The Instigator
FBJames
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
Geekis_Khan
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

Female priests.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,889 times Debate No: 3663
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (21)

 

FBJames

Pro

The topic of this debate refers to the Roman Catholic faith. I don't know enough about any other religion to debate about it. If my opponent wishes to debate outside of the Roman Catholic faith, please do so elsewhere. Also, "clergy" in this debate will refer to priests, not nuns.

My position in this debate is to recognize the male-only clergy rule as sexist and outdated. I was taught that priests have to be men because Jesus' apostles were all men. Even if that were true (there is some speculation that Mary Magdalene was an apostle afterall), what do the gender roles of 2,000 years ago have to do with the gender roles of today? In this day and age we try to limit sexism and sex barriers as much as possible. Why should the roles in a religious institution be any different?

Tradition is not a good enough excuse for women to be ineligible to be ordained. Afterall there are women priests in other Christian denominations so why not Catholocism? Also when I was a kid there were only altar BOYS. Now there are altar boys AND girls. This is probably due to the lack of interest in becoming an altar boy- they had to get young girls to help fill this role. But similarly we are experiencing a shortage of priests. More and more we are looking to other countries and conversion practices in an attempt to bring priests overseas here to the U.S. Why not just allow women to become priests instead?

Priests and nuns live a very similar lifestyle. To discriminate against nuns because of their sex by not giving them the same rights and priviliges such as performing a mass or hearing confession is wrong. It goes against the CRA too. I want my opponent to prove to me that ordaining female priests as part of the Catholic faith is wrong. Tell me why it is taboo and still being enforced today. If you fail to convince me and the people on this site that only men should be allowed to become Catholic priests, I win.
Geekis_Khan

Con

Thank you for starting this debate. This should be an interesting one. I love doing theological debates.

First off, let me say that I am an Atheist, but one of my friends is a devout Catholic. He is quite intelligent, and we have debates all the time (real, in-depth debates), so I do know enough about the Catholic faith to be able to debate, at the very least, this topic.

Also, since I am an Atheist supporting a standard in Catholicism, I'd like to remind everyone to vote for who they thought had better argumentation, not just what they agree with.

With that in mind, let's begin.

For this debate, and I assume my opponent will agree, we are dealing strictly with Catholic theology. So, if I can show why, according to Catholic theology, women shouldn't be priests, I should win. This debate shouldn't be judged on any standards other than Catholic theology. If my opponent can prove how this theology is unjustified or contradicts itself, he should win. Otherwise, you should default CON.

Something that you have to accept for this argument is that Christianity and the Bible view homosexuality as wrong. I'll return to that idea later, but this is something that you really can't debate. I can't refer to the verses off the top of my head, but, if it becomes a question, I'll look them up and prove that Christianity does not endorse homosexuality. This isn't saying that homosexuality is wrong, just that Catholicism views it as wrong.

Now, what are nuns technically supposed to be? Brides of Christ, no?They are, in theory, married to Jesus. This is why they are unable to marry another person, and the reason for celibacy of nuns. It isn't because it is unclean in and of itself to be non-celibate. It is because it would be, technically, adultery.

Moving on to priests. The reason why women can't be priests is because priests are married to the church, and the church is viewed as a female (hence the phrase "Mother Church"). This is also the reason for clerical celibacy.

Now, since priests are married to the church, and since the church is female, then allowing women to become priests would be endorsing homosexuality, which is decidedly not only un-Catholic, but un-Christian. It's not a matter of sexism, it's a matter of viewing homosexuality as sinful.
Debate Round No. 1
FBJames

Pro

If what my opponent is saying were true, then his argument would make perfect sense. However the church is not a "female" neither in the literal sense or figurative sense and Con cannot prove it to be so. The evidence he offered in reference to the church being female was the term Mother Church, but in terms of the church's "sex" that is irrelevant.

In fact the term Mother Church is used to describe the first church of a particular city or region. This doesn't suggest that the church is "female" but rather it was the first and that's just the title given for a little play on words so to speak (suggesting it spawned other churches maybe? lol). It isn't an anatomical reference or even a figurative one. This is very similar to the term "Father Winter." People understand that the term is just a play on words, not even figurative- winter is not a male and nobody considers it as such.

