The following has nothing to do with criticizing the OP, for whom I actually have deep sympathy. I just wanted to make some points about the following, since it came up.
Not all sins are equal. Some are mortal, some are venial. And in 1 Corinthians, fornication is especially singled out among other sins for seriousness and which we must flee.
Fornication is by no means the only mortal sin, and even if it’s a particularly serious one (according to 1 Corinthians) due to the spiritual/psychological harm it does to one’s own body and the body of the other fornicator, by no means is there a cosmic, unspeakable gulf between it and other
mortal sins, so that the sin of, say, stealing practically looks like a virtue next to it. By no means is that so, despite how sometimes we people of faith can tend to regard it. In other words, I’d say that anyone who has committed
any Mortal sin doesn’t have much room, if any, to consider themselves superior, maritally or otherwise, to someone who has fornicated but is now repentant…and while 1 Corinthians does especially warn against
committing it, I think that’s hardly a justification–nor do I think Paul intended it to be–for virgins to judge someone who had fornicated in their
past but who
presently is committed to chastity with as much sincerity as a virgin. It just doesn’t follow from the scripture that such judgment is justified, and it seems that if someone understands it that way then something is being read into those scriptures that isn’t there.
Additionally, if he has spent all that effort and suffering to give 100% of himself to his future bride, I don’t see it as very Christian of us to begrudge him the small comfort of getting a wife who will give him back the same 100% if it means that much to him.
I do understand that, but this implies (intentionally or not) that a non-virgin, but repentant, wife would actually be deliberately holding back part of herself and thus is simply not as selfless with her husband, at present, as a virgin. It makes it seem as if virginity actually guarantees a more loving and selfless wife and a non-virgin, no matter how repentant, is guaranteed to be less loving and more selfish in a relationship. This is a wrong image. A non-virgin who currently practices chastity
can still give herself 100%–yes,
100%–to her husband. It’s just that part of that 100% is that she has made sexual mistakes in her past. Where the virgin brings her innocence and sexual naivete, the non-virgin brings her complete trust that her husband is as a unique reminder of Jesus’ forgiving love, willing to accept her despite past mistakes that he himself never made.
I actually admire a man for being honest enough with himself not to marry a non-virgin if he
knows that he won’t be able to get over it. It would only hurt both him and the wife. He must realize, however, that there is as much a psychological weakness on his part
presently as there is a sensual weakness confined to the woman’s past. His psychological imperfection may not be a moral one, but it is an imperfection nontheless, and it is just as much to blame as the woman’s past if it gets in the way of his giving her a chance no matter how righteous, repentant, loving, and religious she may be now. Think–if such a man had no way of knowing her past, the woman might seem like Joan of Arc and yet, once he finds out her past, he might still reject her on that basis! An inability to get over such a living saint’s
past is indeed a psychological setback on the part of the one with that inability. I use such an extreme, saintly example for emphasis, but the same would apply to any repentant non-virgin who is
presently and
foreseeably of just as good character or better character than a given virgin. There is no
practical reason, and if you believe in forgiveness no
religious reason, to consider the former less worthy to marry than the latter.
Even God gives us the ability to do penance, even to gain a plenary indulgence and thus relate to Him as though we had never sinned (for all
practical purposes, as in such a state we can even bypass Purgatory). If God, to Whom Sin is infinitely offensive, can do that, surely there is some way that a non-virgin who is repentant can redeem herself in a
mortal man’s eyes so as to be worthy of marrying him. Another point regarding the “but he saved himself for his wife and wants a wife who did the same” argument, Jesus abstained from all sin for our sakes, yet He is willing to accept in most intimate communion even the worst sinner who has repented and amended his life. This is a good example of true love.
If there were some
practical reasoning behind all this, something less abstract than just her past, such as maybe the woman already having a baby when the man wanted to be able to actually start a family the right way or at his own pace, then it would be different, due to the fact that his physical, tangible experiences couldn’t possibly be the same with that woman as a woman without a child. He doesn’t have to be stuck in her past, or even know her past (if he were naive enough not to

) in order for that obstacle to be a real one, and that’s the difference. The virginity factor
alone only bothers a person unable to look away from his wife’s
past, and if he could do that he could be perfectly happy (again, assuming she is truly repentant and chaste).
By the way, I want everyone to know that the man/woman roles, in each instance and sentence here, could be reversed. I’m a man so I’m writing from that view. I feel the same things are true if the situation is the other way around.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul