Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world

[NewCatholic1207]

This was apparently a topic on the British television show Intelligence2.

I was told that speaking for the motion, Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdencombe MP. Speaking against the motion, Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. This was followed by questions from an audience. At the end, the audience voted on who won the debate, with 1,876 out of 2,100… people voting that the Catholic Church IS NOT a force for good.

Can anyone give me some insight into the content of this debate or where I could find the debate in its entirety? Also, if anyone saw the debate why so many people voted in the negative.

Thanks.

 

[wanstronian]

This was apparently a topic on the British television show Intelligence2.

I was told that speaking for the motion, Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdencombe MP. Speaking against the motion, Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. This was followed by questions from an audience. At the end, the audience voted on who won the debate, with 1,876 out of 2,100… people voting that the Catholic Church IS NOT a force for good.

Can anyone give me some insight into the content of this debate or where I could find the debate in its entirety? Also, if anyone saw the debate why so many people voted in the negative.

Thanks.

You can find it on Youtube, and there are a number of capture tools that you can use to download it and watch in your own time.

 

[tonyrey]

Also, if anyone saw the debate why so many people voted in the negative…

I haven’t watched the debate but that result is predictable in a society where over 90% have no religion, moral education is neglected, teenage pregnancies are the highest in Europe and many people advocate abortion and euthanasia…

 

[Mark77]

It surely is difficult to overcome the constant shrill screams from the media & people like Hitchens & Dawkins who are applauded by the ignorant masses as “intellectual brights!”

Unfortunately it is so much easier to sell the gospel of “self gratification & self empowerment” (selfishness & greed) sewn by the likable snake oil salesmen & women of our day like Oprah, than to sell total self giving, self sacrificing Agape Love. Mr. Hitchens even has the gall to denigrate Blessed Mother Teresa???

We as Catholics surely need to do a much better job of presenting the Truth of our Lord & Savior, Jesus the Christ, but in the end, we Crucified Jesus, despite the miracles & the Love He spread.

Jesus teaches us; “and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.” (Mk 13:13)

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Moscati]

A Catholic friend of mine’s boyfriend (who is not Catholic) sent her this. It reduced her to tears, both because she was sorrowful over the charges against the Church that are true and that we need to make amends for and because so much of what they said was just completely false or twisted.

I do think the debate was purposely set up to make the Catholics look bad–two charismatic, decent-looking (Fry, anyway . . .), intellectual-sounding white men against an African Archbishop whose first language is not English and a political woman most people in our image-obsessed society would call “frumpy”. I guess we might get points for our diversity, but . . . The people voted for the better rhetoricians, the ones who looked and sounded ‘smarter’ and shouted louder, without much regard for truth. I’d take the humility and understanding the Archbishop exuded over Hitchens any day, but society at large doesn’t agree.

 

[Ignatius]

This was apparently a topic on the British television show Intelligence2.

I was told that speaking for the motion, Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdencombe MP. Speaking against the motion, Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. This was followed by questions from an audience. At the end, the audience voted on who won the debate, with 1,876 out of 2,100… people voting that the Catholic Church IS NOT a force for good.

Can anyone give me some insight into the content of this debate or where I could find the debate in its entirety? Also, if anyone saw the debate why so many people voted in the negative.

Thanks.

In addition to the links to the debate info posted by others, you might take a look at this video. Although not directly involved in the debate, it provides some additional information. youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6qZd_xP1w

 

[1holycatholic]

In addition to the links to the debate info posted by others, you might take a look at this video. Although not directly involved in the debate, it provides some additional information. youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6qZd_xP1w

Video removed due to terms of use violation.

Truth is not determined by an show of hands.

This is the fundamental fault with Wikipedia.

 

[Ignatius]

A Catholic friend of mine’s boyfriend (who is not Catholic) sent her this. It reduced her to tears, both because she was sorrowful over the charges against the Church that are true and that we need to make amends for and because so much of what they said was just completely false or twisted.

Show her this, it might cheer her up: youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6qZd_xP1w
It always gives me a lift.

 

[wanstronian]

I haven’t watched the debate but that result is predictable in a society where over 90% have no religion

Where do you get this figure from? There isn’t a single country in Europe where this is true. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Europe

, moral education is neglected

your justification for this statement?

, teenage pregnancies are the highest in Europe

I’d be interested in your proven causal link between the teenage pregnancy rate and the result of the debate. In fact, given that the UK doesn’t have the highest rate of atheism in Western Europe, your implication seems doubly hollow.

and many people advocate abortion

many people advocate choice, under certain very strict conditions. You make it sound like abortion is the norm.

and euthanasia…

Yes - thankfully most of the people in the UK are rational enough to advocate the right of the individual to end their own lives - again, under certain conditions. Hopefully it will be law soon, and we won’t be beholden to some iron-age superstition that baldly states that only an unproven invisible magician in the sky has the right to end one’s suffering.

You haven’t even watched the video, yet you feel qualified to pass judgement amd make up statistics to support your empty rhetoric. Nice going.

 

[wanstronian]

I do think the debate was purposely set up to make the Catholics look bad

You “think?”

–two charismatic, decent-looking (Fry, anyway . . .), intellectual-sounding white men

Are you implying racism? I don’t know about Hitchens, having never heard or read him before, but Fry sounds intellectual because, well, he is.

against an African Archbishop whose first language is not English

You can’t really call ‘foul’ here - all participants were volunteers.

and a political woman most people in our image-obsessed society would call “frumpy”.

Hmmm, like Fry and Hitchens. They’re hardly Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, now are they? Lets try and avoid the selective victimisation.

I guess we might get points for our diversity, but . . . The people voted for the better rhetoricians, the ones who looked and sounded ‘smarter’ and shouted louder, without much regard for truth.

Perhaps you could point out the lies they told - their opponents didn’t take the opportunity for some reason…?

I’d take the humility and understanding the Archbishop exuded over Hitchens any day, but society at large doesn’t agree.

I think society at large considered the arguments and the evidence, then made a rational decision. I don’t think it was a vote on who was the most humble.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I watched the debate and it was so ridiculous that I was expecting the CC to later announce that it was a fraud and they had not participated in any debate.

The very premise of the debate should not have been accepted. To prove that the CC is “a force for good”, one would have to present evidence of what the world would be without it. This thought, although primary to any such debate was totally ignored. Instead, they tried presenting a list of good things and compared them to bad things. Even if the bad was 10 times the good, without knowing what would have taken place without the CC, the statistic would be meaningless.

On top of that, the CC proponents were seriously poor at defending their cause. It was a political debate. The CC should have provided political speakers. They have plenty to spare.

When the AntiChrist invites you as a guest on his talk show, what idiot goes unprepared if at all? The whole thing was a sham.

 

[estesbob]

This was apparently a topic on the British television show Intelligence2.

I was told that speaking for the motion, Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdencombe MP. Speaking against the motion, Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. This was followed by questions from an audience. At the end, the audience voted on who won the debate, with 1,876 out of 2,100… people voting that the Catholic Church IS NOT a force for good.

Can anyone give me some insight into the content of this debate or where I could find the debate in its entirety? Also, if anyone saw the debate why so many people voted in the negative.

Thanks.

The Catholic Church has been the greatest force for good in the history of the world.

 

[wanstronian]

I watched the debate and it was so ridiculous that I was expecting the CC to later announce that it was a fraud and they had not participated in any debate.

The very premise of the debate should not have been accepted. To prove that the CC is “a force for good”, one would have to present evidence of what the world would be without it.

So how would you show that anything is good?

This thought, although primary to any such debate was totally ignored. Instead, they tried presenting a list of good things and compared them to bad things. Even if the bad was 10 times the good, without knowing what would have taken place without the CC, the statistic would be meaningless.

On top of that, the CC proponents were seriously poor at defending their cause. It was a political debate. The CC should have provided political speakers. They have plenty to spare.

Ann Widdecombe is a politician.

When the AntiChrist invites you as a guest on his talk show, what idiot goes unprepared if at all? The whole thing was a sham.

Did you watch the same thing? It wasn’t a talk show! It was held in a methodist church hall! To whom are you emotively referring as the antichrist?

 

[wanstronian]

The Catholic Church has been the greatest force for good in the history of the world.

If only you’d been there to debate against Fry and Hitchens - they wouldn’t have stood a chance…!!

