The Instigator
MasturDbtor
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Catholic Clergy Under Vows of Chastity Should Be Required By the Church to Become Eunuchs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,687 times Debate No: 25932
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

MasturDbtor

Pro

Definitions:
Eunuch-A man who has had his testicles and in some cases his penis removed.
Chastity-The requirement to abstain from sexual activity.

Rule:
Con must not argue from the stance that the "chastity" requirement should be revoked.

First round is for acceptance.
THEBOMB

Con

I accept and will argue that Catholic clergy should not be required by the Church to become eunuchs.
Debate Round No. 1
MasturDbtor

Pro

Strengthening the Church And Bringing Clergy Closer to God

The Catholic Church requires vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, a rejection of worldly things such as wealth and flesh and a total dedication to their role as ministers for God.

The point of the first two vows is to avoid unnecessary distractions that could turn them away from God.

But simply having these thoughts and feelings on the mind is itself a burden to the clergy's mission on Earth and these will continue as long as these men have testicles pumping sex hormones through their bodies. Since there can still be some sexual feelings even with castration and since it really serves no real purpose for them other than as a temptation the penis should also be removed.

This also would help prevent child molestation in the priesthood and guarantee the safety of the Church's clergy to families. Membership rates in churches will go up, because parents will no longer be afraid about the possibility of the clergy molesting their children. This is not to say that most clergy would do this, but those who wouldn't still benefit from clearing away the distracting thoughts that attend the sex drive and the Church as a whole will benefit from the guarantee of safety this measure provides.

Health Benefits

It turns out castration is good for you. Research shows that castration lengthens life expectancy in males.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

God Loves Eunuchs

Matthew 19:12

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

Isaiah 56:3-5

Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.

Solomon 3:14

And blessed is the eunuch, which with his hands hath wrought no iniquity, nor imagined wicked things against God: for unto him shall be given the special gift of faith, and an inheritance in the temple of the Lord more acceptable to his mind.

THEBOMB

Con

I have one question for my opponent, when will this ritual surgery take place? After ordination? Upon entering the seminary? When someone is half way through the seminary? When exactly?

Priests who leave the priesthood

Think about a man for second. He decides to join the priesthood. Goes through college, into the seminary, and a few years later, he is ordained a priest. A few years later, after much thought and consideration, he feels that the priesthood is not his calling. And this does happen, a lot. Between the 1960s and 1997, “More than 100,000 men worldwide [had] left the priesthood.” (1) And this trend continues today. More priests are leaving than the United States can handle, well the catholic community that is. These men leave for a variety of reasons, mostly though, to get married and have a family. In what my opponent proposes, they will deprive a priest this option. A priest could not leave the priesthood and have sons and daughters of his own. It is totally unfair and unjust to portion out one section of the population on the basis that they give their lives up to a religion.

The right of autonomy

People own their bodies. They have the right to do whatever they wish with them (as long as they do not infringe upon the bodily rights of another.) Forcing priests to become eunuch’s means you are depriving them of their right to use their body. You are not allowing the person to choose their own will.

Less people will enter the seminary

Let’s be honest here. This is quite simple. People enter the seminary to devote their life to god and to serve god. That is the simple fact. But, you do not need to be a priest to devote your life to god. Chances are less people are going to want to endure the pain of the process to priesthood. With this new policy in place, you are going to have less people going to the seminary thus having less priests. Or you will have more people being ordained as permanent deacons, they do not have to take a vow of chastity. The point is, logically speaking, you are not going to have as many people entering the priesthood if one of the requirements is losing what makes a man, a man. People will find other ways to serve god.

Attacks on my opponents arguments…

Strengthening the Church

My opponent makes the argument that making priests into eunuch’s will help them fulfill their vow of chastity. But, let’s think about this for a second, if a priest does not have a penis, how exactly would he be unchaste? He could not be, it is impossible. Thus, there is no temptation for him to fall to. Second, the point of these vows is so that the priests can live like Jesus did. Like Jesus, the priests must fight temptation. The priests must say no to lust and desire. If you remove the temptation, then choosing god over lust becomes meaningless. My opponent wishes to take away the meaning of the priesthood and the temptations of man. It is more meaningful to keep these temptations in place. As then you have a choice, good or evil. The choice of good becomes that much more powerful because you rejected evil from your life. My opponent wishes to remove this choice.

Then my opponent goes on to argue that it would prevent child molestation. While I agree in part, the fact is, less than .3% of the clergy are pedophiles (2). “Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons is a psychiatrist who has spent years treating sexually abusive priests. Concludes that "Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and pedophilia," (3) there is no reason to believe that priests are more likely to become pedophiles. So why are we singling them out like there is a reason to believe this? Don’t believe this evidence? How about this for a change “A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse by Dr. Thomas Plante… states that "approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor" which "is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population which may double these numbers." So the reality is, priests are not the horror you think they are. In fact, percentage wise, there is a less percentage of priests who are pedophiles then the general population. (4)

Health Benefits

At least quote and take something from the article. And not force me to make your case for you and then argue against it. To save time, I read it. Basically, the results of these studies have not been replicated and thus cannot be considered valid scientific evidence. Furthermore, some of the studies do not even take into account, diet, genetic differences, and other factors into the equation. So we should basically just throw this contention out the hypothetical window.