The Mother Church can also mean the church of most importance in a particular region, or the "highest" church in the region in the sense that other churches assemble there for important gatherings and what have you. Also, I acknowledge that Catholics consider the church to be the "Bride of Christ" and therefore one would assume that the church is female. However this does not make sense, as Catholic theology suggests that Christ is not only a man but God incarnate. That means Jesus/God can love anyone regardless of their gender and so can the Church, figuratively speaking.

Check this out- "Most Christian theologians teach that the term bride of Christ is a metaphor for the Church, particularly in that Jesus as God is not a man, God is far beyond our limited understanding, and any relationship between humans and God can only be hinted at and poorly described using any Earthly terms." So the earthly terms of bride or mother do not apply and therefore my opponent is incorrect. There is no "homophobia" in this instance but rather sexism. My argument rests on the fact that Catholics are simply sticking with tradition on this one and that's understandable but not right.

Anyway my points completely negate my opponent's argument and therefore he has given no good reason why female priests should not exist in Catholocism today. Also he has not touched upon my points that there are female altar servers where there weren't before and that other Christian denominations who also believe and worship Christ have female priests. Also I would like my opponent to possibly touch upon why Priests should be considered higher than nuns as explained in my Round 1, thanks.
Geekis_Khan

Con

First off, it is irrelevant as to why nuns are considered lower than priests. This has nothing to do with whether there should be female priests or not. If you want to argue that priests and nuns should be equal, that is a completely different debate. (Although I would imagine it would have something to do with Genesis.)

From the first half of the debate, what this should come down to is whether the church is "female". No obviously, I cannot prove that it is literally female, so we're going ot be fopcusing on the figurative sense.

First of all, the "Mother Church" rebuttal that my opponent gave is flawed. He said that it only refers to the first chrch in a region. Technically true (although it can apply to other churches), his argument here is flawed for two main reasons:

1.) Something cannot be a mother without being female.

2.) The churches that come after the mother church are called what? Daughter churchs. Something cannot be a daughter without being female.

Briefly, yes, Jesus is beyond being a "man". Hoever, he is still "male". He is beyond being a man becaue he is a deity. And yes, he is capable of loving anyone, any gender. So? I can love anyone, any gender. This doesn't make me not a male. The difference is whom the marriage is between.

Further evidence:

2 Corinthians 11:2
"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

"The Church bears children, the Bride of Christ; and if she bears them, she travails of them." --Summa Theologica

The priests become one with the body of Christ; to marry the church the bride of Christ, at the end of time. That means that there's only one person married to Ecclesia.

My opponent is telling you that it's possible to be a mother, a daughter, and a bride, without being a female. Futhermore, the baptismal is often referred to as what? The womb. One cannot have a womb without being female.

(Example: "Their mother's womb is the water of baptism." http://www.newadvent.org...)

The church is a female. The main point I want you to focus on in this debate is the marriage between the church and the priests. Now, what do we refer to priests as? Father. The priests is the father, the church is the mother. The congregation is the children. They perform the same role that parents are supposed to play in Catholicism. Of course the church isn't a literal woman, but the fact that it is the bride in this relationship is enough to prove my side. If we were to let females be priests, then they would also be brides, and would be married to another bride. This goes against basic Cahtolic theology. You should vote CON in this debate.

But even if you don't want to accept all of that, it doesn't amtter, you should still vote CON. Why? Well, let's look at this theologically once again. God is infallible. The Bible is the word of God (and Catholics view it as such). God is infinite. Therefore, God's justice is infinite. So, if God says that women shouldn't be priests, then it doesn't amtter whether it was today or two thousand years ago. Women shouldn't be priests from a theological standpoint because God says it's wrong and God is infallible.

Does it seem sexist? Sure. Again, it's not because the reasoning behind it isn't sexism, but even if it is sexist, it doesn't matter. I have given you two sufficient theological reasons for you to vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
FBJames

Pro

My opponent has 2 arguments.

