View source for Talk:Celibacy

{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|attention=yes}}
}}
{{afd-merged-from|Involuntary celibacy|Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination)|16 January 2014}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archive=Talk:Celibacy/Archive %(counter)d
|algo=old(90d)
|archiveheader={{automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize=100K
|minthreadsleft=4
|counter=2
}}
{{archives|age=90|bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}

== Religious hermits? ==

I think there might be an extra comma in this sentence which changes the meaning:

"In addition to the [[Roman Catholic Church]] and the Orthodox Churches, the [[Anglican Communion]] and some [[Protestant churches]] or communities such as the [[Shakers]] also know a promise or vow of celibacy for example for [[religious]], [[Hermit|hermits]], [[Consecrated virgin|consecrated virgins]] and [[Deaconess|deaconesses]]."

Is it meant to be "religious hermits" or "religious, hermits"? [[User:Yellowpelican|Yellowpelican]] ([[User talk:Yellowpelican|talk]]) 05:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
:Just follow the links. In fact it is "[[religious]], [[Hermit|hermits]], [[Consecrated virgin|consecrated virgins]]…"--[[User:Medusahead|Medusahead]] ([[User talk:Medusahead|talk]]) 09:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
:Yes, looks like an extra comma; 'religious' is obviously not a noun. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 09:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
::It is, the Latin ''religiosae''. I tried to find another wording.--[[User:Medusahead|Medusahead]] ([[User talk:Medusahead|talk]]) 09:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Oh, I'm not sure that's correct.  I think there's some Catholic jargon about "the religious", which seems to mean monks and nuns.  [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] or [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] would probably know. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::::{{re|Iskandar323}} Hey, answering: ''religious'', in this context, refers to a type of Christian who joins a religious order (as distinct from ''secular'' or diocesan bodies; see [[Secular clergy]] for more on this distinction). {{u|WhatamIdoing}} is correct: ''religious'' is a noun here. Best ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 22:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Yes, [[OED]] meaning B. I don't know why you call it "jargon", it is in the fact the original main sense of both "religious" and "religion", going back to 1200 or 1300. It has the advantage of being broader than [[clergy]], which doesn't really include nuns. In French I think ''religieuse'' is still a very normal term for a nun; obviously that no longer works in English. It was by no means restricted to Xtianity, the OED quotes from the 19th century cover Islamic & Hindu etc. "religious" also - in fact it's a useful catch-all term there, where the structures & usages don't match Western Christian ones.  One of their quotes talks of "The priests and religious of [pre-conquest] Mexico...".  But outside Catholicism peoople now find it puzzling, as they do how to term a Shivaite religious (if they don't know [[saddhu]]) if they encounter one. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

== Relevant [[Celibacy]] edit worth adding to article - or not? ==
An edit about [[Celibacy]] seems relevant to the main article - edit was originally [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celibacy&diff=prev&oldid=1182620215 added to the article], but afterwards [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celibacy&diff=next&oldid=1182620215 reverted] - the edit is as follows:<br /><br /> '''{{big|{{tq|"According to [[Jason Berry]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'', "The requirement of celibacy [especially in the Catholic Church] is not dogma; it is an ecclesiastical law that was adopted in the Middle Ages because Rome was worried that clerics' children would inherit church property and create dynasties."<ref name=NYT-20020403">{{cite news |last=Berry |first=Jason |author-link=Jason Berry |title=Secrets, Celibacy And the Church |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/03/opinion/03BERR.html |date=April 3, 2002 |work=[[The New York Times]] |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://archive.ph/wip/7PLwC  |archivedate=October 27, 2023 |accessdate=October 27, 2023 }}</ref>}}}}'''<br /><br />
'''QUESTION:''' Is the edit worth adding to the main article - or not? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - [[User:Drbogdan|Drbogdan]] ([[User talk:Drbogdan|talk]]) 18:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}} [[User:Drbogdan|Drbogdan]] ([[User talk:Drbogdan|talk]]) 18:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

:Assuming it's true, etc., then it definitely shouldn't have [[WP:INTEXT]] attribution to a journalist, as if he were the main proponent of that idea. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::Absolutely. It certainly is true, and not well explained here; nor should we attribute it to a stray journalist. [[Clerical celibacy]] covers the pretty slow development in the CC, the 5th Act denoument being: 
"The [[First Lateran Council]] (1123), a [[ecumenical council|General Council]], adopted the following canons:

{{quote|Canon 3: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, and subdeacons to associate with concubines and women, or to live with women other than such as the Nicene Council (canon 3) for reasons of necessity permitted, namely, the mother, sister, or aunt, or any such person concerning whom no suspicion could arise.

Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved, and that the persons be condemned to do penance.<ref>[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran1.html The Canons of the First Lateran Council, 1123]</ref>}}"
That or similar should be added here. I've tried to clarify the passage discussed in the previous section a bit. Monks were always required to be celibate in the CC & EO, priests only much later, and still not in the EO (EO bishops aren't allowed to get married, I think, though existing wives are ok). [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
<references/>
== celibate homosexuals ==

some Christian denominations also suggest some form of celibacy for LGBT people who are willing to convert [[User:Okache Dawit Yohannes Wonah|Okache Dawit Yohannes Wonah]] ([[User talk:Okache Dawit Yohannes Wonah|talk]]) 23:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

== typical conceptual failure ==

Looked not only at current full text of article but the archives as well and nowhere is there apparently a definition in terms that are matter of fact. Is it proposed that celibate men never ejaculate? Ejaculation would be considered sex by most ppl, so the real distinction is in having sexual partners. Why is basic stuff hard? [[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] ([[User talk:Lycurgus|talk]]) 10:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

:In this case, definitions are difficult because people have different ideas about what the word does/should mean.  Up until the middle of the previous century, I understand that the definitions for a man worked like this:
:* celibate:  he's not married, even if he is regularly having sex (e.g., with prostitutes) or is planning to get married in the future
:* chaste:  if he's married, he only has sex with his wife; if he's unmarried, he doesn't have sex
:* abstinent:  not engaging in any (or in specified) sexual activities.  This includes temporary and/or involuntary abstinence (e.g., while recovering from a serious illness).
:It is under these definitions that one could say that [[Pope John XII]] was celibate but neither chaste nor abstinent.
:Also, the definition of what counts as "having sex" varies by time, place, and culture.  This should be familiar if you remember a US president declaring "[[I did not have sex with that woman]]". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

:Right, in that case a contemptible mendacity was evident in implicitly saying that oral sex, presumably anything other than penetration wasn sex. At least the above acknowledges an issue (sort of). The sexual instinct is discharged in males during conscious ejaculation. In an objective sense this is having sex. So again, why is this hard? The stuff above refers to a detritus of lang and culture without addressing this forthrightly, giving the musty recall and evasion of that fact. We can leave it here, this isn a serious venue, and I wanted there to at least be something in the back matter that pointed out this issue. Common sense says that for males in the prime of life, a sensical definition of the '''celibate''' is no sexual activity with any other living being (which FTR i call 'quorum sex' requiring at least two actual participants), but not no sex at all which for males poses physiological questions also missing. Religion is the domain of confused, old and illogical thinking but this is a practical term which has uses outside that. I'm sure in a medical context it's made clear. [[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] ([[User talk:Lycurgus|talk]]) 11:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::I think you're looking for the article on [[sexual abstinence]].
::By the way, there's a discussion on one of the village pumps about anti-religious bigotry among Wikipedia editors.  No matter how deeply felt the sentiment, it's not a good look. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::Looks are subjective, I think it's a very good one. The moral very high ground in fact. Also it's not bigotry any more than disliking any evil which ppl can and will eventually change rather than their essentialy unalterable identities is bigotry. It's righteous disapproval and other good things. If there are two articles about the same thing, a merge may be in order, if not then a clarification of the distinction would be. You may have the last word if you like. [[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] ([[User talk:Lycurgus|talk]]) 19:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I doubt that a [[WP:MERGE]] proposal would be successful, but you're welcome to try it, if you'd like.  I think the first point you'd need to make is which of the three obvious candidates ([[Celibacy]], [[Sexual abstinence]], and [[Chastity]]) you want to merge, and why (or why not, if you leave out one). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)