Good article.  Thanks.

Jen loved it. thank you for bringing it to people’s attention.

Very insightful as always, Jen. Thanks so much!

I just read something the other day, where-in folks were debating the value of preserving virginity for marriage.  The prevailing thoughts were that anyone would be crazy to get married without a ‘test drive’!  Followed by concern that one or both of the couple, “wouldn’t know what to expect” or “wouldn’t know what to do”

Oh for crying out loud…  It’s not that hard to figure out - with or without our contemporary media influences!

Personally, after mistakenly thinking (in my 20s) that sex in an exclusive relationship was the natural order of things…. and thinking it was okay if we were going to get married… I have resumed chaste living.  some people react like they’re SO sorry for me… but it’s not THAT difficult to go without…  although I will say, I’d like to get married and fumble around some day very soon!!

I feel worse for the people I meet who say sex is no big deal.  I think to myself, “with the way you treat it, I’m not surprised!”

I was also dumbfounded by one comment that suggested it be hard to find anyone over age 20 with their virginity in tact.

It seems so strange to me that people view sexuality as a right… as a need… like eating and breathing.
I view it more as a privilege…  it’s a shame I can’t find a like-minded man.

Jennifer, I think you’ll find that the designation “virgin” for a saint is usually more than just that she lived chastely.  Rather she made a conscious commitment to espouse Christ and forsake marriage for His sake.  Either that, or, in the case of someone like Maria Goretti, preserving her virginity was a key element of her sanctified life or her martyrdom.
I’ve never researched it, but I sometimes wonder if any male saints have ever had the “virgin” label placed on them?

By waiting to have sex, a woman and man can grow a relationship that is not simply based on physical attraction.  When a man waits on a woman until marriage, he is proving his love—his willingness to participate until death do us part and to sacrifice his immediate wants for a life together.  A man is to love his wife as Christ loved the church, sacrificing himself unto death.  So many of the women that I know who had sex before marriage suffer from an underlying fear.  They do not know that their husbands truly love and value them.  All of this sounds very old fashioned.  The feminist movement that urges women to break old boundaries neglects to realize that these boundaries protect women.  As women age, we become more vulnerable—during pregnancy when we are not always attractive, and as we move past those years.  A man who is willing to sacrifice before the marriage is much more likely to sacrifice during the marriage and over the years as our bodies change.  He will still love us in spite of those changes and continue to walk with us.  The media tells us that everyone is having sex before marriage and that living together is normal.  So many young women are sacrificing the gift that God intended for marriage for immediate gratification under a mistaken assumption that it doesn’t matter.  However, it does matter.  Modern women need to demand the respect that they deserve not to be used for pleasure for a ‘test drive’, but to be courted and respected.  Their worth is beyond measure, and they are selling themselves cheaply based on false information.

Mark R.,

That’s a great question, and I’d love to know the answer to that.

Jen,

Thanks for your take on the virginity question! As an abstinence educator (I speak in public schools and for a protestant organization, so before anyone jumps down my throat for not teaching “chastity”: I have my reasons, and they pertain primarily to just being able to get into the schools), I’ve encountered many, many kids, as young as 8th grade, telling me that they want to have sex at least once, for fear that they’d be “a 40 year old virgin” (actual comment).  My speakers and I do our best to make it clear that although sex (within marriage) is awesome, it’s not a be-all end-all life experience.

Thanks for the reflection.  I have seen virgin linked to freedom in some theological discussions - can anyone enlighten me further on that?  Certainly, life does not and should not revolve around sex.  However, I would like to see the Church offer a bit more to the single heterosexual and homosexual men and women who are following Church teaching.  Biologically there is no denying the health benefits of sex - as a general rule it leads to longevity, lower rates of depression and many other good things.  Certainly these do not apply to everyone having sex, and certainly it’s not that everyone who isn’t having sex is a depressed shell of a person who dies in their 60s.  But society reduces our worth to our sex lives (or lack their of) in many ways, and that can be particularly difficult for us unmarried folks.  Unfortunately the Church spends a lot more time focusing on supporting married lay men and women, while sometimes ignoring the single people who may be struggling.  I’ve desperately been trying to find commentary on or from single Catholics that focuses on supporting us as an active part of the Church now, rather than placating us in our perceived desire to be married.  (PLEASE share if you know of some!)  It’s also slightly hard for me to read articles on celebate living and the importance of virginity from people who are presumably happily enjoying a sex life.

Jill,
You write “I would like to see the Church offer a bit more…”  What would you like the Church to offer a bit more of?

Virginity is a state of mind, heart and soul.  It has little, if anything, to do with the physical aspect of being a virgin (male or female).  One can be physically a virgin yet be unchaste, and yet someone who has lived an unchaste life can also live chastely (“virginally”) when cooperating with Grace.  I know this from personal experience.

Jill,

Max Lindeman has written about this recently on his Patheos blog. You might find his commentary on Catholic single-life worthwhile.

WOW!!!  virginity is also a discipline.  If a young person can manage virginity, it says alot for their charactor.  And if people practiced it, we wouldnt havevalues27 all these strange diseases.

I totally agree with everything you wrote.  It really bothers me to hear parents say “They are going to do it anyway.” Most kids want strategies and skills to maintain their virginity.

“If people think that they must have sex in order to have a good life—regardless of whether or not they want children—contraception starts to be considered a necessity”.

You hit the nail on the head with that statement, and I have spoken to many people who used this same argument to say that abortion is also a necessity.  They say, “I can’t be a parent! [insert lame excuse here] And sometimes contraception does fail!  But you don’t expect me to be a virgin my whole life do you??”  As if I were suggesting they pluck their own eye out.  I stayed a virgin until I met my husband at 22, and it was not that hard nor did it decrease my health or quality of life.  But then I did not have many princes knocking at my door, all I saw was men who did not love the Lord and were out for what they could get from me - A MAJOR turn off!!!

I’m not a saint or anything but I guess if one can experience love as opposed to sex as part of the bind that joins a man and woman to become one, then enjoyment is the fulfilment of that love.  The enjoyment of love strengthens the means that bind their relationship is distinguished from the material aspects of material sex.  While sex is attracted to the material object of desire, love is not restricted to the material but in quantification of the pure principle into being.  And this purified state is also referred to by me as purity or like a virgin, a light in the darkness.  So, saints are not literally restricted to virgins but the priori is lost in the abyss of subjectivity.

>Virginity is a state of mind, heart and soul.  It has little, if >anything, to do with the physical aspect of being a virgin (male or >female).  One can be physically a virgin yet be unchaste, and yet >someone who has lived an unchaste life can also live chastely
>(“virginally”) when cooperating with Grace. 

I’d add that while physical virginity can be taken by force, chastity cannot.

Insightful as usual.

New Advent encylopedia gives the most complete explanation of why the Church holds virginity in such high esteem. It produces a special likeness to Christ, but it would be well to read the entire article.

Kris - good question.  I was not clear.  Encouragement, support, community, ministry.  It’s been a good three years since I heard a homily that offered anything to singles, other than a passing remark that we exist.  Marriage is discussed practically every weekend.  I know I am part of the Church and have a role to play in this regard too - I just moved to a new area, am still adjusting to my new parish and am also trying to recommit to my faith after a long period of struggle.  One day I would like to be a leader in this regard, but at the moment I really need help.

bones - thank you.  I will check that out.

As a former “ladies man” I admit that the culture of death has definitely redefined and sanitized terms to make the most evil things acceptable or tolerated. I find the easiest way to shake yourself and others out of this cultural coma is to correctly define these terms and speak them when the terms are used in conversation. So often “to have sex” or “to make love” means to use another person for your own personal pleasure, of course with an excuse for the behavior as justification. This also demonstrates that the person knows it is wrong since an excuse follows in an attempt to provide justification. Once the euphemism is correctly defined, rarely will persons say, “I use people for my own pleasure and prefer to do that than remain chaste.” A raw statement like that it just too honest and accurate, it will not be spoken. The purported deception the person is attempting is an added bonus—like perfume on manure.

I had a conversation today with a young African American homeless man I know through a St Vincent de Paul volunteer job and also see around town, who describes that he has really turned his life around, is living sexually continent after a previously risky and promiscuous life with STD problems and fathering a child by a married woman, given up pot (which he went to jail for selling), is about to be employed for the first time in a long time and then will be able to get an apartment, and says that I am “the best female friend he has” though we are really just acquaintances over a couple of years. The reason he likes me? Well, I’ve helped him out through my volunteer job, but also I told him about chaste celibacy as a way of living a life oriented toward heaven. Now when I pass him on the street he excitedly tells people nearby “that’s my friend Elizabeth! She’s a Christian, she’s the only woman I know who lives totally pure, she don’t do nothing, for the rest of her life!” When I met this individual I was shocked by his accounting of his escapades, and he is about the last person I would have thought would be open to a message about chastity much less find my account of celibacy totally awesome as apparently he did, but now he says happily “I’m like you, I’m holding it in, it’s hard but I’m doing it!” I told him I was proud of him, and I really am! I am actually moved and inspired buy this man’s efforts. Yes, virginity matters, and so does the chaste celibacy of poor sinners.

Michael:  Thank you for putting into words what my heart feels.  I know of what you speak.  If the mainstream media/politicians were to be truly honest in all things, such as abortion, sexual promiscuity, and other such subjects, we would all be shaken into reality.  Sadly, I don’t see that as happening any time soon.  That’s why it is so important for the Church to scream it from the rooftops.  Of course the Church is going to suffer persecution because of this…it is a risk…but Christ Himself died for the Truth.  He also said, “No servant is greater than His Master.”  Meaning, if Christ (the Master) the most Innocent of all, died a most horrible death on the Cross, then we, if we are true followers of the Master (thereby being the “servant”) should not shy away from the same possible martyrdom, as did the Apostles and early Christians.

I’d love to see someone answer Mark R’s questions from above:  “I’ve never researched it, but I sometimes wonder if any male saints have ever had the “virgin” label placed on them?”

No they never have.  Why would the church use this title only for women when virginity is equally important for men and women? I’d really like to hear a good answer for that as I have no idea.

Anyone also have any insight as to why the vast majority of canonized saints were not married?  Surely married life leads to Sainthood also.  I know there are some married saints but it seems like maybe only 1% of all saints were married.

All the apostles were married with a possible exception of St. John.  Many, many of the early Christian martyrs were married—with children who died for Christ and are recognized in the Martyrology of the Catholic Church.  Of course, not all have their names listed because it just is not possible, but the Church does recognize them as martyrs and as such are considered canonically recognized saints. In the Eastern Rite Catholic Church, even Adam and Eve are considered saints.  I would imagine there are probably many more scores of married saints than unmarried, we just don’t know of them yet!  :)

I always wanted to get the t-shirt: “To all you virgins, Thanks for nothing”.  I would never have the guts to wear it, but it would be funny.

I also have a t-shirt I’ve never had the guts to wear: “You can rest easy, I’m a superhero”.  I still enjoy it hanging in the closet.

One last thing, I didn’t buy the superhero t-shirt, Lazerwolf had it made for me (silverthorn, if you must know).

Also, Sister.  I have came out to my wife. I owe you a debt of thanks! 

Be well, Rover.

thanks. Don’t see this too much.  In fact, NOT ENOUGH!  and why not? tell me, WHY NOT?!

Mortimerzilch, what is “this”?

Virginity is a state of mind.  I have found much peace and happiness since I decided to change my lifestyle.  What I once thought was freedom is really nothing more than self-inflicted slavery.

How do we know that all the apostles were married?
John is the only saint given the title of virgin.
The virginity of a consecrated woman does matter. It is a physical sign of her dedication to Christ. Virginity is superior to marriage because it is the life of heaven, whereas marriage is a sign pointing to heaven. This sign will come to an end at death.

How does asking the question, “What kind of life will he have?” imply that the mother thinks he won’t have a quality life because he may not have sex? That was what I got from that section and that just doesn’t make any sense to me.

I agree the focus needs to be on having a fulfilling and quality life outside of sex. However, God wouldn’t have made a sexual urge if He did not believe we couldn’t indulge in it. And no, this cannot be compared to other urges to do evil things. God made sex and He made that urge to connect with someone on that intimate level. Yes, people can choose to ignore it but implying that people who don’t ignore it don’t have a quality life is false.

Well put Jessica.  All humans crave contact and a life without intimate contact with another person would be very lonely and sad.

Thank you Rover. And you are right as well. We as humans NEED physical contact to survive. Infants will not live past a year if they aren’t held regularly.

Another point, I’m not suggesting that sex should be thrown around either. I agree with you all in that sex is a sacred act between two people and must be viewed as beautiful because everything God made is good.

