“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).
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.