KnightofChrist Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 [quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1353185966' post='2511952'] How so? It just seems creepy to me. I'm sure she didn't mean to be. But it is... creepy. [/quote] Because it isn't creepy. Stop being so judgmental.
Basilisa Marie Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1353183492' post='2511933'] Virginity isn't magical, it is holy and it is more than just a physical state. " Because you all know that every little girl that is born, is born with a seal, so to speak, protecting the mystery of her femininity, which is the womb. There is a seal and if you understand, a seal always indicates something which is sacred. The seal, which doesn’t exist in the male body, is profoundly symbolic and says this belongs to God in a special way. This is a sphere which is so beautiful and so profound that it cannot be touched upon, except with God’s permission, in a Catholic marriage. When a girl or young woman is permitted to give the keys of this mysterious domain, this closed garden, to her husband-to-be, she says: "Up until now I have kept this garden virginal, now God has given me the keys and is allowing me to give them to you and I know that you will penetrate into it, with trembling reverence and gratitude". The moment that a woman is embraced by her husband and a few hours afterwards she conceives, in this very moment, something absolutely amazing happens which once again illuminates the greatness of femininity. Neither husband nor wife can create a human soul. God alone can. Of course there is the male seed and there is the female egg. These are material realities that God has put into the bodies and when they are united, an amazing thing happens. God creates a new human soul, totally new, which never existed before. Where? In the mystery of the female body. This is where the soul is conceived. It has nothing to do with the husband. The husband is out of the game at this point and the very moment that God creates a soul he implies that there is a special contact between God and the female body, so to speak, touching it in creating it. Once again, what an extraordinary privilege." -- Alice von Hildebrand [/quote] So I don't understand something here. If someone could clarify this for me, and help me understand, that'd be great. I get that part of a woman's femininity is the sacred mystery of the union between body and soul, which occurs in her womb. It's an extraordinary privilege, I wouldn't deny that. However, what I'm reading from this is that a woman's hymen is what denotes her virginity, and that men are incapable of being virgins because they lack a hymen. What happens if a woman's hymen is broken through other activity? Or if she was raped? Are we to think that she didn't do enough to protect her "sacred garden"? Is she still a virgin if she engages in sexual activities that don't involve "breaking the seal"? And if virginity is truly just a feminine construct, and is given in a "transaction" with her husband, does she get nothing in return? Alice von Hildebrand's passage is beautiful. But it seems to me that it has to be properly contextualized. It's supposed to be about the mystery of the feminine, and leaves much to be desired when talking about the nature of virginity.
Nihil Obstat Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1353185228' post='2511947'] I don't know. I find that paragraph about little girls and their seals pretty creepy. I'm sad that it's from Alice von Hildebrand. The hymen is just a bit of extra tissue, a membrane, and many women are born without one. It's also not exactly a perfect seal since after all women start menstruating at age 13 and the blood comes through the hymen. It's not so much a seal as it is a screen door. She seems to make virginity a bigger issue for women than for men ("it doesn't exist in the male body."). It is equally important for both. Then again it's important to not diminish the importance physical virginity has in the Church. It's true Mary is "virginial" in the sense of giving everything to God, but at the same time she is also physically a perpetual virgin and being physically set apart from being a sexual partner with men is important for understanding her role. [/quote] [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1353186363' post='2511954'] So I don't understand something here. If someone could clarify this for me, and help me understand, that'd be great. I get that part of a woman's femininity is the sacred mystery of the union between body and soul, which occurs in her womb. It's an extraordinary privilege, I wouldn't deny that. However, what I'm reading from this is that a woman's hymen is what denotes her virginity, and that men are incapable of being virgins because they lack a hymen. What happens if a woman's hymen is broken through other activity? Or if she was raped? Are we to think that she didn't do enough to protect her "sacred garden"? Is she still a virgin if she engages in sexual activities that don't involve "breaking the seal"? And if virginity is truly just a feminine construct, and is given in a "transaction" with her husband, does she get nothing in return? Alice von Hildebrand's passage is beautiful. But it seems to me that it has to