1. He attempted to further explain why the church is female
2. He offered the explanation that God's word is why female priests can't exist

First, CON offered the explanation of the Church being the Mother while the priest is the Father and congregation = the children. That sounds nice and all, but he missed the entire point of my Round 2 rebuttal- The special relationship between the Church/church-goers, priest/Church, priest/congression, etc, cannot be put into words. Rather the words act as symbols to help explain the RELATIONSHIP, not set definitive parameters of who can and cannot hold certain positions.

I mean that's like saying Catholic men can not have particular relationships (for lack of a better term) with winter or time because of the terms Father Winter and Father Time. Now, you're probably thinking "A RELATIONSHIP with winter? Huh?" Yeah, exactly. It doesn't seem to make sense because winter is not something that has anything to do with gender and neither is the word church.

The Church has 2 definitions: the actual building and the group of people that make up congregation. Well we've already established that the congregation = the children so how can the child be the Mother as well? And the other definition of the Church being the actual building in which services are held doesn't apply either... a priest/male cannot marry a building regardless of its gender (assuming it had one).

As you can see, this makes no sense at all. And the point is that the terms "Father" and "Mother" are simply supposed to facilitate one's understanding of the relationship between, say, a priest and his "children." A priest serves as a source of guidance and teaches about right and wrong. That is what a father is supposed to do, so it makes sense that they call a priest Father. But that is what a mother is supposed to do also, so a female priest could just as easily be called Mother. I argue that the Priest isn't "father" as CON wrongfully suggests because the Church is "mother" ... instead, a priest is father because of the role he plays in the church (leader/teacher) and he is a LIVING MALE so obviously we won't call him a female term such as Mother. So again, the terms of father/mother/daughter/children simply help describe relationships (like similies and metaphors)- that has nothing to do with whether or not a woman should be able to become a priest.

Like I said, a male priest can be Father, and a female priest can be Mother. The term "Mother Church" can still exist just fine even if there were female priests who were also called Mothers. I don't think the Catholic World would stop turning if they had to share the term. Afterall, God is called Father and so are priests. [GASP!] Similarly, nobody suggests that God is a male (Jesus was born a man but God is sexless)- it just happens to be the term that people associate "Him" with.

How about this other example- the U.S. is called the "mother land" but if a President says he's married to his work, married to his country, that does not make it "homosexual." Give me a break.

Anyway, in conclusion of this point, CON writes, "My opponent is telling you that it's possible to be a mother, a daughter, and a bride, without being a female. Futhermore, the baptismal is often referred to as what? The womb. One cannot have a womb without being female." ... CON is a liar. I am not saying that you can be a mother/daughter/bride and not be female. I'm saying that the Church is not female. The Church is sexless. Both the building is sexless, and the congregation that makes up the Church and attends is sexless- it is a GROUP (made up of SOME females, and SOME males). Also, a baptismal is NOT a womb nor is it inside of a female. It is probably made of marble and it is not living. ALL OF THESE TERMS ARE ****SYMBOLIC**** AND THUS SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH STOPPING PEOPLE FROM ACHIEVING CERTAIN POSITIONS IN THE HIERARCHY OF THE CHURCH.

So the other argument my opponent offered was that women can't be priests because "God said so." Well, PROVE IT. Where did God say that women could not be priests? The Bible? No. There are no scriptures in the Bible that suggest women cannot be ordained. Even if there were, God did not write the Bible. Men did (figures). So although they were "inspired" through God's Holy Spirit to pen the Good Book, the Bible is not to be taken literally in every instance according to the Catholic Catechism. This is probably because of all the inconsistencies and flat out mistakes it includes, such as the assertion that the world is flat and immovable, the moon emits its own light, etc. So the point is that the Bible is not to be taken literally, and even if it said women shouldn't be priests (WHICH IT DOESN'T), remember that this is the same Bible that also says wearing two differnt fibers (such as a polyester-cotton blend) at the same time is a sin, and that hugging a girl on her period makes you unclean, and you should not be touched for at least 30 days. So, clearly society (including Catholics) do not receive or practice the Bible literally in every concept.

