Ship of Fools: Mother Teresa to become saint

Thread: Mother Teresa to become saint Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029606

Posted by toadstrike (# 18244) on :

I'd be interested to know what people think of this. Christopher Hitchens was quite colourful in his opinions about her You Tube
as have some other people.

Certainly looks to me like she has been seriously over-rated and the miracle thing is absolutely ridiculous.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Pitiful. I invoked her not an hour ago. I have to retract that.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I knew about the Muggeridge thing and the film. And I've also met people who went to Calcutta, brim-full of enthusiasm, to work for Mother Teresa and who returned to the UK disillusioned or, in the case of 1, very angry - so angry in fact that he wrote to the Vatican at the time when her sanctification was first mooted to point out that she wasn't doing anymore than warehouse people and let them die unnecessarily. Needless to say they received a letter from the Holy City that was full of flannel and said precisely nothing.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I used to have a LOT of time for her. Up until this thread. I'd heard of the Hitchens film, and have come to love him, but didn't iterate the loop until now.

Another illusion gone. I'd not seen her anti-contraceptive fanaticism before either. Interesting how her image has been polished.

As for the claim, like ALL such it's utter self deception.

Ah well. 10,000 years.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I used to volunteer at a home they ran in the Yemen. And also visited the leper colony they had there. This was in the late eighties and early nineties. At that point they were providing a worthwhile service, in the context of a third world country with no universal health care.

They didn't try to convert those they cared for to Christianity, which meant they were allowed to operate in various Islamic countries where many other agencies were not accepted.

I think you have to look at what they provided in the context of what the available alternatives were. A quarter of a century ago in Yemen, woman were still dying regualrly in childbirth - having had a child every year or two of their marriage. Most people were subsistence farmers, and were screwed if the crop failed. The tap water was not drinkable and there were cholrea epidemics. It was usual, if you were physically disabled, that you would spend your life begging on the streets if you had no family to support you. We met people in remote villiages who were shackled by their families to keep them from wandering.

When we travelled in some areas people would crowded around asking for medicine, because we were white foreigners, wanting usually antibiotics and paracetamol.

Sometimes they would insist on you meeting someone who was sick in the hope you'd be able to help. They could be more than 8 hours from the nearest doctor. Even the oil companies were running health clinics to try to improve basic healthcare.

Eight nuns and a few helpers ran a home for, it must have been, over 50 people. There were about 20 children with multiple disabilities, adults with severe developmental and mental health problems and they survived on donations.

The standard of care was poor compared to what you would have had in the UK at that time, but considerably better than what would have happened to these people without them.

[ 20. December 2015, 08:46: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

(Yes, she was a conservative Roman Catholic, hence the antiI-contraception stance and the talk about the beauty of Christ like suffering. I think complaining about that is on a par with complaining the Pope's Catholic.)

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Thanks for the balancing testimony Doublethink.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I suppose the real issue is the nature of official sainthood. I have BIG problems with it as a concept, because it does raise some individuals over most others, and tends to gloss over the problems in their life.

Mother Theresa has done some good things in her life, I think. She has also done some bad things, and holds views that are not currently considered appropriate. That is largely because she is a conservative Catholic, and those positions are not really the generally acceptable position.

In all of that, she is just like any other saint in the Catholic lexicon. Which is why I tend to struggle with the concept of sainthood. She was not any better than anyone else. She may have had different opportunities and made use of the chances she has had.

I think that is the problem with sainthood - it isn't about saying "well done" for the good things, and "Don't be a dick" for the bad things, it is about pretending that their whole life is worthy of celebration. Nobody's life is worthy of celebration as a whole. The good doesn't outweigh the bad. The good that everyone does should be celebrated, and the bad condemned.

As it is, the sainthood process distorts the perception of a persons life. And because this is then held up as a model for others, it becomes an impossible aim, because even the saint couldn't live up to this standard.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

This is an interesting article: http://www.stirjournal.com/2014/07/21/living-and-working-with-the-missionaries-of-charity/

When we were in Yemen, they used cloth to tie some of the children into their cots at night - at the ankle or wrist. And there was one child with a cage over the top of his cot.

