Chastity, Continence, and Celibacy: Kind of a Primer.

I came across the following on Jimmy Akin's blog.  I have rarely read a more practical definition of the Catholic observance of chastity, continence, and celibacy.
.
First, let’s be clear about what celibacy is: It’s the property of not being married. Anyone who is not married is, by definition, celibate. People often confuse this with two other concepts—continence (which in a sexual context means not having sex) and chastity (which means behaving in an appropriate manner sexually, based on your state of life). If a person is celibate (unmarried) and they wish to be chaste (act in a moral manner, sexually) then they will be continent (not have sex), because sex outside of marriage is immoral. By contrast, if you are not celibate (i.e., you are married) then you can be chaste (act in a sexually moral manner) even though you presumably are not continent (i.e., are having sex)." - Jimmy Akin

.
Coincidently, Akin goes on to discuss priestly celibacy - something I was also thinking about after prayer this morning - in relation to chastity and continence... 
.
"Second, the requirement of celibacy is neither a “doctrine” (teaching) nor a “dogma” (infallibly proclaimed teaching taught or implied by Christ and the apostles) of the Catholic Church. It is a “discipline,” a practice that has been adopted for prudential reasons but that can, and does, admit of exceptions..." ibid

.
I was wondering what some readers would think if I said I wouldn't be totally opposed to married priests.  I prefer things as they are, but observing how some Anglican turned Catholic priests are married and how well the married permanent diaconate is working, I no longer see it as such a big problem.  Jimmy Akin correctly notes that "a Catholic can hold the opinion that it would be pastorally prudent to make such a change. You are not being disloyal or a bad Catholic by holding such a view."  Although he's also realistic about any change happening soon - if at all - in the discipline;  "Suffice it to say that it would be pastorally inadvisable in the extreme for the Church to make a sudden, unprepared shift in its discipline on this point. Translating the Mass into the vernacular would be peanuts compared to this. Thus, even if one felt that the Church should move toward such a solution in the long-term, that does not in the least mean that it should be done precipitously. Or at all, because . . ."
.
Be assured that I accept the teaching of the Church on this matter.
.
Art:  Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Silencing the lambs - the Bishops and new media.

Active participation going a little too far?
.
Titles and cowtowing aside - the hierarchy doesn't seem to like hearing what the pew-sitters are thinking... and saying: 
.
Many people believe that Catholic newspapers are being superseded by new media. But is that a good thing? The Catholic blogosphere is rude, argumentative, and fractious: it exposes the divisions of the Church in an ugly light. It flattens Church hierarchy, too: bishops and cardinals are abused regularly by Catholics in the pew.
.
On the other hand, the online Catholic world has a huge amount of vitality and enthusiasm, and offers the kind of robust debate, and up-to-the-second coverage, that is not often found in traditional media. - Source
.
As Anna Arco points out:
.
In an age when people are cynical about the messages they receive from both the hierarchical Church and the traditional media and are used to spin the Catholic blogosphere can offer a refreshing antidote. Genuine discussion and genuine witness, by real people. - Source
.
Art:  Bishop, Fernando Botero