Monday, July 25, 2011

John's Attempt To Get Less Fat, update 3

Editor's note: I will continue to post these Monday updates throughout the hiatus of my regular blogging.

Alright so facebook users saw the photo I posted on Friday of a sweat-soaked me after finally breaking a 20-minute mile (19:41 to be exact) and I continued walking until I hit somewhere around half of a 5k distance.

That was quite the accomplishment for me, but the sad reality is that if I could double that at the same speed, I'd be looking at a time of more than one hour for my 5k, which would have me in hella dead last. Last year's slowest walker finished in 47 minutes or so. So again, lots of work to be done.

Also, prior to this past weekend of poor dietary decisions, I had lost another pound for a total of 14 pounds lost since beginning the process. I've read on some running forums that somehow running doesn't help you lose weight...which is odd, but whatever.

The legs were really burning Friday so I stayed off them this weekend save a brief walk around my apartment complex Sunday just to keep them loose.

Need to buy some running shoes soon, maybe also some better shorts for running than the ones I have.

I think we're at a crucial point here. Though I had some success Friday, I didn't follow the workout plan to the letter because my legs hurt too bad. I've seen some progress, but I don't think I'm developing as fast as the program is moving. What's weird is that cardio wise, I feel plenty of the improvement, it's the bones and muscles that aren't cooperating.

Today I'll try the program workout, but if I can't keep up, I'll back up to last week and do that workout again to give my body more time to acclimate. I don't want to overdue it and get hurt or I know I'll quit, so that sounds like the safe bet.

Also, I joined the Runner's World forum, which is pretty cool. People there are very supportive.

Today's workout: 5 minute warmup, Run 90 seconds, walk 90 seconds. Run 3 minutes, walk 3 minutes. Repeat twice (I think).

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Hiatus

As you know, the promised blog did not appear sorry.

Here's a link on the topic: http://www.askacatholic.com/_webpostings/answers/2011_01JAN/2011JanRespondingToPlatosDilemma.cfm

It's so so.

Anyway I'm taking some time off. Dungy's arguments, while I believe them to be incorrect on many counts, are well crafted and brutal and I don't want to endure the brow beating for a few days at least, maybe longer.

Dungy has done nothing wrong here, he simply defeated me in debate so soundly it should be applauded. I've been wrong before and won an argument, I'm chalking this up to the same. He's more talented, and maybe on some things he's right.

Either way I lack the energy to continue so consider me on hiatus from serious blogging for the time being.

Friday, July 22, 2011

Captain America vs. Everyone.

So the Captain America movie is out this weekend and I hope to see it at some point. The reviews are good and anti-Nazi action films are usually fun. Toss in a superhero and I'm sold.

But here's the one thing about good ol' Cap that bothers me. He's barely a superhero. I mean compared to what he was before the super solider serum, yes it's a big change, but he is the Ubermensch. The peak of human perfection. That's pretty bad ass, but that's it.

Now I know Batman also lacks superpowers, we'll get to that.

So today's blog is essentially an episode of World's Deadliest Warrior: Superhero Edition. I'm going to put Cap USA against 3 other superheros and how he would do. I tried to pick heroes that wouldn't destroy him in three seconds (See Superman, Flash, Green Lantern (Hal), Martian Manhunter and many others from the DCU (except Aquaman).

We'll discuss short range fighting, long range fighting, and what I'll call the X-factor.


FIGHT 1
Batman vs. Captain America
First, I think we can all agree that this would be the greatest battle among mortal non-powered men of all time.

Short range: Draw
In hand to hand combat, Captain America is considered the best in the Marvel U. In DCU, I'm guessing Batman is the same. Both are expert tacticians and strategist. Captain America is physically more gifted but Batman is more of a bad ass.

Mid Range: Advantage Captain America
Cap can throw that indestructible shield at anything with great accuracy and make it bounce back. Batman has batarangs, those balls on a string that tie up your feet, stun grenades etc. When compared side by side Batman has more, but the shield is also a defensive weapon and can stop whatever the Bat throws his way.

X-Factor: Batman
Cap has heart. He's smart and strong but his guile and bravery are huge. He injured some kind of Godlike being that once pwned the other Avengers. That god thing did defeat him, but his attack helped the team win.
Batman's brain is his greatest asset. He is brave and strong and all that jazz but smart is No. 1. He can and has knocked out many powerful entities, and he's done it by outsmarting them.

