On 19 October I was in the Central Methodist Hall, listening to a debate on the motion that the Catholic Church was a force for good in the world. Opening the Debate, John Onaiyekin, the Archbishop of Abuja, Nigeria argued that the motion was self-evidently true. Out of a total world population of 6.6 billion, there were 1.2 billion Catholics, and wherever there was a Catholic, the Catholic Church was present. Catholics in all walks of life were guided not just by purely secular aims, but brought to their work the ideals of their faith. 'The action of the Church' he said, 'is probably most significant in communities that are reduced to poverty and misery by human neglect, and hostile environment, whether it is schools, hospitals, clinics, refugee camps, HIV and AIDS, in all those areas, and in all those circumstances, if you go those places, the people will tell you that the Catholic Church is a force for good for the world.' Furthermore, that aid and assistance was, as a matter of policy, given to all persons, no matter what their faith, and without discrimination.
These points were rather lost sight of what followed: Christopher Hitchens concentrated initially on the historical sins of the Church (which were not the issue - the archbishop, and the Church itself having admitted them), saying that these were 'very serious matters' and not to be 'laughed off by reference to the occasional work of catholic charities:' And that, I think, was all that Mr. Hitchens said about the Church's welfare work in the world. Ann Widdecombe, who spoke next, reminded us of 'the billions of pounds that are poured into overseas aid by the catholic church, contributing more, year on year, than any single nation; imagine if the developing world had been left without the input of the medicine and the education that was brought to it by the missions; imagine the absence of those collections, sunday on sunday, for famine relief; imagine the absence of the Church in the local community...'
Stephen Fry, in reply, said he 'genuinely believed that the Church was not a force for good.' He adopted the same dismissive tone as Hitchens. 'Miss Widdecombe' he said, had 'reminded us that history is irrelevant, it's not important, all that matters now is the billions of pounds that go out of this extraordinary institution to relieve the poor around the world and make the world a better place.' Furthermore, if the Church 'liked to boast about the billions' for whom it was the sole purveyor of the truth, it was nevertheless only so 'because those billions are the uneducated and the poor, as again it likes to boast about, but they are the ones that it can tell and bully and domineer.' 'There is such an opportunity' he said, in summing up, ' owning a billion souls at baptism...to do something remarkable to make this planet better, and its an opportunity that is constantly and arrogantly being avoided.'
Finally, Christopher Hitchens claimed that there was only one way to alleviate poverty in the third world - the empowerment of women - 'Go to Bangladesh, or Bolivia, give women control over their reproductive cycle, throw in a handful of corn if you can, make them not just the beasts of burden and the beasts of childbearing that they have become, and the floor will rise, it just will. It never fails anywhere. Against this one solution, the Catholic Church has set its face: the efforts of the missionary church in the third world mean more people die, not less. It's as simple as that: more famine; more disease; more ignorance; more random and avoidable death.' Presumably this was somewhat pre-formulated, since Ann Widdecombe had already pointed out the reason for high birth rates in the third world was the high rate of infant mortality, and the absence of any system which provided for the support of the old.
Well - Hitchens and Fry carried the day. A poll conducted in the Hall immediately before the debate showed that 1,102 were inclined to vote against the motion that the Catholic Church was a force for good in the world, 678 were for it, and 346 didn't know. At the conclusion of the debate, a further poll showed that 1,876 were against the motion, 268 were for, and 34 did not know.
I was reminded of this debate, and this outcome by a small item on the BBC 4 PM programme broadcast a few days after the earthquake in Haiti. This item mentioned, almost by way of sideline, that despite substantial damage, the Catholic Hospital in Port au Prince had managed to re-open, six days after the earthquake, and of work done in the meantime, often in the streets in front of the hopital, to help the earthquake victims. This was at a time when considerable frustration was being expressed in the western media at the delay in getting help to Haiti. The immediate response in the richer nations had been hugely impressive, but the aid was just not getting through. Yet it struck me as highly significant that the Catholic Hospital was already there before te earthquake: already staffed and already paid for by the money provided, week in, week out, through collection baskets passed from pew to pew, by the thousands of catholics who, in accordance with the obligations imposed by their faith, attend each sunday to worship God, and to bear practical witness to idealistic beliefs.
Made curious, I have several times typed 'haiti -catholic - hospital' into my computer serach engine and I have been inspired and proud of the stories of catholic doctors taking leave from their well-paid jobs, saying goodbye to their spouses and children, and going to Haiti to provide unpaid, expert help in catholic hospitals.
Dr Rick Pitera for example, an anaesthetologist from Livingston, New Jersey, left his hopital, his wife and his three children despite friends and colleagues who begged him not to go. The hospital in Miot to which he went was founded in 1986 by the Montreal Province of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart, and is supported by the Knights of Malta. The hospital has been open every day, ever since, and has never turned away people because they couldn't pay. The hospital has 75 beds, but the power supply has always been unstable, and the hospital has to operate without much of the equipment which we, in the West, take for granted. Within 2 and a half days, this hospital with 75 beds and two operating theatres had been turned into a hospital with 300 beds and 4/6 operating theatres. 50 people, most of whom had never worked together before, found themselves working as part of a co-ordinated team. Dr.Pitera described how his most agonising moment came when he had to amputate the foot of a 7 year old girl - the same age as one of his own daughters - he wept as he told the story.
The claims made by those who spoke for the motion that the catholic church was a force for good in the world were not very great. One can admit the historical charges laid against the church, although I think that they are themselves unhistorical, and irrelevant; one can admit that the Church's teachings on human sexuality are completely out of line with secular thinking in the west, although I think that this is a matter of premises, and not conclusions; one can admit the revolting, hypocritical abuse of truth, doctrine, and trust in the behaviour of certain priests towards the vulnerable and defenceless in their care, and I do - and will deal with it elsewhere; one can admit the failures in the hierarachy in being inappropriately merciful - and I will discuss that too; one can admit that the Church does not have a monopoly on charitable thoughts, or charitable words, or charitable deeds - after all, the more the better, and especially of charitable deeds. But talking, like Christopher Hitchens, of the Church 'laughing off' the charges made against it by 'works of occasional charity,' or, like Stephen Fry, of the Church 'constantly and arrogantly' avoiding 'the opportunity to do something remarkable to make this planet better' is biggoted to the point of lunacy.
I know that within a few weeks the flow of money to Haiti will begin to dry up, the resources currently available will be exhausted, the volunteers will begin to pack their bags and go home, or perhaps will be called to help in some other, more immediately pressing, field of human need. But what a comfort it is to know, that in thousands of churches throughout the world, Catholics, whether rich or poor, will continue to put money into the collection boxes to ensure that there will always be a hospital for the poor of Haiti, and that Catholics, at least, will at least have a right to be surprised and perplexed by the absence of immediate help, when the spotlight falls upon them, for those throughout the world who are the victims of what the Bishop of Abuja so concisely ane accurately described as 'human neglect and hostile environments.'
