Spiritual Virginity and Social Stigma

[underacloud]

Then again, the fact is there could be many more among the faithful who will undoubtedly like that thought.

Which is irrelevant. The Church is not a democracy, so it doesn’t really matter how many people like this idea, it simply isn’t true.

But the Church proudly teaches chastity, continence outside of marriage, “custody of the eye”, avoiding lustful thoughts, etc. There’s no need to create or reinvent terms that add nothing to this and only muddy the waters.

I still have no real idea what you are advocating.

 

[DanielJT]

Maybe this will help a little. It is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the Ninth Commandment:

2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. the apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the "spirit."301 Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.302

Desires are natural as far as they stem from our fallen nature (which is not God’s intended nature of us but a part of us now regardless). How we deal with these desires determines if we sin within our heart. How we act on these desires determines if we sin with our bodies.

The rest of what the Catechism has to say can be found here:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8P.HTM

I do not see any explicit mentioning of “virgin minds” but it does mention “lust of the eyes” distinguished by St. John in 1John 2:16. It seems to me that the label of virgin is not as important as the striving for purity.

Either way, telling others not to pick on virgins because they think about sex too does not seem like a legitimate pursuit or very helpful way to encourage purity.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I do not see any explicit mentioning of “virgin minds” but it does mention “lust of the eyes” distinguished by St. John in 1John 2:16. It seems to me that the label of virgin is not as important as the striving for purity.

Either way, telling others not to pick on virgins because they think about sex too does not seem like a legitimate pursuit or very helpful way to encourage purity.

All I’m saying is that if merely having thoughts is enough to put us in the same sexually deviant hell in Satan’s hand basket, why then doesn’t the Church just equate virginity with purity while equating virginity with a state of mind, no longer body?

 

[Xantippe]

All I’m saying is that if merely having thoughts is enough to put us in the same sexually deviant hell in Satan’s hand basket, why then doesn’t the Church just equate virginity with purity while equating virginity with a state of mind, no longer body?

Because virginity and chastity are completely separate concepts–it’s possible to be an unchaste virgin or to be a chaste non-virgin.

I think the words you are reaching for are “chaste” and “unchaste.” There’s no need to drag “virgin” in where it doesn’t belong and rendering it useless for the work it currently does.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Because virginity and chastity are completely separate concepts–it’s possible to be an unchaste virgin or to be a chaste non-virgin.

Clearly, you need to talk to those who will beg to disagree.

I think the words you are reaching for are “chaste” and “unchaste.” There’s no need to drag “virgin” in where it doesn’t belong and rendering it useless for the work it currently does.

The thing is I’m not really the the one doing this. Don’t shoot the exhibitor for showing specimens of what real religious Catholics post on these boards. I’m sure you’re among the first to tell me these people aren’t representatives of the whole institution.

It’s just feels less convincing when these same people continue to perpetuate what seems to be a falsehood. Meanwhile, I get the same old serving of condemnation and moralist browbeating as with the rest of the 'ol wicked secularists.

 

[DanielJT]

All I’m saying is that if merely having thoughts is enough to put us in the same sexually deviant hell in Satan’s hand basket, why then doesn’t the Church just equate virginity with purity while equating virginity with a state of mind, no longer body?

Because there is a distinction as noted in 1John 2:16. And I don’t know if the same exact place in hell is reserved for those who act on it in body and those who dwell on it in mind.

Matthew 5:28 Says that looking at a woman with lust means that you have already committed adultery with her in your heart. But she hasn’t. Actually committing the act in body and heart involves another human being. Just like the difference between thinking about murder and actually murdering someone. Both are wrong, but one is particularly person while the other steps over the line into the community. The first seems to be a direct denial of loving God, while the second seems to be a denial of loving God and loving your neighbor because it involved them directly in the sin.

An interesting aside which may or may not be related to this - God did not actually come down until both Adam AND Eve had partaken in the fruit from the tree.

I am only extrapolating from what I understand of the faith. Like anyone on this forum I should be always open to correction (in reference to your being upset with others promoting the ideas in your original post and not you)

But I am still curious where you stand on this. You seem to be upset that others are promoting this idea of “spiritual virginity” but then you also seem to be arguing in favor of it. What are your thoughts?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

But I am still curious where you stand on this. You seem to be upset that others are promoting this idea of “spiritual virginity” but then you also seem to be arguing in favor of it. What are your thoughts?

It’s the fact that the higher-ups can’t make up their minds and they’re just letting the spiritual virgin camp run their mouths. Like the thread I shared, I’m not sure if it’s orthodox or not to call myself an unchaste virgin anymore.

There are plenty of teachings I disagree with, true. This one I can’t decide on because there’s no binding definition of virginity to begin with!

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I am so confused by this thread. Are you saying that you want the church to come out and say that you’re just as dirty/experienced/exciting/whatever as someone who has had sex? And you want this to happen so that secular society will stop ridiculing you for virginity?

