Celibacy

[Thorolf]

Christ came when he did and he choose his disciples...not all outstanding, God-fearing citizens either.  As we know, God works in mysterious ways and uses all types of people and situations to do his will...you'll futher argue that "men" cannot have anything to do with forgiving or retaining sins, but yet the Bible CLEARLY states JUST that...OH!  We want our cake and want to eat it too!

Well, that sort of depends on which Bible you are reading - and it is far from clear. In my opinion, there is no reason to believe that we have the power to forgive or retain sins - and we ought not because we are not perfect judges. It just doesn't make sense that we flawed mortals would be delegated such an immense responsibility.

I think this argument pales in comparison to many, but hey, that's just my opinion.  My opinion, celibacy is logical...How can your pastor fully shepard his flock when he has to run his 3 kids to soccer practice, spend time and nuture his marriage, etc.  What suffers?  His family?  His church?  Or should we as Catholics judge your ENTIRE belief system because your pastor was with his kids instead of with a member of the youth group in his time of need when he jumped from a 32nd story window? Let's darn it all!

Whether or not it may be a wise personal choice is really not being contested here. The question, at least in my mind, is how can it be a law? There are places where the Bible supports a personal decision, but I know of nowhere that scripture or even first century tradition supports the Church requiring celibacy in order to enter the priesthood.

We are throwing around a verse here and there to prove "our" point, but yet we fail to throw around the other verses that COMPLETELY contradict your point.  Jesus said to follow him they'll have to say goodbye to family, they can't have it both ways, the road will be tough and lonely.

I'm not familiar with that one... in which verse did Jesus tell people that they had to say goodbye to their family? Deny self and abandon family are not the same thing...

As for better subjects, feel free to create them.

[Some Darn Xian]

The ideal of celibacy as a rule was most strongly enforced after Augustine.

This is a man who lived life large and without a regard for the consequences--that is until he matured.

After that, whatever he felt was wrong, was obviously something that everyone should avoid.

One point that I truly have a problem with when it concerns Auggie, is the assertion that the entire book of the Song of Songs is in error. It is the Judeo-Xian equivalent of a marriage guide. Read it for what it is. Sex in marriage is to be enjoyed by the husband and wife. The side effect is children.

Now, here comes Auggie with his over-bloated sense of guilt: Sex in marriage is only for procreation. How many marriages went from what God intended to this sense of duty for only having children. Throw out the Song of Songs, it only encourages married couples to enjoy their intimacy with each other.

Now, if there is a book in the Bible that stresses the need, importance or other THEOLOGICAL reasoning for celibacy in the priesthood, could we hear it?

I know what Paul says about not being married. His was a practical concern. He was a traveling tent merchant and a missionary. Try to raise a family when the business of selling and the gift of preaching would mean flights in the middle of the night and trips to far flung places on a merchant ship. I don't believe that Paul would have been able to faithfully fulfill his role as father and husband, as well as missionary. The same could be said for Peter, but that is not clearly stated in the Bible.

[Thorolf]

Or should we as Catholics judge your ENTIRE belief system because your pastor was with his kids instead of with a member of the youth group in his time of need when he jumped from a 32nd story window? Let's darn it all!

I thought I'd revisit this post because the quotes segment needs to be addressed.

What a callous and irresponsible statement. I can understand the position that a family may be a distraction, but there are plenty of other distractions that celibacy won't address.

How about the youth group member jumping out of the 32nd floor window while his alcoholic priest was sleeping off a binge? Or the one who jumped because his celibate priest took advantage of him?

And how about the one whose pastor, priest, or whatever was driving in his car, or eating breakfast, or praying, or sleeping, or going to the bathroom, or brushing his teeth, or doing paperwork, or counseling with other church members, etc, etc, etc... when the kid jumped from the 32nd floor? Are we equally critical of THEM because they weren't there to talk the kid off the ledge?

In other words, the quoted statement above is utter nonsense. Are we really supposed to even CONSIDER that, given the choice between the suicidal kid and his own children, a pastor would choose to spend some leisure time with his children rather than counsel the suicidal teen, REGARDLESS the denomination (non-Catholic, of course, since that's the allegation being leveled here).

Talk about taking convenient bits and pieces to make an (intentionally inflammatory) argument.

