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

Marriage and families In the end, my opponent keeps reiterating the same point (here at least) over and over again. The uncontestable fact is a priest who leaves the priesthood for marriage would not be able to have children of his own, without scientific help and two, cannot have sexual intercourse (by definition of what was eunuch is according to the first round), which is a vital part of marriage, even according to the Catholic Church itself. You completely destroy hundreds of thousands of lives for next to no benefit. Less priests in seminary = bigger congregation This is not happening today. So why should we assume it will happen when there is an even larger shorter of priests? My opponent has provided no evidence backing up their claim. Bad Analogy My opponent originally states, “It is difficult to get a doctor to perform this, so making it a requirement to become a priest would likely lead to many of the men with these feelings converting if they are not already Catholic and persuing the priesthood.” What I was pointing out was “This is akin to saying that people who take vows of chastity who are not priests are becoming priests because that is a requirement…quite simply, this makes no sense at all. People don’t do things because they already fulfill the requirement to do them.” My opponent has never refuted this logic, and they have no more room to do so. I was pointing out that simply because a person has these feelings would not lead someone to become a priest. Simply fulfilling one of the many requirements of priesthood does not equate to one becoming a priest or even wanting to become a priest. There are other requirements for priesthood. You can get the surgery outside of the seminary. Pain and humiliation “these men will not feel pain and humiliation from this because they have committed themselves to it, and because they are loyal to God. Instead they will feel honor and pride for receiving "the mark of God". So now suddenly someone who is being castrated will feel no physical pain from the procedure and will have no humiliation? This makes no sense. In accordance with the Christian belief, God, himself, felt pain and humiliation, I implore my opponent to read the New Testament, specifically the passion, for more details. The action itself still humiliating and pain. My opponent has only made a bare assertion to back up their claim. An irrelevant point “What happened has happened. We can't change the past, but castration will help repair the Church's image.” Does my opponent have any proof of this? No. Still A Problem/Molestation My opponent drops much of my logic. Why not castrate all men, if the only reason for castrating priests is because of child molestation? “It is still a problem if the parents are keeping their kids away from the priests, many would-be clergy members may not become clergy members because of this.” Bare assertion. The priest hood is a calling from god. People join the clergy because god calls them to it. We are not in the middle ages where people are forced to give their children to the church. People choose, out of their own will, to become priests. Furthermore, most people are not called to become priests when they are at a young age. Most people wanting to go into the seminary make this decision in their highschool years. Which is a point where sexual molestation really is not much of a problem. Puberty and sexuality My opponent admonishes me for not realizing exactly what he meant by his rather vague argument. But this argument still fails. “He will probably ask his priest about it and then the priest can tell him from his own personal standpoint the glory of sacrificing one's genitalia to serve God, and how life isn't so bad without them especially given that priests had to be celibate anyways before genital-removal was instituted.“ First, my opponent assumes someone who is castrated can grow closer to god. They provide no reason why this is true. As for the recruitment seminars, there already are seminars where priests talk about what the seminary and the priesthood is like. But, it is my firm opinion that priests should not be talking about medical procedures with people. A priest is not a doctor. Unless my opponent feels we should be getting medical advice from priests, he should agree with this point. Eunuch calm According to my opponents source, there is a lot more bad than good. Including “bleeding and shock... pose problems even when the procedure is performed by a doctor.” I also would like to point out that “the medical community is somewhat divided over the long-term affects of low (or no) testosterone on men, with various studies indicating low testosterone levels may help prevent or help cause heart disease, cause insulin resistance and potentially lead to diabetes (or deny such accusations), and even increase the risks of Alzheimer's. Only time will tell which of these potential side effects may be a risk.” This directly shows that the medical community is divided on the long term health benefits or risks, so any points my opponent makes in this regard, should be thrown out. Not uncommon Wait…so a medical procedure has a wiki page, and now it is common? This is laughable. My opponent has shown no numbers and no percentages. Actual Evidence (which my opponent never provides…) You are right, some people did become eunuch’s but the majority opinion is “Jesus' praise for those who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven has, for many centuries, been interpreted by Christian theologians as a metaphor for celibacy,” Furthermore, Tertulian may have claimed Christ was an eunuch, but he cannot be certain as he did not live with Christ. The purpose of the Church, despite what my opponent believes, is the encourage people to follow god’s plan, not the Church’s plan. (Which can be two very different things.) The Church should encourage people to follow what god calls them to be, not what the Church needs. The Church is not god. And Tertulian will never become a saint as “several of his later teachings directly contradicted the actions and teachings of the apostles.” Bottom line, my opponent wishes to weaken the church. In round 2, I stated (which has not been contested) that if a priest does not have a penis, how exactly would he be unchaste? He could not be, it is impossible. Thus, there is no temptation for him to fall to. Second, the point of these vows is so that the priests can live like Jesus (and the apostles) did. Like Jesus, the priests must fight temptation, they must fight these inner demons. The priests must say no to lust and desire. If you remove the temptation, then choosing god over lust becomes meaningless. My opponent wishes to take away the meaning of the priesthood and the temptations of man. It is more meaningful to keep these temptations in place. As then you have a choice, good or evil. The choice of good becomes that much more powerful because you rejected evil from your life. My opponent wishes to remove this choice. My opponent wishes to remove the purpose of the priesthood. My opponent wishes to remove the choice between good and bad. In the Christian belief, man is not god, but man should strive to live as god once did. Theology acts on a higher plane than all arguments made here, we should keep the theological choice in place. Not remove it. There is no benefit at all.