Live TV streaming

[RedCelt69]

Anyone know a good place to watch TV online?

I've been looking forward to watching this debate http://www.intelligencesquared.com/ for the last 2 weeks or so. I thought it would be on the BBC News channel. Turns out, I misread it. It's only available on BBC World News (which I'd never known was a separate channel).

I tried tvchannelsfree.com but it isn't working for that channel for some reason. I don't watch much TV (putting it mildly) and normally make do with BBC's iPlayer. Which, annoyingly, doesn't stream BBC World News.

[Haunted]

Is that the one with Hitchens and Fry? If you do it find please let me know.

[macgamer]

I heard about this debate, sounded like a complete car crash for the proposition if the Telegraph's report is anything to go by:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andre ... ephen-fry/

Their website suggests that a transcript will be available at some point:
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/past ... nt=EVT0195

This letter to the Catholic Herald sums things up and provides the date of the broadcast:

The Fry-Hitchens debacle should be a wake-up call for Catholics

SIR - Having attended the debate (Report, October 23) last week, at Methodist Central Hall, Westminster, where the motion "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world" was put forward for scrutiny, I feel I had to write to express my disappointment at the lack of a clearly audible (and visible) Catholic presence in the audience. Indeed, Zeinab Badawi, who chaired the debate, was compelled to inquire (in the interests of fairness, as she stated) whether there really were any Catholics present, for each time she invited a question from the floor it was almost invariably one from the opposition, often accompanied by cynical and sneering comment.

What a pity that some of our erudite and spirited priests and lay people, possessing thorough knowledge of Church history, skilled in apologetics, (most likely) accustomed to debates and quick thinking to boot were not there to be heard. Could it be that they thought a popular debate arranged by an organisation calling itself Intelligence Squared would be a far from intelligent affair and therefore not worth their time and trouble? As it turned out, the debate (almost inevitably) did come to resemble pub discussion, rather than serious, open-minded exchange, but nonetheless it is still going to be broadcast to around 80 million people (in Africa and America) on the November 6 or 7 by the BBC World Service. But though she might have guessed that the debate would be just another opportunity for "Catholic Church bashing", this certainly did not deter the indefatigable Ann Widdecombe from taking part and from putting forward a calm, dignified, reasoned and totally convincing set of arguments in defence of the Church, once again. Perhaps the absence of Catholics in the audience was due to the fact that many of them, living within travelling distance of the venue, were unaware that the debate was taking place. If this is the case, then surely our Catholic press and our parish priests should have alerted (and should be alerting) their readers and parishioners.

The Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, Nigeria, John Onaiyekan, understood only too late how vehemently opposed to the Church were the many participants who had arrived in their hundreds to hear two of their idols, Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens, scoff and spit venom at the Church while, it must be said, raising one or two issues worthy of serious consideration and valid response. Could he not have been briefed beforehand? As a consequence, his opening speech was lame (almost to the point of indifference), all too brief and completely wasted. Only later did he make some most pertinent comments silencing the opposition, when, for example, he stated that when it comes to discussing Aids in Africa we are talking about his nephews and nieces.

Arguments from the opposition included the following: the claim that anti-Semitism was preached as official doctrine until 1964; that a cardinal of Massachusetts sanctioned the "rape and torture" of children; that the doctrine of Limbo had caused untold suffering; that Thomas More had persecuted people for owning an English Bible, that the Islamic and Catholic religions were equally opposed to women's freedom; that the Church is obsessed with sex; that our priests and nuns are sexually dysfunctional; the practice of indulgences; the Crusades; Catholic charities; Purgatory (not in the Bible); paedophilia (most definitely in the Church, though no mention was made of homosexuality in the Church); and that Stephen Fry feels himself a perennial victim of a judgmental Church which continuously points its accusing finger at him for being in a state of mortal sin. (Why this should unnerve him is anyone's guess, since he does not care a fig for the Church's teachings in the first place; neither - one must presume - does he know what three conditions need to be met before one is in a state of mortal sin according to Church teaching, or he might realise that he is most probably not in that state.)

