The Instigator
CynicalDiogenes
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
TrueScotsman
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Catholicism is morally sound and biblically correct

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...
TrueScotsman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 667 times Debate No: 39832
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

CynicalDiogenes

Pro

Basic rules:
1.1st round for acceptance, 2nd round for opening statements.3rd for rebuttals and final round for conclusion.
2.No semantic re-interpretation.
3.burden of proof is equally shared by both parties.
TrueScotsman

Con

Hello,

I accept the Con position of this argument and will contend that 1) Catholicism has aspects that are not morally sound, and 2) also has aspects that are not biblically correct. Most importantly doing so in a respectful and thorough way, as I hope this will be a great debate.

I now pass the ball to my opponent to make what I am sure will be a great opening statement.

Kind Regards,
TrueScotsman
Debate Round No. 1
CynicalDiogenes

Pro

The resolution states that Catholicism is not only morally sound , but also biblically correct.

For this statement to be proved, the word catholicism should be defined clearly.
Catholicism refers to the doctrines and teachings of the catholic church which has been summarised in the dogmatic constitution of the church(Lumen Gentium) and the guidelines for faith outlined in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church'.*Only* the current and official stand of the church should be considered. Inorder to avoid confusion, i will also enlist the what catholicism is *not*.

Catholicism is *not* the private opinions of various members of the church, including the pope.The actions of the catholic clergy that has not been done under *official* orders of the church does not qualify also.It is not the beliefs of various members ,including catholic politicians as well as the government policies of various predominantly catholic countries,either now or in the past.Any attempt to highlight these things will be considered an attempt to sidetrack the debate.

Being a catholic, I consider the catholic church to be my highest moral standard, but for the purposes of this debate, i realise another moral standard should be considered.These are the following standards i am willing to consider.
1.If you are a christian, we could consider the will of God (Yahweh) as the moral standard.
2.If you believe in God, but are not christian, we could consider the teachings of your religion and the moral standards used to judge your religion.
3.If you are atheist,i am willing to argue that the church is moral due to the social,cultural and material benefit it has provided for mankind's progress since its beginning.
If you wish to use another standard, please define it clearly in your opening statement.

The bible is defined as the set of books considered as inspired by God by christians.Only the Douay-Rheims translation or the New International Version(NIV) translations will be considered.Others such as the King James Version(KJV) will not be considered.Standard Rules of Biblical hermaneutics apply.

Now that the definitions are over, I state my case.The catholic church is both morally sound and biblically correct because it is the only church that was founded by Jesus Christ, the only son of the LORD.Historically it is one of the only two churches that have existed since the time of Jesus and the apostles and have an unbroken chain of succecssion from Peter(the other being the Orthodox Church).

3

Matthew 16:18
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.



Hence it is in accordance with the will of God.

Even if one were not a christian, the teachings of christ have been widely respected and are comparable to the teachings of other religious teachers such as the Buddha as well as scriptures such as the Vedas(Certain interpretations)

Many secular(*not* atheist) standards, such as the 'Golden Rule'("Do unto others what you expect them to do to you") claim to be inspired by christian teaching.

Even from a completely atheistic veiwpoint,it can be considered moral due to the social,material and cultural benefits it has provided for mankind.

Historically the church played a central role in restoring civilization to the whole of Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire by converting the various barbaric tribes that destroyed it in the 1st place.During the Dark Ages, Monks preserved valuable manuscripts and were probably the only people interested in the promotion of art,culture and literature.Throughout history, the church has always funded and patronised the Arts as well as Scientific enquiry(yes! Scientific enquiry!).Even today the vatican has one of the largest and oldest observatories, and many of it's clergy make active contributions to science.Georges Le-Maitre,who proposed the Big Bang Theory and Gregor Mendel,who is considered the father of modern genetics,are 2 famous priests,not to mention the countless lay members of the church who are scientists.Many science colleges are run by catholic institutions and ambitious projects such as the LHC(Large Hadron Collider) are funded and supported by members of the catholic clergy.

