Spiritual Virginity and Social Stigma

[1ke]

Look, I’m just saying that with everything the Pope saying often flying in the face of conservative believers

I’m not sure what you mean by “conservative believers”. But as the Pope says, he is a “son of the Church”. Nothing he says is troubling at all. What the media **says **that he says is troubling in its dishonesty, but that’s not the Pope’s problem.

(just look at what happened when he called the flock to stop buying Creationism)

You are quite misinformed if you believe that is what the Pope did or what “the flock” does.

you’d think the same might happen if he declared virginity a state of mind.

Virginity is not a state of mind. Purity, modesty and chastity are virtues that extend to both to the mind and body. Virginity extends to physical integrity.

You seem to really have a hang up about virginity and a desire to not be classified as such. Have you talked to someone in a professional capacity (priest, counselor) about that?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You seem to really have a hang up about virginity and a desire to not be classified as such. Have you talked to someone in a professional capacity (priest, counselor) about that?

Actually, I have a hang up with Catholics who let their pious brethren run their mouths about virginity being a spiritual state while adding to the problem of its social stigma.

I wouldn’t mind being called an ‘unchaste virgin’ if it were not for this bizarre, confusing alleviation of the word by the likes of Aquinas and other spiritual works.

 

[1ke]

Actually, I have a hang up with Catholics who let their pious brethren run their mouths about virginity being a spiritual state

To whom do you refer and what do you propose to stop said Catholics?

while adding to the problem of its social stigma.

Why do you think virginity is a problem or a social stigma and why do you care?

I wouldn’t mind being called an ‘unchaste virgin’

You would mind being called a chaste virgin? After all, you are called to chastity in your state of life, unmarried would mead chaste AND virgin.

if it were not for this bizarre, confusing alleviation of the word by the likes of Aquinas and other spiritual works.

Perhaps some spiritual direction from your pastor would help. It is not bizarre at all. The virtues of chastity, purity, and modesty are virtues we are to cultivate in our state of life, whatever that is.

Do you not strive for holiness and purity?

 

[Vico]

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:”

Strict and flexible definitions exist for virginity.

Modern Catholic DictionaryVirginity:
The state of bodily integrity in either sex. This integrity may be physical or moral, and either factual or intentional. Physical virginity is sometimes defined as the absence of any sinfully experienced lustful sensation. But, strictly speaking, a person is physically a virgin unless he or she has had sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. Moral virginity means the absence of any willful consent to venereal pleasure; again, strictly speaking, with a person of the opposite sex. Virginity is factual when, de facto, a person has not in the past sought or indulged in sexual pleasure; it is intentional when a person intends never to experience such pleasure, according to the previous distinctions made. (Etym. Latin virgo, maiden, virgin.)

So if the flexible meaning of virgin is used it means no sin of lust so it includes unnatural vice.***

St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica II-II, 154, 11***Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust? I answer that, As stated above (A6,9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called “the unnatural vice.” This may happen in several ways.

• First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of “uncleanness” which some call “effeminacy.”
• Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called “bestiality.”
• Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm. 1:27): and this is called the “vice of sodomy.”
• Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.

 

[SlightlySceptic]

This is silly. If having unchaste thoughts made you not a virgin, then there would be no virgins at all. Everyone has an occasional thought, even young kids. It doesn’t mean they’re not a virgin. And, the concept of physical virginity surrounding intercourse, especially when judging virginity by supposed tearing (of the hymen in a female, or the frenulum in a male) that’s silly too because those things can happen without sex. Also, I find it absurd that people who have had other types of sex or same sex sex still consider themselves a virgin. That’s pretty dumb too.

 

[Vico]

This is silly. If having unchaste thoughts made you not a virgin, then there would be no virgins at all. Everyone has an occasional thought, even young kids. It doesn’t mean they’re not a virgin. And, the concept of physical virginity surrounding intercourse, especially when judging virginity by supposed tearing (of the hymen in a female, or the frenulum in a male) that’s silly too because those things can happen without sex. Also, I find it absurd that people who have had other types of sex or same sex sex still consider themselves a virgin. That’s pretty dumb too.

Having unchaste thoughts is merely a temptation and does not imply that they are “sinfully experienced”. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that “if one consent to them this increases the force of concupiscence and weakens the strength of the mind”.

 

[thewanderer]

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…

Seeing as I don’t know what you are referencing I can hardly respond to your point. But, it is still true that not everything st Thomas said or wrote is official. Church teaching. You know this is true, and so, it would be dishonest for you to continue to act as though this were official church teaching just because st Thomas wrote it.

I would still like an answer as to why you so badly want the Church to officially adopt this stance seeing as it will do nothing to help alleviate the stigma that some immature people in society place upon virgins. Be honest, what is your real motivation for this thread?

 

[Xantippe]

Come to think of it, Aquinas is a bit tricky for the beginner, because his format is to argue back and forth repeatedly, giving the best case he can think of for the opposing position, so it’s possible to quote Aquinas as saying something that he did not mean at all. If you have a look at the Summa, you’ll see what I mean:

newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm

In general, beware brief snippets from major authors when you aren’t familiar with the context.

And when unsure, have a look at a catechism. I would suggest reading the catechism first rather than collecting random hearsay from the internet.

 

[Tiffany10]

Yes,