I said I’m not a Catholic, not that I’m not a Christian, not a believer, and I did not say Mother Teresa is not in Heaven, just that canonization doesn’t necessarily make it so. Sorry for the offense, Bricker, but most of it seems to be at stuff you just pretended I said.
So is MT guilty of witholding medical care or not, in your view?
I’m not really talking about abortions or condoms. I’m not really interested in debating the CC stance on this issue and am willing, reluctantly, to give MT a pass on this.
Well, no.
That’s undoubtedly a valid way to frame the opposition sentiment, but since Catholic doctrine is that a saint is a person that is definitely in Heaven, the objection to canonization is – from this viewpoint – an objection to the claim that she is in Heaven.
See what I mean about the lack of common framework?
Do you now understand that the Church does not say that canonization placed Mother Teresa in Heaven? In other words, the Church is not saying, “By this action, we place her in Heaven.” They are saying, “By this action, we express our strong certainty God placed her in Heaven.”
No. In my view, she is not.
Because you find the evidence lacking, or, because she was just following her god’s orders?
I think it’s completely irrelevant to compare health care inside the United States to care provided in a third world context, as you predicted I would. And I do not agree that it can be unambiguously established that Mother Teresa’s facilities were so lacking as to deserve the appellation “vile.”
Undoubtedly they were not perfect.
None that she played in.
I find the evidence lacking, and to the extent that the evidence shows anything solid, it arises from a religious conviction.
Fair enough… how about Saint Joseph’s Catholic Hospital in Liberia? I draw your attention to the services and programs they provide.
Looks like they too depend on donations.
So if, and it’s a big if, it was shown that Mother Teresa deliberately withheld painkillers she could easily afford with the intention of prolonging their pain, or if she intentionally withheld treatment from people with curable conditions again in order to prolong their suffering, and in either case without the informed consent of the patient or even against their express and expressed wishes then you would consider that moral provided she was motivated by a sincere belief in the holiness of suffering? Or if not moral, how would you consider it?
And in your opinion, did those religious convictions serve to help or further hurt those under the care of her hospices?
I ask this not in the spirit of criticism of religion in general, but more to the manner in which she chose to practice her particular set of religions convictions.
Not sure what you expect being a saint means, beyond being a child of God but…Look at it this way, if she can get into heaven, if even Hitler can, you may just have a chance, maybe, perhaps, if you get there early and the heavenly gatekeeper is still half asleep from a night of partying and just waves you through, well maybe bring a bribe with you just to make sure, I’ve heard they like distilled spirits.
You claimed the board had “an anti-Catholic bias”. If you mean the board has a secular bias against all religions, you should use the right words
And considering that you’re admitting to following a set of arbitrary and conflicting rules determined in a book that claims there is a cosmic sky pixie who we must appease, do you really want to suggest other people are idiots?
Don’t they discrimate at all?.. 
Hot damn! How useful is that loophole!
But they are also funded by the Liberian National Health System.
Misguided.
Word.
Yeah, I should have made clear that the anti-Catholic bias the board has is a natural consequence of the board’s general antipathy to religion, and Christianity in general. Don’t know how I forgot to add those words in.
Well… yeah.