Why the 'virgin' difference in distinction and title of male & female saints?

[Beautiful]

Tonight I was reading the ‘Saints of Today and Yesterday’ in my Magnificat Magazine and wondered.
The featured saint/blessed tonight is Blessed Sara Salkahazi - Virgin and Martyr. Often times I read of female blessed and saints referred to as virgins. Never do I read of male saints/blesseds referred to as virgins. Can’t a male be a virgin too? Why aren’t male saints/blessed considered and titled as virgins? Isn’t the definition of a virgin someone who has completely abstained from sexual relations? Surely there are plenty of male saints/blessed who have completely abstained from sexual relations.
Why the difference in distinction? Does anyone know?

 

[puzzleannie]

since technically virgin means the biological state of virgo intacta, that is, the unbroken hymen of the female, it does apply only to females. of course in the broader sense it can refer to anyone, male or female, who has not had sexual intercourse, but in this context is properly applied to women only.

can some wise person here tell me what does it mean when a saint is designated “confessor”? I thought it meant a priest, but someone recently corrected me and said it means someone who was a notable witness to the faith against adversity.

 

[Beautiful]

since technically virgin means the biological state of virgo intacta, that is, the unbroken hymen of the female, it does apply only to females. of course in the broader sense it can refer to anyone, male or female, who has not had sexual intercourse, but in this context is properly applied to women only.

can some wise person here tell me what does it mean when a saint is designated “confessor”? I thought it meant a priest, but someone recently corrected me and said it means someone who was a notable witness to the faith against adversity.

I can’t help you with your question.
but
your thoughts on unbroken hymens and virgo intacta all maybe be correct yet somehow very obsolete and - please forgive me - rather sexist in light of the fact that men and women can be virgins and saints. I suddenly do no feel so comfortable with the distinction of virginity given to female saints/blesseds only. I’m thinking that either male saints/ blessed should be given equal opportunity to the virginal distinction or simply drop the distinction for both males and females.

 

[AJV]

since technically virgin means the biological state of virgo intacta, that is, the unbroken hymen of the female, it does apply only to females. of course in the broader sense it can refer to anyone, male or female, who has not had sexual intercourse, but in this context is properly applied to women only.

can some wise person here tell me what does it mean when a saint is designated “confessor”? I thought it meant a priest, but someone recently corrected me and said it means someone who was a notable witness to the faith against adversity.

A confessor does mean a priest whom you confess to.

However, in the calendar it means someone who has confessed the faith- the adversity bit may have to be qualified in some cases. If the saint died during the adversity- then confessor is not used along with martyr.

 

[katy]

I can’t help you with your question.
but
your thoughts on unbroken hymens and virgo intacta all maybe be correct yet somehow very obsolete and - please forgive me - rather sexist in light of the fact that men and women can be virgins and saints. I suddenly do no feel so comfortable with the distinction of virginity given to female saints/blesseds only. I’m thinking that either male saints/ blessed should be given equal opportunity to the virginal distinction or simply drop the distinction for both males and females.

I have had the exact same thought myself off and on for years. I do know about the “confessors”. It is a use of the word that refers to those who have acknowledged God and kept the faith when it was very hard to do, but short of martyrdom. In the Sacrament of Penance you have the penitent, who could be called the “confessee”, I suppose, and the “confessor”, who is the priest.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

Often times I read of female blessed and saints referred to as virgins. Never do I read of male saints/blesseds referred to as virgins … Why the difference in distinction?

I suspect it is because female virgins are an image of the Church’s marriage to Christ. In Scripture, the Church is sometimes described as the bride of Christ. Consecrated virgins live out in a special way here on earth this “marriage” that will be completed in heaven.

Pope Paul VI’s decree Perfectae Caritatis states that religious persons who profess “chastity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven … bring to the minds of all the faithful that wonderful marriage between the Church and Christ, its only spouse: a marriage that has been established by God, and will be fully revealed in the world to come.”

Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation Vita Consecrata says that consecrated virgins “constitute a special eschatological image of the Heavenly Bride and of the life to come, when the Church will at last fully live her love for Christ the Bridegroom.”

Men can certainly share in this same mystical union with Christ, but the sign value of the image of bride is a little clearer with female virgins.

In a parallel fashion, the priest as an alter Christi (“other Christ”) is wedded to the Church.

