Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good

Brits in the final polling disagree by about 1800 to 200 or so.

The Brits who watched the debate in other words came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is a force for evil.

What say you, and why?

Much of the so-called evidence that indicts the Catholic Church is either not directed at the Church per se (after all, an individual, cleric or lay, who sins in any way is not upholding the Catholic Church’s teachings, right? It would be like saying that a person who identifies himself as a democrat but consistently votes anything BUT democratic is ‘upholding the democratic party’. I think most people would see that argument as absurd, but for some reason they’re less clearsighted about acknowledging that Catholics disregarding their Church teachings are HARDLY upholding Catholicism. . .

Or the ‘evidence’ is directed at events but viewing said events in a false way.

Let’s take the Inquisition, for example.
Either the persons calling the Church a ‘force for evil’ on the grounds of “The Inquisition and its evils” are misinformed about the Inquisition itself (many of them still think that the Church ‘murdered’ hundreds of millions of people, mostly Protestants, and tortured people for gain) or even if they do acknowledge the truth (it is complicated, as are most truths, because they exist in a complicated world), they attempt to impart 21st century knowledge onto 15th century life (the person then did not have 500 centuries of ‘tolerance’ or a fairly stable world, high levels of literacy, etc… . . we do), or they make the absurd claim that any personal wrongdoing on the part of any member of the hierarchy, regardless of its type, regardless if it is a ‘wrongdoing’ in the eyes again of the 21st century person or of the 15th century person, automatically and indelibly casts such a ‘stain’ upon the Church as to render its claim to be Christ’s church false.

So basically you have literally dozens of scenarios on which a person can ‘find fault’ with the actions of individuals ('considered to the “The Church”). Funny how the same people ranting about how the Church is a force for evil ignore the fact that the reason they are free to do so is that same Church.

Without the Church fighting the Muslim invaders during the Crusades, Europe would have fallen to the Muslims. The New World would probably not have been discovered. If it had been, its future with ‘free’ countries would have almost certainly never been achieved.

Without the Church’s work in the Inquisition, many Quislings (look it up) could have achieved a Muslim control of Spain and Portugal at the time that those countries had just opened up the New World and achieved wealth. . .the wealth would have poured into Muslim hands and once again, we’d see the subjection of the rest of Europe and the subjugation of "the Americas’ into Islamic conclaves. Again, freedom as we know it would be completely lost. And that’s speaking just for the men. Imagine the life of WOMEN under the Muslims. . .

Without the Church a couple of centuries before this, we would have no universities. (Yes, the Church which so many think is 'anti-intellectual" was responsible for universities as we know them). We would have no hospitals. We’d have poorer people and poorer soil–the monks of Europe were the ones who single-handedly sought out and carried out farming techniques and innovations which raised the standard of living and made it possible to people to farm where land had been incapable of producing. . and they did this even during periods of things like Viking invasions, where whole monasteries would be wiped out by the invaders. . .but then after the invasion, new monks would come and methodically pick up the pieces and start working to heal the land and people. . .

Yeah, that ‘nasty Church’ was responsible for things like making sure that women had the right to REFUSE to be forced into marriage. Opportunities for women to learn to read and write in convents instead of just stagnating. Offering shelter for the indigent. Caring for the insane and the lepers. Bringing the word of God to people in conditions that would appal those of us who think it ‘too much’ to have to drive our cars a couple of miles on a rainy day and would miss Mass for such inconvenience.

What I found quite astonishing—maybe revealing is the better word—is how lopsided the results were amongst an audience of Londoners, apparently. Most of these educated Brits started out believing the Catholic Church being a force for evil, and by the finally tally two-thirds of those who believed that the Church was a force for good, and virtually all of the undecided swung against the proposition.
It was mostly on the issues of homosexuality, condoms, birth control, abortion and the like that were the main thrust of the arguments against the church.

It does make sense though, that a people who have waged a war against the unborn and the birth of children in general, have come to see Catholicism as something other than a force for good. What is good according to Catholics is evil according to these modernist followers of Molech.

the history of the Church I agree is largely unknown by those educated in modernism, and the anti-Catholic fables are what pass for wisdom now.

But it is not so much the history that was being rejected by this BBC audience, as far as I could tell from the portion of the show I turned on to.
It was the modern Church that was being rejected.

This is really, really a clash of orthodoxies, where the actual values of the Catholic Church are being regarded as evil, as secularist cling to the myths, values and the faith of secularism.

The debate appears to be online now, although I must admit that I am having trouble with their link.

