Catholicism is morally sound and biblically correct

Hi,Con has clearly misunderstood, or willfully ignored all of the definitions and criteria set in my opening statements:1. " I will not be weighing the good that the RCC does against the bad"I am not asking you to do that, merely state a valid independant moral standard and show how catholic *dogma* falls short of it. I provided those arguments assuming you were Athiest. Con does not bother define the moral standard he is going to use.2. Catholic Priest Child AbuseThe 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. (While this may not be relevant, i would like to add that the number of Catholic priests that were caught was about 40, while the total number of priests in the church is about 400,000. So the claim that this is a widely prevalent 'epidemic' is false. This is not an argument, merely an observation. )3. Celibacy of ClergyThis 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. [1] Thus the church has not contradicted the bible but has merely exercised its right given by the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible. There are many places where celibacy is recommended for those serving the LORD. "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. In 1Corinthians chapter 7, St. Paul *clearly* mentions that celibacy is prefered over marriage. " Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. "-1Cor 7:1-2That is, keep to his wife, which he hath. His meaning is not to exhort the unmarried to marry: on the contrary, he would have them rather continue as they are. (Ver. 7: 8. ) But he speaks here to them that are already married; who must not depart from one another, but live together as they ought to do in the marriage state. the meaning becomes clearer as we continue reading along the same chapter"But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. [7] For I would that all men were even as myself:. .. .. . But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I(unmarried). .. But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. "-1Cor 7:8-10"But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. [33] But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. [34] And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. [35] And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment. "-1Cor 7:32-35St. 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. So the catholic church is not altogether contradicting the bible when it chooses to impose a disciplinary decision regarding this indulgence, as it follows this teaching in spirit. Why would St. Paul who is clearly opposed to the concept of marriage in these verses, then seem to recommend marriage in the verses mentioned by Con? The first verse that Con proposed(1Tim 4:3) can be clearly seen to be taken out of context,when one sees the historical background in which this epistle was written"Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats:" Here St. Paul speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat for all members of the church including lay members; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen to become priests. the other verse is from Titus Ver:6"If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly". 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"For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre"-titus 7In all the cases when one sees the historical context, marriage was seen invariably as detrimental to service of the LORD and was only allowed as an indulgence when members were already married. The lives of Jesus as well as the Apostles clearly shows that celibacy was prefered. The Bishops of the Catholic Church are the true successors of the early Apostles. It is not wrong for them to agree to follow in the footsteps of the Aposltes and codify a disciplinary code that can clearly be seen as the intention of both St. Paul and Jesus Christ. The RCC was also the only church promised the guidance of the Holy spirit, Thus whenever there seems to be an apparent contradiction in biblical exegesis, it is only the catholic church that can decide the correct interpretation by virtue of the arguments I provided in my opening statement. Con must tell whose authority he relies on when there are seeming contradictions and must refute the claims of the RCC as the true heirs of the apostleseagerly anticipating you rebuttals. .