 

[Augustine]

… your thoughts on unbroken hymens and virgo intacta all maybe be correct yet somehow very obsolete and - please forgive me - rather sexist in light of the fact that men and women can be virgins and saints.

Then go to complain to the One Who Created us men and women…

I guess tha it has to do with marriage, when one could be doubtful about a man’s virginity, but not about a woman’s. Of course, a broken hymen doesn’t mean that a woman isn’t a virgin, but an intact one does, to a pretty certain extent. So, in a way, whether you dislike it or not, “virgin” is a term by most of the human family to be applied preferably to women.

Of course, some African and South American Indian tribes go to great extent to verifiably guarantee a boys virginity, but I digress.

Then again, St. John is commonly referred to as virgin.

 

[Beautiful]

Then go to complain to the One Who Created us men and women…

I guess tha it has to do with marriage, when one could be doubtful about a man’s virginity, but not about a woman’s. Of course, a broken hymen doesn’t mean that a woman isn’t a virgin, but an intact one does, to a pretty certain extent. So, in a way, whether you dislike it or not, “virgin” is a term by most of the human family to be applied preferably to women.

Of course, some African and South American Indian tribes go to great extent to verifiably guarantee a boys virginity, but I digress.

Then again, St. John is commonly referred to as virgin.

I have to agree with the idea that " female virgins are an image of the Church’s marriage to Christ" and “Men can certainly share in this same mystical union with Christ, but the sign value of the image of bride is a little clearer with female virgins”

Perhaps my concept of virginity and sexuality - tainted by modernism - causes me to wonder why virginal male saints don’t receive the same distinction as virginal female saints. I’d like to clear my idea of virginity and its relation to holiness and Church. Clearing my idea is key to understanding.

A word search of ‘St. John Virgin’ nets plenty of websites on St. John Virgin Island and nothing more.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Interestingly to me, a person male or female, can be a physical virgin which is not necessarily testimony to sanctity and heroic virtue…whereas a non virgin can indeed be of great holiness and heroic virtue. There is no clear link necessarily between physical virginity and sanctity, although there can be.
Perhaps I too am tainted by modernity whatever indeed it is, but there can be many reasons for retaining physical virginity and not all of them virtuous per se. Indeed a person who has retained physical virginity and not for clear virtuous reasons, can still be raised to high sanctity.

Blessings and Joy this Season and New Year…Barb

 

[Beautiful]

Perhaps I too am tainted by modernity whatever indeed it is,

It may not be just modernity.

Virginity is irreparably lost by sexual pleasure, voluntarily and completely experienced. “I tell you without hesitation”, writes St. Jerome in his twenty-second Epistole to St. Eustochium, n. 5 (P.L., XXII, 397) “that though God is almighty, He cannot restore a virginity that has been lost.”

Source

It may be that I’ve difficulty wrapping my mind and heart around something I lost a loooooong time ago. And St. Jerome said - I am not never getting it back.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Source

It may be that I’ve difficulty wrapping my mind and heart around something I lost a loooooong time ago. And St. Jerome said - I am not never getting it back.

Hi Beautiful…I wonder re the quote from St. Jerome stands in connection with rape?..I am really unsure of the Church’s actual definition of “virgin” but if it is connected to breaking of the hymen then I will not get my virginity back either…short of a miracle. If I could, then I would - at least at this point in my journey. Such loss of course does not preclude one at all from setting one’s compass towards holiness if God would grant that Grace.

It may not be just modernity.

… …

Blessings and Joy this Season and New Year…Barb

 

[East_and_West]

Tonight I was reading the ‘Saints of Today and Yesterday’ in my Magnificat Magazine and wondered.
The featured saint/blessed tonight is Blessed Sara Salkahazi - Virgin and Martyr. Often times I read of female blessed and saints referred to as virgins. Never do I read of male saints/blesseds referred to as virgins. Can’t a male be a virgin too? Why aren’t male saints/blessed considered and titled as virgins? Isn’t the definition of a virgin someone who has completely abstained from sexual relations? Surely there are plenty of male saints/blessed who have completely abstained from sexual relations.
Why the difference in distinction? Does anyone know?

Perhaps this particular saint had to go to great lengths to protect her virginity?

