Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world

[tonyrey]

As someone who watched the entire debate (IIRC) I can honestly say that there was nothing about the debate that logically points an unbiased person to the conclusion that the Church is NOT a force for good in the world. Hitchens uses wit, and Fry uses appeal to emotions, whilst both ignore the great good done by the Church and insist that the bad things done by Catholics in history negate all the good ever done by any person motivated by Catholicism. That is the essential flaw with their reasoning, although the crowd swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. I implore my fellow Catholics of firm faith to watch the entire debate. See first hand, and be comforted (although saddened by the outcome) by the realization that the arguments put forth by these supposed intellectuals avoid the question altogether. They answer the question as though it were: “Is the Catholic Church the only force for good in the world” or as though it were “Is the Catholic Church exclusively a force for good, such that no one has done evil in the name of Catholicism?” They wrap this avoidance of the question in emotional appeals and flippant dry humor, and it has a surprisingly effective result on the crowd, a result quite possibly helped along by the human tendency to not want to be alone; in fact, for reasons not at all related to Reason or Logic, I found myself wanting to give in to Mr. Fry and Hitchenson simply because fighting the popular opinion seemed so very hopeless and tiresome, not to mention depressingly lonely. The desire not to be laughed at as a stupid fool is strong, even when the arguments for why you are a stupid fool are quite weak. But that’s all it is, and there was little, if any, truly compelling substance to their arguments.

Of course, most non-Catholics will disagree with me, excepting a few who are refreshingly not threatened by the admission that Catholicism, while not convincing to them, is neither objectively contrary to reason nor is it evil or without merit (i.e. good). Unfortunately, it’s often not enough to disbelieve in Catholicism, but realize that others have come to different conclusions and found value in and been convinced of Catholicism. It seems increasingly apparent that in order for unbelievers to be secure in their unbelief, they must not only believe Catholicism is “stupid and/or absolutely contrary to reason”, now they must believe it is evil or absolutely unproductive as well. I grow weary of the “Catholicism is stupid and/or evil” argument as it is nothing more sound or reliable than political mudslinging translated into the metaphysical realm. As with political candidates, if any non-Catholic worldview–including Atheism–is so grand, it should be able to stand on its own terms and merits, not on blatant attempts to disrespect the intelligence of or mar the reputation of Catholicism, or any other belief system for that matter. I am aware that Catholics have probably partaken in similar mudslinging in the past, and my point stands: Such mudslinging is not an effective or rational way to establish one’s own position as true or good, and only points to an underlying lack of security in the attacker’s own beliefs/disbelief, such that he feels he must attack every alternative with the utmost animosity in order to bolster his own self-worth and confidence. Instead of building up his own position, he feels he must tear others’ down. Christopher Hitchenson in particular is a glaring example of this, and Stephen Fry shows signs of it as well, wrapped in a great deal more charm and politeness to soften the blow and make it less obvious and seem more reasonable.

In short, the debate and outcome of this discussion on Intelligence Squared is nothing new, and nothing compelling.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

Many thanks for a fine analysis and for confirming my opinion of the result of the vote -which I reached without even seeing the debate. Long experience of the attitude of the British public at large towards religion - which I once shared - has enlightened me considerably. I have an excellent neighbour aged eighty, a person I admire very much. When he told me his wife was due to have an operation I said I would say a prayer for her. He just laughed… as if it were a joke!

 

[wanstronian]

Have we learned a lot in the last 50 years? Well we learned how to slaughter our children in numbers unimagined 50 years ago, learned how to set up a culture where our children our seduced by sex and materialism, we have learned how to convince people that deviancy is normal and we have learned that Science is no closer to explaining where the universe and all the matter in it came from now than they were 10,000 years.

Ah, the appeal to emotion. When in doubt, throw in a logical fallacy… And naturally, you are quite wrong on all points.

No one is denying that humans learn-the dispute was you contention that people are learning that their parent and grandparents and all who went before them were consumed by superstition. There is not a single thing that science that has “learned” that puts into question the existence of God. in fact the more science reveal the complexities of the life and the physics the more obvious is it that this could not be the result of random events

I provided an explanation - subjective, but not unreasonable - for why people are questioning the God concept and finding it lacking. It lacks because evidence is non-existent. Douglas Adams put it very nicely:

As a teenager I was a committed Christian. It was in my background. I used to work for the school chapel, in fact. Then one day when I was about eighteen I was walking down the street when I heard a street evangelist and, dutifully, stopped to listen. As I listened it began to be borne in on me that he was talking complete nonsense, and that I had better have a bit of a think about it.
I’ve put that a bit glibly. When I say I realized he was talking nonsense, what I mean is this. In the years I’d spent learning history, physics, Latin, math, I’d learnt (the hard way) something about standards of argument, standards of proof, standards of logic, etc. In fact we had just been learning how to spot the different types of logical fallacy, and it suddenly became apparent to me that these standards simply didn’t seem to apply in religious matters. In religious education we were asked to listen respectfully to arguments that, if they had been put forward in support of a view of, say, why the Corn Laws came to be abolished when they were, would have been laughed at as silly and childish and - in terms of logic and proof - just plain wrong. Why was this?
…What astonished me …] was the realization that the arguments in favour of religious ideas were so feeble and silly next to the robust arugments of something as interpretive and opinionated as history. In fact they were embarrassingly childish. They were never subject to the kind of outright challenge which was the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavor whatsoever. Why not? Because they wouldn’t stand up to it.

 

[estesbob]

Ah, the appeal to emotion. When in doubt, throw in a logical fallacy… And naturally, you are quite wrong on all points.

You claimed people were “learning” and based that opihion solely on your belief they were coming to share you opinions.You claimed that my parents grandparents (and myself) were consumed with supersition That is an argument based on emotion. Igave you exapmles of what the “learning” you cherish has bought about.

I provided an explanation - subjective, but not unreasonable - for why people are questioning the God concept and finding it lacking. It lacks because evidence is non-existent. Douglas Adams put it very nicely:

You gave us an explantion of where the matter that forms the universe and everything in it came from??? Could you reference the post where you did this?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

I’m willing to believe that religion can be a force for good and at least sometimes is, but of course, as the priest sex scandal indicates, it is not always good.

I’m afraid you’ve confused immoral priests with the teachings of our religion. Our religion does not preach pedophilia. That homosexual male pedophiles have snuck into the priesthood as a promising avenue to access boys and rape them there can be no doubt. They thought they would be least likely to be found out, and that worked for a while, but the whistleblowing has made it more and more difficult for them to get into a seminary, never mind get ordained. The Catholic Church is in the process of removing the “filth” from the ranks of the priesthood.

The implication that there are no pedophiles among atheists is laughable on the face of it. In the first place, where is the proof?

What would there be about atheism that discourages pedophilia?

 

[Tybourne]

Many thanks for a fine analysis

Agreed, that was a great analysis. I’ve been trying to confound the poor arguments put forward by Messrs Fry and Hitchens here. If anyone would like to join me, and is willing to remain respectful and reasonable in the face of atheist insult and spittle, your company would be most welcome. God bless.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Agreed, that was a great analysis. I’ve been trying to confound the poor arguments put forward by Messrs Fry and Hitchens here.**

The only thing that needs to be pointed out is that the opposite statement is even less true … the notion that atheism has been a force for good in the world. Messrs Hitler, Stalin and Mao, not to mention their legions of atheist thugs, are surely proof that in the 20th century the ills ascribed to the Catholic Church are negligible by comparison.

Since Roe v Wade the Catholic Church has opposed the slaughter of 50 million babes in the womb in the United States alone. What has organized atheism in the United States done on that front? What has organized atheism done to oppose the insane notion that men should marry men and women should marry women.