There was no supervision in the dormitory at night. The lad had microcephaly and would climb out of his bed. He would hurt the other children - not intentially but through lack of understanding - by trying to pick them up by one limb etc.

If you were setting up a home in the UK, even then, you would have far less children. They'd have proper bedrooms. You would have waking night staff etc

But they didn't have those options.

Reading that article I do wonder where the money went, but the staffing makes logical sense.

If you have 5400 staff, some of whom will be unable to work and 600 facilities of various sizes. Then you won't have many nuns per facility.

The home we went into did have access to physio, but not much - so I don't think getting in outside professional help is an entirely new thing.

I've no doubt the organisation wasn't perfect, nothing is, but I do also feel there is a lack of recognition, by some commentators, of the cultural context.

In essence its a form of rationed care - the mission takes some people getting no care and provides basic care. It would always be possible to provide more for one specific individual, but then the number of people to whom you can provide basic care to overall reduces. The argument is what constitutes basic care, and how much resource they actually did/do have.

I suspect the funding income is over stated.

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

Mother T to be a saint! Who knew such a thing would happen? Yeah, I know the West mostly didn't care for her, but the Holy See has given up the West to paganism and atheism. In India, she is almost a saint to Indian Catholics and that is where the impetus is coming from.

After all, the late Princess of Wales held her hand, and made several visits to this fund-raising little nun. If Diana, patron saint to elderly British women, liked her, what could possibly be wrong with her?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I'd scarcely rely upon Hitchens as a reliable authority in this area.

AIUI, 2 miracles are necessary as a part of getting onto the Roman canon. Those which come readily to mind, and are easily verifiable, are bringing Malcolm Muggeridge back to his faith, and then having a similar effect on Princess Diana.

Otherwise what Doublethink has said.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Yeah Doublethink, I've been naïve. Again. There is NO Christian leadership, there are NO Christian heroes. There is the long arc. The remainder of this century will see an ever sharper dip as the existential crisis of Islam resolves for the following 9. Or 99.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'd scarcely rely upon Hitchens as a reliable authority in this area.

There was a study done by a past editor of the Lancet which was fairly critical of the both the quality of care and the level of medical knowledge that meant that they often didn't distinguish between those who were easy to treat vs those who were dying, leading to unnecessary pain and death.

There are also plenty of non-religious Indian critiques of the conduct of the house at Calcutta.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Hitchens stock rises further.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
2 miracles are necessary as a part of getting onto the Roman canon. Those which come readily to mind, and are easily verifiable, are bringing Malcolm Muggeridge back to his faith, and then having a similar effect on Princess Diana.

Would those really be classed as miracles? That seems to be setting the bar absurdly low.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Any random grain in the blizzard of chaff IS, nonetheless, God's endorsement of our desperate self-aggrandizing deceit.

10,000 years.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Any random grain in the blizzard of chaff IS, nonetheless, God's endorsement of our desperate self-aggrandizing deceit.

10,000 years.

You are becoming increasingly obscure once more. You appear to this reader to be in favour of this sanctification, but it's difficult to be certain of your message as I attempt to decipher your obfuscation.

Posted by toadstrike (# 18244) on :

I have a bit of a problem too with the "2 miracle" test.

Suspending my disbelief for a minute, if my loved one was seriously ill would I entrust his/her cause to just one "unconfirmed" saint?

Or perhaps more likely I would also enlist a "tried and tested" saint - or even the doctors - in my anxiety to see the person cured?

Then if the person was cured how would I know whether the "unconfirmed" saint was the key intervention and not that of the "old hand" saint (or even some overworked, underpaid and totally unthanked hospital doctor)?

