Virginity: Return to Eden

[Blue_Horizon]

Thanks for the above quote ContraJovinius. It seems to me to be the most probable explanation.

I used to wonder why God had sexual concupisence be one of the consequences of original sin - tainting one of the most important gifts He granted to men (specifically, the gift of being able to cooperate in the bringing into existence a new human beings). My conclusion has been that without that lustful drive, due to selfishness etc., we would probably not have fulfilled the command to be fruitful and multiply. We would have valued seeking our own comfort, wealth, etc. far more than thinking of the wonder of new life and giving of ourselves to nurture and raise up families.

Despite the opinions of some mystics and early Fathers of the Church mainstream Catholic teaching is actually against them.

Thomas Aquinas, THE Doctor of the Church states:
*"Some of the earlier doctors, considering the nature of concupiscence as regards generation in our present state, concluded that in the state of innocence generation would not have been effected in the same way. Thus Gregory of Nyssa says (De Hom. Opif. xvii) that in paradise the human race would have been multiplied by some other means, as the angels were multiplied without coition by the operation of the Divine Power. He adds that God made man male and female before sin, because He foreknew the mode of generation which would take place after sin, which He foresaw. But this is unreasonable. For what is natural to man was neither acquired nor forfeited by sin. Now it is clear that generation by coition is natural to man by reason of his animal life, which he possessed even before sin, as above explained (Q[97], A[3]), just as it is natural to other perfect animals, as the corporeal members make it clear. So we cannot allow that these members would not have had a natural use, as other members had, before sin.

Thus, as regards generation by coition, there are, in the present state of life, two things to be considered. One, which comes from nature, is the union of man and woman; for in every act of generation there is an active and a passive principle. Wherefore, since wherever there is distinction of sex, the active principle is male and the passive is female; the order of nature demands that for the purpose of generation there should be concurrence of male and female. The second thing to be observed is a certain deformity of excessive concupiscence, which in the state of innocence would not have existed, when the lower powers were entirely subject to reason. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 26): “We must be far from supposing that offspring could not be begotten without concupiscence. All the bodily members would have been equally moved by the will, without ardent or wanton incentive, with calmness of soul and body.”* (ST 1a,98,3)

The Magisterium has not contradicted his teaching since.

 

[Nita]

Despite the opinions of some mystics and early Fathers of the Church mainstream Catholic teaching is actually against them.

Thomas Aquinas, THE Doctor of the Church states:
*"Some of the earlier doctors, considering the nature of concupiscence as regards generation in our present state, concluded that in the state of innocence generation would not have been effected in the same way. Thus Gregory of Nyssa says (De Hom. Opif. xvii) that in paradise the human race would have been multiplied by some other means, as the angels were multiplied without coition by the operation of the Divine Power. He adds that God made man male and female before sin, because He foreknew the mode of generation which would take place after sin, which He foresaw. But this is unreasonable. For what is natural to man was neither acquired nor forfeited by sin. Now it is clear that generation by coition is natural to man by reason of his animal life, which he possessed even before sin, as above explained (Q[97], A[3]), just as it is natural to other perfect animals, as the corporeal members make it clear. So we cannot allow that these members would not have had a natural use, as other members had, before sin.

Thus, as regards generation by coition, there are, in the present state of life, two things to be considered. One, which comes from nature, is the union of man and woman; for in every act of generation there is an active and a passive principle. Wherefore, since wherever there is distinction of sex, the active principle is male and the passive is female; the order of nature demands that for the purpose of generation there should be concurrence of male and female. The second thing to be observed is a certain deformity of excessive concupiscence, which in the state of innocence would not have existed, when the lower powers were entirely subject to reason. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 26): “We must be far from supposing that offspring could not be begotten without concupiscence. All the bodily members would have been equally moved by the will, without ardent or wanton incentive, with calmness of soul and body.”* (ST 1a,98,3)

The Magisterium has not contradicted his teaching since.

I don’t think the quote from St Bridget contradicts St. Thomas. She doesn’t speak at all of what the physical union between a man and woman would consist of. She just refers to it as a “union of the flesh”. …In truth, by the love of God and the mutual devotion and union of the flesh wherein they both would have been set on fire internally, love’s blood would have sown its seed in the woman’s body without any shameful lust, and so the woman would have become fertile. Once the child was conceived without sin and lustful desire, I would have sent a soul into the child from my divinity, and the woman would have carried the child and given birth to it without pain…

As I read St Bridget, she speaks of the love and devotion (without any lust involved) as activating the ovaries in the woman so the woman would become fertile and thus the “union of the flesh” would result in the creation of a new human being.

