Viriginity

[Joie_de_Vivre]

"Guilty of concupiscence of the eyes" is implied.
Didn’t think it needed to be spelt out.

That doesn’t remotely make sense as a disqualifier for something Catholic.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A person themself* might not know truly know if they have masturbated or not, especially if they are suffering from scrupulosity.

It depends how masturbation is defined.
That is, as a merely outward physical action, or as a human act.

The Catholic Church defines the word as a human act which therefore involves guilt of some degree (as opposed to being half asleep).

I highly doubt that one-off acts of masturbation would disqualify a person from becoming a consecrated virgin for obvious reasons.

On the other hand a regular habit of frottage, whether sinful or not is probably a sign one is not suited for such a way of life.

In the end how one defines Virginity really depends on why one actually needs to do so?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

It depends how masturbation is defined.
That is, as a merely outward physical action, or as a human act.

The Catholic Church defines the word as a human act which therefore involves guilt of some degree (as opposed to being half asleep).

I highly doubt that one-off acts of masturbation would disqualify a person from becoming a consecrated virgin for obvious reasons.

On the other hand a regular habit of frottage, whether sinful or not is probably a sign one is not suited for such a way of life.

In the end how one defines Virginity really depends on why one actually needs to do so?

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if repeatedly engaging in sexual outercourse disqualified one from being a consecrated virgin.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You can’t be guilty of concupiscence. Concupiscence isn’t sinful, so it’s impossible to be “guilty of concupiscence.” Do you mean adultery? Lust?

SMGS it would probably be a less than generous heart that would pretend not to know what my quick phrase means.

But seeing you want to be pedantic on this point please note…
The phrase (as opposed to the single word you have obsessed on) traditionally means a form of covetousness - in this context sexual.

So yes, to be guilty of sexually coveting another is quite sinful.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if repeatedly engaging in sexual outercourse disqualified one from being a consecrated virgin.

I would have thought just one act would achieve this .
Would you also be surprised to discover that being a victim of rape doesn’t?

If you don’t want to see the point, obviously you won’t get the point .

 

[SMGS127]

SMGS it would probably be a less than generous heart that would pretend not to know what my quick phrase means.

But seeing you want to be pedantic on this point please note…
The phrase (as opposed to the single word you have obsessed on) traditionally means a form of covetousness - in this context sexual.

So yes, to be guilty of sexually coveting another is quite sinful.

Well I’ve never heard it reference anything than temptation, and if you notice, I wasn’t the only poster confused by your phrasing. Don’t confuse a request for clarity with patronizing.

As for your question, now that I understand it better, I don’t believe it would; nothing I’ve seen in information on qualifiers references one’s inner sins. However, masturbation is an external act of sexual sin, and it cannot be directly compared to sins of the heart.

 

[SMGS127]

I would have thought just one act would achieve this .
Would you also be surprised to discover that being a victim of rape doesn’t?

If you don’t want to see the point, obviously you won’t get the point .

But of course, a woman who is raped has never engaged in sexual intercourse or outercourse. “Engaging” in something implies consent.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I would have thought just one act would achieve this .
Would you also be surprised to discover that being a victim of rape doesn’t?

If you don’t want to see the point, obviously you won’t get the point .

I’m not surprised that being a victim of rape doesn’t qualify someone and I am glad for it too as it means I am not disqualified…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… a woman who is raped has never engaged in sex…

Is she still a virgin though?

The point I am making is that rules (whether about virginity, adultery, sin etc etc) are usually stated in outward physical ways because its easy to find objectivity there and whether or not someone has “transgressed”.

The problem is, often the rule-makers are more interested in intention or character rather than what a person may have physically done.

This is why “Virginity” is such a fraught topic.
Is it to do with the body (intact hymen or never having had a sexual partner) or is it about the heart and purity? Physical purity does not mean purity of heart - and vice-versa.

That is why we cannot even agree on what masturbation or even what sexual intercourse is … let alone virginity .

 

[SMGS127]

Is she still a virgin though?

Absolutely, by every single Catholic definition. She has never engaged in sex or immoral activity, period. The horrible actions of a man (or theoretically woman, though rarely) do not define her own actions . I don’t see any confusing situation here.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Absolutely, by every single Catholic definition. She has never engaged in sex or immoral activity, period. The horrible actions of a man (or theoretically woman, though rarely) do not define her own actions . I don’t see any confusing situation here.

That happens more often then people want to admit, also women can and do do it to males.

 

[SMGS127]

That happens more often then people want to admit, also women can and do do it to males.

Oh it certainly happens, but obviously the vast majority of perpetrators are male. And yes, I do agree that women can/do rape men, though I don’t believe every state allows women to be prosecuted for the rape of men due to an inerrant belief that it can’t happen among many people. It’s extraordinarily hard to prosecute too, even in the states where it’s prosecutable, for the same reason.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Oh it certainly happens, but obviously the vast majority of perpetrators are male. And yes, I do agree that women can/do rape men, though I don’t believe every state allows women to be prosecuted for the rape of men due to an inerrant belief that it can’t happen among many people. It’s extraordinarily hard to prosecute too, even in the states where it’s prosecutable, for the same reason.

In many jurisdictions women cannot be rapists because rape requires a penis penetrating the victim. I actually think that is misogynistic due to it being incredibly phallocentric and denies female agency (i.e. portrays women as helpless, defenseless, weak creatures).

 

[SMGS127]

In many jurisdictions women cannot be rapists because rape requires a penis penetrating the victim. I actually think that is misogynistic due to it being incredibly phallocentric and denies female agency (i.e. portrays women as helpless, defenseless, weak creatures).

I believe women can still legally rape as long as they use external objects. But yes, I agree the current law in most areas is INCREDIBLY simultaneously misogynistic and misandristic.