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Tonight I was reading the ‘Saints of Today and Yesterday’ in my Magnificat Magazine and wondered.
The featured saint/blessed tonight is Blessed Sara Salkahazi - Virgin and Martyr. Often times I read of female blessed and saints referred to as virgins. Never do I read of male saints/blesseds referred to as virgins. Can’t a male be a virgin too? Why aren’t male saints/blessed considered and titled as virgins? Isn’t the definition of a virgin someone who has completely abstained from sexual relations? Surely there are plenty of male saints/blessed who have completely abstained from sexual relations.
Why the difference in distinction? Does anyone know?

Perhaps this particular saint had to go to great lengths to protect her virginity?

Actually, a Saint whose martyrdom occurred in defense of her virginity is formally termed a martyr in defensum castitatis (tr: martyred in defense of chastity). Examples would be Blessed Karolina Kozka of Poland and Blessed Albertina Berkenbrock of Brazil.

In the instance of Blessed Sister Sara, her virginity is incidental (she was a religious of the Sisters of Social Service), not directly related to her martyrdom. She was a martyr per testimonium caritatis fortis (tr: martyr in testimony to heroic charity), having given her life together with Jewish women whom her order was hiding from Nazi authorities, although she had the opportunity to have escaped. (Blessed Sister Sara was beatified in 2006, if I remember correctly; she was recognized by Yad Vashem as a “Righteous Among the Nations” in the early '70s).

The term is often applied in styling Saints who were female religious.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Irish_Melkite]

can some wise person here tell me what does it mean when a saint is designated “confessor”? I thought it meant a priest, but someone recently corrected me and said it means someone who was a notable witness to the faith against adversity.

Annie,

I won’t fit the definition of “wise” but your informant is essentially correct. A confessor is one who either confessed his faith in the face of adversity (including those who did so short of martyrdom) or one who confessed the faith to the world through writings and/or preaching.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Beautiful]

Actually, a Saint whose martyrdom occurred in defense of her virginity is formally termed a martyr in defensum castitatis (tr: martyred in defense of chastity). Examples would be Blessed Karolina Kozka of Poland and Blessed Albertina Berkenbrock of Brazil.

In the instance of Blessed Sister Sara, her virginity is incidental (she was a religious of the Sisters of Social Service), not directly related to her martyrdom. She was a martyr per testimonium caritatis fortis (tr: martyr in testimony to heroic charity), having given her life together with Jewish women whom her order was hiding from Nazi authorities, although she had the opportunity to have escaped. (Blessed Sister Sara was beatified in 2006, if I remember correctly; she was recognized by Yad Vashem as a “Righteous Among the Nations” in the early '70s).

The term is often applied in styling Saints who were female religious.

Many years,

Neil

You confirm my thoughts - the Church applies titled distinction of virginity to female saints and not male saints.

At any rate - this question of mine won’t be changing the Church’s perspective on male/female virginity in the near future. I think that if and when I get to heaven I’ll find that God makes no distinction between the two sexes in this way but rather He gives merit to both equally. Heavens! I don’t need to die to know this is true.

 

[JReducation]

. . . Never do I read of male saints/blesseds referred to as virgins. Can’t a male be a virgin too? Why aren’t male saints/blessed considered and titled as virgins? . . . Surely there are plenty of male saints/blessed who have completely abstained from sexual relations.
Why the difference in distinction? Does anyone know?

I tried to respond to this question earlier, but my post has ended up somewhere in cyberspace. If anyone finds it, please send it back.

The title “Vrigin” has more to do with Christian tradition than biology and political correctness.

It is true that there have been many canonized males who were virgiins: Aloysius (Sp?) Gonzaga who was just a boy, Francis of Assisi, Maximilian Kolbe, Alberto Hurtado and many others.

However, since the first century, the Christian community gave women who remained virgins for the sake of the Kingdom of God a special place of honour, not only in its liturgy, but also in its calendar of feasts.

This is a tradition that goes back to our early days. Our traditions have a special place in our spirituality. They are threads that join us to those who came before us and those who will come in the future. They are important to our spiritual life, because they draw us into the mystery of the Communion of Saints. They remind us of the continuity of the Church. Through them we participate in the life and history of the Church long before we came into existence and long after we have left Earth.

To drop a tradition, because it is not politically or biologically correct is unreasonable. Such an action will do nothing to enhance the spiritual life of the Church. It will not make us more holy. Being linked to Mystical Body through the saving act of Christ, the scriptures, the Church and Christian tradition does sanctify us.

If we begin to drop traditions because our modern Western mentality no longer finds them relevant or appropriate, then our identity as a people becomes subject to the culture of the times. This is spiritual relativism. The next generation can also drop another tradition, because it is not PC in their time. We erode the unity of the Church.

There are traditions that can be dispensed with, becaue they are not dogma or essential to the message of salvation, and this is one of them. But how will it enhance the message of salvation to add the word vigin after a male’s name on the liturgical calendar? It doesn’t. We are not in the buisness of changing things because they look or feel good. Change must have a pastoral reason.

When we see the feast of St. Cecilia, Virgin and Martyr, on our calendar, we are reminded of the courage of faith. We are reminded that God is our Beloved and we are his. The celebration of the great love between this woman and God draws us into the mystery of union with the Divine. As we celebrate Cecilia’s mystical marriage we participate in the wedding feast.

Of course we could rewrite the Calendar to say Maximilian Kolbe, Virgina and Martyr, but how would that add to our spirituality? It would add nothing that we don’t already have. It’s only purpose would be to please a few people who believe in inclusion.

Christian tradition goes far beyond political inclusion. It transcends such temporal concepts. Christian tradition is about redemptive inclusion. All men are saved through Christ’s sacrifice. All are called to respond to Christ’s invitation from the cross to follow him.

This is the inclusion that should concern us, that all participate in and take full advantage of redemption.

I pose a simple example of tradition that is out of our historical context, yet has a place in our spiritual life. The vestments that priests and deacons wear at mass are clothes that date back almost 2,000 years. Should we simplify them to shirts and ties to conform to modern Western cutlure? I believe not.

When we walk into the liturgy and we see the vestments, the colours and the rituals that are thousands of years old, we transcend our own time and join every believer that has been here and has yet to come. Together, we celebrate the Eucharist, not just those of us who are here today.

Any tradition, even the virgin and martyr after someone’s name, . . . any tradition that helps us move outside of ourselves to find God is healthy for our souls.

Before we think about how many males were virgins and are not getting the byline next to their name, let’s focus on what’s more important. God is the beloved. We are invited to give up everything to follow him, that may mean giving up our natural right to marriage or our natural right to life.

When these labels are seen as they ought to be, reminders that we have among us brothers and sisters who have given their all for the sake of the Beloved, political and biological correctness are not so important.

Christian tradition is built on love, not political correctness.

 

[Beautiful]

Christian tradition goes far beyond political inclusion. It transcends such temporal concepts. Christian tradition is about redemptive inclusion. All men are saved through Christ’s sacrifice. All are called to respond to Christ’s invitation from the cross to follow him.

When these labels are seen as they ought to be, reminders that we have among us brothers and sisters who have given their all for the sake of the Beloved, political and biological correctness are not so important.

Christian tradition is built on love, not political correctness.

Thanks for the beautiful reply.

PS. I’ve learned to type out long replies on a word doc. and then cut and paste to the forum. This insures that I will not be ‘timed out’ and lose everything.

 

[Augustine]

I think that this physical fact becomes particularly relevant in the Catholic tradition of religious sisters, in that they become brides of Christ, the God-Man savior of mankind. Even though religious men, priests or brothers, are the Church’s grooms, they cannot claim such an intimacy with Jesus in their state of life.

So, I actually find it pretty amazing that virgin women saints have not been touched by men, that they’re totally Christ’s. Of course, men can also be totally Christ’s, but intercourse changes a woman’s body and they approach Christ with their virginal bodies it conveys a more powerful symbolic meaning than a man’s virginal body.

As I see it, among the struggles of the soul with the world, a mjor one is against the desires of the flesh. So virginal spouses of Christ or of the Church can count on this victory, but women can bear it as a “medal” with a physical sign of their purity.

 

[JReducation]

I think that this physical fact becomes particularly relevant in the Catholic tradition of religious sisters, in that they become brides of Christ,

We have to be careful here. Sisters do not have to be virgins. The Church does not use the ritual for Consecration of Virgins when Sisters profess their vows. Sisters can be widows or divorced women, even single mothers who no longer have commitments to their grown children.