[Amicus]

Thorolf,

My apologies if I offended you, it was not my intention.  Perhaps it was a poor example to get my point across that the argument of celibacy and whether people agree or disagree with it invalidates the priesthood.

I've been on other sites where the posts are quite confrontational and completely anti-Catholic and perhaps I was guilty of carrying some of that over to these boards.

My apologies....

[Amicus]

Thorolf,

I don't why I can't figure out how you guys quote...riding on the coat tails of my earlier apology...because I don't want to start out on this post as the "antagonizer."  I like to read all types of versions of the bible.  I was brought up on KJV and have studied the NIV...at the end of the day, MOST of the verses are similar, however I'll use KJV to explain my comment below.  You said.

Well, that sort of depends on which Bible you are reading - and it is far from clear. In my opinion, there is no reason to believe that we have the power to forgive or retain sins - and we ought not because we are not perfect judges. It just doesn't make sense that we flawed mortals would be delegated such an immense responsibility.


In John 20 we read...

21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.  KJV

I guess my point was that if we are going to take part of scripture to prove a point, it can be done the opposite way.  The underlying difference between the posters that are Catholic or not really comes down to authority, which is what we are not debating here. 

I agree with you 100%, we are not perfect, and Christ throughout his ministry on earth used many imperfect men to further his ministry.  I don't believe the Catholic church in the context of priests, bishops, etc is perfect or infalliable.  They are men.  They make mistakes and sometimes horrible ones at that...but they think that by being celibate it helps more so than it hinders with forwarding Christ's mission.

Again, please don't take my post as hostile, it was not my intention.

Peace be with you.

[Thorolf]

I don't really see how that passage proves any "COMPLETELY" contradictory point... there is truth, and there is wrong - and I am far from perfect, but I do NOT pick and choose which passages to believe and which to reject.

Incidentally, I think the interpretation of John 20 as meaning that WE have the power to forgive sins by our own accord is not a correct interpretation. It does not grant us flawed beings the power to forgive sins. It notes that by receiving the Holy Ghost we have within us the authority of God. We can't possibly do it ourselves - it is by the Holy Ghost acting through us.

Which is why the previous verse was about Jesus instructing the disciples to receive the Holy Ghost (via His breath).

Finally, I know the Catholic Church believes, and by proxy the individual priests, bishops, etc... who accept the Church's law of celibacy, that celibacy helps them remain focused on their flock - and they are probably right about that (although in my opinion a great many protestant pastors have proven exceptionally effective in large part BECAUSE of their wives, rather than in spite of them). However, there is absolutely no support for making it a LAW.

Can't take verse 23 without verse 22...

Did anyone argue that men cannot have ANYTHING to do with it, as you stated in your initial post. No... but I would maintain that men, by their own virtue, do not have that authority. And men who are not acting with the guidance of the Holy Ghost ALSO do not have that authority - even if they believe that the Holy Ghost resides within them.

Because MEN do not have that authority or perfection of judgement.

By the way - to quote, you can either reply by hitting the Quote link to the upper-right of the post, you can press the insert quote button on the Post reply toolbar (it looks like a bubble you may see in the comics when a character is speaking), or you can type:

Code:

[quote]Text goes here[/quote]

[Acumen]

 Paul's issue with celibacy, in 1 Corinthians 7, is quite literally one of distraction.  Paul's argument elucidates the point that the workings of marriage can distract a person in their devotion to God.  The idea manifests itself clearly as one imagines being compelled to balance attention toward God with a spouse, or even children.  In terms of the heavenly kingdom, the single life is superior to the married life on the basis of potential undivided workmanship.  Both Jesus and Paul are proof of this workmanship. 

However, this is not an absolute truth, but rather one of relativity and purpose.  It is a relative truth in that it doesn't apply to all people, but rather a select few.  It is a purposeful truth in that God have intended certain individuals to be celibate for the purpose of the kingdom.  Paul, for instance, was apparently a eunich of choice for Christ's workmanship.  It would have been difficult for him to travel and put his life in jeapardy if he had a spouse or kids to consider.  And as we can see, he recognizes celibacy's usefulness based upon personal experiences and successes.  Adam, for instance, was not intended to be celibate.  God had a purpose for him to increase and muliply.  The same can be said about Noah (who was perfect in his generation by they way) and his sons.

The issue here is not whether individuals have the innate or assisted capacity for celibacy, but rather should a position of church leadership require celibacy?  Certainly, not all people have such an ability.  In fact, it is against the nature of man to be celibate -- and this natural instinct to persue and find a mate in most cases is itself a distraction to God's kingdom as much as a marriage with a family.  Not all individuals interested and gifted in church leadership have the ability of celibacy.  From the NT, we note that bishops had wives because Paul addresses it.  We note that Peter was married because his mother-in-law is mentioned.  Even Mary, to whom God entrusted His only begotton Son, was persuaded to stay betrothed to Joseph by an angel of God -- which appears to be an endorement of marrage to, what many would suspect, the most important calling of God's kingdom.

My point is each individual has unique abilities, some of which include both celibacy and marriage.  Celibacy is the ideal only for those who have such abilities.  Marriage is ideal for only for those who have such abilities.  Marriage was the ideal for many great people including Adam, Noah, Job, Mary, and Peter.  2 of the 5 mentioned above are described as "perfect" in their generation, which in my opinion, is ideal.

The think the Roman Catholic church made a pragmatic mistake of taking an ability meant for individuals and appointing it to an office.  We've seen too many failures on the behalf of priests to keep such vows because they have not the ability, nor ever had the ability of celibacy.  Take away the celibacy requirement for priests, and you take away the spiritual pickle between the calling to lead a church and the blessing of marriage.  It's my bet that if Peter and other bishops could do it, then God never intended for it to be mandate.

-Acumen

[Acumen]

El,

Acumen:  The think the Roman Catholic church made a pragmatic mistake of taking an ability meant for individuals and appointing it to an office.

El:  How do you justify your statemnet with the fact that the Church allows some priests to be married.

Because they are still applying an individual ability to an office regardless of the rare exceptions they permit.  The priesthood is overwhelmingly bachelor due to a papal mandate.  Permitting some exceptions to the rule doesn't answer the point of the original mandate.

What I don't understand is that you know this and we have talked about it recently, so I am not sure why you act as if you do not know this and force someone to bring up the point...why?

Again, telling me that some married individuals were allowed to become priests doesn't solve the problem.  I think it is still a pragmatic mistake to expect and demand that a particular office require an ability of celibacy when not all good church leaders have such an ability -- as demonstrated by Peter and other NT bishops.  It was an unnecessary rule, which in theory seemed right, but it was still unnecessary.

If you read my last post, I understand the reasoning behind celibacy for church leaders.  And if a church leader had such an ability, then what a good leader he would be.  But there are also good leaders who don't have such an ability, and therefore such a tradition (with a small t) is a hinderance to the work of the Holy Spirit.   

-Acumen

[Acumen]

El,

Acumen:  Again, telling me that some married individuals were allowed to become priests doesn't solve the problem.  I think it is still a pragmatic mistake to expect and demand that a particular office require an ability of celibacy when not all good church leaders have such an ability

El:  "good church leaders?"  Who gets to decide who is a good church leader?  The leaders in the Catholic Church are not subject to "God alone" but to His Church, who is lead by men and the Traditions that came before them.  If they want to deny the precedence of the Church then it is obvious that they are not called to be leaders in the Church. 

First, it's not so "obvious" that people who deny an unnecessary man-made precedent aren't good church leaders.  And speaking of precendent, what about the precedence set by Peter and the NT bishops who had a single wife?  Why would the Catholic church tamper with an apostolic tradition?  Don't you think if celibacy was required by God that Paul would have laid the mandate when he had the perfect opportunity?

Acumen:  -- as demonstrated by Peter and other NT bishops.  It was an unnecessary rule, which in theory seemed right, but it was still unnecessary.

El:  Yeah right, tell it to Paul.

Paul didn't require the bishops of his churches to be celibate.  Paul didn't lay a mandate on anyone.

Acumen:  But there are also good leaders who don't have such an ability, and therefore such a tradition (with a small t) is a hinderance to the work of the Holy Spirit.

El:  How do you know, or is this mere inference?

Because I've seen them in my church.