The reason people assume women should not be priests is because Jesus chose 12 men for his apostles. This is bad reasoning. First of all there is no way to prove that his 12 apostles were men. There is a STRONG belief (documented) that Mary Magdalene was one of Jesus' favorite apostles (and wife). CON cannot disprove this any more than I can prove that she was. His only "proof" is the Bible and we've already established that not only is the Bible not a good factual source because it contains many mistakes, but also that Catholics do not always follow the Bible exactly as it is written (consider the examples I have given + many others...).

Plus, even if all of Jesus' disciples were men, consider the fact that he lived 2,000 years ago and gender roles in society were much different than they are today. During that time, it would have been very difficult for a public figure such as Christ to sustain a close relationship with a female that he was not married to. If Christ were to come back and have (new) disciples, it is possible and even probable that women would be included.

To conclude my portion of the debate, I will re-cap my arguments thus far. I would like to point out that the Church is not only a religious entity but a poltical one as well. No one can deny the blatant linkage to religion and politics, ESPECIALLY in the past. The Church's power and influence was insurmountable in earlier eras. At that time, men presided over the world even more than they do today. The idea of having a women hold such a high position (clergymen were elite) was unfathomable. It makes sense that women did not have that opportunity during that time. However, we have evolved as a species and today women are considered of equal value to men, not only in society, but in the Church as well.

The fact remains that Catholocism wishes to uphold tradition, and that is the single reason why women are not allowed to become priests. Why were, traditionally, male-only priests? For political and societal reasons that do not exist today. Further, my opponent still has not recognized things brought up in Round 1- the tradition of alter servers now including women as of recent years, and the shortage of priests. I will agree that nuns don't have to be further discussed, however, I would like to point out thatin terms of the political hierarchy I have mentioned, men are above women- priests are called "father" and nuns "sister."

This is the final round and my opponent cannot offer any new arguments according to the rules of debate. His 2 reasonings supporting his position have been dismantled by me in this round and therefore CON has not successfully opposed the resolution. Therefore, you should undoubtedly Vote PRO.
Geekis_Khan

Con

"First, CON offered the explanation of the Church being the Mother while the priest is the Father and congregation = the children. That sounds nice and all, but he missed the entire point of my Round 2 rebuttal- The special relationship between the Church/church-goers, priest/Church, priest/congression, etc, cannot be put into words. Rather the words act as symbols to help explain the RELATIONSHIP, not set definitive parameters of who can and cannot hold certain positions. "

But it's not symbolic. There is a relationship. This relationship is a marriage. Once again, this is (at least part of) the reason for clerical celibacy. The words don't act as symbols to describe a relationship. The relationship is, very much, a marriage. I also gave you biblical proof in support of this, my opponent has given you none.

"I mean that's like saying Catholic men can not have particular relationships (for lack of a better term) with winter or time because of the terms Father Winter and Father Time. Now, you're probably thinking "A RELATIONSHIP with winter? Huh?" Yeah, exactly. It doesn't seem to make sense because winter is not something that has anything to do with gender and neither is the word church."

No, there's a difference. Why? Because with the priest/church relationship, it IS a marriage. Not the case with any possible marriage to Father Time or Father Winter.

"The Church has 2 definitions: the actual building and the group of people that make up congregation. Well we've already established that the congregation = the children so how can the child be the Mother as well? And the other definition of the Church being the actual building in which services are held doesn't apply either... a priest/male cannot marry a building regardless of its gender (assuming it had one)."

Now you're just getting hung up on semantics. Don't look to dictionary.com for Catholic theology. Once again, speaking theologically (and I remind you, Catholic theology is the only criterion we should be judging the debate by; a burden my opponent never refuted), the church is more than a building and more than the congregation. It is the Bride of Christ. It is the bride of the priests. If you were to allow females to be priests, it would become both a bride and a groom. This is the contradiction that my opponent doesn't seem to get.

