Catholicism is morally sound and biblically correct

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