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

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. Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter. 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. 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. http://en.wikipedia.org...