Celibacy?

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:

You are confusing legal marriage and marriage within the Catholic church. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments. Catholic priests are not allowed to receive the Sacrament of Matrimony and are therefore labeled as “celibate”. It is not a legal restraint against marriage, it is an order from the Vatican.

Yes. Under Catholic dogma, one should not partake in sexual acts outside of marriage, as that would be considered a sin. Catholic priests are supposed to be above all sins, but seeing how we are given free-will, man can be tempted toward evil. The priest continues to be celibate (cannot marry) but is also a sinner.

If you were raised in the Catholic Church, you would have been taught about the Seven Sacraments, at which point you would understand the actual meaning of celibacy. It is a Catholic construct and as such may not be common knowledge to those outside the religion. However, that does not change the meaning of the word as it is applied to Catholic priests.
[/quote]
Indeed I am not Catholic and never have been. However, all of the supposed Catholics on the link I supplied agree with me. Celibate priests are not to have sex with anyone. A chaste person can indeed have sex with a spouse. You seem to essentially agree with that, but above it was being disputed.

I am specifically replying to this statement:

"So you really think that the official position of the Catholic Church is that priests are allowed to have sex with anyone so long as they aren’t married to them? And you really think that is what the average Catholic person believes? Frankly, I feel you’re being disingenuous. In any case, you’re wrong. "

All Catholic priests are celibate. Not all priests are chaste. Even if a priest is unchaste, he continues to be celibate. If a priest is unchaste, he is sinning. Just because he is sinning, does not mean he is no longer celibate. Sinner or saint, a Catholic priest cannot receive the sacrament of marriage and therefore, by definition, remains celibate.

The original discussion was how the words chaste and celibate are used within the confines of the Catholic Church. I have no idea how you made the leap that by upholding these definitions as originally prescribed, the Church is condoning a priest having sex.

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
I am specifically replying to this statement:

"So you really think that the official position of the Catholic Church is that priests are allowed to have sex with anyone so long as they aren’t married to them? And you really think that is what the average Catholic person believes? Frankly, I feel you’re being disingenuous. In any case, you’re wrong. "

All Catholic priests are celibate. Not all priests are chaste. Even if a priest is unchaste, he continues to be celibate. If a priest is unchaste, he is sinning. Just because he is sinning, does not mean he is no longer celibate. Sinner or saint, a Catholic priest cannot receive the sacrament of marriage and therefore, by definition, remains celibate.

The original discussion was how the words chaste and celibate are used within the confines of the Catholic Church. I have no idea how you made the leap that by upholding these definitions as originally prescribed, the Church is condoning a priest having sex.

[/quote]

Point of order…the original discussion was about a poor Australian fellow and his distain of women older than 24. He assumed that he would be celibate when he was no longer able to “pull trim” to his liking. perhaps the priesthood might be an option.

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Not to be pedantic or anything, but you do realise that “celibate” does not mean “abstaining from sex”, right?

Celibacy is the state of abstaining from marriage, usually for religious reasons.

The word you are thinking of is “chastity”.

Carry on. [/quote]

Merriam-Webster disagrees with your contention.[/quote]

Merriam AND Webster can both suck my cock if they don’t understand Latin.
[/quote]

I was sitting in a deposition of a Priest when another lawyer asked about some nasty-ass posts he had on a gay/hookup chat room and after confirming he was sexually active he asked him why he was violating his vows of celibacy. And the Priest was quick to point out the exact same thing you did: “celibate just means I can’t get married to a woman.”

Then the lawyer asked, do your perishioners understand your definition of “celibacy”? And he shrugged and said, “well, its not something we really like to advertise.”

[/quote]

Yeah. This is one of the major differences between a priest and a monk. Priests take vows of celibacy, whereas monks (and nuns) take vows of chastity. So technically a priest can still fuck if he wants to, he just can’t marry.

But nobody cares what words mean, which is why everyone uses the word decimate as if it meant “completely destroy”, when its actual meaning is “reduce the number (of people) by ten percent”. Even Merriam and fucking Webster pander to the ignorant masses with that one.