I see it as implying that marital love would always have been both unitive and procreative – that the desire to physically express deep love for one’s spouse would always have been intimately bound to a desire to bring a new life, a child, into existence. Although not explicit, I get the impression from St. Bridget’s words that the loving conjugal union between husband and wife would always have resulted a child being conceived.

 

[fhansen]

Hello,

I have been doing a research paper on Virginity and have discovered that the Fathers of the Church are unanimous in saying that Adam and Eve were virgins and would have remained as such if not for sin. They have different ways of explaining how procreation might have come about, but their affirmations are consistent and copious in this regard. I understand that when the Fathers are unanimous, that no one is permitted to interpret contrary to their interpretation (Trent Sess IV, April 8, 1546; vatican council, Sess III Dogmatic Constitution Concerning the Catholic Faith April 24, 1870). Their unanimous consent lead me to think that this is something of the Deposit of the Faith, for their would be no other way to account for such a widespread and uniform position.

What do you guys think about this? I am not interested in arguments full of emotion. I would like to have some substantive responses.

Below are a sample of the numerous examples. I will limit them so as not to tire the reader, but there are many more.

Thank You and God Bless.

St Ambrose
Institutione Virginis caput 17.104 (PL 16.345)

“…in holy virgins we see on earth the life of angels that we let slip away in paradise.”

St Jerome
Adversus Jovinianum Liber Primus 16 (PL 23: 235A)

“And as regards Adam and Eve we must maintain that before the fall they were virgins in Paradise: but after they sinned, and were cast out of Paradise, they were immediately married.”

St Augustine
De Genesi contra Manicheaos Liber Unus caput 19.30 (PL 34: 187)

1. “Increase and multiply”: It is permitted us to interpret these words spiritually in such a way that it is credible that they were converted into carnal fecundity after man’s fall.

St. Athanasius
*Expositiones in psalmos * 50.5 (PG 27 240 C-D)
“it was not the original plan of God to beget us through marriage and corruption – it was the disobedience of the commandment that brought about the need for marriage, on account of the iniquity of Adam”

St. Gregory Nyssa
*De Hominis Opificio * caput 17 (PG 44 187-192)

“if there had not come upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal from equality with the angels, neither should we have needed marriage that we might multiply; but whatever the mode of increase in the angelic nature is (unspeakable and inconceivable by human conjectures, except that it assuredly exists), it would have operated also in the case of men”

St John Chrysostom
De Virginitate 17 (PG 48:546)

“Virginity existed in the beginning, before marriage; marriage became necessary and began later; but it would not have been necessary if Adam had remained obedient. How, then, would so many thousands of human beings have come into existence? If this question troubles you, I pose an answering one: Whence did Adam and Eve derive their existence without the intervention of marriage? What, then, you respond: Are all men to be born in this manner? In this or some other manner, I reply; I cannot say more. Only this is certain; that God did not need marriage in order to multiply men on earth.”

St John Damascene
De Fide Orthodoxa Liber Quattour, caput 24 (PG 94: 1205-1208 A-B)

"virginity was implanted in man’s nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin soil. From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed… after the transgression … then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed. So, to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children.

But they will perhaps ask, what then is the meaning of “male and female” and “Be fruitful and multiply?” In answer we shall say that “Be fruitful and multiply” does not altogether refer to the multiplying by the marriage connection, for God had power to multiply the race also in different ways, if they kept the precept unbroken to the end. But God, Who knows all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply."
**
St Maximus Confessor **
Quaestiones et Dubia Interr. 3 (PG 90 787 A-B)

“In fact, it was the original Will of God that we should not be born out of fleeting pleasure of bodily union; it was the transgression of the law that caused marriage to be introduced.”

Personally I think it’s relevant that shame entered man’s world along with the Fall. And the ECFs just happened to write after that event. Unless the Church were to make this dogma I don’t think I’d give it a second thought. As it is the Church teaches that man had self-mastery -all our appetites are good and were still under the control of reason to the extent man was still subjugated to God.

