• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Mother Teresa to be declared a Saint September 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
No. The very nature of Protestantism is a refutation of Catholicism. There is no "group A" here.

Not really. Protestantism is based on the Catholics books. The King James version, for example, is not just full of mistranslation, it's written by people who didn't know Hebrew.
 

mStudios

Member
I consider myself agnostic, but every thread with religious topics is full of hatred and "it's the current year!!."

Like, calm down. Let people believe whatever they want to believe.
 

Lokimaru

Member
She tortured poor people with sub par treatment, because she believed that suffering was the path to god. She was a career saint. Her declared mission wasn't to make people better to live on their own, she was a shepherd that tried to push as many the lambs into the barn as she could. It's a crime that she is remembered so positively in the minds of the public coincidence. Mother Teresa is the saint of the slowly decaying.

This.
 
I don't even understand this post.

Like what does you sending your non-catholic kids to a school simply named after her have anything to do with anything?

The point is that Mother Teresa is a household name like Martin Luther King.
I just browsed through the Time special on her. There's not one line of negative material in there.

The point is that Catholics are not the ones refuting evolution in the classrooms.
Catholics values compares very well to any other religion.
Technically, all faithful Christians who are deceased are saints. Some just get additional recognition.
 
What other evidence? Are you talking about allegations from medical personnel who complained about the standard of care at her hospitals or the allegations that she tried to convert people to catholicism on their death bed (totally plausible given the catholic faith). If society was so ready to help the needy then why are there so few organizations that are in fact helping the poor in third world countries. Complaining about the standard of care in places where little or no care was previously being provided to the needey seems a bit like not seeing the forrest for the trees.

She was not a doctor. She provided a house for people to die in.
 

Walpurgis

Banned
Saw this on redit

Copying this message from /u/be_my_plaything:

What evil? This evil....

She ran hospitals (If an institution with a 40% mortality rate is actually classifiable as a hospital) like prisons, particularly cruel and unhygienic prisons at that. Children in her care were tied to their beds to prevent them misbehaving. She let the terminally ill (and even those with illnesses that would have been curable if her 'hospitals' were run better) die without pain relief because suffering bought them closer to Jesus

Most of the money donated to her causes was filtered back into the (already exceedingly rich) Catholic Church, or used to expand her 'charities' to new regions, rather than actually helping those in her care, many of whom were starving and lacking basic medical care... Basically she didn't love the poor and hungry, she loved poverty and hunger, she saw suffering as a grace and despite being lauded as a humanitarian given the fame and donations she had at her disposal did relatively little practical good.

She befriended and defended a genocidal dictator, Jean-Claude 'Baby Doc' Duvalier, and accepted donations from him of money extorted from the very poor she was supposedly helping as well as drug dealing and body part trafficking.

She accepted and refused to return profits of criminal activity. Including one and a quarter million US dollars in cash and use of a private jet from convicted racketeer and fraudster Charles Keating who stole over $3 Billion from US taxpayers in the 80's and 90's... Upon his conviction not only did Mother Teresa and The Catholic Church refuse to return the money they had received from him, Mother Teresa actually tried to use her influence to have him let off or at least sentenced leniently.

She publicly defended known pedophiles from within the clergy, including trying to use her influence to have leniency shown in sentencing of convicted child rapist Donald McGuire and campaigning to have him reinstated to the priesthood and allowing him to continue his work... even though this work would inevitably bring him into regular contact with children.

Because so much of the money she raised went to the church not the poor she hated waste in her hospitals, insisting staff reused needles until they were too blunt to continue using... even in known HIV high risk areas.

She directed a mere 7% of the monies her charities raised directly those she was supposedly helping... With much of the rest ending up in secret bank accounts and as yet still unaccounted for.

She routinely baptised those dying under her care regardless of their own wishes or religious beliefs.

She opposed both abortion and contraception, even in cases of incest, abuse and rape.

She praised and supported Ireland's anti-divorce laws... even in cases where spousal abuse was apparent, forcing countless women to live out lives of slavery and torture.

Basically pretty much everything about her was evil, but the churches PR machine didn't have a hard job spinning a kindly looking old women stood amongst some of the poorest people in the world to look lie a saint, and once that side of the story was cemented in the press it became all most people saw of her.

Possible sources:

1.

http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca/udem-news/news/20130301-mother-teresa-anything-but-a-saint.html

2.