Verdict: Batman doesn't lose many fights. He beat Superman, and he was old when he did. He wins.


FIGHT 2:
Spider-man vs. Captain America

Short range: Draw
Cap is strong, Spidy is stronger. Cap is fast, Spidy is faster. You see how this goes right? Captain America's hand to hand skills would likely make this fight more competitive though, and in really close quarters, say a small room or an alley, Cap could corner the acrobatic spider and do some hurting.

Mid-Range: Spider-Man
Shield is cool, but unless it's been sprayed with a non-stick spray (Pam maybe) Spidy can sling it away. He can also, at least temporarily, tie Cap up without getting to close.

X-Factor: Captain America
I guess the Spidy sense would be Spider-man's x-factor. He can sense danger. How much that helps during a fight though, I don't know. Cap though, has brains. More brains than Peter Parker even. He could outthink and outstrategize the young man.
Also of note, this fight happened in Marvel's Civil War. I don't know who won because I haven't read it but consider that additional reading if you're interested.

Verdict: For the same reason Cap loses to the Bat, he beats the Spider.

FIGHT 3:
Wolverine vs. Captain America

Short Range: Draw
Wow that would be fun to watch. Adamantium blades vs. Vibranium alloy shield. Both men have military pasts, both are great fighters. Wolverine might be stronger and quicker, Cap probably fights calmer and more sensibly. Even Steven.

Mid Range: Captain America
Wolverine's got nothin. Cap can throw the shield.

X-Factor:
Bravery vs. tenacity? Tenacity wins. Wolverine also heals crazy fast. Also, Cap has the moral standards of Superman without the invincibility. Wolverine can and will fight dirty if he has too. They're comparable in so many ways, I think it comes down to who wants it more. Wolverine would probably kick Cap in the red, white and blue balls if he had to.

Verdict: Wolverine walks away the winner.




I know my readers are nerdy types like me. What do you guys think?

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Not much goin..

So Kelli will be in Chicago next weekend which will give me time to really do justice to the heresy/nature of right and wrong blog that I've promised. I don't want to crap that out in my lunch hour.

What else, if any of you like the University of Texas, their football program is looking good and heading to print tomorrow.

I'm thinking about buying running shoes.

Um what else...I've recently been reminded that I am exceptionally skilled at rewriting the lyrics of popular songs to be about other topics. What a fun but useless skill.

Anyway, come back tomorrow, maybe I'll have something to say.

Go Reds.

Monday, July 18, 2011

John's Attempt To Get Less Fat, update 2.

I know we've got more important things to get to such as my previous heresy, the nature of God and truth and my opinions on things, but it's Monday so instead it's the fitness update.

So my total weight loss since beginning the workout process is now about 13 pounds. For those keeping score at home, that's 11 pounds the week I borrowed my Dad's shakes and about two pounds in the three weeks since. Taking my Dad's mantra though, any time the scale says you've lost weight it's a good day.

I can't really see a difference in my appearance yet but I am wearing a tighter fitting shirt I usually don't bother with and it feels pretty OK, so that's something.

Kelli and I completed the first week of Couch to 5k training, actually taking the training outside on Friday, and here's what we learned.

*This is a really ambitious goal for us....like really really ambitious. But we're not giving up.

*Running outside on concrete during our first week was probably a really bad idea. We we're both practically unable to stand up sore after that while we survived the same distances on the treadmill no sweat.

*I can run. Not long, not fast and not far, yet. But last week marked the first time since high school I can say I went for a run. It hurt, but for the few moments before the pain really kicked in, I felt a twinge of my body remembering what it used to be able to do. It will be interesting to see how much of it comes back.

We also learned the course layout.


Anyway I don't know if I'll really be able to run a whole 5k at this point but I plan to run until I can't and walk, roll or crawl the rest. Finishing a 3.1 mile trek on foot is no easy thing for me.

What else.... Ping pong resumes tomorrow after a week off. Me vs. Todd as usual but the boss (Jason C.) is coming to play as well and another co-worker (Richard) is probably coming to watch.

Todd annihilated me last time out, getting revenge for the whooping I gave him the week before.

Also, I've decided to kill weight training for now. All cardio until the 5k is over.

Weighing in on the scale at the Y today after a weekend that included bar food, steak, ribs and pizza isn't likely to go well. Must eat better on the weekends.

