How important is virginity to people in a new relationship?

[The_Bucket]

It’s more than just my personal difficulty with it though, their reasoning behind it seems mistaken. They seem to be picking a definition of proneia to mean invalid when the Greek definition for that word describes a whole list of sexual immoral acts.

Excuse my glibness, but you’re not a Biblical scholar, nor do you whole the entirety of revealed truth the way the Magesterium does. I’m certainly critical of how the Vatican operates from time to time and the temporal history of the Church is not a particularly superb one… but then again neither is all of humanity’s.

Nevertheless, if the Church is wrong with this, why is it not wrong when it comes to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? Or the nature of Christ? Or the Eucharist? Or God’s very existence? If one part of the doctrine is wrong, it might as well all be wrong.

That’s quite different from discipline or practice. I mean, priests have not always been celibate. There’s an open question as to whether women can be deaconesses. But the indissolubility of marriage, with the exceptions of the Petrine or Pauline Privilege, has been the teaching from the very start.

 

[The_Bucket]

Yes true but they were even confused by this issue in the early Church with some people saying adultery was grounds for divorce and remarriage while others saying you could divorce but could not remarry. The scripture itself lends credibility to the former.

Non-uniform practices of all sorts across various churches was common to be sure in the early days. But that’s why we had the councils of Jerusalem and Nicaea…

 

[holy_face]

Many of those things the Church has declared infallible already and are unchangeable, and while the Church has declared scripture to be infallible it has had different interpretations of it over time, I am not sure this particular interpretation has been deemed infallible or even when it was put into practice, because the early Church was not in agreement over it.

I am just interested in learning more about this particular interpretation and when and how it was put into practice.

 

[The_Bucket]

Many of those things the Church has declared infallible already and are unchangeable, and while the Church has declared scripture to be infallible it has had different interpretations of it over time, I am not sure this particular interpretation has been deemed infallible or even when it was put into practice, because the early Church was not in agreement over it.

If it’s in the doctrine, it’s infallible. The doctrine has been added to but never subtracted.

I am just interested in learning more about this particular interpretation and when and how it was put into practice.

I’ve got my minor in history and did a ton of work related to late antiquity and medieval Christianity… but I don’t know much about this specific issue, especially as it pertains to the “three strikes” rule in the East.

 

[mommamaree]

I am curious if anyone does know the answer to my previous question…

Does virginity prior to marriage insulate the marriage against adultery?

Are there any studies on this that anyone has ever seen? If my suspicions are correct, that would be another very good reason to support and promote the values of virginity and chastity. No one wants to see their future marriage destroyed by infidelity, and if virginity prior to marriage would reduce one’s overall risk of being affected by infidelity, people might grow to value it more again.

 

[mommamaree]

focusonthefamily.com/about_us/focus-findings/marriage/premarital-sex-and-divorce.aspx

I did a quick Google search and found this link from Focus on the Family. It appears to support my suspicions that virgins have a lower likelihood to suffer infidelity and divorce when they marry.

 

[holy_face]

I am constantly perplexed by the Church

 

[The_Bucket]

focusonthefamily.com/about_us/focus-findings/marriage/premarital-sex-and-divorce.aspx

I did a quick Google search and found this link from Focus on the Family. It appears to support my suspicions that virgins have a lower likelihood to suffer infidelity and divorce when they marry.

Well that logically follows given that many people who marry as virgins are generally more closely tied to their faiths, whatever those denominations may be. Of course, I could truthfully call myself a virgin prior to marriage and yet I carried plenty of chastity-related baggage that severely damaged my marriage once it cropped up again…

 

[holy_face]

focusonthefamily.com/about_us/focus-findings/marriage/premarital-sex-and-divorce.aspx

I did a quick Google search and found this link from Focus on the Family. It appears to support my suspicions that virgins have a lower likelihood to suffer infidelity and divorce when they marry.

It makes sense to me

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I am curious if anyone does know the answer to my previous question…

Does virginity prior to marriage insulate the marriage against adultery?

Definitely not. Adultery has existed since man walked the Earth. Virginity until marriage was much more prevalent in the past, yet adultery still occurred. That information has been told to me by several people that were born in the 1910s. It was obviously less common then, but it was not uncommon either.

I did a quick Google search and found this link from Focus on the Family. It appears to support my suspicions that virgins have a lower likelihood to suffer infidelity and divorce when they marry.