Possibly in my keenness to get my name in print as the champion of the "unconfirmed" saint leading to his/her confirmation I might possibly be tempted to overstate his/her intervention and not mention the more mundane saint/medics?

All seems a bit unreliable to me.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Doublethink:

quote:

I think you have to look at what they provided in the context of what the available alternatives were.

there's the nub. So often it is very easy to come from a Western mind set of what is acceptable medical practice and care but little attention is paid to the general normal practice of the place. In Mother Teresa's case I always understood that a significant part of her work was among the 'untouchables' in India and certainly during the 80's such people received no care at all, let alone medical attention.

She was clever in her dealings though; perhaps too clever to now be a saint, of that's possible. She was criticised in her lifetime quite directly about taking money from the hand of corruption but her retort was that she knew it was from the hand of evil but she turned it to good. I'm never really sure how I feel about this. It strikes me that there is a kind of resignation in this about how the world works, but I'm not sure that if I were in her shoes I could do it without keeping my mouth shut about other things which would likely end with a bullet to the head.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

The trouble, Toadstrike, is that Christopher Hitchens was such an opinionated ranter, that he's no authority for anything, whether fact or opinion.

Is there any independent source that a person might respect that argues the same?

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
... She was clever in her dealings though; perhaps too clever to now be a saint, of that's possible. She was criticised in her lifetime quite directly about taking money from the hand of corruption but her retort was that she knew it was from the hand of evil but she turned it to good. I'm never really sure how I feel about this. It strikes me that there is a kind of resignation in this about how the world works, but I'm not sure that if I were in her shoes I could do it without keeping my mouth shut about other things which would likely end with a bullet to the head.

I can sort of see that in the abstract ideological way, but I'd also query whether that's to fail to appreciate what Incarnation is about.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I think the whole sainthood business is ridiculous, but then I'm such a dyed-in-the-wool old Protestant I WOULD think that, wouldn't I?

If you lay aside the sainthood aspect, it seems to me Teresa was much like most people of faith -- she did and said some good things and some bad things. It's the rush to make the good things seem flawless and perfect that makes the bad things so troubling. You'd be hard-pressed to find any person who did a lot of good in his/her life, religious or secular, who didn't also eff up a fair bit. The brighter their good deeds shine, the more harsh light is also brought to bear on their flaws.

I've read Mary Johnson's memoir "An Unquenchable Thirst," about her time as a nun with the Missionaries of Charity, which provides a complex and nuanced view of Teresa's work. I think there were obviously a lot of things she could have done better, but I cynically note how many of the criticisms of Teresa and her work come out of the mouths of people who would probably cut off their own hand before they'd wash the open sores of a dying homeless person. So I'm not sure all of us who have lived more comfortable, sanitary lives have earned the right to criticize all the things she DIDN'T get right. (Those who have done that kind of work themselves have, of course, much more right to be critical and to point out how it could be done better).

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'd scarcely rely upon Hitchens as a reliable authority in this area.
There was a study done by a past editor of the Lancet which was fairly critical of the both the quality of care and the level of medical knowledge that meant that they often didn't distinguish between those who were easy to treat vs those who were dying, leading to unnecessary pain and death.

There are also plenty of non-religious Indian critiques of the conduct of the house at Calcutta.

Yes, but then these weren't medical staff.

The broader question might be - if you were a doctor, and one of these homes was within your catchment area, why weren't you providing medical care to these people and referring them to a hospital if required ?

And in the lack of a meaningful answer to that question lies the void that these missions try to fill.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

I'm not opposed to sainthood but I think it is quite difficult to canonise people from the 20th century or later because the minutiae of people's lives are known more, including their inner thoughts. So you get the position of people being proposed for sainthood who would not necessarily have wanted it, and who we can perhaps say that more definitely about. Dorothy Day, for instance, I'm not sure would want official sainthood and especially not one requiring miracles.

