Case XLIV: The Sense of the Words “Pure Virgin” in the Constitution of a Religious Order

Miss X. applies to the superior of a convent for admission. The superior answers that she may come, but only on condition that she is a pure virgin. X. goes to her confessor, and tells him that she was once so unhappy as to be seduced, but the sinful act had no results, and she repented of it and confessed it long ago. She asks anxiously whether she can describe herself as a pure virgin.

It can scarcely be doubted that the constitutions, to which the superior referred, meant, by the words " a pure virgin," to designate one who is pure in the ordinary acceptation of the word, and in the eyes of her fellow creatures—only those who had " fallen " were to be excluded from admission. It is possible, and is said to have actually happened, that a superior, misunderstanding the text of the rules, has meant really vera virginitas coram Deo, and in this way has made the mistake of making admission depend upon a condition not based upon the rules. In this case X. can with a clear conscience call herself a pure virgin, for she is such, according to the constitutions to which the superior has referred. The mistake is on the part of the superior, whose wrongly imposed condition must be regarded as non adjecta (cf. Gury, 795 nota). How would matters stand, however, if the rule really required virginity in the eyes of God, and absolute innocence of at least any outwardly dishonorable action?

We can safely assume that the rule of no religious order of women would receive the approval of a Bishop, and still less of a Pope, if this interpretation were to be placed upon it, as such a point would inevitably give rise to many embarrassments and scruples. We can hardly be wrong in believing that the ecclesiastical authorities would not be justified in attaching such a condition to the admission of postulants, for it would be injurious to the community life, and a morally impossible condition.

In an analogous case, St. Alphonsus writes: The authors say that a bride corrupted by another man, even if she is asked by her bridegroom whether she has been known by another, may dissemble and deny it by a restriction that is not purely mental, replying that she is not corrupted, understanding this in the common estimation (1. vi. 865). X's confessor may set her mind completely at rest.—Georg Freund, C.SS.R.