It was only later that evening, thinking about and discussing the issues that we had heard, that my sister and I were able to think of a few poignant questions that we might have put to Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens, had we been, like a few of the other Catholics present, more sure of our ground. It is, of course, up to us to ensure we are better informed, but there is also a most urgent need at parish level to actively and untiringly encourage every parishioner to attend courses in apologetics and for us all to take a confident and clearly audible stand at each and every debate where reference is made to the Church. We require for this powerful and magnetic leaders. Fr John Corapi (on EWTN) comes to mind as one example.

At the close of the debate, the number of voters in support of the motion plummeted to 206, to the great hilarity of the audience who greeted the result with resounding guffaws. In some respects, this result stings a little, but it also leaves us doubting the Catholic credentials of those who voted for the motion at the outset only then to change their minds after listening to accounts from the opposition which were continuously emotive, acrimonious and deeply prejudiced.

Yours faithfully,
Elizabeth Sweeney
By email

Also in the Catholic Herald I liked Stuart Reid's take on it:

Someone at Intelligence Squared told me that they had tried to get George Weigel, the biographer of John Paul II, to defend the Church in last week's big debate, but he was not available.

Weigel would not have won the day - given the audience, that was always impossible - but he would have made a far better defender of the faith than either the admirable and feisty Ann Widdecombe or the admirable and unhappy Archbishop Onaiyekan, of Abuja, Nigeria.

My feeling is that Intelligence Squared was embarrassed by the slaughter, but it's not easy to find someone to go up against Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry now that Torquemada and St Thomas Aquinas are dead.

If there had been a similar debate in the Twenties G K Chesterton would have appeared for the Church, or Hilaire Belloc. In the Fifties we might have imported Bishop Fulton Sheen to defend our interests.

But who is there today? The truth is that most of the clever people are on the other side. But not all of them. Here are some Catholics who might have made a fist of it last week: the aforementioned George Weigel, Fr Stephen Langridge (vocations director for Southwark diocese), Dr Edward Norman, Stephen Colbert, Mel Gibson, Fr John Zuhlsdorf (Fr Z of WDTPRS), Patrick Buchanan, Eamon Duffy, Andrew Bacevich (a brilliant anti-war American conservative, who would have badly unsettled the Trotskyite neocon Hitchens), Charles Moore, Brian Sewell, and our very own Damian Thompson, who is not one to take prisoners.

I particularly enjoyed the "My feeling is that Intelligence Squared was embarrassed by the slaughter, but it's not easy to find someone to go up against Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry now that Torquemada and St Thomas Aquinas are dead."

[RedCelt69]

Sing when you're winning
You only sing when you're winning
Sing when you're wiiiiiiinning
You only sing when you're wiiiin-inggggg
etc

Is that the one with Hitchens and Fry? If you do it find please let me know.

Will do. However, it seems likely that BBC World News is blocked from online streaming - certainly based upon the numerous streaming sites I looked at. It's a service provided for a fee - to corporate customers in hotels/resorts etc... and you can get it on mobiles - again for a fee. It isn't being broadcast on BBC World Service - which is only one of many things wrong with the letter from Mr Angry as provided by MacGamer.

Looking like we'll have to wait for someone to provide it via YouTube or BitTorrent.

I've been wanting to see Fry in action. Not seen him in a debate before - and he's never been particularly outspoken about religion in the past. Hitchens, I do know. Not a fan, so much. He's good at arguing against theists, but his motive is highly suspect. In a conversation (http://newatheists.org/) between Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett & Harris, he said that, given the choice, he'd sooner the world was never free from religion and superstition. Why on Earth not, asked Dawkins? Because he enjoyed the scrapping - the sheer pugilism of debating with those who disagreed.

[osigiarak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvZz_pxZ2lw

[Frank]

Quality stuff; been rooting about for this much of the evening. Good call on mentioning it in the first place, RedCelt.

[RedCelt69]

Quality stuff; been rooting about for this much of the evening. Good call on mentioning it in the first place, RedCelt.

Well... t'was just a matter of following Fry on Twitter - the rest followed. Still new to Twitter; I'd never really seen the point of it... but long been a fan of Stephen Fry, so thought "why the hell not - just a few mouseclicks away". Derren Brown is also worth following. As is Charlie Brooker.

Anyway. I'll update this as the poster uploads them:-

[macgamer]

I've seen better pub debates.

[RedCelt69]

I've seen better pub debates.

If you think you can do better, feel free to make a start by addressing the points made by Hitchens & Fry.

[macgamer]

Much of the arguments of Messrs Fry and Hitchens was based on charactiture and misunderstanding of Church teaching, homosexuality and contraception a prime one.

Topics included:
Anti-Semitism (Ann Widdecombe dealt with this)
Child abuse / Paedophilia
'Doctrine' of Limbo (always a, and recently rejected, theological hypothesis)
Purgatory and Indulgences
Persecution of Protestants
Womens' Freedom / Rights
Obsession with Sex
Celibacy of the Clergy and Religious Orders
Crusades
Homosexuality

Those appear to be the topics that need addressing.

Child abuse is not exactly unique to institutions of the Catholic Church as this blog article demonstrates:
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.bl ... abuse.html

When I have more time and have recovered from what is proving to be quite a painful migraine I shall address the aforementioned topics.

In the meantime I would suggest you look up what the Church actually teaches on those various issues by looking it up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

This will make for a more tolerable discussion.

[munchingfoo]

Child abuse is not exactly unique to institutions of the Catholic Church as this blog article demonstrates:
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.bl ... abuse.html

Do they also teach that two wrongs make a right?

We can ignore the child abuse issue, since other people do it too...

[RedCelt69]

Topics included:
Anti-Semitism (Ann Widdecombe dealt with this)
Child abuse / Paedophilia
'Doctrine' of Limbo (always a, and recently rejected, theological hypothesis)
Purgatory and Indulgences
Persecution of Protestants
Womens' Freedom / Rights
Obsession with Sex
Celibacy of the Clergy and Religious Orders
Crusades
Homosexuality

Those appear to be the topics that need addressing.

Not quite all. I'd be happy if you forgot most of the above, consigned them to the question "Was the Catholic church a force for good in the world?" and concentrated on 2 main subjects concerning the present condition of Roman Catholicism.

1) The dichotomy between the message of Jesus and the extravagance of the Vatican.
2) Condoms and the misery of AIDS (mentioned in the debate) and millions of unwanted children born into short lives of poverty, misery and despair (not mentioned in the debate). Preaching that condoms are an evil in a world which could use as many condoms as Durex can produce... well, that's a crime against humanity. It is official RC doctrine and it doesn't exist in the dim-and-distant past, to be excused by the fallabilities of the alleged infallible popes of a bygone era.

In the meantime I would suggest you look up what the Church actually teaches on those various issues by looking it up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

This will make for a more tolerable discussion.

Uhm. No thanks. I've just had a shower.

[Haunted]

In the meantime I would suggest you look up what the Church actually teaches on those various issues by looking it up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church...

The debate was not "What does Catholicism actually teach" it was about the church as a whole including everything involved with it right down to the ~5% of Catholic priests who have raped children*.

In the general UK population, about 0.06% of people are sex offenders**. Not just paedophiles, but people caught naked in public or whatever else gets you on the register. Ergo, a Catholic priest is ~100 times (that's 10,000%!) more likely to be a paedophile than the average person.

*http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/sex-abuse-religion-vatican
**Based on the pop. of England & Wales being 53,390,300 and the number of sex offenders being 32,336.

[Super Jock]

This debate would have been stronger without Ann Widdecombe. Stephen Fry made a very good point near the end of his closing that the Catholic Church is a wonderful opportunity to do good wasted. I'm not convinced by either case, but on the skirmishes on the smaller pictures any huge rigid organisations will fail.