That is all. Enjoy.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Brief

In one of my next few blogs I will address that I have been guilty of pushing a heretical belief on this blog. While listening to the great radio show, Catholic Answers Live, I found that my belief in right and wrong as things that are made that way simply by God saying so is a heretical view.

I will research this better, explain what I had believed, and post the correct teachings as soon as I collect them. I will then go back and add a header to the archived affected blogs, pointing out the error.

It was my honest opinion at the time and I didn't know it conflicted with Church teaching. I apologize.

Matt and Dungy, in cases where I was discussing Church beliefs on this matter I may have erred and I apologize for giving bad info. I'll do better research in the future.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

What no one is talking about...

So in my recent reading up on various Catholicy things, I've learned some things.

First, According to the John Jay study, only 3% of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2% received prison sentences.

But the interesting thing is that 52 percent of alleged sexual abuses by priests involved children between the age of 14-17.

Yet in the media, it's often referred to as the pedophilia priest scandal or something with that word associated.

I don't disagree that 48 percent is a scandal, it certainly is. And 88 percent of the victims were male, and the majority of those victims were post pubescent. That indicates to me, and to several other blogger types, that the greater issue here is that there are a lot of predatory gay males serving as priests.

It's still a problem, still horribly wrong that any minor be subject to anything like this. It doesn't change what the scandal really is.

But why is this fact completely under the rug unless you read the John Jay report? I've never read a word on this in an AP or Reuters story and I read lots of them.

Would public perception be any different if it were known? I dunno.

What do you guys think?

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Explanation of my position on gay marriage

For the purposes of this blog I want it known that I do not know if my thoughts line up with Church teaching or any other teaching. I simply wanted to flesh out my opinion for my own sake and that of my readers. It's not set in stone. I guess the best way to put it is that this is how I see things right now.

Dungy, Matt, tell me why I'm wrong.


---
I believe true marriage to be something only possible between a man and a women. I believe it is a sacrament, but I acknowledge that the world has reduced it in legal terms to little more than a government acknowledged contract.

Legally speaking, I have almost no way of arguing against gay marriage. Morally, I find it wrong.

The problems I do have with legalizing it tend to come from the fact that I believe doing so will have a negative effect on society in the long term by totally legitimizing what until recently was a subculture, and that it's legalization, if done without stipulation, can lead to the infringement of religious freedom of others. (Say the a church with a reception hall being legally forced to rent a wedding reception hall to a gay couple).

I wrote on the comments of my last blog that I was generally opposed to gay marriage. This is true morally speaking, but in a non-theocratic nation, too damn bad for me. While I don't like it, I don't get to say it can't happen.

I maintain that true marriage, in the true sense of what the word means, cannot occur between same sex couples. Nevertheless, again, to the government, marriage is little more than a contract. Why should I care who the government allows to enter into these contracts?

That said let me throw this out there.
My opposition is not an attack on gay people and it is not hate speech or any other crap like that. (Cue personal recounting of gay friends) I have had plenty of gay friends, both men and women, and I am proud to say that for the most part we were always able to discuss our differences on this matter without things getting heated.

Discrimination is wrong. Gays shouldn't be denied any rights.

But true marriage isn't supposed to be a right (speaking outside the legal sense), it's a vocation, a calling. Our government said otherwise though when it adopted the concept of marriage being civily recognized. Once that happened, I guess it was only a matter of time until we got to here.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Catholic Charities and tricky stuff

As more and more states pass gay marriage/civil union laws, Church organizations are coming under fire.

The group that stands to lose the most in this case, are orphans and the Catholic Adoption agencies that try to find them homes.

In Illinois, where a civil union law passed, there is a good example.

These Catholic adoption services existed on their own for a while, and then eventually, like many other religious-based charities, starting getting government funds to some degree. The reason for this is because the agencies provided a service and the state liked the cost/situation so they gave them contracts.

But with the new law passed and the Church groups saying they will not place children with civil unioned or other non-married couples, the state is not going to renew it's contract.

And here's the thing. The state is 100 percent in the right to non-renew. They cannot in good conscience make a contract with a group that has stated it will not obey the law. Sending taxpayer money to a group like that would be wrong because the tax payers representatives passed this law.

But here's the downside. Some 2,000 children will be affected. Sure other agencies will be able to pick up some of the caseload but it will still be a problem.

And what it comes down to is these organizations should never have accepted government money in the first place. Now, without it, many won't be able to exist.