[/irrelevant tangent][/quote]
A word means what your audience thinks it means when you say it. Otherwise you are just babbling. We don’t speak Latin. In Englinsh, celibacy means refraining from sexual relations and marriage. You are suggesting that the Catholic Church explicitly condones its priests having unmarried sex and potentially homosexual sex. This is completely untrue (and the fact that one errant priest used this argument to defend his behavior doesn’t change that).

[/quote]

Englinsh, you say?

I think Humpty Dumpty was speaking Englinsh in Through the Looking Glass:

When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less”.

One would think that a priest taking a vow of celibacy would know just what he’s signing up for. A vow of celibacy is not the same as a vow of chastity. Ask any Catholic to explain the difference to you.

It is a rather curious phenomenon, to be sure. If enough people misuse a word, like decimate or celibate, the misused definition becomes, by default, the approved one, as even the dictionaries, which are supposed to be the arbiters of correct English (or Englinsh, if you prefer) usage, simply pander to the masses.[/quote]
Englinsh, the language spoken by people with fat fingers.

So you really think that the official position of the Catholic Church is that priests are allowed to have sex with anyone so long as they aren’t married to them? And you really think that is what the average Catholic person believes? Frankly, I feel you’re being disingenuous. In any case, you’re wrong.

I don’t have to ask a Catholic to explain it to me because it was already answered here: Catholic Answers

Etymologically it may be true that celibacy means abstaining from marriage. However, that definition arose in a time when not having sex outside of marriage was implied for a person of good social standing. The dictionary has simply preserved the context of the word, not changed the meaning.
[/quote]

You are confusing legal marriage and marriage within the Catholic church. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments. Catholic priests are not allowed to receive the Sacrament of Matrimony and are therefore labeled as “celibate”. It is not a legal restraint against marriage, it is an order from the Vatican.

Yes. Under Catholic dogma, one should not partake in sexual acts outside of marriage, as that would be considered a sin. Catholic priests are supposed to be above all sins, but seeing how we are given free-will, man can be tempted toward evil. The priest continues to be celibate (cannot marry) but is also a sinner.

If you were raised in the Catholic Church, you would have been taught about the Seven Sacraments, at which point you would understand the actual meaning of celibacy. It is a Catholic construct and as such may not be common knowledge to those outside the religion. However, that does not change the meaning of the word as it is applied to Catholic priests.
[/quote]

^^^^ This

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Yes, some have. I believe few have though. It’s that or I am not being observant enough. [/quote]

I think you were spot on.

I justr think that “up” has little to do with looks. [/quote]

It has to do with socioeconomic status as well. Few men date up socioeconomically. [/quote]

That’s easy to fake though. When I was in my early 20’s and just an office clerk we used to go to the fancy joints and prey on young executive types for kicks. Many of them knew and didn’t care anyway.

[quote]TheKraken wrote:

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
I am specifically replying to this statement:

"So you really think that the official position of the Catholic Church is that priests are allowed to have sex with anyone so long as they aren’t married to them? And you really think that is what the average Catholic person believes? Frankly, I feel you’re being disingenuous. In any case, you’re wrong. "

All Catholic priests are celibate. Not all priests are chaste. Even if a priest is unchaste, he continues to be celibate. If a priest is unchaste, he is sinning. Just because he is sinning, does not mean he is no longer celibate. Sinner or saint, a Catholic priest cannot receive the sacrament of marriage and therefore, by definition, remains celibate.

The original discussion was how the words chaste and celibate are used within the confines of the Catholic Church. I have no idea how you made the leap that by upholding these definitions as originally prescribed, the Church is condoning a priest having sex.

[/quote]

Point of order…the original discussion was about a poor Australian fellow and his distain of women older than 24. He assumed that he would be celibate when he was no longer able to “pull trim” to his liking. perhaps the priesthood might be an option. [/quote]

A few corrections. Not “poor”. And not “disdain”. And not 24. I just said that as women get older - like post 35, they start to age quicker than men and that I’m not really into older women hence as I get older it would be weird to date girls much younger than me and therefore prospects don’t look good once I start getting towards 50. And then I mentioned my dilemma about marriage. But I’ve finished my attention whoring now anyway.

If all else fails? Become successful and setup a sugar daddy arrangement.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
If all else fails? Become successful and setup a sugar daddy arrangement.

Serves her right for studying history and politics. That’s what I did and spent tens of thousands of dollars and four years of my life to come out and work as a low level office clerk and data entry operator for the next five years. Glad I got out of that one. History sucks believe me.

I’ve changed my mind with what I said about Asian girls. It’s just more subtle with them because they’re so shy and repressed. But you notice them look away and subconsciously flick their hair and flash their wrists. Girls are so funny and easy to read. I love to flirt with Muslim girls in headscarfs to boost their egos. Not the crazy salafists in the tent with the little peephole. I just laugh at them. But the regular Muslim girls in headscarfs. It’s pretty sad actually as their families totally restrict them from having any contact with the opposite sex. I feel really sorry for them.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ve changed my mind with what I said about Asian girls. It’s just more subtle with them because they’re so shy and repressed. But you notice them look away and subconsciously flick their hair and flash their wrists. Girls are so funny and easy to read. I love to flirt with Muslim girls in headscarfs to boost their egos. Not the crazy salafists in the tent with the little peephole. I just laugh at them. But the regular Muslim girls in headscarfs. It’s pretty sad actually as their families totally restrict them from having any contact with the opposite sex. I feel really sorry for them.[/quote]

Well, then, you should meet some Indonesian girls. Not as reserved (or “repressed” as you put it), as East Asian girls, and certainly not as restricted as their other Muslim sisters from having contact with the opposite sex, even non-Muslim men. At least not the ones I’ve met in Sumatra.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ve changed my mind with what I said about Asian girls. It’s just more subtle with them because they’re so shy and repressed. But you notice them look away and subconsciously flick their hair and flash their wrists. Girls are so funny and easy to read. I love to flirt with Muslim girls in headscarfs to boost their egos. Not the crazy salafists in the tent with the little peephole. I just laugh at them. But the regular Muslim girls in headscarfs. It’s pretty sad actually as their families totally restrict them from having any contact with the opposite sex. I feel really sorry for them.[/quote]

Well, then, you should meet some Indonesian girls. Not as reserved (or “repressed” as you put it), as East Asian girls, and certainly not as restricted as their other Muslim sisters from having contact with the opposite sex, even non-Muslim men. At least not the ones I’ve met in Sumatra.[/quote]

I’m not particularly taken with Indonesian women. Besides; huge cultural differences and I’d have nothing in common with them so no real chance of a meaningful relationship. I mostly flirt with Muslim girls for fun anyway. Never dated one. To be honest I’d be worried about getting killed by her male relatives. Not worth the risk.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
In my estimation, intellectual and sexual compatibility trump all else.
[/quote]
Couldn’t agree more. Nothing is sexier than a keen intellect. [/quote]

Does having a good memory count? :wink:
[/quote]

Only if you don’t confuse the two. Having a good memory can mask as “highly intelligent” and recall is a valuable skill.

But having an incredible memory doesn’t actually make one smart in the true sense, even though they are often spotted together in nature. [/quote]

Aristotle remarked in On Memory and Recollection that those with very good memories often tended to be slow; those with the best intellects were instead adept at recollecting. This was an extension of the argument from Plato’s Meno (Meno’s name in the dialog is used as a pun on mnemon, or memory); Meno studied under Gorgias, a sophist known for supplying his students with a list of responses to arguments, so that they could merely argue from memory. So the dialogue, in effect, turns on the difference between memory and recollection (anamnesis), mythically represented through the rebirth of the soul.

Anyway: an old observation.

[quote]TheKraken wrote:
I can not imagine being in my early 30’s having never been in a relationship beyond a couple of months.[/quote]

Could be worse. I’m in my mid 30s and I’ve never had a romantic relationship as an adult.

In all seriousness, you get over it. You find other things to do with your time and your energy. If I were in SexMachine’s position - convinced on the one hand of the biological and genealogical imperative to procreate and raise a family, but inexorably attracted to wild, young, party girls on the other - I would engage in some deep introspection. Either with or without some sort of professional to assist. They’re wildly incompatible ways of life, and you ultimately have to choose one or the other.

But then, you could always have an accident and be left with the worst of both possible worlds: a wild, young, crazy, ex-party girl who is now the mother of your child. And good luck with that.