Most nuns, on the other hand, have to be virgins. There are some orders who admit women who are not virgins. But for the most part, orders of nuns are for virgins only, whereas congregations of women religious may include women who have been married or have been in other relationships. It’s up to the Constitutions of the Congregation.

A sister is not a nun, therefore the requirements are different as is their consecration. Sisters make simple vows and nuns make solemn vows.

In addition, the term “Brides of Christ,” was abandoned by most religious congregations after Vatican II, with the approval of the Holy See. The Sacred Congregation for Religious in “Perfectae Caritatis” refers to religious men and women as “consecrated religious.” It deliberately dropped Brides of Christ when referring to women religious.

However, the term “virgin” is still used for those who are or were de facto virgins.

In the liturgy of the Church, there are two liturgical celebrations: the Liturgy for the Consecration of Virgins, for those who enter a religous commuity where virginity is the norm and the other is the Liturgy of Religious Profession, for those who enter communities that include virgins and non virgins.

The norm that was handed down to us by the Orthodox Church, which Roman Catholics still follow is, “As the Church prays, so must she teach.” Whatever we say in liturgical prayer is what we believe and teach.

For men, the system is very similar. Some religious institutes require that their members be virgins and others do not. The differences are not as marked as they are with institutes of religoius women. For example, monasteries of nuns have members whom they refer to as “externs”. These are religious who are members of the order, but may not live within the religous house. They live in separate quarters and take care of the outside activities of the monastery. Often, widows and other women who are not virgins will join a monastery as an extern. Again, each monastery is a rule unto itself.

Of course, secular priests are not religious. Therefore, virginity is not an issue, because they do not take vows or belong to a community that follows a rule of life. They are attached to a specific diocese and the “vows” they take are celibacy and obedience to the Bishop. It is up to the Bishop to decide if he wants to limit admission to the seminary only to men who are virgins. I have no idea which diocese does, but it is permitted for the Bishop to place this restriction.

It’s very confusing at first. LOL

 

[Saint_Gemma]

We have to be careful here. Sisters do not have to be virgins. The Church does not use the ritual for Consecration of Virgins when Sisters profess their vows. Sisters can be widows or divorced women, even single mothers who no longer have commitments to their grown children.

Most nuns, on the other hand, have to be virgins. There are some orders who admit women who are not virgins. But for the most part, orders of nuns are for virgins only, whereas congregations of women religious may include women who have been married or have been in other relationships. It’s up to the Constitutions of the Congregation.

A sister is not a nun, therefore the requirements are different as is their consecration. Sisters make simple vows and nuns make solemn vows.

In addition, the term “Brides of Christ,” was abandoned by most religious congregations after Vatican II, with the approval of the Holy See. The Sacred Congregation for Religious in “Perfectae Caritatis” refers to religious men and women as “consecrated religious.” It deliberately dropped Brides of Christ when referring to women religious.

However, the term “virgin” is still used for those who are or were de facto virgins.

In the liturgy of the Church, there are two liturgical celebrations: the Liturgy for the Consecration of Virgins, for those who enter a religous commuity where virginity is the norm and the other is the Liturgy of Religious Profession, for those who enter communities that include virgins and non virgins.

The norm that was handed down to us by the Orthodox Church, which Roman Catholics still follow is, “As the Church prays, so must she teach.” Whatever we say in liturgical prayer is what we believe and teach.

For men, the system is very similar. Some religious institutes require that their members be virgins and others do not. The differences are not as marked as they are with institutes of religoius women. For example, monasteries of nuns have members whom they refer to as “externs”. These are religious who are members of the order, but may not live within the religous house. They live in separate quarters and take care of the outside activities of the monastery. Often, widows and other women who are not virgins will join a monastery as an extern. Again, each monastery is a rule unto itself.

Of course, secular priests are not religious. Therefore, virginity is not an issue, because they do not take vows or belong to a community that follows a rule of life. They are attached to a specific diocese and the “vows” they take are celibacy and obedience to the Bishop. It is up to the Bishop to decide if he wants to limit admission to the seminary only to men who are virgins. I have no idea which diocese does, but it is permitted for the Bishop to place this restriction.

It’s very confusing at first. LOL

Since I have had voluntary impure thoughts (before my baptsim
), does this mean that I cannot become a nun?