Also,probably no other organisation has done the amount of charity that the church has done.In the USA alone,it has more than 2,500 local agencies that serve 10 million people annually.St. Vincent De Paul societies, social justice committees, soup kitchens, food pantries, and other similar programs are organized independently by thousands of Catholic parishes each year. Politifact, a pulitzer prize winning site states that "In the United States, 50 percent of social services are provided by the Catholic church."Not to mention that the church has members in over 150 countries around the world.The church has also spearheaded humanitarian aid in remote locations such as sub-saharan africa.

In order for Con to prove me wrong, he must not only show how the teachings mentioned in the Lumen Gentium and the Catechism are morally wrong according to the standard he uses, he must refute and tell my arguments are not valid.


Biblically,One can see that God always wanted *one* church,with *one* head.

Matthew 16:18 - Jesus promised to build His church - one, not many.

Colossians 1:13 "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love "
Christians have been translated out of the power of darkness into the kingdom of God's Son - one kingdom, not many.

Ephesians 5:22-25 "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:
Christ is the head of His body, just as your head directs your body and just as a husband is head of his wife. But a head directs one body, not many bodies. A husband is head of only one wife (with God's approval), not many wives.

And so Christ is head of one body. There are "many members, yet but one body" (1 Corinthians 12:20). If Jesus had many churches, He would be like a man with many wives. This would be spiritual adultery!

John 17:20,21

"And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

Jesus prayed for those who believe in Him to be one as He and His Father are one. Do He and His Father disagree and contradict one another about how people should worship, how people may be saved, or what church people should be members of? They do not, and neither should we, for we are to be one as they are one.


In the New Testament, there were many local congregations of God's people, and there are also many today (Galatians 1:2; Acts 8:1; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Revelation 1:4,11; etc.). But these local churches should all believe and practice the same common faith (Ephesians 4:3-6; Jude 3; Titus 1:4).

Thus only one church with an unbroken line of succession from Peter,the first pope can make the claim to be the true church, and no other church makes this claim.We see also that only this church was given the authority to decide the right interpretation of scripture.Considering that it is the church that decided which books are to be in the bible based on this authority.I don't see how other denominations can claim otherwise.

Con must not only show how certain aspects of the Lumen Gentium and the Catechism are in direct violation of *explicit* statements in the Bible.But also undermine the authority given to the Church.


Sources:
1.http://www.politifact.com...-/
2.http://www.drbo.org...;
TrueScotsman

Con

Hello,

Herein I will lay out my initial opening statements and will then in my next argument provide a rebuttal for the points my opponent made in his first argument.

As Pro I will be contending that 1) the Roman Catholic Church is not morally sound, and 2) that it is also not Biblically correct. In order to do this, I will not be weighing the good that the RCC does against the bad, this is a poor method for determing if it is morally sound as we would rather simply seek to show that it is not morally sound in some areas and thus could not be claimed to be wholly morally sound.

Also, it is not my contention that the RCC is wholly corrupt in regards to it being Biblical, my argument will be simply to show that certain aspects of the RCC are not Biblically correct.

The initial opening remarks will be all in regards to the issue of Celibate priests and child abuse.

Catholic Priest Child Abuse:

Since 1950 the Catholic Church has been fined 2.6 Billion dollars in regards to cases involving sexual abuse, some with over 500 victims reported in a single Diosece, such as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.[1] It is close to an epidemic in some countries and even being called the Holocaust of Ireland, where priests sexually molest and rape young boys.

Is it the Church's intention to have this happen? I don't think so, but I will contend in my secondary argument that their teaching on Celibacy is directly the culprit for this rampant abuse.

Roman Catholic Church on Celibacy:

The historical "discipline" of Celibacy which is enforced upon priests perhaps dates back to the Council of Elvira in 305 AD.

It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office.[2]

This teaching is directly contradictory to that of the Bible.

An elder must be blameless, the husband of one wife, with faithful children who cannot be charged with dissipation or rebellion.[3]

Note that the elders of the Church are to be married, and with children as it is a qualification that this elder has demonstrated he can effectively lead his household. In 1 Timothy 4:3 Paul actually speaks against the practice of forbidding marriage.

