Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
polskieserce

Finding Other Catholic Virgins?

Recommended Posts

HisChildForever

The point is that Jesus forgave the woman, but He didn't marry her.  Forgiving a person does not equal a requirement to marry that person.  Two different things.

 

Um, He didn't marry her because He had a different calling...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257

The point is that Jesus forgave the woman, but He didn't marry her.  Forgiving a person does not equal a requirement to marry that person.  Two different things.

 

 

So are you trying to say that Jesus is ok with forgiving her sins but he doesn't think she should ever marry?  Your argument is non sensical.  Jesus never married anyone and never would have no matter her virginity or not. 

 

Jesus teaches us to forgive others and do not hold the past against them.  Unless your understanding is that you are to forgive them but hold past sins against them.  Although that is not what Jesus taught but yet what the OP advocates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Winchester

Higher incidence of people claiming to be virgins =/= higher incidence of people actually being virgins.

 

 

The only thing that has diminished is the playacting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sister Marie

I find this post to be very rude.  If there is anyone who needs therapy, it is you, because with this rudeness and crankiness at age 25 I fear for anyone whom you will minister to. 

 

"Back in the day" virginity was a higher priority than it is today.  Notice also that back then we did not have the high rates of promiscuity and cohabitation as we do today.  Correlation?  I think so in the sense that we have lowered our standards on sexual morality.  It's sadder that this lowering of standards has crept into the religious as well; however, it was estimated that the majority of clergy subscribed to the Arian heresy in the 300s, so I guess nothing should surprise me.

 

It's fine with me if you find my post rude or cranky, but I find the posters attitude to be far more offensive than my own response to it.  I wish I could have had a nicer way to say what I believed this poster truly needed to hear but I couldn't think of one.  His post was demeaning to women and to people in general but I didn't think it was because he was a bad person but because he has some attitudes that are not healthy and will be major problems if he does get married.  Therapy is not a bad thing - its a good thing.  It's for people who need to work on issues... so if you think I need therapy that's fine... we all have things we need to work on and I'm well aware that I am part of the sinful human species and I need just as much help as others.  The result of therapy is, hopefully, to be able to live more fully and healthily.  I don't see that as a rude thing to desire for anyone.     

Just because I think the poster needs some help because of his attitude doesn't mean that I don't have high regard for virginity and for the virtue of chastity.  (Seeing as I have taken a vow of chastity, I certainly have a high regard for it)  I just don't believe that physical virginity is the sum value of one's worth.  It's because I see the high value in each person, regardless of their sins that I wrote this post.  I don't think that the belief that we are called to care about more than physical intactness will harm those to whom I minister.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Norseman82

So are you trying to say that Jesus is ok with forgiving her sins but he doesn't think she should ever marry?  Your argument is non sensical.  Jesus never married anyone and never would have no matter her virginity or not. 

 

I never said that He didn't think she should marry - it's just that He didn't marry her.  

 

Jesus teaches us to forgive others and do not hold the past against them.  Unless your understanding is that you are to forgive them but hold past sins against them.  Although that is not what Jesus taught but yet what the OP advocates.

 

OK, let's apply this logic to something else.  I don't know if you have children or not, but suppose you are looking for someone to babysit your children.  If there were someone in your neighborhood who had a conviction for a sexual offense against a minor but has gone to confession and has been forgiven, would you hire that person as a babysitter, or would you hold the past against that person? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257

I never said that He didn't think she should marry - it's just that He didn't marry her.  

 

 

OK, let's apply this logic to something else.  I don't know if you have children or not, but suppose you are looking for someone to babysit your children.  If there were someone in your neighborhood who had a conviction for a sexual offense against a minor but has gone to confession and has been forgiven, would you hire that person as a babysitter, or would you hold the past against that person? 

 

 

and lets go crazy here and compare sex offenders to people who made a mistake and had sex 1 times prior to marriage.  Yep, so similar.  Maybe next you can compare sex before marriage to terrorism or Hitler.  That's always a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Norseman82

and lets go crazy here and compare sex offenders to people who made a mistake and had sex 1 times prior to marriage.  Yep, so similar.  Maybe next you can compare sex before marriage to terrorism or Hitler.  That's always a good one.