God loves eunuchs

I reply: God loves all people. Not just eunuchs. Furthermore, even if you were right, forcing people to accept god is impossible. It is what’s in the heart that counts. If an eunuch truly does not want to be an eunuch for god, then it does not really matter whether they are or not, they are rejecting the praises given in those verses. Doing these procedures without giving people a choice or a middle ground is sort of well…wrong for lack of a better word. Also, for the future, maybe analyze what you are writing. Just saying.

  1. http://www.motherjones.com...
  2. Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis, Philip Jenkins
  3. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com...
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
MasturDbtor

Pro

It would happen after ordination, that would give the person plenty of time to think about it.

Castrated Males Can Still Have Families

Con says "A priest could not leave the priesthood and have sons and daughters of his own." if this policy was
passed. This is simply not the case. The priest could still adopt children, or the priest could even freeze sperm before being castrated.

Right to Autonomy Not Violated

Con says "[People] have the right to do whatever they wish with [their bodies]". As far as the government not having a right to restrict this this is true. However, a person can consent to a private party to limit this. Priests already do that when they agree to be "chaste". Employees do this when they agree to take drug tests. Prostitutes in jurisdictions where it is legal and porn stars contract in ways that limit this "right of autonomy" in exchange for money.

More Committed Priests Will Enter the Seminary

Knowing they will have to lose their genitals it will take most men a greater deal of committment to do this. You will still get men entering the seminary. In fact, there are even men who voluntarily remove all their genitals. They're called "nullos".
http://news.bmezine.com...
It is difficult to get a doctor to perform this, so making it a requirement to become a priest would likely lead to many of the men with these feelings converting if they are not already Catholic and persuing the priesthood.

How Do We Know Christ Wasn't A Eunuch?

As the New Testament is full of positive references to eunuchs how do we know Christ himself wasn't one?

Matthew 18:8-9
If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Clearly from this verse Jesus was OK with people removing body parts if necessary in order to remain free from sin.

Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

This means that the Priests just by looking a woman and lusting over her are sinning. Priests are supposed to be interceding between their flock and God. To do this effectively they must avoid sin. If they have hormones and urges then they are looking at women (or men) with lust in their hearts and that is a sin.

Preventing Child Molestation

Even if it is just a small amount of child molestation that would be prevented and even if rate of offense is lower then the general population it is worthwhile. Furthermore, it is more about image. The scandals lead parents with children to turn away from Catholicism, or keep the Church at arms length (such as not allowing their boys to become altar boys for fear of molestation). Castrating our priests will take away those fears. More people will become Catholics, and become more involved in the Church. This also means a wider pool of people growing up who might choose to become priests. Growing up they will talk to the priests and in puberty the questions will definitely come up about the castration, giving the priest a chance to communicate how it was worth it and how it enhanced their spiritual connection to God, alleviating fears and leading to a much smaller number than Con thinks of people who would refuse to enter the priesthood because of castration.

Symbolic Meaning, Connection & Identity

Having to undergo the same ritual, a physical ritual on one's body will give those entering the priesthood a shared experience, and help them to connect and form a positive unified identity as Catholic Clergy, strengthening bonds in the Church and bringing the Church as a whole closer to God.

The Evidence of Health Benefits Is Great

While getting as specific proof as other claims may be difficult the article clearly points out that intact men living in the palaces lived shorter lives in spite of eunuchs only being at the palace when on-duty. Even when socioeconomic conditions are controlled for the benefit is still seen. And the increase wasn't modest. It was 14.4 to 19.1 years!

Reply to "Eunuch for God"

"If an eunuch truly does not want to be an eunuch for god, then it does not really matter whether they are or not, they are rejecting the praises given in those verses."

If castration is required to join the priesthood then wanting to become a "priest" necessarily entails wanting to become a "eunuch for God" and so accepting the praises given in those verses.
THEBOMB

Con


My opponent is changing the playing field, they originally argued that priests should become eunuch’s now they are arguing just for castration. The two words are not interchangeable. They have different definitions. I have another question, what about the priests who are already ordained? Are they to become eunuchs?



Castrated males can have families



“if this policy was passed. This is simply not the case. The priest could still adopt children, or the priest could even freeze sperm before being castrated.



Adopting a child does not mean it is their own. Eunuchs cannot have sexual intercourse. It is literally, impossible. Quite simply, a eunuch cannot have children which are his as he cannot ejaculate. A priest would not think about freezing their sperm, they are entering the seminary, being ordained, and having their penis and testicles cut off. Quite simply, you take away these leaving priests options. And as my opponent dropped all my statistics to the matter, you are taking away quite a big number of people’s option.



More committed priests enter seminary



Knowing they will have to lose their genitals it will take most men a greater deal of committment to do this.”



Does not refute the logic that less people will enter the seminary in a time where priests are sorely needed. You may have fewer priests who are more committed (whatever this may mean), but you will not have enough priests for the number of Catholics. There already is a shortage; you just want to make this shortage worse. Also, how does my opponent quantify what it means to be committed or not committed?



“There are even men who voluntarily remove all their genitals.



This is irrelevant. You post the case of one man who goes through this process, and say it is widespread. This is horrible logic.



It is difficult to get a doctor to perform this, so making it a requirement to become a priest would likely lead to many of the men with these feelings converting if they are not already Catholic and persuing the priesthood.



You have posted no evidence of how widespread it is. How does this logic even make sense? Why would someone peruse the priesthood just because it is a requirement to become an eunuch because they are already an eunuch? This is akin to saying that people who take vows of chastity who are not priests are becoming priests because that is a requirement…quite simply, this makes no sense at all. People don’t do things because they already fulfill the requirement to do them. You don’t go out and kill people just because you are qualified with a pistol…



How Do We Know Christ Wasn't A Eunuch?


How is this relevant? Simply showing that we do not know something does not mean we should hold it is true. I mean, how do we know that I am not a twelve headed spider who knows English? How do we know that fairies do not fly around and sing magical songs to put us to sleep? Simply proving we do not have knowledge of something does not fulfill your burden of proof. Just because Jesus liked eunuchs does not mean he was one.



Now just to be fair…



Matthew 18:8-9



Jesus was not speaking literally here. He was saying that sin was extraordinarily serious.



Matthew 5:28



This means that anyone who lusts over a woman is sinning. My opponent advocates that priests must be perfect. This is untrue. People are imperfect, priests are people, and therefore priests are imperfect. If my opponent wants to take a preemptive action against priests based on the fact that they might commit the sin of lust, why not take this to its logical end? Let’s cut off all the priest’s exterminates. He may use his hands to kill or hit someone. So, with my opponent’s logic in mind, off with his hands. You see the ridiculous end this leads to? Unless my opponent advocates cutting off all exterminates, he cannot simply say only the penis and testicles should go. Also, lust comes from the mind, not the penis…so unless you advocate the removal of the brain…



Molestation



I agree, we should try to avoid prevent child molestation, but causing thousands of people, who have done no wrong, great pain and humiliation on the basis that they may molest someone seems rather well wrong. Add this to the fact that at most 2 to 3 percent of priests actually have committed this heinous act, you are not accomplishing any great deed. My opponent is also discriminatory, until you show why there should not be equality, we assume equality. He asserts only priests should have this procedure done, and not the general population. Once again, since my opponent wants to reduce child molestation, why not take preemptive action against all men and decree that all men must become eunuchs. Who sees the problem with that? The pain and suffering of thousands of men who have done, and will do no wrong, outweighs the pain and suffering of the children. Period. More people are hurt than helped.



“it is more about image.



You do realize that if the church had not covered up this scandal and immediately taken action against the priests, there would not have been as much of an out roar against the church. It is the Vatican and the people “up top” who have hurt their own image.



The scandals lead parents with children to turn away from Catholicism, or keep the Church at arms length



The Vatican and the bishops did nothing, instead allowing child molesters to stay on as priests. Furthermore, they would just keep their children away from the priest, not from God. Quite honestly, if the parents were so worried, they could still bring their children to church, just not leave them at the church alone. Most people realize that Catholicism does not advocate child molestation.



“his also means a wider pool of people growing up who might choose to become priests. Growing up they will talk to the priests and in puberty the questions will definitely come up about the castration, giving the priest a chance to communicate how it was worth it and how it enhanced their spiritual connection to God, alleviating fears and leading to a much smaller number than Con thinks of people who would refuse to enter the priesthood because of castration.



Despite the massive run on sentence. My opponent makes one giant logical fallacy. They prove none of their claims and instead just assert them. Quite honestly, I do not know of anyone who talked to their priest, someone who probably has no medical knowledge, about puberty. They would most likely talk with their parents. So, my opponent really has not made a point. They have not proven anything here.



Symbolism



“Having to undergo the same ritual, a physical ritual on one's body will give those entering the priesthood a shared experience, and help them to connect and form a positive unified identity as Catholic Clergy, strengthening bonds in the Church and bringing the Church as a whole closer to God.



They already have an experience, the experience of Holy Orders. You know those sacraments, god and all that fun stuff. Another wonderful logic leap, just because the priests may or may not be closer together does not mean that the Church is closer to god. The church is already with god, individuals in the church are those who move closer or farther away from god, so to speak. A priest can only do so much to the person without faith.



Health benefits.