 

[CarrieSpooner]

I had not thought about this. I’m still a baby in my understanding of theology but if it’s true that sex entered the world through sin, this does not mean that we must consider sex a sinful thing. God has a long history of turning the effects of sin into something even better. Let’s take the fall for example. Even though humans lost their relationship to God through sin at the fall, we didn’t just gain it back through Christ. Through Christ we became sons and daughters of God which is even better. So perhaps a similar turn-around is true of sex.

 

[fhansen]

Sex didn’t enter the world through sin. It was created by God as the means for human procreation. For what possible reason would He have changed the act of procreation from whatever else it might have been to what it is now?

 

[CarrieSpooner]

Sex didn’t enter the world through sin. It was created by God as the means for human procreation. For what possible reason would He have changed the act of procreation from whatever else it might have been to what it is now?

Thank you for sharing your opinion. I’m not sure which is the correct view as I am exposed to this idea for the first time just now. Like I said, “if it’s true” that sin entered the world this way…I am not claiming that it did however I have no argument against these writings from Church Fathers. I would need to study them and try to understand what they were trying to say or study something else from the Church in order to understand that they were wrong. Simply hearing a person on the internet state that it’s not true doesn’t help me understand one way or another. My very first thought on a possible reason this could have changed sex is in bringing about some greater union with God or understanding of the Trinity or understanding of Heaven. Again, I am not claiming these things to be true. My first thought is that it’s not true but if it is, my next thought is to reconcile the idea that sex is still a good thing. Either way, I find the topic interesting.

 

[fhansen]

Thank you for sharing your opinion. I’m not sure which is the correct view as I am exposed to this idea for the first time just now. Like I said, “if it’s true” that sin entered the world this way…I am not claiming that it did however I have no argument against these writings from Church Fathers. I would need to study them and try to understand what they were trying to say or study something else from the Church in order to understand that they were wrong. Simply hearing a person on the internet state that it’s not true doesn’t help me understand one way or another. My very first thought on a possible reason this could have changed sex is in bringing about some greater union with God or understanding of the Trinity or understanding of Heaven. Again, I am not claiming these things to be true. My first thought is that it’s not true but if it is, my next thought is to reconcile the idea that sex is still a good thing. Either way, I find the topic interesting.

Fair enough-it is just my opinion. So I suggest that the ECFs may’ve been influenced by human shame, rather than revelation. And revelation does confirm that shame entered man’s world with the Fall.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t think the quote from St Bridget contradicts St. Thomas. She doesn’t speak at all of what the physical union between a man and woman would consist of. She just refers to it as a “union of the flesh”. …In truth, by the love of God and the mutual devotion and union of the flesh wherein they both would have been set on fire internally, love’s blood would have sown its seed in the woman’s body without any shameful lust, and so the woman would have become fertile. Once the child was conceived without sin and lustful desire, I would have sent a soul into the child from my divinity, and the woman would have carried the child and given birth to it without pain…

As I read St Bridget, she speaks of the love and devotion (without any lust involved) as activating the ovaries in the woman so the woman would become fertile and thus the “union of the flesh” would result in the creation of a new human being.

I see it as implying that marital love would always have been both unitive and procreative – that the desire to physically express deep love for one’s spouse would always have been intimately bound to a desire to bring a new life, a child, into existence. Although not explicit, I get the impression from St. Bridget’s words that the loving conjugal union between husband and wife would always have resulted a child being conceived.

Yes I agree with your interpretation here Nita.
There is absolutely no basis for Bridget saying anything other than that Adam and Eve would have engaged in carnal union (the way God made them to multiply the species). The point is that they would have done so innocently without lust or any excessive carnal desire at odds with due love of God and neighbour.

Sin is from the will as expressed in the body. Somehow we so easily believe that sin infects the will from the body, that sin is somehow from the biological/carnal behaviour itself. This is not so, we are made unclean by what goes out not by what comes in as Jesus said.

It is interesting to note that before the Fall the purpose of procreation was not survival of the species but multiplication of individuals within the species. We may assume the “unitive end” is also implied by other verses in genesis (“not good to be alone”).

The problem with mystical writings is that
(a) they speak symbolicly and are so capable of differing interpretations according to the biases of the reader. Spiritual Catholic’s very easily fall into a mild Platonism/Manicheanism whose essential “gut feeling” is that we are angels and not flesh and blood humans. This way ends in tears.
(b) Canonisation of Mystics is not a canonisation of any particular prophecy or novel revelation or interpretation of tradition. You can throw the whole lot out as heterodox if one wishes without being any less a Catholic.