Therefore, as Celibacy was mentioned as a gift according to Jesus in Matthew 19:9-12 and that "the who who can accept this should accept this." It is clear that requiring celebacy of the leaders of the church is not only contrary to Paul's qualifications, but also forces men who seek to lead in the church to live a life-style they are not gifted to live in.

The Catholic Church then is not only Biblically in error for it's requirement of celibacy of it's leaders, but also is found not to be morally sound in this regard.

Kind Regards,
TrueScotsman



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[2] http://faculty.cua.edu... celicacy
[3] http://biblehub.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
CynicalDiogenes

Pro

Hi,
Con has clearly misunderstood, or willfully ignored all of the definitions and criteria set in my opening statements:

1." I will not be weighing the good that the RCC does against the bad"

I am not asking you to do that, merely state a valid independant moral standard and show how catholic *dogma* falls short of it.I provided those arguments assuming you were Athiest.Con does not bother define the moral standard he is going to use.

2.Catholic Priest Child Abuse

The child abuse is *not* part of either the dogmatic constitution or the catechism, but is the action of errant priests.Catholics around the world see this as wrong and this is in direct violation of the catholic church's stand on homosexuality and sexual relationships.This weak argument inspite of my clear definition of catholicism and clear warnings that such statements would be considered as an attempt to sidetrack the debate is unfortunate.

(While this may not be relevant, i would like to add that the number of Catholic priests that were caught was about 40, while the total number of priests in the church is about 400,000. So the claim that this is a widely prevalent 'epidemic' is false.This is not an argument, merely an observation.)

3.Celibacy of Clergy

This is more in accordance with the criteria set.Con himself agrees that celibacy is not an absolute necessity for priesthood in Catholicism, but is only a 'disciplinary' decision that is binding on members following the *Western* Catholic rites.In general, the Eastern Catholic Churches allow ordination of married men as priests.[1] Thus the church has not contradicted the bible but has merely exercised its right given by the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible.

There are many places where celibacy is recommended for those serving the LORD.

"All men take not this word:there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs, for the kingdom of heaven"-Matthew 19:12 is mentioned by con.
this Statement is made by Jesus Chist himself(a higher authority than St.Paul by virtue of being the Son of GOD and one with the LORD) and shows explicitly that celibacy is preferred over married life.

In 1Corinthians chapter 7, St.Paul *clearly* mentions that celibacy is prefered over marriage.

" Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."-1Cor 7:1-2

That is, keep to his wife, which he hath. His meaning is not to exhort the unmarried to marry: on the contrary, he would have them rather continue as they are. (Ver. 7: 8.) But he speaks here to them that are already married; who must not depart from one another, but live together as they ought to do in the marriage state.

the meaning becomes clearer as we continue reading along the same chapter

"But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. [7] For I would that all men were even as myself:...
... But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I(unmarried)...But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband."-1Cor 7:8-10

"But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. [33] But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. [34] And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.[35] And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment."-1Cor 7:32-35

St.Paul clearly states that marriage is prefered over celibacy and allows marriage only in exeptional cases where the priest was already married or as an indulgence.So the catholic church is not altogether contradicting the bible when it chooses to impose a disciplinary decision regarding this indulgence, as it follows this teaching in spirit.

Why would St.Paul who is clearly opposed to the concept of marriage in these verses, then seem to recommend marriage in the verses mentioned by Con?

The first verse that Con proposed(1Tim 4:3) can be clearly seen to be taken out of context,when one sees the historical background in which this epistle was written

"Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats:"
Here St.Paul speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat for all members of the church including lay members; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen to become priests.

the other verse is from Titus Ver:6
"If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly".

These orders were given to allow already married men the chance to become priests, and mainly to prohibit polygamous and immoral members from entering the church, or holding positions of authority, as is evident from the next verse

"For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre"-titus 7

In all the cases when one sees the historical context, marriage was seen invariably as detrimental to service of the LORD and was only allowed as an indulgence when members were already married.The lives of Jesus as well as the Apostles clearly shows that celibacy was prefered.

