Cvs, Religious Orders, And Virginity

[abrideofChrist]

You are mistaken, MM.  It is not dark age theology to state that voluntary masturbation does take away virginity- both in men and in women.  Can you back up your statement?

Edited August 20, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[OnlySunshine]

You are mistaken, MM.  It is not dark age theology to state that voluntary masturbation does take away virginity- both in men and in women.  Can you back up your statement?

 

It is not written in either the Catechism or infallible teaching that masturbation takes away virginity.  I would like to know what source you have pulled the information from.  I did so much research and I was not able to find anything in infallible teaching that says that virginity is lost through masturbation.  If you can find something, I'd like to see it.  There are a lot of differing opinions among the saints like Thomas Aquinas as to what constitutes a loss of virginity.

[OnlySunshine]

This question was answered on EWTN and the priest that answered agrees that virginity is not lost through self stimulation:

 

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=611442&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

 

Excerpt:
 

 

You are correct that masturbation is a mortal sin. Virginity involves sexual activity with another person; masturbation is about self-stimulation. So the terms do not really relate to each other.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2013 by MaterMisericordiae

[abrideofChrist]

MM- you asked where I pulled my information from.  I got it from some sources I do not have easy access to at the moment.  But here is some material to reflect upon.  http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum409.htm

[Sponsa-Christi]

Mater is right. ABC's understanding of this this matter is not what the Church officially teaches.

 

(I'm not trying to pick on you, ABC. I'm only commenting because I'm concerned for the people here who might have sensitive consciences.)

 

Even for the sake of determining who is eligible to receive the consecrated of virgins--which would seem to require a somewhat higher standard than just "normal" virginity--"solitary sin" would certainly not disqualify a woman from receiving the consecration of virgins, because this is not a "public violation of chastity."

[Sponsa-Christi]

MarysLittleFlower,

 

Please forgive me if I'm reading things into your posts that you didn't intended to put there, but I'm sort of sensing that you might be struggling with a few things. Since we can't PM right now, if you want to ask a question outside VS, you can email me at: sponsa [dot] christi [dot] author [at] gmail [dot] com . I'll keep an eye out for something from you, but no pressure, though! :)

[abrideofChrist]

Sponsa Christi, you are also wrong.  You are going against the traditions of the Church in your private interpretation of carnis integritatis. 

[abrideofChrist]

Here is an article for people to read.  Also, for those who are not familiar with theological terms the words "sin of pollution" refers to masturbation.  http://www.osjoseph.org/stjoseph/churchfathers/#Ch1_B

[beatitude]

Here is an article for people to read.  Also, for those who are not familiar with theological terms the words "sin of pollution" refers to masturbation.  http://www.osjoseph.org/stjoseph/churchfathers/#Ch1_

 

From that article: "Material virginity is lost by sexual intercourse (even if it is licit), by the sin of pollution, or finally, in women, by a voluntary or accidental act which causes the breaking of the hymen."

 

In other words, a woman who uses internal sanitary protection - tampons, Mooncup - isn't a virgin any more. Do you support this viewpoint too?

 

A great many of your posts express frustration with other posters for not conducting enough research or the right research, for not understanding you correctly, for not reading as much as you have. To me this is starting to look like a method of pushing people into agreement with you by making them feel that they can't possibly stand up to someone who uses complicated terminology and who announces that she reads four hundred page documents, such is her zeal for truth. (Most people here don't have time to read four hundred page documents.) It all boils down to, "If you knew as much as I do you would agree with me!" and that isn't necessarily convincing. In fact, it is reminding me of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, especially when you link to documents that deny the virginity of lifelong celibate women who happen to use tampons.

[abrideofChrist]

Well, yes, I believe that sanitary protection or accidents can cause a breaking of the hymen and thus a person looses material virginity.  But the virtue of virginity has to do with both the spiritual aspect and the avoidance of the first two experiences mentioned right before (licit/illicit intercourse and the sin of pollution/masturbation).  MaterMisericordiae and Sponsa Christi both wanted to deny the fact that masturbation causes a loss of virginity and the citation was to address that. 

Edited August 20, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[MarysLittleFlower]

Yes, I understand really what the other thread was all about. In part it was a theological discussion on that objective level only.  My problem is that some may not understand and get things screwed up, really screwed up and especially in a forum inhabited by many young discerners.   I too, like some other members, am weary of the subject of superiority in relation to CV's that keeps on cropping up in newly started threads.  It has become a case of "methinks thou protesteth too much" (Shakespeare, Hamlet)  It can not only become wearying but being wearying become suspect, at least to some I think possibly, me among them.  Something just wont fall into place with me, I don't know what it is, only that it wont fall into place, leaving a gap in my thinking though why I don't know.  And I am very much aware it just might be me.  I am aware of the teaching of the Church on Consecrated Virginity and I embrace this wholeheartedly, it is the threads and posts that keep niggling at me and wont fall into place.

