Male virgin saints

[madeleine_joy]

many female saints are called “saint Agnes, virgin” for example but i have not seen a male saint called “so & so virgin” , i know there are many many male saints that were virgins throughout their whole lives. Why do we not honor virginity (in this way) in male saints ?
A different question : i understand one one level why we honor virginity and complete dedication (marriage) to Jesus & that no vocation is “better” than another but on the other hand it sometimes seems like virginity is a more holy way of life than having sex with your one spouse (only after marriage , always open to life always turning away from lust) because of the way we revere virginity , this trips me up a bit. I know one (or more) of the saints have said sex is inherently good but i still can’t help but feel like staying a virgin throughout a whole lifetime is what is most holy from what i’ve read .

 

[HomeschoolDad]

many female saints are called “saint Agnes, virgin” for example but i have not seen a male saint called “so & so virgin” , i know there are many many male saints that were virgins throughout their whole lives. Why do we not honor virginity (in this way) in male saints ?

Good point. If I had to guess, and this is a bit more graphic than I really wish to be, especially addressing a lady, loss of virginity usually involves a physical change in the female (or put another way, being a virgin usually involves a certain physical integrity), whereas it does not in the male.

If so, that’s really kind of archaic, but may be the reason that male saints are not designated as being virgins.

 

[Anicette]

you can use the search function of the forum, this question had been treated by the past, including recently.

A man is never called a “virgin”, when we honor saints.

• It is a priviledge reserved for women. Virgin come from a latin word, “virgo” which designed a maid/young lady/unmarried woman. That is the origin.
• The other explanation of the previous poster, is good too! (physical integrity)
• the third explanation is a difference of destiny between the men and woman. And much more in history than now, women are destined to marriage. A man can do much more apart marriage. Choosing virginity was counter-cultural in the early Christianism, as it was something that almost not existed in the Roman Civilization.

Choosing celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is not “better”, or “holier” than the ordinary life in marriage. It is the extraordinary vocation, yet, it has a prophetic dimension, which can makes seems more important. The two form of life are complementary and enrich each others. It is how the Church see it now.
But we have to remember that the Christianism had started and grown thanks to the blood of martyrs, and many of theses martyrs were Virgins.

We have to know that religious congregation has the means, the power, to make make the life and the virtue of one of their founder/member public and are in a good position to introduce the cause of their sainthood to the Church officials. Lay people has not this network you can represents them and lobby for a canonization.

Contrary of you, I feel that today, virginity is old fashion in society, ridiculous, and taboo in the Church at best, not lived if we are realistic.

NOTE: Edit

 

[rightness]

That’s simply untrue, and it goes against what Jesus and St. Paul have advised.

Matthew 19:12

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.

This is the vocation call that Jesus talks about being celibate. Those who will focus their sexuality towards building up the Kingdom of Heaven, priests, nuns, even laypeople.

1 Corinthians 7:25-35

Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the impending distress it is well for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away.

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

Paul tells that a married person cannot devote themselves to God because his or her interests are divided. To truly commit yourselves to the work of God, you must not have your own family because you are called to take care of God’s family.

To call chastity, a virtue of God, a taboo and old fashioned simply misses the point. Chastity is meant to fight off Satan’s temptations to turn sex into lust. A person who remains a virgin will never have that temptation, just like our Mother and a lot of Saints. St Augustine knows the true value of chastity in his conversion, and I think to say virginity is unrealistic and ridiculous is to dishonor these saints, especially those who were matyred for the sake of being chaste.

 

[rightness]

Oh as for the topic, I definitely know of one saint that is honored as a virgin.

Saint Joseph!

Obviously, not as blatantly honored as a virgin like Mary, but the early church fathers often recount St Joseph’s call to chastity for the sake of keeping his wife, Mary, ever virgin, an eternal holy vessel of God. His chastity was paramount to God’s plan.

 

[PetraG]

Oh as for the topic, I definitely know of one saint that is honored as a virgin.