[macgamer]

We can ignore the child abuse issue, since other people do it too...

Forgive me that was not quite my intention. Migraine related loss of clarity.

What I was suggesting by that point, is that the much media and the Church's detractors make it out as if the Catholic Church is somehow unique in child abuse scandals. Regrettably for the victims it is not as restricted as that.

The abuse scandals were and are inexcusable. Clearly there was a degree of complacency amongst various bishops in dealing with priests and others perpetrating these crimes. One which I personally cannot understand.

The Church is made up of sinners and without doubt the 20th century's abuse scandals was a dark period in the Church's history. However does not negate the truths which the Church advocates and the Gospel it is trying to preach. In much the same way that there have been bad presidents of countries, does not negate the principal of presidents and governments.

In response to the point that Haunted made. Yes I would take your point, there was a higher incidence of sexual abuse by priests compared with the general population. I would suggest that the cause of this was poor methodology in the selection process with candidates, i.e. failure to screen out those with such tendancies and a breakdown in proper formation that allowed priests to integrate their sexuality into a life of celibacy.

There was a misguided expectation that the requirement for priestly celibacy would be lifted soon after the Second Vatican Council, so many young men became priests, who knew they could not cope with celibacy, thinking they would only have to wait a few years before getting a wife. By the time the 80s came around they was a huge rate of priests eloping with women, living the priesthood to get married.

RedCelt's Questions:

i) Vatican extravagance - Christ's Teachings: a dichotomy

You have not been as specific or as clear to what you mean by 'Vatican extravagance'. However I'll try to assume that you mean the huge riches it is supposed to possess.

I would say much of this dates from the time when the Papacy and the Papal States wielded real and significant temporal power. A reason for this was to remain independent from other nations interfering in the selection of Popes' successors (see the events leading up to the Western Schism).

To demonstrate this power a certain amount of trappings are assumed, rightly or wrongly. In terms of the patronage of the arts, much of things was AMDG - to the greater glory of God. St Thomas Becket as Archbishop worn the regalia which the lay people wanted and expected to see. Before becoming Archbishop he was very much the career cleric, he had a conversion and wore, underneath all those fine vestments, a hairshirt. The hairshirt was for him and the vestments for the office as a successor to the apostles which the laity paid respect to. The same was true of many of the Popes, certainly Paul VI.

ii) The Catholic stance on contraception condemns millions to death from AIDS

I believe this issue has been discussed ad nauseam on previous threads. Yet it is revived time and again.

Bear in mind, even if you disagree, the Catholic reasoning for the opposition to contraception. For sexual relations to be endorsed they must be between a married man and woman, who do so open to the possibility to children, thereby expressing the two-fold nature of sexual relations: the unitive and the procreative.

Contraception is always a deliberate closure of the necessary procreative aspect to sex.

The Church's teaching applies to Catholics, who are still free to decide to go against Church teaching if they wish to. However if they are well formed they know that this will entail mortal sin.

Those who are not Catholic do not have to listen to anything the Church says. However the Church does hold that there are objective moral absolutes, but to say that these condemn millions to death is ludicrous.

Consider how HIV is spread. Also consider this article:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/politics/all ... eath.thtml
The lack of sufficient nutrition, and resultant immunodepression, is a neglected factor in the HIV/AIDS rate in Africa.

HIV, like any other infectious disease, spreads best when the infected come into close contact with many different persons. Sexual promiscuity is the biggest factor in the spread of HIV in the world. Now this is an important point: The Church condemns sexual promiscuity through the teaching on no extra marital sex and requiring marital fidelity. It in addition, condemns the use of condoms because of the procreative requirement.

If someone catches HIV through the sexual route, they have done so because they have come in contact with someone who has had sex with more than one person in their life who also was HIV positive. Rape is one scenario, but I would say not the driving force behind the rate of HIV infections we see today.

The Church has said that condoms are not 100% effective at preventing HIV infection. This is a fact. Furthermore, the availability of condoms promotes and facilitates sexual promiscuity. See a connection yet?

[Fawksie]

In the general UK population, about 0.06% of people are sex offenders**.
**Based on the pop. of England & Wales being 53,390,300 and the number of sex offenders being 32,336.

Not having figures for the rest of the UK is not an excuse for using English and Welsh data to describe the population of the entire state. If you mean England and Wales, say so.

[Haunted]

Not having figures for the rest of the UK is not an excuse for using English and Welsh data to describe the population of the entire state.

It was all I could find in a quick google and I doubt the difference in the percentages of sex offenders between England and Wales and Scotland would vary significantly. If they did that would be newsworthy on it's own

If you mean England and Wales, say so.

I kinda did...

[Haunted]

The Church is made up of sinners and without doubt the 20th century's abuse scandals was a dark period in the Church's history. However does not negate the truths which the Church advocates and the Gospel it is trying to preach.

And the truths/gospels/bullshit that the church advocates does not negate it's apparent immoral actions as an organisation.
What the church teaches is not under debate. What the church does, is.

[RedCelt69]

You have not been as specific or as clear to what you mean by 'Vatican extravagance'. However I'll try to assume that you mean the huge riches it is supposed to possess.

Disregarding the money in the Vatican's coffers (estimated at between $10-15 billion), how much money do you think would be raised from the sale of the real estate and treasures held by the Roman Catholic church? Rather than the fineries of palaces (which would have been utterly incomprehensible to the character of Jesus) how much better the poor of the world would be served by a church hierarchy more concerned with living the Christian message rather than just preaching it?



"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
-Matthew 6:19-21



"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
-Matthew 6:24



Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12.15.]



"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"
-Matthew 19:21



"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?"
-Matthew 6:25

ii) The Catholic stance on contraception condemns millions to death from AIDS

I believe this issue has been discussed ad nauseam on previous threads. Yet it is revived time and again.

Because people are still needlessly suffering. It will be raised and continue to be raised until this morally-horrific stance is reversed. Some future pope will mention in a speech his "regret" about the R.C. church's short-sighted position on contraception. By then, the damage will already have been done - it continues to be done. It is abhorrently shameful and you, as a Catholic, should be shamed and ashamed - not defending it.

Edit: I didn't say "The Catholic stance on contraception condemns millions to death from AIDS". What I actually said was; "millions of unwanted children born into short lives of poverty, misery and despair". It would be helpful if you answered the question posed rather than answer a question you, yourself, gave.

The Church's teaching applies to Catholics, who are still free to decide to go against Church teaching if they wish to. However if they are well formed they know that this will entail mortal sin.

Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids
The pontiff, speaking to journalists on his flight, said the condition was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".

The Church has said that condoms are not 100% effective at preventing HIV infection. This is a fact.

Condom and Aids - Facts and Myths
http://www.anytestkits.com/aids-condoms.htm
"These studies found that even with repeated sexual contact, 98 - 100 percent of these people who used condoms correctly and consistently did not become infected."

Even if the effectiveness were 1%, it would still be a good reason to use them. A single death caused by Papal decree is a single death on the head (and conscience, if he had such a thing) of the pope.

Pope 'distorting condom science'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7967173.stm

Furthermore, the availability of condoms promotes and facilitates sexual promiscuity. See a connection yet?

Right. Because without condoms, people have no sexual thoughts and desires. People will fuck. Always have done, always will do. We're all here because our ancestors did a whole lot of fucking. In a piss-poor community, sex is one of the few pleasures in life which is genuinely free. Unless the cost is an STD... such as HIV. At which point, it is insane to tell these people that using a condom is a mortal sin.

[munchingfoo]

The data presented in the HIV transmission rate article above is strange.

How can "98%-100%" of couples in the study have no HIV transmission with an HIV partner?

Surely it's either, 98%, 99%, or 100%. I mean, it's a simple calculation that can only produce one distinct answer:

Couples who swapped HIV/Couples in the study * 100

It's crap reporting like this that allows the condom efficacy deniers enough wiggle room to sound credible!