 

[ContraJovinius]

Found this nice succinct summary of the position of the Fathers and Scholastics by Von Balthasar:

What is essential in their arguments can be summarized in two sentences. The first is negative: Since paradise is the realm of virginity, marriage, as we know it, has no place there; it came into being only after man’s fall into sin. The second is positive: Men would have multiplied in paradise in a way that the Fathers term “spiritual” and compare with the way in which the angels multiply, but which does not, for that reason, unconditionally exclude the cooperation of the body. This manner of multiplication is no longer comprehensible to fallen man. It is better simply to admit our ignorance of it.

One can read more about this in: Hans Urs Von Balthasar, The Christian State of Life, trans. Sister Mary Frances. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002, p. 98.

 

[Little_Dragon]

The desire for sex that drives man to procreate can only have come from God. It seems more reasonable that, if for some reason Adam and Eve had not experienced it, that God would have implanted in us so that we *would *procreate after the Fall. Why is the desire for sex sinful? It does not make sense to me to say that it is the result of sin, only that excessive lust was the result of sin if we are to have a sex drive strong enough to keep us procreating. I still don’t understand why the Church would teach that any aspect of sex (besides acting upon excessive lust and/or any denial of sacred personhood) is sinful at all. A natural desire for sex and a love between man and woman that integrates all aspects of the person, mind, body, and soul, must reasonably have come from Eden. Corruption of that love comes from the Fall. The Catechism states that we were created to participate in the love of God. If our bodies were not meant to integrate that love, why would we have been created with bodies?

 

[godisgood77]

I feel compelled to respond… very interesting topic and one great historical perspective. One thing that we may need to consider is that the Fathers existed at a time when it was believed that sexual desire was inherently disordered and was considered sinful. Heck, St Augustine preached more than once that sex, even within marriage, was at best a venial sin. So we would have to consider the overarching mindset of the authors in this area, before forming an opinion…

Now with that said, the Church has, throughout the course of history, come to a fuller understanding of human nature, ways of being in this world and what God may have meant with our design. In this case, the Church has clearly changed course and realized the error in the previous way of thinking about sex. Thank goodness, this is one area where the Church has really progressed…. Whether its Pious XI’s Casti Connubii, Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, John Paul II’s Theology of the Body or one of the many teachings about our nature when it comes to the sexual realm. Intercourse is sacramental, live giving and unitive for the couples… the Church doesn’t teach anything other than sexual intercourse between married couples with the right intention is good and holy.

Now on to the original question, I personally reject the idea that Adam and Eve were virgins. They were a married couple who were commanded by God to go forth and multiply. This example is used over and over again as the basis for the Church’s teaching on marriage and procreation…. If Adam and Eve can’t be used as an example of the ideal marriage and joining of male and female, then what is the basis for our family structure? Joseph and Mary are excluded because of their extraordinary circumstance…

God doesn’t make evil things. evil dwells in being separated from God. Male and female fulfill their potential of being created in the image and likeness of God when they are procreating and bringing forth life. It is in this act that they are most like God!!

 

[godisgood77]

Found this nice succinct summary of the position of the Fathers and Scholastics by Von Balthasar:

What is essential in their arguments can be summarized in two sentences. The first is negative: Since paradise is the realm of virginity, marriage, as we know it, has no place there; it came into being only after man’s fall into sin. The second is positive: Men would have multiplied in paradise in a way that the Fathers term “spiritual” and compare with the way in which the angels multiply, but which does not, for that reason, unconditionally exclude the cooperation of the body. This manner of multiplication is no longer comprehensible to fallen man. It is better simply to admit our ignorance of it.

One can read more about this in: Hans Urs Von Balthasar, The Christian State of Life, trans. Sister Mary Frances. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002, p. 98.

Spot on by Von Balthasar…. it takes grace to live in uncertainty… God is all powerful and a bit unpredictable… we shouldn’t try to box him in.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I feel compelled to respond… very interesting topic and one great historical perspective. One thing that we may need to consider is that the Fathers existed at a time when it was believed that sexual desire was inherently disordered and was considered sinful. Heck, St Augustine preached more than once that sex, even within marriage, was at best a venial sin. So we would have to consider the overarching mindset of the authors in this area, before forming an opinion…

Now with that said, the Church has, throughout the course of history, come to a fuller understanding of human nature, ways of being in this world and what God may have meant with our design. In this case, the Church has clearly changed course and realized the error in the previous way of thinking about sex. Thank goodness, this is one area where the Church has really progressed…. Whether its Pious XI’s Casti Connubii, Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, John Paul II’s Theology of the Body or one of the many teachings about our nature when it comes to the sexual realm. Intercourse is sacramental, live giving and unitive for the couples… the Church doesn’t teach anything other than sexual intercourse between married couples with the right intention is good and holy.