Saint Joseph!

Obviously, not as blatantly honored as a virgin like Mary, but the early church fathers often recount St Joseph’s call to chastity for the sake of keeping his wife, Mary, ever virgin, an eternal holy vessel of God. His chastity was paramount to God’s plan.

What? No. St. Joseph is not honored as a perpetual virgin. He may have even been married and fathered children before being widowed and then taking Our Lady into his home as his spouse. It is possible that the persons referred to in Holy Scriptures as Our Lord’s brothers and sisters were actually cousins, but it is also possible they were legally half-brothers and half-sisters, being the children of St. Jospeh.
St. Joseph’s litany lauds him as Protector of Virgins, but tradition does not definitively say whether he was a virgin himself or not.

 

[rightness]

What? No. St. Joseph is not honored as a perpetual virgin. He may have even been married and fathered children before being widowed and then taking Our Lady into his home as his spouse. It is possible that the persons referred to in Holy Scriptures as Our Lord’s brothers and sisters were actually cousins, but it is also possible they were legally half-brothers and half-sisters, being the children of St. Jospeh.
St. Joseph’s litany lauds him as Protector of Virgins, but tradition does not definitively say whether he was a virgin himself or not.

That notion is believed to be a hoax as its purpose is to explain “brethren of the Lord”. It only serves to confuse the dogma of Perpetual Virginity. Even the translator of the Vulgate, St. Jerome, defends the belief of St. Joseph’s virginity knowing the language of the Bible and the usage of “adelphoi”, the Greek word for relatives. People like to think the “brothers” of Jesus came from Joseph’s previous marriage, but they are simply relatives. Not only that, it would be scandalous if Jesus entrusted His Mother to His disciple instead of His relative as an observant Jew. Jesus simply had no relatives because Joseph simply had no other wives.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas wrote 12 reasons why Joseph was married to Mary, and his point was that it is fitting that God chosen a virgin to protect a virgin, that Joseph did not know the temptations that would thwart Mary’s perpetual virginity. Our Father entrusted His son to Joseph.

Of course, you are free to believe what you want. It’s not dogmatically important that Joseph is a virgin. It is just the tradition of the Church for thousands of years that have suddenly became into question since the Reformation.

As for that Litany, it does say “Chaste Guardian of the Virgin” and “Joseph most chaste” along with what you pointed out, “Guardian of virgins”.

 

[PetraG]

That notion is believed to be a hoax as its purpose is to explain “brethren of the Lord”. It only serves to confuse the dogma of Perpetual Virginity. Even the translator of the Vulgate, St. Jerome, defends the belief of St. Joseph’s virginity knowing the language of the Bible and the usage of “adelphoi”, the Greek word for relatives. People like to think the “brothers” of Jesus came from Joseph’s previous marriage, but they are simply relatives. Not only that, it would be scandalous if Jesus entrusted His Mother to His disciple instead of His relative as an observant Jew. Jesus simply had no relatives because Joseph simply had no other wives.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas wrote 12 reasons why Joseph was married to Mary, and his point was that it is fitting that God chosen a virgin to protect a virgin, that Joseph did not know the temptations that would thwart Mary’s perpetual virginity. Our Father entrusted His son to Joseph.

Of course, you are free to believe what you want. It’s not dogmatically important that Joseph is a virgin. It is just the tradition of the Church for thousands of years that have suddenly became into question since the Reformation.

As for that Litany, it does say “Chaste Guardian of the Virgin” and “Joseph most chaste” along with what you pointed out, “Guardian of virgins”.

I said he may have been married, not that he was married. The Church does not hold him up as an example of a male virgin, and that is what is plain and simple.

