St Thomas and virginity

[Sponsa-Christi]

This is so confusing. I always wonder what a non-Catholics reaction to threads like these are. 

1. It sounds like there are different types of virginity here? Obviously masturbation doesn't "lose your virginity" the same way having sex with the opposite gender does, but it still ruins your purity. There are "anything but" types of virgins where they haven't gone all the way, but who are technically virgins although obviously not virtuous at all. Then there are married people (somewhere out there) who are pure and chaste in their sexual relationship with their spouse who I would describe as spiritual virgins. 

It sounds like when St Thomas talks about virginity, he really means purity. Perhaps he's using those words interchangeably. 

2. I think this issue needs to be cleared.  If someone had sex in the past, I don't think they are automatically disqualified from being a diocesan CV. Or if they masturbasted, for that point. could you maybe give a clearer answer @Sponsa-Christi. 

Maybe this should be moved to the adult topic table. 

1. As a very rough-and-ready answer...I would agree that St. Thomas is using the word virginity to mean something closer to our term "purity." Which is sort of the point I was trying to make earlier about St. Thomas and modern theologians talking past each other.

2. Re. the question of who qualifes to be a CV...

Right now, the canonical qualification is worded as: "...never having lives in public or manifest violation of chastity." This has been interpreted in a few different ways. Some people read it very loosely, and take it to mean something like "...as long as your sexual sins aren't notorious (e.g., you haven't cohabited with anyone), you may be consecrated." However, the problem with this interpretation is that it ignores the obvious historical precedent of consecrated virginity meaning literal virginity.

A very strict interpretation would be something like "...you may be consecrated as long as you never sinned in the presence/with the cooperation of another person." This stricter interpretation is what tends to be favored by the U.S. Association of CVs, and by Card. Burke. But the problem with this interpretation is it doesn't really address what counts as a "violation of chastity," so it's hard to know where to draw a line for eligibility for the consecration of virgins. But it should be noted that even reading the current law as strictly as possible, "solitary sin" would not make a woman ineligible for the consecration of virgins, because this is not a PUBLIC violation of chastity. 

As a canonist, I would tend to lean towards a more strict interpretation of the law in this case. But practically speaking, what I tell women who are discerning consecrated virginity and who are confused about whether or not certain actions of theirs were disqualifying "public violations of chastity" (i.e., women who have not actually had intercourse, but may have done other unchaste actions) is to examine their conscience and talk to their spiritual director. If they feel in conscience that they cannot present themselves as virgins, then they shouldn't discern this vocation. If they do see themselves as virgins, then their past sins aren't anyone else's concern. 

But yes, overall I would agree this is a huge gap in the Church's laws that hopefully will be resolved at some point!

I feel exhausted by the reductionism and slightly icked out by the obsession with sex.

God is so much bigger than this.

I do agree that sometimes discussions on virginity here can get overly biological and, for lack of a better word, "icky."

Still, the Church has always seen literal virginity as a charism and a virtue. Granted, it's not the most important virtue, and it's not a charism which is given to everyone. But virginity is still something which is meaningful and necessary for the Church as a whole. God certainly is bigger than canonical definitions of virginity, but virginity is still a means through which God manifests His glory.

[Credo in Deum]

I feel exhausted by the reductionism and slightly icked out by the obsession with sex.

God is so much bigger than this.

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

I'm not talking so much about cases where St. Thomas was "wrong" about anything. It's more like St. Thomas might not have answers to specific questions a contemporary theologian might be asking, because St. Thomas thought in terms of different categories than we would.

For example, in St. Thomas' writings on "the state of perfection," he identifies only two vocations as being calls to "perfection": bishops and religious. A superficial reading of this would make it seem like St. Thomas was arguing against a universal call to holiness. However, the idea of a common baptismal call to Christian perfection wasn't as much of a point of major theological concern in medieval society as it is in the Church today, so we can't read St. Thomas' writings as though he was intending to comment on a theological discussion that would occur many centuries after his time. He simply wasn't aware of all the nuances that would arise. (Sort of like how you can't just jump in and comment intelligently at the end of a ten-page phatmass thread unless you've gone back and read the OP---inevitably, you'll be misinterpreting the points people are trying to make.)

Also, private revelations are never taken at face value as doctrine. Even in cases where a private devotion might influence Church teaching later on (e.g., the revelation of the Sacred Heart to St. Margaret Mary), the revelation only serves as sort of an initial prompting. So I wouldn't worry too much about trying to reconcile the writings of a visionary to St. Thomas' writings.

i see what you mean Sponsa Christi... I thought maybe St Thomas was talking there about states that are more perfect? Like a higher state of life. It doesn't mean of course that others aren't meant to be perfect and Saints.

I also know private revelation isn't doctrine but I'm asking the question to make sure that I'm not erring in believing this way. That's why I made this thread but now there's a whole discussion about who is a virgin etc...

My question was just about the revelation and how to understand it and the part about 'purpose of virginity'. This isn't meant against you at all or anyone in particular but I just find it kind of difficult sometimes on phatmass how a person might come witha specific question and then the thread becomes something else. I never intended for it to be a discussion on who is a virgin... Its ok if people ask but its just that my actual question didn't get addressed. I'm sorry if I sound annoyed - I'm honestly not I just really hope to find an answer

[marigold]

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

My question was just about the revelation and how to understand it and the part about 'purpose of virginity'. This isn't meant against you at all or anyone in particular but I just find it kind of difficult sometimes on phatmass how a person might come witha specific question and then the thread becomes something else. I never intended for it to be a discussion on who is a virgin... Its ok if people ask but its just that my actual question didn't get addressed. I'm sorry if I sound annoyed - I'm honestly not I just really hope to find an answer

Ok, to try to answer that original question...I think St. Thomas' idea of a "restored purpose of virginity" is sort of very roughly equivalent to our idea of "second chance virginity." As in, you may not be a literal virgin, but you are still living a life of very intentional purity and wholehearted devotion to God.

[MarysLittleFlower]

OK just because I think it would be extremely sad if someone came upon this thread one day and said "ugh I can't be a consecrated virgin" because they have masturbation in their past - and for that reason never pursued the consecration --pllleeeease talk to your spiritual director. Please. I am not discerning this vocation but it is BEAUTIFUL and NEEDED. And you should not let anything here shut you down prematurely.

 

Credo, to answer your question: No. It does not. Of course if a woman's conscience has been formed in such a way that she  does not believe she is a virgin then she should not present herself for the Consecration. My conscience has been formed in such a way that I believe a person cannot give their virginity to a thing, or to themselves, but only to another person ( a human being. or the Trinity, God Himself.)

Mary'sLittleFlower's perspective is legit but its the minority view, I'm pretty sure, among spiritual directors. For most women who discern this vocation its not a thing. It's very much a matter of conscience though, so if anyone out there reading this is troubled about it, consult a spiritual director. Don't shrug and say "guess its not for me." OK lurkers of phatmass?

 

 

sure if anyone has questions they can talk to their SD. It just bothers me that now so many people are talking like I'm wrong when my view is the traditional view? Or saying it all depends on your conscience... But doesn't it matter if the conscience was formed correctly or not? If Im incorrect in my interpretation I do want to know. I don't want it to be up to my maybe erring conscience... Or any false understanding... So now we have the Thomist view that virginity deals with never having experienced venereal pleasure willfully and the newer view that its only lost if you gave yourself to someone. I agree that marriage is self giving etc. But to me the Thomist interpretation is more solid because chastity is not only lost through sins with other people so why is virginity different? BUT if I'm wrong I want to know. So is there no Church teaching to answer which view is correct?

[Sponsa-Christi]

MLF, I don't have the citation handy, but I believe St. Thomas said that virginity is lost through completed acts of venereal pleasure. I don't want to venture too far into a biological discussion, but there are mortally sinful unchaste acts which still fall short of being "complete" in a certain important respect. (Hoping you can read though the forest of euphemisms here!) 

[MarysLittleFlower]

This is so confusing. I always wonder what a non-Catholics reaction to threads like these are. 

1. It sounds like there are different types of virginity here? Obviously masturbation doesn't "lose your virginity" the same way having sex with the opposite gender does, but it still ruins your purity. There are "anything but" types of virgins where they haven't gone all the way, but who are technically virgins although obviously not virtuous at all. Then there are married people (somewhere out there) who are pure and chaste in their sexual relationship with their spouse who are technically not physical virgins but are more like spiritual virgins in their love for the Lord. 

It sounds like when St Thomas talks about virginity, he really means purity. Perhaps he's using those words interchangeably. 

2. I think this issue needs to be cleared.  If someone had sex in the past, I don't think they are automatically disqualified from being a diocesan CV. Or if they masturbasted, for that point. could you maybe give a clearer answer @Sponsa-Christi. 

Maybe this should be moved to the adult topic table. 

Sure it could probably should be moved to adult topic table... Any moderators? I think to me its pretty clear though if someone had sex they lost virginity and can't be a CV. I don't think St Thomas is talking about different types of virginity because his basic definition is a willful completed act. He didn't mean the medical view as Iunderstand because he talked about the will as defining it notparticular types of acts. The difference with married people is that they are chaste and not sinning - but they are not formal virgins... It just means that losingvirginity can be done with proper married chastity or through sin... Thats my undertanding... if only purity was necessary for CV then a widow could be a CV but she cant... I dont know if i have it right. 

If I wasn't culturally raised Catholic I would honestly have no idea what everyone was talking about and even I'm icked out.

idk I just always view it through the thought of purity not physical virginity and I think that's what St Thomas means as well, but for his time period they would see and describe it as physical virginity. For example, St Theresa of Avila describes how she damaged or ruined her virginity before converting to Christ. Most scholars who have studied her life agree she didn't actually damage her physical virginity, but did something socially inappropriate at the time: held hands, talked immodestly, spent time unchaperoned with the person, ect. At the most they might have kissed, and even that's not a given. But purity and virginity kind of blend together when they talked back then, hence the confusion nowadays. 

Or maybe I'm totally off. Anyways, being concerned with the virtue of purity, and not physical virginity, works for me. 

there is a view that virginity has more sides than physical which is more like what we mean by purity... I don't know how it all works with the other idea...   

[Sponsa-Christi]

Sure it could probably should be moved to adult topic table... Any moderators? I think to me its pretty clear though if someone had sex they lost virginity and can't be a CV. I don't think St Thomas is talking about different types of virginity because his basic definition is a willful completed act. He didn't mean the medical view as Iunderstand because he talked about the will as defining it notparticular types of acts. The difference with married people is that they are chaste and not sinning - but they are not formal virgins... It just means that losingvirginity can be done with proper married chastity or through sin... Thats my undertanding... if only purity was necessary for CV then a widow could be a CV but she cant... I dont know if i have it right. 

 

Virginity is a different virtue than married chastity, or even purity more generally. Not everyone is called to a life of virginity, but not everyone in the Church needs to be.

Again, unless you have an academic theological background, I wouldn't let St. Thomas' exact words be a cause for scruples. Besides translation issues, he might have been using certain terms in a slightly different way than we would today. (Also, I suspect St. Thomas also used quite a few euphemistic expressions for topics like this one.) 

[MarysLittleFlower]

1. As a very rough-and-ready answer...I would agree that St. Thomas is using the word virginity to mean something closer to our term "purity." Which is sort of the point I was trying to make earlier about St. Thomas and modern theologians talking past each other.

2. Re. the question of who qualifes to be a CV...

Right now, the canonical qualification is worded as: "...never having lives in public or manifest violation of chastity." This has been interpreted in a few different ways. Some people read it very loosely, and take it to mean something like "...as long as your sexual sins aren't notorious (e.g., you haven't cohabited with anyone), you may be consecrated." However, the problem with this interpretation is that it ignores the obvious historical precedent of consecrated virginity meaning literal virginity.

A very strict interpretation would be something like "...you may be consecrated as long as you never sinned in the presence/with the cooperation of another person." This stricter interpretation is what tends to be favored by the U.S. Association of CVs, and by Card. Burke. But the problem with this interpretation is it doesn't really address what counts as a "violation of chastity," so it's hard to know where to draw a line for eligibility for the consecration of virgins. But it should be noted that even reading the current law as strictly as possible, "solitary sin" would not make a woman ineligible for the consecration of virgins, because this is not a PUBLIC violation of chastity. 

As a canonist, I would tend to lean towards a more strict interpretation of the law in this case. But practically speaking, what I tell women who are discerning consecrated virginity and who are confused about whether or not certain actions of theirs were disqualifying "public violations of chastity" (i.e., women who have not actually had intercourse, but may have done other unchaste actions) is to examine their conscience and talk to their spiritual director. If they feel in conscience that they cannot present themselves as virgins, then they shouldn't discern this vocation. If they do see themselves as virgins, then their past sins aren't anyone else's concern. 

But yes, overall I would agree this is a huge gap in the Church's laws that hopefully will be resolved at some point!

I do agree that sometimes discussions on virginity here can get overly biological and, for lack of a better word, "icky."

Still, the Church has always seen literal virginity as a charism and a virtue. Granted, it's not the most important virtue, and it's not a charism which is given to everyone. But virginity is still something which is meaningful and necessary for the Church as a whole. God certainly is bigger than canonical definitions of virginity, but virginity is still a means through which God manifests His glory.

i guess I just find it very confusing because this is like saying that only public sins take away virginity but I was under the impression it's in the will so its unclear how to connect it with tradition... Maybe they just put that in canon law to not interfere with the internal forum? But it raises some questions about virginity itself for me. I mean is the canon law a doctrinal statement or just a way to respect the internal forum. That's unclear to me but if its a doctrinal statwment how can it be linked to the historical understanding... 

Ok, to try to answer that original question...I think St. Thomas' idea of a "restored purpose of virginity" is sort of very roughly equivalent to our idea of "second chance virginity." As in, you may not be a literal virgin, but you are still living a life of very intentional purity and wholehearted devotion to God.

 Ok thank you!

MLF, I don't have the citation handy, but I believe St. Thomas said that virginity is lost through completed acts of venereal pleasure. I don't want to venture too far into a biological discussion, but there are mortally sinful unchaste acts which still fall short of being "complete" in a certain important respect. (Hoping you can read though the forest of euphemisms here!) 

i see what you are saying I think... If I remember correctly he did mention things like the sin that was mentioned here before. I guess completed could be understood in different ways - but i don't know what he meant. Not going to go into more detail though yes 

I'm sorry to anyone if this discussion has been confusing or icky to read... I honestly just trying to find an answer about how to understand the revelation with Church teachings... The part about virginity being spiritually communicated though not restored as ones own. I don't want to go into biology etc either. If someone is confused if they can be a CV or not from reading this I'm also sorry... Just speak to a good priest not to me I'm trying to understand. I am having trouble reconciling some newer interpretations with the traditional interpretation about the will though. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

i guess I just find it very confusing because this is like saying that only public sins take away virginity but I was under the impression it's in the will so its unclear how to connect it with tradition... Maybe they just put that in canon law to not interfere with the internal forum? But it raises some questions about virginity itself for me. I mean is the canon law a doctrinal statement or just a way to respect the internal forum. That's unclear to me but if its a doctrinal statwment how can it be linked to the historical understanding... 

When people talk about virginity being a matter of the will, generally this is an attempt to clarify the fact that a rape victim can still be considered a virgin. (Which is why I prefer the term "literal virginity" rather than "physical virginity," by the way.) The point is that virginity is a matter of what you chose to do, rather than something that could be done to you by force. When I talk about virginity as being a matter of the will, I know that I'm NOT talking about "the will" as being a person's unspoken thoughts and desires, but rather their freely-chosen actions.

Yes, the particular wording of this part of canon law probably was worded in such as a way so as to protect the internal forum. But while canon law itself isn't doctrine, it is based on doctrine. There won't be anything in canon law which would directly (or even indirectly) conflict with the Church's teaching on matters of faith or morals.

Also, I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I don't think you have a truly solid grasp on the "historical understanding" of what constitutes "virginity." I'm saying this not to be unkind, but only so that your conscience won't be troubled, but it seems like you're taking an idiosyncratic understanding of one small section of St. Thomas' writings and then identifying it with the whole of the Church's tradition. (I know that sounds blunt, but again, I really am not saying that to be mean!)

[Lilllabettt]

sure if anyone has questions they can talk to their SD. It just bothers me that now so many people are talking like I'm wrong when my view is the traditional view? Or saying it all depends on your conscience... But doesn't it matter if the conscience was formed correctly or not? If Im incorrect in my interpretation I do want to know. I don't want it to be up to my maybe erring conscience... Or any false understanding... So now we have the Thomist view that virginity deals with never having experienced venereal pleasure willfully and the newer view that its only lost if you gave yourself to someone. I agree that marriage is self giving etc. But to me the Thomist interpretation is more solid because chastity is not only lost through sins with other people so why is virginity different? BUT if I'm wrong I want to know. So is there no Church teaching to answer which view is correct?

So there is no rulebook where you can find this written down. As you spend more time living in the Catholic Castle you realize more and more that only a tiny sliver of topics is covered by a rule or a "traditional" understanding.  This can be an extremely stressful discovery for folks who like rules or like to know "what 'they' did before" because these things provide a kind of safety net: stay within the lines and you won't go wrong.

I have been there and I understand the stress. I also understand really wanting to know the truth so you can follow the truth and being totally frustrated with the fact that so many things in Catholicism are a judgment call. But its actually a way God asks us to grow. You have to be humble and courageous at the same time, to be able to say "this is what my conscience says, and I am open always to correction, but this is the truth as I see it" and then live in congruence with that.

This is why St. Thomas was able to write his opinions about things without going nuts. He did not fear, even knowing there was a good chance some of what he wrote might be wrong. (and was wrong. about the immaculate conception, for example.)  

Edited July 13, 2015 by Lilllabettt

[MarysLittleFlower]

When people talk about virginity being a matter of the will, generally this is an attempt to clarify the fact that a rape victim can still be considered a virgin. (Which is why I prefer the term "literal virginity" rather than "physical virginity," by the way.) The point is that virginity is a matter of what you chose to do, rather than something that could be done to you by force. When I talk about virginity as being a matter of the will, I know that I'm NOT talking about "the will" as being a person's unspoken thoughts and desires, but rather their freely-chosen actions.

Yes, the particular wording of this part of canon law probably was worded in such as a way so as to protect the internal forum. But while canon law itself isn't doctrine, it is based on doctrine. There won't be anything in canon law which would directly (or even indirectly) conflict with the Church's teaching on matters of faith or morals.

Also, I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I don't think you have a truly solid grasp on the "historical understanding" of what constitutes "virginity." I'm saying this not to be unkind, but only so that your conscience won't be troubled, but it seems like you're taking an idiosyncratic understanding of one small section of St. Thomas' writings and then identifying it with the whole of the Church's tradition. (I know that sounds blunt, but again, I really am not saying that to be mean!)

 

no problem of course I could be wrong. I agree canon law doesn't contradict doctrine.. And about the will and rape. As for the rest I could be wrong but I wish I could know... I can't even speak to my priest right now and he'd probably know. i have basically been trying to understand this  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3152.htm  it seems to me like my understanding of what takes away virginity goes with this and with commentary I read on it but who knows.. But of course I'm sure there's more that was written on the topic that I don't know about.

So there is no rulebook where you can find this written down. As you spend more time living in the Catholic Castle you realize more and more that only a tiny sliver of topics is covered by a rule or a "traditional" understanding.  This can be an extremely stressful discovery for folks who like rules or like to know "what 'they' did before" because these things provide a kind of safety net: stay within the lines and you won't go wrong.

I have been there and I understand the stress. I also understand really wanting to know the truth so you can follow the truth and being totally frustrated with the fact that so many things in Catholicism are a judgment call. But its actually a way God asks us to grow. You have to be humble and courageous at the same time, to be able to say "this is what my conscience says, and I am open always to correction, but this is the truth as I see it" and then live in congruence with that.

This is why St. Thomas was able to write his opinions about things without going nuts. He did not fear, even knowing there was a good chance some of what he wrote might be wrong. (and was wrong. about the immaculate conception, for example.)  

i think I do have a fear of getting something wrong and being some material heretic... Perhaps its a response to my ex Protestantism lol. I do value purity of doctrine but sometimes I'm too fearful even investigating things. This topic is also hard to approach totally objectively.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I don't know... I think this thread is probably confusing / scandalous to many people - I'm even confused by myself. Lol. Is there any way it could just be deleted? Also if anyone is confused from all this please just talk to a good priest. I want to speak to my priest anyway. Whether my understanding of St Thomas is correct or incorrect... And any possible implications... Should be discussed with a priest. I also don't want to cause people to be confused or troubled by their past. Just trust in God's love and speak to a knowledgeable priest if this is troubling you  even if this understanding of St Thomas is correct, God's love is no less for you. And if I'm mistaken in my understanding Im really sorry. Most of all I just don't want to cause people to go through such pain over their old sins as I go through over my sinful pre-Catholic past and all the scruples I have wanting to be 100% certain and correct.