be properly contextualized. It's supposed to be about the mystery of the feminine, and leaves much to be desired when talking about the nature of virginity. [/quote] I am relatively sure that it was meant to be taken sort of metonymously. The hymen represents purity, even though physically it generally has nothing to do with it. But then again, I really like both the von Hildebrands, and I am more or less inclined to agree with anything either of them says. If we take her speaking about the "seal" to be a metonym for purity and chastity, then it makes complete sense when she says that it is "profoundly symbolic" and "sacred". It is not to say that male purity is less important. But look at the Church Herself. Mary's virginity holds a special place of reverence in our faith, and Mary as the new Eve represents all women and the Church. She does not denigrate male purity, but she especially exalts the female aspect of purity as it relates to creation and salvation. I do not think there is anything wrong with Dr. von Hildebrand's comments. Edited November 17, 2012 by Nihil Obstat
Basilisa Marie Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1353186213' post='2511953'] Because it isn't creepy. Stop being so judgmental. [/quote] It's creepy if someone thinks it's creepy. As a woman, I can see how it can be a bit creepy. It's not being judgmental. Being judgmental is writing off someone's personal perception as wrong because it disagrees with your personal perception. Edited November 17, 2012 by Basilisa Marie
Basilisa Marie Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1353186457' post='2511955'] I am relatively sure that it was meant to be taken sort of metonymously. The hymen represents purity, even though physically it generally has nothing to do with it. But then again, I really like both the von Hildebrands, and I am more or less inclined to agree with anything either of them says. If we take her speaking about the "seal" to be a metonym for purity and chastity, then it makes complete sense when she says that it is "profoundly symbolic" and "sacred". It is not to say that male purity is less important. But look at the Church Herself. Mary's virginity holds a special place of reverence in our faith, and Mary as the new Eve represents all women and the Church. She does not denigrate male purity, but she especially exalts the female aspect of purity as it relates to creation and salvation. I do not think there is anything wrong with Dr. von Hildebrand's comments. [/quote] If the hymen represents purity, it's very, very easy for someone to take that image and say that lack of hymen represent impurity. While I don't disagree that the hymen CAN represent purity, it's a tricky line of logic to follow, and has untrue implications. Taken in the context of this thread, her passage seems to imply that it's more important for women to be pure than it is for men. Male purity seems to be secondary to female purity...and thus it seems that the next step of logic is that it's more important for women to be "pure" than men. So basically I'm not saying that I have an explicit problem with what Alice von Hildebrand is saying...just that it needs to be properly contextualized. If it's not, it can have lots of not-good implications.
Nihil Obstat Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1353186966' post='2511959'] If the hymen represents purity, it's very, very easy for someone to take that image and say that lack of hymen represent impurity. While I don't disagree that the hymen CAN represent purity, it's a tricky line of logic to follow, and has untrue implications. Taken in the context of this thread, her passage seems to imply that it's more important for women to be pure than it is for men. Male purity seems to be secondary to female purity...and thus it seems that the next step of logic is that it's more important for women to be "pure" than men. So basically I'm not saying that I have an explicit problem with what Alice von Hildebrand is saying...just that it needs to be properly contextualized. If it's not, it can have lots of not-good implications. [/quote] Yeah, context is key on that passage I think. Certainly one [i]could[/i] interpret it that way if they wanted, but I do not think it was at all the meaning Dr. von Hildebrand was trying to convey. Like I was getting at before, we celebrate both Mary's and Joseph's purity. But Mary's occupies a special place in the faith. That does not mean that St. Joseph's purity meant less, simply that there is a deeper, symbolic meaning attached to Mary. If we follow that path a bit, Mary's virginity is intimately related to the incarnation. I will go out on a limb and speculate a bit here, that since Mary's virginity was exalted by God and occupies such an important place in the incarnation, in the same way the virginity of woman as a whole reflects that same sacredness. Inasmuch as true purity is related to participating in God's Will in bringing forth new life, it is also related in a kind of imitative sense to the way in which God chose to become Incarnate. So thinking in that way, it is not that male virginity is less important. It simply is that female virginity has further meaning to it because of God's choice in making it such an integral part of the Incarnation.