I think it is sad that people look at virgins as lacking, or they won’t have a quality life. And as you stated that is clearly incorrect. However, I think it isn’t as black and white as it seems. There are definitely people who take advantage of other people for sex and have ulterior motives. But there are people that use it in the proper way of connecting with their partner. No matter what stage of the relationship.

Wow-this is amazing Jen. You are so filled with the Holy Spirit!

Christ own words are that not everyone gets to have or enjoy sex.
When I look at the ‘other ancient gods’ (not that there is god apart from God), I observe how they had sex and all sorts of sex (adulterous, incestuous, homosexual, etc). And then I look at our God who created sex, and his mother Mary is a Virgin, her husband (they had a real marriage) Joseph most likely a virgin too, and he himself a virgin - very telling that he does not have a harem like his father David - though he has a bride, his body, the Church. I can’t wait for the marriage feast of the Lamb. This is our future destiny: the participation of the union of God himself for which chaste sexual is an image.

Excellent article. I particularly like the way you follow the line of logic that leads from ‘need to have sex’ mentality, to the contraceptive mentality to the culture of abortion.

Jen, if you want a great read on this subject, I highly recommend Fr Dubay’s “And You Are Christ’s: The Charism of Virginity and the Celibate life.” It’s not very long but it’s really excellent. It will bring you to a deeper understanding of the spiritual side of virginity and celibacy.

What a huge insight.  Thanks for sharing it with us!

“contraceptive culture”
There you go again.  It’s irrational to call modern culture the “contraceptive culture”.  You keep trying to blame contraception for everything.  One silly Catholic teaching that is ignored by 90+% of Catholics should not be used in this way.
“If people think that they must have sex in order to have a good life—regardless of whether or not they want children—contraception starts to be considered a necessity.”
Ok.  But you continue to ignore the elephant in the room.  The real problem is children without fathers.  If contraception was not as easy as it is, there would be far more abortions and children without fathers.  So, as usual, you have it backwards.  This world would be much worse off without easy contraception.  Now that opinion may not be to your liking, but that’s the way it is.  Sure, wouldn’t it be nice if there was not so much sex without marriage?  Well, lots of luck with that!  Just teach abstinence!
“Our society has lost the concept that it is possible to live a fulfilling life without having sex.”
And you want to blame this on the easy availability of contraception?  I don’t think so.
And then a reference to the Catholic scandal?  Oh dear.
“A society has lost all real respect for human life when it believes that people would be better off dead than celibate.”
Spina bifida can be a very serious disability.  From Wikipedia:  “Thus, the higher the level of the defect the more severe the associated nerve dysfunction and resultant paralysis.”  And:  “In approximately 90 percent of the people with myelomeningocele, hydrocephalus will also occur because the displaced cerebellum interferes with the normal flow of cerebrospinal fluid.”  Impotence is mentioned in the article that you quote from last May referring to a case from 2006.  But I doubt that it is a significant factor in most cases.
From Physicians For Life:  “The majority of parents, when they hear their child has been stricken by spina bifida, choose to terminate the pregnancy rather than bring an imperfect child into the world. The calculated plan is supposedly humane: it is better to kill the infants before they see daylight than to have them suffer the rest of their lives. Hence, the policy is one of terminating the patient rather than giving treatment.”
This has nothing to do with contraception and almost nothing to do with impotence.
From complexchild.com:  “Considering that a 2010 Gallup poll on the subject shows that 45% of Americans identify as pro-life, and 90% of fetuses with Down syndrome are being aborted, we have a problem.  It is clearly impossible that fetuses who have Down syndrome only occur in pro-choice mothers.  Therefore, even people who identify as pro-life seem to change their opinions when confronted with a fetus who has a potential disability.”
It’s time for an article on the “new eugenics”!
Also from the same web site:  “In my opinion, the problem has little to do with moral views on abortion, and everything to do with the perception of disability in our culture, as well as the limited services that may be available for parents of children with disabilities.  You can’t help but feel for the young, single mother with limited resources who is about to give birth to a baby with Down syndrome in a country with no universal healthcare and poorly funded or unfunded special education services.”
“feel free to enlighten me in the combox”
I can’t believe you actually read my comments.  Enlighten me?
“[The honorific “virgin”] is a reminder ...”
Hilarious.  Only Catholics are so hung up on the “virgin” Mary and the saints.  So it’s only a “reminder” to those that actually think about it and that’s a tiny fraction of Catholics and a much smaller fraction of people.

Jessica and Rover, read the father’s question in context of the quote that Jennifer put up from his mother.

“It was the thought of our son’s incurable impotence that triggered my husband’s tears. ‘Oh God, what sort of life will he have?’ he asked the doctors.”

The father was upset about his son’s incurable impotence, which caused him to ask “What kind of life will he have?”  Clearly the father linked his son’s inability to have sex to having a life that was not as worth living as a life where he could have sex.

It is the misnomer of today’s society to think that sex is the only way a couple or even a single person can be intimate with another person.  There are many forms of intimacy, and I think their undervalue and under-utilization can be fingered as one of the causes of the high divorce rate, and one reason why NFP is so successful at keeping couples in love and together.  The “forced” abstinence of NFP encourages couples to learn other ways to be intimate with each other.  This same ignorance of other methods of intimacy I think causes us to turn so many relationships sexual - we can’t relate as friends anymore since sex is the only way to be intimate that we know.

Mike, we get it….....we’re not popular.  You think we’re idiots…..we got it buddy.

God bless.  I’ll be praying for you today at noon.

“we get it….....we’re not popular.”
To whom does that “we” refer?  Catholics?  The most “popular” sect of Christianity?  Christianity itself?  The most “popular” religion in the US?  It seems to me that you are confused.  It is atheists who are not “popular”.  Almost no one would vote for an admitted atheist for President.
“You think we’re idiots”
No, I don’t.  It seems to me that you are trying and failing to be sarcastic with this sentence and that would be condescending.  But I do think that Jennifer is “misguided” in her articles.  Essentially Catholic doctrine is “right” no matter what and almost anything can be used to illustrate that supposed fact.  But that’s wrong.
“I’ll be praying for you today at noon.”
Hilarious.  The DOW is down 350.  Please pray that it goes back up 700.  I will be watching to see if your prayer has any effect.

Still looking for a good answer as to why the church puts the title virgin under women but rarely acknowledges it for men..anyone?  Someone mentioned one male saint to whom the title “virgin” was given.  I agree it is important and certainly we agree it is important for men and women.  Please someone come up with a good answer as I am starting to think the church is unbalanced in its promotion of virginity for women saints and not for male saints.

Jen, are you reading your comments?

as you said Jen, “I’m sure there are all sorts of deep theological reasons for the virgin designation so commonly seen after the names of the (insert WOMEN )saints (feel free to enlighten me in the combox”

Why is the virgin designation given only to women?

Jill, our archdiocese recently had a day long workshop for singles (Indianapolis) so my suggestion is to keep looking and or start a group yourself.  We also have a couple of on-going groups for singles.

Jen says: “People can have good lives—great, history-making, God-glorifying lives, in fact—without ever having sex”.

In fact, the Church has always taught that by forsaking sex entirely, people put themselves in an even “better” position to live “great, history-making, God-glorifying lives”.

It is not an accident of history that 99 percent of our saints are Catholic. Only the holiest of the holy are canonized, and “the more you give the more you get”. You give up the good of sex, you get an even greater plenitude of graces. St. Thomas likened it to the “thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and hundredfold” harvest - and St. Thomas called celibacy “hundredfold” compared to married chastity’s “thirtyfold” (Summa, II-I, q.70, a.3, n.2; See also II-II, q.152, a.4 and a.5, responsio).

Beth: It doesn’t sound to me like you’re really wanting an answer to your question.  It seems to me that you are posing a loaded question.  I think, and I may be mistaken, that you already have a firmly planted opinion on this issue…and that is: Since the Catholic Church, past and present, is a misogynistic organization, this presumption nullifies her juridic right in matters of morality.  Correct? Of course, I am!  Not taking the bait…

It sounds like a serious question that she wants to make sure doesn’t get lost in the shuffle. I think it’s a little presumptive to cry troll. As for the answer, I’d guess it has to do with the etymology of virgin, which mostly applies to women.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=virgin&allowed_in_frame=0

Mike McCants, I am amszed that you are still hanging aroung this Catholic site. of course are not you a fan of PZ Myers the man who got his hands on the sacred host, stuck a nail in it and threw it in the trash. No fear your hero Myers would go to Saudi Arabia and throw the Koron in the trash bin. Why do you not go to the Library and get a life of Lenin to read, you have something in common with that hero of Atheism. Kindly leave this site as no one wants to read your anti Catholic rubbish

Wow Mike McCants is such an ignorant person! It is never permissible to end a pregnancy regardless what defect the unborn child may have. I am surprised you can even justify your belief in nothing to yourself. Atheism is not a logical path at all.

Furthermore there is a culture of contraception. This is demonstrated by the fact that most people use it. However this does not make it right. It shows that we live in a society that is so selfish they put their own selfishness above what is right. Despite what you or anyone else says it is just as evil to kill an unborn child as it is to kill a 5 yr old child. There is no difference here. If you say otherwise then you are being completely irrational.

Contraception is also completely immoral and is never ever justifed. it is EVIL.

I wish all Christians would remain virgins.

Teacher,  I’m sorry you think this way but you are mistaken.  Do you have an answer?  Anytime anyone asks a questions that challenges your mindset they are a troll?  I am a faithful, devout Catholic who loves my faith.  Please don’t mix me up with all the other troubles you see here.  Besides I was not the first one to ask the question to begin with.  I think you all get a bit too sensitive sometimes.  I’ll tell you what I’ll use my friend google and come up with a good answer.

In thinking about it I am starting to make up my mind that some thing is out of balance here.  I personally can’t come up with a reasonable explanation especially as the church’s understanding as grown over the years.

I do disagree that celibacy is the only way to higher holiness.  I think at times raising a family can have its share of challenging situations and marriage is most certainly a road to holiness.  I just don’t understand why this is not reflected in the church’s canonization of married saints.  And that is a sincere question.

oh and teacher I do not know what the word “misogynistic” is so I don’t think I could have decided that is what the church is.  I think you were way out of line throwing accusations as me and if you are unable to answer the question then don’t say anything.

A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority.” Stanley Milgram , 1965

Mike McCants. I’m glad your here! Well reasoned and not abusive. Speak on.

To those who wondered why we have so few identified married saints, there is a fairly simple explanation.  In our current process for canonization, a saint’s cause may take many years before the process is done.  For a religious brother or sister or a priest, they have a community that is already organized who can not only pursue but maintain that cause, even over many decades.  The cause is harder to maintain for a non-religious, be they married or not, simply because the networked structure for the cause is not already in place.

That’s not to say it’s impossible - we certainly have saints like Maria Goretti and Bl. Pier Giorgio Frassati whose cause is well-known enough to progress through the stages of canonization.  And that’s not to say that there aren’t many men and women who are in Heaven and thus saints who lived married relationships here on earth.  It’s just harder for the Church as a whole to hear about them because of the lack of an organized group to promote their cause.

Sam and Con O`Sullivan: condescending and insulting comments like yours will make sure people like Mike remain atheists. As Christians, we are called to respond patiently and with charity - and that will gain the ear of an atheist and win him over a lot more surely than snippy replies will.

Beth, I think yours is a very thoughtful question and I just wanted to ask if you have ever read The Christian Meaning of Human Sexuality by Fr Paul Quay SJ?  He offers a beautiful explanation of the significance of female virginity, and also of male virginity.  I wish I could reproduce it here, but I know I couldn’t do justice to it (it is a truly outstanding book - I can’t recommend it highly enough!).

@ Wade St. Onge - If Mike McCants would listen and respond with reasoned arguments I could counter but if you read through the many articles he has responded to all his posts are the same ridicule against the Catholic Church. Sometimes the only thing left is to mention how irrational he and his arguments sound lest someone else fall into his trap. Anger can be a virtue too. Remember Christ drove money changes out of the temple with whips. He also had harsh things to say about the Scribes and Pharisees because they had hardened their hearts which is what Mike McCants’ writing is indicating and this after many, many posts. My response is justified. There is a time for patience and charity and there is a time for stating exactly like it is and if the truth hurts- So be it.

Beth,  I don’t know the answer to your question, but I could guess that some of it is practical labeling.  Many, many men saints are priests or religious. Since chastity is part of the vows, putting “virgin” next to their name would be unnecessary. 

Additionally, I don’t believe I see the name “virgin” next to canonized religious women (nuns, sisters).  I would assume the same reason. 