Now on to the original question, I personally reject the idea that Adam and Eve were virgins. They were a married couple who were commanded by God to go forth and multiply. This example is used over and over again as the basis for the Church’s teaching on marriage and procreation…. If Adam and Eve can’t be used as an example of the ideal marriage and joining of male and female, then what is the basis for our family structure? Joseph and Mary are excluded because of their extraordinary circumstance…

God doesn’t make evil things. evil dwells in being separated from God. Male and female fulfill their potential of being created in the image and likeness of God when they are procreating and bringing forth life. It is in this act that they are most like God!!

A sane and balanced view of both Church History and Theology of Man .

 

[ContraJovinius]

After further research, it seems that later theologians are all in agreement that sexual desire has some presence of concupiscence or lust involved in it.

St. Bonaventure Breviloquium 6.13.2

the Word of God, in His wisdom, did give man the capacity to stand, to fall, and to be restored, as it behooved Him to do: therefore He ordained the continuance of the human race in such a way that in the very means employed by man would possess what would lead him to stand firm, and also what he would need as a remedy, since in the very function of propagation there is something of sin, that is, lust, which hands down the disease.

…Matrimony was a sacrament both before and after the fall, but it differed as to its meaning and purpose. Since Matrimony was a sacrament before the occurrence of the disease, therefore lust, which appeared later through sin, is something excused by Matrimony rather than something able to vitiate it: for the disease does not vitiate the medicine, but the medicine cures the disease.

St Thomas Aquinas S., I q.98 a.2 ad 3-4

"…continence would not have been praiseworthy in the state of innocence, whereas it is praiseworthy in our present state, not because it removes fecundity, but because it excludes inordinate desire. In that state fecundity would have been without lust.

Reply Obj. 4. As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv. 26): In that state intercourse would have been without prejudice to virginal integrity; this would have remained intact, as it does in the menses. And just as in giving birth the mother was then relieved, not by groans of pain, but by the instigations of maturity; so in conceiving, the union was one, not of lustful desire, but of deliberate action."

 

[smichhertz]

Hi all,

I know I’m joining the thread late, so apologies in advance if I bring up older points. I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that God created sex with the intention that it never be utilized in the garden. That just doesn’t sit right with me.

A lot of people have been quoting some very holy saints. Certainly do not want to undermine them, but there are two verses in Sacred Scripture in particular that I’d like to point out:

To the woman He said,“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16 (NASB)

Greatly multiply? That would seem to imply she would have given birth to children either way.

God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Gen. 1:28 (NASB)

He commanded man to be fruitful and multiply PRIOR to the fall? Again, that would imply that we would’ve procreated regardless of being in or out of the garden.

Certainly, we can also see that these early Church Doctors did not get everything 100% right. The church has since definitely taught things that contradict what some of these early saints thought to be true.

I would hold that procreation would still have occured in the garden, but with the lack of a true definitive ruling by the Church, we’re left to little more than the speculation of ourselves and others to go on. I don’t think there’s an easy answer here.

 

[Nita]

After further research, it seems that later theologians are all in agreement that sexual desire has some presence of concupiscence or lust involved in it.

St. Bonaventure Breviloquium 6.13.2

the Word of God, in His wisdom, did give man the capacity to stand, to fall, and to be restored, as it behooved Him to do: therefore He ordained the continuance of the human race in such a way that in the very means employed by man would possess what would lead him to stand firm, and also what he would need as a remedy, since in the very function of propagation there is something of sin, that is, lust, which hands down the disease.

…Matrimony was a sacrament both before and after the fall, but it differed as to its meaning and purpose. Since Matrimony was a sacrament before the occurrence of the disease, therefore lust, which appeared later through sin, is something excused by Matrimony rather than something able to vitiate it: for the disease does not vitiate the medicine, but the medicine cures the disease.

