What People Are Commenting
donate Books CDs HOME updates search contact

Virginity, Chastity & Handicapped Inclusion



Virginity, Celibate Life & Marriage


Dear TIA,

I am in confusion since I read "The Answer for a Broken World" and "Virginity Is Higher than Matrimony."The followings are my questions:
  1. Do people lose their virginity forever if they commit sins against the sixth/ninth commandments? If so, can they still be considered as living a state of virginity if they decide to live a single celibate life?

  2. Above all, if persons already lost their virginity, is a vocation of single celibate life still higher than Matrimony for them?
Thank you for viewing this and I'll really appreciate if you can spend some time answering these questions.

     Ad Iesum per Mariam,

     D.J.
______________________


TIA responds:

Dear M.C.,

Thank you for your trust.

Virginity is both physical and spiritual. The virginity of the body opens the mind to virginity of the soul, which allows the person to grasp the richness of the spiritual world and the paradisiacal aspects of Creation. When a person loses the virginity of the body through impurity – sexual intercourse and other related sins – normally speaking, he also makes a concession in his soul. In his soul he becomes akin to and adheres to the prosaic and vilifying aspects of the sins of impurity.

This action basically closes the soul to those highest truths, which he then classifies as unrealistic fantasies. Thus, that marvelous world of innocence, which is linked to the world of the Angels, becomes a foreign land to him. He turns his attention principally to the worldly realities that lie outside those golden and celestial reverberations.

However, some persons who lose their physical virginity do not adhere entirely to impurity; they conserve a more or less strong nostalgia for that lost marvelous world. These persons are more open than many to return to those ideals of virginity. Although they have already lost their original physical virginity, they still have a chance to restore that marvelous vision through the practice of chastity. St. Mary Magdalene, for example, was certainly not a virgin when she encountered Our Lord; yet after her conversion she became a model of chastity in the Church.

Chastity is abstaining from any sin against purity – by means of thought, word or action – after having lost one's original virginity.

The conclusion is that the call to have this superior vision of God, the spiritual world and the paradisiacal aspects of Creation includes both virginal and chaste persons.

The correct position about marriage and celibate life is a corollary of this conclusion. St. Paul affirms that those who remain celibate are called to care for things that belong to God, and those who are married are called to care for things that are of the world. (Cf. 1 Cor 7:32-35) This corresponds to what we just explained about virginity and chastity.

With these presuppositions, let us give specific answers to your questions:
  • Q - Do people lose their virginity forever if they commit sins against the sixth/ninth commandments?
  • A - They lose their bodily virginity forever, but the vision proper to spiritual virginity can be restored through the practice of chastity.

  • Q - If so, can they still be considered as living a state of virginity if they decided to live a single celibate life?
  • A - They can live the state of chastity, which can restore many of the gifts of spiritual virginity.

  • Q - Above all, if people already lost their virginity, is a vocation of single celibate life still higher than matrimony for them?
  • A - Yes, it is. By nature, the Catholic single celibate life is higher than matrimony. This is because those persons are able to show greater care for the things of God, while married persons are forced to show greater care for the worldly needs of their families.
We hope these considerations offer appropriate answers to your questions.

     Cordially,

     TIA correspondence desk


______________________



Conservative Married Priests

Dear TIA,

Nothing could be more confused! Now, we have English conservative Catholics favorable to married priests...

Check the cover of the Catholic Herald from London…

     Fr. P.A.

Married priests

______________________



Sexual Subversion in the UK

Dear TIA,

While I was reading your article on Ivanka Trump, I couldn't help but think about how successful the perverse homosexual movement has been in subjugating the culture of the UK. Recently a teacher received disciplinary action for referring to a group of girls as girls. One of the girls apparently "identified" as a boy. The teacher apologized (wrongly of course) saying it was a slip of the tongue, but he still had to face a disciplinary hearing and may potentially lose his job.

Additionally, the young Prince George was labeled a "gay icon" by homosexual social media earlier this year when a photographer took an informal picture. That a young boy is being sexualized by a community overwhelmingly defined by sexual depravity is an abomination, and speaks of the final ends to which the homosexual movement aims. Every day they push the envelope a little farther in service to the lusts of their flesh.

     Faithfully yours,

     T.C.S.

______________________



Including Handicapped in Society


Dear TIA,

I am wondering about something that has been causing me some intellectual confusion, so I must ask. I’m wondering how a Catholic should view the position of “inclusion” for all intellectually and developmentally disabled people (i.e., that they have the right of access to all public services). This issue is related to the Americans with Disabilities act.

While I realize that it is obvious that such people should not be denied things of necessity, I have to wonder if the push for their inclusion into all aspects of society (i.e., providing  apartments living away from their family of origin and other social activities, as there is little likelihood of any kind of prayer life in these types of homes and "institutions") is somehow an anti-Catholic position.

No one would argue that these types of people should not be allowed to be abused and excluded from society when they would/could perform valuable assistance via doing jobs many would find incredibly boring and cause for mental torment, but I have to wonder what the correct position should be, and so I seek your input and knowledge on this issue.

Please help, and know of my deep appreciation for any insight you can provide.

     Trust in our continued prayers for TIA,

     E.S., Ph.D.
______________________


TIA responds:

Dear Dr. E.S.,

You are basically right. There is a sentimental-egalitarian presupposition that is becoming dictatorial, which is that no one can be considered different, since this would hurt the person.

So, the new rule being imposed is to hide any physical or moral defect and consider the person who has it "normal."

This does not work, because actually there are physical and moral defects – including horrible vices – and to deny them is to close our eyes to reality and its consequences.

In the case of moral vices, it is easier to see the results, which include, for example, not punishing criminals and letting them be free in society. The social damage of this policy is not difficult to evaluate: These criminals will continue to prey on innocent people and the number of their victims will increase exponentially.

In the case of the physical and psychological defects, it is harmful:
  1. For those who have these defects, who will never be able to compete with normal people and will inevitably consider themselves defeated;

  2. For those who are capable, because their places will be taken by persons who cannot accomplish what they can do;

  3. For the ensemble of society that will have to slow its progress to a speed that the handicapped people can follow.
This seems to be a general overview of the wrong approach of this new rule.

We hope this may help you.

     Cordially.

     TIA correspondence desk



Posted November 14, 2017
______________________


The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA

Related Works of Interest


Volume I

A_Offend1.gif - 23346 Bytes
Volume II

Animus Injuriandi II
Volume III


Volume IV

A_Offend1.gif - 23346 Bytes
Volume V

Animus Injuriandi II
Volume VI

destructio dei
Volume VII

fumus satanae
Volume VIII

creatio
Volume IX

volume 10
Volume X

ecclesia
Volume XI

A_hp.gif - 30629 Bytes
Special Edition