I believe the only time I’ ve seen virgin is next to female saint that wasn’t a religious but often was consecreated or dedicated a virgin. That would be their special distinction (as opposed to religious or martyr). 

That doesn’t completely answer your question on why there isn’t (idk, is there?) the same designation to single, non-religious men, but after taking the above in to account, the discrepancy isn’t as large.

God bless!

“Virgin” is commonly attached to female saints in antiquity, as opposed to male saints of the period, because it meant so much more for a woman to remain unmarried than it did a man.  Men were capable of independent lives and attaining social status regardless of marital state, but for women, the entirety of their social status was dependent upon their husband (or father, before marriage).  So a decision to remain unmarried was a public renunciation of social and economic status; it was a refusal to engage in the social structure of the time period and set the woman apart as radically different.  Incidentally, this was a common complaint from non-Christian authorities regarding early Christianity (“Their women refuse to marry!”), because they threatened the social status quo.  It was a gesture of trust in God and separation from the secular patterns of behavior, and that’s why the early church held women who took that route in such high esteem.  Again, a man who remained unmarried (as a “virgin) was not giving up nearly as much, so it wasn’t a focus of praise.

While growing up many of us were told that sex was something we should stay away from — or at least not talk about! Sensuality is an innate part of our being, but girls are often taught to tamp it down. Ladies, we are told, guard their reputations carefully; by the time we are mature enough to handle a sexual relationship, our bodies may have incorporated the “good girl” image. That’s unfortunate, because what we weren’t told is that sexual pleasure comes with many emotional and physical health benefits.

Luckily, it’s never too late to reap the health benefits of sex. And for those of us entering menopause, we are finally at an age to enjoy sex without the fear of getting pregnant! Whether you’re a young woman or a granny, it’s time understand your libido and to stop thinking of sex as just another “guilty pleasure” and celebrate in the knowledge that it’s good for your health.

“...it strikes me that one of the practical benefits of the practice is that it’s a reminder that people can have good lives—great, history-making, God-glorifying lives, in fact—without ever having sex.”
*
Maybe people *want* to engage in sexual intercourse. If some want to be old maids or old bacherlors, fine - but they can’t tell the rest of we have to be like them. Being frigid and sexless doesn’t make ant berter as a human being, any more than the disgusting antics of certain people do. And ho cares about being “history-making” LOL ? Most of us are unimportant nobodies, who will be totally forgotten before long, as though we had never been.
_
“It makes people who are same-sex attracted feel like Christianity leaves them no options for a good life.”
*
What’s really odd here is that they have to remain celibate, not because they have received a charism to do so, but because to do otherwise would be a mortal sin.

Thank you very much Mary C, Pamela, ER and KL for taking the time to give me your insight into the virgin question and lack of married saints question.  I appreciate the insightful answers.  They really brought me more understanding on both topics.  It makes sense!!

TD, you appear to be under the impression that the Church thinks that sex is wrong and evil, perhaps just a “necessary evil” for the pursuit of new bodies to fill the pews but otherwise to be avoided.  You are correct in saying that many have grown up with that mentality, however it would not be correct to say that is what the Church teaches.

The Church would say that our sexuality is SO good and SO wonderful that we need to be careful how we use it.  Our sexuality is incredibly powerful and an integral part of who and what we are - we do not just have male and female body parts but we are truly masculine and feminine. 

In its proper context, our sexuality lets us participate in the act of creation with God - a soul that was not there before can now enter the world.  In its proper context, sex helps us see God in the Trinity in a profound way - two that are one produce a third out of love - the third is literally created in the act of love just like the Holy Spirit is the living love of the Father and the Son.  That is so amazing!  The Church teaches that sex is an incredible good, not just in bringing forth life but in uniting a husband and wife as one and yes, in being a healthy and pleasurable experience.

But out of context, the misuse of our sexuality does great damage.  We now have broken families, men and women who have no idea of their self-worth except as sexual objects to be used by other people, children growing up without fathers, poverty amongst single mothers, STIs at epidemic proportions, and rampant depression amongst sexually promiscuous people, especially women.  None of these would exist at the levels that they do if sex remained in the confines of marriage.

So you’re right - sex is wonderful and it is good and it is not a guilty pleasure.  But only in its right place - in the permanent bond of marriage where it can unite a husband and wife and through them make their love so real and tangible that it has to be named!

Pamela:  You are so right!  God made sex pleasurable so that we would be partners in His pro-creative process, however, only in the marital state.  As you said, sexuality, abused—that is, outside of the sacrament of matrimony, begets pernicious progeny: abortion, dangerous contraceptives (all of them damaging to women), depression, divorce, children with psychological issues, and the list goes on.  I’ve known women who bought into the “sexual revolution” that started 40 years ago and are still now suffering from all sorts of deep psychological, emotional, and spiritual wounds. It was (and still is) one of the big lies targeting women…and they bought into it in the name of “freedom” and are still buying into it.  Instead, they (women) have enslaved themselves—and now blame others and especially the Church.  I don’t get it.  I guess I never will.  Whatever happened to “CHOICES”??  I suppose that is only acceptable or reasonable when a woman has made a terrible mistake (that is also something I question) and then decides another human being will pay the price—with their own, young, lives.  Hmmm…what is out of balance here?  When do we start waking up from this self-imposed spiritual coma?

Good article, but why are there no MALE virgin saints in the church calendar???  This has always puzzled me.  I was a little disappointed that the article did not address the strange dearth of virginal male Saints.

Here’s a worthwhile article that’s very much to your point:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/cheap_dates_EnfcHi7NwBAkD3RYMUWv6

@~Nona:  I copied and pasted the link you have provided, but it came up as “page not found”.  Can you double-check it?

Trolls seem to be everywhere…

I’m only a Sophomore in High School, and personally, from a high schooler’s point of view, it’s not about God or anything religious, for the majority of the student body. Rather, the decision on whether or not you are going to keep your virginity is largely a matter concerning what others will think of you. Having gone through High School, I’m sure all of you know the great and unspoken demand that your fellow class members entail. The pressures are unbelievable, and the more time I spend in the world, the more I am convinced that the pressures are becoming, in fact, harder to resist and easier to give into. What I am trying to say is that, now, personal sexuality is greatly and frighteningly a matter of peer pressure. The topic of conversation can often be closely related to sex and sexual attraction, activity, etc. I have not once heard anybody (in HS) stand up for sexual purity. They sit there, fiddling with their hands, head downcast, mouth slightly open- wanting to say something. But they don’t. Why? Because they can’t stand up for themselves, or for a moral that they value without being criticized, judged and thrown out of the circle. It’s almost like… you have to give up your values to be of value. So the real question isn’t whether or not sexuality (‘premature’ activity or life-long abstinence) is wrong, but rather what are your values? And is there an “across the board” value we should all follow?...

Pamela, spot on.

Bridge, you’ve hit the nail on the head.  I would also add that it doesn’t just come down to values, but what those values are actually based or rooted in.  And with peer pressure comes the attendant issue of “consent”:  simply because we can do something does not mean that we should.  Furthermore, we talk a good deal about choice, but simply because one chooses, does that make it “okay”?  Also, does the fact that somebody “consented” (even to their own degradation) make it “okay”?  Here’s the thing about “choice”: we know from our own experiences that we’re highly capable of choosing things that aren’t good for us—look at all of those things that we’ve done that “seemed like such a good idea at the time!” after all.

Bernie, good question.  Although St. Charles Lawanga and his companions may fit the bill there:  they also, after all, defended not only their Christian faith, but their virtue from somebody who wanted to take sexual advantage of them.  And they were martyred as a result.

manticore, you are taking things out of context regarding those with same-sex attraction:  all Catholics who are not married, according to the teaching of the Church, are in a state of mortal sin if they choose to have sex outside of marriage.  Precisely for the reasons that Pamela so ably expounded upon.  Furthermore, just because you or anyone else “wants” something does not necessarily make it right or good.  Also, as per your “sexless and frigid” comment, what makes anyone think that better sex is necessarily more of it?  Furthermore, why do you then concede the choice of some to remain celibate but then denigrate that choice in the same breath?  You’ve aptly demonstrated what Ms. Fulwiler pointed out:  that because celibacy is rare to the point of being “unthinkable” to some, there is immense pressure for those who would choose it to give into that pressure, or risk being considered “weird.”  Catholicism at least gives them the emotional and spiritual room that they need, instead of being forced to choose between two extreme.  Nobody is saying that everybody remain celibate;  rather that sex’s proper place is within marriage.  Else, it is in danger of abuse, and it most certainly has been abused if we think that sex is an activity that entails pleasure without consequence.

Mike McCants, the reason why Ms. Fulwiler mentions the “contraception culture” is that it promotes the idea that one can have sex for pleasure without any strings attached, and therefore one need not have the attendant responsibility.  That plays a huge role in the irresponsible men that you rightly condemn for fathering children and not sticking by the mothers.  Because they tend to see sex as the woman’s responsibility and having nothing to do with their behavior, and both the man and woman in question ultimately place the lion’s share of that responsibility on their method of contraception (thing is, what if it fails?).  That you fail to make these connections is, to use your favorite word, hilarious.

And to several people who brought up the issue of human beings needing intimate contact or touch:  yes, wholeheartedly agreed.  But since when does that need necessarily boil down to having—and certainly needing—to have sex?  Doesn’t a big hug, a kiss, or holding hands count?

If more poeple would keep their pants on until they were married, there would be a great decrease in abortion, unwanted children being abused, finding babies dead in dumpsters, abandoned babies, disease and AIDS.

“simply because we can do something does not mean that we should.”
Hilarious strawman.  No one advocates “we should do something because we can”.  That’s ridiculous.
“we’re highly capable of choosing things that aren’t good for us”
Hilarious.  As if someone would disagree with that.  The point is:  who decides what is or is not “good for us”?  Of course my opinion is that your particular moral requirement is not always “good for us”.
“The reason why Ms. Fulwiler mentions the “contraception culture” is that it promotes the idea that one can have sex for pleasure without any strings attached”
Well, the easy availability of contraceptives has been with us since the 1930s.  Why choose that particular concept as the “cause”.  Why not movies, TV, pornography and peer pressure?  It seems to me that a lot of things in modern society promote that idea.  Sex in the City was restricted to HBO.  Now it’s on regular channels.  You’ve just chosen a particularly strange “cause” for a problem of modern society.  One in which 90+% of married Catholics do not respect.  I really think you should pick a different windmill.
“responsibility on their method of contraception”
Well, perhaps high school student should be taught properly.  I think “abstinence only” education is ridiculous.  The failures of no contraception at all far outweigh the failures of contraception properly used.  At any rate, your Catholic teaching against the use of contraception is simply out of date and ridiculous.
“That you fail to make these connections”
I see quite different connections, so I find your obsession with contraception as the main connection to be ridiculous.
“None of these would exist at the levels that they do if sex remained in the confines of marriage.”
“If more poeple would keep their pants on until they were married”
Of course.  Why didn’t I think of that?  Let’s pass appropriate laws making sex outside of marriage illegal.  Let’s put a lot of high school students in jail.  Hilarious.

Mike:  I think you’re putting the cart before the horse.  All those things you mentioned are the effects of the cause of a “contraceptive” mentality.  Those things happen BECAUSE we have allowed the disregard of the basic human respect for each other.  It seems to me that sex has gotten all mixed up with love, sensuality, affection, acceptance, comfort, and all sorts of other things that it was not meant for. 

Mike, I may be mistaken…as I have been many, many times.  But, I see the things you mentioned, and serious as they are, as a result of the “ne’er can do” attitude in our society.  If one of our choices winds up backfiring on us, well then, just blame someone else or let someone else “pay” for the bad choices we make.

Mike if you want people to take you seriously you need to put out some well thought out arguments and not just laugh at everyone. and say “Hilarious” that is not an argument. An previously stated by others many of todays break down of responsibility and family stability, increases in divorce and much much more can be traced to the advent of this modern contraceptive mentality and the increase in selfishness that this illustrates.

“If more poeple would keep their pants on until they were married”
Of course.  Why didn’t I think of that?  Let’s pass appropriate laws making sex outside of marriage illegal.  Let’s put a lot of high school students in jail.  Hilarious.”

—-Yes, it’s so halarious, how stupid of me to suggest that people should become more repsonsible with their actions, for having sex=making babies- and people seem to forget that.  Then, some people decide “i don’t the kid, rip it out of my womb”, “i’ll just cover it up, give birth and throw the kid in the dumpster. Or I’ll keep the kid and abuse it cause I hate that I got pregnant.”—as if it was the child’s fault that the mother and guy were not responsible for their actions!

And BTW, there are laws of God regarding marriage,family and sex.  Correct me if I’m wrong, did I say to put people in jail for such actions?

from Jill’s posting: “Certainly, life does not and should not revolve around sex.”

—My reply, and that is the #1 problem with gays and Lesbians—That is all their life evolves around.  It’s a sick, self-centered and unhealthy way to live.

“suggest that people should become more responsible with their actions”
What a wonderful thought!  I never would have thought of that!  And when they aren’t, we do what?  Give them $6000 when they earn $18000 so that they continue to live right at the edge of poverty?  Today’s paper:  Hispanic poverty about 22% for Austin for families with a child under 18.

“there are laws of God regarding marriage,family and sex.”
Hilarious.  Who gets to decide exactly what those “laws” are and how to “enforce” those “laws”?  Would you accept Sharia?  They are certain that their “laws” are correct of course.  I am definitely against a theocracy no matter what crazy religion is in charge.  So the correct answer is NO - there are not any such laws.

“Correct me if I’m wrong, did I say to put people in jail for such actions?”
No, of course you did not say that.  But Sharia actually does say to kill the adulterer.  Who gets to decide such “laws” and enforce them?  So answer the question:  What should be done about this deplorable state of affairs?  You are good on condemnation and terrible at a practical solution.  Give lawbreakers a choice?  Pay the fine or go to church?  Reference a recent choice listed on a blog:
“you might be amused by this story out of Bay Minette, Alabama: they’ve decided that as an alternative to jail, people convicted of misdemeanors can opt to go to church instead. Didn’t you just know it all along? Church is the equivalent of prison, and attending church is a punishment.”

Mike McCant, “Church is the equivilent of prison and attending Church a punishment” . well in countries run by your fellow Atheist, I mean The Soviet Union run by Lenin (hero of Atheism)you could not go to Church because most of them were turned into Museums Of Atheist, and if a Priest was caugh celebrating Mass , he was thrown into prison, if he was lucky. Are people not lucky in the USA that they can atend Church or not. As for what law breeakers being sent to Church in alabama they must be your fellow Atheists so for them attending Church is a punishment. Tell me how entering your American Atheists meeting. How is their physical and mental health over the cross at ground zero

Mike:  So, what are your solutions to these problems?

Mike McCants at 5:47 pm Sept. 28
“Well, the easy availability of contraceptives has been with us since the 1930s.  Why choose that particular concept as the ‘cause’.  Why not movies, TV, pornography and peer pressure?”

Sister Terese on at 8:05 pm Sept. 28
“Mike:  I think you’re putting the cart before the horse.  All those things you mentioned are the effects of the cause of a ‘contraceptive’ mentality.”

Well, families began to shrink in size back in the nineteenth century when more people began living in cities. A large family had been useful to farmers. Poor urban families could still profit from child labor, but middle-class and upper-class parents had the means to set long-term goals and invest in the health and education of their children. Their resources went farther with fewer children. At the same time, fewer children were dying before reaching adulthood. These conditions provided the true impetus for de-coupling sex from reproduction.

In my opinion our increasingly permissive attitudes are the result of our practical success at accomplishing this de-coupling. In theory, contraceptives allow us to avoid the woes of unwanted children or children being born to women who can’t support them. Therefore the old taboos and shunnings are no longer necessary. The only thing in the way is human nature, which has shortcomings such as laziness, impulsiveness, and ignorance. But of course in the past these same shortcomings led to the same kind of suffering even with the taboos and shunnings in place.

Mike is right that 90+ percent of Catholics have chosen to reject church teaching about contraception. Starting down this path made it easier for them to reject other teachings about sex. After all, if the pope was wrong about contraception, he might also be wrong about the sinfulness of abortion, IVF, remarriage after divorce, homosexual relationships, pornography, and extramarital sex. And the sinfulness of blowing off the Sunday mass obligation. And the impossibility of women priests. And the need to participate individually in the Sacrament of Reconciliation before receiving communion. Etc.

Most Catholics have become quite comfortable with making independent moral judgments about these matters but insist they are still Catholics. I don’t think there is any possibility of their going back to dutiful acceptance of papal authority. Will a more tuned in pope be elected, or will the church influence continue to decrease? I will be very interested to see what happens.

“So, what are your solutions to these problems?”
Well, fundamentally these problems are social and political.  Politicians have historically thrown more money at most problems.  Guns plus butter equals a 14 trillion dollar deficit?  I doubt that there are any “good” solutions to these problems.  My expectation is a continuation of “muddling through” and a gradual decline in well-being.  Malthus was correct, but a couple of centuries ahead of his time.  But as usual there is the fundamental question:  define the “problems” to be addressed:  poverty?  abortion?  homelessness?  children-out-of-wedlock?  assisted dying?
My bottom line:  Religious “teachings” are not much help with these problems and religion’s “costs minus benefits” is a net detriment to society.  Politicians pander to the religious and that’s a huge negative.  For example Perry’s special prayer meeting at Reliant Stadium in September.  And evolution denial of all but one of the Republicans.  And climate change denial as well.  And problems with vaccine denial as well.
In particular, I see the anti-contraception, anti-abortion, and anti-assisted dying positions of the Catholic Church as negatives.  But of course I cannot expect that the Catholic Church will change.  I can only expect that people will continue to leave the Church and/or ignore those positions.
Fundamentally, religion is not rational.  The theory is that the fewer people that accept religion, the more people who would be rational about other things.
One of the problems with most religions is that the “life” of every “human being” is seen as “infinitely valuable”.  There would need to be agreement on the definition of “life” and “human being” and of course there is a problem with “infinitely valuable”.  There is always the danger of the “slippery slope” and some people always wish to claim that “if you allow this”, then “what’s to stop you from allowing that”.  I believe that the fundamentally extreme positions of religion would always preclude any “compromise”.  Yet society has reached some “compromises” and society will continue to adapt and possibly achieve more “compromises”.  In particular, some societies and states allow “assisted dying”.  So I see religion as an obstacle to the compromises that would be good for society.

Sister Teresa,

Pornography was around long before the invention of the pill. So was contraception. Why do you think the morals of people in the past are any different than they are now? As you said, people who call themselves Catholics still do whatever they want. The church is loosing its influence because its rules are getting too restrictive.

@Teddy:

If more people used condoms until they were married, there would be a great decrease in abortion, unwanted children being abused, finding babies dead in dumpsters, abandoned babies, disease and AIDS.

Mike Mc Cant, and what is your opinion of the Atheist/Marxism as practised in the Soviet Union, Yes the Atheists Communist were very good at “assisted dying were they not. They assisted over 30,000,000 peole to die in the Soviet Union alone.

Con O Sullivan:
I’m new to this site and have been going over articles and comments. You seem to be obsessed with atheism and Marxism in the Soviet Union. You don’t seem to mind the Catholic support of the Nazis who also assisted millions to die. Did you loose relatives to the Commies, or are you just looking for atrocities to blame on atheism?

@ Ed - I dont know where you get this false idea that the Catholic Church supported the Nazis. It is well documented that the Church did much and was praised for their stance against them. It was only later that people started spreading lies about the Church and His Holiness Pope Pius XII. The leading Jews of the day all praised him for his part in hiding and smuggling out many many Jews right under the Nazis’ noses. The chief Rabbi of Rome became a personal friend of His Holiness. Somehow later someone decided to start up a NEW LIE against the Church and say that they supported the Nazis. Some of this stemmed from a fictional play portraying the pope in this way. This is blatantly false. No serious historian can truthfully uphold this nonsense. THose that do show either an ignorance of history or an agenda against the Catholic Church.

Mike:  Most of what you said makes sense…at least on paper.  But, like you said yourself, human nature being what it is, is flawed.  We are imperfect beings.  Can we agree on that?  Freedom is THE slippery slope, too, isn’t it?  What we think are freedoms can oftentimes enslave us.  I know from PERSONAL experience. I, too, want to see the poor less poor, the homeless, less homeless, etc.  Secular humanism does not have the master key to that problematic door. 

Also, I just want to comment further on one statement you made: “...fundamentally, religion is not rational.”  Of course not!  Religion is irrational AND rational!  I am no scholar or philosopher…I cannot answer some of your propositions adequately, but I will comment to this statement: 

“One of the problems with most religions is that the “life” of every “human being” is seen as “infinitely valuable”.  There would need to be agreement on the definition of “life” and “human being” and of course there is a problem with “infinitely valuable”.

In my opinion, as unscholarly as it is, when we get into this kind of thinking that you suggest, it leads to moral relativism and nihilism.  Who’s then to say what is the correct or accurate definition of “life”, “human being” etc.?  There could be billions of definitions of many, many terms.  Who, then, is the ultimate authority?  Who has the wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to be an authoritative voice in this regard?  To me, we are already experiencing this very problem in the debate of deciding at what stage a human is considered a “person”.  Who’s opinion is right?  We have entered onto the “mother” of all slippery slopes. 

But again, I do not have the intellect nor the educational background to be able to adequately argue the points you raise.  All I know is what is in my heart and ultimately what is in my soul.  How can one speak what only the heart can say?

On the contrary, the Faith is rational. I just wanted to point out that false religions are of course not rational; they contradict themselves and are not consistent. But true reason and the True Faith cannot contradict themselves. The Catholic Faith is rational. True, there are mysteries that reason cannot fathom or explain but that does not mean they are irrational. His Holiness Pope John Paul II explains this in his encyclical “Fides et Ratio”. This is why Philosophy goes hand in hand with Theology.

“Freedom is THE slippery slope, too, isn’t it?”
This is confusing.  It seems to me that the “well-being” of a self-aware person would require “freedom” as much as possible.  Where are we sliding?  Define “self-aware person”.  Should the “well-being” of a self-aware person include the right to assisted dying?
“Secular humanism does not have the master key to that problematic door.”
I do not believe that I claimed that it did.  I am merely claiming that the “chains” of religion are on the whole more of a negative influence than a positive influence.
“it leads to moral relativism”
Of course.  It would seem that you think there is a problem with that.
“... and nihilism.”
Well, there’s a slippery slope for you.
So there is the attempt to consider “well-being” as a desirable goal.  This tries to avoid sliding into nihilism.
“Who’s then to say what is the correct or accurate definition of “life”, “human being” etc.?”
Each “society” must work out those problems for themselves.  Each “society” has different “norms” and laws promoting those “norms”.  It’s not perfect, but it’s the best that fallible humans can do.
“Who, then, is the ultimate authority?”
Why does there have to be “an ultimate authority”?  Societies have laws and one violates those laws at one’s peril.  But perhaps one can move from one society to a different one that has laws that are better to one’s choosing.  Or one can work to change the laws.
“Who has the wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to be an authoritative voice in this regard?”
No one of course.  Is that a problem?  Would you prefer a dictatorship or a theocracy?
“To me, we are already experiencing this very problem in the debate of deciding at what stage a human is considered a “person”.”
Yes.  And our society currently has a “compromise”.  Of course many are not satisfied with that compromise.
“Who’s opinion is right?”
No one’s.  It has to be the opinion of the “society”.  That should be “whose” in your sentence.
“All I know is what is in my heart”
The correct snarky comment at this point refers to the “brain”, not the “heart”.  But the point is - you have found your definition (and your support in a religion) and you wish others would share in your opinion.  But it’s only an opinion and others are not required to agree with you.  So the question becomes - is the current “compromise” rational?  If not, then one needs to work for change (and Catholics are doing that) or impose authority (dictatorship or theocracy) or move to a different society.

Ed Maybe you would provide evidence for your statement the the Catholic Church supported the Nazis. Considering the Nazis murdered 3,000,000 Catholic lay people including 3,000 Catholic Clergy . Monsignor O Flaherty an Irish Priest based in Rome is reputed to haved saved 6,000 Jews and British and American Troops, and was honoured by both the US and British Government. Now Ed are you going to cantrdict me about the murderous Communist Regime of the Soviet Union, I await your reply with interest.

Here you go—
—
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html#recent
—
You will note that this page includes a link in defense of Pope Pius, and you will also note that each of these “defenses” are authored by the Catholic League and Eternal Word Television Network, and have no references to back their claims. I guess we’re supposed to ignore documented proof and believe the Catholics on faith.

BTY—this is just one article—just Google “the Pope and Hitler” and you will find lots more.

@ Sam:
I suppose the accusations of sexual and physical abuse by Catholic priests are just part of the evil atheist conspiracy to destroy the church.
You people are so full of conspiracy theories.

Yes there is a huge problem with moral relativism.
The ultimate authority is God.
The Catholic Church is the voice of God on earth.
Its not the opinion of society that matters it is the TRUTH.
The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth.
That which is true is true regardless of how many people deny it. Truth does not change and morality does not change. Relativism is false. It is also a dangerously seductive path that people love because it makes them feel better about living lives of immorality instead of living their lives according to the law of God. But just because the majrity like it does not make it true.

