Catholicism is morally sound and biblically correct

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.