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

My opponent is changing the playing field, they originally argued that priests should become eunuch’s now they are arguing just for castration. The two words are not interchangeable. They have different definitions. I have another question, what about the priests who are already ordained? Are they to become eunuchs? Castrated males can have families “if this policy was passed. This is simply not the case. The priest could still adopt children, or the priest could even freeze sperm before being castrated.” Adopting a child does not mean it is their own. Eunuchs cannot have sexual intercourse. It is literally, impossible. Quite simply, a eunuch cannot have children which are his as he cannot ejaculate. A priest would not think about freezing their sperm, they are entering the seminary, being ordained, and having their penis and testicles cut off. Quite simply, you take away these leaving priests options. And as my opponent dropped all my statistics to the matter, you are taking away quite a big number of people’s option. More committed priests enter seminary “Knowing they will have to lose their genitals it will take most men a greater deal of committment to do this.” Does not refute the logic that less people will enter the seminary in a time where priests are sorely needed. You may have fewer priests who are more committed (whatever this may mean), but you will not have enough priests for the number of Catholics. There already is a shortage; you just want to make this shortage worse. Also, how does my opponent quantify what it means to be committed or not committed? “There are even men who voluntarily remove all their genitals.” This is irrelevant. You post the case of one man who goes through this process, and say it is widespread. This is horrible logic. “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.” You have posted no evidence of how widespread it is. How does this logic even make sense? Why would someone peruse the priesthood just because it is a requirement to become an eunuch because they are already an eunuch? 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. You don’t go out and kill people just because you are qualified with a pistol… How Do We Know Christ Wasn't A Eunuch? How is this relevant? Simply showing that we do not know something does not mean we should hold it is true. I mean, how do we know that I am not a twelve headed spider who knows English? How do we know that fairies do not fly around and sing magical songs to put us to sleep? Simply proving we do not have knowledge of something does not fulfill your burden of proof. Just because Jesus liked eunuchs does not mean he was one. Now just to be fair… Matthew 18:8-9 Jesus was not speaking literally here. He was saying that sin was extraordinarily serious. Matthew 5:28 This means that anyone who lusts over a woman is sinning. My opponent advocates that priests must be perfect. This is untrue. People are imperfect, priests are people, and therefore priests are imperfect. If my opponent wants to take a preemptive action against priests based on the fact that they might commit the sin of lust, why not take this to its logical end? Let’s cut off all the priest’s exterminates. He may use his hands to kill or hit someone. So, with my opponent’s logic in mind, off with his hands. You see the ridiculous end this leads to? Unless my opponent advocates cutting off all exterminates, he cannot simply say only the penis and testicles should go. Also, lust comes from the mind, not the penis…so unless you advocate the removal of the brain… Molestation I agree, we should try to avoid prevent child molestation, but causing thousands of people, who have done no wrong, great pain and humiliation on the basis that they may molest someone seems rather well wrong. Add this to the fact that at most 2 to 3 percent of priests actually have committed this heinous act, you are not accomplishing any great deed. My opponent is also discriminatory, until you show why there should not be equality, we assume equality. He asserts only priests should have this procedure done, and not the general population. Once again, since my opponent wants to reduce child molestation, why not take preemptive action against all men and decree that all men must become eunuchs. Who sees the problem with that? The pain and suffering of thousands of men who have done, and will do no wrong, outweighs the pain and suffering of the children. Period. More people are hurt than helped. “it is more about image. “ You do realize that if the church had not covered up this scandal and immediately taken action against the priests, there would not have been as much of an out roar against the church. It is the Vatican and the people “up top” who have hurt their own image. “The scandals lead parents with children to turn away from Catholicism, or keep the Church at arms length” The Vatican and the bishops did nothing, instead allowing child molesters to stay on as priests. Furthermore, they would just keep their children away from the priest, not from God. Quite honestly, if the parents were so worried, they could still bring their children to church, just not leave them at the church alone. Most people realize that Catholicism does not advocate child molestation. “his also means a wider pool of people growing up who might choose to become priests. Growing up they will talk to the priests and in puberty the questions will definitely come up about the castration, giving the priest a chance to communicate how it was worth it and how it enhanced their spiritual connection to God, alleviating fears and leading to a much smaller number than Con thinks of people who would refuse to enter the priesthood because of castration.” Despite the massive run on sentence. My opponent makes one giant logical fallacy. They prove none of their claims and instead just assert them. Quite honestly, I do not know of anyone who talked to their priest, someone who probably has no medical knowledge, about puberty. They would most likely talk with their parents. So, my opponent really has not made a point. They have not proven anything here. Symbolism “Having to undergo the same ritual, a physical ritual on one's body will give those entering the priesthood a shared experience, and help them to connect and form a positive unified identity as Catholic Clergy, strengthening bonds in the Church and bringing the Church as a whole closer to God.” They already have an experience, the experience of Holy Orders. You know those sacraments, god and all that fun stuff. Another wonderful logic leap, just because the priests may or may not be closer together does not mean that the Church is closer to god. The church is already with god, individuals in the church are those who move closer or farther away from god, so to speak. A priest can only do so much to the person without faith. Health benefits. My opponent brings this flawed point up again. First of all, these are eunuchs in Korea, from the 1800s. We have no access to genetic details, diet, exercise, etc. This is not a study, it is merely the comparison of 81 people who happened to be eunuchs and who happened to live longer. Quite simply, we have seen no scientific evidence. All we see is flimsy historical research which my opponent uses to make a point. We have no other factors which to compare. All these factors could be relevant. Remember, correlation does not mean causation. You have shown a correlation, nothing more. Bottom line: you have no definitive scientific evidence. Eunuch for god My point was that you cannot know what a person is truly thinking, even by their actions.