Vow of Celibacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter elohimrules
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Irishmom2 said:
Yes, I stand corrected. Chastity for all singles.
Click to expand...
Oh, there’s celibacy for singles, with downright draconian consequences . . . the moment you leave celibacy, you’re no longer single! :roll_eyes::crazy_face:🤣

hawk
 
Cruciferi said:
40.png
Irishmom2:
Chastity for a year and then what?
Click to expand...
Perhaps a Religious Vocation?
Click to expand...
@Irishmom2

Or maybe mortal sin?
 
Last edited:
The terms ‘vow’ ‘consecration’ and ‘religious vocation’ have specific and strict definitions. The path to taking vows, being consecrated and into a religious vocation is one that is trodden under the guidance of fellow religious, clergy and laity associated with the potential vocation. I stress potential, As entrance into a vocation is a community activity.

As we have seen already on this thread, the confusion between the definition of celibacy and chastity, and their application in making personal promises is but one reason an Aspirant requires knowledgeable formation and direction.
 
Last edited:
Chastity is also for married folk. Chastity is not the same as celibate. It means to have the proper and holy attitude toward sex.
 
I’ve been corresponding with her, and know that this vow of chastity is a preliminary step to something else. Just what that is, we don’t know yet, but she does have an SD on-the-ground there locally, so please be respectful. Thanks.
 
Or perhaps a Secular Vocation.
Religious are not the only people who take vows of celibacy. People can be consecrated singles.

Congrats! elohimrules, how wonderful 🙂
 
phil19034 said:
Yeah, you can’t be celibate for one year. But you can take a vow of chastity for one year.
Click to expand...
IMO, to make vow of chastity for a year, makes no sense, it is not a vow at all. A vow is a promise to do something that is better, it is not a promise to do only good, but the good we do must be greater than the good we would have done if there was no vow. What are we doing that is better, making a vow of chastity for one year only?
 
MiserereMei25 said:
Chastity is also for married folk. Chastity is not the same as celibate. It means to have the proper and holy attitude toward sex.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the vow of chastity (private or solemn) always excludes any form of use of sex, permitted or not permitted
 
phil19034 said:
Single people are NOT called to be celibate because celibate simply means “unmarried.”
Click to expand...
One can choose to never marry in the future on pain of mortal sin for the love of God, it is what one called making a vow.
A single person who freely decides to never marry for God’s sake, has made a definitive choice, it may well be said that he has been called to permanent celibacy and has accepted it voluntarily.
On the other hand a single person who is 50 years old, 60 years old, still hopes to find a soul mate, or who suffers because she could not marry in life, does not live a vocation.
 
Sure, a vow to chastity for one year does make sense. It is a “setting apart” for Christ, unlike a single person who can be “looking” and keeping company for a year while still being chaste. To make a vow of chastity entails not only a strict “chastity” but also a giving up of searching for a spouse or courting. It is a living for God alone.
 
Thank you! Someone understands me. Maybe i used the wrong word celibacy. Anyways God knows my heart.
 
Mboo said:
40.png
phil19034:
Single people are NOT called to be celibate because celibate simply means “unmarried.”
Click to expand...
One can choose to never marry in the future on pain of mortal sin for the love of God, it is what one called making a vow.
A single person who freely decides to never marry for God’s sake, has made a definitive choice, it may well be said that he has been called to permanent celibacy and has accepted it voluntarily.
On the other hand a single person who is 50 years old, 60 years old, still hopes to find a soul mate, or who suffers because she could not marry in life, does not live a vocation.
Click to expand...
True. But their calling is to the priesthood, religious life, consecrated virgin, etc. They are called to do something with their celibacy. They are not called to celibacy itself.

That’s all I meant.
 
phil19034 said:
True. But their calling is to the priesthood, religious life, consecrated virgin, etc. They are called to do something with their celibacy. They are not called to celibacy itself.
Click to expand...
the sacrifice of chastity for God is already a virtue in itself, it is a proof of a great love for God. No need to be a priest or a religious. I have already mentioned Pope Pius on this subject several times in his encyclical “Sacra Virgnitas”.
Doing something with your celibacy does not mean anything, every Christian must fulfill his duty of state, and even being unmarried, one always has state duties regardless of whether one is a priest or a religious or lay person.
 
the priests make the promise of celibacy, but they do not make the vow of chastity. The difference between the two is that, if tomorrow the discipline of the church change to allow the marriage of priests, a secular priest may marry. But a religious priest who has made the vows of chastity, will never be able to marry even if the discipline of the Church changes.
One can break a promise of celibacy according to circumstances, but a vow of chastity can never be broken under any circumstances.
 
Mboo said:
40.png
phil19034:
True. But their calling is to the priesthood, religious life, consecrated virgin, etc. They are called to do something with their celibacy. They are not called to celibacy itself.
Click to expand...
the sacrifice of chastity for God is already a virtue in itself, it is a proof of a great love for God. No need to be a priest or a religious. I have already mentioned Pope Pius on this subject several times in his encyclical “Sacra Virgnitas”.
Doing something with your celibacy does not mean anything, every Christian must fulfill his duty of state, and even being unmarried, one always has state duties regardless of whether one is a priest or a religious or lay person.
Click to expand...
I actually think we are kind of saying the same thing, just with different syntax.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top