I could go on and on. What’s the use?
.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Tybourne

If anyone would like to join me, and is willing to remain respectful and reasonable in the face of atheist insult and spittle, your company would be most welcome.

I’d adopt the other measure, for which Jesus provided the lesson: shake the dust of that town from your feet and move on.

 

[Leela]

Leela

I’m willing to believe that religion can be a force for good and at least sometimes is, but of course, as the priest sex scandal indicates, it is not always good.

I’m afraid you’ve confused immoral priests with the teachings of our religion. Our religion does not preach pedophilia. That homosexual male pedophiles have snuck into the priesthood as a promising avenue to access boys and rape them there can be no doubt. They thought they would be least likely to be found out, and that worked for a while, but the whistleblowing has made it more and more difficult for them to get into a seminary, never mind get ordained. The Catholic Church is in the process of removing the “filth” from the ranks of the priesthood.

The OP question’s whether or not the Catholic Church has been a force for good in the world, not whether its teachings are a force for good. This move is a typical “hide the ball” tactic to avoid any criticism of the Church which may be the teachings, the church hierarchy, the Catholic people, or even Jesus Christ himself depending on which one is the most expedient for evading responsibility for past wrong-doing. I’m glad that JPII did not try to avoid such responsibility and deny any and all allegations of wrong-doing on the part of the Church as it appears you want to do. Instead JPII appologized in 2000 for the Church’s past sins as part of the endeavor to be more true to its calling in the future. If you can’t take an honest look at the past, your view that the Church is a force for good is not necessarily wrong but definitely ill-considered and easily dismissed as the devotion of a star-crossed lover or a mother who is convinced of the essential goodness of her child for whom all evidence (for or against) is simply irrelevant.

The implication that there are no pedophiles among atheists is laughable on the face of it. In the first place, where is the proof?

What would there be about atheism that discourages pedophilia?

No such implication was intended, and these questions not only violate the current ban on posts about atheism but the general rule of moral logic “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Still more, they are completely irrelevent to the topic of this thread. Please try to keep your eye on the ball.

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela
*
No such implication was intended, and these questions not only violate the current ban on posts about atheism but the general rule of moral logic “two wrongs don’t make a right.” *

If I am not mistaken, the phrasing of the ban pertains to the introduction of new threads, not to individual posts.

It’s impossible to answer the question of this thread without citing the philosophical position of those who say that religion is not a force for good. Generally speaking, this is the position of atheists like Hitches cited in the original post. The question then becomes, what force for good has atheism produced if atheists like Hitchens are to sit in moral judgment of the Catholic Church?

To avoid this question is, as you might put it, to “hide the ball.”

I have not hidden the ball. In several posts I have cited ways that the Church has been a force for good. I have also asked if those who oppose the Church as a force for good have supplied evidence that they are themselves acting as a force for good. That would include Hitchens. Has Hitchens opposed the slaughter of millions of babes in the womb? Has he opposed the insanity of marriage between members of the same sex?

Let’s not be hiding any balls.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Having a special interest in the cinema, I know the history of that subject, and I know that the Catholic Church was greatly instrumental in setting standards of decency for movies in the '30s and '40s. Many classics survive that era, classics that I’d not be ashamed to view with my grandchildren. Since then, however, since the virtual collapse of the decency code, movies have become increasingly vulgar and instrumental in corrupting the morals of our youth. Child actors are even enlisted to play vulgar parts and use language once considered horrendous for adults to use in public or in mixed company.

This is just **one **area where the Catholic Church once exercised a positive role before the gradual slide into the “dirty” culture that now prevails.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*The OP question’s whether or not the Catholic Church has been a force for good in the world, not whether its teachings are a force for good. *

Why do you need to distinguish the teachings of the Catholic Church from the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church condemns pedophilia. That some Catholics have practiced it in no way undermines the teaching except by giving scandal to the hypocrisy of preaching one thing and practicing another.