 

There can be no true personal holiness whatsoever outside of God's Will.  If I strive for holiness, then I am striving through Grace to unite myself with the Will of The Father in all things and holiness comes about insofar as I do unite myself with His Will.  Nothing good can ever be accomplished outside of Grace (Scriptural), be it the smallest good to the very greatest good.  And The Lord's Grace comes through His Will in however He May and to whomsoever He May.

If it confuses people, I wouldn't want to make them more confused... I think if we understand we're just talking about objective states, that could help people approach it in a way that doesn't make anyone feel superior/inferior.

 

Are we living in the dark ages or something?  While masturbation is a serious offense against Church teaching, it does not take away one's virginity.  Virginity cannot be lost unless penetration takes place.  I will agree that things can diminish the purity of one's heart but virginity is an entirely different matter.  I think you and MLF are confusing virginity with purity which are entirely separate.  This reminds me of the argument that if you use tampons, you aren't a virgin anymore, which is also false.

 

I read from St Thomas Aquinas that virginity means never willfully and completely experiencing sexual pleasure... so there are different sins that could be involved, not just the marital act properly speaking. And it needs to be for the pleasure - that seems to be an important point. The explanation here seems to be that virginity is not just something medical, but involves a spiritual component. Using this definition, a virgin would be one who never willfully and completely experienced sexual pleasure... and this doesn't have to refer to the marital act itself, but other things too. I don't want to get graphic for the sake of any innocent minds reading this but those of us who have sadly been immersed in our culture and media, would know what I mean.

It is not written in either the Catechism or infallible teaching that masturbation takes away virginity.  I would like to know what source you have pulled the information from.  I did so much research and I was not able to find anything in infallible teaching that says that virginity is lost through masturbation.  If you can find something, I'd like to see it.  There are a lot of differing opinions among the saints like Thomas Aquinas as to what constitutes a loss of virginity.

It would be St Thomas Aquinas.. I don't remember who else I read on the topic. But has the Church said infallibly that it DOESN'T take away virginity? that's the question... has it ever officially disagreed with St Thomas? does the Church teach anything on this officially?

 

Mater is right. ABC's understanding of this this matter is not what the Church officially teaches.

 

(I'm not trying to pick on you, ABC. I'm only commenting because I'm concerned for the people here who might have sensitive consciences.)

 

Even for the sake of determining who is eligible to receive the consecrated of virgins--which would seem to require a somewhat higher standard than just "normal" virginity--"solitary sin" would certainly not disqualify a woman from receiving the consecration of virgins, because this is not a "public violation of chastity."

 

Sponsa Christi, is there a source for the last sentence, - is it a quote?

MarysLittleFlower,

 

Please forgive me if I'm reading things into your posts that you didn't intended to put there, but I'm sort of sensing that you might be struggling with a few things. Since we can't PM right now, if you want to ask a question outside VS, you can email me at: sponsa [dot] christi [dot] author [at] gmail [dot] com . I'll keep an eye out for something from you, but no pressure, though! :)

Thank you for the offer Sponsa Christi :) yes I am struggling with a few things, you're not reading things into my posts.

[MarysLittleFlower]

MM- you asked where I pulled my information from.  I got it from some sources I do not have easy access to at the moment.  But here is some material to reflect upon.  http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum409.htm

 

I came across the same thing...

Here is an article for people to read.  Also, for those who are not familiar with theological terms the words "sin of pollution" refers to masturbation.  http://www.osjoseph.org/stjoseph/churchfathers/#Ch1_B

 

That goes together with what I found too...

 

From that article: "Material virginity is lost by sexual intercourse (even if it is licit), by the sin of pollution, or finally, in women, by a voluntary or accidental act which causes the breaking of the hymen."

 

In other words, a woman who uses internal sanitary protection - tampons, Mooncup - isn't a virgin any more. Do you support this viewpoint too?

 

A great many of your posts express frustration with other posters for not conducting enough research or the right research, for not understanding you correctly, for not reading as much as you have. To me this is starting to look like a method of pushing people into agreement with you by making them feel that they can't possibly stand up to someone who uses complicated terminology and who announces that she reads four hundred page documents, such is her zeal for truth. (Most people here don't have time to read four hundred page documents.) It all boils down to, "If you knew as much as I do you would agree with me!" and that isn't necessarily convincing. In fact, it is reminding me of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, especially when you link to documents that deny the virginity of lifelong celibate women who happen to use tampons.

 

The reason that sin was said to take away one's virginity is not because of a medical reason, but because it's a willful experience of sexual pleasure.

 

Catholic Encyclopedia says: "Virginity is irreparably lost by sexual pleasure, voluntarily and completely experienced."