But then there is another legal problem. Some of these agencies elsewhere either don't take government money or will be able to continue without it. Their faith teaches them not to support gay marriage and that it is not an ideal environment for raising children. They don't get taxpayer money but they will still be forced, if legally challenged, to place children in those homes.

This is wrong, I think. While we don't know how each child will grow up to feel about such things, these agencies aren't out to screw with people. They exist to get kids homes. But mark my words they will shut down rather than put kids in what they deem unsuitable homes. That's a debate for another time, but it's still a shame.

New York seemed to do a decent job of protecting it's religious groups from being forced to go against their consciences when they passed a gay marriage bill, Illinois and other states that pass these bills are right to without government money, but they should do the same as New York to ensure the freedom of conscience for their Christian constituents.

Monday, July 11, 2011

John's Attempt To Get Less Fat, update 1.

Ok so because I lack the energy to write good blogs that often I'm dedicating Monday's to a series we'll call John's Attempt to Get Less Fat.

I've gotten pretty good on walking a mile in an air-conditioned gym on a flat treadmill but the other day I took a walk with the beautiful Kelli and managed to walk the outdoor walking track near a park by our apartment all the way through. I'd walked it before and needed two breaks. This is clear progress and it has me inspired.

So in the last fitness related blog I said I wanted to run a 5K within a year. Well I decided to balls up. I'm going to do a 5k on Sept. 11, exactly two months from today. Kelli is going to do it as well, cause she's awesome.

I haven't decided if I'll be running or walking but I'm leaning toward running. I found a program called "Couch to 5k" that takes exactly two months and I think I can do it. If I can't run, no big deal, I still have 9ish more months to run one.

The weight loss has held steady (Lost one more pound) so I still weigh 324 (down from 336). If all goes, well I'd like to be sub-300 by race day.

As for the race, learn more here (http://www.harvesthomefair.com/events/5k/) Its the Harvest Home 5k through Cheviot.

So my workout plan looks like this.
Mon: Couch to 5k program
Tues: Ping pong with Todd from work
Wed: Day off/light non-walk/run workout
Thurs: Couch to 5k program
Fri: Couch to 5k Program
Sat: light walk/swim
Sun: Off day.

Ambitious? Yes but I already hit the gym 3 days a week most weeks so I think I can do it.

Today: Brisk five-minute warmup walk. Then alternate 60 seconds of jogging and 90 seconds of walking for a total of 20 minutes.

Each week that increases until you jog for 3 miles. I'm staring at the gym but intend to move to outside training for the last 2-3 weeks.

Anyway, that's the plan. Wish me luck and keep me accountable.

Friday, July 8, 2011

Godspeed Atlantis

I've recently flown for the first time and I remember as we hit the clouds on the ascent that we were so privileged to see the side of the clouds God designed to be seen from his end only. I wondered how high we can go?

As a kid I was an astronaut for Halloween a couple times (Dallas Cowboys helmet covered in foil) and I dreamed of weightlessness (irony?) and how cool it would be to leave the freaking planet for a while.

I had the astronaut dream for a while as a kid and I had more than one die cast metal replica I played with. Playing with cars and action figures was cool. But G.I. Joe was just a guy and I'd ridden in a car. Playing with the shuttle? Total imagination freedom.

Though I would never be an astronaut and I'll likely never go to space, the dream and the idea of how cool that must be is still there inside me, and for my entire life, that dream was symbolized by the space shuttle.

Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour weren't the first vehicles to go into space. Not even close. But they looked kinda like airplanes. Regular folks flew on airplanes.

Maybe, the regular folk thought, one day we can fly in one of those.

I know they cost 1.5 billion per launch, I know there's not a crap ton more to be gained from low-orbit exploration of space. I know the shuttle as it is can't go anywhere it hasn't already gone.

If we were replacing it with something better, I might be less upset to see it go. But we're not replacing it at all, not for a while anyway. The Russians are our sole way for getting into space now.

This marks the second time in my lifetime that the world/country has taken a technological step back. If you had the money, you used to be able to get from New York to Paris in half the time it would take a regular plane by flying on the Concorde. Can't do that anymore.

The shuttle loss seems bigger to me. The end of the program without a replacement says to me that America is giving up on space, the final frontier (cue music). We know the vulnerabilities of our planet, our limited resources etc. It seems silly to give up on learning more about what's all out there.

But alas, the shuttle went up for the final time today. Godspeed Atlantis, good sailing and a safe return.

Something tells me I won't get so excited the next time an American goes into space...riding a Russian Soyuz craft.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Stop Apologizing, just balls up

First, I just wrote the word balls....and I'm not sorry.

This will be short. Read this.I made up the headline.

Guys says what he means...apologizes

Why in the hell should one be sorry for saying that. If I said Barrack Obama was likely to carry favor with African American voters because he himself is black, I wouldn't apologize for it anymore than I would for saying Mitt Romney is likely to have high support among Mormons. Michelle Bachman, being a woman, will curry favor with guys that have a thing for powerful non-hideous women.

We, the electorate, support people like us. Right or wrong it's just something we do.

Pizza lovers may support Herman Cain, crazy Alaskan soccer mom's will identify with Sarah Palin. It's what we do.

As for referencing her sex appeal, so what? That was referenced plenty when Bill Clinton ran, and again with Obama.

This quote gets me the most:
"I don't believe that he or anyone else should be using as a reference somebody's sex appeal to judge their fitness for office or the strength of their campaign. It was a wrong statement. He should not have been making that reference."

He's right. Sex shouldn't be a consideration in someone's fitness for office. But it is. Some people vote on the issues, some vote on one issue, but most vote on things that have nothing to do with whether they'd be any good at their job.

Here's a couple examples of bad perception leading to votes.

Some people like Bush because he seemed simple and down to earth, a guy you'd have a beer with, but why would you want a a drinking buddy running our nation?

Some people supported President Obama because he wasn't a "Washington Insider," but why would you want someone who doesn't understand the workings inside the beltway to work there?

Nothing's wrong with that sort of thing being an "All-else-equal" tiebreaker, but sadly that's how most of our citizenry votes.

I voted for John McCain because I thought his leadership, years of legislative servie and military background would come in handy as president. Some people I know voted for him because he was pro-life, some people voted for him because he was white.

Similar reasons can be found for why folks voted for Obama.

Let's stop pretending that the we're all high minded and thinking about the issues all the time. Most of us aren't. The reason Fox News has a bunch of hot blonde news anchors isn't because of their talent or our thirst for news.

It is because dudes follow politics and the news and dudes like chicks. Michelle Bachman will likely get some votes based on the same principle.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

An explanation/note in support of preistly celibacy part 2

2. Priestly celibacy creates, or attracts perverts and pedophiles. (continued from yesterday)

One expert in pedophilia, Dr. John Bradford, "estimates its [pedophilia's] prevalence at maybe four percent of the population" (John Cloud, "Pedophilia," Time, April 29, 2002).

Consider that nationwide, an average of 3 to 6 percent of priest per diocese were even ACCUSED of anything. Next the John Jay report says that 78.2 percent of those reported cases of sexual misconduct involved children over the age of 11.

There is nothing defensible in these stats, I am only trying to show that we we hear and read is misleading.

(From FreeRepublic) In his book Pedophiles and Priests, Prof. Philip Jenkins—a Protestant and an expert in the subject of pedophilia—stated, "The most-quoted survey of sexual problems among Protestant clergy states that some ten percent are involved in sexual misconduct of some kind, and that 'about two or three percent' are pedophiles, a rate equal or higher than that suggested for Catholic priests. These figures should be viewed skeptically; the methodology on which they are based is not clear, and they seem to rely disproportionately on individuals already in therapy. However, it is striking to find such a relatively high number suggested for both celibate and non-celibate clergy" (pp. 50-51).

IF in fact the rates are similar between unmarried Catholic priests and able to marry Protestant ministers, that says something. Maybe creepers are attracted to Christian ministry, but I doubt that as well given the low percentages.


3. A married priesthood would do a better job.
On this one I don't have numbers or the Bible to back me up 100 percent. It's mostly just my thoughts but I disagree.

While it is true that some of the priest's functions could carry more weight, or appear more relateable if he were married, I believe the gains are worth less than what would be lost.

Priests often counsel young couples preparing to marry and some counsel marriage in trouble. During confessions, a priest likely comes into situations where he must advise someone who's been unfaithful or is otherwise having marital problems.

In those cases, some argue, a priest could do a better job of advising because of the first hand experience and his advice would carry more weight because the one listening would know he'd been through some of the same.

I agree to a point. A married priest is more relateable to a married person. Also, a married priest would accumulate experience that an unmarried one does not.

Neither is of tantamount importance to his function though. In all these cases the priest is called on to give guidance based on the scripture and Church teaching. In many ways here he is like a lawyer/judge. The situation is explained to him and he is required to advise based on The Law, not based on empathy. His ability to understand those things is not at odds with his being unmarried.