I think that even if the church did label you a sexual bad boy, it wouldn’t have the effect that you want. If someone made fun of you for being a virgin, and you puffed up your chest and said “My church says that my fantasies make me just as experienced as your sexual history makes you!”, do you really think that would earn anyone’s respect? Or do you think that making such a statement would only lead to worse mocking?

I think you’re likely to find yourself in the same position as a 13 year old Jewish boy. Sure, within his religious community he is a man, but that argument isn’t going to hold up in the secular world when a cop busts him for trying to buy beer. The Pope himself could declare you as experienced as someone who’s been having sex for decades, but good luck explaining to anyone else that seeing it is the same as doing it.

As a side note: How old are you? Doesn’t virginal status stop mattering after the age of 20 or so? Who mocks people for that?

 

[underacloud]

It’s the fact that the higher-ups can’t make up their minds and they’re just letting the spiritual virgin camp run their mouths. Like the thread I shared, I’m not sure if it’s orthodox or not to call myself an unchaste virgin anymore.

There are plenty of teachings I disagree with, true. This one I can’t decide on because there’s no binding definition of virginity to begin with!

There’s no “binding definition” because it’s an everyday word with a commonly accepted meaning.

The Oxford dictionary defines virginity thus: “The state of never having had sexual intercourse.”

If you want a more detailed treatment of it from a moral perspective, you can try here:

newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm

This article is wordy and may be difficult to follow, but it addresses your question thus:

“It is to be remarked, on the one hand, that material virginity is not destroyed by every sin against the sixth or ninth commandment, and on the other hand that the resolution of virginity extends to more than the mere preservation of bodily integrity, for if it were restricted to material virginity, the resolution, at least outside the married state, might coexist with vicious desires, and could not then be virtuous.”

In other words, you are still a virgin (materially).

 

[underacloud]

I am so confused by this thread. Are you saying that you want the church to come out and say that you’re just as dirty/experienced/exciting/whatever as someone who has had sex? And you want this to happen so that secular society will stop ridiculing you for virginity?

I think that even if the church did label you a sexual bad boy, it wouldn’t have the effect that you want. If someone made fun of you for being a virgin, and you puffed up your chest and said “My church says that my fantasies make me just as experienced as your sexual history makes you!”, do you really think that would earn anyone’s respect? Or do you think that making such a statement would only lead to worse mocking?

Yes, I had the exact same thought.

Imagine telling your friends that you’ve lost your virginity. They will want details. And so you tell them that you lost your spiritual virginity by having unchaste thoughts.

The mocking will be merciless!

Better not to discuss such issues. Or better yet, be a good witness to our faith and let people know you intend to remain a virgin until marriage.

 

[Xantippe]

I am so confused by this thread. Are you saying that you want the church to come out and say that you’re just as dirty/experienced/exciting/whatever as someone who has had sex? And you want this to happen so that secular society will stop ridiculing you for virginity?

I think that even if the church did label you a sexual bad boy, it wouldn’t have the effect that you want. If someone made fun of you for being a virgin, and you puffed up your chest and said “My church says that my fantasies make me just as experienced as your sexual history makes you!”, do you really think that would earn anyone’s respect? Or do you think that making such a statement would only lead to worse mocking?

I think you’re likely to find yourself in the same position as a 13 year old Jewish boy. Sure, within his religious community he is a man, but that argument isn’t going to hold up in the secular world when a cop busts him for trying to buy beer. The Pope himself could declare you as experienced as someone who’s been having sex for decades, but good luck explaining to anyone else that seeing it is the same as doing it.

As a side note: How old are you? Doesn’t virginal status stop mattering after the age of 20 or so? Who mocks people for that?

Yes.

And why do you want to be friends with them?

 

[Potter]

Does spiritual virginity refer to being mentally innocent, the way a young child might be – completely ignorant of the power and mystery of sex, not at all interested in jokes about it, largely oblivious to what the opposite sex looks like or why the sight might be of interest? I was sheltered as a kid, so it wasn’t until 9th grade that I started to understand half of what was being said around me (in regards to this), but I can remember how children in elementary school were using sexual innuendo. This was before the internet was widely available, so I can’t imagine how quickly young minds are ruined these days. I was so sheltered I thought sex itself was a bad word until 7th grade.

 

[DarkLight]

Does spiritual virginity refer to being mentally innocent, the way a young child might be – completely ignorant of the power and mystery of sex, not at all interested in jokes about it, largely oblivious to what the opposite sex looks like or why the sight might be of interest? I was sheltered as a kid, so it wasn’t until 9th grade that I started to understand half of what was being said around me (in regards to this), but I can remember how children in elementary school were using sexual innuendo. This was before the internet was widely available, so I can’t imagine how quickly young minds are ruined these days. I was so sheltered I thought sex itself was a bad word until 7th grade.

