: even as money receives the name of debt through being due to some one, though the money and the debt are altogether the same. And that nevertheless this does not imply that the essential reward is any greater when it is called an “aureole”; but that it corresponds to a more excellent act, more excellent not in intensity of merit but in the manner of meriting; so that although two persons may have the Divine vision with equal clearness, it is called an “aureole” in one and not in the other in so far as it corresponds to higher merit as regards the way of meriting. But this would seem contrary to the meaning of the gloss quoted above. For if “aurea” and “aureole” were the same, the “aureole” would not be described as added to the “aurea.” Moreover, since reward corresponds to merit, a more excellent reward must needs correspond to this more excellent way of meriting: and it is this excellence that we call an “aureole.” Hence it follows that an “aureole” differs from the “aurea.”
E
EasterJoy
Guest
My point was that there will be no injustice in the merit recognized by heaven. Yes, those asked to give a special measure, if faithful, will be given a special reward. That is no loss to those not called to be virgins nor asked to give their lives for the faith; rather, when one reaches the particular perfection ordained for them by God, it is truly a cause for rejoicing for all.
Why a particular merit that benefits all makes a saint into some kind of chattel in the eyes of some in this thread is quite beyond me.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
really? anathema?
L
livingwordunity
Guest
What we do and what we don’t do are of equal importance.
Revelation 14:1-5
Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.
And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpers playing on their harps,
and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth.
It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb,
and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless.
- Status