This is the correlation/causation issue. It’s not virginity per se, but the morals underlying it. If a virgin saves themselves for marriage because it is the moral thing to day, and believes the marriage is indissoluble, that marriage is likely to last. If a virgin does not have that mentality, and believes one can leave a marriage for a whole hosts of reasons (like 99.99% of secular people do today), then naturally the success rate with be far less.

 

[mommamaree]

Definitely not. Adultery has existed since man walked the Earth. Virginity until marriage was much more prevalent in the past, yet adultery still occurred. That information has been told to me by several people that were born in the 1910s. It was obviously less common then, but it was not uncommon either.

This is the correlation/causation issue. It’s not virginity per se, but the morals underlying it. If a virgin saves themselves for marriage because it is the moral thing to day, and believes the marriage is indissoluble, that marriage is likely to last. If a virgin does not have that mentality, and believes one can leave a marriage for a whole hosts of reasons (like 99.99% of secular people do today), then naturally the success rate with be far less.

I see your point. It is not the fact of being a virgin, but rather, if one’s virginity flows from embracing the moral teachings of the Church on chastity and marriage, then that is what leads to the protective effect against infidelity. Good point!

To The Bucket,
I think your point also points to what the Warrior Monk is saying, yes? That it is the devotion to one’s faith and chastity in a greater context, rather than the mere absence of previous sexual partners, that leads to the lower likelihood of infidelity…

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I do not believe my husband was my soul mate before we married. I believe God INTENDED him to be my soul mate, and he BECAME my soul mate officially upon marriage. My understanding of soul mate is that such a person is one whom God intends for us to marry. Now, we can reject God’s plan and select someone else, or no one at all, or we could ruin our chance at a happy marriage to our intended spouse by selfishness, but we will be heading down the road to grief.
I am not a romantic, nor an idealist. I am fairly pragmatic and practical about relationships and marriage. But when someone find a person that they know is compatible and is so special and they look at the circumstances that brought them together and they can see God’s hand in that, why would such a person reject the idea that that person is meant to be their soul’s mate?

I agree with you about 99.99999999% (As much as an atheist can agree with the notion of soulmates).

My husband and I are extremely compatible, and we were right from the start. We just “get” each other. Sure we have arguments, disagreements, and sometimes fights, but that never takes away from our marriage and our compatibility. I can assure you that if I ever believe in god, or anything even slightly supernatural, I will also believe that my husband is my soulmate.

HOWEVER-like you, I will believe that we are two very compatible people that god/fate/the universe/positive energy brought together and that we make the daily choice to love each other and be a part of that higher plan, because I do believe first and foremost that love is a choice, not a feeling.

In a letter that he gave me on our wedding night, my husband (very staunch atheist who entertains notions of the supernatural even less than I do) told me that sometimes I make him question if something more is out there, because he often feels like I am his what could only be described as soulmate, but how can soulmates exist without souls? Although it doesn’t seem romantic to many of you, to be told that my presence in someone’s life makes them wonder about god…that was the most beautiful thing I’ve ever been told.

 

[Xantippe]

TheWarriorMonk said:

“Virginity until marriage was much more prevalent in the past, yet adultery still occurred. That information has been told to me by several people that were born in the 1910s.”

In fact, if you look at Proverbs 5, you can see that adultery goes back rather farther than that.

biblehub.com/niv/proverbs/5.htm

The prohibition on adultery itself in the 10 commandments is also evidence for the prevalence of adultery as a temptation.

 

[mommamaree]

I agree with you about 99.99999999% (As much as an atheist can agree with the notion of soulmates).

My husband and I are extremely compatible, and we were right from the start. We just “get” each other. Sure we have arguments, disagreements, and sometimes fights, but that never takes away from our marriage and our compatibility. I can assure you that if I ever believe in god, or anything even slightly supernatural, I will also believe that my husband is my soulmate.

HOWEVER-like you, I will believe that we are two very compatible people that god/fate/the universe/positive energy brought together and that we make the daily choice to love each other and be a part of that higher plan, because I do believe first and foremost that love is a choice, not a feeling.

