I realize that. But I’m on a board that has an anti-Catholic bias far more pronounced than the real world does. Much of that arises from the board’s general antipathy to religion, and Christianity in general.
So I am not particularly surprised to hear a cavalcade of vituperative attacks against Catholic thinking. I don’t believe I will waste time discussing the proposition that saving an immortal soul is more important than saving a life. This is usually not an issue, since the two goals are almost never mutually exclusive. But sometimes it comes up: people inveigh against the Church teaching against contraception, for example, arguing that “reproductive freedom,” is an obvious benefit. I can’t argue against that without the common ground belief that artificial barriers to the transmission of life in the marital act are wrong, if done to prevent the transmission of life.
So people are welcome to their opinion that the process sucks. They are not welcome to their own false factual claims about the process.
Its not about doing good, its about upholding the views of the organization giving you the honor. In that sense, Mother Teresa’s fetishizing of suffering and the harm she caused is completely worthy of being honored by the tyrannical cult she was part of. Its sorta like NAMBLA giving out an award to the guy who fucks the most kids: its not in any way a good thing, but he deserved it
I think it’s a mixed bag. The accusations that she was vile for her positions on abortion, contraception, and divorce are purely unshared opinion. The points you raise above are also opinion, but they – if true – would be opinions I might share.
Of course, the devil is in the details. She “ran,” the hospital – did she personally order people to be left untreated so they would die? Did she do so from malice? Was there some other context which makes her decision less objectionable? The answers to these questions would be very important for me.
Holy fuck, are you really claiming that Catholicism gets a harder time on this board than other religions?
I mean, cards on the table, I think all of you theists are fucking idiots, and all of the big organized churches are loathsome. What strikes me though is despite all the child buggering your clergy seems to go in for, or shining examples of fucking vileness as the subject of the OP, you get a fraction of the criticism Islam gets…and when you do get the spotlight, your main defenses are “well we followed our procedures!” and “this is evidence of anti-Catholic bias!”.
I’m not seeing why this matters to anybody who isn’t a believing, practicing Catholic. I don’t know if Mama T was a nice person or not. I don’t know whether her faith was genuine or not. I do know that I am not a believing, practicing Catholic, so any titles they bestow on her dead ass have fuck-all to do with me. Serious question for the more enraged here: How are you harmed by this?
Bricker, as a believing, practicing Catholic would be expected to speak in defense of his church. You proclaimyourself atheist but whine about Islam getting a rough time. There is the difference. At this board, only people like Bricker defend the Catholic Church. For everyone else, it is fire at will. Let anyone talk shit on Islam, and any number of non-Muslim Dopers will start screaming about bigotry and racism.
As I understand it, she always presented herself as being personally involved in the running of the hospice and talked about her experience of working with the suffering there as being spiritually very important to her. It’s possible she was lying about that, but I don’t think the charge of: “was so utterly negligent of the flagship institution of her charity that she allowed it to descend into gross institutional failure while raising millions from her status as someone deeply concerned with the suffering of the poor” is materially less vile.
As to context, she worked very hard to put herself in a position to care for large numbers of sick and destitute people. Once in that position she grossly betrayed the trust it represented either wilfully or through prolonged negligence. I can’t immediately think of a context in which that would not be vile but I’d be interested to hear of one.
Me personally? Not much, if at all. But holding a up sociopath who embezzled money given to charity to help the sick and dying as the gold standard in human decency is harmful to those who are dependent on such charity. People should know not to give money to charities headed by people like Mother Teresa, and charities should know not to allow parasites like Mother Teresa to funnel off money for their own pet projects at the expense of the people they’re supposed to be helping.
That’s not at all what he said. He said that Catholicism gets a harder time here than it does in the rest of the world, in large part because religion gets a harder time here than in the rest of the world.
.
Except that it’s not “an honor that is given by an organization”. It’s a recognition that God chose that soul to be in heaven with Him. We underlings are just the instrument thru whom God acts.
No. If you’ll read what I wrote again, you will see I said it gets a harder time on this board than in the real world.
I don’t think all atheists are idiots, but I advise you not to volunteer for the sample group to test that hypothesis. You seem to not be able to understand much. Specifically, when a thread complains about Catholic canonization of a specific person, and in support of that complaint offers a link detailing her supposed ills that includes complaints about her doctrinaire opposition to abortion, birth control, and divorce, then it seems obvious that there are two rebuttals. One is to point out that the Church followed its own procedures, and the second is that the Church is herself against abortion, contraception, and divorce, so that the actual argument is anti-Catholic and not anti-Teresa.
She had more than one facility. Even her most credulous listeners wouldn’t accept her claim that she was personally involved in day-to-day operations in each one of them.
The Knights of Columbus awarded her an honor in 1992, and what I recall from her speech then was in no way a claim that she, personally, was there daily. She certainly spoke of her experiences as being of spiritual significance, yes, but did not give the impression that she personally was inventorying bedpans – or washing needles.
No, she didn’t.
But you accept allegations that she did uncritically.