Scott Hahn is a "leader" in the Catholic Church and he isn't celibate, and AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID BEFORE..... ARE YOU LISTENING ARE YOU LISTENING ARE YOU LISTENING!!!!!!!!!!???  Ok good, deacons are also ordained leaders of the Church and they are not required to be celibate.

Don't quibble over the specifics of leaders because I'm not.  I'm fully aware of Catholic church leaders that can marry.  However, priests, bishops, and popes are bachelor positions, and these are the most significant positions in the Catholic church.  Again, an unnecessary burden placed upon an office.

-Acumen

[Acumen]

Exactly how do you intend to prove that it is unnescessary?

I don't need to.  If the rule were necessary, then Paul wouldn't have written 1 Timothy 3 where he describes a bishop as having a wife.  Paul made no effort to institute a rule of celibacy, and therefore there is no reason to believe it was necessary.

Acumen:  And speaking of precendent, what about the precedence set by Peter and the NT bishops who had a single wife?
El:  What about the precedent that Christ is the head and cornerstone of the Church and He was celibate? How about the fact that all the Apostles were already married and hence the reason why Paul said that those who are should live as if the were not...funny thing, none of you have addressed that scripture even though I have quoted it at least three times now.

You're avoiding the point.  If bishops were required to be celibate, Paul would have made some mention of it in 1 Timothy when the opportunity was ripe.  Did Paul prefer celibacy?  Yes.  Did Paul require it of the bishops?  Not in any of his epistles.

Acumen:  Why would the Catholic church tamper with an apostolic tradition?

El:  Because they did not want to tamper with the Traditions laid down directly by Jesus our Lord.

I don't recall the scripture telling bishops that they are to mimic every aspect of Jesus' life, which btw would include raising the dead, remaining sinless, and taking up the trade of carpentry.

Acumen:  Don't you think if celibacy was required by God that Paul would have laid the mandate when he had the perfect opportunity?

El:  Once again you lack attention to detail, how many times do I have to repeat that the Church does not "mandate" that all priests be celibate, it is preferred just as Paul dictated.

Yes, they did!  Your Catholic encyclopedia refers to the rule as "the law of celibacy."  And laws are a type of mandate. 

Acumen:  Because I've seen them in my church.

El:  Nice try, but you are well aware that I was asking how you knew that it was a hinderence to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Because not all men have the ability of celibacy.  And to place an unnecessary celibacy restriction on the office of the bishop would discourage those who feel called to be a bishop to do something else.

Acumen:  However, priests, bishops, and popes are bachelor positions, and these are the most significant positions in the Catholic church. Again, an unnecessary burden placed upon an office.

El:  There has been and continue to be married clergy, obviously you just don't listen very well....I presume you just don't want to.

You really ought to stop presuming that those who disagree with you or the Catholic church either don't listen, don't understand, or aren't enlightened or deep enough.  Perhaps we ARE listening and we DO understand, and that is why we don't accept it. 

-Acumen

[Thorolf]

Celibacy for priests is not a "Law" it's a tradtion (small t).

Thanks.

Someone should tell the Catholic Church that, because THEY call it the Law of Celibacy.

Does that bother you, El?

Which bothers you more? That the Church does, indeed, refer to it as a law - or that I knew something about the Catholic Church that you didn't? 

[metis]

To go back to a point someone made earlier in regards to Paul, I have to add that Paul appears to have thought Jesus' return was eminent and, therefore, marriage was not necessary.  Also, some have theorized that Paul may have been preoccupied with sex in a negative way-- necessary for procreation but still a nasty "thing" since it's "of the flesh".

Shalom,
Vern 

[Acumen]

Thor,

Someone should tell the Catholic Church that, because THEY call it the Law of Celibacy.

YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T LISTEN VERY WELL BECAUSE IT'S NOT A LAW!!!   

Which bothers you more? That the Church does, indeed, refer to it as a law - or that I knew something about the Catholic Church that you didn't?

You didn't know more then him because the catholic encyclopedia is wrong.  Or "law" doesn't really mean law, but rather something else. 

-Acumen   

[Thorolf]

And it is very obvious that they wouldn't be good Catholic leaders, and I already said why.

So what it seems like you're saying here is that a good Catholic leader must be celibate?

In other words, if a priest, bishop, or maybe a pope (or a bunch of them) were married, they would be considered apostate?

