Just finished watching it. The bishop needn't have bothered turning up. Ann Widdecombe was, well, Ann Widdecombe.

Hitchens and Fry were brilliant, passionate and forceful, and they totally dwarfed the catholic apologists: who could try to balance the undoubted charity done by its members against the evils perpetrated by its hierarchy and expect the result to be anything but an enormous deficit.

I think the questions needs rewording to "Is the Catholic Church a net force for good in the world?". That would stop people whinging "but we do so much charity work!" and thinking that is a valid argument.

I enjoyed watching the faces of the sour faced nuns in the front row of the audience and they gradually realised they were getting trounced.

I thought Stephen Fry's summary comment at the end was very good. He did get a teensy bit preachy during his main argument though, which I thought was uncharacteristic. Massive sway in the voting at the end which was nice to see.

I was there on the night. It’s a shame that we are only treated to edited highlights for now. This was one of the best performances I’ve seen Hitchens give. And Stephen Fry was an utter revelation. I never knew he had it in him.

However, the event’s page at the Intelligence Squared website does imply that a DVD will be released, so hopefully we’ll be treated to the Full Hitchy soon rather than later:

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/past-events.php?event=EVT0195

In the meantime, you’ll have to make do with my totally objective, unbiased report:

http://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/hitchens-fry-po...

Ahem...

I can't believe that you actually believe that Hitchens and Fry won the debate. Please clarify where they spoke so well and were factually and historically accurate. I am not convinced that people actually changed their opinion on the Church based on the subjective and inept arguments from Hitchens and Fry. Hitchens and Fry were actually very embarrassing. I expected more from them as so-called intellectuals. Fry even tried to speak on behalf of Jesus Christ.

I thought that the Archbishop and Widdecombe were like giants towering above the opposing debaters.

Some basic points to remember:
Homosexuality is wrong but a homosexual person is still a child of God. The Church has never said that Steven Fry is evil, as Hitchens claimed.

The question of condoms is more delicate and difficult. It is a moral evil. It is damaging the most beautiful and intimate act of love between spouses, husband and wife, sexual intercourse. The Church cannot make something evil, not evil, just because of AIDS or public opinion.

Please point out where it is not a force for good, socially, morally, spiritually. It is irritatingly not enough to point out some defects, such as child abuse, which is horrific and evil. If we follow this reasoning through then we would have to get rid of every hospital because of the few doctors who have killed people by neglect or deliberately. We would have to close every school because of the physical and sexual abuse by teachers on their students. I could go on but I have made my point.

The Church has the responsibility, given to it by Jesus Christ, to pronounce on good and evil. This is supposed to be a guide to people wanting to live a good life here and for all eternity with God in heaven. It does not impose these views on anyone, it proposes them for the human person to take them or leave.

"I am not convinced that people actually changed their opinion on the Church based on the subjective and inept arguments from Hitchens and Fry."

Ah so you're in denial about the voting figures presented at the end of the debate? Interesting.

"It does not impose these views on anyone, it proposes them for the human person to take them or leave."
Funny idea of 'not impose', telling people they're in for an eternity of infinite torment if they don't.

Well, actually Richard, it does seem very dubious that about 600 people walking into the studio would vote that they think that the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. Then, 400 of these same people will change their mind after hearing the usual criticisms. These were criticisms which they must have heard a million times before, unless they have been living on the moon.

Richard, honestly was there really anything you had not heard before?

You prefer to live in ignorance or to hear the Truth??

So "WhoAreYou" is astounded that people should change their views in the face of evidence, rather than cling blindly to a dogmatic position?

We can probably narrow his identity down to either Alan Johnson, or the Pope.

"It is damaging the most beautiful and intimate act of love between spouses, husband and wife, sexual intercourse."

Let me get this right.

Condoms are evil because they cause "damage" (your word).

"The Church cannot make something evil, not evil, just because of AIDS or public opinion."

On the AIDS point, it would appear to me that allowing the spread of infection is also "damage".

Therefore, your positon is that condoms are a "moral evil" (not sure what the word moral adds here, by the way) because they cause damage, and so the Church cannot make them unevil because they cause damage.

Are you really thinking through what you are writing before you type?

Either condoms are evil regardless of the damage caused (and your mention of "damage" is wrong); or, if damage is relevant, the use of comdoms must in principle be capable of being a lesser evil than the spread of the infection of AIDS.

Please do have another go at stating your position here.

Many thanks, Jack

@WhoAreYou:

Yes - I hadn't heard the risible attempts of Anne Widdecombe (who I am rather fond of, weirdly, even though I disagree with most of her moral principles and a lot of her policies) to defend the Catholic church before.

I am aware of plenty of non-Catholics who aren't aware of the history of the Catholic church who might think that, because Christianity these days often tries to present itself as being somewhat fluffy, would assume that the Catholic church would be a force for good in general. "The Pope isn't bad, he's just a bit silly and set in his ways" is a quotation from a friend that springs to mind. So no, I don't think it's surprising that 400 people changed their minds after hearing both sides of the argument. Do you really think 400 people who are against the Catholic church organised a rigging of the vote? That seems very unlikely...

Please point out where Fry & Hitchens were factually inaccurate. "Homosexuality is wrong but homosexuals are still children of god" - fine, but if a homosexual doesn't repent for being homosexual, that means they're going to hell, right?

As for condoms, I've never heard of any proclamations about the evils of the rhythm method, or the withdrawal method, which are also methods of contraception (though not as effective as condoms, granted). In fact these "natural family planning" methods are the only methods endorsed by the Catholic church, aren't they? Why is having sex just after a woman's period, when she is unlikely to become pregnant (or after the menopause, even), different from having sex with a condom? What defines the immorality of the act of wearing a condom while having sex? The condom issue is not complicated at all - a pope decided that they were bad whereas natural contraceptive methods were OK, for whatever messed up reasons he thought of at the time. Trying to pretend the issue is complicated is ludicrous and dishonest.

Yes, Jack, they "damage" the relationship of the married couple by putting a barrier between the most intimate expression of their total and fruitful love for each other. I am sorry for not being totally clear with my use of the word.

Actually, there is a difference between a moral evil and natural evil. The former involves the action of a human being, as we are moral beings able to decide right from wrong, good from evil. The natural evil does not involve a human agent therefore is not moral. Condoms are used by moral agents, i.e. human beings, therefore the use by married couples constitutes a moral evil. The use of the condom to deliberately render the sexual act sterile, closed to conception, is therefore a moral evil that also "damages" the union of love between husband and wife.

Richard, I am not convinced. The newspapers and other forms of media have covered the Church's position on condoms (most recently, the Pope in Africa), homosexuality (homosexual unions, homosexual couples adopting rights, etc), and more than any other the moral evil of child abuse.

Have these people entering the television studio to take part in a debate on the Catholic Church as a force for good in the world been sheltered from TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, internet...?? That was my point and my answer would be a definite no. Can you tell me for sure that the audience/BBC are incapable of rigging the vote? Have votes never been rigged before?

What did you think about the title of the debate? What if it had read "Are homosexuals a force for good in the world?" What an uproar there would have been from all the homosexual lobby groups, human rights groups, politicians...etc.

Hitchens said that the Church says that Fry is evil (he specifically said this in the debate). This is wrong, the Church has never said any person with homosexual tendencies is evil. Please show me where the Church, in her teachings state this. No, the homosexual is not necessarily going to hell, the Church has never said that anyone is in hell because it can't! Nobody except God knows the state of a soul at the moment of death, or how morally culpable they are. For example, a person with an addiction to drugs would be less morally culpable of taking drugs than you or I if we take some and are not addicted.