 

and

 

"Morally, virginity signifiesthe reverencefor bodily integrity which is suggested by a virtuous motive. Thus understood, it is common to both sexes, and may existin a women even after bodily violation committed upon her against her will. Physically, it implies a bodily integrity, visible evidence of which exists only in women. The Catholic Faith teaches us that God miraculously preserved this bodily integrity, in the Blessed Virgin Mary, even during and after her childbirth (see Paul IV, "Cum quorundam", 7 August, 1555). There are two elements in virginity: the material element, that is to say, the absence, in the past and in the present, of all complete and voluntary delectation, whether from lust or from the lawfuluse of marriage; and the formal element, that is the firm resolution to abstainforever from sexual pleasure. It is to be remarked, on the one hand, that material virginity is not destroyed by every sin against the sixth or ninth commandment, and on the other hand that the resolution of virginity extends to more than the mere preservation of bodily integrity, for if it were restricted to material virginity, the resolution, at least outside the marriedstate, might coexist with viciousdesires, and could not then be virtuous."

 

(under topic: "Virginity")

Well, yes, I believe that sanitary protection or accidents can cause a breaking of the hymen and thus a person looses material virginity.  But the virtue of virginity has to do with both the spiritual aspect and the avoidance of the first two experiences mentioned right before (licit/illicit intercourse and the sin of pollution/masturbation).  MaterMisericordiae and Sponsa Christi both wanted to deny the fact that masturbation causes a loss of virginity and the citation was to address that. 

 

Just to clarify, are you saying that if a woman lost material virginity through something like an accident or using sanitary protection - then she's still qualified to be a CV, but not if she lost it through intercourse or other impurity? Am I right on the first thing, or wrong?

 

I see some people disagree with the second point...

 

I'll try to look more into the Church teaching to understand the whole picture

[MarysLittleFlower]

double post...

 

Edited August 20, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[abrideofChrist]

Yes, a woman who has had voluntary intercourse or masturbation is not a virgin even if she has recovered "secondary virginity".  An accidental or involuntary rupture of the hymen does not disqualify a person from the virtue of virginity, the crown of virginity, or the Consecration of virginity.

[OnlySunshine]

Well, yes, I believe that sanitary protection or accidents can cause a breaking of the hymen and thus a person looses material virginity.  But the virtue of virginity has to do with both the spiritual aspect and the avoidance of the first two experiences mentioned right before (licit/illicit intercourse and the sin of pollution/masturbation).  MaterMisericordiae and Sponsa Christi both wanted to deny the fact that masturbation causes a loss of virginity and the citation was to address that. 

 

Just because you have certain viewpoints, it does not mean they are official teaching of the Church.  I asked that you provide infallible teaching from either the Pope or Catechism and you provided excerpts from Summa Theologica by St Thomas Aquinas.  Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church and he was not infallible. 

 

Also, why do you think that sanitary protection has anything to do with someone's virginity?  Sexual intercourse is the only thing that can make one lose their virginity.  Hymens are broken through horseback riding, bicycle riding, and a doctor inserting a speculum among other things.  These activities do not constitute losing your virginity either.

[Sponsa-Christi]

MarysLittleFlower,

 

Yes, I was quoting the eligibility requirements that are stated in the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity. (You can find a pdf of the Rite on the USACV website at: http://consecratedvirgins.org/usacv/sites/default/files/documents/VocRes-Decree.pdf ) 

 

In English, the full quote is: 

 

"In the case of women living in the world it is required: a) that they have never been married or lived in public or flagrant violation of chastity..."

 

 

And the original Latin is:

 

 

"Pro virginibus vitam saecularem agentibus requiritur: a) ut numquam nuptias celebraverint neque publice seu manifeste in statu castitati contrario vixerint..."

 

 

 

Solitary sin is a sin against chastity, but it's not necessarily a "public" or "manifest" one. Therefore, it doesn't seem to disqualify a woman from receiving the consecration of virgins.

 

I'm sorry that you're struggling. :(  You'll have my prayers. 

[OnlySunshine]

If it confuses people, I wouldn't want to make them more confused... I think if we understand we're just talking about objective states, that could help people approach it in a way that doesn't make anyone feel superior/inferior.

 

 

I read from St Thomas Aquinas that virginity means never willfully and completely experiencing sexual pleasure... so there are different sins that could be involved, not just the marital act properly speaking. And it needs to be for the pleasure - that seems to be an important point. The explanation here seems to be that virginity is not just something medical, but involves a spiritual component. Using this definition, a virgin would be one who never willfully and completely experienced sexual pleasure... and this doesn't have to refer to the marital act itself, but other things too. I don't want to get graphic for the sake of any innocent minds reading this but those of us who have sadly been immersed in our culture and media, would know what I mean.