In a letter that he gave me on our wedding night, my husband (very staunch atheist who entertains notions of the supernatural even less than I do) told me that sometimes I make him question if something more is out there, because he often feels like I am his what could only be described as soulmate, but how can soulmates exist without souls? Although it doesn’t seem romantic to many of you, to be told that my presence in someone’s life makes them wonder about god…that was the most beautiful thing I’ve ever been told.

What a wonderful and beautiful way to begin your marriage! Thank you for sharing this. I agree that love is a choice. Warm feelings come and go, but to daily seek the best of one’s spouse, because you have promised to, that is real love. And to ponder the greater meaning behind what brought you together and what keeps you bound, this kind of thinking is a virtuous cycle that reaffirms your choice and enables us to continue to make that daily choice to love.

 

[mommamaree]

TheWarriorMonk said:

“Virginity until marriage was much more prevalent in the past, yet adultery still occurred. That information has been told to me by several people that were born in the 1910s.”

In fact, if you look at Proverbs 5, you can see that adultery goes back rather farther than that.

biblehub.com/niv/proverbs/5.htm

The prohibition on adultery itself in the 10 commandments is also evidence for the prevalence of adultery as a temptation.

This is true, but fornication goes all the way back as well. There does exist a correlation between virginity at the beginning of marriage (or at least, at the beginning of a betrothal that continues to marriage) and a reduced risk of divorce and infidelity. There has always been adultery and fornication, but there also have always been behaviors that are virtuous and are protective of the marital bond.

 

[Xantippe]

holy face,

I think we’re supposed to think the Church’s laws on marriage are hard.

Look back at Matthew 19:

"And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause? He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder. They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

To summarize the latter part of that:

1. Jesus says that whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, except in the case of unchastity. (I can’t recall if this has been mentioned, but for at least some people in the 1st century, their marriages would be very problematic in the eyes of the early church. Aside from adulterous marriages, there might be marriages between very near relatives. Such a marriage between near relatives might very well constitute porneia.)
2. The disciples say that in that case, it’s better not to marry.
3. Jesus says, yes, that’s true, but not everybody is able to be celibate.

In my opinion, the key to the passage is in the fact that the disciples are horrified by Jesus’s message–it’s obviously not a very inviting message to them.

I think it’s a mistake to think of Christian marriage as being the alternative to secular license. For the Christian, the options are 1) lawful marriage and 2) faithful abstinence.

For all the talk we’ve had in this thread about running down people for not being virgins before marriage, it’s a little weird that you have such a hard time dealing with the idea of monogamy and faithfulness after marriage. Surely it’s very much the same thing? If one can be indefinitely abstinent before marriage, one can be indefinitely abstinent after marriage just as well, or better, because one is older, more sensible, and more capable of self-restraint.

 

[holy_face]

holy face,

For all the talk we’ve had in this thread about running down people for not being virgins before marriage, it’s a little weird that you have such a hard time dealing with the idea of monogamy and faithfulness after marriage. Surely it’s very much the same thing? If one can be indefinitely abstinent before marriage, one can be indefinitely abstinent after marriage just as well, or better, because one is older, more sensible, and more capable of self-restraint.

But there is a big difference here and it has to do with vocation. Virginity before marriage is something that adds to the experience of marriage, it is part of the vocation of married life. Forced celibacy after your spouse has an affair is a forced vocation change by the Church for a reason beyond your control and that is not your fault. I never chose a vocation of a celibate priest or monk, it is not my calling, not my vocation in life.

In fact I don’t even believe in the celibacy policy for priests, it has been a disastrous policy actually.

I actually favor the Eastern tradition on these matters, the Latin tradition has this all wrong in my view.

 

[Xantippe]

holy face said:

“But there is a big difference here and it has to do with vocation. Virginity before marriage is something that adds to the experience of marriage, it is part of the vocation of married life. Forced celibacy after your spouse has an affair is a forced vocation change by the Church for a reason beyond your control and that is not your fault.”

I think you’ve got this backwards.

Virginity may add to the ability to fulfill the vocation of marriage, but it isn’t a requirement for marriage.

However, lifelong fidelity is the very essence of Christian marriage. Marriage is not some sort of general sex license–it is a vow to be faithful to one person. And that’s why it is actually really important for women not to rush willy nilly into marriage at the first opportunity–this is for life. If we marry, it has to be with the understanding that we are willing to be faithful to this person, no matter what.

And bear in mind that even without malice on the part of a spouse, there are many health conditions which may lead to them being unable to have sex. Or, they might suffer lengthy dementia.

That is the vocation of marriage.

“I never chose a vocation of a celibate priest or monk, it is not my calling, not my vocation in life.”

If you made vows of lifelong fidelity to one woman, that is your vocation. The vows were to be the husband of one woman as long as you both live.

And speaking of celibacy, as I once saw a priest explain, the difference between a celibate priest and a married man is just one woman. Looked at it that way, it isn’t such a huge difference.

(All of this are in cases where the vows themselves are actually binding, which they might not be in a variety of cases.)

“In fact I don’t even believe in the celibacy policy for priests, it has been a disastrous policy actually.”

Do compare the Latin Church to the East and to Protestants. As I think C.S. Lewis once said, the all-consuming temptation of the married man is toward avarice. There’s another quote by somebody else that says that “A married man with a family will do anything for money.” My husband and I quote that back and forth to each other quite a bit whenever he has to do something time-consuming or unpleasant for our family–it is true. Married Russian Orthodox priests traditionally have a rep for being money-grubbing, plus there’s a strong tradition of nepotism. The reputation for being money-grubbing may not be fair at all, but that’s the reputation. It may be different now, but the paradigmatic influential, effective, respected Russian Orthodox churchman is a monk, not a married priest. (I’ve lived and worked in Russia and I have an MA in Russian literature.)

The life of a Protestant pastor is very hard on wife and children. There’s a constant tug between the duties of family and the hundreds of sheep who are bleating to be fed, and a lot of times, the wife and children get the short end of the stick. And on top of that, they’re expected to be perfect and happy happy, while getting shorted on family time and attention.

Also, if you compare the East and the West, the East has a very poor record of missionary service, once you get past their heyday, which was 1,000 years ago. Celibate people just get a lot more done. St. Francis Xavier would not have been a better missionary for dragging a wife and ten kids around South and East Asia.

“I actually favor the Eastern tradition on these matters, the Latin tradition has this all wrong in my view.”

I suspect you are comparing the worst of Roman practice to the best of Eastern theory.

 

[The_Bucket]

the all-consuming temptation of the married man is toward avarice. There’s another quote by somebody else that says that “A married man with a family will do anything for money.” My husband and I quote that back and forth to each other quite a bit whenever he has to do something time-consuming or unpleasant for our family–it is true. Married Russian Orthodox priests traditionally have a rep for being money-grubbing, plus there’s a strong tradition of nepotism. The reputation for being money-grubbing may not be fair at all, but that’s the reputation. It may be different now, but the paradigmatic influential, effective, respected Russian Orthodox churchman is a monk, not a married priest. (I’ve lived and worked in Russia and I have an MA in Russian literature.)

Avarice and nepotism are the chief reasons the West abandoned the practice of married priests. Too much reserving/giving diocesan land to grown children, too much giving out of the local treasuries to their families, too much outright stealing. It was a major, major problem.

Think about the financial strain a family would impose on already struggling dioceses. Think about the temptations to do more for money. And also think about the priests living in poorer dioceses… and the potential temptations to use contraception in order to limit family size so the flock isn’t bearing the burden of larger families!

It’s not like having married priests is some kind of panacea. It comes with its own litany of risks and burdens. I’m not saying it’s something that should be outright dismissed. I’m saying that it has all kinds of very, very real risk factors. And it most certainly would do absolutely nothing to address any lingering sexual abuse issues.

 

[holy_face]

I think you’ve got this backwards.

Virginity may add to the ability to fulfill the vocation of marriage, but it isn’t a requirement for marriage.

However, lifelong fidelity is the very essence of Christian marriage. Marriage is not some sort of general sex license–it is a vow to be faithful to one person. And that’s why it is actually really important for women not to rush willy nilly into marriage at the first opportunity–this is for life. If we marry, it has to be with the understanding that we are willing to be faithful to this person, no matter what.

“No matter what” was not in any vows that I recited, sickness and health yes, but if the wife was sleeping with the whole neighborhood, sorry no deal.

I would probably have easy grounds for annulment if this happened since I was not a practicing Catholic at the time, was never given a Catholic education by my parents. I came to the Church later through RCIA well after I was married. So I did not understand this was the arrangement when I signed on the dotted line. I have always understood adultery to be grounds for a divorce, I would never agree to something that stated otherwise.