To understate the matter, St. Paul’s teachings on marriage and gender have not been received favorably by contemporary America. Among the most incomprehensible of his views is his exaltation of virginity. In his First Letter to the Corinthians he writes, “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.”[1] Even to modern Catholics, St. Paul seems to be degrading marriage, portraying it as merely a remedial arrangement for those who lack the willpower and temperance to embrace virginity. Does he not see the beauty of marriage as shown by St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body or even his own Letter to the Ephesians?

Yet, in 1 Corinthians, St. Paul does acknowledge the goodness of marriage; in the same chapter he writes, “So, then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.”[2] Without denying the true goodness and sanctity of marriage, St. Paul believes that virginity is a higher state. This idea was first voiced by Jesus Himself, who proclaimed, “[T]here are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”[3]

Reading 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 outside the tradition of the Church can give the impression that St. Paul primarily champions virginity as helpful for the avoidance difficulties in the present life. He writes, “The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord… but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs.”[4] It is true that marriage naturally conduces to the active life, which is objectively less perfect than the contemplative life, as even Aristotle saw.[5]However, the superiority of virginity is not primarily because the virgin is not occupied by rowdy kids, taking away time that could be spent in contemplation.

The Church Fathers, followed by the Medieval thinkers, saw virginity as the perfection of chastity. In De Virginitate, St. Augustine describes virginity as “continence whereby integrity of the flesh is vowed, consecrated, and observed in honor of the Creator of both soul and flesh.”[6] St. Thomas follows him closely, identifying virginity simply as “integrity of the flesh”.[7] Due to the Fall, man’s desires are jumbled, rebelling against the reign of reason, and virginity is the ideal means whereby man’s reason and passions become reintegrated. Virginity perfectly fulfills St. Paul’s command to “make no provision for the flesh.”[8] St. Thomas writes, “[E]ven the conjugal act, which is adorned by the honesty of marriage, is not devoid of shame.”[9] He is not saying that the sex is in any way dirty or sinful within the context of marriage; St. Thomas is merely pointing out that, though sexual desires may, by grace, be brought in accordance with reason, they will never entirely be subjugated to reason, as they were before the Fall.

This view is found in 1 Corinthians 7 but is obscured by some modern translations. 1 Cor 7:28b seems to epitomize the view that St. Paul only prioritizes virginity for pragmatic reasons; the RSV reads, “Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.” However, the word translated “worldly” is nearly always translated as “in the flesh” in the New Testament. In concordance with the Vulgate, the KJV reads, “such shall have trouble in the flesh,” and the Church Fathers and Medieval theologians interpreted this to refer to the unruly passions that accompany sex. Though one may become chaste and holy through marital fidelity and the moderation and proper indulgence of sexual appetites, the objectively perfect means to the attainment of chastity remains virginity, just as the perfect means to the attainment of sobriety is the complete abstention from alcohol.

In the Catholic Church, virginity most prominently takes shape in the religious life. One might wonder why a religious brother or sister is said to be a religious when all are called to the virtue of religion, whereby man, in justice, gives God the honor He is due.[10] Religious are called are referred to as religious since they “give themselves up entirely to the divine service, as offering a holocaust to God.”[11] Like the holocaust offering prescribed by the Mosaic Law, the religious directly offers everything to God—by means of the renunciation of material goods, the submission of the will in obedience, and the employment of the perfect means to chastity—perfectly achieving the fullness of the virtue of religion. For this reason, reflecting his judgement that virginity is more excellent than marriage,[12] St. Thomas argues that the religious life implies a state of perfection, objectively surpassing other states of life.[13]

Without negating this classic view of religious perfection, the Second Vatican Council[14] and the writings of St. John Paul II[15] have brought a renewed focus on the importance and excellence of marriage, which reflects Christ’s love for His Church.[16] Just as St. Paul saw God’s grace is such that “some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,”[17] St. Thomas also saw the beauty and necessity of a diversity of states within the Church. He writes,

For even as in the order of natural things, perfection, which in God is simple and uniform, is not to be found in the created universe except in a multiform and manifold manner, so too, the fulness of grace, which is centered in Christ as head, flows forth to His members in various ways, for the perfecting of the body of the Church.[18]

In the words of St. Thérèse of Lisieux, “[I]f all flowers wanted to be roses, nature would lose her springtime beauty… And so it is in the world of souls, Jesus’ garden.”[19] Though the religious state is objectively perfect, all are subjectively called, by name,[20] in a particular and personal way.

St. Thomas also points out that different states are necessary to attend to the different needs of the Church, for if all were virgins, the Church would evidently not last very long on earth. A third reason for this diversity is that it provides the Church with a certain order and hierarchy, which contribute to her grandeur and sublimity. Just as the Angelic Ranks show forth God’s glory by their right ordering, so too must the hierarchical structure of the Church, with the greatest serving the least.[21]

Yet still, are all not called to perfection?[22] Yes, but this does not mean that all are called to the objectively perfect state. For perfection consists in charity, for it is this that binds man to God, his proper end.[23] And just as there are religious who fall short of the perfection of charity, there are laypeople who, despite being in a state less conducive to such a perfection, are made perfect by the grace of God. This is hardly unexpected, for “God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong.”[24] There are some who are unable to “make themselves eunuchs,”[25] simply because they have not been accorded the supernatural grace needed for such a sacrifice, that they may be made radiant with and through their spouse.

[1]1 Corinthians 7:8-9 (Biblical citations from RSV2CE unless noted).

[2] 1 Corinthians 7:38 (NAB).

[3] Matthew 19:12cd.

[4] 1 Corinthians 7:32a.33a.

[5] Nicomachean Ethics X, 7-8 Cf. ST II-II, q. 182, a. 1.

[6] De Virginitate VIII.

[7] Summa Theologica II-II, q. 152, a. 1.

[8] Romans 13:14.

[9] ST II-II, q. 151, a. 4.

[10] ST II-II, q. 141, a. 2.

[11] ST II-II, q. 186, a. 1.

[12] ST II-II, q. 152, a. 4.

[13] ST II-II, q. 186, a. 1.

[14] Cf. Lumen Gentium V: The Universal Call to Holiness in the Church.

[15] Cf. Love and Responsibility.

[16] Cf. Ephesians 5:21-33.

[17] Ephesians 4:11.

[18] ST II-II, q. 183, a. 2.

[19] Autobiographical Manuscript A 02v, 12-13, 15.

[20] Isaiah 43:1.

[21] Cf. Matthew 20:26.

[22] Cf. Matthew 5:48.

[23] ST II-II, q. 184, a. 1.

[24] 1 Corinthians 1:27b.

[25] Cf. Matthew 19:12.