As a disabled person my main objection to Mother Teresa's canonisation is her ableism, in her theology and her work, particularly regarding pain relief. I object to her stance on contraception and so on but as others have said, that's part of being a conservative Catholic. However, ableism is not and the RCC has a strong history of supporting disabled people and their rights, and lots of disabled activism has a Catholic basis. On that basis I am disappointed in the canonisation of someone who represents all that is regressive and harmful when it comes to the care of disabled people. Don't Mother Teresa and her order's patients matter? Doesn't their treatment matter more than hers? Unfortunately they are ultimately just cogs in Mother Teresa's PR machine and don't seem to be of any importance to others.

If growing spiritually through pain is part of one's charism, that is fine. However to impose that on others, especially vulnerable people with no voice and no way of asking for help or protesting, that is utterly immoral and wrong.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

[Crosspost]

As regards the beauty in suffering narrative, I think it is a trope that has bean around for a long time. I see it, to a certain extent, as an older formulation of the idea of human dignity. Almost as if to say, OK so your are doubly incontinent, and you have a superating wound on your face, but you are still a valuble person.

Now we may routinely pay lip service to this, but this is not the case worldwide - and certainly wasn't in the 1950s. Many people have believed that disease and disfigurement reflect moral worth - also in some cultures - that your disability in this life is a result of your moral failure in a previous life.

Perhaps the expression of this in this particular way may now be antoquated, but to suggest as the Penn & Teller / Hitchens that it is somekind of fetish seems to me to wilfully misunderstand.

[ 20. December 2015, 14:22: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

Yes, but then these weren't medical staff.

The problem with this line of argument is that they were there for long enough that they could pick up rudimentary medical knowledge if they were inclined (the whole thing about lack of sterilisation has been repeated many times by multiple people over multiple decades).

quote:

why weren't you providing medical care to these people and referring them to a hospital if required ?

And there are documented cases of her refusing help from trained medical staff trying to do just that.

[codefix]

[ 20. December 2015, 15:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
[Crosspost]

As regards the beauty in suffering narrative, I think it is a trope that has bean around for a long time. I see it, to a certain extent, as an older formulation of the idea of human dignity. Almost as if to say, OK so your are doubly incontinent, and you have a superating wound on your face, but you are still a valuble person.

Now we may routinely pay lip service to this, but this is not the case worldwide - and certainly wasn't in the 1950s. Many people have believed that disease and disfigurement reflect moral worth - also in some cultures - that your disability in this life is a result of your moral failure in a previous life.

Perhaps the expression of this in this particular way may now be antoquated, but to suggest as the Penn & Teller / Hitchens that it is somekind of fetish seems to me to wilfully misunderstand.

I'm certainly not coming from a Penn & Teller/Hitchens perspective. However, as well-intentioned as the 'beauty in suffering' narrative might be, it is still non-disabled people telling disabled people how they should feel about pain and disability. That's really not acceptable - it is for disabled people to direct the conversation on faith and pain and disability, because it is their lives it concerns. Denying people pain relief is not part of celebrating human dignity.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Is part of the dilemma, that even in the developed world, and still in the less developed parts of the world, pain relief has hardly been available?

Yes, it's good to be able to relieve it if one can. And if so, it is good to give thanks for that. But if one can't isn't it better to have a set of beliefs that makes life liveable in spite of it?

[ 20. December 2015, 15:13: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

It worries me that she befriended dictators.

Also that she treated everyonbe equally to such an extent that a young man might be denied medical treatment so that he could die along with the older people.

Also that the nuns injected everyone with the same needle as is HIV didn't exist.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Well they weren't refusing medical care in the Yemen, there just wasn't much available.

We are talking about a fourty year period of time across a hundred countries, so doubtless the picture is variable.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'm not a Catholic; the RCC can do with her whatever it wants. But I'm not a big fan of her.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not a Catholic; the RCC can do with her whatever it wants. But I'm not a big fan of her.