The Bishops of the Catholic Church are the true successors of the early Apostles.It is not wrong for them to agree to follow in the footsteps of the Aposltes and codify a disciplinary code that can clearly be seen as the intention of both St.Paul and Jesus Christ.

The RCC was also the only church promised the guidance of the Holy spirit, Thus whenever there seems to be an apparent contradiction in biblical exegesis, it is only the catholic church that can decide the correct interpretation by virtue of the arguments I provided in my opening statement.Con must tell whose authority he relies on when there are seeming contradictions and must refute the claims of the RCC as the true heirs of the apostles

eagerly anticipating you rebuttals..:) wish you all the best!




TrueScotsman

Con

Hello again,

Appreciate your detailed response and am curious as to how this debate will end up!

First I would like to address my opponent's assertion that I am either misunderstanding his criteria or am willfully ignoring it. I believe this debate would become very muddled were I to try and present an independent moral system, therefore I am appealing to 1) the morality outlined within the Bible, and 2) the morality outlined in the Catholic Church itself.

Rebuttal #1:

You said:

"The child abuse is *not* part of either the dogmatic constitution or the catechism, but is the action of errant priests.Catholics around the world see this as wrong and this is in direct violation of the catholic church's stand on homosexuality and sexual relationships.This weak argument inspite of my clear definition of catholicism and clear warnings that such statements would be considered as an attempt to sidetrack the debate is unfortunate."

If my opponent will look closely at my remarks, I never once asserted that the Catholic Church supports child abuse as a dogma. It is rather my contention that the enforcement of Celibacy for members of the Roman Catholic Priesthood is 1) unbiblical and 2) immoral due to the fact that it goes against the clear biblical teachings of the Apostles and also constrains men not properly equipped to live Celibate lives and thus propounds the rampant abuse.

Rebuttal #2:

It appears my opponent is claiming that there have only been 40 Catholic Priests that have ever been caught, and that this notion refutes the rampancy I am proposing. According to the John Jay report in 2004, there have been 10,667 reported victims in the USA since 1950. Of the allegations, 4,392 Priests had allegations lodged against them and 1,872 were actually substantiated.[1] This of course does not even take into account the number of unreported cases there are likely only 30% of sexual abuses cases that end up being reported.[2]

Where Pro gets the idea that only 40 priests have ever been caught is unknown as he cites no sources to document this, but my statistics sufficiently should refute the notion that child abuse isn't rampant in the Catholic Church.

Rebuttal #3:

You said:

"This is more in accordance with the criteria set.Con himself agrees that celibacy is not an absolute necessity for priesthood in Catholicism, but is only a 'disciplinary' decision that is binding on members following the *Western* Catholic rites.In general, the Eastern Catholic Churches allow ordination of married men as priests."

The Code of Canon Law states the following:

Can. 277 §1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.[3]

The Canon Law is in basic terms the legal system of the Catholic Church, and therefore legally binding on all of it's structures. According to Canon 277, Priests (Clerics) are legally bound to observe celibacy, and therefore according to the law of the Roman Catholic Church it must be understood that one must within the Western Tradition (the one that adheres to this particular Canon Law) be celibate. Exceptions to this rule such as Eastern Catholic Churches or Converted Protestant Ministers misses the general point I am making which is that within the Western Catholic Tradition (the one we are surrounded by) one MUST be celibate in order to become a priest.

Rebuttal #4:

In this rebuttal I will attempting to refute your Scriptural support for Priestly Celibacy.

You said:

""All men take not this word:there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs, for the kingdom of heaven"-Matthew 19:12 is mentioned by con.
this Statement is made by Jesus Chist himself(a higher authority than St.Paul by virtue of being the Son of GOD and one with the LORD) and shows explicitly that celibacy is preferred over married life."

This statement of yours seems to imply a few things 1) by pointing out that Jesus is a higher authority than Paul is, you seem to imply that they are somehow in a disagreement, 2) you also seem to imply that Jesus' statement here demonstrates a preference on his part for celibacy. These implications are most troubling.

You said:

"St.Paul clearly states that marriage is prefered over celibacy and allows marriage only in exeptional cases where the priest was already married or as an indulgence."

Paul clearly gives his OPINION on the matter, stating that, "I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy."[4] He gives his reasoning for why Christians in the Corinthian Church(no indication is made towards some kind of clerical organization here) should remain unmarried and dedicated to the Lord as he is, versus getting married.

There is no mention of "exceptional cases," but rather those who desire to marry and burn with passion should get married (which is just about everyone) and does not in any way exclude those who might serve as the leadership of the Church.[5] Your attempt to paint a picture that Paul opposed marriage, draws an inaccurate picture of Paul's theolgy as he often speaks of it as a qualification for elders as well as a picture of Christ's sacrificial love for the Church.[6]

The most notable objection of yours is that of Titus 1:6, in which you state:

"These orders were given to allow already married men the chance to become priests, and mainly to prohibit polygamous and immoral members from entering the church, or holding positions of authority, as is evident from the next verse"

Notice, how my opponent infers Paul's own reasoning on this regard presupposing that it was the early Church's initial stance to only have celibates be priests... or that there was an organized priesthood at all. Peter's beliefs were that of a priesthood of believers, rather than an organizational element within the Church like that of the RCC.[7]

Here are a few examples of Paul's qualifications on the matter as well as evidence against my opponent's contention:
1. the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. Titus 1:6
- Note Paul presupposes here that Elder must be "the husband of one wife." This doesn't seem like an allowance of married men to become priests (which is something the western tradition forbids remember..), but a qualification that the Elder must be married.
2. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife.. 1 Timothy 3:2
- Again Paul says that they must 1) be above reproach and 2) be the husband of one wife. It must be noted that NO WHERE does Paul say that the leaders of the Church must or should be Celibate, instead he says they must be married to one women and manage their children well.
3. "And he arose and left the synagogue and entered Simon’s house. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was ill with a high fever, and they appealed to him on her behalf." Luke 4:38 "Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"
- From these two verses we learn that Peter (Simon, Cephas as he is often named) your supposed first Pope (who would have been forbidden to be married) was actually married. As he 1) had a mother-in-law, and 2) had a believing wife that he took along with him. As well as did other apostels and brothers of Jesus.

In my last post (due to time) I will outline my argument on how forced Celibacy can be dangerous from a scientific perspective.

Kind Regards,
TrueScotsman

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.oneinfourusa.org...
[3] http://www.vatican.va...
[4] 1 Corinthians 7:25(ESV)
[5] 1 Corinthains 7:9, 36
[6] Ephesians 5:25-33
[7] 1 Peter 2:9



Debate Round No. 3
CynicalDiogenes

Pro

Hi,
I thank my opponent for this engaging and enlightening debate and appreciate the logical arguments he has made throughout.Nevertheless I hope I can adequately address all of the issues he raised in this round.

Your argument can be summmed up with the words:
' the enforcement of Celibacy for members of the Roman Catholic Priesthood is 1) unbiblical and 2) immoral due to the fact that it goes against the clear biblical teachings of the Apostles and also constrains men not properly equipped to live Celibate lives and thus propounds the rampant abuse.'

Firstly,I need to address the myth that the media has promoted about *rampant* abuse in the church.
Con says:"According to the John Jay report in 2004, there have been 10,667 reported victims in the USA since 1950. Of the allegations, 4,392 Priests had allegations lodged against them and 1,872 were actually substantiated.This of course does not even take into account the number of unreported cases there are likely only 30% of sexual abuses cases that end up being reported." and uses this data to substantiate his claim that child abuse is something rampant in Catholicism."

However,when one reads the data carefully, 3 things become evident:
1.Only about 42% of the claims were actually substantiated, thus a large number of the reports could have been false.
2.Even if all 4,392 priests were guilty, there are over 410,000 ordained priests in the RCC.Thus only about 1% of priests have even been accused in the 1st place.To call an organisation as a whole immoral because 1% of its members did something that the organisation itself does not promote is just plain unfair.
3.There are over 78.2 million catholics in the US alone. The 10,667 reported victims form only about 0.001%.In contrast, rape prevalence among women in the U.S. (the percentage of women who experienced rape at least once in their lifetime so far) is in the range of 15%–20%.

How can Con claim that there is *rampant* abuse, when only about 1% of the clergy have been accused,and less than .001% of the church were victimised.
Please note that I am *not* saying that this is all right, nor am I defending the actions of the priests.What the priests did was wrong and they deserve the severest of punishments.I am also *not* saying that 10,667 is a small number that can be ignored. I am merely demonstrating,using data that can himself has provided that this abuse is not as rampant as Con is making it appear.

Now that it has been cleared up, I will address the other points raised by Con.

1.Con asserts that the church is unbiblical in enforcing celibacy on its priesthood.This would be true if the church upheld that celibacy was *absolutely* necessary to become a priest and upheld it as a teaching from Christ.However, this is not the case, as Con himself agrees that the enforcement of celibacy was a *disciplinary* decision of the Western Catholic Church alone.The fact that there are exeptions to this rule, such as the existance of eastern catholic rites that allow marriage for priests and the fact that converted priests who were already married can still have priesthood in the RCC is relevant.

The biblical verses I gave showed how this disciplinary decision is actually following the teachings of Christ and the early christians in *spirit* as they all felt that celibacy was beneficial for spiritual progress.The fact that Christ,St.Paul and most of the apostles were unmarried further validates the Church's claim that celibacy is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.

The fact that St.Peter the 1st Pope was married is irrelevant as this disciplinary decision was taken much later, so members of the early church were not bound to it.Furthermore, the church can reverse this decision at anytime as it is not a part of Dogma.

2.Con also seems to claim that priesthood is compulsory in the Church when he says it "constrains men not properly equipped to live Celibate lives ".This is not true, as one can simply become a member of the eastern Catholic churches if one wishes to marry and become a priest.Priesthood in the western rites is also not compulsory, so if men were really burning with desire for sex, and choose sex over service to God, one can simply leave the Clergy, and become a Lay member who can continue to be an active member of the church through organisations like Opus Dei.Priesthood is a special call from God, and is not a mere profession.One does not need to be a priest to achieve salvation, not does becoming aa priest ensure better chances.

3.There are many countries following different religions where the members of the priesthood are required to be celibate, but have no problems of child abuse.If there is a truly 'scientific' reason for enforced celibacy to make men abuse children, Con must also explain why this abuse is not prevalent in other countries like Buddhist Thailand,Tibet,Cambodia and Vietnam where buddhists monks are required to be celibate by religious Law, unlike in the RCC.

4.Con has not refuted the Church's authority to make this decision, nor has he given any counter arguments to undermine my claim that the RCC is the only true church to be the final authority on the correct interpretation of the Bible.

In conclusion, all the claims of Con stand refuted by things that Con himself agrees to:
1.The claim for *rampant* abuse is refuted when one sees the data(that Con himself has provided) from the perspective of the Church as a whole.
2.the claim that it is Unbiblical is refuted when one sees that the church is not imposing celibacy on all its clergy and holding it as a prerequisite for priestshood, but merely imposing a *disciplinary* decision that is in accordance with many of the verses in the bible and in the footsteps of Jesus and the earlly Apostles.
3.The claim that enforced celibacy(which is actually optional in the RCC) somehow causes men to abuse children is yet to be substantiated by Con, but i am curious to know why it has not happened in the case of not just Buddhism in the East, but also with various other religions.

Thus one can conclude that the Dogma of the Catholic Church,is morally sound, and inspired by and in accordance with the teachings of the Bible.I strongly urge readers to vote for Pro.
I thank Con once again for the debate and wish him best of Luck!
TrueScotsman

Con

Hello,

I think Pro for what has been an enjoyable and interesting debate, I certainly have my hands full on this last post!

