Celibacy

crossfire said:

Well, I'm celibate, chaste, and continent. However, continence may apply in actuality but not in spirit, (or vice versa--pardon the pun) as I don't view sex as a sin. I'm very happy with it.
Your mileage may vary.

Click to expand...

In Catholic terms, merely being unmarried is not in and of itself celibacy. Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage. I myself am unmarried (so I am also required to be continent) but I am not celibate as I am not under any vows.

Also, I have not said that sex is a sin. On the contrary, it's a good thing within its rightful bounds. If it were sinful I would not be considering seeking marriage myself.

Deeje said:

According to definitions online it is both...
"celibate:
abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons."

Click to expand...

Of course. Ordinary, non-technical dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive or philological. They describe how a word is currently being used by the general public.
But note: In my 1980 Oxford American Dictionary there's no mention of celibacy under "chastity', nor is abstinence mentioned in my '72 NY Times Dictionary of Misunderstood, Misused, Mispronounced words.
But in my '75 Random House, on the other hand, sexual continence has slipped in -- but only as as a secondary definition.
These are as far back as my library goes. In even older dictionaries I doubt you'd find the new definition.

It has always been my understanding that celibate meant "no marriage, no sex".

Click to expand...

Understandable.
If you read mostly modern literature you'll see new meanings being used for lots of words: gender now means sex, trash and garbage are synonyms, and chauvinism has something to do with sexual patronage. No-one would have understood these usages when I was a boy.

Perhaps in recent decades as Biblical principles associated with marriage and fidelity have lost their meaning, the definition may have changed. Chastity is not practiced any more....you don't even hear the word.

Click to expand...

True, it seems to have gone out of fashion; subsumed by "chastity."

I think it's simple linguistics, not theology. Living languages change, and cosmopolitan languages tend to simplify and consolidate, both in grammar and lexicon. It does seem a shame, though, when concision and shades of meaning are lost.

metis said:

There's no indication of that one way or the other. Either way, he considered celibacy to be the ideal but that it's not for everyone.

Click to expand...

The indication is clear! "Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church, marital INTIMACY is a picture of Christ and the church." He must have been married.

Musing Bassist said:

In Catholic terms, merely being unmarried is not in and of itself celibacy. Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage. I myself am unmarried (so I am also required to be continent) but I am not celibate as I am not under any vows.

Also, I have not said that sex is a sin. On the contrary, it's a good thing within its rightful bounds. If it were sinful I would not be considering seeking marriage myself.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not under any vows, so I guess I'm not anything other than unbound. (Wait does that make me an unbound wild woman?)

Deeje said:

I never said otherwise....I agree with you.

In a world with gender fluidity, and no morality, its hard to maintain any kind of standard gender reference anymore. How many of those heterosexuals became infected with HIV by having sex with bi-sexual partners?....its very messed up IMO.

Click to expand...

Wow, you just get worse in your replies. Really feeling the Christ-like love here...

BilliardsBall said:

The indication is clear! "Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church, marital INTIMACY is a picture of Christ and the church." He must have been married.

Click to expand...

Not at all according to what Paul wrote and told the Flock what to do and not to do. Celibacy was considered an ideal as he wrote, and I would suggest that Jesus would be a great example of that ideal. He wrote that only those that were weak along those lines should get married, and I would suggest that Jesus wasn't weak.

Maybe check out I Corinthians 7[7-9] and [32-33] as well as Matthew 19[12].

Rival said:

Inspired by the thread about Jesus not being married and Essenes and whatnot, I wondered why some faiths teach celibacy as a good thing. Paul of Christianity wishes everyone were virgins as he was apparently, certain forms of Buddhism teach that abstaining from sexual relations is good, as well as does Jainism. I can't think of a decent reason to deny oneself this forever. Sure, one can abstain for certain amounts of time, as with food, certain activities, etc., but one would hardly abstain from food, for example, forever. I wonder what makes some people choose celibacy and why certain creeds teach it.

@Amanaki @metis

Click to expand...

The Bible doesn't impose celibacy. It says that sex is to be enjoyed by husband and wife, meaning people are meant to get married to have sex. I know it's hard to wrap our heads around that concept today, but i is what it says. It doesn't mention that everyone should be celibate all their lives. People have different personalities and different circumstances; While some are miserable if they're not part of a couple, others feel good on their own. Some choose to be celibate, others are just because they couldn't find the right person and don't want to waste their time and energy with the wrong one, a choice with a lot of merit in my opinion.
I think that imposing celibacy doesn't make any sense. First it doesn't have a scriptural base, and second it's against most people's nature. People need to acknowledge and when possible, figure out a way to meet their personal needs. That's all part of being human.

Musing Bassist said:

Strictly speaking, celibacy is the vow to forgo marriage. Celibacy is a commitment to continence (as defined above) insofar as all sexual activity outside of marriage incurs serious sin.

Click to expand...

