Catholic Church debate featuring Stephen Fry – official version

The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world

19 Oct 2009

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 begins by insisting that if the Catholic Church were not a force for good, he would not have devoted his entire life to serving it. He says that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church exists because of its 1.6 billion members worldwide, rather than in spite of them. He points not only to the spiritual assistance that his Church provides, but also to the tangible aid that is given internationally through Catholic projects. Finally, 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. Why would the Pope have hidden 3,000 Jews in his summer palace during the Second World War if the Catholic Church was an antisemitic organisation? Admittedly, the New Testament does blame a Jew for the death of Christ; but it also blames a Roman, Pontius Pilate. Are we to infer then that Catholicism is anti-Italian as well as antisemitic? Widdecombe insists that the actions of the Catholic Church in the past should be judged with a degree of historical relativism; they were not the only people to murder and torture those deemed guilty of wrongdoing. She entreats us to imagine a world without the benefits of the Catholic Church, which provides hope, education and medical relief all over the globe.

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 but not limited to: the Crusades; the Spanish inquisition; the persecution of Jews and the forced conversion of peoples to Catholicism, especially in South America. He illustrates the vacuity of recent Catholic apologies by drawing on the case of Cardinal Bernard Law – shamed out of office in the US for his part in covering up the institutionalised sexual abuse of children – whose punishment from the Vatican was to be appointed a supreme vicar in Rome, and who was among those assembled in the 2005 Papal Conclave to choose the next Pope. Hitchens concludes by reminding the Archbishop that his own Church has been responsible for the death of millions of his African brothers and sisters, citing the Church’s disastrous stance on Aids prevention, as well as the ongoing trials in Rwanda in which Catholic priests stand accused of inciting massacre during the 1994 genocide.

Stephen Fry concedes that his opposition to the motion is a deeply personal and emotional one. He criticises the Catholic Church not only for the horrors it has perpetrated in the past, but also for its ideology, and for its sinister temerity to preach that there is no salvation outside of the Church. With two words he refutes Anne Widdecombe’s suggestion that the Catholic Church does not have the powers of a nation state: “The Vatican”. As a homosexual, Fry reflects how bizarre it is to be accused of being “immoral” and “a pervert” by an institution that has persistently hushed up the rape and abuse of children under its care, and whose leading members, abstentious nuns and priests, all share an attitude towards sex that is utterly unnatural and dysfunctional. 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.

Jackson Black (04 Dec 2009 12:00pm)

Although they were destroyed, the Archbishop and Ann redeemed themselves in the final summations.
Kevin Francis (12 Jan 2010 12:41pm)

This motion is invalid for the UK, but unfortunately not for the World. The Catholic Church is a spent force in this country, for which we should give thanks (to each other, if not to God).
Rob Maclaren (12 Jan 2010 1:06pm)

Kevin, you've obviously never seen a mass at one of the many Catholic churches across the UK. If you had, you would have seen a flourishing religious institution that does a great deal of good in this country. People need to recognise the enduring importance of the Catholic Church, and there is no better place to do this than in your local community. Perhaps this would then allow people to appreciate the global impact of Catholicism that Archbishop Oneiyekan so clearly outlined.
Chris Richardson (08 Feb 2010 9:39pm)

A pretty unintelligent use of statistics in the final vote graphics. For: Down from 678 to 268 - "change -20" Percentage drop -60 Against: Up from 1102 to 1876 - "change +34" Percentage rise +70 Undecided: Down from 346 to 34 - "change -14" Percentage drop -90 We know how you got to these figures but how meaningful are they without, at least, a starting point and an explanation of what "change" means. Surely there can't be an ulterior motive for not displaying something more meaningful.
Chris Richardson (08 Feb 2010 10:15pm)

Ok just realised a negative drop is a positive but you know what I mean.
James Vandeweerd (12 Feb 2010 4:14pm)

When I first heard of this debate, I had seen Stephen's initial segment first, and I entirely agree with his standpoint of the Catholic Curch. After veiwing the entire debate, I think the re-vote should have taken place after the closing statements because the Arch-Bishop made a very good point in his closing statement. While I do not agree that the Catholic church as an institution is entirely a force for good in this world in the past, I feel that the church does have it's place in the world. Faith does have it's place in the world, unfortunately most that preach it seem a bit misdirected. The church does do some good things in this world. Although this may be the case, seeing the fanaticism it causes, especaily in the US, against homosexuals (just to name one point) I can not believe that as a whole, the catholic church is a force for good in this world.
Kris Manimala (08 Jun 2010 12:50pm)

1. Let us face the facts: The teams were incomparable. On one side you had an Archbishop and an ex MP, and on the other you had two professional entertainers! When deciding a matter as HUGE as this in a timespan of about 30 min, it is showmanship that counts more than facts. 2.The Church is a 2000 year old institution comprising of 1.6 billion people. To err is human and even parties/countries that are no older than 50 or 100 years have committed mistakes that are horrific. So to defend such a massive institution which is under constant media scrutiny is no mean task. More importantly, its the easiest thing in the world to throw mud at it. 3.As long as you keep harping on the so called mistakes (Crusades/Inquisition/Condoms) so much time is spent in refuting these that we never come to the beauty beneath it. Its like a rose that has been covered in a layer of dust - you need to blow away the dust to appreciate the beauty of the flower. 4.Votes represent the effectiveness of argume