It is kind of intriguing though to wonder what will be left of Britain in the next generation of so, now that the values of the Catholci Church have become so thoroughly rejected by the British elites, as measured by this BBC poll?

I happen to be of the opinion that Catholic values, which are not exclusive to the Catholic Church by any means, are life-sustaining. To reject those values as no longer being a force for good is to reflect life itself.

I found the debate, it’s posted here:…21DBF3CE3374A3

Please tell me what you think after you have watched it!

BTW, note how the atheist poster of the videos lists the names of the two atheists in the debate, but just names the opposing Catholics as, ‘The Catholics!’

Repost link:

I found the debate, it’s posted here:

click here for debate

Please tell me what you think after you have watched it!

BTW, note how the atheist poster of the videos lists the names of the two atheists in the debate, but just names the opposing Catholics as, ‘The Catholics!’

Regardless of how you feel about the motion, in that single debate the apologetics got slaughtered.

Um, so what?

You do realize that truth remains truth even if it is unrecognized?
IOW, if somebody proclaims truth, but is opposed by others, and the others speak so ‘well’ (however THAT is defined) so that the one proclaiming truth does not seem to have spoken so ‘well’, that doesn’t mean that truth was ‘defeated’ because the opponents spoke well!

Truth isn’t a majority vote. Thank God.

And I’d rather be on the sides of those proclaiming truth, even if their voices didn’t seem to ‘go over’ against the orchestrated polemics of those against truth.

Adolf Hitler by all accounts was a remarkably compelling speaker who often made his opponents seem to be fools. Point taken?

No point is not taken, the point is that the apologists had no answer to two men. Those with the “truth of god” were utterly devastated by two MEN. Maybe your god considers condoms immoral, but it seem that in the UK we consider (on that point) your god to be immoral. Point taken?

Oh, I see.

I take it then, that had the ‘two men’ soundly routed your atheist friends that you would have immediately become a Christian. Based, of course, on the debate alone because naturally, truth isn’t truth unless you ‘win’ when debating it. :rolleyes:

If it was based on evidence of course i would. I follow evidence, if evidence pointed to the existence of god i would believe in one, if it pointed to Christianity i would be a Christian.

The point is that the church was taken to task on several moral issues, and found to be sadly lacking.

I’m also rather surprised about the UK. Some 30 years ago when I attended the University of London the people were a little less closed-minded than many appear to be today. However, a few malcontents and easily swayed pseudointellectuals braying loudly probably no more represent the ‘average’ person in the UK than the equally braying ‘anti-theist’ in the U.S. Thank God for that too.


The point is that the church was taken to task on several moral issues, and found to be sadly lacking.

No, Mr. Ball. The point is that in one small ‘debate’, some people felt that their points ‘against’ the Church were greater than the points that other people brought up ‘for’ the church.

It’s all appearances. . .smoke and mirrors. Oooh, looky looky, if I scream loudly enough, “my argument is better than yours so I win” then I have ‘routed’ the Church. Balderdash.

Too bad, Albert. I thought you really might have something more to contribute to the discussion. It’s a non-issue; it doesn’t mean what you think it does. . .now that I understand you, I’ll wish you well --and the best I can wish is that you ‘open your mind’ to Christ. God bless.

Think how steven fry feels, he is told he is evil, is that fair?

So because i think that bigotry against homosexuals and spreading lies about condoms resulting in millions of deaths is wrong, i am closed minded?

Mr. Ball

I dono who Steven Fry is…but he’s not God
But you are on a Catholic Forum

I can’t do utubes

So because i think that bigotry against homosexuals and spreading lies about condoms resulting in millions of deaths is wrong, i am closed minded?

Mr. Ball. I did not refer to you personally as ‘closed minded’. I was referring to the people in your reference who supposedly overwhelmingly were against the Church.

For someone who is not theistically inclined it would be rather silly to play the ‘martyr card’, don’t you think?

It isn’t all about “Albert Ball”. And who brought up 'bigotry against homosexuals and spreading lies about condoms resulting in millions of deaths?" You did.

and **furthermore, the Church is neither ‘bigoted against homosexuals’ NOR has it spread lies about condoms and caused millions of deaths.


Yeah ok, i take that back. It was the pope that was spreading misinformation about condoms. Though does he not speak for the church?

I mean no offensive against individuals. I come from a background where views are challenged ferociously, we do not pull punches. I did not mean to offend you and if i did i apologize. It is hard to adapt sometime, i appreciate there is many an occasion where i should have used more tact.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit