Pope Francis Declares Mother Teresa a Saint

[Imari]

My problem with Hitchens - and I am thinking of his wider body of work here - is that he doesn't seem to be arguing for anything; he's just trying to prove that everyone and everything is horrible. And if everybody was as cynical as he is, then the world would be the messed up place that he thinks it is.

To be fair, there's a lot of pretty horrible stuff that seems to go on in the upper levels of the world. I don't think that just because he's decided to report on that he has to balance it out with something else or impress his suggestions on it. It's fine just for him to present the facts as he sees them, especially if it's a view that seems to be relatively underpublicised for it's level of impact.

Investigative journalism often doesn't offer solutions, it tells what has and is going on. It's then up to the viewer to decide if and how they wish to use that information.

 

[Liquid]

What other public figures are known for their negative opinions on Mother Teresa? Christopher Hitchens is the only one I am aware of.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It's then up to the viewer to decide if and how they wish to use that information.

All the points you raise are valid, but from what I have read of Hitchens' work, I get the distinct impression that he wanted us to use that information to become as cynical as he was. He made a point of tearing people down, not for the sake of bringing about social change, but because he had no problem with breaking a world that he already saw as broken; to Hitchens, anyone who had the power to inspire was a corrupt and amoral bastard with a self-serving agenda because he couldn't fathom a world where people were capable of being selfless.

 

[TheCracker]

I don't really see the issue with this. She's only been made a Saint within the Catholic Church. If Catholicism in general is happy with this move then fine. Her sainthood doesn't mean anything to anyone outside of the church. It's only an issue to Catholics. She's not a saint to me. Not because of anything she has or hasn't done, but because it's not my religion.

 

[Imari]

All the points you raise are valid, but from what I have read of Hitchens' work, I get the distinct impression that he wanted us to use that information to become as cynical as he was. He made a point of tearing people down, not for the sake of bringing about social change, but because he had no problem with breaking a world that he already saw as broken; to Hitchens, anyone who had the power to inspire was a corrupt and amoral bastard with a self-serving agenda because he couldn't fathom a world where people were capable of being selfless.

Maybe. Does it matter what he wanted to use it for? As long as the information is true, it seems fine to me. It's better than the propaganda where the media will straight up lie in order to tear people down.

It's not even like that world view is that far off the likely truth anyway. Once you take the exaggeration out of it, yeah, it certainly does seem like a lot of the people who have power are indeed corrupt and amoral. I sure there are exceptions as there always are, but there's a lot of nasty stuff that goes on.

 

[Brend]

You know that feeling when you have a certain user blocked due to the nonsense they spew from time to time and then you can piece together it was them that said something outrageous based on people quoting quotes you can't see? Good feeling.

I'd say it's a good decision, done a lot of good for a lot of people. Unfortunately, nobody can save everyone. The real issue comes with how saintly a person can be - and if the ideal of a saint even truly exists.

 

[Danoff]

Unfortunately, nobody can save everyone.

If you're talking about saving their soul, nobody can save anybody.

All the points you raise are valid, but from what I have read of Hitchens' work, I get the distinct impression that he wanted us to use that information to become as cynical as he was. He made a point of tearing people down, not for the sake of bringing about social change, but because he had no problem with breaking a world that he already saw as broken; to Hitchens, anyone who had the power to inspire was a corrupt and amoral bastard with a self-serving agenda because he couldn't fathom a world where people were capable of being selfless.

If you're talking about his views on Mother Theresa, I think the crux of his position, his biggest complaint, is her campaign against contraceptives. The Catholic Church in general, regardless of what you might think of their reasons, should get a lot more criticism for their position on that. It's barbaric, a relic of ancient mysticism, just like the rest of the Catholic Church. To the extent that it influences people and governments around the world it spreads misery and pain.