 

[Leela]

Leela
*
No such implication was intended, and these questions not only violate the current ban on posts about atheism but the general rule of moral logic “two wrongs don’t make a right.” *

If I am not mistaken, the phrasing of the ban pertains to the introduction of new threads, not to individual posts.

It’s impossible to answer the question of this thread without citing the philosophical position of those who say that religion is not a force for good. Generally speaking, this is the position of atheists like Hitches cited in the original post. The question then becomes, what force for good has atheism produced if atheists like Hitchens are to sit in moral judgment of the Catholic Church?

To avoid this question is, as you might put it, to “hide the ball.”

I have not hidden the ball. In several posts I have cited ways that the Church has been a force for good. I have also asked if those who oppose the Church as a force for good have supplied evidence that they are themselves acting as a force for good. That would include Hitchens. Has Hitchens opposed the slaughter of millions of babes in the womb? Has he opposed the insanity of marriage between members of the same sex?

Let’s not be hiding any balls.

The question is not whether Catholicism is better or worse than atheism. The question is just whether the Catholic Church is essentially good or bad. No discussion of the benefits or problems with atheism as a philsophy is relevent to the issue at hand, and if I were you I wouldn’t keep insisting on discussing atheism given the current ban.

Your ad hominem attacks against Hitchens are also irrelevant unless you really intend to argue that no one who is not himself without sin has any ability to cite evidence either for or against the proposition that the Catholic Church is a force for good. In other words, whether you think Hitchens is good or bad is irrelevant to the validity of any arguments he makes. In addition, with regard to Hitchen’s so-called sinfulness, Jesus might advise you to first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye…or something like that. I mean, should we worry about whether or not you’ve had any impure thoughts today to help us figure out whether you or Hitchens makes a better case? Have you coveted anything lately? Neither Hitchens nor you has ever gotten an abortion, so you are no better there. How many abortions have you prevented today? Do you think it is enough simply to hold the right moral views in your mind at no personal cost,or are you instead called to actually act on them? Have you loved your neighbor as yourself today? Really loved God with your WHOLE heart??

I hope I’ve made it clear that such moral tests for participating in a conversation about the Church are absurd and out of line. Did you ever think about how Jesus was always so tender with those guilty of sexual sin? But nothing got his goat more than hypocricy and self-righteousness. Those are the only things that seemed to really get him angry. You might give that some thought.

Best,
Leela

Really. I desire the best for you.

 

[Swan]

And most people for thousands of years before that saw many gods. Were they right or wrong?

I already said that people aren’t getting smarter - not noticeably anyway, that’s not how evolution works. However, the tools available to us are certainly helping us to answer questions we wouldn’t even have thought to ask 50 years or so ago.

I don’t know for sure what’s changed, but at a guess I’d say:

1. There’s less social pressure to conform to religious doctrine than there was even a few decades ago. Atheism is (rightly) socially acceptable these days.
2. The success of science has illustrated the value of empirical evidence over blind faith. Too much of the latter has been debunked by a proper analysis of the former.
3. A few bold pioneers have dared to publicly point out that evidence for God is absent, and to also point out that belief in something for which no evidence exists, is irrational.
4. Much of the evidence that comprehensively debunks Creationism has become accepted by the scientific majority relatively recently. For example, radiometric dating was discovered only about a hundred years ago; same goes for Plate Tectonic theory - in fact this was only shown to be irrefutable about 50 years ago.

The above is just my speculation - as I said, I don’t know for sure what’s behind the drive away from superstition. But I can think of no advantage in holding superstitious beliefs so it’s good that they’re slowly dispersing.

You make some excellent points. I can’t help but notice that this thread seems to have strayed from focusing strictly on the Catholic church to Christianity in general per the uses of the term “religion” which I’m taking to mean the Christian religion. I mention this because of your point that the Judeo/Christian “God” is far from the only one that has ever been recognized. Yet the continued use of terms such as “without religion” suggests that none of followers of these other deities were a force for good, regardless of anthropological and sociological studies showing otherwise (that the peoples often did have religious beliefs that were “good” for their society).

I would also like to point out that history makes it more than clear that the Christian world was not necessarily kind to the poor, elderly or sick (including infants and children) Indeed, these people were often imprisoned, shunned, and/or ignored until they died. Only with modern laws providing government funded services for these folks have we even begun to turn the corner in providing them (on a large scale) with food, shelter, education and health care. So this is simply a red herring (unless you can show these groups were better taken for in say, the Dark Ages, Victorian Europe & US, etc…). You need also consider the results of the Industrial Revolution on moving the masses to the cities, often overcrowded and filled the underpaid and what this has done to the family dynamic. The greed that drives our industrialized and capitalized world and sees the bottom line as the only indicator of progress has destroyed many a family. And most of those CEO’s at least claim to be Christians - and I’m sure some are Catholic. So the idea that the world is falling apart because man has turned away from your God, while clearly relished by some is, unfortunately for those same folks, simply not one that will stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Tybourne]

I would also like to point out that history makes it more than clear that the Christian world was not necessarily kind to the poor, elderly or sick (including infants and children) Indeed, these people were often imprisoned, shunned, and/or ignored until they died. Only with modern laws providing government funded services for these folks have we even begun to turn the corner in providing them (on a large scale) with food, shelter, education and health care.

You make some pretty sweeping statements here with little in the way of evidence to back them up. I’m no social historian, but I would have thought that careful scrutiny of the facts may suggest otherwise:

And the eyes of the King’s Servants turned terribly every way,
And the gold of the King’s Servants rose higher every day.
They burnt the homes of the shaven men, that had been quaint and kind,
Till there was no bed in a monk’s house, nor food that man could find.
The inns of God where no man paid, that were the wall of the weak.
The King’s Servants ate them all. And still we did not speak.

And the face of the King’s Servants grew greater than the King:
He tricked them, and they trapped him, and stood round him in a ring.
The new grave lords closed round him, that had eaten the abbey’s fruits,
And the men of the new religion, with their bibles in their boots,
We saw their shoulders moving, to menace or discuss,
And some were pure and some were vile; but none took heed of us.
We saw the King as they killed him, and his face was proud and pale;
And a few men talked of freedom, while England talked of ale.

A war that we understood not came over the world and woke
Americans, Frenchmen, Irish; but we knew not the things they spoke.
They talked about rights and nature and peace and the people’s reign:
And the squires, our masters, bade us fight; and scorned us never again.
Weak if we be for ever, could none condemn us then;
Men called us serfs and drudges; men knew that we were men.
In foam and flame at Trafalgar, on Albuera plains,
We did and died like lions, to keep ourselves in chains,
We lay in living ruins; firing and fearing not
The strange fierce face of the Frenchmen who knew for what they fought,
And the man who seemed to be more than a man we strained against and broke;
And we broke our own rights with him. And still we never spoke…

They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.

We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet,
Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.
It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia’s wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God’s scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.

G.K. Chesterton ‘The Secret People’

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*Your ad hominem attacks against Hitchens are also irrelevant unless you really intend to argue that no one who is not himself without sin has any ability to cite evidence either for or against the proposition that the Catholic Church is a force for good. In other words, whether you think Hitchens is good or bad is irrelevant to the validity of any arguments he makes. In addition, with regard to Hitchen’s so-called sinfulness, Jesus might advise you to first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye…or something like that. I mean, should we worry about whether or not you’ve had any impure thoughts today to help us figure out whether you or Hitchens makes a better case? Have you coveted anything lately? Neither Hitchens nor you has ever gotten an abortion, so you are no better there. How many abortions have you prevented today? Do you think it is enough simply to hold the right moral views in your mind at no personal cost,or are you instead called to actually act on them? Have you loved your neighbor as yourself today? Really loved God with your WHOLE heart??

I hope I’ve made it clear that such moral tests for participating in a conversation about the Church are absurd and out of line. Did you ever think about how Jesus was always so tender with those guilty of sexual sin? But nothing got his goat more than hypocricy and self-righteousness. Those are the only things that seemed to really get him angry. You might give that some thought.*

I’ve not said anything good or bad about the character of Hitchens. Show me the sentence where I did.

Without knowing a thing about me, you seem to have indicted me for hypocrisy. Do I detect a full scale adhominem attack? And why so if you are supposed to be opposed to ad hominems? Could you perhaps practice what you preach?

More specifically:

Neither Hitchens nor you has ever gotten an abortion, so you are no better there. How many abortions have you prevented today?

I don’t know. I hope that my prayers have had some effect on some mother about to kill her child. For the past six years I have I donated $50 a month to the Catholic Nurturing Center in Lubbock, Texas. They counsel young women considering an abortion. Several hundred women, according to their records, have been assisted and counseled against having an abortion. I’m not sure about the exact number, but I think it is claimed by the Center that more than 100 abortions have been averted as a result of the Nurturing Center’s work.

This sort of thing is being done by Catholics all over the nation and in other parts of the world. I’m asking you to consider whether in this respect the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world.

 

[wanstronian]

estesbob:
You claimed people were “learning” and based that opihion solely on your belief they were coming to share you opinions.No I didn’t.

You claimed that my parents grandparents (and myself) were consumed with supersition

No I didn’t.

That is an argument based on emotion. Igave you exapmles of what the “learning” you cherish has bought about.

Emotive and inaccurate examples.

You gave us an explantion of where the matter that forms the universe and everything in it came from??? Could you reference the post where you did this?

No, as I said in my last post (which you clearly didn’t read), I gave examples of why, in my opinion, more and more people are starting to apply critical thinking skills to the God concept.

You haven’t represented me accurately at any point. Is this how you always debate?

 

[estesbob]

No I didn’t.No I didn’t.Emotive and inaccurate examples.No, as I said in my last post (which you clearly didn’t read), I gave examples of why, in my opinion, more and more people are starting to apply critical thinking skills to the God concept.

You haven’t represented me accurately at any point. Is this how you always debate?

I have represented EXACTLY what you said. Your Post #17:

Wrt the average age, it tells me that people are learning to question the dogma that their parents and grandparents unthinkingly accepted. People are learning to think for themselves and break free from superstition. Happy days.

 

[Leela]

Leela

*The OP question’s whether or not the Catholic Church has been a force for good in the world, not whether its teachings are a force for good. *

Why do you need to distinguish the teachings of the Catholic Church from the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church condemns pedophilia. That some Catholics have practiced it in no way undermines the teaching except by giving scandal to the hypocrisy of preaching one thing and practicing another.

My point is not to say that the teachings of the Catholic Church are not part of the Catholic Church. Of course they are. So is the pope, the bishops and the priests as well as the laity.

The fact that the Church was complicit in sexual abuse because some of its priests committed the abuse and some of its bishops systematically covered up and allowed such abuse to continue is not changed by the fact that the Church doesn’t have any official teaching encouraging bishops to protect and hide abusers. This is not to say that the facts of the sex abuse scandals should be all we consider in evaluating the claim that the Catholic Church is a force for good. It is just to say that you can’t write off anything that is not officially taught as doctrine as not really being the Catholic Church. As I understand the OP, it is about the Church as an organization which includes a set of stated beliefs but is not equivalent to a set of beliefs. It is an organic whole.

Best,
Leela

 

[wanstronian]

I have represented EXACTLY what you said. Your Post #17:

And you said, in Post #40:

You claimed people were “learning” and based that opihion solely on your belief they were coming to share you opinions.

I think you may be experiencing some comprehension difficulties. I have already answered this challenge once, in posts #21 and #31.

I gave irrefutable evidence of the fact that people are learning to apply critical thinking skills and appreciating the value of empirical evidence. I clearly stated that this was the reason behind my claim that they are learning. I challenged you to dispute that people are learning. You didn’t dispute it.

The fact that people who are able to stringently apply such methodology to the God concept come up with a result of ‘no evidence’ is completely coincidental to my opinion. There’s no causation, just correlation. Yes, I’m glad we concur, because it gives me more confidence in my position. But my basis for stating that people are learning is clearly stated, and unrelated to my personal opinion.

By the way, I’m still waiting for your answer to my question on what makes polytheism wrong and monotheism right. You were quick to condemn my use of the word ‘superstition’ for a belief in a single God. What is your opinion of the basis of polytheism?

 

[wanstronian]

I’ll try and put the posts back in order - you’ve got it all a bit muddled up and I’m not sure I can sort out your nested quotes…

You don’t even seem sure where it is taught! Do you know how seriously “citizenship” is taken in schools? A section sums it up nicely! Relegated to an obscure corner of the curriculum instead of being at the core of education… Why do you think there is a lack of discipline in schools and a shortage of teachers? Why do so many leave the profession?

Anecdotally, because teachers are no longer allowed to discipline the children other than with words, and the kids know this. I went to a secular school, discipline and moral standards were high, religion was not required. It still isn’t. Religion is not the only source of morals. In fact, it’s not the source at all, it’s just a claimant.

A doctrine is one of “a body of teachings”, whether or not it has a basis…

Okay. The semantics aren’t important. I concede this point, it makes no difference to the underlying argument.

The fact that human beliefs have changed does not show that the right to life is a human convention…

No. It’s just common sense. And of course, there’s no evidence that it’s an objective right. Rights are concepts, and without somebody to conceptualise them, they don’t exist. Analagously, there are many groups who support the right to life of animals. Do you dispute that this is a human convention? Why is it so difficult for you to make the small leap of logic necessary to realise that the same is true for human life?

It is but in the US there is not the same percentage of abortions, divorces, teenage pregnancies, etc.

Okay - I really can’t be bothered to look for statistics. I’ll just point out again that correlation does not imply causation.

Refuge in obscurity!

How come your inability to substantiate a claim that you made, is suddenly seen as my dodge?

What does that prove?

It doesn’t prove anything - but you have clearly made an implication that the oh-so-dreadful state of the world is due to a receding belief in God. I don’t think you’ve thought it through.

That was but one example - as you will soon see:

“One woman in three now has an abortion.”
bpas.org/bpaswoman.php?page=18

Well then we’ve got a significant disparity, because the anti-abortion website I linked to has a very different statistic. If you think about it, one woman in three is a ridiculous suggestion. The site I linked prefaces its statistics with the following: “The latest Department of Health report on abortion statistics in England and Wales for 2007 revealed the following:” and then goes on to cite “18.6 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44”. Less than 2 percent. Your link cites nothing. The problem is not as big as you think it is.

It is directly related to the breakdown in family life and the increase in divorces, believe it or not…

I’ll believe it, when you provide evidence. If you can’t prove it, don’t claim it. Otherwise I can just make the opposite bare assertion and we’ve got nowhere. You’re just blustering.

Is it natural for parents to be deprived of the company of their children and grandchildren and compelled to live with strangers? You take it for granted because you live in Britain but
family life is the norm in most countries of the world. People are horrified when they hear of what is happening here…

Sorry - I asked whether you could substantiate your claim, not just repeat it in different words. Can you?

I’m glad you hesitate to write them off!

Why wouldn’t I? It’s a thorny issue, but not one that needs any religious (name removed by moderator)ut.

Why do you surmise that I’m defending euthanasia?

Sorry - finger trouble. I meant ‘attack on,’ not ‘defense of.’

The issue is whether the Catholic Church is a force for good, not your opinion of its reasons for defending the right of the unborn - which is incorrect anyway.

I never said the CC was all bad! Just unnecessary. This is a case in point. I happen to agree with its conclusions, but not its rationale.