Posted on 01/19/2014 11:09:43 AM PST by Dallas59
This is the first picture of nun and new mother Roxana Rodriguez.
The 33-year-old woman, a nun with the order of the Little Disciples of Jesus, stunned her mother superior and local church chiefs after giving birth last week to a baby boy which she has called Francis, in honour of the current Pope.
Sister Roxana initially claimed to have no idea that she was pregnant and thought her labour pains were 'stomach cramps' when an ambulance rushed her to hospital in severe pain after being called by fellow nuns when she collapsed at her nunnery.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
If Paul didn’t say it then who did? Please back up what you are saying.
We are both referencing the same scripture. It IS better to marry than to lust. It is also better to be celibate and dedicate your unmarried life to God IF you will not lust.
I believe the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church allow a married man to become a priest, but do not allow a man who is already a priest to marry. So if a married priest becomes a widower, he cannot remarry.
Two of my babies did gymnastics. The third was so quiet I got scared and bugged the snot out of my OB. If she’d been my first pregnancy I’d have not thought anything about it. If I hadn’t known I was pg, and been pg before, I’d probably have just thought gas pains. My boobs weren’t even sore with this one. The *only* way I ‘knew’ I was pg was my body temp was about 1/2 degree higher than norm. And it was hubby who noticed that. I only gained 10lbs with her.
Seriously.
I didn’t show till I was 5m on in spite of having had 2 prior pregnancies within the previous 2 years and only being 5’1” tall. The first baby is usually the one you show the latest with because all your muscles are still taut from having not had babies before.
My OB was glad when I had that baby just because I’d bugged her to death. No symptoms, no weight gain till right at the end and didn’t show till ~22w. I was a head case in fear of having a miscarriage.
And if you already weigh 250+lbs and gain another 20lbs that’s within the range of obesity differences. You wouldn’t notice anything but snug pants. Even less if you were only wearing loose dresses or habits.
Strangely enough my ‘quiet’ pregnancy is the most active of my kids now. She was saving up or something.
“You can be married and still be celibate, they are not mutually exclusive.”
They are in the proper understanding of the word ‘celibate’ in line with this thread.
Merriam-Webster:
Definition of CELIBACY
1 - the state of not being married
2a : abstention from sexual intercourse
2b : abstention by vow from marriage
Clearly definitions 1 and 2b are what we were talking about, not 2a.
“I’ll check out the book, however you are still incorrect about there not being celibate marriages (also called chaste marriages) in History.”
No, I am not wrong. I know that Josephite (the proper term) marriages existed. Celibate marriages are - strictly by traditional definition - an impossibility for no such thing as an “unmarried marriage” can exist. I do not confuse the married state with celibacy since the celibate state means to be unmarried.
Read the following:
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5224.html
and Jo Ann McNamara’s well known article, “Spiritual Marriage and Clerical Celibacy,” in Vern Bollough’s Sexual Practices and the Medieval Church. The article might be somewhat dated by now.
See Karen Cheatham’s more recent “’Let Anyone Accept this Who Can’: Medieval Christian Virginity, Chastity, and Celibacy in the Latin West,” in Celibacy and Religious Traditions, edited by Carl Olson, (2008).
NUN is what you get from a REAL Nun. I agree she is not a Nun no more.
“It is from what I have seen, I am talking rank and file laity, not scholars.”
So am I.
“I know several Catholic scholars as a Medievalist.”
I too am a medievalist - I have a PhD in Medieval History.
“I am not wrong about the verse, the context is clear and you were the one who posted that verse (and the dig at Protestants which was uncalled for) regarding the topic.”
I am not wrong about the verse and the context is clear and the dig at Protestants was completely called for.
“Perhaps you should choose your words more carefully in the future.”
I already choose them carefully - digs included.
1 Corinthians 7
I think you are right but it may be a recent change, I do know of more than one who switched, got married then switched back.
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Please do address this.....
“Do you have a problem with understanding scripter you quote?”
Scripter? I have no problem understanding the scripture I quoted, but scripter?
I have already read all the sources you posted.
However, you are determining the definition of celibacy used on this thread. Celibacy is not just the state of not being married which even your cut and paste recognizes. Celibacy does not ONLY mean being unmarried.
Celibate (aka Chaste or Spiritual) marriages existed, yet you claimed they did not. You are incorrect. Marriages where both participates abstained existed, it is not an oxymoron. if you know they existed, why did you claim the do not.
“Please do address this.....”
I did - by the very fact that I quoted it.
Then you are an idiot, PhD or not. BTW, I have a PhD also in Medieval history. Your dig was not needed and it was incorrect. As a historian you should know better - you are letting your biases determine your content and are making Catholics look bad.
The sciptur you quoted does not equate to protestants, please address that.
Nun pun time.
she none to good at being a good Nun.
“I have already read all the sources you posted.”
Great, then we shouldn’t be having this conversation at this point.
“However, you are determining the definition of celibacy used on this thread.”
No. That was already done by the thread itself. I simply accept what is. You’re the one trying to alter the definition.
“Celibacy is not just the state of not being married which even your cut and paste recognizes.”
But in this thread the issue which came up was celibacy (clerical celibacy), not a marriage without a sexual relationship but no marriage at all. That can mean only one thing - by definition.
“Celibacy does not ONLY mean being unmarried.”
Clerical celibacy does. That was the point.
“Celibate (aka Chaste or Spiritual) marriages existed, yet you claimed they did not.”
False. I never once said Josephite marriages did not exist. I said celibate marriages could not exist by definition - especially in regard to the issue of clerical celibacy as presented in this thread - and I am absolutely right on that score.
“You are incorrect.”
No, I’m correct.
“Marriages where both participates abstained existed, it is not an oxymoron.”
I never claimed it was an oxymoron. I said Josephite marriages existed. What makes no sense is to say that an “unmarried married” state can exist. It can’t. That’s what you’ve been doing.
“if you know they existed, why did you claim the do not.”
I didn’t. It is amazing to me how you keeping getting this wrong. Why are you just making things up and imputing them to me as if I said them? How honest on your part can that be? I never once denied that Josephite marriages existed. What I deny is that this thread is about Josephite marriages when the “celibacy” issue presented was clearly about clerical celibacy and not Josephite marriages.
“Then you are an idiot, PhD or not.”
Your opinion is irrelevant.
“BTW, I have a PhD also in Medieval history.”
I’ll take your word for it.
“Your dig was not needed and it was incorrect.”
It clearly was needed and correct.
“As a historian you should know better - you are letting your biases determine your content and are making Catholics look bad.”
No. Content determined my biases and is unaffected by my biases. If all Catholics look bad to you because of what I post to you then that says more about you than about Catholics.
What movie is that from?
“Forgive my typo, I’ll forgive your willingness to use it for a diversion.”
I use no diversions. Accusing someone of using a diversion when he is not, however, is a diversion.
“The sciptur you quoted does not equate to protestants, please address that.”
I never said the verse equated to Protestants so there’s nothing to address. If you can’t even get your own point right, how do you expect this to go for you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.