Having absorbed a fair amount of Hitchens's work myself, I have to say that I don't find your criticism on point. He tears down the Christian moral code, but he does so by demonstrating real morals and how they don't align with the fake ones Christianity puts forth. He puts forward real morality in its place. He doesn't just attack Catholicism for condemning contraception use, he explains exactly why reproductive choice is a powerful force for good in the world. In fact, I don't find his worldview cynical at all. I find his view of Christianity cynical... and rightly so.

@Imari

 

[Touring Mars]

The path to sainthood was certainly not an easy one for Mother Teresa - although not quite as hard as becoming a member at Muirfield golf club. I disagree somewhat with the idea that @TheCracker raised which is that 'it doesn't matter to anyone but Catholics' though. I would argue that the Catholic church itself ought to be more concerned with its public image and being seen to be rectifying all the horrendous things it has allowed to happen in its name and under its (supposed) oversight. Hence, being associated with some of the things that MT advocated/did is not exactly moving in the right direction...

 

[zzz_pt]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/09/04/pope-francis-declares-mother-teresa-a-saint/324749/

As a non-Catholic, I really like the move that the Pope did, and it really should define his papacy. Anyone disagree?

Yes I do.

See/read Christopher Hitchens' pieces on the subject.

 

[Lizard]

People who are angry clearly don't understand the Catholic view of a saint.

The Pope does not make a person a saint. He declares them one. A saint is made by god under the Catholic belief and the Pope just says this person has had powers and a mission given to them by god.

Hence the 2 miracles rule.

 

[Scaff]

People who are angry clearly don't understand the Catholic view of a saint.

The Pope does not make a person a saint. He declares them one. A saint is made by god under the Catholic belief and the Pope just says this person has had powers and a mission given to them by god.

Hence the 2 miracles rule.

I think most understand it more than well enough ( and my wife is from a catholic family so I certainly do), the issue is that the reality of her life and the fantasy claimed by the church are far to big to be ignored.

 

[Lizard]

I think most understand it more than well enough ( and my wife is from a catholic family so I certainly do), the issue is that the reality of her life and the fantasy claimed by the church are far to big to be ignored.

I know that. The issue is though that despite her doing bad things, if the power and mission is there then they are a saint and the Pope can't say she isn't one just because he feels she did some bad things.

On the other hand like me you could believe no one has magical powers like saints supposedly have.

 

[Scaff]

I know that. The issue is though that despite her doing bad things, if the power and mission is there then they are a saint and the Pope can't say she isn't one just because he feels she did some bad things.

On the other hand like me you could believe no one has magical powers like saints supposedly have.

The some bad things us effectively the sum total of her life work, she wanted people to suffer as some kind of twisted 'offering' to God, and no evidence of miracles has been made public (and quite a bit exists to show evidence to the contrary has been suppressed).

Personally I have no belief in the supernatural.

 

[RacerTed]

The catholic teaching on 'sainthood' isn't found in the Bible. There are times in the New Testament that the apostle Paul refers to believers in the letters he writes as saints.

The definition that pops up on google for saint is 'a person acknowledged as holy or virtuous...'. So this hole saint thing that they do is unbiblical.

There is also no teaching in the Bible that another person should increase the suffering of another in order to bring them closer to God. You are to draw nearer to God during your times of trial (something I suck at), but those are the trials that life brings, not trials that some human decides to exacerbate.

If indeed it's true what's been posted about here denying medication that would relieve suffering (which is a biblical teaching) then this is the first I've heard of it and I'm greatly disappointed. That's as biblical as those priests from centuries ago that would whip themselves with rope to increase their suffering. Or those poor souls that crawl over rocks drawing blood from their knees toward statues of Mary, not biblical either.

Life doesn't need your help or mine to make it tough on another person. It does just fine on it's own as I'm sure we all know.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I am catholic. According to my belief Saints, as such declared by the Catholic Church, can be in Hell, meaning, parted from God. And many, killed for supposed (or actual) sins, may be in God's presence.