Just curious....it is my understanding that Catholic priests are forbidden to marry, and yet some of the apostles were married men. (Peter had a mother-in-law) The early Popes were also married, so where in scripture is there a prohibition on marriage for those who choose to make God's service their life's work? It is easy to see why choosing a dedicated life is simpler without a marriage mate, but in the Bible, it is never an either/or choice. One can combine both.

I have heard that married Anglican priests who revert to Catholicism can remain married, so how can the original Catholic clergy not feel discriminated against, especially if they find someone to whom they would like to be married. Would that not go against Paul's counsel that it is better to be married that to be inflamed with natural human passion? Where does it say you can't serve God with a wife?

Deeje said:

Just curious....it is my understanding that Catholic priests are forbidden to marry, and yet some of the apostles were married men. (Peter had a mother-in-law) The early Popes were also married, so where in scripture is there a prohibition on marriage for those who choose to make God's service their life's work? It is easy to see why choosing a dedicated life is simpler without a marriage mate, but in the Bible, it is never an either/or choice. One can combine both.

Click to expand...

It is not a scriptural requirement. The first thing to understand is that celibacy is a discipline of the Roman Rite not a doctrine of Catholic belief. Married priests exist in the Eastern Rites and as exceptions in the Roman Rite.

The main justification for celibacy is that the clergy should live as much as possible in imitation of Christ. And lacking families to look after a priest or bishop is in theory always available to perform the functions of his ministry. As an example, being able to go to the hospital at a moment's notice to give someone the last rites.

Deeje said:

I have heard that married Anglican priests who revert to Catholicism can remain married, so how can the original Catholic clergy not feel discriminated against, especially if they find someone to whom they would like to be married. Would that not go against Paul's counsel that it is better to be married that to be inflamed with natural human passion? Where does it say you can't serve God with a wife?

Click to expand...

Correct, married Anglican clergy who convert and wish to become priests remain married. I attend the Personal Ordinariate (which is Catholicism with Anglican high church liturgy) and my current pastor is in this exact situation. Are these exceptions fair on the celibate clergy? Not really, but again, it is not as if anyone who signed up for holy orders was unaware that celibacy for Roman Rite priests is normative. No one is forced to become clergy. On the flip side, married priests (in all rites) are barred from the episcopate. Bishops are always celibate.

As for burning with passion. Ideally, if continence is not realistic for you then you should not consider the priesthood. You aren't ordained overnight, it takes years of study and formation to be considered and in that time you should have discerned whether or not you're capable of such a life. Unfortunately, there was a criminal decline in standards during the decades just preceding and just after Vatican II and a lot of men who should never have been allowed anywhere near the priesthood were ordained anyway. The problem was not celibacy, but criminal negligence on part of the seminaries and the bishops in charge of them.

metis said:

Not at all according to what Paul wrote and told the Flock what to do and not to do. Celibacy was considered an ideal as he wrote, and I would suggest that Jesus would be a great example of that ideal. He wrote that only those that were weak along those lines should get married, and I would suggest that Jesus wasn't weak.

Maybe check out I Corinthians 7[7-9] and [32-33] as well as Matthew 19[12].

Click to expand...

I'm familiar with all the relevant passages. Paul compares knowing Christ to knowing (his) a wife.

BilliardsBall said:

I'm familiar with all the relevant passages. Paul compares knowing Christ to knowing (his) a wife.

Click to expand...

Again, you've made an assumption on vortu

BilliardsBall said:

I'm familiar with all the relevant passages. Paul compares knowing Christ to knowing (his) a wife.

Click to expand...

So, if someone says that "X is as strong as a bull" then X must therefore actually be a bull?

Of all the books in the NT, including the four gospels, there is not one reference to Jesus' supposed wife? Doncha think that of he actually had one that there would be at least one reference to her?

On top of that, since Paul considers celibacy to be the ideal, he must have gotten that idea from someone, and I suggest that we should be able to logic out who that "someone" was.

Everyone was required to practice this from the age 14 years to 20 years. A person can be a life long bramachari or celibate There are lots of rules and regulations to follow this.

Swami Vivekananda says that one who observes bramacharya for 12 years continuously will have great intellectual and spiritual power. Desire needs to be controlled for greater success. A bramachari over a period of time can send the sexual energy from base chakra to crown.

What is Bramaharya or Celibacy ? Benefits | Rules | effects

Rival said:

Inspired by the thread about Jesus not being married and Essenes and whatnot, I wondered why some faiths teach celibacy as a good thing. Paul of Christianity wishes everyone were virgins as he was apparently; certain forms of Buddhism teach that abstaining from sexual relations is good, as well as does Jainism. I can't think of a decent reason to deny oneself this forever. Sure, one can abstain for certain amounts of time, as with food, certain activities, etc., but one would hardly abstain from food, for example, forever. I wonder what makes some people choose celibacy and why certain creeds teach it.

