Nihil Obstat Posted November 17, 2012 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the171 Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I feel this is only appropriate with all this "hymen talk". http://leighanoisgocuramach.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/bettywhite.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted November 17, 2012 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 This is one of those threads where face to face discussion and a beer would come in handy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 17, 2012 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 17, 2012 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted November 17, 2012 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 17, 2012 Share 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] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmilyAnn Posted November 17, 2012 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 17, 2012 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anastasia13 Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 A person>their purity>their virginity=still important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 [quote name='Light and Truth' timestamp='1353228030' post='2512280'] A person>their purity>their virginity=still important. [/quote] Word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the171 Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Theology of the Body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted November 18, 2012 Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts