Late on Sunday evening, I was able to catch the last portion of the most recent of the 2009 Intelligence Squared debate series on BBC News Network. The title of this column is a recast of a statement in an article in Current.com, “TV doesn’t always suck,” describing the debate. The topic of the debate: “The Catholic church is a force for good in the world.”
Speakers for the motion were Archbishop John Onaiyekan, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, Nigeria, and sometime president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria; and Ann Widdecombe, Conservative MP who converted to Roman Catholicism after leaving the Church of England in protest over the decision to allow women to become priests.
Speakers against the motion were Christopher Hitchens, writer, broadcaster, columnist and literary critic at Vanity Fair and The Atlantic, among others, and author of the bestselling book “God is not Great”; and Stephen Fry , television, film and stage actor, radio broadcaster, author, and a homosexual.
The debate, aired globally, was conducted before a live audience and members of the live audience were allowed to ask questions from the floor. Votes were also taken, before and after the debate, to determine how many agreed with the motion (YES), how many disagreed (NO) and how many were undecided. The initial tally was YES: 678; NO: 1102 and UNDECIDED: 346. The final tally was YES: 268; NO: 1876 and UNDECIDED: 34. Looking at the figures, I don’t think I need to spell out just how the debate went – the numbers say everything.
Like I said, I was able to see only the last 30 minutes or so of the debate. Hence, I am in no position to relate just how it went. No blow-by-blow account. I’ve been reading accounts of the debate on the web and I am so, so sorry to have missed the part when Stephen Fry “objected to being called a pervert by sexually dysfunctional churchmen” described by Mark Jones, a software developer and blogger who attended the debate at the Methodist Central Hall in Westminster in person.
From the little that I was able to see, suffice to say that choosing Ann Widdecombe to defend the goodness of the Catholic Church probably did more harm than good. What a disaster!
I can only describe her demeanor as insufferable – so insufferable that I had to look up her bio just to contextualize why she acted the way she did and why she said the things she said. She is, after all, a member of the British Parliament and it behooves me how anyone so utterly biased can stay objective when discussing and voting on public policies. So, I read up about her. That was how I found out that she switched churches after the one she originally belonged to, the Church of England, decided to ordain women priests.
That made my jaw drop – again. Because my jaw already dropped while watching the debate when someone from the audience asked Ms. Widdecombe how a woman could be an MP but not a priest. Her reply? She said a woman could no more stand in for Jesus Christ than a man could stand in for the Virgin Mary.
That was the first time I ever heard anyone equate priests with Jesus Christ. Like some implied divinity on the persons of priests. As religions go, we all know that a religious head is the leader of the religious organization. In this modern world, religions whose leaders claim to be God themselves are often regarded as shams and laughed at. So to hear an educated woman – a woman for goodness’ sakes – and a member of Parliament who has a say in the direction her country should take, describe priests as stand-ins for Jesus Christ was rather alarming.
Blogger Mark Jones reflects on Ms. Widdecombe’s response. He wrote in his blog: “This doesn’t so much explain her point but rather re-state the problem. Why, indeed, could a woman *not* stand in for Jesus Christ? A priest doesn’t have to do anything gender specific. Or does he? I think we should be told.”
It is something beyond fundamentalism. It is something much worse and I just don’t have a name for it. Fanaticism comes to mind – zealotry and extremism, even — since this isn’t merely about self-righteous belief but more of an extreme and irrational devotion to the status quo and a vehement insistence to resist change because what has served its purpose for centuries must be good and there’s no need to question that goodness.
Is it really a good thing to have people like her in government? I think about the debates over the Reproductive Health Bill and how the bill remains stale in our own Congress. I think about Lito Atienza, former mayor of the City of Manila, who banned the sale of contraceptives because he insisted that his definition of abortion was the only correct and valid one.
Many Filipinos think that extremely religious persons make moral and ethical leaders. But is that really true? Standards of ethics and morality vary from one person to the next. Perhaps, the better question to ask is whether extremely religious persons make fair and objective leaders who will think, decide and act in favor of the common good rather than in compliance with his own religious biases.
Now I have to watch the debate. Woody’s been watching it lately and he’s reading Stephen Fry. My husband has finally decided he is an Atheist. If his Dad, a devout Muslim or his Grand-father (who was an Imam) knew this…well can you saw awkward ? (to say the least). He started out just being a Non-practicing Muslim and has gone all the way to an Atheist. I remain an Agnostic. But man, sometimes, when things are stressful and I really want it to go a certain way, I start praying!
Let me see how long this debate is…
“sometimes, when things are stressful and I really want it to go a certain way, I start praying!”
I think that shows how deep the Catholic roots of Filipinos are. Even I, without really thinking, still say things like, “Oh, God, please…”
Sorry, I meant he’s been reading the book God is Not Great, eh si Hitchens pala ang author, not Fry.
Hello Connie,
I listened to the debate from the kitchen. I am not a Catholic, but I was bugged by the opposition’s arguments that it was a force for the subjugation of women, the promotion of poverty and ignorance, etc. I felt that anyone could have just deleted the words “Catholic Church” and inserted another religion of their choice and the idea would be the same. Of course, the discussion of other religions are outside the scope of the motion, but it really grated on my ears and when they started talking about child rape I shut off the TV.
I think it is the dark side of human nature that seeks to control others by perpetuating situations where people are unable to think for themselves. It doesn’t matter what these so called (religious/political/social/etc) authorities call themselves.
On the other hand, there is also the more enlightened side of human nature that seeks to destroy these old structures and build more empowering ones. Amazingly enough, both sides can actually exist in one organization/institution
“I felt that anyone could have just deleted the words “Catholic Church” and inserted another religion of their choice and the idea would be the same.”
Goes without saying, doesn’t it, that the primary purpose of any religious organization is to control. Which is precisely why I don’t think it’s correct to equate religion with spirituality. Totally different things.
I’ve been catching episodes of this debate show on & off but I missed particular topic. Widdecombe? hehe
She’s always a guest in another BBC show which lets (older) women rant about anything! There’s a similar show for angry old men, but I can remember the show names. I find Widdecombe hilarious, especially when she’s all worked up & you can see spittle forming in the corners of her mouth.
Even in born-again Christian communities, not everyone agree with having women pastor. I’m not a Bible expert, so I cannot point you to specific scriptures. But from what I have come across (topics from ministries & bible studies), it seems Paul had a lot of teachings about how women should act/behave in churches. In one letter he specified that women should not be allowed to lead men.
The problem with some people is they like to focus on one point that benefit their POV. If you quote that singular statement, not put it into context & the bigger picture that is Christ’s teachings on equality and love, then you do end making ridiculous & controversial rules.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that those who serve God should not marry. But the Catholic priests do it as penitence or sacrifice (?).
Only narrowminded people (religous, zealots, agnostics or atheists, whatever) will tell you women cannot do the best they can in this life. At least that’s how I feel. I believe we were all made in God’s image & I set no boundaries in my life except those that He’s laid out, not man’s.
Widdecombe was a very poor choice. Aside from other narrowminded opinions, she always has this combatant attitude towards almost anything. Maybe it was intended to show Catholics’ a poor choice for those seeking shelter from the world?
In which other show does she appear? Will look in YouTube para matawa ako hahahaha Boy, oh boy, she is a character, no doubt. I read about a radio interview she did where she relayed a story about how someone writing her bio showed her a manuscript where there was an assumption that she must have had at least one sexual affair (she’s unmarried with no kids) and she told the writer the he/she could be sued for statements like that. Anak ng tokwa, talk about extreme attitude!
It’s BBC’s “Grumpy Old Women”… they do nothing but rant. Stress reliever ito but I rarely catch it.
Ann was at Season 1 daw:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p7nbf
Everything I needed to know about all the good the Catholic Church has done for humanity I’ve learned from “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” and “The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy.”
A few years back I was like you, critical and skeptical of the Catholic Church. I have since realized that the Catholic Church as done more good than I could ever thought it could in the last 2000 years despite its position on topics like birth control, women priests, and euthanasia.
I suggest you read “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” and “Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians” if you have time of course.
Cheska, there is no critique on the Catholic Church in the entire article. It is about Catholic (and other religious) zealots in government. I suggest you read it again.
I frown on the word “debate” Instead “dialogue” is what I pray for, between people, races, religion and gender. Religion contrary to what others see it, can also be an instrument to peace. I am catholic, and the church I belong to will never be perfect, will always have rough edges on the surface, will always resort to bickering. But then, there’s always the good side of believing what Christ preached: like living the present moment with joy, solidarity and loving others. If only my fellow catholics would listen and live the message.
Pero alam mo puedeng topic sa inuman toh no? me classmate ako sa law school nagsampalan over religion. haha.