It would be “scandalous” to entrust your mother to your disciple who stuck at your mother’s side even as you were being crucified right in front of her? Well, it’s pretty “scandalous” to be crucified in the first place! It is “scandalous” for a virgin to come home from a visit to a relative in an obviously pregnant condition, too. Providence obviously did not avoid “scandal” in the crafting of our Redemption. I also have no idea what you mean by “Joseph did not know the temptations that would thwart Mary’s perpetual virginity.” What is that supposed to mean? You are not implying that men do not experience that kind of temptation until they have known a wife? Please tell me that you aren’t. St. Thomas may well have written that, but if he did it wasn’t one of his most unassailable arguments. Again: it is possible, but it is hardly a given.

As for the litany, we do all know that chastity and virginity are not the same thing. If they were, there would be no chaste marriages except that one. I don’t know where you got “hoax,” but it is possible that Joseph was not a virgin. I am not saying he was ever unchaste, mind you. I’m saying it is possible he was not a virgin.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

But we have to remember that the Christianism had started and grown thanks to the blood of martyrs, and many of theses martyrs were Virgins.

Not being critical, but why do you use the term “Christianism” instead of “Christianity”? It’s not unheard of, but it’s not the most common way of referring to the religion of Christ.

 

[twf]

It is, in fact, the tradition of the Eastern Churches that St Joseph was a widower and that St James et al were his sons. This is not a Reformation novelty as the other poster suggested.

 

[rightness]

It is, in fact, the tradition of the Eastern Churches that St Joseph was a widower and that St James et al were his sons. This is not a Reformation novelty as the other poster suggested.

Yeah, well the Eastern Churches do a lot of different things, especially when it comes to celibacy. That belief is probably to justify their lack of celibacy rules.

Catholics are rooted in the tradition of the Early Church Fathers and the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. I think to believe Joseph is not a virgin is counter to God’s intended plan for Mary. Again, Jesus would be committing a scandalous act in terms of Jewish tradition by letting His Mother be taken care of by a friend and not family.

 

[twf]

This post is incredibly condescending towards the Eastern Churches. The East has nothing to justify. The early Church ordained married men to the priesthood, as does the Catholic Church, in some cases, to this day. The Orthodox Churches, like the Catholic Church, value celibacy / monasticism most highly and both churches have a celibate episcopate.

For the record, both traditions are ancient. St Joseph as a widower is testified to by the early Church as well. Either tradition could be true.

 

[UpUpAndAway]

@Anicette is French; the French word for Christianity is Christianisme. Might just be a case of “lost in translation”…heaven knows words don’t always come over correctly when I go from English to French.

 

[Episcopalian]

This is an excellent question!

I always assumed that it was just an archaic sort of patriarchal mindset.
Such as:

Women are called to be wives and bear children but look at her! She gave up all that for God!!

Men are called to be celibate, or fathers, or whatever they want, so whatever they choose is up to them!

Just my assumption though! I’m interested what really is the true answer

 

[rightness]

This post is incredibly condescending towards the Eastern Churches. The East has nothing to justify. The early Church ordained married men to the priesthood, as does the Catholic Church, in some cases, to this day. The Orthodox Churches, like the Catholic Church, value celibacy / monasticism most highly and both churches have a celibate episcopate.

For the record, both traditions are ancient. St Joseph as a widower is testified to by the early Church as well. Either tradition could be true.

Some of the Early Fathers were influenced by Gnostic teachings, so there is a dispute. I can quote many Early Church fathers that don’t believe in it. Again, it’s not dogma, but to argue that Joseph is a non-virgin widower is to say God’s plan for Mary wasn’t perfect by having an unchaste guardian that knows the temptations of lust to be the Virgin’’ guardian.

And the progression of the discipline of celibate priest dates back to the Early Church. Yes, they allowed married clergy as they were starting to regulate it. The lack of celibacy caused extreme corruption in the Church, and it’s no surprised that Jesus Himself taught against it and would be an example against it. Celibacy developed over time, the discipline has been perfected and finalized for some time now. The only concessions being made now are those who weren’t a part of the church and was married, and, as you pointed out, Eastern Catholic ordain married men, but does not allow clergymen to be married, and married clergy cannot be bishops.