@Amanaki @metis

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly Paul thought that the end days were upon us. He did not think that it would be fair to bring new life into the ultimate conflict. But he thought that any sort of "cheating" (don't even talk about homosexual behavior) was worse than subjecting kids to a world that was ending so if a person really needed sex he was okay with them marrying.

stvdv said:

How does the first one gets STD (I mean the very first, like the "Adam of all STD"; no disrepect for Adam of course, just genuine curious, as I am celibate and also don't want one).

Can this not happen to even a celibate?

Click to expand...

One word:

Baaaa!

The original man's human science theist memory.

On origin earth before any science man says.

When alighted heavens body mass that in immaculate form only attacked by sun. It had pushed upon eternal body and it changed.

Pressure vibration pushed into the eternal. Reactive heavens mass.

Pushing back as heavens cooled the eternal was forced to send out it's own spirit.

Nature wasn't grounded then yet was physical spirit types.
Man manifested woman manifested. Woman demanifested most of the men demanifested.

Notified of all conditions first.

A large man group was stuck on earth. Not quite a man. Not quite an eternal being. Recorded. I saw it. Felt it. Was physically changed by it.

Applied reactive heavens science man tried to remove light. The reason he was caused to be where he hadn't belonged. In creation.

Instead animals came out. As he had changed spirit. Man then came out. Woman came out.

Nature was grounded.

Stone opened its sealed mass water flowed into it. How nature was grounded.

Life on earth changed totally then owned death.

The origin man with no woman theist scientist memory was exact.... non sexual.

All origin life destroyed by him. As man was first built machine first.

Eternal owned just being eternal.

Earth cooled again. After reactive science man applied. Destroyed earth life totally. Depicted by carbon mass history.

Nature came back out
Dinosaurs came out.

Destroyed life.

New dinosaurs came out again.

Destroyed

Cooled earth with ice present.

New animals released.
New humans. Direct from eternal.

Lived.

Star fall burnt baby man mind.

Heard old man sciences. Was not the celibate man origin.

Believed in being an eternal only human.

Same as men today.

They theory exact I want the eternal only. Form as eternal. It was never in creation.

The warning.

Rival said:

Inspired by the thread about Jesus not being married and Essenes and whatnot, I wondered why some faiths teach celibacy as a good thing. Paul of Christianity wishes everyone were virgins as he was apparently; certain forms of Buddhism teach that abstaining from sexual relations is good, as well as does Jainism. I can't think of a decent reason to deny oneself this forever. Sure, one can abstain for certain amounts of time, as with food, certain activities, etc., but one would hardly abstain from food, for example, forever. I wonder what makes some people choose celibacy and why certain creeds teach it.

@Amanaki @metis

Click to expand...

" Jesus not being married "

Did Jesus ever claim that he was not married, please? Right?
Isn't it an accusation of the Pauline-Hellenist-Christianity against Jesus- the Jewish Messiah, please? Right?

Regards
____________
Mary Magdalene as Jesus's wife*
One of these texts, known as the Gospel of Philip, referred to Mary Magdalene as Jesus's companion and claimed that Jesus loved her more than the other disciples.Apr 2, 2021
____________
*wife (n.)
Middle English wif, wyf, from Old English wif (neuter) "woman, female, lady," also, but not especially, "wife," from Proto-Germanic *wīfa- (source also of Old Saxon, Old Frisian wif, Old Norse vif, Danish and Swedish viv, Middle Dutch, Dutch wijf, Old High German wib, German Weib), of uncertain origin and disputed etymology, not found in Gothic.

Apparently felt as inadequate in its basic sense, leading to the more distinctive formation wifman (source of woman). Dutch wijf now means, in slang, "girl, babe," having softened somewhat from earlier sense of "*****." The Modern German cognate (Weib) also tends to be slighting or derogatory; Middle High German wip in early medieval times was "woman, female person," vrouwe (Frau) being retained for "woman of gentle birth, lady;" but from c. 1200 wip "took on a common, almost vulgar tone that restricted its usage in certain circles" and largely has been displaced by Frau.

The more usual Indo-European word is represented in English by queen/quean. Words for "woman" also double for "wife" in some languages. Some proposed PIE roots for wife include *weip- "to twist, turn, wrap," perhaps with sense of "veiled person" (see vibrate); and more recently *ghwibh-, a proposed root meaning "shame," also "pudenda," but the only examples of it would be the Germanic words and Tocharian (a lost IE language of central Asia) kwipe, kip "female pudenda."

The modern sense of "female spouse" began as a specialized sense in Old English; the general sense of "woman" is preserved in midwife, old wives' tale, etc. Middle English sense of "mistress of a household" survives in housewife; and the later restricted sense of "tradeswoman of humble rank" in fishwife. By 1883 as "passive partner in a homosexual couple." Wife-swapping is attested from 1954.
wife | Search Online Etymology Dictionary