French Virginity Case: An ASJ Rebuttal to “Father Jonathan”

Surprisingly, even good Catholics like Fr. Morris are upset at a French court's pro-virginity ruling. We set our brother straight.

In the last issue of The Loyal Lion, the Apostolate of St. Jerome mentioned the case of a French man of Muslim descent who was granted an annulment because his wife lied to him about being a virgin. Unfortunately, that ruling has since been overturned, for reasons we will never understand. As we explained three weeks ago, the man was perfectly in the right. We expressed indignation that the secular French culture would think so little of something as lofty as virginity.

Imagine, then, our shock when the very next day, a prominent Catholic media figure joined the chorus criticizing this ruling. Fr. Jonathan Morris, a respected Legionaries of Christ priest and a FOX News Religion Contributor, had very harsh words for the French court’s upholding of common sense. ASJ knows the LC’s to be faithful men, which makes it all the more stunning to us that one of their leaders would have such a cavalier attitude toward virginity.

ASJ cannot let this startling denigration of virginity go unchecked. So in a venerable format, we summarize Fr. Jonathan’s main gripes against the decision and respond to each. We hope this serves to correct his views before more Catholic souls are led to believe that virginity is just some insignificant trifle.

It would seem that the French court did acted improperly when annulling the marriage of a Muslim couple because the woman lied about being a virgin.

Obj 1. “There is something deeply flawed with a cultural or religious tradition that correlates a woman’s identity with her virginity.”

Obj 2. "[A] person’s sexual history does not alter one’s personal worth or ability to enter into a loving and committed relationship.”

Obj 3. The case in France is an example of a “double standard” that holds women to higher standard than men.

On the contrary, both Testaments of Scripture affirm that the Judeo-Christian tradition preserves the right of a man to marry a virgin. Christians should not only agree with this decision, they should hail it as a glory to the Lord.

We answer that Fr. Jonathan has a surprisingly low view of virginity for one who has been in charge of forming priests. By playing down chastity, far from raising the dignity of women, he degrades every woman who preserves her virginity for a future spouse, or better yet, for Jesus Christ.

Ad 1. Fr. Jonathan should know that with his words, he indicts not only Jewish culture, which comes from God, but also Christianity. Obviously the Mosaic Law thought lost virginity was a deal-breaker. And when Jesus says that divorce is allowed in cases of porneia, He means fornication, and not, as some Bibles lamentably translate it, “unlawful marriage,” or “lewd conduct.” He merely affirms the Law by giving a man has the right to dismiss a wife if it comes to light that she fornicated before marriage and misrepresented herself as a virgin. As ASJ explained before, He doesn’t grant a woman this right only because a man has no defense against a false charge.

Furthermore, one wonders what Fr. Jonathan must think of Catholicism that places so much emphasis on exalting Mary as virgin. If the Church does this merely to emphasize her miraculous conception, we would drop the term “ever-virgin,” which is clearly meant correlate her blessed identity with her perfect chastity. In truth, a culture is deeply flawed if it does not believe in the value of virginity for both men and women.

Ad 2. A woman who has shown that she can be tempted to transgress God’s sexual morals before marriage is certainly more likely to commit adultery when, for anatomical reasons, the sin cannot be detected. A man is certainly justified in not trusting a woman to safeguard the lower good of chaste wedlock when she has been careless with the greater good of chaste virginity. In fact, given the damage adultery does to children, it’s easier to argue that one has a responsibility to marry a virgin.

Furthermore, when a man and a woman come to the altar as virgins, something very dear to the Lord happens. Couples who show God that they have honored His laws by keeping chaste before marriage obtain greater graces and blessings over their marriages and families than couples in which one or both of the spouses has transgressed. Therefore, in order to safeguard these blessings, the right of each spouse to marry a virgin must be protected. The Old Law has this protection, and so does the New. Does Scripture not teach a preference for a virgin wife when Levitical priests were commanded only to marry virgins? If Christians are a priestly people of holiness greater than any Levite, shouldn’t all Christians who need recourse to marriage hope to wed a virgin?

Common sense shows that the marriage bond is deepened when the spouses have no carnal knowledge of anyone but each other. Otherwise, why should Fr. Jonathan think that adultery is an impediment to a relationship? Just as the adulterer transgresses the spouse after marriage, the fornicator transgresses the spouse before the wedding.

Ad 3. This is simply not true. Nothing in the ruling suggests that the same standard would not also apply to a man who had so deceived a wife. This specific case simply happened to involve a man vs. a woman. But there is no double standard, just one standard that lying about virginity is grounds for annulment.

 This article appeared in the June 25, 2008 issue of The Loyal Lion.