I have no doubt that when the Eastern Orthodox church comes back in full communion with the Catholic Church, the discipline will be reinstated in the East for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, as Jesus said.

 

[twf]

The Eastern tradition that St Joseph was a widower does not in any way mean he was unchaste! One can father children as a married man and be 100% chaste.

 

[whatistrue]

God’s plan for Mary wasn’t perfect by having an unchaste guardian

What evidence do you have that Joseph was unchaste if he was a widower? And do you also claim that virgins are incapable of being tempted by lust?

 

[rightness]

The Eastern tradition that St Joseph was a widower does not in any way mean he was unchaste! One can father children as a married man and be 100% chaste.

There is no 100% chaste outside of Jesus and Mary. Yes, that would mean Joseph is unchaste at some point as Jesus would elevate the meaning of adultery to sins of the mind. In order to be sure that the guardian of Mary did never know the practices of lust, it’s fitting for Joseph to be eternally celibate.

What evidence do you have that Joseph was unchaste if he was a widower? And do you also claim that virgins are incapable of being tempted by lust?

You should be asking if Joseph was unchaste at all. For that to happen, we would have to declare him immaculately conceived like Mary. Obviously, that’s not the case. Virgins are capable of being tempted, but Mary perfectly never gave into that temptation or any temptations, and Jesus too, of course.

 

[Pitcairn17]

You are in effect saying that a married man is by definition unchaste and a sinner just by virtue of not being a celibate virgin. All married people are called to that chastity - the rightly ordered permissible use of the sexual faculty within marriage - that St. Joseph undoubtedly lived were he a married man. You seem to be tied to a perverted idea of marital sexuality as being inherently sinful and full of lust.

 

[PetraG]

Yeah, well the Eastern Churches do a lot of different things, especially when it comes to celibacy. That belief is probably to justify their lack of celibacy rules.

Catholics are rooted in the tradition of the Early Church Fathers and the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. I think to believe Joseph is not a virgin is counter to God’s intended plan for Mary. Again, Jesus would be committing a scandalous act in terms of Jewish tradition by letting His Mother be taken care of by a friend and not family.

Just to be clear: our rules are also “just rules,” if you want to put it that way (as if “rules” are somehow not worth much). Priestly celibacy is a discipline in the Latin Church that can be dispensed with at the discretion of the Holy See. That is why we do have a few married men ordained to the ministerial priesthood from time to time. Besides, it is not as if the Eastern Church has no esteem for those who follow the evangelical counsels. Eastern bishops are taken from among the celibate priests–they do have them!!–and even married priests do not re-marry if their spouses pre-decease them.

I do not know where you get this idea that Jesus would be the least bit concerned with “scandalizing” people by violation of merely human traditions when it was warranted to achieve divine designs. Does the cleansing of the Temple, the conversation with the woman at the well, his defense of the woman caught in the act of the adultery, his defense of the known prostitute who washed his feet with her tears of contrition and dried them with her hair and his repeated public criticism of the way the ruling class imposed human ordinances not give ample proof that He did not let human convention stand in the way of the Divine Plan? If he didn’t want to “scandalize” people in order to teach them the reality of Mary’s place in salvation history, then why, when the woman in the crowd said, " Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed," did He reply “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” (Lk 11:27-28) It is also why He said, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and act on it.” (Lk 8:21) It was because it was according to God’s pleasure that Mary would be much more even than the spotless birth mother of the Son of God.

Our Lord gave Mary to John’s care in order to give His Bride, the Church, into Our Lady’s maternal care. The Father didn’t intend for her to be just a human mother figure among the children or relatives of one family, no matter how saintly. There wasn’t room in the norms of typical family expectations for the place intended for her. No, she was the spouse of the Holy Spirit and Mother of all Christians, the Mother of Priests, the Queen of Apostles. Anyone scandalized by that would have already been scandalized by how Our Lord talked about His Mother in the first place, no?