While the statement of Ms. Widdecombe may appear loaded with gender bias, all three major religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are one and the same position as Ms. Widdecombe. Especially in Judaism where the earliest leaders have direct communication from God and followed specific instruction to install male priesthood. And become the tradition for 2010 years.
We have to remind ourselves regarding religion, that its authority is grounded from tradition and not democratic principle. You can embrace it but you cannot pick what you like. This explain the demeanor of its leaders.
If you consider the fatalities of religious wars over the ages including the ongoing one (fatwa against non-believers and Bush declared crusade following 9/11) when there is only one God, it is enough to banish religion. With a tiny country like Philippines reeling from overpopulation due to Church hardline policy against family planning, you’ll think twice if the religious schools in the country catering the elite (and those that can afford high school fees) have been largely diminished and ineffective for the overall church contribution to the state.
It is really scary to put a politician that will be the voice of the tradition of the Church.
The Church IS for responsible family planning and most Catholic hospitals will teach the approved methods.
“cannot pick what you like” – exactly. Being a Catholic is not ‘multiple choice’, just like citizenship is not. Got to pay those taxes whether we want to or not.
We have to distinguish between the ‘essentials’ and ‘accidentals’ of the Church, between the heart of Catholic teaching and how members live out their particular belief system.
There is no approved responsible methods by the Church except for the only one – the rythym. No pills, no sterilization, no condoms and not even withdrawal.
The tiny country with its population largely Catholics suffers when they live out their particular belief system according to the Church anti birth control stance. In Humanae Vitae, sex is designed to create children. And so far sex is essential for married Filipinos.
My eldest sister had 4 children she and her husband can barely raised being jobless for so long. Yet she echoed the Church teachings of sex and procreation.
This is where the goodness of the Catholic Church probably did more harm than good – a human disaster.
Sorry, Connie, if this is a bit off your intended thread-
When we are temporarily ‘inconvenienced’ by the plight of others, does it not bring out the best in us? When the faith community uplifts the human condition, is that not how we avert disaster? More than a set of don’ts, the spirit of Humanae Vitae speaks to us about the affirmation of life: from the support you give a single mom, the boost you extend a struggling marriage, to the convict on death row.
From an anthropology class years ago-the Dani tribe, an aboriginal ‘hunters and gatherers’ group in central Australia, naturally spaced their children 4-5 years apart. (They didn’t even have a word for numbers.) Consideration for women when they are most vulnerable? Practicality? Women provided daily sustenance by the laborious growing of yams, trekking mountains for salt, tending pigs. Their belief system? Untouched by Western thought.
A priest once told me, ‘the Church is also a mother.’ Would a mother write a prescription for disaster? Would she have her children live in fear of their elected officials? Not if the children did their ‘homework’ and critically think about their candidate’s professed faith and if teachings are not ‘tweaked’ to advance personal agendas.
Hi Sass,
I liked your comment -
“It is something beyond fundamentalism. It is something much worse and I just don’t have a name for it. Fanaticism comes to mind – zealotry and extremism, even — since this isn’t merely about self-righteous belief but more of an extreme and irrational devotion to the status quo and a vehement insistence to resist change because what has served its purpose for centuries must be good and there’s no need to question that goodness.”
Maybe yes but IMO more on the side of no. More on the side of self-righteousness. Just like what we have in our country.
Those in the church particularly the nuns. Just because they don’t like the present administration, they will offer their protection to Jun Lozada, a confessed corrupt, just to show that they have the self-righteousness. They thought that it would be a repeat of EDSA I or EDSA II. Duh! (Hindi sumali ang APO at si Ka Freddie! He he he he…)
Or maybe even Bishop Bacani (or Bishop Cruz). The most vocal critics of the present administration from the church for the sake of self-righteousness. (I would not leave my young boy or my young girl a minute alone with these persons. Ayoko ng hilatsa nila.).
And Bacani’s idol president is Erap.
I agree with Hitchen’s view that religion has caused more trouble in the world than anything else. Killing one another because my God is better than your God…..just horrendous.
I think we can all agree that abortion is, if not bad, at least something to be avoided. So if you are anti-abortion, you had better be pro-contraceptive!
I have personally seen this debate myself and I truly enjoyed it. I am not Catholic and I do think that the Catholic Church is not a force for good in the world. I liked the issue of AIDS control in Africa being brought up even though Catholics refuse to give out condoms, good luck stopping this disease without distributing condoms. Personally if the church was a force for good they would not waste their money on all of this ornate decorations for their churches and cathedrals and give that money to its 1 billion followers. I am glad that this “force for good” has finally been shown for what it really is.