How does the Church define virginity if say a person has only had relations with those of the same sex and never with the opposite, are they still virgins?
I would say no.
I always understood virginity to mean that one is chaste and not married. Sex in anyform outside of marriage is an affront to chastity.
Right, but Fornication is different from Homosexual acts.
It’s still sex no? How is it not?
Is not fornication, sex outside of marriage?
I fail to see the difference.
Ok… I just looked up fornication in the Catechism. I can see where you are confused.
Allow me, if you will, to expound on my definition of virginity.
A virgin is one who embodies the virtue of chastity by refraining from sexual acts of any form.
I still have a confusion there though…so if a person who has had sexual relations regardless of with what gender but has changed their life and are living in a chaste state are virgins?
No. A person who has had sexual relations, whether with someone of the opposite or with someone of the same sex, is NOT a virgin. Engaging sex outside of marriage is either fornication (if both parties are unmarried) or adultery (if one or both parties are married).
A person who has had sexual relations, then STOPS and no longer engages in sexual relations, can never be a virgin (since by definition, a virgin is a person who has NEVER had sexual relations), but if that person is choosing to live chastely, and continently (we will assume the person is unmarried), that person is doing a very good thing. Virginity is beautiful, but sometimes bad things happen. Incest, rape, even “bad judgment” can make a person completely innocent to less “culpable”(incest and rape are NEVER the victim’s fault, and “bad judgment” is very broad. Someone who foolishly drinks too much and engages in sex is not the same as someone who clearly and willingly chooses sex, and even someone who willingly chooses sex can do so because he or she has been lied to, has never been brought up with correct understanding of the good of virginity to begin with, etc. etc., which can definitely mitigate guilt to a greater or lesser degree).
Don’t focus on a label, or beat yourself up for past sins. Repent, do penance, and go on. Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery and told her to “sin no more”. He didn’t tell her that she would never be a decent person because of her sin. . .and He likewise didn’t tell her that everything was hunky dory and she would never have to deal with the consequences of her wrong judgment, either. I am sure she was sorrowful for the rest of her life over that sin, but that sin was not ALL her life, it was not ALL she was or would be. . .and with God’s mercy and love, I am also sure that she lived a chaste and loving life, being forgiven and striving to follow the way of Christ the rest of her life.
Folk’s hold it… any sex act by hand,mouth, or otherwise violates all the rules. It’s wrong…don’t try to justify it. Okay unless you are married and ready to perform the marrital act of love. And love children yours or not
Not being a virgin is not necessarily a bad thing. All those who are married are no longer virgins, and that is a good thing.
Chastity is the issue, and if one has made mistakes, one can always return to a chaste life, even if one is no longer a virgin.
Rule Number 1 of the “the Church says this” is cite your source.
Nobody has brought forth any documents by the church defining virginity, therefore it would not be illogical to say it is poosible she hasn’t defined it. Although it would be a fallacy to assume she hasnt based on lack of evidence, nobody has proven she has. Perhaps there is something recorded in relation to Mary.
In any event what label you put on your past actions matters not, rather now and the future.
Go and sin no more, rather than fret on what label you want to apply to yourself or others based on past indescretions.
The church is not a dictionary. It hasn’t defined tree, dog, cat, car and many other words. Virginity has been well understood for centuries…as has not having sexual relationships…period. (“no, I did not have sex with that woman”…yeah, sure Mr. President) And no, sex is not strictly defined as coitus. If that were true, then we wouldn’t be talking about homosexuals, because sodomy would then not be “sex”.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Morally, virginity signifies the reverence for bodily integrity which is suggested by a virtuous motive. Thus understood, it is common to both sexes, and may exist in 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.
There is a distinction between moral and physical virginity.
[quote=austinbond]How does the Church define virginity
If I was going to use a definition, yours, Catilieth, I think is a good definition.
[quote=Catilieth] Virginity has been well understood for centuries…as has not having sexual relationships…period.
But it is not exactly what he was asking, although it is proably what he intended to ask.
Sorry for my myopic understanding of the request.
My point was not to label yourself or others with negative titles. It matters not what you have done in the past, rather how you are now, and how you will act in the future.
Would those who are baptized (as adults) be virgins agian ? Or did my aunt lie to me about baptism being a sort of death and rebirth as a child?
[quote=Montie Claunch]Would those who are baptized (as adults) be virgins agian ? Or did my aunt lie to me about baptism being a sort of death and rebirth as a child?
No. She didn’t lie. You may not qualify as a physical virgin, but you can regain your chastity and become a moral virgin, living anew in Christ.
You can not become a virgin again. Not anymore than one can become re-baptized (assuming the first baptism is valid) or become re-concieved, or re-ordained. It’s a one time thing…you can become chaste again. Moral virgin means you** never** willingly had sex (in other words, sex was forced upon you against your wishes, as in rape).