the171 Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 I feel this is only appropriate with all this "hymen talk". http://leighanoisgocuramach.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/bettywhite.jpg
Basilisa Marie Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1353187435' post='2511965'] So thinking in that way, it is not that male virginity is less important. It simply is that female virginity has further meaning to it because of God's choice in making it such an integral part of the Incarnation. [/quote] I'm still stuck on the idea of [i]virginity[/i] having the further meaning. Are we defining virginity as not having sexual intercourse? Or any sexual activity? I only ask because I have a hard time equating complete abstinence from all sexual activity and "everything but the deed." Because technically, "everything but the deed" doesn't violate the "sacred garden" the way von Hildebrand describes it. So yeah. Maybe my issue is that virginity is so arbitrarily defined today, that I think it's more helpful to focus on chastity. And that Virginity works as a helpful descriptor in Mary's case because she was perfectly chaste, perfectly pure and uniquely devoted to God. But to me it seems to be less helpful when talking about people who aren't Mary.
Ash Wednesday Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 This is one of those threads where face to face discussion and a beer would come in handy
Nihil Obstat Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 [color=#222222][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)] [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1353186363' post='2511954'] Alice von Hildebrand's passage is beautiful. But it seems to me that it has to be properly contextualized. [b]It's supposed to be about the mystery of the feminine[/b], and leaves much to be desired when talking about the nature of virginity. [/quote] This is almost certainly true. Look at her bibliography, and it is pretty clear what her main interest was. [list] [*][i]Greek Culture, the Adventure of the Human Spirit[/i], editor (G. Braziller, 1966) [*][i]Introduction to a Philosophy of Religion[/i] (Franciscan Herald Press, 1970) [*][b][i]By Love Refined: Letters to a Young Bride[/i][/b] (Sophia Institute Press, 1989) [*][b][i]Women and the Priesthood[/i][/b] (Franciscan University Press, 1994) [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0940535726"]ISBN 0-940535-72-6[/url] [*][b][i]By Grief Refined: Letters to a Widow[/i][/b] (Franciscan University Press, 1994) [*][i]Memoiren und Aufsätze gegen den Nationalsozialismus, 1933–1938[/i], with Dietrich von Hildebrand and Rudolf Ebneth, (Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1994)[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/3786717370"]ISBN 3-7867-1737-0[/url] [*][i]Soul of a Lion: Dietrich Von Hildebrand: a Biography[/i] (Ignatius Press, 2000) [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/089870801X"]ISBN 0-89870-801-X[/url] [*][b][i]The Privilege of Being a Woman[/i][/b] (Veritas Press, 2002) [*][b][i]Man and Woman: A Divine Invention[/i][/b] (Ignatius Press, 2010) [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1932589562"]ISBN 1-932589-56-2[/url] [/list] [b] [size=3][[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_von_Hildebrand&action=edit§ion=2&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro"]edit[/url]][/size][/b] She was not something along the lines of a Theology of the Body lecturer or a sexual morality writer, though certainly her work dealt heavily with both those subjects. More than that, she was interested in the meanings of male and female and how it relates to the Incarnation and salvation of mankind. [/background][/size][/font][/color] [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1353187755' post='2511968'] I'm still stuck on the idea of [i]virginity[/i] having the further meaning. Are we defining virginity as not having sexual intercourse? Or any sexual activity? I only ask because I have a hard time equating complete abstinence from all sexual activity and "everything but the deed." Because technically, "everything but the deed" doesn't violate the "sacred garden" the way von Hildebrand describes it. So yeah. Maybe my issue is that virginity is so arbitrarily defined today, that I think it's more helpful to focus on chastity. And that Virginity works as a helpful descriptor in Mary's case because she was perfectly chaste, perfectly pure and uniquely devoted to God. But to me it seems to be less helpful when talking about people who aren't Mary. [/quote] [quote]Because technically, "everything but the deed" doesn't violate the "sacred garden" the way von Hildebrand describes it.[/quote] I do not think this is necessarily the case, if we make the reasonable assumption that she is using the physical aspect of virginity as a metaphor for the spiritual meaning. In that sense, doing "everything but the deed" certainly violates one's purity in a spiritual sense. Whether or not you want to define that as also violating one's virginity simply depends on how you are defining virginity- as simply a physical condition, or as a spiritual condition. A condition of the soul. I think the latter is a far superior way of looking at it. [quote]Maybe my issue is that virginity is so arbitrarily defined today, that I think it's more helpful to focus on chastity.[/quote] Yeah, basically this. Society in general wants to define virginity as a physical condition, which I think is a pretty impoverished way of looking at it. I think this attitude tends to creep into our own understanding as well, if we are not careful to maintain a correct understanding of purity. [quote]But to me it seems to be less helpful when talking about people who aren't Mary.[/quote] Iunno, I do not really see it that way. The fact that she can be our model [i]par excellence[/i] is to me a very powerful reminder of God's love for us and His willingness to give us whatever we need to imitate Christ.
