Why? Because your incorrect understanding of what being declared a saint by the Catholic Church means should replace the actual, correct understanding?
That appears to be investment income, and not a charitable donation.
Really?
No. It’s certainly a good demonstration of your weak understanding of the distinction, though. Do you consider this a “matter of established fact?” You’re really good with those.
The truly sad thing about you, Bricker, is that we all know that you know better. You are the most intellectually dishonest thing on the Dope, and a true disgrace to the legal profession.
Somehow, I will struggle through life under the onerous weight of your disapproval.
I figured it was her, but I was surprised to learn that she was an Albanian. In all the pictures I’ve seen of her, she looked really tan.
Waitaminute…
I fully support this pitting. She is known to have “rejoiced in the suffering of her wards”, because supposedly suffering brings us closer to god. There’s two ways to take this, either she is a wacko and doesn’t represent the catholic church, in which case she shouldn’t be made a saint. Second that she does represent the catholic church, in which case, fuck the catholic church and their entire sainthood process. Worshipping avoidable suffering as somehow desirable by a loving god is sadistic and fucked up.
And here you go Bricker, a cite which I know you are going to ask for, on how “mother” theresa specifically idolised avoidable suffering:
http://www.alternet.org/belief/mother-theresas-masochism-does-religion-demand-suffering-keep-people-passive
Heres a direct quote: "“There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering.” Not there is not, not if you have the power to mitigate their suffering but you choose not to do so, because you think your god likes it.
You really are quite tedious.
How about we just accept that the Vatican is playing absolutely in tune with the rules that they’ve set, while still acknowledging she was a vile piece of shit? Does that seem fair?
I think the consensus is that we had all sort of assumed that good works, or at least not being an asshole, were prerequisites to canonization. Obviously it’s nobody’s business but Catholics’ if that is not the case, but it seems a little odd to venerate unpleasant people.
It’s worthwhile to quote here from Ambrose Bierce’s wicked classic, The Devil’s Dictionary:
– The Devil's Dictionary (1911) (among a great many other places.)
Knowing Bierce’s penchant for Making Things Up, I had to see if this quote is for real (and even if Marshall Villeroi was). To my delight, it turns out that Villeroi (more commonly Villeroy really did exist, and really did say this:
If I have the right Marshall Villeroy, though (François de Neufville, duc de Villeroy ), he was born after de Sales died (despite what Bierce and the Countess have written), so he couldn’t have come by his information personally. http://archive.thetablet.co.uk/article/21st-september-1895/6/a-charge-against-st-francis-of-sales
It’s certainly logically sound.
I don’t agree she was vile, but that’s really a matter of opinion, on which we are unlikely to sway each other’s views.
We’re not supposed to judge. If God sends someone to heaven, and they intercede to have 2 miracles performed, God has spoken. It’s not about being pleasant or unpleasant.
Odd to you, perhaps – but the whole point of veneration of saints is to show that real people, assholes included, can become holy and pleasing to God even if they did bad things in their life.
To turn it around, consider this view: is there some point in your life in which you can say, “Well, that’s it. I have done such a terrible thing, or set of things, that I have now sealed my fate: God will never love me; I will never be admitted to Heaven?”
The answer is no.
No, because the understandings of the church have absolutely no relevance to someone who isn’t a Catholic. Right here is an example of you arguing morality, as if people have to accept the rules of the Church, even if they think they are morally wrong.
Yeah, I expect saints to be good people. I expect them to actually follow the Bible, where Jesus would never let someone suffer an illness because it somehow made things better on them. He even healed when he was tired and would rather not.
I, in fact, find it very hard to believe that Teresa is in heaven. I fully expect Jesus to have said “Depart from me, I never knew you” in response to what she did. She didn’t follow the commands to help the poor and needy.
So, yeah, venerating her makes the Church look bad to a whole lot of people, including quite a few Christians. Her saintly image seems to have only been propaganda.
We don’t have to agree with the Catholic Church. Heck, not even Catholics have to agree with the Church on everything.
You accuse me of telling you what morality we have to follow. Well, I don’t concede to you the right to declare what Catholics do to be the ultimate morality, either.
You guys are wasting each others time.
Bricker is falling back on the old if the law/process says this means that…well this means that by definition. Which is correct as far as it goes. Which plenty of you don’t get IMO. And Bricker seems to have trouble realizing people really aren’t so much about arguing that POINT as they are “well, if that IS the case the process sucks”.
What amuses is the way you class one as an arbitrary issue of personal opinion, while believing the other somehow has something more tangible about it. Truly, you are the very definition of a bureaucrat. Hang the actual merit of an act; what matters is the correct procedure has been followed!
To paraphrase Oscar, you know the definition of everything and the meaning of nothing.
Is it really purely a matter of opinion?
The accusations against Mother Teresa are that, as head of her organisation, she:
[ul]
[li]Raised millions of dollars worldwide from donors who she knew believed the money would be spent on generally alleviating suffering, but in fact simply never spent the vast majority of it despite ample opportunity to do so[/li]
[li]Accepted funds which were ear-marked for specific purposes (e.g. “the famine in Ethiopia”) but simply banked them without spending them as the donor had intended?[/li]
[li]Ran a hospice which failed to provide sterile needles despite ample funds being available to ensure this basic minimum of good medical practice?[/li]
[li]Ran a hospice in which people with curable diseases were not treated but instead allowed to die unnecessarily?[/li][/ul]
I could understand you disputing that these accusations are factual. But you seem to be saying that you could accept them as true and not consider them to be vile. Is that right? Because I’m struggling to see how anyone would finish the sentence that begins: “Running a well-funded medical institution that fails well established basic sterilisation standards and allows people with curable diseases to die (in agony, at that) doesn’t make you a vile person because…”
Likewise, shouldn’t the standard by which someone is named a saint have no relevance to someone who isn’t a Catholic?
Forget it Jake…its lawyer town 
Interesting! Thanks for the answers.