St Thomas Aquinas S., I q.98 a.2 ad 3-4

"…continence would not have been praiseworthy in the state of innocence, whereas it is praiseworthy in our present state, not because it removes fecundity, but because it excludes inordinate desire. In that state fecundity would have been without lust.

Reply Obj. 4. As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv. 26): In that state intercourse would have been without prejudice to virginal integrity; this would have remained intact, as it does in the menses. And just as in giving birth the mother was then relieved, not by groans of pain, but by the instigations of maturity; so in conceiving, the union was one, not of lustful desire, but of deliberate action."

Thanks. What they say agrees with my understanding of what St. Bridget said.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

After further research, it seems that later theologians are all in agreement that sexual desire has some presence of concupiscence or lust involved in it.

St. Bonaventure Breviloquium 6.13.2

the Word of God, in His wisdom, did give man the capacity to stand, to fall, and to be restored, as it behooved Him to do: therefore He ordained the continuance of the human race in such a way that in the very means employed by man would possess what would lead him to stand firm, and also what he would need as a remedy, since in the very function of propagation there is something of sin, that is, lust, which hands down the disease.

…Matrimony was a sacrament both before and after the fall, but it differed as to its meaning and purpose. Since Matrimony was a sacrament before the occurrence of the disease, therefore lust, which appeared later through sin, is something excused by Matrimony rather than something able to vitiate it: for the disease does not vitiate the medicine, but the medicine cures the disease.

St Thomas Aquinas S., I q.98 a.2 ad 3-4

"…continence would not have been praiseworthy in the state of innocence, whereas it is praiseworthy in our present state, not because it removes fecundity, but because it excludes inordinate desire. In that state fecundity would have been without lust.

Reply Obj. 4. As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv. 26): In that state intercourse would have been without prejudice to virginal integrity; this would have remained intact, as it does in the menses. And just as in giving birth the mother was then relieved, not by groans of pain, but by the instigations of maturity; so in conceiving, the union was one, not of lustful desire, but of deliberate action."

CJ, your original question was:
"the Fathers of the Church are unanimous in saying that Adam and Eve were virgins and would have remained as such if not for sin… Their unanimous consent lead me to think that this is something of the Deposit of the Faith, for their would be no other way to account for such a widespread and uniform position. What do you guys think about this?

So the answer is becoming clear:
(1) The Fathers (I presume you mean Doctors also) are not unanimous.
(2) So the position is not “uniform”
(3) There are other explanations for the illusory unanimity you perceive in the Fathers of the very Early Church you have quoted.
Namely, the excessive influence of Platonist Greek philosophy amongst educated Christians (which basically thinks little of matter) and Manicheanism. Also, the dependence of virginity on the hymen (being intact) is no longer culturally or theologically significant in more recent times.

It is fairly clear that there is unanimity amongst the Fathers/Doctors of the Church that Adam and Eve did not engage in coitus before the Fall.
But the deeper question is what if…(ie no Fall)?

The unanimously agreed answer accepted by all these Teachers from my research is that:
(1) Adam and Eve did not yet know each other very well and were still in a Courtship phase when they Fell. That is the primary reason why they were Virgins and why they had not yet Pro-created as God commanded them.
(2) “What if they didn’t Fall”: There is no unanimity re “spiritual sex”. Even Augustine says there would be coitus but then gets obsessed about the hymen (a powerful cultural symbol of virginity even up to the Middle Ages) and says it would not be broken by the act.
(3) Aquinas is quite clear there is coitus and does not deny Augustine’s excessive hymen related concerns - but his unwillingness to theologically elaborate on that particular point speaks volumes.

Soooo, you could say that even if Adam and Eve had not Fallen they (or at least Eve) would have remained a Virgin - but she would still have been having a good romp with Adam all the same. (And this “lust-less” sex would have been more enjoyable than lustful sex.)
So yes, one would **technically **still call Eve a Virgin even if she had not Fallen - yet human generation would have proceeded via the same physical act of coitus humans engage in today. It would have been virginal sex because the hymen was not broken.

Of course all are unanimous it would be without lust (because the breaking of the hymen is a sign of lust) as was demonstrated to you below, well before you “discovered” it for yourself just now.

So in the end it all comes down to what you mean by “virgin”.
In my book Eve would not have been a virgin if she engaged in coitus regardless of the presence or absence of either lust or hymen. Clearly the meaning of “virgin” has changed over the centuries .