No. Sex is by itself a good and right thing and it is good that people understand it. Nor is it in any way against purity for someone to simply be aware of sex or even to feel attraction.

 

[marymary1975]

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.

1ke is completely right. There is no such thing as a virginity division. The person in the post you mentioned is confusing terms. That person is probably confused as to chastity and what viginity entails. There is no such thing as spiritual virginity. There is a lot of people that is confused as to the actual teachings of the church and many people who don’t understand what chastity is. Do not go by what people that has confused concept say. Go directly to the church sources.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Or do you think that making such a statement would only lead to worse mocking?

I think you and I have more sense to word the proclamation more differently. Imagine the news, “Pope Declares Virginity a State of Mind.”

Imagine the stereotypes that will finally crumble down. It could potentially destroy the notion that just because I haven’t slept with a girl in my life, it means I’m as clueless as a nun when it comes sex.

As a side note: How old are you? Doesn’t virginal status stop mattering after the age of 20 or so? Who mocks people for that?

Won’t the same question apply in reverse to the spiritual camp that praises virginity of the mind?

There’s no “binding definition” because it’s an everyday word with a commonly accepted meaning.

Not according to the Catholic camp that styles itself superior and claims that the spiritual transcends and defines the physical.

 

[underacloud]

Not according to the Catholic camp that styles itself superior and claims that the spiritual transcends and defines the physical.

From what I’ve read no one, in this thread or the other you are following on this, has suggested that their discussion of spiritual virginity is a binding Church teaching.

And they have clarified in the other thread that context is important. The use of a word needs to be unserstood and clearly defined in the context in which it is used.

So again, when you say to your friends “I am not a virgin” it is important what you mean and what they understand by it. If they understand that it means you have had sexual intercourse, then you’ve used the word wrong!

As I’ve said, ordinary use of the word virginity refers to one who has not had sexual intercourse. If you use the word without clarifying that you mean something different, it is natural and appropriate that anyone will assume this meaning.

 

[Xantippe]

From what I’ve read no one, in this thread or the other you are following on this, has suggested that their discussion of spiritual virginity is a binding Church teaching.

And they have clarified in the other thread that context is important. The use of a word needs to be unserstood and clearly defined in the context in which it is used.

So again, when you say to your friends “I am not a virgin” it is important what you mean and what they understand by it. If they understand that it means you have had sexual intercourse, then you’ve used the word wrong!

As I’ve said, ordinary use of the word virginity refers to one who has not had sexual intercourse. If you use the word without clarifying that you mean something different, it is natural and appropriate that anyone will assume this meaning.

Yes. How about we use words so that our hearers will understand us without explanation?

In any case, there is almost nobody aside from your doctor, confessor or a fiancee or near fiancee who needs detailed information about your personal life. Everybody else (including close friends and close relatives) can take, “I’m still looking!” and like it.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

From what I’ve read no one, in this thread or the other you are following on this, has suggested that their discussion of spiritual virginity is a binding Church teaching.

Saying that a Church Doctor like Aquinas has got your back stills says a lot apparently. Or will you, from henceforth, stop considering citations from said Church Doctor to automatically carry the same weight as speaking for the entire institution?

As I’ve said, ordinary use of the word virginity refers to one who has not had sexual intercourse. If you use the word without clarifying that you mean something different, it is natural and appropriate that anyone will assume this meaning.

Look, I’m just saying that with everything the Pope saying often flying in the face of conservative believers (just look at what happened when he called the flock to stop buying Creationism), you’d think the same might happen if he declared virginity a state of mind.

 

[thewanderer]

Saying that a Church Doctor like Aquinas has got your back stills says a lot apparently. Or will you, from henceforth, stop considering citations from said Church Doctor to automatically carry the same weight as speaking for the entire institution?

Anyone who claims that anything Aquinas said can be automatically assumed to be official Church teaching is full of it. Are his teachings to be highly respected? of course, he was an extremely intelligent man and there is a reason he is a doctor of the Church, but that does not mean that he is infallible or that everything he says is official Church teaching.

Look, I’m just saying that with everything the Pope saying often flying in the face of conservative believers (just look at what happened when he called the flock to stop buying Creationism), you’d think the same might happen if he declared virginity a state of mind.

And again, really, what is the point of trying to get the Pope to declare virginity a state of the mind? Its not, as BEL and others have pointed out, going to actually give you any more “street cred”. So really, what is your actual motivation behind pushing this particular statement?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

And again, really, what is the point of trying to get the Pope to declare virginity a state of the mind? Its not, as BEL and others have pointed out, going to actually give you any more “street cred”. So really, what is your actual motivation behind pushing this particular statement?

Your skepticism seems to ignore the tendency for people to hang on to every word out of the Pope’s mind and the impact of people citing Church Doctors.

Then again, that often comes at the expense of dismissing the things they say more frequently so…