Clerical Celibacy

TrueScotsman,Fortunately I was able to allocate some time for this debate,however i doubt if i can make sufficiently detailed arguments due to a lack of time.Debating with you has been pure fun, and i would like to have a similar debate with you after the 1st week of December when i will have more time.I am making this merely to avoid a complete forfeit and to conclude it properly.Rebuttal#1:The Catholic church believes in the Universal Priesthoood of all believers AlsoThe Church also acknowledges the exact same thing you posted.Every believer has access to God, and hence is a priest.I don't understand why this is even an issue.There is biblical evidence for a hierarchy of bishops,as you yourself have mentioned.This heirarchy was instituted not to intercede on behalf of the laity for God, but to guide the people and for administrative reasons, which you yourself admit is required.Hence,building such a heirarchy is not prohibited biblicallyPriests are the leaders of their respective parishes.It is their responsibility to lead and guide the parish.The priests are guided by Bishops, who are in-turn guided and represented by Cardinals in ecumenical councils, who in-turn are lead by the Pope, who represents Catholic interests to other secular governments and religious leaders.The church has decided this heirarchy for administrative reasons, as it has become much bigger than the early church.It is practically impossible to maintain consistent teaching for 1,1 billion people in the world without some sort of organisational heirarchy.Priests(leaders) usually come from different monastic orders to guide parishes, like the order of St.Benedict(OSB) and the order of Franciscan Missionaries(OFM.Cappuchin) .It makes sense that those who have dedicated their lives to folllowing scripure would make better leaders than those who are merely popular.It is the disciplinary decision of these orders that was later made into cannon law in the western tradition, to ensure these monks maintain perpetual continence.I have contended that there is a near-universal belief, even among non-christian traditions about the benifits of celibacy for spiritual growth.I have given ample biblical sources also to support this claim.#2 Your Interpretation of Titus 1:6 is incorrect.The church interprets it as prohibiting polygamous as well as re-married individuals from becoming leaders.This interpretation can be seen right from the earliest church fathers.The fact that the earliest leaders followed a certain tradition becomes very relevant, as they were among those who decided what constitutes the modern 'Bible'.Why would they do one thing and then choose a scripture that says something else, unless the correct interpretation allowed what they did?Doesn't the interpretation of the very men who decided what the Bible is carry more weightage over others like you and me 2000 years(and many translational errors)later?In the primitive Church, since a large number of Christians were adult converts (a typical example is Saint Augustine, who converted at the age of 30), it was common for a married man to be ordained priest and made bishop. However, the condition for married men to receive Holy Orders was for them, by common agreement with their wives, to cease having marital relations and start to live in continence.Something that the eastern traditions follow even today.Also,Even though the epistle may allow married men to become priests,it never prohibits men celibate men from becoming priests.St.Paul who is the author of the letter also shows a clear preference for celibacy and practiced it himself.Also, St.Paul appoints Timothy to succeed him as the leader of his church through 'the laying of hands'.Bishops are the true heirs of the Apostles, and most catholic Bishops have an unbroken chain from the very 1st apostles themselves.The bible is not the 'perfect' word of God himself, it is merely the work of men who were inspired by God.The authors of the bible were not perfect, and were ignorant of a lot of things.Thus it needs to be supplemented with the tradition of the very people who were with Christ himself, as well as the correct method to interpret it which is summarised as 'Dogma'To base your entire argument on the supposed interpretation of only 1 single verse is a really weak argument.ConclusionThus there is nothing paticularly unbiblical about the *disciplinary* decision to enforce celibacy of priests.There is a clear preference for celibacy shown in the Bible and in various traditions around the world.You have never contended any of the practical benfits of celibacy,merely shown that it is unbiblical by misinterpreting a single verse.You still have not said why your interpretaton is correct.Thank you for this debate.It was just as intersting as last time.I apologise for not being able to devote the amount of time a discussion like this deserves.I have included a site that supports why the church's interpretation is correct in the sources for further reading if you are interested.Regards,CynicalDiogenesSources:http://www.tfp.org...;