The previous delicate and difficult issue was referring to condoms...but I actually said it was "more" difficult to deal with than homosexuality. What I meant was that homosexuality is more obviously a disordered condition? The action itself is a moral evil....note I have not said the person is evil. Whereas the sexual act between a man and woman is intrinsically a moral good, insofar as they are married. The use of condoms or other forms of contraception make the morality of the sexual act "more difficult" to understand as you have proved by the questions in your response.
Some points about natural family planning:
A couple abstaining from sexual intercourse during the fertile period are not thwarting the act of sexual intercourse, since they are not engaging in it.
Couples engaging in sexual intercourse at the moment of infertility are not withholding fertility as they do not have it to give at that time.
Natural family planning can be considered non-procreative whereas the artificial contraception can be considered anti-procreative.

Do you know what reasoning Pope Paul VI used at the time he wrote Humanae Vitae ? If not why do you say it is "messed up"?
And please show me where I have been dishonest?

Sorry for my delayed reply, I was away over the weekend.

I don't understand why the BBC would rig or would want to rig the vote. I think it is more unlikely that this number of people rigged the vote than it is for this number of people to have their minds changed by the arguments put forward in the debate. Anyway I suppose it doesn't really matter who "won" or "lost" according to voting, as long as everyone was exposed to the ideas expressed.

The title of the debate was fine. You cannot equate a group of people who are defined merely by their sexual preferences with a rich, politically influential, organised group with an explicit moral agenda. Perhaps "Is the National Secular Society a force for good in the world?" would have been a better parallel?

On homosexuality, we have the old testament:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Lev 18:22)

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Lev 20:13)

And the new testament:
"Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1Cor 6:9f)

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another" (Rom 1:24)

What does it mean, if homosexuality is an abomination and homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of god, if it does not mean that a homosexual is evil? Are you trying to separate the deed from the person? Something like, oh I don't know, genocide is evil, but Hitler/Stalin/Mao/whoever is not an evil person for committing genocide, they are just a person who committed an evil act?

To be honest I hadn't read Humanae Vitae before posting that, though I was aware of the gist of the argument against "unnatural" family planning methods. Now that I've read it, I realise the argument is flimsier than I'd imagined:

"The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called.
...
If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.

... it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
...
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love."

So, it's not OK to have deliberately contraceptive sex, because "depriving it [sex], even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will". Oh, but actually it's OK to have deliberately contraceptive sex if you use natural birth control methods, because, erm, you have to abstain for a while every month and that, erm, strengthens the fidelity of your marriage. I am not surprised in the least that this argument was put forward by an abstinent man.

But it gets better:

"Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law."

Evidence that 'unnatural' birth control methods increase infidelity?

"Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection."

It's not just sexist, it's utter drivel.

I suppose dishonest was the wrong word - sorry about that; you obviously honestly believe that the issue of contraception is complicated. I think you couldn't be more wrong ;)

Nicely said Richard. However this is an argument we will never win. To believe in the teaching in the bible requires you to be deluded, and normally as a result of continueous conditioning by your parents and church or subject to desparation in ones life. How else can you take the side of such an undefendable position. A position which defies logic and reason. (it requires faith -aka, lying to your self) Whoareyou, would presumably argue the color red is in fact blue if it stated it in the bible, there will be no changing their minds.

So Richard, no real use in constructing such well formed points, whoareyou is deluded, and there's probably no changing that.

Truth over fantasy -
There's always the chance that we may be deluded, naturally. Anyway, I think it's usually good to exchange points of view (unless you're dealing with a patent fool) - I wouldn't have read "Humanae Vitae" if I hadn't started with this discussion, but it's a cracking good read ;)

More sex abuse scandal shiznay:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6659011/Sexual-abuse...

This makes me a sad panda.

Church used to prevent so many divorces simply because people believed that they are married for life in the eyes of God and things should stay that way. So whenever a couple would face some marriage problems, they had no choice but address them rather than immediately run for divorce.