Like these guys?

Popes who had illegitimate children after 1139
Innocent VIII    1484-1492    several children
Alexander VI    1492-1503    several children
Julius    1503-1513    3 daughters
Paul III    1534-1549    3 sons, 1 daughter
Pius IV    1559-1565    3 sons
Gregory XIII    1572-1585    1 son

What about the precedent that Christ is the head and cornerstone of the Church and He was celibate?  How about the fact that all the Apostles were already married and hence the reason why Paul said that those who are should live as if the were not...funny thing, none of you have addressed that scripture even though I have quoted it at least three times now.

I think I addressed it... Paul rather clearly indicated that celibacy is a choice, and some choices don't work for certain people. NOWHERE did Paul even come CLOSE to indicating that it should be a requirement. As for the example of Jesus - obviously, it was a choice that was right for Him to be most effective in His ministry - indeed, it could even be argued that it was necessary. However, you don't seem to have any issue whatsoever with the fact that He chose as his disciples several married men... you would think that, if it were really that important, He would have chosen appropriately "unencumbered" men.

And as long as we're on Paul - in 1 Timothy 3:2, he wrote that Bishops should be the husband of one wife.

Of course, I'm sure they were already married beforehand, making it "okay."

Once again you lack attention to detail, how many times do I have to repeat that the Church does not "mandate" that all priests be celibate, it is preferred just as Paul dictated.

Speaking of lack of attention to detail, the Church claims the authority to offer dispensation for pretty much anything they darn well please - but barring that dispensation, it IS mandated.

Paul built on the foundation of Christ and Paul's successors did the same.   

Which has nothing to do with celibacy, in large part because Paul's successors, nor Peter's, either followed or dictated any such law, mandate, tradition, whatever, for several hundred years, and positions on the matter wavered rather dramatically for a few hundred more.

There has been and continue to be married clergy, obviously you just don't listen very well....I presume you just don't want to.

We can discuss the matter of dispensation in another thread, if you like. However, exceptions to the rule don't mean that the rule doesn't exist.

[Thorolf]

Thor,

Someone should tell the Catholic Church that, because THEY call it the Law of Celibacy.

YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T LISTEN VERY WELL BECAUSE IT'S NOT A LAW!!!   

Which bothers you more? That the Church does, indeed, refer to it as a law - or that I knew something about the Catholic Church that you didn't?

You didn't know more then him because the catholic encyclopedia is wrong.  Or "law" doesn't really mean law, but rather something else. 

-Acumen   

There is that... If only Pope Paul VI were still alive to clarify his infallible SACERDOTALIS CAELIBATUS of 1967 in which he refers to it as the "Law of Celibacy" quite a few times.

I'm sure he meant something other than 'law.'

[metis]

Just to throw in an interpretation from a Jewish perspective:

In Judaism, the word "Law", as in Mosaiic Law, is more closely related to "discipline" that it would be to "law" as used in civil law.  For us, the Law is the starting point to determine what's moral.  However, since each situation tends to be different, there had to be clarifications, thus the Mishnah and Talmud, and there also had to ways of resolving disputes, thus courts and bet din (the latter usually consisting of three rabbis whereas local decisions can be made).  

An example of the need for clarification would be "Thou shalt not kill", which actually would be better read "Thou shalt not murder".  However, what constitutes "murder" would need to be defined.  Another would be "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy", even though "Sabbath" wouldn't need to be defined (it's a day of the week-- Friday sundown to Saturday sundown), what is "holy" would.  

I might make just a couple of other clarifications in that the Law is not binding on belief in Judaism, nor is a literalistic interpretation always acceptable-- thus the need for courts at times.

I doubt this will help the discussion any, but one never knows.

Shalom,
Vern      

[Acumen]

El,

So what you are suggesting is that everything we need to know about how to live a Christian life must be explicitly stated?

No, not everything -- rather those things that churches hold as compulsory on its congregants.

And on the contrary, it is you who is avoiding the point.  You seem to feel totally justified in glossing over the fact that Jesus was celibate and that he approved of those who become celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Why do you think that Jesus was a celibate?  Was He mandated and if so why?

