Catholic Church debate featuring Stephen Fry – official version

The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world

19 Oct 2009

Speakers: Stephen Fry, Archbishop John Onaiyekan, Ann Widdecombe, Zeinab Badawi, Christopher Hitchens 1949-2011

This debate was the first in our iq2 Shorts series – a series of debates represented through animation. In the video you can watch Ann Widdecombe and Stephen Fry lock horns over the motion above. The video is available on the right-hand side of this page, and you can also view it on our YouTube Channel.

Chair Zeinab Badawi introduces the motion 'The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world.

See the debate in full above, or use the chapter bar on the right-hand side of this page to skip to each of the panelists' speeches.

Initial Vote: 678 For, 1102 Against, Undecided 346

Final Vote: 268 For, 1876 Against, Undecided 34

Arguing in favour of the motion are Archbishop John Onaiyekan and the Rt Hon. Ann Widdecombe MP.

Archbishop Onaiyekan points not only to the spiritual assistance that his Church provides, but also to the tangible aid that is given internationally through Catholic projects. He admits that Catholics are not infallible, but are by necessity sinners trying to improve themselves through their faith.

Ann Widdecombe suggests that in trawling all the way back to the Crusades to find something to blame the Catholic Church for, Christopher Hitchens merely demonstrates how flimsy his argument really is, and insists that the actions of the Catholic Church in the past be judged with a degree of historical relativism.

Arguing against the motion are Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry.

Christopher Hitchens asserts that any argument trying to identify the merits of the Catholic Church must begin with a long list of sincere apologies for its past crimes, including the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the persecution of the Jews, and the forced conversion of peoples to Catholicism, especially in South America.

Stephen Fry concedes that his opposition to the motion is a deeply personal and emotional one. With two words he refutes Anne Widdecombe’s suggestion that the Catholic Church does not have the powers of a nation state: “The Vatican”. He concludes by questioning whether Jesus, as a humble Jewish carpenter, would have approved of all the pomp and excess of the Catholic Church, and whether he would even have been accepted by such an arrogant organisation.