(It is interesting to note this is why Mary is always said to have had her hymen intact before, during and after the birth of Jesus).
If it had been broken she could not (technically) been called a Virgin. Thus she is the “new Eve.”

 

[ContraJovinius]

So the answer is becoming clear:
(1) The Fathers (I presume you mean Doctors also) are not unanimous.
(2) So the position is not “uniform”
(3) There are other explanations for the illusory unanimity you perceive in the Fathers of the very Early Church you have quoted.
Namely, the excessive influence of Platonist Greek philosophy amongst educated Christians (which basically thinks little of matter) and Manicheanism. Also, the dependence of virginity on the hymen (being intact) is no longer culturally or theologically significant in more recent times

1. I do not mean Doctors as well because only the common opinion of the Fathers constitutes an authoritative hermeneutics of the scriptural texts: **no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers (Council of Trent Sess. IV; April 8, 1546 DS 786 old numbering).
2. The position of the Fathers is indeed uniform. St Augustine is the only who comes to postulate some kind of bodily involvement the generative act (but he does not definitively stray from his earlier position which more closely coincides with the other Fathers). He also admits that Virginity would have been preserved.
3. You have posted several times accusing the Fathers of Manichaeism. I find this very ironic considering the Fathers wrote in defense of matrimony against the very Manichaeans with whom you associate them. Furthermore, it was precisely the Pelagians who accused St. Augustine of having Manichaean tendencies.

"I addressed two books to the Illustrious Count Valerius, upon hearing that the Pelagians had brought sundry vague charges upon us— how, for instance, we condemned marriage by maintaining Original Sin. These books are entitled, On Marriage and Concupiscence. (Retractions Book II, Chapter 53).

The Pelagians overemphasized the goodness of human nature and failed to recognize original sin and its effects. They accused St. Augustine of denigrating marriage.

One must not fall into Pelagianism, nor Manichaeism. I would suggest that if the Fathers are semi-Platonic and Manichaean, then perhaps many modern day Catholics are semi-Pelagian. The only example we have of humans who were born without original sin were both virgins; and if there is any prototype of how things were to have been without sin, then one would expect to find the example in the new Adam and Eve (something also pointed out by the Fathers). The Blessed Mother conceived without coitus, she generated “without the pains of labor”, she was free from all concupiscence and “she did not know man”, i.e. there was no “desire for her husband” (as was the punishment in Gen 3:16).

I do not wish to carry on in emotional arguments (as I stated in my first post). I would like have posts which site various saints, fathers, doctors, and magisterial docs which give evidence one way or the other (and I thank you for contributing by citing St. Thomas). This is why I have not added up to this point any opinion on the matter. But I feel I must defend the Holy Fathers who have become for some, the old and senile grandfathers of the Church. We don’t like their position so we discredit them by simply calling them Platonic or Manichaean. Well maybe we are just the semi-pelagians who have abandoned the Faith of our Fathers.

Food for thought.

God Bless

 

[Blue_Horizon]

1. I do not mean Doctors as well because only the common opinion of the Fathers constitutes an authoritative hermeneutics of the scriptural texts:

As a Catholic I would have thought that we are more interested in true Doctrine regardless of whether or not it is based on anything definitive in the Bible. That is why Doctors are more important than the Fathers, they are the ones we first look to re true Doctrine. And if the Doctors seem to contradict the Bible or what they say is not in the Bible then too bad for the Bible. It just means the Bible is in fact inconclusive or ambiguous and the “unanimous opinion” is a mistaken impression on our part or what they say is really no more than conjecture and pipe musings reflecting the common cultural biases of the age.

1. The position of the Fathers is indeed uniform.

On what exactly?

I think that when we try and uphold an alleged teaching that contradicts human nature/physiology, the literal sense of Scripture and one or more Doctors of the Church…then chances are far more likely that we’ve misunderstood our sources or the unanimity we think we see … due to our own subjective (I presume that is what you mean by “emotional”) prevenient conclusions.

St Augustine is the only who comes to postulate some kind of bodily involvement the generative act (but he does not definitively stray from his earlier position which more closely coincides with the other Fathers). He also admits that Virginity would have been preserved.

So when you ask if Adam and Eve would have remained virgins had they not Fallen…would you be satisfied that Eve is still a virgin if she had coitus but her hymen wasn’t ruptured?
That is essentially what Augustine is saying. And he is the greatest of the Western Fathers if not of all Fathers.
Some might call that a unanimous declaration of virginity by all the Fathers - but I don’t think anyone else on this thread would so readily buy into that one .

