Spiritual Virginity and Social Stigma

[Lost_Wanderer]

I skimmed through a couple posts about people saying there are actually two types of virginity. The spiritual and the physical. So essentially, does this mean the Church believes you’re no longer a virgin for even harboring sexual thoughts?

I know somebody’s just going to come around and throw the verse about lust committing adultery with one’s heart yadayadayada. That’s not what I want to talk about.

What I want to talk about is why does the Church actually not even preach this very often? I mean if the religion most known for advocating chastity and abstinence would go as far as to declare that even a dirty mind is enough to declare you a non-virgin, it’s a surprisingly win-win situation!

On the one hand, the guys who’ve never gotten laid but think about it no longer have to deal with the social stigma attached to it. By Church standards, they’ve already gotten some just by watching porn.

On the Church’s hand, it can raise its standard for purity and temper its resolve against the secular world it oh-so despises.

So I really gotta wonder, why aren’t bishops just boldly declaring, “Quit picking on those who’ve never gotten laid! They’re just as naughty as you think yourselves are! And if you think being naughty is cool well then those ‘losers’ are just as cool as you are minus your six-pack steroids! :tsktsk:”

 

[1ke]

I skimmed through a couple posts about people saying there are actually two types of virginity. The spiritual and the physical. So essentially, does this mean the Church believes you’re no longer a virgin for even harboring sexual thoughts?

I don’t know what posts you have been reading or what the context of such a comment might have been.

There is no such thing as “two types” of virginity and no, the Church does not teach anything such as “spiritual virginity” or that one is no longer a virgin for having sexual thoughts.

The Church does teach us about the virtues of chastity, purity, and modesty.

What I want to talk about is why does the Church actually not even preach this very often?

Very often? How about never. Because there is no such teaching.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I don’t know what posts you have been reading or what the context of such a comment might have been.

Start here. Posts #12 and #13 seem quite telling.

 

[1ke]

Start here. Posts #12 and #13 seem quite telling.

People’s personal waxing philosophic on an internet form does not equal actual Church teaching.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

People’s personal waxing philosophic on an internet form does not equal actual Church teaching.

Yet these people cite Thomas Aquinas and his Summa. And really, don’t you think it’s also a symptom of a really troubled movement in the pro-chastity and abstinence camp? They cite and speak as if they were authorities of Church teaching regarding the virtues of the virgin mind.

 

[Xantippe]

Yet these people cite Thomas Aquinas and his Summa. And really, don’t you think it’s also a symptom of a really troubled movement in the pro-chastity and abstinence camp? They cite and speak as if they were authorities of Church teaching regarding the virtues of the virgin mind.

“Custody of the eyes” is very old school Catholic practice.

I’ve never heard the phrase “virgin mind.” In fact, I was just googling it, and it doesn’t seem to be Protestantese or Catholicese at all.

 

[808Catholic]

Yet these people cite Thomas Aquinas and his Summa. And really, don’t you think it’s also a symptom of a really troubled movement in the pro-chastity and abstinence camp? They cite and speak as if they were authorities of Church teaching regarding the virtues of the virgin mind.

The devil quotes Scripture as well as anyone but that doesn’t mean we should follow the evil one. What is your original point? Was it that Catholics who practice chastity are being persecuted by their secular peers?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I wonder if this “spiritual virginity” is related to how the church treated the virgin martyrs. Despite many of them being raped they were still considered virgins because the sex act was not voluntary and the state of virginity referred to the purity of their souls and the fact that they still belonged only to God, body and soul.

 

[bolinstephen]

Since the Church does not actually define “virgin mind” and " spiritual virginity," I suppose these terms could have a variety of definitions.

The definitions of these terms seem to me to be largely unhelpful in pursuing virtue and avoiding sin. Because of Jesus’ death and resurrection and the Sacraments, our past no longer defines our future.

Go and sin no more.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Goodness Gracious. Me,

 

[ialsop]

Sigh.no, no such thing as “spiritual virginity”. But…there is “custody of the eyes”. And perhaps that is what they were trying to express, but did so poorly. Think about custody of the eyes, but I wouldnt give many scruples to this “spiritual virginity” thing…

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

“Custody of the eyes” is very old school Catholic practice.

I’ve never heard the phrase “virgin mind.” In fact, I was just googling it, and it doesn’t seem to be Protestantese or Catholicese at all.

The devil quotes Scripture as well as anyone but that doesn’t mean we should follow the evil one. What is your original point? Was it that Catholics who practice chastity are being persecuted by their secular peers?

I use the term virgin mind just cover the attitude I found in the thread I mentioned. One poster mentioned the Summa of Aquinas while another even refers it as “Virginity of the Heart.”

My question is why isn’t the concept championed by Church leaders? It can easily set a standard for sexual morality all the while those who suffer the social stigma of never actually experiencing sex can be a little relieved knowing the Church condemns them to the much coveted non-virgin status by the vice of their thoughts alone.

I’ve seen so many people whine about the sexual revolution on these boards, it’s shocking that they haven’t taken the next step of declaring that thoughts alone can loose one’s virginity.

I wonder if this “spiritual virginity” is related to how the church treated the virgin martyrs. Despite many of them being raped they were still considered virgins because the sex act was not voluntary and the state of virginity referred to the purity of their souls and the fact that they still belonged only to God, body and soul.

Can you give an actual name? I’ve never heard of a saint who was actually violated yet still considered a virgin by the Church.

 

[underacloud]

My question is why isn’t the concept championed by Church leaders?

As 1ke points out, this is not a concept held by the Church. So no, the Church should not champion it.

You point out that Aquinas discusses such concepts in the Summa. But the Summa is not a Church document; it is not an authoritative teaching. The Church widely references the Summa, but only then is that teaching from the Summa a part of Church teaching. And the Church has not adopted this section of the Summa as teaching.

It can easily set a standard for sexual morality all the while those who suffer the social stigma of never actually experiencing sex can be a little relieved knowing the Church condemns them to the much coveted non-virgin status by the vice of their thoughts alone.

Social stigma of virginity - what are you talking about? The Church has always held virginity in very high esteem.

The Church has a hard enough time convincing people of appropriate sexual ethics without introducing such extreme ideas as one losing their virginity through thoughts alone.

 

[DarkLight]

I wonder if this “spiritual virginity” is related to how the church treated the virgin martyrs. Despite many of them being raped they were still considered virgins because the sex act was not voluntary and the state of virginity referred to the purity of their souls and the fact that they still belonged only to God, body and soul.

That’s really the only place I’ve heard that sort of term as well. It refers to the idea that one can lose their physical virginity through coercion but still be considered a virgin by the Church.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Social stigma of virginity - what are you talking about? The Church has always held virginity in very high esteem.

I didn’t say the stigma was one branded by the Church. On the contrary, it’s the stigma by the modern society that’s considered the ultimate adversary by those among the faithful.

The Church has a hard enough time convincing people of appropriate sexual ethics without introducing such extreme ideas as one losing their virginity through thoughts alone.

Yes it is an extreme. And yet, there are those running with loose lips declaring it the equivalent of spiritual dogma. Maybe instead of convincing lapsed outsiders of appropriate sexual ethics, they should keep tabs on pious followers with distorted ideas about those ethics. At least the former knows it’s in complete disagreement with Church teaching.

 

[underacloud]

I didn’t say the stigma was one branded by the Church. On the contrary, it’s the stigma by the modern society that’s considered the ultimate adversary by those among the faithful.

So you’d like the Church to declare any virgins who have had sexual thoughts to be non-virgins, so secular society doesn’t make fun of them?

Yes it is an extreme. And yet, there are those running with loose lips declaring it the equivalent of spiritual dogma. Maybe instead of convincing lapsed outsiders of appropriate sexual ethics, they should keep tabs on pious followers with distorted ideas about those ethics. At least the former knows it’s in complete disagreement with Church teaching.

The Church’s sexual ethics are on the whole well known inside and outside of the Church. I don’t know what these distorted ideas are that you’re talking about - well, apart from the one’s you seem to be suggesting.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So you’d like the Church to declare any virgins who have had sexual thoughts to be non-virgins, so secular society doesn’t make fun of them?

Well if the faithful keep suggesting that virginity is a state of mind and not just body, it’d certainly be a win-win situation. Just sayin.’

The Church’s sexual ethics are on the whole well known inside and outside of the Church.

Yet you claim there are those with a distorted view of them.

I don’t know what these distorted ideas are that you’re talking about - well, apart from the one’s you seem to be suggesting.

Did you check out the thread I mentioned?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Can you give an actual name? I’ve never heard of a saint who was actually violated yet still considered a virgin by the Church.

I have found this.

abbey-roads.blogspot.com/2012/01/virgin-martyrs.html

 

[underacloud]

Well if the faithful keep suggesting that virginity is a state of mind and not just body, it’d certainly be a win-win situation. Just sayin.’

Not unless you’re a virgin who wants to pretend to the secular word that you’re a non-virgin…which is just silly.

Yet you claim there are those with a distorted view of them.

I said the Church’s sexual ethics are **on the whole **well known. Quibbling about the semantics of them are but peripheral considerations from people who probably have too much time on their hands.

Or as 1ke said:

“People’s personal waxing philosophic on an internet form does not equal actual Church teaching.”

Did you check out the thread I mentioned?

Yes. It’s a mess so far.

And now in this thread your own position seems to be flip-flopping. I no longer know what exactly you are asking or advocating.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Not unless you’re a virgin who wants to pretend to the secular word that you’re a non-virgin…which is just silly.

As silly as the idea that you stop being a virgin by the vice of your own thoughts eh? Then again, the fact is there could be many more among the faithful who will undoubtedly like that thought.

I’m just saying it can be enjoyed both ways.