"As you can see, this makes no sense at all. And the point is that the terms "Father" and "Mother" are simply supposed to facilitate one's understanding of the relationship between, say, a priest and his "children." A priest serves as a source of guidance and teaches about right and wrong. That is what a father is supposed to do, so it makes sense that they call a priest Father. But that is what a mother is supposed to do also, so a female priest could just as easily be called Mother. I argue that the Priest isn't "father" as CON wrongfully suggests because the Church is "mother" ... instead, a priest is father because of the role he plays in the church (leader/teacher) and he is a LIVING MALE so obviously we won't call him a female term such as Mother. So again, the terms of father/mother/daughter/children simply help describe relationships (like similies and metaphors)- that has nothing to do with whether or not a woman should be able to become a priest."

I've already refuted this many times throughout the debate, but I'll try to make it clear one last time. Even if you ant to accept that the terms "Mother" and "Father" are purely symbolic here, the term "bride" isn't. It IS an actual marriage. Ask any priest. Ask any theologian.

My opponent continues:

"Anyway, in conclusion of this point, CON writes, "My opponent is telling you that it's possible to be a mother, a daughter, and a bride, without being a female. Futhermore, the baptismal is often referred to as what? The womb. One cannot have a womb without being female." ... CON is a liar."

First of all, don't attack me by calling me a liar. You asked for the reasoning. I gave it to you. You can't seem to accept it. I am deeply offended. Don't call me a liar. Every claim was either common knowledge or sourced. You're just saying that's it's symbolic with no actual proof.

Second of all, I've already refuted all of this. you're just reiterating yourself. Once again, the marriage is not symbolic. The term "Bride of Christ" is DEFINITELY NOT SYMBOLIC. The church is more than a building and more than the congregation. It is an entity. It is the BRIDE OF CHRIST. It's not symbolic. In fact, it's in the Bible. I gave you the verse. It definitely wasn't symbolic in that verse, yet you continue to claim it is symbolic. You gave no refutation of this verse, so I should win just base on biblical support.

"So the other argument my opponent offered was that women can't be priests because "God said so." Well, PROVE IT. Where did God say that women could not be priests? The Bible? No. There are no scriptures in the Bible that suggest women cannot be ordained. Even if there were, God did not write the Bible. Men did (figures). So although they were "inspired" through God's Holy Spirit to pen the Good Book, the Bible is not to be taken literally in every instance according to the Catholic Catechism. This is probably because of all the inconsistencies and flat out mistakes it includes, such as the assertion that the world is flat and immovable, the moon emits its own light, etc. So the point is that the Bible is not to be taken literally, and even if it said women shouldn't be priests (WHICH IT DOESN'T), remember that this is the same Bible that also says wearing two different fibers (such as a polyester-cotton blend) at the same time is a sin, and that hugging a girl on her period makes you unclean, and you should not be touched for at least 30 days. So, clearly society (including Catholics) do not receive or practice the Bible literally in every concept.""

Okay, first of all, it doesn't matter if the Bible says if wearing two different fibers at the same time is a sin. Technically and theologically, it's still a sin. And we're judging this debate BASED ON THEOLOGY. Not what is more convenient for modern society. And even if the Bible doesn't say priests can't be female, Jesus said ti, didn't he? He's certainly infallible, by Catholic standards.

And wait... Isn't the pope infallible on doctinal issues? So, since th pope says that women can't be priests, then BY CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, thy shouldn't. If the pope were to decalre thet they should be priests now, not only would he be going against all of the theological support which ISN'T SYMBOLIC, he would also be going against every other pope that is supposed to be infallible, which he isn't allowed to do. He makes some sort of agreement before hand not to go against past popes. So, it's already the right decsion since th pope is infallible, and furthermore the pope CAN'T go against it.

I'm not going to go through all of your rehashing of old stuf. I've already refuted all of it.