@ Ed - Of course there are article out there without proof. But the numbers and the facts are out there. It was published even in the newspapers at the time. As for the opposite side the do the same thing. There is no proof out there that Pius XII supported the Nazis. Rather he condemned all that they stood for. This cannot be denied.

As for the accusations against priests, Catholics do not deny that members of the Church sin. We condemn sin. This does not change the Truth of what the Church teaches at all however. It just means that some do not follow all that the Church teaches. I will mention that there is a percentage of all other ministers, rabbis, teachers, etc who also do the same sins. Obviously this doesn’t excuse anyone but it does illustrate that it is not because of the Church that this happens but in spite of it. Human beings are sinners and need the Catholic Church more than ever.

Pope Pius at best,paid lip service and remained neutral while Nazis committed their crimes against humanity. He is probably the only person who could have rivaled Hitler’s charisma in Germany.
As for Catholics being human, I have no argument. However I see no difference between Catholicism and other faiths. The Catholic Church has no track record for stopping evil works, only forgiving those who feign remorse when they are caught.

Sam:  Thank you.  I wish I could express myself as clearly as you do.  I MEANT mysteries when I used the term “irrational” because for many, mysteries translate into irrationalism.  Thanks for helping me!

Ed:  Are you an ex-Catholic?  I’ve heard statements similar to yours about Pope Pius XII.  I do not believe them to be true, however.  There is no proof that he did or didn’t do what is claimed.  Perhaps, had he (and the rest of the Catholic Church) not done the things he did to help those hunted by the Nazis, even more people would have died.  You see no difference between the Catholic Church and other faiths?  There are huge differences.  We will might never know the good that the Church has done, or the evil in which she has thwarted until we reach eternity.

There are many people, whom the Church has forgiven who have cried rivers of tears over their sins—I am one of them.  Please don’t make sweeping statements about people whose sins are forgiven.  Only God can read the heart of a person.

As for atheism, Hitler specifically opposed it in a 1933 speech in Berlin: “We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”
==
Hitler’s biographer John Toland explains Catholicism’s influence on the Holocaust. He says of Hitler: “Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god. . ..”
Even after World War II, Catholic assistance to the Nazis continued. The Vatican aided the escape of more Nazis than any other governmental or private entity. Christopher Hitchens adds: “It was the Vatican itself, with its ability to provide passports, documents, money, and contacts, which organized the escape network and also the necessary shelter and succor at the other end.”
==
www.humanismbyjoe.com/hitler.htm
==

BYW, Sam,
Which God is Authority?

Just because someone claims they are a good Catholic does not make them so. Since he commanded his underlings to perform mass genocide he was obviously guilty of mortal sin many times over. Just because you may not have been excommunicated does not make you a Catholic in good standing. Those who are divorced or use contraception may not be excommunicated but they are not a Catholic in good standing.

As for the Jews - The Jews at the time of Christ were guilty of deicide since Christ gave them sufficient proof to show that he was the long awaited Messiah. However not every Jew of the day took part in the decision nor did the Jews of subsequent generations. Therefore the Jews as a people are not gulty of deicide, but only those that explicitly took part and condemned Christ during his passion.

Next, the Church has always taught that vengeance is wrong. “Vengeance is mine I will repay, says the Lord”. One is never permitted to act as Hitler did. You cannot blame the Church for what he did. Just because someone is evil nd happens to claim to be a Catholic does not mean that it is the fault of the Church. If there is a serial killer or a robber who grew up Catholic does this mean the Catholic Church condones murder or robbery? Absolutely not!

These people you say are claiming the Vatican aided the escape of Nazis - What is their background, motive, proof? Just from the quotes you’ve given it sounds like these authors are of the same caliber as those who told blatant lies about Pius XII in an attempt to tarnish his good name. If that author was trying to explain Catholic influence on the holocaust then he blatantly ignored the facts. The Popes work tirelessly (Pius XI and Pius XII in this case) condemning evil in all forms wherever it rears its ugly head.

As for which God - There is only one God.

Ed: It is well documented (by a number of BBC reports) that Hitler and some of his cronies were heavily involved in the occult—particularly the pagan gods of Nordic antiquity.  Yes, there are some reports that Hitler had been a baptized Catholic, but being a baptized Catholic says nothing of the lived faith of anyone…as is clearly evident by many Catholics today.

@ Sister Terese - good point about Hitler and the occult. I also totally agree that being a baptized Catholic does not mean anything if you don’t LIVE as a Catholic which means believing and following all of the teachings of the Church.

Sam:  :)  ...emphasis on the word ALL!!  :)

Exactly!

Can I just point out that in Sam’s comment, being divorced in and of itself is not necessarily a mortal sin?  The Church says that civil divorce in certain circumstances can be a wise choice - such as in the case of an abusive spouse where one’s life or one’s children’s lives are in danger.  Of course you could divorce for sinful reasons, or you could marry after divorce without first seeking knowledge that the first marriage was not a sacramental marriage through the anullment process in which case one is committing adultery which is always a mortal sin.

I just find that there are many who leave the Church because they are divorced and think they’re not welcome when this is not the case at all.  Civil divorce doesn’t end a sacramental marriage in God’s eyes, but not all civil divorces occur in sacramental marriages, and sometimes even a sacramental marriage can be civilly divorced for serious reasons without a sin being committed.

@ Pamela - I agree with your statement. I was referring more to the whole modern mentality of people getting married and then divorced shortly thereafter. People don’t seem to see divorce as the huge deal that it is. Many that take divorce lightly also feel that they are free to remarry which they are not. Yes there is an annulment process but just because you ask for one does not mean your marriage never took place in God’s eyes. It might be investigated and found that your marriage was indeed valid. If this is the case then one is not free to marry again. Civil divorce is permitted as a last resort only to protect oneself or one’s children from serious harm. Civil divorce is allowed for legal reasons. But in the eyes of God and of the Church you are merely separated. Divorce is a legal term meaning the marriage is terminated, thus a Catholic cannot truly have a divorce. They can only get it as a legal remedy for government reasons. It does not truly terminate their marriage. That being said, getting divorced over all kinds of little thingd that people use as an excuse today is sinful.

Ah, the old “not a true Scotsman” trick. Hitler may have been interested in the occult and other evils, but the Pope never excommunicated him—which would have been a strong statement of abhorrence and might have started German Catholics to think about what they were doing. Catholics also helped Nazis escape to South America. By your standards, Pope Pius was not a true Catholic.
—
Pamela, correct me if I’m wrong, but even though divorce itself is not a sin isn’t re-marriage to another partner a sin unless the original marriage is annulled? Didn’t annulment make the children of the first marriage “out of wedlock” and deprive them of their legal inheritance?

Ed, You stated the Catholic Church supported the Nazi,s, and you did not come up with one bit of evidence, where is your information the Pius supported the Naxis, of course you have none. Hitler and the Nazis murdered 3,000,000 Catholic laypeople and 3,000 Cathol;ic Clergy, so you tell me that Hitler was in good standing with the Church Of Rome after all those murders. and as for quoting Hitchins as a source, maybe you should know that Hitchins the vicious 1917 Revolution led by the Atheist Lenin where up to 10,000,000 people were murdered including many Catholics and fellow Christians. Also last year Hitchins drummed up a campaign to arrest Pope in London and when the time came your Atheist hero sculked in the USA, some source you have. I notice you did not contradict me about the atrosities committed by the Atheist regimes in the Soviet Union, is the truth bitter?

Ed. Hitler gave up attending Church around the time of World War 1, and when he married Eva Braun it was in a Civil Ceremony, and not a Catholic one. Of couse there were Catholics jhelped Nazis escape to South America, and there was Atheists and Protestand did the exact same thing. THere was also Catholics who gave up their lives to save their Jewish Neighbours, of course in your anti Catholic bigotry you conveintly forget about that din;t you. Why are you so silent about Stalin and Lenin , your Atheist fellow travellors. strage when Pius died in 1957 Golda Meir the Israeli Foreign was full of praise for the late Pope, are you calling Golda Meir a liar?

Con O Sullivan
Did you forget my post of September 30th?
Here it is again:
==
Here you go—
—
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html#recent
—
You will note that this page includes a link in defense of Pope Pius, and you will also note that each of these “defenses” are authored by the Catholic League and Eternal Word Television Network, and have no references to back their claims. I guess we’re supposed to ignore documented proof and believe the Catholics on faith.

BTY—this is just one article—just Google “the Pope and Hitler” and you will find lots more.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/why-virginity-matters/#ixzz1ZYDGM8mr

Pamela:  You are absolutely correct.  Getting a civil divorce is not a sin in the eyes of the Church.  As you said, many times the Church encourages a physical separation or a complete civil divorce in cases of abuse—whether toward the spouse, children, or whatever.  However, sin comes in when anyone who is divorced, then “marries” again either in a civil ceremony or religious non-Catholic ceremony.  And, it isn’t even in the act of getting re"married”.  It is in the marital act itself because you are, in reality, committing adultery.  So, you are right on target.

Oh, this one too:
—
As for atheism, Hitler specifically opposed it in a 1933 speech in Berlin: “We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”
==
Hitler’s biographer John Toland explains Catholicism’s influence on the Holocaust. He says of Hitler: “Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god. . ..”
Even after World War II, Catholic assistance to the Nazis continued. The Vatican aided the escape of more Nazis than any other governmental or private entity. Christopher Hitchens adds: “It was the Vatican itself, with its ability to provide passports, documents, money, and contacts, which organized the escape network and also the necessary shelter and succor at the other end.”
==
www.humanismbyjoe.com/hitler.htm
==

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/why-virginity-matters/#ixzz1ZYEbq9Ve

Ed:  Let me comment on your comment:  “Hitler may have been interested in the occult and other evils, but the Pope never excommunicated him—which would have been a strong statement of abhorrence and might have started German Catholics to think about what they were doing.”

Hitler was not just “interested” in the occult…he and his cronies PRACTICED pagan rituals.  Even the swastika is a Nordic pagan symbol chosen specifically by Hitler for some reason…I don’t remember what it was now.  They (the Gestapo) had regular rituals in a place in Berlin that was converted from some office building to a pagan worship center.  Many of the Gestapo officers were married in pagan, occult ceremonies and even had the swastika tattooed on their underarm for some weird reason.  Again, my poor brain cannot remember all these things, but I’m sure you or someone else can certainly find info on this.

As to the Pope excommunicating the Nazis and others like them, there is something in the Catholic Church called “Ipso Facto” excommunication.  That means that by the very fact that someone chooses evil—and it is a very BIG evil like abortion—one is automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church.  No formal pronouncement is needed.  I have read that the Pope did make many public pronouncements condemning the Nazis and others during that time.  Afterall, the Nazis had control over Italy.  Anyway, perhaps we, also, don’t know all the details and mechanisms that the Pope had to deal with during those terrible years.  Perhaps he knew more about certain situations regarding the Nazis, and found it imprudent to go beyond what he did.  This has been an ongoing argument since the war ended and I guess it will never be satisfactorily resolved for anyone on either side of the issue.  Only God can read the hearts of mankind.  (I was going to use the term “men”, but I didn’t want to offend anyone!)

Ed, you are correct in saying that remarriage without seeking assurance of the non-sacramentality of the first marriage through the process of annulment would be a sin, specifically the sin of adultery- something which I mentioned in my previous post.  You would be incorrect in saying that an annulment would make any children from that relationship illegitimate or remove them from their legal inheritance, something the Church has no opinion on.  Why should the Church care who you leave your earthly properties to?  Since the children conceived in the annulled marriage were conceived when the parents in their best knowledge were married, there is no illegitimacy to their birth in the Church’s eyes.

Thanks for contributing to the defense of Pope Pius XII. As you have pointed out the enemies of the Church have conveniently chosen to ignore everything the Church did to fight against the Nazis and to help the oppressed. Many German Catholics risked their lives to hide Jews in their own homes. Many paid for it with their lives. Pope Pius XII had to exercise caution and prudence because he knew from experience that whenver he or his bishops in Germany came out againt the Nazis they retaliated with even more brutality against both Catholics and Jews. He tried to help as much as was possible while trying to avoid causing more suffering to those in the occupied countries. Ed, you keep mentioning the Vatican helping Nazis escape but have not proven this at all. At the same time you are refusing to acknowledge the thousands of Jews the Vatican helped escape from the Nazis. This sounds like a convenient revision of history to me.  Since Hitler was no longer a practicing Catholic and had left the Church, excommunication would have meant little to him. His response would have been more retaliation in the lands under his control. Pope Pius XII was a true Catholic and lived up to all of the teavhing of the Church!!

Sam:  In my best British accent:  “Here! Here! My good woman!”  (If you’re not a woman, I apologize!)

I accept the apology! I am a man.

“Ipso Facto”—How convenient! I suppose by those standards I am an ex-Catholic.
All the articles I’ve found defecting Pius were written by and for Catholics and located on Catholic websites and Catholic journals. They also tend to exonerate the Papacy of any wrong-doing in thought or deed.
More neutral articles, at best, comment that the Pope could have done more than he did. While some Catholic Bishops pleaded for his help, the response from the Vatican could be indifferent. As for protecting Bishops and other Catholics, they were already endangered when they were helping Jews—the Pope could have been a powerful leader uniting Catholics against the Nazis. There is more in the article I posted earlier:
-
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html
-

Pamela,
Your answer seems to suggest that the annulment of a previous marriage restores the status of virginity. That’s a neat trick.

Ed. for an Ex catholic you seem to spend a lot of time snooping Catholic Websites. You stated the Catholic sided with the Nazis against the Jews, you of course gave us no evidence except an article on the virtual Jewish Library, which quoted a book called Hitler’s Pope (so much for balance, and the writer of that articlc idenified the writer as John Cromwell, maybe the writer was th inking about the anti Catholic murderer Oliver Cromwell At Pius’s death Golda Meir The Israeli Foreign Minister wrote this tribute ‘‘During the 10 years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and commiserate with their victims. Source New York Times Oct 1982, hardly a Catholic News Sheet
Maybe you should read an article in the magazine called New American, called Pius X11 hero in the unmaking, but I am afraid you are just a bitter ex Catholic reading an anticle written by a semi illerate journalist in the Jewish Virtual Library. Strange that the Chief Rabbi Of Rome converted after the war and took the name Eugenio, the Christian name of Pius

@ Ed:

You do remember that Germany is the land of Luther, right?  You might want to read about the Confessing Church:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessing_Church

In this article they claim that the total population of Germany in 1933 was 65 million. They also claim that the total population of Protestants in Germany was 45 million. If you read the entire article you will plainly see what happened to those who deviated from the party line.

Ed:  If you want some proof of Catholic protection of the Jews as well as allied POW’s trying to escape Nazi occupied territories, read the life of St. Maximilian Kolbe and check out the movie (which was a TV special some years back!) entitled, “The Scarlett and the Black.”  A true story of a very holy (and creative!) Monsignor who saved thousands of lives by risking his own.  The ending is incredible.  (Don’t anyone give it away!)  :)  I am not much of a sentimental, mushy person, but the ending caused real tears to flow.  Very poignant and a true testament of one man’s courage and conviction.

Hey!  I know this is off topic, but did anyone else read about an alleged miracle cure by Bishop Fulton Sheen??  I read just a few words and then had to leave it.  Any info?

Con O Sullivan.
I didn’t know I was an Ex-Catholic until you told me about “ipso facto” excommunication.
BTW, if Hitler wasn’t a Catholic, why don’t you rant more about him? Why focus only on Stalin and the USSR?
—
About the alleged miracle by Bishop Sheen, the medical team was working to revive the newborn while he prayed. The baby hadn’t yet been declared dead. Also, I’m not surprised such a miracle is only being reported about in the Catholic press. You would convert a lot of atheists if you could offer proof that prayer works.

The Scarlet and the Black is about one priest—not the Pope.

Ed:  Oh boy…you are a tough one, aren’t you?  The Scarlett and the Black IS about one priest, but it goes beyond just that one priest.  It speaks of the countless other brave souls who risked everything, even their lives, to do what was right and just. Just as one soldier who risks his/her life to save another is a testament of his/her moral fiber and to the dedication and commitment most soldiers possess, so too are the brave actions of one man, one priest, one missionary, one human being.  Why do you think the priest in this movie did these things?  Because he thought someday there might be a movie about him?  No, he did these things out of love for his fellow human beings who were suffering.  Why?  Because he believed in the teachings of the Church and her authority. 

There is a quote from a movie I once saw and I have never forgotten it: “For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe in God, no explanation is possible.” (In reference to the Bishop Fulton Sheen supposed miracle.)  By the way, I think you ought to know that I am a skeptic, too, regarding miracles and visions and such.  But, I have not closed the door because I am not the ultimate authority.  There is a Latin saying, but I only remember it in English now: “The Church has spoken, the matter is finished.”  When the Church speaks regarding miracles, (or really any matter) then I believe.

Con o Sullivan
I already know what the Catholic sources say about the Pope and so do you. I do my best to find articles from other points of view. It’s not much of a conversation if everyone agrees.
The fact is that Pius’s role in the holocaust is still a controversy. Here is another site that has a more neutral discussion
.
—
http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol12.htm

Sister Teresa
We were discussing Pope Pius, not all German Catholics. Of course their were Catholic heroes in the war who saved thousands. That is not in dispute.
I’m also not speaking against the Catholic Faith, or belief in God in general. However, the Papacy does not have a reputation for being supportive of science and I don’t think the Pope should have the last word. Science may not have all the answers yet, but at least they can ask the questions.

Ed:  OMGosh!!  I totally agree!!!  :)

Two links:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/issues/pius12gs.htm
http://www.michaeljournal.org/piusXII.htm
The following is a quote from the second one:

The Israeli diplomat and scholar Pinchas Lapide concluded his careful review of Pius XII’s wartime activities with the following words: “The Catholic Church, under the pontificate of Pius XII, was instrumental in saving the lives of as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.” He went on to add that this “figure far exceeds those saved by all other Churches and rescue organizations combined.” After recounting statements of appreciation from a variety of preeminent Jewish spokespersons, he noted. “No Pope in history has been thanked more heartily by Jews.”

Ed in the two links above don’t get thrown off by the fact they are from Catholic sites. Each article quotes many of the Jewish sources of the day. Above is just one. 
I quoted more of it originally and so the website informed me they were checking it to make sure it wasn’t spam so if these same 2 links appear again in another post I apologize for the duplication.

Here are 2 more links:
http://users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html
http://www.ptwf.org/Downloads/Jewish Praise.pdf

Its funny that all the Jews of the day praised him greatly. Its only the Jews afterward who suddenly changed their tune and contradicted their own illustrious leaders of the day who said Pope Pius XII did more than anyone else.
I could get more quotes if you require more Jewish people saying he was great.

Hers is a quote by Pinchas Lapide (copied from Wikipedia)
—
Were I a Catholic, perhaps I should have expected the Pope, as the avowed representative of Christ on earth, to speak out for justice and against murder - irrespective of the consequences. But as a Jew, I view the Church and the Papacy as human institutions, as frail and fallible as all the rest of us. Frail and fallible, Pius had choices thrust upon him time and time again, which would have made a lesser man falter. The 261st Pope was, after all, merely the First Catholic, heir to many prejudices of his predecessors and shortcomings of his 500 million fellow believers. The primary guilt for the slaughter of a third of my people is that of the Nazis who perpetrated the holocaust. But the secondary guilt lies in the universal failure of Christendom to try and avert or, at least, mitigate the disaster; to live up to its own ethical and moral principles, when conscience cried out: Save!, whilst expediency counselled aloofness. Accomplices are all those countless millions who knew my brothers were dying, but yet chose not to see, refused to help and kept their peace. Only against the background of such monumental egotism, within the context of millennial Christian anti-Judaism, can one begin to appraise the Popes wartime record. When armed force ruled well-nigh omnipotent, and morality was at its lowest ebb, Pius XII commanded none of the former and could only appeal to the latter, in confronting, with bare hands, the full might of evil. A sounding protest, which might turn out to be self-thwarting - or quiet, piecemeal rescue? Loud words - or prudent deeds? The dilemma must have been sheer agony, for which ever course he chose, horrible consequences were inevitable. Unable to cure the sickness of an entire civilization, and unwilling to bear the brunt of Hitler’s fury, the Pope, unlike many far mightier than he, alleviated, relieved, retrieved, appealed, petitioned - and saved as best he could by his own lights. Who, but a prophet or a martyr could have done much more?
—
Lipide respected the Pope as a human and understood the Catholic Church as a human organization. He includes the Pope and the Catholic Church as part of the “universal failure of Christendom…to fail live up to its own moral and ethical principles….”
—
And yes, I do the Catholic websites you chose are biased. They can’t seem to accept any criticism, and even people on this site do not like some of my comments.

Thats because you are clearly prejudiced against Catholics. There are many many other quotes in the articles I mentioned but I suppose you will try to destroy all of those too if you take the time to read the full article. The articles use and quote the sources but the sources themselves are not Catholic ones and therefore not prejudiced in favor of Catholicism unless you are maintaining that ANY source that defends Pope Pius XII is biased and all those you are quoting are impartial.
In the quote above it seems like he is praising the Pope as doing as much as he possible could. Catholics did more than anyone else against the Nazis. But when speaking of Christendom today people are including all of those non Catholic christians as well.  Care to take another stab?

As for biased I believe that is you my friend. You can’t seem to accept any criticism either.

Here is a non Catholic source of quotes for you. Here is one of the quotes:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII”

Only the Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty.”
Albert Einstein in Time Magazin 1940, quoted in Three Popes and the Jews by Pinchas E. Lapide (New York: Hawthorn, 1967), p. 251.

Ed, It was you were the person who started the argument about the Catholic Church and the Nazi’s, Not Sister Teresa, Sam , or myself, I have pointed out to you that Hitler ceased to be part of the Catholic church around the time of World War 1, others have pointed out to you that Hitler worshipped a Pagan Cult. Of course you are silent about the murderous Regimes   of the Soviet Regime, why the silence? do you condone those acts by your Atheist fellow travellors.
Mansignor O Flaherty did his wonderfull work with the Knowledge and support of Pius. Do you repudiate the words of Golda Meir a very honourable lady, yet you use an article by a hack journalist in the Jewish Virtual Library, who cannot even get the Author of Hitlers Pope right. as for Religioustolerance site, that is only an Atheist site by another name

“We were discussing Pope Pius…”

No, we were discussing sex. You got sidetracked by a troll.

In my country , No body have sex until he’s married !

Norah:  I’d like to know what country to which you are referring…if that is the case, I think I’ll move there!

Thats because you are clearly prejudiced against Catholics.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/why-virginity-matters/#ixzz1Ze9yRovE
—-
Well you seem to be clearly prejudiced against non-Catholics. On the one hand you claim the Pope is infallible and on the other you say he’s only human. When a non-member of this thread also suggests he is human, you get hostile. You pick your favorite quotes and I pick mine. This shows that there is still a controversy.
==
Apparently, I’m an Ipso Facto ex-Catholic because I don’t feel guilty about the things I’ve done that were against the Pope’s decrees. I can’t even browse a Catholic site to find out if it’s worth returning to more devote faith.
About sex: personally I’m celibate and not tempted by pornography. I also don’t “abuse” myself, though I don’t think it’s wrong if it “gets you through the night.” I also think God gave us an animal nature to reproduce that overwhelms faith and that is a problem. We don’t always have the power to control ourselves with rational thought. Teens know about having babies, and if they are well-informed, they know about AIDS and other diseases. It obviously does not stop all of them.

It didn’t stop them before the pill either.

Ed:  I commend you on living a celibate life…I do, too.  It isn’t always easy, as you say…we are human and God gave us desires for the betterment of ourselves and for His Glory.  It IS worth it to return to a more devoted faith…I know of what I speak.  I can only encourage you to pray and to search—and ask God’s guidance in your search.  He will guide you.  But, you already know these things.  Sometimes a little “nudge” is what we need to get started again.  This life is a journey…and we are are all on the journey together—hopefully to the same end.

Please don’t get hung up or mad at terms like “ipso facto”.  There are many more dynamics (as you have stated) to the human psyche and how we perceive life. As you said, God made us.  As I’ve said, only God can read the hearts of man (meaning the generic term, of course!) You know, many of us have been on similar journeys.  So, you are not alone…look at St. Peter, for goodness sake!  He is my namesake. I chose his name specifically because he was always putting his foot in his moutn!  Jesus called him “satan”!  (“Get behind me, thee satan.”)

As to your statement:
“I also think God gave us an animal nature to reproduce that overwhelms faith and that is a problem. We don’t always have the power to control ourselves with rational thought.”

My comments are that God did give us a human nature, which is very different from the rest of the animals in nature.  Sure, we carry similar characteristics of nature as some animals.  But, there are a number of things we have been given which the animals have not.  One of those things is a “soul”.  Now, I love animals—probably too much.  I believe that they all have “spirits” and I also believe that they will live after death.  However, man (again, generically termed) has been given faculties such as free will (animals DO have a certain level of free will, but it is driven by instincts rather than rational thinking between good and evil), understanding, and other faculties as well.  You are absolutely correct when you say “We don’t always have the power to control ourselves with rational thought.”  ABSOLUTELY!!!  But, what you have left out of the equation is that rational thought was never meant to help us control our passions…but GRACE IS/WAS!!  We can rationalize all sorts of things…we can rationalize ourselves into confusion, actually…at least, I can. And that is where Grace comes in…for me.  I hope you can find that, too.  It is within your reach.  All you have to do is ask.  God bless you, Ed! I mean that sincerely!

While I know that Pope Pius XII did all that was possible and did a lot, I just wanted to point out that there seems to be confusion on what infallibility is. Infallibility has to do with the Pope teaching on matters of faith and morals not on every action or thing he ever said or did. The Pope is human but he does receive special graces to discharge his duties as ruler and chief shepherd of the Church. Pope Pius XII is an illustrious example of one who responded to the graces of his office.

I am not trying to attack you, Ed, but I will defend the Church and Pope Pius XII to my dying breath. It is sad to see that when people state these lies over and over again gradually many other people such as yourself begin to think that since everyone is saying it, it must be true.

Ed , you are always to return to the Catholic Faith, yes Catholics are not perfect but we do our best. The Cstholic Church turns no one away, so instead of criticising us, and finding fault with us including Pius, as I said before when you look at the record of the Atheist Juntas and the Catholics you can judge the

My troubles have to deal with the fact that I disagree on some of what the Pope decrees as moral or immoral. I understand abortion is evil, but I don’t understand his stance against condoms and contraception that prevents union of the oval and sperm, and therefore does not create a soul. I am not celibate because of my faith in God, but simply because I’m not very interested in sex. I am simply this way. If my hormones kick in again, I would be perfectly willing to look for a partner, and respect her view of whether she wants to marry or not.  I also have nothing against homosexuality—different strokes for different folks, as long as they are consenting adults. I think there is enough proof that their hormones work somewhat differently and they should not be forced to conform or prohibited from raising children. Loving is not a sin.
—
Sam, defend Pope Pius all you want—I really don’t care. I just don’t think any Pope is a good representative of God and should dictate morality.

Sister Terese, The country which I was reffering to is Saudi Arabia, Our religion there,Islam, forbeddin sex without marrige, and this is still applied by the Muslim people today.

Nice shot, Norah!

So it sounds like your issue is with the Papacy in general as opposed to what an individual Pope did or did not do in any given situation. Does it not make sense to have a spiritual authority on earth just as we have a civil authority?

Ed:  The fact that you see abortion as evil indicates that you recognize the reality of evil as existing here in our world.  There are many evils…many of which are not as blatantly “out there” as abortion.  Just as we have civil authorities guiding us as a society in order for us to continue living in peace and harmony (not always the case, though!), so do we need an authority in the Church.  Of course, the ultimate Authority is God in the Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  He appointed St. Peter as the first pope.  And thus, the succeeding popes throughout the ages.  Whether those popes were admirable men or not is not the question.  The question is, “Did or did not Christ give His authority to the papacy?”  And the answer is an unequivocal “yes”.  It is always difficult to obey…especially when we want what we want when we want it.  But, those are the times when we grow in grace and virtue.  There are moral absolutes, despite the fact that relativism and nihilism has taken hold of our country and others. Likewise, the faith that has been handed down to us by the successors of the Apostles has Christ’s assurance that the Holy Spirit will guide His Church unto the end of time.  That is where we must have faith and hope in His Word…that He meant what He said and He did not lie.  I hope that helps a little.  Please do not take this as being “preachy”.  I know the questions in your heart regarding the problem of morality.  I had/have them too.  However, the question is not whether or not one agrees, but whether or not one has the humility to submit to the authority of the Church.

Sure, Jesus, and maybe Peter, didn’t lie, but many of their successors did. I’m sure you know the histories of the Popes and Saints. While the females are praised for dying rather than giving up their virginity and faith, the men didn’t always live up to the standards. Jesus also said that He would return before the death of His contemporaries, and we’re still waiting. I can’t take the words attributed to Jesus in the bible literally—that is where I get messed up. Too much rationality and not enough passion, I guess. What if the church is wrong about something? I don’t want to participate in an evil just because of the Church. That would be “just following orders”. God gave us judgement, or else Eve and Adam did when they ate of the fruit. Either way, we have the ability to make decisions by our selves.

Ed:  You are absolutely correct: we do have the ability to make decisions all by ourselves.  But based on what?  Are own self-conceived values and judgments?  Are those values and judgements always fool proof?  I spent the better part of my life making my own decisions…and I still suffer from the consequences of those decisions/choices that I made—all by myself. Despite hurting myself by making bad/selfish decisions, I have found peace in my life…a peace that goes beyond description.  Believe me when I say that the world around me, my own environment is chaotic.  There are some very serious “unknowns” out there that I am probably going to have to face. But, what is different now is that the peace inside of me is not disturbed by what swirls around me like a category 7 tornado.  That is real peace, Ed.  I have found it.  I hope, and I am praying that you find it too.  Maybe you already have.  I don’t know.  But, I do hope you will continue to search for the truth.  Truth doesn’t change—we do.  Again, God bless you…and I still mean that!! :)

Ed. In the USA you have free will whether to believe in a Church, no one is forcing you to worship in the Catholic and to believe the doctrine or not. Of course not all the Popes were great . neither were all Presidents of the USA great. But you aret wrong about Pius, but then when you are believing the rubbish written by Hitchins a rabid Catholic hater, and by a hack journalist in the Jewish Virtual Library you cannot be blamed too much , or articles by the Atheist website Religioustolerance. Maybe you should read the life of Maximillian Kolbe, Hugh O flaherty and what serious said at the time of Pius’s Death, then you will learn the truth, are you certain that the evidence by Catholic sources about Pius are untrue, but they agree with Golda Meir

There are other entities besides the Catholic Church that are doing perfectly well—even the atheists I know have perfectly respectable moral values. I also am pretty sure that if I had been born in Saudi Arabia I would have been raised as a Muslim. 
Con O Sullivan?
Why do you say that the journalist at the Jewish Virtual Library is a “hack”? You are making my point about not being able to accept criticism, even if there is documented evidence. How do I know you are not the one being misled by a false doctrine? I think Pilate was right—different people have different truths. I have lapsed in my Catholic rituals because of these doubts. I don’t think blind obedience is good for the mind.

Truth is truth. Something can’t be true for one person and not true for someone else. Truth is absolute. In philosophy this is called the principle of non contradiction.

Maybe there is one truth, but people, being human, have different interpretations of the church. If God loves us, why do we suffer? Some say it is God testing us. Others say that you don’t have to “follow the rules” if it is too painful for everyone, and God wants them to do something different. I know people who pray for God’s help and others that don’t pray, but do something to solve the problem. I know others who have left altogether. Everyone knows life includes suffering, but they have different ideas about what they should do about it.
Personally, I think loosing your virginity is much preferable to torture and martyrdom.

Ed:  From a human standpoint, you are absolutely correct!!  Who wouldn’t choose sex over torture and martyrdom??  But, again, you are leaving out the supernatural gift of grace…and that is what the martyrs and saints prayed for during their lifetimes so that when faced with a difficult choice, God would provide the strength and perseverance necessary to follow through.  Yes, many, many different people have very strong moral beliefs…but we are talking about the Catholic Church and the wisdom of her teachings and why, as Catholics, we must have the faith and trust in Jesus and what He said.  As Sam said, TRUTH is TRUTH.  It cannot be otherwise.  If it were, it would not be truth.  For example, I could look at a nice orange and tell everyone that it is a bicycle.  And, I could possibly convince quite a few people that it was a bicycle.  I could manage then, to convince the majority of people that this orange was a bicycle.  But, the TRUTH will never change. The orange will always be an orange. It will NEVER be a bicycle.  The truth is that the orange is an orange.  I know that is a little on the ridiculous side, but in essence, that is what we mean when we say truth does not change.  The statement that one person’s truth might not necessarily be another’s truth is pure relativism and is an absolute falsehood.  It is the cancer that eats away at our country’s moral fiber.  Anyway, I pray that you continue your search.  You will find truth.  You wouldn’t be searching if God did not intend for you to find it.

If everyone knew the meaning of “orange” and the meaning of “bicycle” your point would be true—but “orange” is also a color and a bicycle can be painted orange. so you can’t say both are bicycles, but you can say both are orange. An orange is a real object than can be observed and handled; the color orange is an abstract description of the color of that object that can be applied to other objects. God, as a supernatural being, and grace, as a supernatural experience, are abstract. Satan can make you feel as though you are “blessed” when you may be psychotic.
There are tangible truths which can’t be reasonably disputed, and there are metaphysical truths which can have different meanings.

An EXCELLENT book about the charism of virginity is Fr. Dubay’s “And You Are Christ’s.”  I read it when discerning a religious vocation (I eventually discerned marriage), and it was extremely helpful.  He explains not just the physical aspects, but how the charism of virginity, which is how it is used when referring to saints, encompasses the whole person.
Here is the book:
http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Christs-Virginity-Celibate/dp/0898701619

I do not think that everyone who questions the proclamation that a female saint was a virgin believes that there is anything wrong with chastity, or celibacy. But to focus on this at the expense of other attributes of sanctity seems to elevate sexual experience above any other aspect of human life—for women. Look at the way Maria Goretti’s sanctity is treated by the liturgy for her feast day. What matters is that she resisted rape—as if those who succumb to attack are less pious. I am not criticizing Fr. Dubay’s book. I just wish we could be more egalitarian in our celebration of “virginity.” If it matters that much for women, it should matter for men. If we don’t praise St. Benedict or St.Dominic or St.Ignatius Loyola for their virginity, why St. Catherine of Siena?

You wouldn’t buy a new pair of shoes without trying them on.

Huh???

Didn’t you know? Men and women are like shoes, not a relationship that you nurture and protect through thick and thin. You use them until you decide that you don’t like the fit, then you throw them away and get you another pair.

Oh.  *sigh*

.... and thats how people become sex objects, folks. Instead of being loved and cherished.

So, the bottom line is, my mother and father were right.  Virginity matters.  Both my parents were virgins on their wedding night.  God bless their souls.

Ed, Begause this so called journalist wrote that a person called John Cromwell wrote Hitler,s Pope that is why I called him/her a hack.

Con O Sullvian:
Ad Hominem attack are so distasteful. If you don’t like a writer, attack his errors in thought, not his person. It makes you, and not him, look prejudiced.
Sister Terese:
I have another sister and brother-in-law (not the divorced sister) who were not virgins before they even met, and had premarital sex. They are now married over 20 years and have two beautiful daughters. They obviously did not need the Pope’s approval to be happy. So I guess they will be consigned to hell even though they are good people and extremely good parents. None of this makes sense to me. The more I realize the draconian rules of the Catholic faith, the less I am inclined to return to the faith.
Con O Sullivan’s hostility doesn’t help either.

Ed:  You are reading things into what I’ve said.  There are always exceptions to every rule.  My own sister has had the same experience as your sister.  I love my brother-in-law more than I think I could if he were my own blood brother.  Their marriage has lasted 21 years and they are very happy.  I don’t think that is the usual situation, however.  It is only by God’s grace (and A LOT of prayers!) that they have managed to be happy and successful all this time. They also have the most brilliant, handsome, cute, smart, sensitive, humorous, creative, industrious, and happy son and is so because his parents have been and are still extremely good parents.  I’m not positive, but I think my nephew is an atheist.  But, I’m not worried about it because I know that God knows his heart.  This is a time in his life, life mine and many others before him, where we question everything…and everything is new and exciting. I love him and my sister and brother-in-law.  My heart bursts with love and admiration for all three of them.  What they believe or don’t believe does not dictate to me, or my heart, how I love.  BUT…(and there’s always that BUT, isn’t there?), as I said, they are the exception rather than the rule.  Who said you or your parents were going to hell??  I don’t think anyone, especially me, has said anything about anyone going to hell.  That decision is reserved for God alone.  “Judge not lest ye be judged.”  Only God knows what is in the hearts of the dying—especially at our last moments.  The Church has never taught that anyone is in hell.  NO ONE.  Not even Judas.  Don’t do yourself an injustice by judging the Church by her adherents.  We are all flawed.  We are all stumbling along this journey.  I think, and I may be mistaken, that many people who have left the Church have been wounded by the Church…either perceived or real hurts.  I know lots of people like that.  That’s what I meant by continuing your search for the truth.  Don’t give up.  God will answer in His own time and in His own way.  Just be open to Him, that’s all.

So, I still don’t get it. At “best” my sisters, brothers, and in-laws are agnostic—lapsed Catholics/Christians who don’t really think much about God or prayer day to day—and they have had their hard times as well as good times. Religion is just not important. They don’t worry if there is a heaven or hell after death. Everyone is more involved in secular activities—work, some charities, socializing, etc. I don’t see any difference in their lives than from other Catholics except that they don’t attend church and they don’t pray. Why should they be exceptions? What is it that makes a proper Catholic other than obeying the Pope’s decrees?
In my family, we have looked into comparative religion literature and more or less regard the Bible as another mythology. It is not very important in present times, and it would be impractical to conform to the church’s orders.
I thought acceptance to the Catholic society was belief in God and Jesus, as interpreted by the current Pope, who is infallible. Or is it belief that all humans are born in sin because the original couple tasted knowledge?

Hmmm…you ask a lot of questions—and very pertinent.  And, I am glad you are asking them.  I have to go feed my kitties and then take care of some personal things.  I will be praying and thinking about your questions to try to somehow answer them adequately.  Perhaps some of the other good people here on the blog (?) can give you some insight as well in my absence.  More to come later…

When I was 13, I began to discover masturbation. It was alarming that something so pleasurable and so out-of-control could happen within my own body. I confessed to Dad what was going on, and he wanted to know all the details. He told me to keep him informed of what was happening because it was easy to fall away from God in that process. He was concerned and I was fearful.

When I was 14, I remember making a resolute decision that I could never get married. There was no way, I, as man who desired the best for the women in his life, could ever subject any poor girl to the perversion that I was. It might even be better for everyone in the world if I didn’t exist.
Now I’m a happily married Atheist!

Ed That is their and your opinion, it the west you have free will and whether you and your relatives go to Church is of no earthly concern to most people.  Of course you were the one who said The Catholic Church supported the Nazis, and you came up with some propaganda about Pius x11 supporting the Nazis as well. If you do not like the Catholic Church and the Pope,that is your choice   Stephen, I do not know what you are trying to prove with your story, should you not be attending your American Atheist meeting

Stephen’s story is believable, but it may not be a Catholic story—I’ve heard stories about Baptists and other sects that isolate their kids and give them hell.
—
Con O Sullivan:
It’s been a couple of days since you posted and I’m not sure which of my posts you are replying to. I do sense hostility from you when I only mean to be sure of what returning to the Catholic Church will mean for me. I have to reconcile my past and my relationship with the rest of my family with being Catholic. Pope Pius and the Nazis was talked about my agnostic friends, and I expected a civilized reply to my questions. Instead, most people on this blog got defensive. Anyway, the conversation has returned to the church’s views on sexuality, marriage, and divorce.
—
I’m not sure I can accept the Catholic views on these issues, but you don’t promote them well. You start accusing me of not liking the Catholic Church, when I’m making the effort to see if I want return. I miss the community but I want to be sure I can be honest in my obedience. Then I will be able to use my free will to make the choice.
—-
Perhaps I need to look to more progressive Catholics instead of you conservatives.

Masturbation led to atheism…hmmm…I’ve heard that masturbation can lead to insanity, but never atheism.

Ed:  I am very glad that you are still searching.  The teachings of the Church are difficult…many seem contradictory.  But, as one studies and prays, you will find more understanding.  Pray to the Holy Spirit to enlighten your mind and heart to the Truth.  Sometimes the Truth is hard to take…actually, it is hard to take many times.  Let me also caution you about labeling…that is, talking to “more progressive Catholics instead of you conservatives.”  Truthfully speaking, there is no such thing as progressive or conservative CAtholics…there is just Catholic.  One either believes that Christ is the Son of God, left the “keys to the kingdom” to St. Peter, and meant what He said to St. Peter when He said, “...what you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven, and what you bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven. To you I give the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.”  If one also believes that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide and protect the Church for all time in the personhood of the Pope (the legitimate successor to St. Peter), then one is Catholic.  There is a saying from some saint and I don’t remember which one, but it says something like: “Love God and do what you like.”  In essence, it means that if one truly loves and TRUSTS God, one will not do anything that is contrary to God.  At least, that is the way I’ve always treated that saying.  I am still praying for your search, Ed!

Beth and Jen, just to get back to the original topic of this post…virginity….  Beth wondered if any male saints are referred to as virgins.  In the Eastern Church (Orthodox), St. John the Apostle is so called.  Tomorrow (Oct. 9)his repose will be commemorated and so this evening, during a vespers service, we sang of him, “Let us give rightful praise to the Son of Thunder,/ the source of divine words, the chief theologian,/ the first to proclaim the truths of the teachings of the wisdom of God:/ John the beloved and virgin.”

Ed I would not consider myself a Consevative Cathollic, but I feel you are listening to your Anti Catholic friends too much.

Well, all the traditional Catholic sites believe the “progressive” Catholics are on the road to Hell, so I guess there is only one Catholic church, in their opinion. I think I don’t like the exclusiveness of being Catholic. You are not open to discussion of topics relevant to contemporary issues. The rules and decrees of the Pope are based on ancient history when there were kings and not presidents. No government “by the people, for the people” in your book. You are not open to outsiders and there are a lot of people who will be consigned to Hell because they can’t accept what they are doing is a sinful or harmful. While I don’t practice many of the things you call “sins” I’m not against them either, as long as people know what they are getting into, and do no harm. I don’t like the idea of an all-seeing God who won’t let me live my own life.
—
I’ll come back to see if you have any replies, but I don’t see how I can return to Catholicism. I might join the progressives because I agree more with some. but not all of their views.

Ed:  Everyone has to follow their consciences. Remember: “God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.”  (I don’t know the exact quote…maybe someone else here can provide it.)  Also, God never usurps our free will.  We are free to choose one thing over another.  God does not impede our free will—which He gave to us as a free gift.  Of course, He wants us to choose Him, but He does not and never has forced us.  I don’t know where you get the idea that, “...and there are a lot of people who will be consigned to Hell because they can’t accept what they are doing is a sinful or harmful.”  Who is doing the condemning?  I think I said more than once that only God reads the hearts of men (and women).  God knows the intentions of each one of us for each and every action or lack thereof throughout our lives.  HE is the ultimate Judge.  The Church sets down rules and tenets based on the 10 Commandments and the Teachings of Jesus as found in the Holy Scriptures.  In the catechism, we are taught that there are three things that need to be present in order to commit a mortal (deadly—that is, can condemn us to Hell).  There are: 1.) The matter must be a serious matter.  2.) We must KNOW the matter is serious.  3.) We must choose it anyway knowing the implications of committing a mortal sin.  No one, even a priest, can tell if those three conditions are met with certainty.  We know…and God knows. When we go to confession, the priest, acting in the person of Alter Christus, makes as best a judgement as he can based on what the penitent tells him regarding his/her sins.  Believing the person to be telling the truth, to the best of his/her ability, the priest then gives advice, absolution, and a small penance to perform.  Before everything else, the Pope is a priest.  He is bound by the same rules, tenets, and teachings of the Church.  I guess that’s as good an explanation as I can give.  You need to make your choices based on the knowledge and understanding you have of the teachings of Jesus as taught by the Catholic Church.  If you cannot abide by them, for whatever reasons, then you may have to find another church that is more open to your needs.  God bless you, Ed.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/why-virginity-matters/#ixzz1aJG8USTr

But what is the point of going to a priest or being guided by a priest if you don’t feel guilty about what you do? I am confused-I understand God judges all things, but how am I to know for sure the Pope or Catholic tradition is the proper standard? I feel I cannot honestly comply with the obedience of the Catholic faith, yet this is the original church that Jesus appointed as guardian. How can I be sure I will be saved if I choose a different church?

Excellent article and thank you for sharing this important aspect of a celibate life in society. Many seems to think its only for the priests and nuns and those in Holy orders. Ordinary person, able or disable have the choice to leave a very good life by opting to remain celibate. There is a degree of dignity and beauty in it. One is exempted from the hurts and trauma that is involved otherwise.

Fabulous article; right on target. What our ‘sex saturated’ society needs to hear more of.

‘There’s something very interesting. If you look at the liturgy there are special Masses for popes, for apostles, martyrs, non-martyrs, confessors, non-confessors and when you turn to women, you have only two categories, virgin/non-virgin, martyr/non-martyr. This is something extremely interesting. There is no Mass for celibates, none, but there is a Mass for virgins.
This indicates very plainly that there is something extraordinarily great and mysterious about femininity…’
-Dr Alice von Hildebrand

Great article, Jen. As a young, single woman I have encountered a lot of attitudes and opinions from friends/acquaintances that sex is basically a necessity to life.  Anyway, thanks for writing about this and sharing your thoughts.

Whatever fights against the culture of fornication is very welcome. Unfortunately, against the notion expressed very early in the comments that “virginity has little to do with being a virgin” is the fact that we are humans. Things we do matter. Certainly someone who fornicates can repent and participate in marriage, but our history forms us, and women especially are foolish to pretend it does not.

http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

Jill-I totally agree with you when you say that the Church says very little about those of us who are single.

Everything is geared towards marriage and children.  And if you’re not married by the time you reach 35 (when one is not considered ‘young’ any more), or not in the priesthood or religious life, then you’re nothing!  Nix!  Nada!

In my Upstate NY diocese (Syracuse) there was a ‘Diocesan Womens’ Conference’.  I didn’t go it because there was nothing said about Catholic women who end up being single all their lives.  It’s always about marriage and motherhood!  And I can’t wrap my poor brains around ‘Theology of the Body’, anyway!  That’s for the married, not the single!  (I loved Blessed John Paul II, but I always had trouble figuring out his theology and philosophy.  It was all right for the intellectuals with the big fat college degrees, not the ‘little ones’ who never weren’t college material, like me)

I’m more a ‘traditional’ Catholic-I only know the simple, familiar things!  But, on the whole, ‘traditional Catholics’ are thought of as weird and out of touch. 

I would never even attempt to try and ‘organize’ a conference for single Catholics in my area!  It would be a mess, a disaster!  I am not an ‘organizing whiz’!

Single Catholics (and especially ‘older’ ones like myself) are pretty much an invisible demographic as far as the Church is concerned, unless we’re ‘super-talented’ and have our hands in all kinds of ‘ministries’.  For the most part, we are ‘persona non grata’ (yeah, I know it’s ungrammatical Latin, but too bad).

“However, I think it isn’t as black and white as it seems. There are definitely people who take advantage of other people for sex and have ulterior motives. But there are people that use it in the proper way of connecting with their partner. No matter what stage of the relationship.”

It is even less black and white then that. Only an asexual can engage in it with NO “ulterior motives” and it is not clear from scripture that that was what was demanded. In fact that would(on the face of it at least)seem to be saying that accepting arousal even in marriage is sinful in which case it is not clear what the point of getting married is. One can always go out for a cup of coffee and nobody claims that anyone is objectifying coffee by enjoying it. Or objectifying the owner of the restaurant by buying from him. And while the analogy is flawed and accepting it does imply accepting the use of the body as commerce, all analogies are flawed and it does make the point that it is a physical relationship as well.

Furthermore it is possible to have a clearly sinful relationship with someone without completely depersonalizing them. For instance one can gawk at a model or solicit a prostitute and still have a sort of empathy for them. And romance literature ever written not to mention real life experience tells you that adulterers are not always guilty of “objectifying”. Admiral Nelson did not “objectify” Emma Hamilton; he idolized her. He did however betray his wife.

For this reason and others I think the Church’s teaching about “objectifying” needs a lot of clarification lest it demoralize Godly Christian couples. Stomping on ones instincts is hard enough when one is a virgin. The implication that one would have to after marriage is just awful. And I find it hard to believe that fine feelings about sex will always be at the center of every session. Why not instead of using lofty words like “spiritual connection” and “connecting with one’s partner” use fairly mundane guidelines like “don’t be selfish about it, be loyal to one’s mate, try to give as well as receive, and so on.”

Maybe others can accept the thing about “personal connections” and all. Frankly I am an instinctively legalistic person. That whole doctrine as it stands is more likely to drive me to despair then to be a helpful guide. I am a virgin now and while I do not like that state(NOT AT ALL)it is the cross I have to bear. I really don’t want to imagine marrying and then entering the bedroom torturing myself with the thought,“Oh no, I’m objectifying her!”

There is more than one meaning of Virgin:

The meaning of Virgin in the Bible is believing and being faithful to GOD< For I believe that God said to multiply and raise your children in Gods name,  Even Jesus says himself to not worship him but to worship his father although what I hear in all the churches I have attended is worship to Jesus although he should be honored for his faithfullness to our Father GOD

Amen Brothers and Sisters stay strong,

Virginity, the cleanliness of mind, body and soul that God knows and understands perfectly.