It would be St Thomas Aquinas.. I don't remember who else I read on the topic. But has the Church said infallibly that it DOESN'T take away virginity? that's the question... has it ever officially disagreed with St Thomas? does the Church teach anything on this officially?

 

 

Sponsa Christi, is there a source for the last sentence, - is it a quote?

Thank you for the offer Sponsa Christi :) yes I am struggling with a few things, you're not reading things into my posts.

 

I stated it in my other post but I'll state it again.  Saints had certain viewpoints that are not the official teaching of the Church.  Unless the Church speaks in favor of what these saints like Thomas Aquinas wrote, they are opinions only and should not be confused with infallible teaching.
 

[abrideofChrist]

Given that the Popes quoted from St. Thomas ON VIRGINITY in Sacra Virginitas and other documents, you may want to consider what St. Thomas wrote as being in line with their thinking.  I never said that St. Thomas was infallible, I quoted what he said and what the TRADITION of the Church says.  We don't need everything to be proclaimed as dogma to be true.  Just because you and Sponsa want that doesn't mean your desire will be fulfilled or even should be.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Yes, a woman who has had voluntary intercourse or masturbation is not a virgin even if she has recovered "secondary virginity".  An accidental or involuntary rupture of the hymen does not disqualify a person from the virtue of virginity, the crown of virginity, or the Consecration of virginity.

 

That's what I read as well

 

Just because you have certain viewpoints, it does not mean they are official teaching of the Church.  I asked that you provide infallible teaching from either the Pope or Catechism and you provided excerpts from Summa Theologica by St Thomas Aquinas.  Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church and he was not infallible. 

 

Also, why do you think that sanitary protection has anything to do with someone's virginity?  Sexual intercourse is the only thing that can make one lose their virginity.  Hymens are broken through horseback riding, bicycle riding, and a doctor inserting a speculum among other things.  These activities do not constitute losing your virginity either.

 

I think AbrideofChrist said above that sanitary protection use doesn't disqualify one from being a CV or receiving the crown of virginity...it needs to be not accidental, but intended, and intended for pleasure, it seems.

MarysLittleFlower,

 

Yes, I was quoting the eligibility requirements that are stated in the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity. (You can find a pdf of the Rite on the USACV website at: http://consecratedvirgins.org/usacv/sites/default/files/documents/VocRes-Decree.pdf ) 

 

In English, the full quote is: 

 

 

And the original Latin is:

 

 

Solitary sin is a sin against chastity, but it's not necessarily a "public" or "manifest" one. Therefore, it doesn't seem to disqualify a woman from receiving the consecration of virgins.

 

I'm sorry that you're struggling. :(  You'll have my prayers. 

 

Thank you for the prayers :)

 

I see what the quote is saying, but I meant the specific quote before about solitary sin. Is there a quote mentioning it in particular?

 

Because it could be that the reason the Church says about it being a public sin, is to not force people to reveal their conscience in the external forum... but they would still think about their conscience on their own... and if such a sin does take away virginity, I suppose the woman would disqualify herself, rather than her being disqualified by a third party in the case of a public sin. I'm just wondering if this is a possibility. It depends on why there's a requirement that the sin is public... is it because only such a sin can take away virginity, or is it to protect the person from having to reveal their conscience?

I stated it in my other post but I'll state it again.  Saints had certain viewpoints that are not the official teaching of the Church.  Unless the Church speaks in favor of what these saints like Thomas Aquinas wrote, they are opinions only and should not be confused with infallible teaching.
 

 

But is there infallible teaching saying the contrary? Can someone post it, if it's there, because I can't seem to find anything.

Edited August 20, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[OnlySunshine]

Given that the Popes quoted from St. Thomas ON VIRGINITY in Sacra Virginitas and other documents, you may want to consider what St. Thomas wrote as being in line with their thinking.  I never said that St. Thomas was infallible, I quoted what he said and what the TRADITION of the Church says.  We don't need everything to be proclaimed as dogma to be true.  Just because you and Sponsa want that doesn't mean your desire will be fulfilled or even should be.

 

Your opinion is your opinion and is not what the Church teaches.  Popes can pull from Saint writings as much as they want.  But again, unless they speak in specific favor of something that the saint writes and it is infallible teaching, it is NOT official teaching of the Church.

 

That said, I gave Vocation Station another chance because I thought that maybe I was being too emotional on the other thread but I believe my decision to leave was the right one and I'm going to cease posting.  The way that VS has strayed is not pleasant at all.  This constant bickering about who is right is ridiculous and is not in keeping with how VS used to be.  We used to be a support system for those discerning vocations but having to defend yourself against opinions has gotten out of line.  Thus, consider this to be my last post.  As I stated before, I hope that it changes and I'll feel it's OK to come back but this is not the time.  I will keep everyone here in my prayers.  :(