Mother Teresa was no saint

[Craig4]

It applies only when the criticism is inhumanely severe and unwarranted and those who are doing the criticizing are reluctant in being equally as critically severe with themselves.

I am certain I have never withheld medicine from anyone and therefore see no hypocrisy in criticizing her for that. There is a question of scale.

 

[Segnosaur]

You confuse beatification with canonization:

Just out of curiosity, how often does someone get beatified (beaten? Beatnicked?) and not proceed to the point of canonization / sainthood?

i.e. is it pretty much a sure thing that those beatified will become saints?

 

[Craig B]

It applies only when the criticism is inhumanely severe and unwarranted and those who are doing the criticizing are reluctant in being equally as critically severe with themselves.

The question whether criticism of Mother Teresa is unwarranted is a matter of the facts of her biography, not the sinlessness or otherwise of her critics. Did she do the things complained of? That is the issue.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Just out of curiosity, how often does someone get beatified (beaten? Beatnicked?) and not proceed to the point of canonization / sainthood?

i.e. is it pretty much a sure thing that those beatified will become saints?

Notker the Stammerer was beatified in 1512, and he's still waiting to be canonised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_blesseds

 

[Foster Zygote]

John 8:7 (KJV)

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

How's this for a stone?

Anjezë Bojaxhiu, aka Mother Teresa, took in millions of dollars in donations based on a myth founded on the sensationalistic "journalism" of a self-righteous blowhard employed by the BBC. The people who donated this money had the expectation that she was going to use it to provide medical help to desperately sick and destitute people. But she never did any of that. She didn't use her millions to treat those who could be helped, and she didn't provide palliative care to those who could not be helped. With the money that she received, she could have established a real hospital for the poor. She didn't do this because she thought that their suffering was necessary to her god's plan. She thought that their pain was "purifying" them. The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, an organization that purports to be greatly concerned with the well being of the world's poorest people while living in one of the most obscene displays of material wealth on Earth, is looking to profit from her undeserved reputation despite certainly having investigated her life in great detail and knowing the truth.

The interpolated story of the woman taken in adultery is a nice narrative. But you'll notice that the woman whom the scribes and Pharisees had condemned had done nothing more than exercise control over her own choice of sexual partner. For this, they wanted to have her put to death. You are turning that story into a simple-minded platitude about not criticizing anyone, even if they are hypocrites who caused harm to many while pretending to be righteous.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You confuse beatification with canonization:





Beatification is just a step toward that direction.

Right. Beatification is a step in the process of making someone a saint.

 

[pakeha]

... Who knows, maybe one day we'll find out that Padre Pio's stigmata were a scam!

 

[Foster Zygote]

It applies only when the criticism is inhumanely severe and unwarranted and those who are doing the criticizing are reluctant in being equally as critically severe with themselves.

How is it "inhumanely sever" criticism to point out that someone who's been painted as an exemplar of righteousness was actually a rather selfish person with some frankly appalling attitudes toward human suffering? Are you really expecting that anyone in this thread has done anything like that themselves? Are you trying to make your own argument a joke with the use of such ridiculous hyperbole?

 

[Craig B]

Notker the Stammerer was beatified in 1512, and he's still waiting to be canonised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_blesseds

He had to wait from 912 to 1512 even to get beatified. That's the problem with speech difficulties of that kind. It takes an inordinately long time for him to intercede with God so he can get permission to do the required miracles.

 

[sophia8]

Having said that, I still think that what she provided was better than nothing

That's another myth - that she provided medical care where there was nothing for the poor. When MT opened her clinic in Calcutta, there was already a large charity hospital there, providing quality medical care for the poor of the city. This was run by Indians, so of course Muggeridge, and other gullible Westerners who followed him to worship at the feet of this holy woman, didn't bother to find out about them.

 

[Brainiac2]

The question whether criticism of Mother Teresa is unwarranted is a matter of the facts of her biography, not the sinlessness or otherwise of her critics. Did she do the things complained of? That is the issue.

Criticism is subject to bias, motivated by prejudice, envy, hatred and other such irrelevant matters. Jesus was described as a devil by his enemies. So yes the type of persons setting themselves up as a jury does matter and it definitely does serve as a legal basis for jury-duty disqualification. Should I support that with documentation and courtroom, historical examples?

 

[Empress]

Criticism is subject to bias, motivated by prejudice, envy, hatred and other such irrelevant matters. Jesus was described as a devil by his enemies. So yes the type of persons setting themselves up as a jury does matter and it definitely does serve as a legal basis for jury-duty disqualification. Should I support that with documentation and courtroom, historical examples?

When did the JREFF become a courtroom? I neglected to take the oath!!

Anjezë Bojaxhiu deserves every bit of criticism thrown her way. She essentially tortured people in the name of a god about whose existence she appeared to harbor doubts. That's revolting.

 

[tsig]

Criticism is subject to bias, motivated by prejudice, envy, hatred and other such irrelevant matters. Jesus was described as a devil by his enemies. So yes the type of persons setting themselves up as a jury does matter and it definitely does serve as a legal basis for jury-duty disqualification. Should I support that with documentation and courtroom, historical examples?

Every one here is motivated by prejudice, envy, hatred and other such irrelevant matters?

 

[Brainiac2]

How's this for a stone?

Anjezë Bojaxhiu, aka Mother Teresa, took in millions of dollars in donations based on a myth founded on the sensationalistic "journalism" of a self-righteous blowhard employed by the BBC. The people who donated this money had the expectation that she was going to use it to provide medical help to desperately sick and destitute people. But she never did any of that. She didn't use her millions to treat those who could be helped, and she didn't provide palliative care to those who could not be helped. With the money that she received, she could have established a real hospital for the poor. She didn't do this because she thought that their suffering was necessary to her god's plan. She thought that their pain was "purifying" them. The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, an organization that purports to be greatly concerned with the well being of the world's poorest people while living in one of the most obscene displays of material wealth on Earth, is looking to profit from her undeserved reputation despite certainly having investigated her life in great detail and knowing the truth.

The interpolated story of the woman taken in adultery is a nice narrative. But you'll notice that the woman whom the scribes and Pharisees had condemned had done nothing more than exercise control over her own choice of sexual partner. For this, they wanted to have her put to death. You are turning that story into a simple-minded platitude about not criticizing anyone, even if they are hypocrites who caused harm to many while pretending to be righteous.

Those crazy ideas are yours not mine.

BTW
Your commentary reveals ignorance of the case involved, the socio-historical context in which it occurred and of the Mosaic Law being violated by the accusers themselves in the process of their accusation.

 

[abaddon]

Criticism is subject to bias, motivated by prejudice, envy, hatred and other such irrelevant matters. Jesus was described as a devil by his enemies. So yes the type of persons setting themselves up as a jury does matter and it definitely does serve as a legal basis for jury-duty disqualification. Should I support that with documentation and courtroom, historical examples?

LOL. A myth was called names by his imaginary enemies. This should impress how exactly?

 

[Craig B]

Criticism is subject to bias, motivated by prejudice, envy, hatred and other such irrelevant matters. Jesus was described as a devil by his enemies. So yes the type of persons setting themselves up as a jury does matter and it definitely does serve as a legal basis for jury-duty disqualification. Should I support that with documentation and courtroom, historical examples?

No, you should examine the accounts of the examples of Mother Teresa's activities, to determine if the criticisms of her behaviour are valid.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I think this is the most damning charge against her; that she embezzled the money she was given with donors expecting it to go on proper healthcare.

Having said that, I still think that what she provided was better than nothing, but her reputation is hugely inflated.

Maybe attempts to canonize her will provide the opportunity to have an honest accounting of her life and Hitchens will get his revenge from the grave.

No, what she did was far worse than nothing. She withheld medicines that at the least could ease suffering. She isolated the sick, not even allowing family visits. Her facilities were little more than a series platforms for sick people to die on, alone.

Doing nothing would have been a vast improvement for her.

 

[Darat]

I think this is the most damning charge against her; that she embezzled the money she was given with donors expecting it to go on proper healthcare.

Having said that, I still think that what she provided was better than nothing, but her reputation is hugely inflated.

Maybe attempts to canonize her will provide the opportunity to have an honest accounting of her life and Hitchens will get his revenge from the grave.

But the alternatives were not nothing, they were just very poorly funded and sparse. So if people hadn't decided to donate to her mission then that money may have been donated to a mission that would have done more.

 

[Craig B]

Those crazy ideas are yours not mine.

BTW
Your commentary reveals ignorance of the case involved, the socio-historical context in which it occurred and of the Mosaic Law being violated by the accusers themselves in the process of their accusation.

So it's a breach of the Ten Commandments to criticise Mother Teresa?

 

[I Am The Scum]

So it's a breach of the Ten Commandments to criticise Mother Teresa?

Thou shalt have no other gods before me, indeed...

Brainiac, do you have any facts about Mother Theresa to add, here? Is there any reason you can give as to why a reasonable person should not believe the accusations?