The Catholic Church is and has been a force for good in the world

Round 1. Acceptance of debate terms Round 2-4: Rebuttals Round 5: Closing statement. No rebuttals and no new arguments. For this introductory round I will present my position and the necessary terms for this debate. I wont offer any arguments as to why Catholic Church is not a force for good, just present the terms and succinctly explain what I am going to argue in favor off. My stance on this debate is, that when viewing the Catholic Church historically and presently, I find that when gauging its worldwide impact, on balance, I deem the Catholic Church to be a force for evil in the world. In order to avoid snarl myself into a semantic mess about "what is good and evil", I will define try to define the term "good" done by a person or an entity as, on balance, someone who contributes with more good than harm to the society at large. I would define the word "good" as something done by a person or entity that promotes the advancement of the well-being of the people living in the society in terms of the peoples' overall health, happiness, and educational attainment. As opposed to my definition of what constitutes good, I choose to render the term "bad" the very antithetical definition of good, namely the hindrance in the advance of and/or worsening of the well-being of the population in terms of their health, happiness and educational attainments. When the good actions that of an entity or person have been juxtaposed to the bad actions it has taken, these good or bad actions must then be assessed in the light of and in relation to the wealth and capabilities attributed to that person or entity. If, for instance, all criminal organisations in the world gave away just one or two percent of their annual income emanating from the various criminal activities they are involved in, that would amount to considerably more money than the Catholic Church annually contributes to poverty relief aiding organisations and charities in third world countries. Would we deem these criminal organisations as morally righteous on the basis of their annual contributions to charity? Surely you and I are in agreement that this wouldn't be the case for both of us. When assessing whether the actions taken by the Catholic Church or any other aid organisation for that matter are satisfactory, they have to be gauged in comparative terms, i.e. in relation to their wealth and their overall capabilities to produce these type of results. Hence, if the philanthropic actions by the Catholic Church don't bear in relation to how much its resources have grown and/or is not proportionate to how much it currently holds in assets, then we can give an accurate and empirical estimate of how good the Catholic Church actually is or isn't. Hence, the definition good and bad as I choose to define it allows us to view this debate not merely as two contrasting subjective opinions and moral convictions, but as two contrasting portrayals of the Catholic church based on empirical facts. On balance, I will demonstrate that the Catholic church has done more evil than good in this world. There are many good Catholics - and I will stress this point - and I am not criticizing them. I am criticizing the Catholic Church itself. The distinction between Catholics and the Catholic institutions is an important distinction to be made. I am criticizing the Catholic Church, its doctrines and teachings (Of which some, I will argue, are, I deem, dangerous to society) as well as what it is doing and has done in the past. Now my opponent has some terms defined for this debate. Now, hopefully, he or she knows the objective of this debate and what he or she has to prove - since I have phrased the debate in such a way as to shift the burden of proof to my opponent - in order to win this debate. Don't be afraid to ask if you have any questions so for. Good luck.