by Saename 48 Replies latest social current
I get your point Viqun and I agree.
Maybe the real culprit behind the curtain was the Catholic church itself and its over taking and handling of those charitable denotations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4
Penn and Teller's opinion on Mother Teresa
If I wanted to study Hitler and the Nazis and their effect on the German people, I would ask a German, that were there, first. He would be able to tell it first hand.
Didn't Hitchens meet with her first hand? That is why the pope had him testify.
Would be fair to say that MT and the Church exploited the impoverished and sick to cultivate financial gain and draw more people toward the church itself, as well to support her own self identifying image of a devoted Christian ?
Rebel8, the Catholic Church viewed Hitchens as a "Devil's Advocate." Question: Why should Mother Teresa not be canonised? To answer the question, he had to give it his best shot. She is being canonised today, so his testimony was rejected.
Mother Teresa's had been at it since 1948. Who in his/her right mind would choose to live in a slum (Calcutta's slums were the worst), working day and night with dying people, the poorest of the poor. This she did for approximately 50 years, dying with her boots on (no retirement for her). No, I think she was an extraordinary woman. Pity about the controversy shrouding her legacy. Here the Catholic Church should shoulder the blame. The rest of us, living in glass houses, should refrain from throwing stones. And talk of being judgmental, let's leave that to the Witnesses. We should be able to rise above that.
Glad to see she was allowed to die in a modern hospital with the best care. That means the Catholic Church looks after its old people. She had to have a Medical Aid to be admitted to a modern hospital. Well, that's much more than the Witnesses can say. They are only to happy to kick the old and sickly to the kerb.
Watch the videos Fink posted Vidqun.
You have been willingly duped.
I think there is an irony that she was treated in modern hospital with the best care yet her homes for the dying, whilst well motivated and generally clean, lacked doctors and facilities that should have been possible given the amount of money her charitable foundation attracted. This seems to be mainly due to her theological position on suffering.
This was reported by Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet, in 1991 and also by a group of Université de Montréal academics in 2013.
Personally I sit on the fence a little with this. I suspect she benefited from this untouchable persona built up the Vatican and media and criticisms of her should be open for debate rather than batted away with ad hominem. Having said that, for the people in her care the alternatives were probably even worse. It's not a justification or a means to an end but even if the woman was not above reproach and wrapped up in a myth it doesn't automatically mean everything she did becomes evil.
What I do know is that the theological process of making her a saint is utter bollocks.
Konceptual99, I tend towards your side of the issue. She started off with good intentions and she did improve the situation of many. Who are we to judge her motives? I totally agree with you concerning the theological process of making her a saint. That is utter nonsense.
In this video C Hitchens has some insightful information about what happened to the money MT charity donations were directed to, its an interesting debate.
If MT was so adamant to give the poor the medical treatment the rich could obtain, why didn't she orchestrate modernized medical care into the hospices she and her charity organization set up ?
A small portion of attention such as a food ration and water doesn't save people's lives, modern medical treatments and procedures do,
Ironically she herself was treated by top professional doctors in a hospital when she became ill.
B Donahue starts off with a bunch of vitriol adolescent jabs against Hitchens but Hitchens comes back with the undermining facts concerning where and from whom MT obtained money and what her ministries did with the money that Donahue cant refute, so he carries on with more Ad hominem attacks against Hitchens.
To save time, at the 34:00 min. point into the debate is where the real information comes through.
My opinion is that it was MT's religious convictions and that of the church's got in the way of really extensively helping people. You may have gotten a glass of water and piece of bread and some redeeming personal salvation at her care facilities but that's all you got, the rest of the money went to the church's convents and bank accounts.
Was Mother Theresa a fraud? Is the pope a catholic?
Mother Theresa was a saint as much as Christopher Hitchens was an intellectual.
Maybe the bigger question might be is the Catholic church/religion a fraud, since MT was just a practicing devout Catholic, who was being subjectively controlled by the churches structured ideologies and by people higher up within this religious organization ?
I think what Hitchens was really objectionable to was the over ending glorification of MT and her connecting socialized works.
The basic premise of her intentions were sincere but her religious convictions restrained her to do further than what she possibly could have.