 

Answer the question.  Would you hire that person, or would you hold the past against that person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Winchester

Sex offenders, being violent criminals, are not comparable to people who engage in voluntary, but sinful activity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vincent Vega

One thing I've learned in the "virgin seeks fellow virgin" discussions is that many active Catholics have had checkered pasts, so they come to the discussion with a "bias", and that one needs to filter that out when looking at the answers.  That, and the fact that I get the impression that many Catholics just have accepted the modern-day promiscuity as the norm.

And how's that working out for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Norseman82

Sex offenders, being violent criminals, are not comparable to people who engage in voluntary, but sinful activity.

 

What difference does that make?  (Havok, I'm awaiting your answer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basilisa Marie

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a preference for virginity in a potential spouse. I'd even encourage it, for some people.  Some people feel strongly about knowing their spouse has only "been" with them, for whatever reason.

 

HOWEVER.

 

I would encourage every woman to run away from you as far as they possibly can. Absolute unwillingness to budge on an issue that concerns repentance is a humongous red flag, telling me and every other woman that forgiveness is conditional in your eyes.  You attitude, as described by yourself in this thread, tells me that some sins are absolutely unforgivable in your eyes, no matter how contrite a sinner may be. That is an incredibly un-Catholic, and un-Christ-like attitude.  What makes you so holy? What makes you so much better than a repentant non-virgin?  Would you rather be with a chronic masturbator with a porn addiction than someone who made one mistake when they were young? What would you do if your beloved comes to you the day before your wedding, in tears, confessing that she isn't actually a virgin because she made one mistake in her teenage years, and she was too afraid to tell you before?  Would you drop her on the spot?  Because that's what your attitude tells me you would do. 

 

Look, I know what I've written is incredibly harsh.  I hope I, and others in this thread, can give you a wakeup call.  There is NOTHING WRONG with a preference for virginity, especially if you yourself are a virgin.  HOWEVER, to make that condition an absolute necessity tells me that there's something seriously wrong with the way you're approaching it.  It also tells me that you're the type of person to abandon a spouse if they ever make a big mistake, even if they seek forgiveness.  As I get older, I see more and more people admit to lying about their virginity for mere appearances' sake, because we place so much emphasis on never ever screwing up and committing a sexual sin, despite having the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  Most of the greatest saints lead terrible, disgusting sinful lives before their eyes were opened.  

 

You're really going to have a very, very hard time finding someone who meets your standards.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a preference for virginity in a potential spouse. I'd even encourage it, for some people.  Some people feel strongly about knowing their spouse has only "been" with them, for whatever reason.

 

HOWEVER.

 

I would encourage every woman to run away from you as far as they possibly can. Absolute unwillingness to budge on an issue that concerns repentance is a humongous red flag, telling me and every other woman that forgiveness is conditional in your eyes.  You attitude, as described by yourself in this thread, tells me that some sins are absolutely unforgivable in your eyes, no matter how contrite a sinner may be. That is an incredibly un-Catholic, and un-Christ-like attitude.  What makes you so holy? What makes you so much better than a repentant non-virgin?  Would you rather be with a chronic masturbator with a porn addiction than someone who made one mistake when they were young? What would you do if your beloved comes to you the day before your wedding, in tears, confessing that she isn't actually a virgin because she made one mistake in her teenage years, and she was too afraid to tell you before?  Would you drop her on the spot?  Because that's what your attitude tells me you would do. 

 

Look, I know what I've written is incredibly harsh.  I hope I, and others in this thread, can give you a wakeup call.  There is NOTHING WRONG with a preference for virginity, especially if you yourself are a virgin.  HOWEVER, to make that condition an absolute necessity tells me that there's something seriously wrong with the way you're approaching it.  It also tells me that you're the type of person to abandon a spouse if they ever make a big mistake, even if they seek forgiveness.  As I get older, I see more and more people admit to lying about their virginity for mere appearances' sake, because we place so much emphasis on never ever screwing up and committing a sexual sin, despite having the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  Most of the greatest saints lead terrible, disgusting sinful lives before their eyes were opened.  

