|
Objection 1: It would seem that virginity is not a virtue. For
"no virtue is in us by nature," as the Philosopher says (Ethic.
ii, 1). Now virginity is in us by nature, since all are virgins
when born. Therefore virginity is not a virtue.
Objection 2: Further, whoever has one virtue has all virtues, as
stated above (FS, Question 65, Article 1). Yet some have
other virtues without having virginity: else, since none can go to the
heavenly kingdom without virtue, no one could go there without
virginity, which would involve the condemnation of marriage.
Therefore virginity is not a virtue.
Objection 3: Further, every virtue is recovered by penance. But
virginity is not recovered by penance: wherefore Jerome says [Ep.
xxii ad Eustoch.]: "Other things God can do, but He cannot
restore the virgin after her downfall." Therefore seemingly virginity
is not a virtue.
Objection 4: Further, no virtue is lost without sin. Yet
virginity is lost without sin, namely by marriage. Therefore
virginity is not a virtue.
Objection 5: Further, virginity is condivided with widowhood and
conjugal purity. But neither of these is a virtue. Therefore
virginity is not a virtue.
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Virgin. i, 3): "Love of
virginity moves us to say something about virginity, lest by passing it
over we should seem to cast a slight on what is a virtue of high
degree."
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), the formal and
completive element in virginity is the purpose of abstaining from
venereal pleasure, which purpose is rendered praiseworthy by its end,
in so far, to wit, as this is done in order to have leisure for
Divine things: while the material element in virginity is integrity of
the flesh free of all experience of venereal pleasure. Now it is
manifest that where a good action has a special matter through having a
special excellence, there is a special kind of virtue: for example,
magnificence which is about great expenditure is for this reason a
special virtue distinct from liberality, which is about all uses of
money in general. Now to keep oneself free from the experience of
venereal pleasure has an excellence of its own deserving of greater
praise than keeping oneself free from inordinate venereal pleasure.
Wherefore virginity is a special virtue being related to chastity as
magnificence to liberality.
Reply to Objection 1: Men have from their birth that which is
material in virginity, namely integrity of the flesh and freedom from
venereal experience. But they have not that which is formal in
virginity, namely the purpose of safeguarding this integrity for
God's sake, which purpose gives virginity its character of virtue.
Hence Augustine says (De Virgin. xi): "Nor do we praise
virgins for being virgins, but, because their virginity is consecrated
to God by holy continency."
Reply to Objection 2: Virtues are connected together by reason of
that which is formal in them, namely charity, or by reason of
prudence, as stated above (Question 129, Article 3, ad 2),
but not by reason of that which is material in them. For nothing
hinders a virtuous man from providing the matter of one virtue, and not
the matter of another virtue: thus a poor man has the matter of
temperance, but not that of magnificence. It is in this way that one
who has the other virtues lacks the matter of virginity, namely the
aforesaid integrity of the flesh: nevertheless he can have that which
is formal in virginity, his mind being so prepared that he has the
purpose of safeguarding this same integrity of the flesh, should it be
fitting for him to do so: even as a poor man may be so prepared in mind
as to have the purpose of being magnificent in his expenditure, were he
in a position to do so: or again as a prosperous man is so prepared in
mind as to purpose bearing misfortune with equanimity: without which
preparedness of the mind no man can be virtuous.
Reply to Objection 3: Virtue can be recovered by penance as regards
that which is formal in virtue, but not as to that which is material
therein. For if a magnificent man has squandered all his wealth he
does not recover his riches by repenting of his sin. In like manner a
person who has lost virginity by sin, recovers by repenting, not the
matter of virginity but the purpose of virginity.
As regards the matter of virginity there is that which can be
miraculously restored by God, namely the integrity of the organ,
which we hold to be accidental to virginity: while there is something
else which cannot be restored even by miracle, to wit, that one who
has experienced venereal lust should cease to have had that experience.
For God cannot make that which is done not to have been done, as
stated in the FP, Question 25 , Article 4.
Reply to Objection 4: Virginity as a virtue denotes the purpose,
confirmed by vow, of observing perpetual integrity. For Augustine
says (De Virgin. viii) that "by virginity, integrity of the flesh
is vowed, consecrated and observed in honor of the Creator of both
soul and flesh." Hence virginity, as a virtue, is never lost
without sin.
Reply to Objection 5: Conjugal chastity is deserving of praise
merely because it abstains from unlawful pleasures: hence no excellence
attaches to it above that of chastity in general. Widowhood,
however, adds something to chastity in general; but it does not attain
to that which is perfect in this matter, namely to entire freedom from
venereal pleasure; virginity alone achieves this. Wherefore virginity
alone is accounted a virtue above chastity, even as magnificence is
reckoned above liberality.
|
|