My opponent brings this flawed point up again. First of all, these are eunuchs in Korea, from the 1800s. We have no access to genetic details, diet, exercise, etc. This is not a study, it is merely the comparison of 81 people who happened to be eunuchs and who happened to live longer. Quite simply, we have seen no scientific evidence. All we see is flimsy historical research which my opponent uses to make a point. We have no other factors which to compare. All these factors could be relevant. Remember, correlation does not mean causation. You have shown a correlation, nothing more. Bottom line: you have no definitive scientific evidence.



Eunuch for god



My point was that you cannot know what a person is truly thinking, even by their actions.


Debate Round No. 3
MasturDbtor

Pro

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Eunuch-a castrated man, especially one formerly employed by Oriental rulers as a harem guard or palace official.

So, actually YES "eunuch"="castrated man".

And I would assume that if this proposal ever passed it would have to pass with some significant support among the clergy already there and to set a good example they would agree to undergo this.

In-Vitro

It is nevertheless possible for the priests to get in-vitro just in case, and even if they don't they have chosen to take that risk.

Less Priests In The Seminary, Bigger Congregations

If there are less priests then obviously the church can adapt by building bigger congregations. People tend to go for "big", this could help spur church membership and make up for the fall in numbers later on.

Bad Analogy

"You don't go out and kill people just because you are qualified with a pistol..."

My point was that since it can be difficult to get a doctor to perform castration and penectomy for non-medical reasons making it a mandatory ritual in Catholicism gives men who want this procedure an "in", they just have to join the Catholic Church and become clergy, that encourages them to do it because otherwise they won't be able to get the procedure.

Opponent's Slippery Slope Argument Is Ridiculous

Arms are needed by the priests in the fulfillment of their duties, so is the brain. However, he can function and perform his priestly duties without his genitals.

Objection to Pain And Humiliation

Con claims thatwe would be causing these priests "great pain and humiliation". I contend that these men will not feel pain and humiliation from this because they have committed themselves to it, and because they are loyal to God. Instead they will feel honor and pride for receiving "the mark of God".

Irrelevant Point

"You do realize that if the church had not covered up this scandal and immediately taken action against the priests, there would not have been as much of an out roar against the church. It is the Vatican and the people “up top” who have hurt their own image."

What happened has happened. We can't change the past, but castration will help repair the Church's image.

Still A Problem

It is still a problem if the parents are keeping their kids away from the priests, many would-be clergy members may not become clergy members because of this.

Con Misses The Point Again

I meant that young men going through puberty, becoming aware of their sexuality will be wondering the most "why did the priest agree to go through with that? How was it worth it?" He will probably ask his priest about it and then the priest can tell him from his own personal standpoint the glory of sacrificing one's genitalia to serve God, and how life isn't so bad without them especially given that priests had to be celibate anyways before genital-removal was instituted. We could even design recruitment seminars for clergy in how to talk to people, particularly young males in ways that encourage them to have a more positive view of the procedure and of joining the priesthood.

Eunuch Calm

There is another thing besides the shared ritual that helps promote the priests being closer to God, the Eunuch Calm. WARNING: Graphic Images:

http://wiki.bmezine.com...
A reported calm falls upon en who remove their testicles, a sense of peace and tranquility. That will help bring them be closer to God.

Not as Uncommon As You Might Think

There is a whole community of body modification enthusiasts and they recognize men who undergo "castration" as part of their own, and even have a whole page on their wiki dedicated to them. Again, WARNING: Graphic Images:
http://wiki.bmezine.com...
There are also pages there on "Penectomy" and "Nullo". This shows this is a lot more widespread than people think.

Health Benefits

In the above links it refers to reduced risk of prostate cancer. There is also reduced risk of male-pattern baldness, which will keep the priests looking good and young even as they get older, and that will attract more men into the priesthood.

Actual Evidence of Christ Being A Eunuch

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Some Christians historically did become eunuchs, precisely because of the passages referencing them in the Bible. Tertullian was one of them and claimed that Christ himself was a eunuch.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Tertulian was the first Christian author to produce an extensive corpus of Latin Christian literature.
A very simple way of making sure this change in policy does not lead to too many Catholics not going to seminary and becoming priests is to canonize "Tertullian", set aside a St. Tertullian Day, and the priests can reference biblical passages about eunuchs and speak about Tertullians great contributions and tie in him being a eunuch. This will help encourage boys growing up in the Catholic Church to be more receptive of the idea of becoming a priest and a eunuch.





THEBOMB

Con


Marriage and families



In the end, my opponent keeps reiterating the same point (here at least) over and over again. The uncontestable fact is a priest who leaves the priesthood for marriage would not be able to have children of his own, without scientific help and two, cannot have sexual intercourse (by definition of what was eunuch is according to the first round), which is a vital part of marriage, even according to the Catholic Church itself. You completely destroy hundreds of thousands of lives for next to no benefit.



Less priests in seminary = bigger congregation



This is not happening today. So why should we assume it will happen when there is an even larger shorter of priests? My opponent has provided no evidence backing up their claim.



Bad Analogy



My opponent originally states, “It is difficult to get a doctor to perform this, so making it a requirement to become a priest would likely lead to many of the men with these feelings converting if they are not already Catholic and persuing the priesthood.” What I was pointing out was “This is akin to saying that people who take vows of chastity who are not priests are becoming priests because that is a requirement…quite simply, this makes no sense at all. People don’t do things because they already fulfill the requirement to do them.” My opponent has never refuted this logic, and they have no more room to do so. I was pointing out that simply because a person has these feelings would not lead someone to become a priest. Simply fulfilling one of the many requirements of priesthood does not equate to one becoming a priest or even wanting to become a priest. There are other requirements for priesthood. You can get the surgery outside of the seminary.



Pain and humiliation


“these men will not feel pain and humiliation from this because they have committed themselves to it, and because they are loyal to God. Instead they will feel honor and pride for receiving "the mark of God".


So now suddenly someone who is being castrated will feel no physical pain from the procedure and will have no humiliation? This makes no sense. In accordance with the Christian belief, God, himself, felt pain and humiliation, I implore my opponent to read the New Testament, specifically the passion, for more details. The action itself still humiliating and pain. My opponent has only made a bare assertion to back up their claim.



An irrelevant point



“What happened has happened. We can't change the past, but castration will help repair the Church's image.”


Does my opponent have any proof of this? No.



Still A Problem/Molestation



My opponent drops much of my logic. Why not castrate all men, if the only reason for castrating priests is because of child molestation?



It is still a problem if the parents are keeping their kids away from the priests, many would-be clergy members may not become clergy members because of this.”



Bare assertion. The priest hood is a calling from god. People join the clergy because god calls them to it. We are not in the middle ages where people are forced to give their children to the church. People choose, out of their own will, to become priests. Furthermore, most people are not called to become priests when they are at a young age. Most people wanting to go into the seminary make this decision in their highschool years. Which is a point where sexual molestation really is not much of a problem.



Puberty and sexuality


My opponent admonishes me for not realizing exactly what he meant by his rather vague argument. But this argument still fails.


“He will probably ask his priest about it and then the priest can tell him from his own personal standpoint the glory of sacrificing one's genitalia to serve God, and how life isn't so bad without them especially given that priests had to be celibate anyways before genital-removal was instituted.


First, my opponent assumes someone who is castrated can grow closer to god. They provide no reason why this is true. As for the recruitment seminars, there already are seminars where priests talk about what the seminary and the priesthood is like. But, it is my firm opinion that priests should not be talking about medical procedures with people. A priest is not a doctor. Unless my opponent feels we should be getting medical advice from priests, he should agree with this point.



Eunuch calm


According to my opponents source, there is a lot more bad than good. Including “bleeding and shock... pose problems even when the procedure is performed by a doctor.” I also would like to point out that “the medical community is somewhat divided over the long-term affects of low (or no) testosterone on men, with various studies indicating low testosterone levels may help prevent or help cause heart disease, cause insulin resistance and potentially lead to diabetes (or deny such accusations), and even increase the risks of Alzheimer's. Only time will tell which of these potential side effects may be a risk.” This directly shows that the medical community is divided on the long term health benefits or risks, so any points my opponent makes in this regard, should be thrown out.



Not uncommon



Wait…so a medical procedure has a wiki page, and now it is common? This is laughable. My opponent has shown no numbers and no percentages.



Actual Evidence (which my opponent never provides…)



You are right, some people did become eunuch’s but the majority opinion is “Jesus' praise for those who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven has, for many centuries, been interpreted by Christian theologians as a metaphor for celibacy,” Furthermore, Tertulian may have claimed Christ was an eunuch, but he cannot be certain as he did not live with Christ.



The purpose of the Church, despite what my opponent believes, is the encourage people to follow god’s plan, not the Church’s plan. (Which can be two very different things.) The Church should encourage people to follow what god calls them to be, not what the Church needs. The Church is not god. And Tertulian will never become a saint as “several of his later teachings directly contradicted the actions and teachings of the apostles.”



Bottom line, my opponent wishes to weaken the church. In round 2, I stated (which has not been contested) that if a priest does not have a penis, how exactly would he be unchaste? He could not be, it is impossible. Thus, there is no temptation for him to fall to. Second, the point of these vows is so that the priests can live like Jesus (and the apostles) did. Like Jesus, the priests must fight temptation, they must fight these inner demons. The priests must say no to lust and desire. If you remove the temptation, then choosing god over lust becomes meaningless. My opponent wishes to take away the meaning of the priesthood and the temptations of man. It is more meaningful to keep these temptations in place. As then you have a choice, good or evil. The choice of good becomes that much more powerful because you rejected evil from your life. My opponent wishes to remove this choice. My opponent wishes to remove the purpose of the priesthood. My opponent wishes to remove the choice between good and bad. In the Christian belief, man is not god, but man should strive to live as god once did. Theology acts on a higher plane than all arguments made here, we should keep the theological choice in place. Not remove it. There is no benefit at all.


Debate Round No. 4
MasturDbtor

Pro

Priests Not Allowed to Masturbate

The priests of the Catholic Church are not allowed to masturbate. Knowing male nature if they have genitals to masturbate they will, and if they don't they will still have wet dreams which is lust and is still a sin. The only way to keep them from sin is to have them castrated.

"Less priests in seminary = bigger congregation"

I meant they could have bigger congregations in bigger sized churches, so that you wouldn't have to worry about running out of priests to run churches. I didn't necessarily mean more people would become Catholics. I'm talking about consolidating congregations to deal with the shortage of priests.

Getting the Surgery Is Hard And Risky For Many Men


Many men online who want this complain about how hard it is to get. Many look for the services of untrained, unprofessional, illegal cutters. If it was a religious requirement it would be easier to get qualified doctors to perform the surgery.

In addition to attracting people to join the Catholic Church for the surgery it would also help make it easier and safer for men who want their genitals removed to have them removed.

We Can Use Anastesia


With anastesia we can prevent them from feeling physical pain. As for "humiliation" why would a man be humiliated to be committing his life to serving God?

Common Sense


That castration will repair the Church's image is common sense. Everyone knows the biggest problem with the church's image is the pedophile priests scandal. If priests have no genitals they can't molest kids, so castration would solve the image problem. Whether the number of priests who are pedophiles is statistically significant is irrelevant, because the public perceives it as being significant and so will respond positively to them being castrated as that will help reassure them that there will be no molestation.

Why not castrate all men?

Because the Catholic Church does not have that authority and this debate is about what the Catholic Church ought to do, not what the state ought to do. It has the authority to impose this as a requirement for men who become priests, but clearly the church can't just go running around chopping off guys genitals if they're not Catholic.

Calling From God, Yes But Some Choose Not to Hear It


Some people ignore the calling especially if there is social pressure to ignore it such as parents suspicious about whether the church has a big pedophile problem. And it's still a concern in high school. What if the parents suspect their child is growing up to be a pedophile and that's why he wants to join. That's absurd of course, but people believe absurd things. Having castration be part of the deal will ensure the parents of the kid that their kid isn't trying to become a pedophile so they can be proud of his choice to join the priesthood without suspicion.


Priests Should Not Be Talking About Medical Procedures They Got Themselves?

The priests would have been castrated as well. There's nothing wrong with sharing personal experience of how a medical procedure felt. As for medical information, as long as it is derived from an objective source like the American Medical Association there is no problem. Information is information and truth is truth no matter whose mouth it comes out of. As long as he's not just making things up and is telling about the actual facts, including "for more information check out the American Medical Association's webpage..." in case they need more information.

Eunuch Calm Is Worth It


So there's some potential health problems. The "eunuch calm" state is akin to what some men call enlightenment, so it will be good for the priests.

If a priest does not have a penis, how exactly would he be unchaste?

He could receive anal intercourse, give a blowjob, finger someone's orifice, or jack someone off, all of which would of course be prohibited as part of celibacy and being castrated would reduce hormones and so reduce urges. However, God clearly is not against us doing things that reduce our temptation. The Bible doesn't have passages encouraging you to go hang out for hours with your neighbor's attractive wife just so you can have a temptation to reject and prove your worth to God.

Priests, having to intercede between the faithful and God will have extra stress and pressure. They do not need to have the problem of dealing with lust. Lust can complicate human relationships. That's why God deems it a sin. How objective will a priest's advice be if he is talking to a man who is dating a woman he is lusting after? Castration does not completey prevent but will greatly reduce the chance of such lust.

THEBOMB

Con


Masturbation



Knowing male nature…”



My opponent has no proof. An assertion =/= proof.



“wet dreams which is lust and is still a sin.”



Wait, since when was an unconscious decision a sin? I cannot believe I have to define sin this late, but I was hoping my opponent at least knew the basics of Catholic morality and ethics, guess I was wrong.


A moral sin is defined by the below (1). To be considered a mortal sin, it must fulfill all three requirements. Since lust is one of the seven deadly sins, and is thus mortal, in this context, is a wet dream a sin?



  1. 1. Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.

  2. 2. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context).

  3. 3. It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.



A wet dream does not fulfill any of them. One does not consciously choose what they dream about, or what their body does while they are asleep. I can stop there, since obviously it does not fulfill numbers two and three and thus is not a sin. I implore my opponent to at least know what the heck they are talking about.



“Less priests = bigger congregation”



My opponent has provided no evidence of this occurring already. There is already a shortage of priests, my opponent just makes this shortage more acute. As the population grows, more people are becoming Catholic.



“I'm talking about consolidating congregations to deal with the shortage of priests.



They are not doing this already when it is necessary, my opponent has shown nothing to suggest that the policy would change.



Getting the Surgery Is Hard And Risky For Many Men



Many men online who want this complain about how hard it is to get…”



No proof to for any of these unsubstantiated statements. My opponent has not shown that it would be easier to get qualified doctors to perform a surgery. They have not shown anything to support this argument.