 

[tonyrey]

I haven’t watched the debate but that result is predictable in a society where over 90% have no religion.

You are confusing atheism with having no religion…

Moral education is neglected

your justification for this statement?

By its absence in schools and the increase in crime.

teenage pregnancies are the highest in Europe

I’d be interested in your proven causal link between the teenage pregnancy rate and the result of the debate. In fact, given that the UK doesn’t have the highest rate of atheism in Western Europe, your implication seems doubly hollow.

Same mistake as above.

and many people advocate abortion

many people advocate choice, under certain very strict conditions. You make it sound like abortion is the norm.

Why do you think an increasing number of doctors are refusing to carry out abortions?

Yes - thankfully most of the people in the UK are rational enough to advocate the right of the individual to end their own lives - again, under certain conditions.

And putting pressure on old people by making them feel they are a burden on society. When life becomes a matter of human convention and convenience no one is safe… as the Nazis made abundantly clear…

Hopefully it will be law soon, and we won’t be beholden to some iron-age superstition that baldly states that only an unproven invisible magician in the sky has the right to end one’s suffering.

The usual caricature of Christianity… We are certainly not beholden to the recent “substition” that an unproven invisible magician in the dust has brought forth purposeless freaks of nature which have no rights whatsoever!

You haven’t even watched the video, yet you feel qualified to pass judgement amd make up statistics to support your empty rhetoric. Nice going.

There is no need to watch the video in a pagan society brainwashed by fanatics like Dawkins who produce TV programmes about the evils of religion… As for statistics check on the percentage of churchgoers - and note their average age of 60+… What does that tell you?

 

[Ignatius]

"Moscati:

Show her this, it might cheer her up: youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6qZd_xP1w

It always gives me a lift.

So, did you show it to here? What did she think of it?

 

[wanstronian]

You are confusing atheism with having no religion…

I assumed you meant religion as in a belief in God. Did you mean it in the context of a life bound by religious vows, regardless of belief? In any event, one would expect a very close correlation, so your protest is specious.

By its absence in schools and the increase in crime.

I never heard of a class called ‘Moral Education.’ Do you have it in the States? Regarding the increase in crime - correlation does not imply causation, even if such a causation is convenient to your mission.

Same mistake as above.

Same response as above.

Why do you think an increasing number of doctors are refusing to carry out abortions?

I haven’t heard this - can you provide a citation for your claim? And if it’s true, can you direct me to the reasons these doctors have provided?

And putting pressure on old people by making them feel they are a burden on society.

Citation?

When life becomes a matter of human convention and convenience no one is safe… as the Nazis made abundantly clear…

Ah, Godwin’s law! An excellent indicator of when someone hasn’t a clue what they’re talking about! Euthenasia is not about the convenience of bumping someone else off, it’s about the ending of suffering of the individual, at the request of the individual, and with the proper medical opinions to support their request. How can you argue against something when you don’t even understand what it is?

The usual caricature of Christianity… We are certainly not beholden to the recent “substition” that an unproven invisible magician in the dust has brought forth purposeless freaks of nature which have no rights whatsoever!

I don’t know what you’re talking about here - you’ve just invented lots of things that atheists don’t say or believe. You’re nothing if not consistent - I’ve never had a discussion with you yet where you don’t fabricate nonsensical beliefs on the part of atheists. It always makes me smile when you demonstrate your inability to argue honestly. You are truly the King of Straw Men!

There is no need to watch the video in a pagan society brainwashed by fanatics like Dawkins who produce TV programmes about the evils of religion…

I’ll ignore the emotive and inaccurate squawking. So you admit you’re passing judgement on something you haven’t even seen?

As for statistics check on the percentage of churchgoers - and note their average age of 60+… What does that tell you?

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.

 

[estesbob]

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.

What makes this generation so much “smarter” than all who went before us?

 

[wanstronian]

What makes this generation so much “smarter” than all who went before us?

I didn’t say they were smarter, I said they were learning.

 

[estesbob]

I didn’t say they were smarter, I said they were learning.

And what is their learning based on? Superior intelligence to recgonize superstition where their Parents and Grandparents and most people for the last 2,000 years saw saw God?