1. You have posted several times accusing the Fathers of Manichaeism. I find this very ironic considering the Fathers wrote in defense of matrimony against the very Manichaeans with whom you associate them. Furthermore, it was precisely the Pelagians who accused St. Augustine of having Manichaean tendencies.

CJ I haven’t repeatedly accused the Fathers of anything.
Re the Fathers I stated once that there are alternative explanations for your alleged “unanimity” that doesn’t terminate in miraculous, non physical sex for the multiplication of the species had Adam and Eve not Fallen.
No Doctor or Father or Christian Age gets everything right and it is no slander to say that of them. It is well known that the Early Greek influenced Church got it wrong when it came to theology of the body. It was a “unanimous” weakness of the Age and different figures suffered to different degrees and influenced one-another accordingly.

It is simplistic to think that just because a Father wrote against full-blown Platonists or Manicheans that he himself could not be more mildly tainted himself. It was a weakness of the Age. To think that just because we later label someone a “Father” or a “Doctor” or a “Prophet” or a canoinised Visonary were pure light without shade of darkness and got 100.00% in their final end of year exam is itself Platonic Idealism
Everybody knows Augustine had a heavier dose of Plato/Manichean teaching in his youth than most. It is amazing how penetrating Augustine’s teaching and insights were and how far he broke free of that heavy influence. And the other Fathers didn’t completely escape, though some fared better than Augustine.

The only example we have of humans who were born without original sin were both virgins; and if there is any prototype of how things were to have been without sin, then one would expect to find the example in the new Adam and Eve (something also pointed out by the Fathers). The Blessed Mother conceived without coitus, she generated “without the pains of labor”, she was free from all concupiscence and “she did not know man”, i.e. there was no “desire for her husband” (as was the punishment in Gen 3:16).

CJ I observe that you may be naturally Platonist/Idealist in intellectual outlook to start with. If that is the case then it is something to be careful of as it means you will have a tendency to see “unanimity” in somewhat ambiguous quotes from some Fathers when objectively I think most of us here would be far more cautious. This proclivity may be what causes you to make some unintentional mistakes above. For example:

• the Church as far as I know, does not authoritatively teach that Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain. In fact such a teaching would deny the literal sense of Genesis which states the Fall **greatly increases **pain - which therefore means that some pain was always part of childbirth.
• Jesus and Mary are not the only humans “born without original sin.” I believe you really meant “conceived without original sin.”

If you also hold that Mary never died then this also demonstrates a deep Platonic theology. Unfortunately that too is at odds with mainstream piety if not Church Doctrine.

 

[David_Zampino]

Hello,

I have been doing a research paper on Virginity and have discovered that the Fathers of the Church are unanimous in saying that Adam and Eve were virgins and would have remained as such if not for sin. They have different ways of explaining how procreation might have come about, but their affirmations are consistent and copious in this regard. I understand that when the Fathers are unanimous, that no one is permitted to interpret contrary to their interpretation (Trent Sess IV, April 8, 1546; vatican council, Sess III Dogmatic Constitution Concerning the Catholic Faith April 24, 1870). Their unanimous consent lead me to think that this is something of the Deposit of the Faith, for their would be no other way to account for such a widespread and uniform position.

I think that you have a potential problem at your starting point. First, define who/what you mean when you use the term “Fathers of the Church”. The term is extremely broad and scholars might well define the terms and parameters of what constitutes a “Father of the Church” differently.

When I teach “Introduction to Theology”, I define the “Apostolic Age” from AD 30-155 – in other words, from the time of the Resurrection to the death of the last known disciple of one of the Twelve (St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna). When I use the term “Patristic” – “Father” – I am referring to the time period between the death of Polycarp and the death of the last of the Early Church Fathers, namely St. Augustine, in 430. After that, we move into the early medieval period, and I tend not use the term “Father” any more. (For example, without demeaning the writing of St. John of Damascus, Doctor of the Church, I would probably not consider him a “Church Father”. Other teachers might have different schema – and that’s fine. But until you define your terms and parameters, it is impossible to judge the merits of your argument.

The other potential difficulty I see here is how “unanimous” is used. From what you posted, I see some “consensus” regarding a conclusion – but the citations are not unanimous in “how” the writers came to this conclusion.