It's a moot point and that is why I "glossed" over it.  Approval of an ability to be celibate for the kingdom doesn't mean it's compulsory.  I approve when my wife makes me dinner, but I don't require her to do it.

Acumen:  I don't recall the scripture telling bishops that they are to mimic every aspect of Jesus' life, which btw would include raising the dead, remaining sinless, and taking up the trade of carpentry.

El:  I don't recall the scripture telling us to baptize in a big jacuzzi while wearing a plastic gown right after watching a videotape about what's about to happen.  So what's your point?

And that is why baptizing in a "big jacuzzi" isn't manditory.  If you want to be baptized in a lake, then have at it.

Acumen:  Yes, they did!  Your Catholic encyclopedia refers to the rule as "the law of celibacy."  And laws are a type of mandate.

El:  I don't have a Catholic encyclopedia......wait, actually I do.

Then perhaps you should refer to it prior to posting?

Here is what is says a "Law" is:

I. CONCEPT OF LAW
A. By law in the widest sense is understood that exact guide, rule, or authoritative standard by which a being is moved to action or held back from it. In this sense we speak of law even in reference to creatures that are incapable of thinking or willing and to inanimate matter.

In the Church it is a "law" but it's not a "law" as in the same vain as Thorolf was using it like one of the 10 commandments, and that is why there are exceptions.

Did you even read what you copy and pasted?  The widest sense of the law applies to creatures that are incapable of thinking or willing.  And you would have noticed this if you were more interested in reading, rather than being right.  The irony is so rich when you say things like this:  "I am not going to turn this into a debate about your inattentiveness, especially since you are not the only one doing it, but no, you do not pay close enough attention at times and it is obvious that you are more concerned with debating."

Here is what you should have copied and pasted if you were more attentive and less concerned about winning a debate:   

In a stricter and more exact sense law is spoken of only in reference to free beings endowed with reason . . . Law is first a regulation, i.e. a practical principle, which aims at ordering the actions of the members of the community. To obtain in any community a unified and systematized co-operation of all there must be an authority that has the right to issue binding rules as to the manner in which the members of the community are to act. The law is such a binding rule and draws its constraining or obligatory force from the will of the superior. Both because the superior wills and so far as he wills, is law binding. Not every regulation of the superior, however, is binding, but only those in accordance with reason.

As you can see, laws are binding, and are therefore mandated.  So it is a law in the ordinary sense, and you were wrong.

-Acumen

[Acumen]

Fine, then the Catholic encyclopedia must be wrong.  It's either one or the other.

[Thorolf]

Now I suppose Thorolf will not admit to previously using the word "LAW" as it is used with the 10 commandments.

This should not side track this discussion, and I suggest it does not because I am sure that it would not benefit the website, the discussion or my participation.

Of couse I don't consider the law to be on par with a Commandment.

Commandments are of God.

And I couldn't care less if you deign to argue the point or leave the discussion, but it is certainly not a sidetrack. The fact that it's a law, in terms of a MANDATE is critical and central to the discussion. The Church most certainly does mandate celibacy. You posted a definition of law, but not the ONLY definition. I think, if you bother to think on it and actually read through the definition you posted, you'd come to the conclusion that the type of law you posted about isn't the one that applies to the law of celibacy.

Read over the 1967 letter from Pope Paul IV on the subject. It's quite plain that this is a REQUIREMENT for priesthood. He offers several of the objections, and presents a rather exhaustive defense of the Church's position requiring celibacy. He even addresses the matter of dispensations (the exceptions with which you're so obsessed), the eastern church, and so on in the process of defending the position that it's a requirement for higher orders.

Or, you can launch more attacks on ME, rather than the arguments posted. That's a good choice.

[Acumen]

El,

Now I suppose Thorolf will not admit to previously using the word "LAW" as it is used with the 10 commandments.

He may or may not, but the Catholic encyclopedia says this about the term "law":

Every law is a form of command but not every command is a law. Every binding rule which a superior or master gives to his subordinates is a command; the command, however, is only a law when it is imposed upon the community for the attainment of the common welfare.

According to the Catholic encyclopedia, all laws are commands.

This should not side track this discussion, and I suggest it does not because I am sure that it would not benefit the website, the discussion or my participation.

It won't side track the discussion as long as it's pertinent to celibacy.