So, at the end of the debate we can see:

1.) The church is a bride (not symbolically). Therefore, it cannot also be a groom. My opponent keeps saying that it's symbolic, but never gave you any theological support, whereas I did. If you don't believe me, go ask a priest. My opponent makes the claim that the reason is traditon and apostles, but he gives no support for this. I've backed my arguments theologically.
2.) The decision to make it so priests can't be women was made by an infallible pope. So it's automatically right, according to Catholic theology.
3.) The current pope cannot disagree with past popes, so making priests female is impossible, anyway.

Since we're judging this round on THEOLOGY, you must vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 8 years ago
Geekis_Khan
Are you accusing me of something?

I don't even care, dude.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Oh NOSE!

Somebodyyy must've got upset and voted against me in all of my debates to make my win ratio go down by 5%!!!

I can... not... go... on...

:'(

*dies*
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Geek,

This is a repetitive argument. The bottom line is that you're winning this debate because a lot of people on this site are Catholic/Christian. Good for you.
Posted by Evan_MacIan 8 years ago
Evan_MacIan
The Pro did not prove that not having priests was outdated. He did not prove that men and women have exactly the same roles.

Actually, the Pro didn't really prove anything. He just said the arguement of the Con was invalid, which a fairly basic understanding of Catholic theology would refute. The relationship between Christ and the Church as seen as a marriage relationship with clearly defined roles is explored extensively Ephesians 5. It's all well and good for a non-Catholic to say Tradition and the teaching of the Apostles count for nothing, but this is a debate about CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. We follow tradition. Just because a person might disagree with that does not mean he can ignore it when judging a debate about Catholic theology.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 8 years ago
Geekis_Khan
No. At not point did he claim that those beliefs were unfair. at no point did he claim that those points were outdated.

he simply said it was all symbolic and disregarded the entire theology. He didn't not recognize it as an actual part of the belief. Had he, then it would have been a different debate entirely, and I still would have been able to prove my point. Since it wasn't that.

But he didn't recognize my argument as an actual belief. In fact, he kept saying that the only reason is tradition. This is untrue. had he wanted to argue why the belief in question is wrong or right, I would have debated that. But that wasn't what he was debating.

And your wrong on the interpretation of the argument,a s well, because it's not about sex, it's about marriage. Marriage, in catholicism at least, is a sort of spiritual bond that can only exist between certain people. Two people of the same gender can't have this bond.

Furthermore, even if you want to accept what he was arguing is whether it was fair or not, i should still win, because the affect of changing that belief discredits a lot of Catholicism. Sorry, but the Catholic Church doesn't cahnge for a reason.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Geekis,

"And why should I support by any other means of thinking than Catholic theology?"

Like I have been saying, Pro's point in starting this debate (as you can see from Round 1) was for the contender who accepted the position of Con to argue WHY THE CURRENT CATHOLIC POSITION IS FAIR. To say "because the Pope said so and he's infallible" has been argued by your opponent. So has that same claim regarding Jesus. Your Catholic friend isn't an expert nor a scholar. In fact, his intrinsic response to your question proves Pro's point that the "Catholic beliefs" are rooted in tradition and not what's just or fair. You can cite whatever Pope decision you want. You were supposed to be arguing why that decision was the right one. Your argument about brides and mothers and marriage was refuted by your opponent in terms that they are symbolic... unless your "Catholic friend" really believes that a church is a female. In any event, your whole basis of the homosexuality argument is STILL wrong. The Bible mentions that a man going to bed with another man is a sin. The Bible doesn't make note of non-sexual acts between people of the same gender. Thus even if the church WAS a female, a priest wouldn't be having sex with it and therefore your whole argument is null and void. You can tell that to your Catholic friend.
Posted by arvash 8 years ago
arvash
Oh, and the last remaining fact is that this must be debated from the theological standpoint, simply because this is discussing the Catholic priesthood. Pro could only have won, if he could have proved that Women priests are not contrary to the Catholic faith.

Woman altar servers are actually often considered a current "liturgical abuse"; and even if they were considered "OK" have nothing to do with the priesthood; apart from the fact that they stand next to one.

The statement that CON is a liar, was an unneeded attack, the "Church" isn't the building, it's much deeper than that. Secondly all his citations were legit, Summa Theologica is imprimatur, and is used by Catholics as a debate resource amongst other Catholics.
Posted by arvash 8 years ago
arvash
The other reason I voted Con is that the church cannot change its opinion, but in fact can only clarify what has already been stated. Thus your outdated principle is against the catholic faith. Nothing can be outdated, and the Catholics rely on the precedence of tradition.

The Church is a woman, and she is also infallible. As Con suggests, the fact that Christ; and the First person of the holy trinity are one deity does not invalidate that God is male. In fact it has recently been infallibly stated that to baptize in such a way that does not say that God is explicitly male; is an invalid baptism.

*Example, I baptize you in the name of the Redeemer, Sanctifier, and whatever* Is invalid, because it does not mention their Male identity. Proper baptism must be done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy spirit.

Con successfully proved the point that they are not symbolic, as from "infallible" sources. Secondly Pro failed to give any supporting evidence.

Independent of my decision, I vote CON.
Posted by arvash 8 years ago
arvash
"The Catechism was not written by God not enlightened evangelists. It contains Catholic rules and parameters regarding their beliefs. And WOW - you found something that explained why women can't be priests. Good for you. But just because you're citing Catholic theology doesn't make the belief you're citing right."

The Catechism of the Catholic church; defines what the Catholic church believes and professes to be the truth. It's more than just Catholic theology, it is believed to be Infallible in the area of faith and morals.

The Catholic Church has something called the Magesterium, which is believed to be directed by the holy spirit. In the areas of faith and morals, the Catechism cannot err, and we believe that it is infallible. Just as the Pope, and the Bible are.

His citation was completely good. The catechism is a valid source of information of the Catholic faith and cannot be contested.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 8 years ago
Geekis_Khan
And theLwerd, I'm not hesitant to admit any mistakes. In fact, you just agreed with me:

"A priest is called "Father" but he is NOT a father... at least he's not supposed to be. He's suposed to be celibate and unwed (except to the church). I agree that a priest "marries" the church because marriage is the term used to explain the relationship; it represents how close and intertwined the man will be with the Church, etc. But the priest is not literally married to the Church except in the eyes of the Catholic faith."

Exactly. he's married to the church in the eyes of the Catholic faith. We are only judging this round through the theology of the Catholic faith, not how everyone else views marriage. That's why CON should win this one, unless you have a better reason to vote PRO.

And why should I support by any other means of thinking than Catholic theology? And what the pope says regarding doctrinal issues is right in the eyes of Catholics. The person who winds this debate should've been basing his argument off of justification from the Catholic faith, not just equality of the sexes. My opponent himself stated, "If my opponent wishes to debate outside of the Roman Catholic faith, please do so elsewhere. " Anything about something being outdated and unnecessary is irrelevant, because this debate focused solely on if there is actual justification for it. There is. i provided it. The fact that you recognized this makes your PRO vote even more confusing. It's even more confusing since my opponent never refuted the framework that this round should be judged solely on Catholic theology. Furthermore, he never recognized that this theology is right but it's outdated. He kept saying it's wrong (when it wasn't) and calling when a liar (when I'm not), and tried to come back that way. Had he debated it the way you're implying he did, then it would have been a different debate. He simply said I'm wrong, and rambled on. He never debated why this theology is outdated.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by arc4music 6 years ago
arc4music
FBJamesGeekis_KhanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by chicarica89 6 years ago
chicarica89
FBJamesGeekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:31 
Vote Placed by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
FBJamesGeekis_KhanTied
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 
Vote Placed by masterdebaterer 8 years ago
masterdebaterer
FBJamesGeekis_KhanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
FBJamesGeekis_KhanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by numa 8 years ago
numa
FBJamesGeekis_KhanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Ramper0987 8 years ago
Ramper0987
FBJamesGeekis_KhanTied
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 
Vote Placed by ss0987 8 years ago
ss0987
FBJamesGeekis_KhanTied
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 
Vote Placed by dave23456 8 years ago
dave23456
FBJamesGeekis_KhanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Evan_MacIan 8 years ago
Evan_MacIan
FBJamesGeekis_KhanTied
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