Nihil Obstat Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 [quote name='Ash Wednesday' timestamp='1353187996' post='2511970'] This is one of those threads where face to face discussion and a beer would come in handy [/quote] I have some Oatmeal Stouts and Honey Ales here at my place if anyone wants to come over.
Basilisa Marie Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1353188184' post='2511971'] I do not think this is necessarily the case, if we make the reasonable assumption that she is using the physical aspect of virginity as a metaphor for the spiritual meaning. In that sense, doing "everything but the deed" certainly violates one's purity in a spiritual sense. Whether or not you want to define that as also violating one's virginity simply depends on how you are defining virginity- as simply a physical condition, or as a spiritual condition. A condition of the soul. I think the latter is a far superior way of looking at it. [/quote] If it is a spiritual condition of the soul, then is it something that can be irrevocably lost? Or can it be regained? Could the sacrament of confession restore one's spiritual virginity? [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1353188184' post='2511971'] Yeah, basically this. Society in general wants to define virginity as a physical condition, which I think is a pretty impoverished way of looking at it. I think this attitude tends to creep into our own understanding as well, if we are not careful to maintain a correct understanding of purity. [/quote] Actually, I've run into more secular people who are in favor of throwing out the idea of virginity because of the wide range of activities people engage in. More of my secular friends define virginity as "no sexual activity whatsoever," while more of my Catholic friends define virginity as "no intercourse." Maybe because a lot of Catholics believe virginity is a precious state of being that is lost, and are eager to maintain that status as a virgin while still getting to "have fun." Because secular people are less likely to want to hold tightly to their status as virgins, they're more likely to describe other activities as equal to the marital act. But I'm getting on a tangent. [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1353188184' post='2511971'] Iunno, I do not really see it that way. The fact that she can be our model [i]par excellence[/i] is to me a very powerful reminder of God's love for us and His willingness to give us whatever we need to imitate Christ. [/quote] And I'd say the fact that she is our model is good, but I have a hard time using virginity in the same way to describe Mary and to describe fellow Christians. Unless virginity isn't being described as a static state of being, but more as an idea we strive for - like the idea of spiritual virginity.
Nihil Obstat Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 [color=#222222][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)] [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1353189008' post='2511979'] If it is a spiritual condition of the soul, then is it something that can be irrevocably lost? Or can it be regained? Could the sacrament of confession restore one's spiritual virginity? Actually, I've run into more secular people who are in favor of throwing out the idea of virginity because of the wide range of activities people engage in. More of my secular friends define virginity as "no sexual activity whatsoever," while more of my Catholic friends define virginity as "no intercourse." Maybe because a lot of Catholics believe virginity is a precious state of being that is lost, and are eager to maintain that status as a virgin while still getting to "have fun." Because secular people are less likely to want to hold tightly to their status as virgins, they're more likely to describe other activities as equal to the marital act. But I'm getting on a tangent. And I'd say the fact that she is our model is good, but I have a hard time using virginity in the same way to describe Mary and to describe fellow Christians. Unless virginity isn't being described as a static state of being, but more as an idea we strive for - like the idea of spiritual virginity. [/quote] [quote]If it is a spiritual condition of the soul, then is it something that can be irrevocably lost? Or can it be regained? Could the sacrament of confession restore one's spiritual virginity? [/quote] I was just out for a quick walk, and I was thinking about this exact question. In a way I want to say "both". Confession can restore one's 'spiritual virginity', if that is the term we want to use, but at the same time there is something ever so slightly out of balance that cannot quite be restored. The aspect of confession restoring purity is one I do not need to go over, since you and I are probably on the same page with that. As to the latter part, I think purgatory in general illustrates what I mean. Even when one is forgiven, they still may be called upon to make reparation in purgatory after they die. I think this shows that, while in a spiritual sense confession can and does restore our spiritual purity, there is still something kind of metaphysical that is lost if someone deliberately sins against their purity. Obviously what I am saying here needs a lot more refinement than I have the ability to give it. I am not a theologian, so I would not be able to develop that to the level I think it perhaps deserves. But that is kind of the foundation of where my thoughts are on that subject. [quote]Actually, I've run into more secular people who are in favor of throwing out the idea of virginity because of the wide range of activities people engage in.