I remember my own (late) mother, probably the faithfullest of the faithful catholics I ever met, saying to me, when I was only an infant, that us humans can only be sure about one man being in Heaven. The criminal in the cross beside Jesus that told the other criminal to shut up because Jesus, unlike them both, had done no evil. And why? Because Jesus himself said that they would meet in Heaven (or something like this )

About Hitchens, I suppose by now he either knows he was wrong or he simply doesn't exist. We will all face (or not) this someday.

About Mother Theresa, I do believe she was what I'd call a Saint. And I met and talked with a few of her followers (nuns?), and I heard many of their own stories, be it from Brasil, India or Africa. Amazing women, very humbly telling me tales of experiences I could never endure myself. Her legacy is a legacy of love and hard work in the most terrible conditions, and there's no shortcomings of their own and/or Hitchens-type characters that will tarnish this IMHO.

 

[UKMikey]

Perhaps I should wait for the hagiography.

Fortunately the criticism of her medical care by the editor of The Lancet appears to have been peer reviewed (no doubt by unscrupulous Hitchens-types).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa#Quality_of_medical_care

In 2013, in a comprehensive review* covering 96% of the literature on Mother Teresa, a group of Université de Montréal academics reinforced the foregoing criticism, detailing, among other issues, the missionary's practice of "caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it, … her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce". Questioning the Vatican's motivations for ignoring the mass of criticism, the study concluded that Mother Teresa's "hallowed image—which does not stand up to analysis of the facts—was constructed, and that her beatification was orchestrated by an effective media relations campaign" engineered by the Catholic convert and anti-abortion BBC journalist Malcolm Muggeridge.

*Larivée, Serge; Carole Sénéchal; Geneviève Chénard (2013). "Les côtés ténébreux de Mère Teresa". Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses. 42 (3): 319–345.doi:10.1177/0008429812469894

 

[RacerTed]

I remember my own (late) mother, probably the faithfullest of the faithful catholics I ever met, saying to me, when I was only an infant, that us humans can only be sure about one man being in Heaven. The criminal in the cross beside Jesus that told the other criminal to shut up because Jesus, unlike them both, had done no evil. And why? Because Jesus himself said that they would meet in Heaven (or something like this )

John 20:31KJV But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

[Ken]

​

I remember my own (late) mother, probably the faithfullest of the faithful catholics I ever met, saying to me, when I was only an infant

Super power confirmed!

Okay, moving on.

To me, Mother Theresa is no saint. Plus, this entire conversation is why I left the Church to become a Buddhist. It's a 2,000 year old religion and everybody is still squabbling about the rules.

 

[Eva]

I'm Christian only in basic principal of believing the Holy Trinity. I personally find the bible to be 90% garbage. If you have morals and the ability to withhold yourself from being a criminal, and add that to the believing in the Holy Trinity, you should be fine. More often than not, anyone that tries to argue for and against the bible throw the old testament into the equation, when even the bible says that the old testament is no longer valid. I also often question the validity of the new testament. The damn thing has been edited and revised beyond compare. Entire books of the chapter from both old and new testament had been burned and removed from the bible by kings and popes that wanted to hypnotize the poorer citizens who either couldn't read or could but weren't further in education.

Now, Mother Teresa, I'm sorry, but if that is the Catholic definition of being a Saint, then I hope to never be one.

 

[Danoff]

I'm Christian only in basic principal of believing the Holy Trinity. I personally find the bible to be 90% garbage. If you have morals and the ability to withhold yourself from being a criminal, and add that to the believing in the Holy Trinity, you should be fine.

Yea that last part is tricky.

More often than not, anyone that tries to argue for and against the bible throw the old testament into the equation, when even the bible says that the old testament is no longer valid.

I agree, throw out the 10 commandments. Of course the NT doesn't say that the OT didn't happen.

 

[Hun200kmh]

​

Super power confirmed!

you got me there. In my own language the equivalent word for "infant" means someone in its first decade of life. To be more precise, I meant when I was about 7 or 8 years old (primary school).