Pope Francis to give a dead person a title.

Eventhorizon said:
Its bad mouth Mother freaking Teresa day! Woo who!!!
Click to expand...

I think the attitude you're expressing here is philosophically sound, and admirable. It's wrong of me to bash this person on this thread.

I don't know why I don't care more about my actions. Perhaps it is an indication of personal irresponsibility in me; probably.
 
Its all great in theory about what should be done and how it should be done. We should help the poor, alleviate poverty, allow people to die with dignity, I could go on...Mother Theresa did these things. Was it perfect? No. Was it motivated by Catholic ideology? Yes. Did she do damage because she discouraged birth control, yes. But if she didn't do all the things she did to help the poor, all the hospitals and all the charity work, who would have done it? Christianity and Islam do charitable works. Other religions, well not so much, and even the Dalai Lama has acknowledged the deficiencies of Buddhism in this regard. What about secular philosophies? How do they help the poor? When has a secular humanist travelled to India and opened up a clinic for Lepers??
 
JJJA said:
Who's bad mouthing? Everything said in here was rather objective and intellectually reinforced. Do you take issue with what we are saying? If so, tell us why.
Click to expand...

Not at all.
Lets be serious. One I think most religions show a major failing in humans ability to understand the world around them. Two, I know little of Mother Teresa. Wouldnt actually know if she were good or bad because I have not followed any of her past exploits.
 
It's uncanny how similar the expressed views about her resemble those made about Margaret Thatcher. Great women are always hated after they're dead.
[video=youtube;wrxy93fY3vI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrxy93fY3vI[/video]
 
Comparing Mother Theresa and Margaret Thatcher? They were both big in 1980s and they were both women, that's about where the similarities end. Those people in Brixton were and are definitely on the losing end of the "Thatcher Revolution" and have good reason to be angry.

"When did it fall apart? Sometime in the 80s
When the Great and the Good gave way to the greedy and the mean" Billy Bragg, Take Down the Union Jack
 
brightmoon said:
Its all great in theory about what should be done and how it should be done. We should help the poor, alleviate poverty, allow people to die with dignity, I could go on...Mother Theresa did these things. Was it perfect? No. Was it motivated by Catholic ideology? Yes. Did she do damage because she discouraged birth control, yes. But if she didn't do all the things she did to help the poor, all the hospitals and all the charity work, who would have done it? Christianity and Islam do charitable works. Other religions, well not so much, and even the Dalai Lama has acknowledged the deficiencies of Buddhism in this regard. What about secular philosophies? How do they help the poor? When has a secular humanist travelled to India and opened up a clinic for Lepers??
Click to expand...

It's actually unclear how much she did practically to help. Her clinics were notoriously filthy, which arguably was beyond her control. However, people have pointed out that there were often large supplies of clean water and clean needles and other medical supplies, yet for whatever reason Mother Theresa thought of filth and disease as all part and parcel of the Christian ordeal of necessary suffering, so dirty supplies and water were used rather than break open new ones. The new ones were hoarded without explanation. Though her aid centers received generous donations, she offered the dying Virgin Mary medallions instead of clean water and pain killers. In other words, a mindless and archaic ethos of suffering and asceticism was inflicted on the poor, sick and dying. I believe there is speculation about where all the money for these clinics have gone because by many accounts, in spite of many donations, they were basically just filthy dumping grounds for the dying, and the funds mysteriously disappeared. What one can say about her on the positive side of things is that she inspired people to be kind and charitable, and that as a result there is now a generation of missionary/aid workers who is inspired by her popular image, and they are in fact now doing good work the world over.
 
Last edited:
I think you are right about some of those things [MENTION=13730]PintoBean[/MENTION] It does not surprise me to read about the Virgin Mary medallions. That the clinics were filthy and purposely kept so probably stretches credibility. That they are filthy by Western standards of hygiene that's likely true, but whether this was purposely done or out of neglect/misunderstanding I guess remains to be determined. There are questions about financial irregularities that linger and there are likely cases of the money being spent on things that are objective observer would safely state do not benefit the poor, that doesn't surprise me either. How were the medallions purchased? Financial irregularities are likely rampant in the RC Church because there no transparency, no standards of reporting adhered to, and very little oversight. These facts are really just an open invitation to corruption.

Despite the fact that there may have been a "mindless and archaic ethos of suffering and asceticism" is something better than nothing? I'm presuming the sick and the dying, in the absence of her clinics, would have been just left to die on the street. I don't consider her to be above criticism, but any criticism of her, however pointed and ultimately correct, must be tempered by this reality.

Should she be a saint? I honestly don't care, as I am not a Catholic, and do not pray to people deemed to be worthy by the RC Church to intercede on my behalf.
 
Last edited:
brightmoon said:
I think you are right about some of those things [MENTION=13730]PintoBean[/MENTION] It does not surprise me to read about the Virgin Mary medallions. That the clinics were filthy and purposely kept so probably stretches credibility. That they are filthy by Western standards of hygiene that's likely true, but whether this was purposely done or out of neglect/misunderstanding I guess remains to be determined. There are questions about financial irregularities that linger and there are likely cases of the money being spent on things that are objective observer would safely state do not benefit the poor, that doesn't surprise me either. How were the medallions purchased? Financial irregularities are likely rampant in the RC Church because there no transparency, no standards of reporting adhered to, and very little oversight. These facts are really just an open invitation to corruption.

Despite the fact that there may have been a "mindless and archaic ethos of suffering and asceticism" is something better than nothing? I'm presuming the sick and the dying in the absence of her clinics would have been just left to die on the street. I don't consider her to be above criticism, but any criticism of her, however pointed and ultimately correct, must be tempered by this reality.
Click to expand...

It's a legitimate question. Perhaps it was better to receive a medallion and a sip of dirty water than nothing. Or perhaps it was worse for the whole cause in that people thought they were donating their money to something more efficient at alleviating human suffering, and were in effect scammed from donating, participating in or even creating more worthy efforts. It's hard to say. But I am personally disgusted by her. She accepted the highest medical care for herself, whilst using funds for medallions and hoarding donations of efficient medical supplies when it came to the impoverished. Was it merely negligent mismanagement vs. intentional infliction of more suffering in the name of Christianity? I have no idea. There is actually a lot of research on the topic. I do find her actions and hypocrisy and the moral compromises she made (dealings with dictators and such) shocking for a supposed saint. And it does seem she made explicit decisions in the running of her centers that were intentionally archaic and negatively impacted the patients, probably killing many. "In 1991, Robin Fox, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet visited the Home for Dying Destitutes in Calcutta (now Kolkata) and described the medical care the patients received as "haphazard".[12] He observed that sisters and volunteers, some of whom had no medical knowledge, had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors in the hospice. Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for conditions in this home, and observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa#Criticism_from_the_media
 
Last edited:
Yes I agree. There is no doubt in my mind that the things you say are true. People should think about giving their money to organizations that have no transparency or accountability, but I think the majority of the donors were motivated by faith anyway. Until the faithful supporters demand change, the church will not change, in this regard. This is true of any organization that considers its purpose and motives to be beyond criticism and has been proven time and time again. This is why I have difficulty with organized religion. Performing baptisms on dying non-believers is also morally repugnant to me, although such a ritual is ultimately meaningless because it was done with the consent of the individual or that consent was obtained under duress.

Did people die because of medical incompetence? Yes they likely did. Were more people helped that those died because the clinic was open? Yes that's also likely true. Its a complicated legacy. Hypocrisy is never attractive. Again the church has a long and sordid history of supporting dictators, especially in during the Cold War, and she was merely a reflection of the attitudes that at that time. It doesn't excuse it, its merely a fact. In end she being rewarded for being the church's servant, if she were alive she wouldn't argue with that, I'm willing to bet. The question for a non-believer is: Is that enough. For most people outside the faith, probably not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top