“Catholic Church for the surgery”



If someone is atheist why would they join the Catholic Church and pledge their life to a God they do not believe in simply to get surgery, which while difficult to find, is possible to find? Quite simply, my opponent assumes more people would want to become priests because they fulfill one of the requirements to become a priest. There are other requirements. I’m really getting tired of repeating myself…



“make it easier and safer for men who want their genitals removed to have them removed.”



Proof? None provided? Okay, let’s continue.



Anesthetics



My opponent has never had surgery if they believe that the only pain from surgery is during the surgery.



Common sense



“the biggest problem with the church's image is the pedophile priests scandal.”



It was not the fact that there were pedophilic priests, there are pedophilic men in society, does that mean society’s image is tarnished? No. Crimes happen. It is the covering up of the crimes which causes a scandal. What tarnished the Vatican’s image was the fact they covered up the pedophiles and allowed these pedophilic priests to continue being priests and to continue to have contact with children. If the Vatican and the Bishops had turned in the priests to civil authorities and allowed justice to be served against them, there would be no scandal. It would simply be seen as a horrible tragedy that the Church tried to repair, not a scandal which destroyed the Church’s image. If they had gone down that road, we probably would not be having this debate.



“Whether the number of priests who are pedophiles is statistically significant is irrelevant…”



My opponent provides no sociological proof that this castration will be taken kindly by the public. Nor have they provided any evidence of what the public believes. The facts are completely relevant. My opponent wishes to punish and make an example out of those who have done and will do no wrong because of the few who have done wrong. My opponent argues that because the public have a negative or wrong opinion of something, policy should be changed. Let’s put it this way, if the government enacts a policy and from that policy crime is seen as rising, if the facts say crime is falling, should that policy be changed? No. In this case, the public sees something which is wrong, that should not be justification for changing a policy. This is an ad populum fallacy.



Why not castrate all men?



The Catholic Church has the authority to mandate that all Catholics. The Catholic Church already has the power to regulate what people can and cannot do. They have the power to regulate people’s moral beliefs the Pope can declare something moral or immoral simply by the doctrine of infallibility. So yes, the Vatican has the power to declare that all Catholics should become eunuchs. The limitations of papal powers is a debate in itself. So this is simply a very condensed version of the argument.



Calling From God, Yes But Some Choose Not to Hear It



Some people ignore the calling especially if there is social pressure to ignore it such as parents suspicious about whether the church has a big pedophile problem.



Still have no sociological evidence. As to why this is. They may answer the question why would they parents stop their children from becoming a priest. But, logically, this makes no sense a Catholic family would not stop someone from serving God. If someone wishes to make sacrifices to serve God, what Christian would prevent someone from fulfilling their calling?



“And it's still a concern in high school.



Really? I have not seen any stories of high scholars being molested…



“What if the parents suspect their child is growing up to be a pedophile and that's why he wants to join. That's absurd of course, but people believe absurd things. Having castration be part of the deal will ensure the parents of the kid that their kid isn't trying to become a pedophile so they can be proud of his choice to join the priesthood without suspicion.



I am glad my opponent has seen the absurdity of this argument. I am not sure how to respond because for starters, it is completely unsupported. Also, when a person turns 18, their parents have absolutely no choice in what a person chooses to do in their life. Even if they suspect something, they cannot do anything about it but go to the police.



Priests should not be talking about medical procedures



Nothing is wrong with sharing personal experiences, but when it comes to the medical knowledge. I ask this question to the reader, who would you trust? A doctor or surgeon who has gone through years and years of medical school, or a priest who read a blurb in a website?



Eunuch Calm Is Worth It



What is worth it is subjective. A hamburger may be worth 10 dollars to me but 0 dollars to someone else. There are many potential health problems, so someone has to judge the good with the bad.



As for the rest, my opponent has been under the impression that removal of the genitals would eliminate lust, don’t let him change his argument now. God is not against doing things to avoid temptation such as avoiding the neighbor’s wife. But, should the circumstance arise that you come in contact with your neighbors wife, you should avoid having unchaste thoughts. Not shooting her with a shotgun. Jesus went into the desert to pray, while he was praying demons came and tempted him, he avoided succumbing to the demons. What Jesus did not do was take the demons and remove them, he fought them. You do not go out of your way to have the thoughts, but when they come to you, fight them. The Bible has passages encouraging you to fight inner demons, not unnaturally remove the cause of the demons.




  1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
I remain unconvinced.

From my perspective, the weight of the words, as delivered by Jesus himself, simply outweighs these protestations. It makes sense to me that Jesus, in his wisdom, might have considered his words more carefully - remembering our human failings. In the context of this debate, I must trust that he said what he intended to say - and that his words would be difficult to remove from their context. Even presidential candidates guard against this - it cannot be the case that these mortals are more skillful at this than Jesus.