Les côtés ténébreux de Mère Teresa

3.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...many-critics-mother-teresa-is-still-no-saint/

4.

Christopher Hitchens - Mother Teresa: Hell's Angel

5.

http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/i-dont-think-she-deserved-the-nobel/284270

6.

http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/on-the-same-page/284274

7.

http://newamericamedia.org/2013/03/city-of-doubts-kolkatas-uneasy-love-for-mother-teresa.php

8.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa

9.

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/03/the..._had_little_impact_on_her_glowing_reputation/

10.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/10/forbes-india-mother-teresa-charity-critical-public-review.html

11.

More sources in this comment by /u/BlunderLikeARicochet
Wow, what a piece of shit. I like the current pope but this is way too much.
 

Audioboxer

Member
Saw this on redit

Copying this message from /u/be_my_plaything:

What evil? This evil....

She ran hospitals (If an institution with a 40% mortality rate is actually classifiable as a hospital) like prisons, particularly cruel and unhygienic prisons at that. Children in her care were tied to their beds to prevent them misbehaving. She let the terminally ill (and even those with illnesses that would have been curable if her 'hospitals' were run better) die without pain relief because suffering bought them closer to Jesus

Most of the money donated to her causes was filtered back into the (already exceedingly rich) Catholic Church, or used to expand her 'charities' to new regions, rather than actually helping those in her care, many of whom were starving and lacking basic medical care... Basically she didn't love the poor and hungry, she loved poverty and hunger, she saw suffering as a grace and despite being lauded as a humanitarian given the fame and donations she had at her disposal did relatively little practical good.

She befriended and defended a genocidal dictator, Jean-Claude 'Baby Doc' Duvalier, and accepted donations from him of money extorted from the very poor she was supposedly helping as well as drug dealing and body part trafficking.

She accepted and refused to return profits of criminal activity. Including one and a quarter million US dollars in cash and use of a private jet from convicted racketeer and fraudster Charles Keating who stole over $3 Billion from US taxpayers in the 80's and 90's... Upon his conviction not only did Mother Teresa and The Catholic Church refuse to return the money they had received from him, Mother Teresa actually tried to use her influence to have him let off or at least sentenced leniently.

She publicly defended known pedophiles from within the clergy, including trying to use her influence to have leniency shown in sentencing of convicted child rapist Donald McGuire and campaigning to have him reinstated to the priesthood and allowing him to continue his work... even though this work would inevitably bring him into regular contact with children.

Because so much of the money she raised went to the church not the poor she hated waste in her hospitals, insisting staff reused needles until they were too blunt to continue using... even in known HIV high risk areas.

She directed a mere 7% of the monies her charities raised directly those she was supposedly helping... With much of the rest ending up in secret bank accounts and as yet still unaccounted for.

She routinely baptised those dying under her care regardless of their own wishes or religious beliefs.

She opposed both abortion and contraception, even in cases of incest, abuse and rape.

She praised and supported Ireland's anti-divorce laws... even in cases where spousal abuse was apparent, forcing countless women to live out lives of slavery and torture.

Basically pretty much everything about her was evil, but the churches PR machine didn't have a hard job spinning a kindly looking old women stood amongst some of the poorest people in the world to look lie a saint, and once that side of the story was cemented in the press it became all most people saw of her.

Possible sources:

1.

http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca/udem-news/news/20130301-mother-teresa-anything-but-a-saint.html

2.

Les côtés ténébreux de Mère Teresa

3.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...many-critics-mother-teresa-is-still-no-saint/

4.

Christopher Hitchens - Mother Teresa: Hell's Angel

5.

http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/i-dont-think-she-deserved-the-nobel/284270

6.

http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/on-the-same-page/284274

7.

http://newamericamedia.org/2013/03/city-of-doubts-kolkatas-uneasy-love-for-mother-teresa.php

8.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa

9.

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/03/the..._had_little_impact_on_her_glowing_reputation/

10.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/10/forbes-india-mother-teresa-charity-critical-public-review.html

11.

More sources in this comment by /u/BlunderLikeARicochet

I mean... yeah.

A God would clearly praise this sort of behaviour and roll out the red carpet for such a role model.

People become very rich and powerful off of peddling snake oil to the masses. Has happened for many years, and will continue to. From the complete outsider it's already ridiculous enough on face value that a group of rich men live in a tower built on absolutely insane wealth (Vatican City) and then shout orders at the poor and ask people to donate/give everything they have away. Not to mention all the disgusting shit with hiding and protecting paedophilia on the side.

Oh the Catholic Church, keeping being you.
 
I could be upset over this.

Instead I'll just take it as a friendly reminder what a shitstain the catholic church is to humanity.
 
My understanding is that she used donation money that was supposed to be used to help locals in one side of the world to build churches of suffering on another.

That is a exceptionally large part of it, people donated to help these individuals and instead she used the money to build more hospice centers were people would suffer until their death. She didn't want those individuals to receive the bare minimal of pain management in their final moments, cause suffering is important.

She was a wretched individual.
 
Not really. Protestantism is based on the Catholics books. The King James version, for example, is not just full of mistranslation, it's written by people who didn't know Hebrew.

Group A is Christianity itself.

Protestantism literally rejects the whole worshipping of saints and canonization thing. So no, a piece of shit like Teresa being declared a saint by the Catholics doesn't reflect poorly on Protestants. In fact it proves them right.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
The point is that Mother Teresa is a household name like Martin Luther King.
I just browsed through the Time special on her. There's not one line of negative material in there.

The point is that Catholics are not the ones refuting evolution in the classrooms.
Catholics values compares very well to any other religion.
Technically, all faithful Christians who are deceased are saints. Some just get additional recognition.

Where did this even come from in the conversation?
 
...You know, if anything, this whole damn mess kind of makes an easy case to get something of a Grindhouse Tarantino film treatment years after the fact(Yeah, I know he's about done*, but come on)---the script practically writes itself with how over the top it has already become from a distance with so much plainly there even only these relative few years removed from all the surreal and horrendous doings. Costumes, locales, conspiring up on high---it would have it all.

Still, they've now bottomed out this well that they've cultivated for the past few decades---one wonders what the next hook/act they'll employ to grasp anew at attention and money will assume given how swimmingly they've ultimately managed to get away with this one thus far..
 

Maxios

Member
I'm genuinely shocked at the amount of people I've noticed around the Internet (mostly on Reddit) commenting about her canonization who don't know the difference between a hospice and a hospital. Mother Teresa did not run hospitals; she ran hospices called Homes for the Dying.

I've also noticed people saying they read Hitchens' book and claiming that none of the people in the hospices were given any painkillers to ease their suffering (I've noticed a disturbing amount of people actually claiming that Teresa attempted to make them suffer even more), which is odd because it was even noted in the book that mild painkillers were given.

Edit: I'd also like to note that the Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of health care services in the world. But I guess that apparently doesn't count as doing good for humanity now?
 
I consider myself agnostic, but every thread with religious topics is full of hatred and "it's the current year!!."

Like, calm down. Let people believe whatever they want to believe.

I don't really have anything to say about the rest of the topic, but on this point in particular, it's somewhat harmful to suggest that personal beliefs are innocuous, even if just culturally. Religious doctrine has an immense impact collectively, and has shaped our current lives in many ways. It's always better to engage in the shaping of culture than not.
 

Special C

Member
Not really. Protestantism is based on the Catholics books. The King James version, for example, is not just full of mistranslation, it's written by people who didn't know Hebrew.

The New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew, and if you go back and study the original manuscripts the KJV is surprisingly accurate. It's obviously not perfect, but it coorelates well enough that only quick references back to the original texts are required to understand it fully.

Protestantism by definition is the rejection of Roman Catholism. Of course protestant denominations have their own problems.
 

Bolivar687

Banned
St. Teresa of Calcutta remains the most admired woman of the twentieth century for selflessly dedicating her life to one of the most impoverished cities in human history. Her critics ultimately failed to defame her altruism because of their own intellectual dishonesty.

Nearly all of her criticism can be traced back to Christopher Hitchens’ documentary, which never asked the subject population for their experiences or opinions about her treatment. Unsurprisingly, the people of Kalkota have been her greatest defenders, both individually and as a community (“it is hard to find many voices of criticism against her[…] Indeed, in an attempt to find takers for the ‘findings’ of the Canadian scholars, Outlook stumbled upon a great many stories about how people had been ‘converted’—not to the Christian faith—but from positions of extreme suspicion to boundless admiration”). As many here have noted, she ran hospices, not hospitals, although the Catholic Church does indeed provide more hospitals in India than any other institution. The inadequacies of her facilities are a redundant reflection of India’s lack of infrastructure, which which similarly limits the quality of care for all of the country's health services. This problem is compounded by the caste system, the codified oppression which serves to deny key medical services to those India deems were born inferior. In many cases, St. Teresa was the only one who helping these “untouchables,” regardless of whether they converted or not. Her lifetime of work is directly credited for having shifted India's political landscape towards better treatment of its lower castes.

The idea that she hoarded her wealth for herself is refuted by both accounts of her charity as well as her own abject living conditions. Those condemning her for funneling money back to the Vatican must confront the reality that the Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of both education and health care in the world, with humanitarian aid in nearly every country and emergency relief throughout the third world. Similarly, the claim that she hypocritically sought out the best medical care for herself is repeatedly contradicted by her refusing such treatment, trying to escape from expensive hospitals when admitted against her will, and the fact that renowned doctors flew out to her without her knowledge. Any withholding of pain medication is likely more attributable to India’s well-documented lack of morphine than her abstract theological views on suffering.

It’s a massive red flag that the most evidence submitted in this thread derives from a reddit post, which dishonestly failed to provide the prominent counter articles accompanying its sources from the Washington Post, Outlook India (both cited above) or the Huffington Post. This anti-intellectualism exposes the new-atheism for what it genuinely is: another fundamentalist delusion, fueling intolerance for other backgrounds by deception, and not at all concerned with critical thinking.
 

DemWalls

Member
Chariot even figured out her boss name already.

That does sound pretty badass.


Anyway, when I first read this thread, months ago, I really didn't know anything about all this nasty stuff people talk about. Was kind of a surprise, since I knew her mainly because my grandmother basically worshipped her, so obviously I had hardly heard anything negative about her. After reading more about it, my position is pretty neutral, still it would be interesting to discuss with my grandma on the matter. Too bad she's gone.
 
It’s a massive red flag that the most evidence submitted in this thread derives from a reddit post, which dishonestly failed to provide the prominent counter articles accompanying its sources from the Washington Post, Outlook India (both cited above) or the Huffington Post. This anti-intellectualism exposes the new-atheism for what it genuinely is: another fundamentalist delusion, fueling intolerance for other backgrounds by deception, and not at all concerned with critical thinking.

this is from the conclusion that huffpo article
So to all the Mother Teresa haters: if you don’t like her, that’s your right and I respect it. But please, do not waste all this time writing studies or articles on her that have no other value than being controversial enough to be published. Pick your battles. Surely there are a lot worse people than her in this world who deserve your energy! And if Mother Teresa did such a bad job helping others, why not save that time spent criticizing her to instead try to make a difference in this world?

i mean... what...

there's also this bit in there from the middle
Yes, Mother Teresa was adamant and very vocal about this. Although I usually scream loud and clear when I hear any politician questioning what I consider two fundamental rights, I do not hold it against Mother Teresa. In fact, I understand her and see it as a necessary price to pay for all the good she has done to this world.

that's straight crazy.

gimme a bit and ill check the other links, but that huffpo post is nearly pure nonsense, mate. Her only reasonable bit is that "what she provided was better than leaving them in the trash". Which is quite the terrible deflection, for reasons that i hope are obvious.
 

Cocaloch

Member
No. The very nature of Protestantism is a refutation of Catholicism. There is no "group A" here.

Group A is Christianity itself.

.

Protestantism literally rejects the whole worshipping of saints and canonization thing. So no, a piece of shit like Teresa being declared a saint by the Catholics doesn't reflect poorly on Protestants. In fact it proves them right.

Catholics don't worship saints, and some Protestant sects do have saints.
 

The Boat

Member
.



Catholics don't worship saints, and some Protestant sects do have saints.

Worship might be a subjective term, but I'd say that in practice, Catholics certainly worship saints. They erect sanctuaries in their honor, name churches after them, do pilgrimages in their name, pray to them, have statues and loads of other iconography around among many, many other things.
 

Astral Dog

Member
Worship might be a subjective term, but I'd say Catholics certainly worship saints. They erect sanctuaries in their honor, name churches after them, do pilgrimages in their name, pray to them, have statues and loads of other iconography around among many, many other things.
Thats true, im surprised people are arguing otherwise
 

jett

D-Member
.



Catholics don't worship saints, and some Protestant sects do have saints.

As someone that lives in a country with a 99% Catholic population, Catholics absolutely worship not only saints, but also statues, murals, paintings and other imagery.
 
I consider myself agnostic, but every thread with religious topics is full of hatred and "it's the current year!!."

Like, calm down. Let people believe whatever they want to believe.
Yeah! it's not like religious beliefs have any effect on the world! Beliefs are just completely segmented off in peoples minds and do not effect politics, health, etc!
 

Cocaloch

Member
Worship might be a subjective term, but I'd say that in practice, Catholics certainly worship saints. They erect sanctuaries in their honor, name churches after them, do pilgrimages in their name, pray to them, have statues and loads of other iconography around among many, many other things.

As someone that lives in a country with a 99% Catholic population, Catholics absolutely worship not only saints, but also statues, murals, paintings and other imagery.

I mean the theological response is that Catholics don't pray, which is what most people are getting at when they say worship, to saints so much as instead asking for intercession.

The historical response is that the implication of the accusation that Catholics worship saints is that they worship them as lesser Gods. This is fairly clearly wrong in practice, but more importantly has been used as justification for the othering of Catholics in addition to some pretty nasty acts over the last 5 centuries or so.

It's a fairly odd definition of worship that leads to the accusation and it has a clear incentive. Additionally in my experience, today the charge is mostly leveled by the more regressive protestant sects.

Also some Protestant sects, including one of the most reformed ones in the Scottish Kirk, name things after saints so I'm not really sure what you are getting at with that.
 

jett

D-Member
I mean the theological response is that Catholics don't pray, which is what most people are getting at when they say worship, to saints so much as instead asking for intercession.

The historical response is that the implication of the accusation that Catholics worship saints is that they worship them as lesser Gods. This is fairly clearly wrong in practice, but more importantly has been used as justification for the othering of Catholics in addition to some pretty nasty acts over the last 5 centuries or so.

It's a fairly odd definition of worship that leads to the accusation and it has a clear incentive. Additionally in my experience, today the charge is mostly leveled by the more regressive protestant sects.

Also some Protestant sects, including one of the most reformed ones in the Scottish Kirk, name things after saints so I'm not really sure what you are getting at with that.

I mean, I don't know what to tell you. I know for a fact that people in my family actively pray to saints. They literally use that word when they want to "ask" a particular saint for something. You say this is intercession, but I say tomato tomahto. I'm certainly not trying to "other" my family, but this is definitely my experience. When I was in Catholic school they justified it with semantic mumbojumbo, saying how saints were "revered" and not worshiped, when in effect it's the same thing. They might not actually consider them "lesser gods", but in actuality that's what they're doing to be honest. I'm not even gonna get into the whole "revering" of murals, statues and Marian apparitions.

I don't know much about Protestants, so I can't speak to that, and I jumped in late into this whole argument anyways.
 

Cocaloch

Member
I mean, I don't know what to tell you. I know for a fact that people in my family actively pray to saints. They literally use that word when they want to "ask" a particular saint for something. You say this is intercession, but I say tomato tomahto. I'm certainly not trying to "other" my family, but this is definitely my experience.

It might be tomato tomahto to you because you don't seem to understand the context in which the semantic distinction is important. Modern Catholics overwhelmingly don't see saints as little gods, which is essentially what Protestants are trying to suggest with the whole Catholics worship saints thing.

When I was in Catholic school they justified it with semantic mumbojumbo, saying how saints were "revered" and not worshiped, when in effect it's the same thing. They might not actually consider them "lesser gods", but in actuality that's what they're doing to be honest. I'm not even gonna get into the whole "revering" of murals, statues and Marian apparitions.

I don't know much about Protestants, so I can't speak to that, and I jumped in late into this whole argument anyways.

I mean it's theology, to a nonbeliever that doesn't want to think about it from a purely philosophical point of view its all semantic mumbojumbo. So I'm not sure what you are getting at. I mean this tradition does come from polytheism and I agree with Calvin in particular in many of his critiques of that, but lets acknowledge that Protestants have traditionally, and some especially American sects still do, have a vested interest in making it look much worse than it currently is.

Catholics praying to saints in the 21st century has little in common with say a Greek person in the 5th century B.C.E. worshiping both Zeus and Hermes.
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
This anti-intellectualism exposes the new-atheism for what it genuinely is: another fundamentalist delusion, fueling intolerance for other backgrounds by deception, and not at all concerned with critical thinking.
Pretty ironic coming from someone who just posted little more than a slew of gish gallop. I doubt you're fooling anyone, though, so nice try.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom