Adding celibate partnerships[edit]

Do other editors think it would be helpful to expand the "celibate homosexual Christians" to include celibate partnerships. Some Christian denominations, including the Church of England and Anglican Church of Southern Africa, support celibate same-sex relationships. Also, should a section be added, in general, as other cultures/traditions/faiths have encouraged celibate partnerships as a calling for platonic and/or romantic relationships, committed friendships? SeminarianJohn (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christian views in lead[edit]

The lead touches on Jewish and Islamic perspectives on celibacy, but Christian views are absent. That seems to be a glaring oversight. Considering that the majority of the article is focused on Christian teachings and practice of celibacy, I have expanded the lead to reflect the content of the rest of the article. I am noting my change here in case there is a unknown reason/justification for this information being missing. --Hazhk (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Religious hermits?[edit]

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, hermits, consecrated virgins and deaconesses."

Is it meant to be "religious hermits" or "religious, hermits"? Yellowpelican (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just follow the links. In fact it is "religious, hermits, consecrated virgins…"--Medusahead (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, looks like an extra comma; 'religious' is obviously not a noun. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is, the Latin religiosae. I tried to find another wording.--Medusahead (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. Johnbod or Pbritti would probably know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@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). WhatamIdoing is correct: religious is a noun here. Best ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relevant Celibacy edit worth adding to article - or not?[edit]

An edit about Celibacy seems relevant to the main article - edit was originally added to the article, but afterwards reverted - the edit is as follows:

"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."[1]

QUESTION: Is the edit worth adding to the main article - or not? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Berry, Jason (April 3, 2002). "Secrets, Celibacy And the Church". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 27, 2023. Retrieved October 27, 2023.

Drbogdan (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 General Council, adopted the following canons:

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.[1]

"

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). Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ The Canons of the First Lateran Council, 1123
Categories