However, I do not have time to study the matter fully - a failure which disrespects this process. These time constraints are my problem, and you should not be made to suffer as a result. Since you are winning the contest despite my reasoning, no harm is being done by this. Should that situation change before I have satisfied myself that I am correct, I give you my word that I will excuse myself from that point of evaluation.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
Out of context.....

"19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4 "Haven"t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female,"[a] 5 and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

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."

When you take the whole passage, it's talking about marriage. See the passage "there are those who choose to LIVE LIKE eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." No where does Jesus ask that people become eunuchs. He asks the most devoted followers to live like eunuchs. Or, in other words, abstain from sexual activity. Saying that the one who can accept this should accept this could simply mean accept this fact.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
I have read the passage in question in full, and have even studied the matter. I understand that opposing interpretations exist, but I remain unconvinced that any of them can effectively second-guess the clear words of Jesus.

Matthew 19:12

"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

I simply cannot escape my conclusion. This seems to describe the god of the Christians asking that clergy and his most devoted followers "accept" this mutilation. Every other explanation for this passage describes men giving their human opinions of it. Understandably, their opinions are at odds with the clear wording used here.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
God doesn't ask it to be done.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
I have re-read this debate in its entirety, and I feel that my judgement could have been clouded by the power of Pro's open. I hope that this is not the case, or that I might be persuaded to reconsider.

After carefully looking everything over, I still feel justified in my scoring. If the god that is actually being worshipped asks that this be done, how can his priests refuse? All the other arguments presented were, to my mind, almost irrelevant.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
There was, to my mind, no possible way that anyone could possibly actually and truly "worship" this god without being at least willing to countenance this act. I do not support the worship of this horrible god " but I was forced to agree with Pro that this act was a faithful interpretation of the god"s divine will. And, as priests of the god, it is incumbent upon these men to set an example of their higher level of devotion.
I am not certain that Pro had initially intended to argue this. But, he did. Decisively. This brazen attack seemed to surprise Con as much as it did me. As a result, it was never convincingly defended against, a series of what I viewed as "excuses" were put forward, and each was subsequently swatted aside. Con never recovered from the First Round, despite what I regarded as an admirable attempt.
I want to underscore how impressed I was at the "last stand" quality of Con"s argument. His case was fatally wounded almost instantly, but I felt that he put forward a series of counter-attacks that should have won the day" had it not been for the weight of the god himself apparently taking the side of Pro in the sourcing presented in his Round 1 opening argument.

I awarded the win to Pro. However, Con should not feel slighted by this: I would have also entered this debate taking the same stance he took " I actually considered it - and I would have been just as effectively ambushed.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
Entering this debate, I was fully on the side of Con, for the following reasons:

1. Con (I know) normally formulates very convincing and well thought out arguments. His endorsement biased me somewhat towards his perspective.

2. Even if I would like to argue (for shock value) that Pro"s case was anything other than unserious, it remains the case that this level of irreversible genital mutilation ought not to be proposed. The horror of the act silenced my imagination.

3. As an apostate, I am fully aware that, no matter how devout a man might be in his faith " the permanence of this condition cannot be guaranteed. After having lost his faith, a man will be forced to forever live with the dreadful consequences of this act.

4. Genital removal among consenting adults is one matter. Entirely separate is my certainty that children will be encouraged to undergo this mutilation. These children, nonage adults, and other easily convinced persons will inevitably fall victim to this atrocity.

5. Regardless of the religious logic, this act may constitute a severe act of human rights disregard if misused.

Such was my disposition going into Round 1. Here, Pro flattened all of my arguments in support of Con nearly instantly.

The argument for the health benefits I found to be irrelevant. I am uncertain why Pro led off with this, unless it was to lure us voters into thinking that we were watching an amusing discussion. His next argument, that the act would bring priests closer to their god, on the other hand, was ironclad.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
RFD: Pros arguments for making clergy become eunuchs were that God loves Eunuchs, Jesus was a Eunuch, Being a Eunuch is healthy, and that it prevents masturbation and child molestation. The arguments about God or Jesus loving/being eunuchs held no weight in the debate overall, and con countered the other arguments minus the one about preventing child molestation. However, Cons own arguments about how they still have a right to their bodies and that it would scare away people from entering the clergy in the first place were enough to show that making the clergy become eunuchs has no real benefit overall, so Con wins the arguments.
Posted by ConformistDave 4 years ago
ConformistDave
under no conditions am I against the removal of manhoods.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Pro's argument is so easy to negate...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
MasturDbtorTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
MasturDbtorTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I was surprised by this debate - I was forced to change my mind. A situation that almost never happens. Congratulations to Pro for this. Con lost the Convincing argument score from me in the last round - "why not castrate all men" was, to my mind, hyperbolic. Sourcing has to go to Pro, for using the actual arguments made by the god that these priests worship as justification for this action. More remarks in the comments, time permitting.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
MasturDbtorTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy win for Con. Con negated Pro's arguments, and forced Pro to shift his stance as the debate progressed. Pro also made many unsubstantiated, and completely ridiculous, assertions that were not sufficient as arguments.