Rebuttal #1:

I am sorry, but I do have to correct you on this one as it is clearly misrepresentative of the data. My data was derived from the USA ONLY, therefore appealing to the number of priests in the world compared to the number of alleged abuse cases is a fallacious argument. There are actually 41, 406 priests in America today, and therefore 4,392 makes up 10.6%. If around 10% of your priests have had alleged abuses lodged against them.. this is surely a rampant behavior. This is data collected by the Catholic Church in the John Jay Report.[1]

Rebuttal #2:

Celibacy is absolutely necessary in the Western Tradition, which is the one by which the Pope and the majority of the Church operate under. While the Eastern Catholic Church is in full communion with the Western Tradition, it has it's own self-governance and Code of Canons separate from Catholic Canon Law. To say that ministers who wish to marry should just become Eastern Catholics would be ridiculous as they would likely have to move to a foreign country (not very many parishes in the USA), and this also ignores the differences in theoloigcal emphases.

Celibacy is the Law for someone in America (the country we live in) who wishes to become a priest, and they are bound by Canon Law to adhere to this. I recognize that becoming a Priest is not compulsory, and this inference is on your part alone. However, I know many friends who had a deep desire to serve God in a complete dedication of their lives thus becoming a Priest... yet also knew from a personal standpoint that they clearly had attractions to women. They would contrary to the clear commanding of Paul have to go without marrying and having children in order to serve God in this fashion.

Rebuttal #3:

My opponent now argues that other religions of the eastern variety do not have problems with sexual abuse, and this somehow refutes my argument that Celibacy can lead to sexual abuse. He did not however offer any sources to validate this claim in any way shape or form. This is surely not the case, as from a simple search I was able to obtain ample evidence of Monks sexually abusing children.[2][3][4]

Instead of supporting my opponent's argument, the facts end up supporting the idea that religious leaders who are forced to be celibate can and often do engage in sexually abusing children (usually boys).

Final Argument the Science of Sexual Desire:

Sexual arousal is not a fully conscious act, it involves the often involuntary production of the "sex hormones" (testosterone, estrogen, progesterone, oxytocin and vasopressin). These hormones, such as testosterone in men, help regulate and control sexual motivation. Catholic Priests are no different, and not only that but men's sexual drives are stronger than women. This article details findings from some recent studies on the matter:

"Data on spontaneous sexual arousal and desire reveal one way in which men seem to have a higher sesx drive. Beck, Bozman and Qualtrough (1991) found that men report more frequent sexual desire than women. Nearly all the men (91%) but only half the women (52%) experienced sexual desire several times a week or more. Their study also helped rule out the alternative explanation that women find it more difficult than men to recognize sexual desire, because men and women endorsed essentially the same indicators of desire."[5]

This would support the observation that male priest are more likely to engage in sexually abusigng children than nuns. Which also indicates that among men, it would be more difficult for them to remain celibate especially when testosterone the primary sex hormone can also lead to increased aggression, which can lead to the male forcing other such as small boys into performing sexual acts.[6]

This of course is continued to be built on my argument that still has not been addressed from my last post, where I demonstrated that a leader/elder/overseer in the Church MUST be married and MUST have children in order to meet the qualifications.

Kind Regards,
TrueScotsman

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[3] http://www.globalpost.com...
[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[5] http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu...
[6] http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheOncomingStorm 3 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
CynicalDiogenesTrueScotsmanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument on celibacy stood through the end with more evidence to back it up than the pro had against it. Seeing as con only needs one thing to find immoral with a system to prove it is not absolutely flawless, he won the debate. It was a good debate, however, from both sides.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
CynicalDiogenesTrueScotsmanTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con spent a lot of time arguing why the actions of members of the Church aren't moral or in line with the Bible's teachings, but spent less time attacking actual Catholic dogma. I'd say the only point Con actually won was the statistics on child abuse, but again, this was off-topic. Pro did a great job explaining the history of celibacy in the Church.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
CynicalDiogenesTrueScotsmanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: It seemed to me that Conduct and S&G were equal enough. Con is the only one who really used sources, and they were reliable. As to arguments: I was surprised at the narrow nature this debate took. However, Con demonstrated that at least SOME facets are not entirely biblically correct, Pro's argument regarding Eastern Catholicism notwithstanding--that alone makes the resolution fail. I also found his point that this rule, which Con asserted encouraged molestation, is not morally sound, to be compelling--and Pro spent far too long quibbling about how much molestation is allowed before it can be called "rampant" to address the point directly. Arguments to Con.