[/quote] Now that I think about it, lots of young people these days are inclined to say that virginity is simply a social construct based on what they would call "obsolete" or "outdated" religious beliefs and patriarchal oppression of women. There is something to be said on that subject too, I think... but I do not really want to get that far off the subject. [quote]And I'd say the fact that she is our model is good, but I have a hard time using virginity in the same way to describe Mary and to describe fellow Christians. Unless virginity isn't being described as a static state of being, but more as [b]an idea we strive for - like the idea of spiritual virginity.[/b][/quote] To the bolded, I think that is absolutely correct. And then the way I look at it, when we take Mary for our archetypical example, we see that she unites both the concept of spiritual virginity or purity, as well as 'physical' virginity. She both had that perfect, pure state, and she also never lost it. Most people will not be so perfect, but I think one might argue that Mary embodies the perfect understanding of virginity and purity. A concept that unites the body and the soul in service to God's Will.[/background][/size][/font][/color]
EmilyAnn Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) [quote name='tinytherese' timestamp='1353184566' post='2511943'] I cannot help but think that there are people reading this thread who are no longer virgins that feel less than worthy of love. They think that they are dirty and damaged goods. Because of their past, people see them as not good enough to have a happy fulfilling marriage. Yes, what they did was wrong, but does that mean that it's too late for them. If we keep telling them such messages, why would they be motivated to stop their behavior? [/quote] THANK YOU. For a long time I thought all those things. I felt I wasn't worthy of love. I thought I was damaged goods. I thought no-one could ever want me as anything more than a sexual object. And a big part of that was the attitude that comes from other Catholics, and I can see it here. Someone said to me once that I couldn't get married now. Another person compared people who have has pre-marital sex to "used cars". I knew they were wrong, but you have no idea how much that hurt. That attitude was more objectifying that anything else I have ever experienced. And it was that attitude that made it that much harder to turn back. Yes, I have made mistakes. But how many of you are sinless? Why should I be judged based solely on one mistake of my past? We seem to accept the repentance of all except those who have had pre-marital sex. The messages that comes from Catholics does not encourage one to re-embrace a life of chastity. It pushes people away, which is shameful. So please, have a little compassion and little charity. Edited November 17, 2012 by EmilyAnn
Nihil Obstat Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 I think this has been a pretty solid discussion all in all. Except for Freebird's posts. We certainly have done worse.
Anastasia13 Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 A person>their purity>their virginity=still important.
KnightofChrist Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 [quote name='Light and Truth' timestamp='1353228030' post='2512280'] A person>their purity>their virginity=still important. [/quote] Word.
Norseman82 Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 [quote name='EmilyAnn' timestamp='1353191354' post='2511993'] THANK YOU. For a long time I thought all those things. I felt I wasn't worthy of love. I thought I was damaged goods. I thought no-one could ever want me as anything more than a sexual object. And a big part of that was the attitude that comes from other Catholics, and I can see it here. Someone said to me once that I couldn't get married now. Another person compared people who have has pre-marital sex to "used cars". I knew they were wrong, but you have no idea how much that hurt. That attitude was more objectifying that anything else I have ever experienced. And it was that attitude that made it that much harder to turn back. Yes, I have made mistakes. But how many of you are sinless? Why should I be judged based solely on one mistake of my past? We seem to accept the repentance of all except those who have had pre-marital sex. The messages that comes from Catholics does not encourage one to re-embrace a life of chastity. It pushes people away, which is shameful. So please, have a little compassion and little charity. [/quote] Why should it stop one from turning away from sin?
Recommended Posts