On the contrary, it's the opposite. I think it's a fair thing to say that single people have an opportunity to be better at their jobs than married folks or those who are single but have kids. It doesn't always work that way of course.

Consider this. A male lawyer is single. He is working his way up the ladder by working late almost every night. He can do this indefinitely, focusing all his time and effort toward the firm.

Here from a British priest is a typical weekday:
"My alarm normally goes off at 7.00 am. After shower and shave and breakfast I am in Church by 8.45 am. I then spend 30 minutes in meditation on the Gospel so that I am ready to deliver the homily...

Now I have to decide my priorities - there may be a funeral to conduct, or a visit to the local hospital. More often it might be a visit to the local Catholic schools to do an assembly, or to celebrate a class Mass or hear confessions. I also need to be in touch with the parish secretary - there are letters to be written and meetings to be be arranged (such as 1st Holy Communion or Confirmation with parents), There may also be crisis meetings that push everything else to a lower priority - someone's marriage is in trouble, or there has been a tragedy such as the death of a parishioner or the hospital calls because there is a new-born baby in the emergency room with a serious health issue. By the time I get back to the presbytery, there are usually phone messages to deal with and the mail needs to be tackled."

All of that is described before lunch.

When a call comes in on the emergency line, a priest needs to be able to skip the birthday of a his son (if he had one) to baptize an ill child at the hospital or to not be home for a marriage anniversary because the bishop has sent him to a conference etc.

Sure other jobs are equally if not more taxing, but no one is on call for life. There is no real retirement for priests either. It's all serving God, with one day off a week if you're lucky.

That is why an unmarried priesthood is best. A wife deserves to be a man's focus. A good priest cannot give a wife that focus. His aim is to serve God and the Church, and the parishioners are his family.

I'm not saying there aren't women who could put up with this and priests who could make this work, but they shouldn't have too. It's better the way it is.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

An explanation/note in support of preistly celibacy

I've been discussing wanting to write this blog for a while so here goes.

First, in the Latin Rite, which is the Catholic Church you see most in America, priests are generally unmarried and celibate. This is by a matter of Church rule dating back to somewhere around 300 AD.

Before we go on, here is a little history from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
----
Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades. ... Speaking, for the moment, only of Western Christendom, the candidates for orders are solemnly warned by the bishop at the beginning of the ceremony regarding the gravity of the obligation which they are incurring. He tells them:

You ought anxiously to consider again and again what sort of a burden this is which you are taking upon you of your own accord. Up to this you are free. You may still, if you choose, turn to the aims and desires of the world. But if you receive this order (of the subdiaconate) it will no longer be lawful to turn back from your purpose. You will be required to continue in the service of God, and with His assistance to observe chastity and to be bound for ever in the ministrations of the Altar, to serve who is to reign.

By stepping forward despite this warning, when invited to do so, and by co-operating in the rest of the ordination service, the candidate is understood to bind himself equivalently by a vow of chastity.
----

Many opponents of priestly celibacy attack this issue from different angles, and they don't all add up but I will address three given I've only got 31 minutes left on lunch.

1. Priestly Celibacy is anti-Bible
This comes of course from Evangelicals and other Christian groups. They argue that all are required to "Be Fruitful and multiply (Gen.)" and say that each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2).

These biblical statements are of course true, but they are not all inclusive.
Corinthians also reads "1 Corinthians 7: 31 And they that use this world, as if they used it not: for the fashion of this world passeth away. 32 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."

Futhermore,
"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9)."

And,
"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

It is important to note that none of these passages, nor any in scripture, forbid marriage to anyone, but there are many that seem to indicate an unmarried state as preferable to those in direct service to the faithful and to the Lord.

2. Priestly celibacy creates, or attracts perverts and pedophiles.
First, the eruption of the recent scandal (going back 10 years or so) includes cases going back about 40-50 years up to the present. While it is possible that abuse was going on on a massive scale indefinitely and it was 100 percent covered up, I find that unlikely. More likely is that something went wrong in the seminaries, in the admissions process etc. that allowed some sick folks to get through the discernment process. Keep in mind though, for 1,700 years or so it seemed to be working.

I want to expand on this answer a little more and I'd like to get to argument No. 3 but we're out of time for lunch.

Try back tonight, if I have time at home I'll finish this post.