Edited July 14, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Maggyie]

MLF don't worry! This is an interesting thread and a good read. I enjoy reading these different perspectives. Not scandalous at all :)

[MarysLittleFlower]

MLF don't worry! This is an interesting thread and a good read. I enjoy reading these different perspectives. Not scandalous at all

I'm glad its not scandalous for you Maggyie.. I just don't want people to get confused and spread my confusion to them. Lol. If anyone has questions like if they want to be a CV please speak to  priest I'm just a random person online with zero theological training and I have nothing to prove, rather I only post about my own difficulties.  I can be wrong. And even if i happen somehow to be right, nothing is hopeless and God's love doesn't change for anyone.

 

Edited July 14, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[veritasluxmea]

I don't know... I think this thread is probably confusing / scandalous to many people - I'm even confused by myself. Lol. Is there any way it could just be deleted? Also if anyone is confused from all this please just talk to a good priest. I want to speak to my priest anyway. Whether my understanding of St Thomas is correct or incorrect... And any possible implications... Should be discussed with a priest. I also don't want to cause people to be confused or troubled by their past. Just trust in God's love and speak to a knowledgeable priest if this is troubling you  even if this understanding of St Thomas is correct, God's love is no less for you. And if I'm mistaken in my understanding Im really sorry. Most of all I just don't want to cause people to go through such pain over their old sins as I go through over my sinful pre-Catholic past and all the scruples I have wanting to be 100% certain and correct.

I said earlier I was confused so I'll address you.

I can only speak for myself, but what I meant was, I'm confused about what you are thinking. The way you write and think is beautiful, but it is rather flowing and feminine. To me, I read it as being here, then there, then somewhere else... A lot of great writers wrote like that (JPII, for instance, in Theology of the Body). That is a great thing; it just perplexes me and if I'm totally honest it can make me feel frustrated and more confrontational.  I tend to value logical, objective, "scientific" writing as superior to anything else and see people/writing that doesn't follow that as lesser than me or not worth my attention. (what can I say, I'm part German). Same with writing that is more feminine or "soft" sounding, I don't get it. Due to life circumstances and my personality I've taken a more masculine, adult role in my family and life most of the time. I'm struggling with how to phrase this, but it has made me more comfortable acting in a masculine role (protective, more confrontational, so on) Things that are "soft and flowery" can almost threaten my identity and image that I've built for myself; hence make me sound aggravated. Thanks be to God and His mercy, I'm learning to discern truth from falsehood in my identity and relationship with God, learning how to have a relationship with Him as my God, rely on Him and grow into the women He created me to be. But it takes a lifetime and if I sometimes sounds blunt, harsh, or so on in the meantime, please forgive me. And point it out gently- it doesn't bother me and I'll greatly appreciate it! 

So anyway, I don't care if I don't understand you and it doesn't bother me a bit that this topic is hard for me to understand what the point of the questions are. I don't have anxiety or stress about anything here and I'm even a bit amused at how the thread has turned out; I think things have been explained well and are wrapping up nicely. I'm glad to see that. Am I still perplexed at what happened? Yes. Do I care? not really. Am I happy with phatmass community right now for their charity in discussion? Very much yes. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

No problem! and I see what you mean about my writing... Haha. Just to help maybe I'll say it a bit more directly St Thomas SEEMS to say that any willful completed experience of lust takes away virginity. I mean formal literal virginity. This can mean more than just the marital act. Whether this interpretation is accurate I'd check with a priest. He also says that virginity cant be restored, unlike chastity. Then a Venerable had a revelation that though virginity can't be restored, Christ can somehow communicate His own virginity maybe giving the soul virginal qualities. (Even though theyre not a virgin). This doesn't restore their own virginity or make them eligible to be a CV but it can be a special union with God. I was trying to check if my understanding is correct to avoid some theological error. I'll ask my priest later cause he's very knowledgeable.  Maybe that's not any more clear  i often talk in a way that isn't precise enough its true.

Edited July 14, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[julianneoflongbeach]

I was gunna throw in my two cents about how they didn't contradict each other, but it seems you've got it figured out now.

 

 

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

I was gunna throw in my two cents about how they didn't contradict each other, but it seems you've got it figured out now.

 

 

 

Do you mean St Thomas and Ven Conchita?