 

You're really going to have a very, very hard time finding someone who meets your standards.  

For a crazy liberal, that was pretty reasonable. :|

That bolded part made me think of Tess of the D'Urbervilles as well, which was kind of a garbage book, IMO, but nonetheless offered an excellent example of how to be a crummy human being.

 

TL;DR: I do not like Thomas Hardy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Winchester

What difference does that make?  (Havok, I'm awaiting your answer).

 

It's the difference between rape and consensual sex. You're comparing marrying someone who had sex outside of wedlock with putting a rapist in charge of your kids. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Norseman82

It's the difference between rape and consensual sex. You're comparing marrying someone who had sex outside of wedlock with putting a rapist in charge of your kids. 

 

 

(Havok, I'm still awaiting your response)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Norseman82

 What would you do if your beloved comes to you the day before your wedding, in tears, confessing that she isn't actually a virgin because she made one mistake in her teenage years, and she was too afraid to tell you before?  Would you drop her on the spot?  Because that's what your attitude tells me you would do. 

 

As I get older, I see more and more people admit to lying about their virginity for mere appearances' sake, because we place so much emphasis on never ever screwing up and committing a sexual sin, despite having the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

As an FYI, I've seen posts on CAF implying that if such lying is done to deceive someone into marrying him/her, it could be grounds for annullment on the basis of fraud or deceit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Winchester

(Havok, I'm still awaiting your response)

He responded. Your scenario is ridiculous. You're comparing violent actions to consensual actions. It's not analogous. Pick a better scenario.

 

 

And havok has a job. A job with a really weird schedule.

Edited by Winchester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257

What difference does that make?  (Havok, I'm awaiting your answer).

 

 

Your not going to get an answer because its a stupid comparison.  Find something that is comparable to someone choosing to have sex before marriage and then I will answer your question.  I don't answer something that is in no way comparable.  Just like I won't answer if I would allow Hitler to watch my child since we both know God would forgive him if he truly repented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BG45

Does anyone here watch King of the Hill?  The last several pages remind me of a specific episode of it.  Hank, the main character, is derisive of his niece Luanne going through born-again virgin classes at church, to repent of one's previous sexual sins.  However, his more compassionate wife, Peggy, insists they attend with Luanne.  They're split into two groups, men and women.  Then in the women's group comes a shocking revelation...Peggy told Hank she was a virgin, but she was not.  Eventually Luanne brings this up during an argument at dinner, about how Peggy wasn't a virgin, but Hank loved her anyway.  Hank yells at her to not besmirch the reputation of his wife, when Peggy admits that it is true.

 

HHank doesn't know what to do.  He loves his wife, but he feels so deeply betrayed.  Eventually he goes to the baptism-like ceremony at the lake for Luanne, but instead, it's his wife who comes up from under the waters.  In that moment, he realizes that to truly love someone, is to look past their mistakes, especially ones they have repented of.  It's one of the few episodes where the headstrong Hank changes his mind.  

 

(As an aside...I just talked about a show made by the creator of Beavis and Butthead in a Catholic forum, talking about virginity, completely in context.  It feels weird.)

Sex offenders, being violent criminals, are not comparable to people who engage in voluntary, but sinful activity.

 

While I find Norseman's analogy of non-virgin nonmarried people to sex offenders to be quite....different...not all sexual offenders are violent criminals.  In many jurisdictions, such as the one I'm in, one can easily end up on a sex offender registry for entirely non-sexual actions.  Like relieving oneself of urine in an alley (indecent exposure).   I know you know that, I'm just pointing it out for those who don't possible, like you know, the person who made the analogy, because a few posts later you needle exactly what he's getting at:


It's the difference between rape and consensual sex. You're comparing marrying someone who had sex outside of wedlock with putting a rapist in charge of your kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×