This is how I feel, too. I do wonder, though, if all Catholics are happy to be regarded as members of a crazy sect that I magnanimously allow to follow its whacky beliefs.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Having one's name placed in the list of canonised saints does not mean (or at least within the Catholic understanding of what a Saint is) that one has led a blameless life. It does not mean that one has never made a mistake. It does mean that one has felt oneself touched by the love of Jesus Christ and that one has, before the end of this earthly life, tried one's best to respond to that love of Christ, particularly in the recognition of neighbour as the face of Christ.

Christianity and in particular Catholicism ,is a constant Act of Faith, Hope and Charity.
Mother Theresa is well known in many parts of the world where the people have never heard of Malcolm Muggeridge.

From the outside, all religions have 'whacky' beliefs. How would most Christians attempt to explain the Trinity to a non Christian ?

How does one explain the 'miracles' of Jesus to a non-Christian ?

Those who criticise Mother Theresa must surely be ready and willing to do more than she attempted to do.

She would also be the first to declare herself to be a 'sinner'.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Teresa had faults.

OMG, stop the presses.

Of course she had issues. She was a human being. We all have issues. It is part and parcel of being a human being.

That a human - with all of her faults and foibles - could be considered a saint is a reminder to all of us that we can serve God even as we are less than perfect.

Have you ever noticed the posse that followed Jesus came off more like a bunch of truly dim good old boys than living saints a lot of the time? They stand in for us; fallible humans trying to understand the personification of God and not getting it very well.

Maybe she is famous because of hype. Maybe Hitchens did a hatchet job. Maybe both. The Pope might be making a mistake. Gosh, the whole Catholic Church might fall asunder if he does.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The trouble, Toadstrike, is that Christopher Hitchens was such an opinionated ranter, that he's no authority for anything, whether fact or opinion.

Opinionated he might have been but he was a reputable journalist.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is part of the dilemma, that even in the developed world, and still in the less developed parts of the world, pain relief has hardly been available?

Yes, it's good to be able to relieve it if one can. And if so, it is good to give thanks for that. But if one can't isn't it better to have a set of beliefs that makes life liveable in spite of it?

But pain relief was available - she just prevented its use.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Teresa had faults.

OMG, stop the presses.

Of course she had issues. She was a human being. We all have issues. It is part and parcel of being a human being.

That a human - with all of her faults and foibles - could be considered a saint is a reminder to all of us that we can serve God even as we are less than perfect.

Have you ever noticed the posse that followed Jesus came off more like a bunch of truly dim good old boys than living saints a lot of the time? They stand in for us; fallible humans trying to understand the personification of God and not getting it very well.

Maybe she is famous because of hype. Maybe Hitchens did a hatchet job. Maybe both. The Pope might be making a mistake. Gosh, the whole Catholic Church might fall asunder if he does.

Calling out wrongdoing is surely a Christian duty - especially so regarding someone who has been granted a great honour, albeit posthumously. Institutional ableism and medical neglect is rather more than 'having some faults'. She harmed people and has been rewarded for that. That is not part and parcel of being a human being, that is serious wrongdoing.

I don't expect Mother Teresa to have been perfect, I do expect the RCC not to canonise people who actively strove against dignity and worthwhile lives for disabled people.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Having one's name placed in the list of canonised saints does not mean (or at least within the Catholic understanding of what a Saint is) that one has led a blameless life. It does not mean that one has never made a mistake. It does mean that one has felt oneself touched by the love of Jesus Christ and that one has, before the end of this earthly life, tried one's best to respond to that love of Christ, particularly in the recognition of neighbour as the face of Christ.

Christianity and in particular Catholicism ,is a constant Act of Faith, Hope and Charity.
Mother Theresa is well known in many parts of the world where the people have never heard of Malcolm Muggeridge.

From the outside, all religions have 'whacky' beliefs. How would most Christians attempt to explain the Trinity to a non Christian ?

How does one explain the 'miracles' of Jesus to a non-Christian ?

Those who criticise Mother Theresa must surely be ready and willing to do more than she attempted to do.

She would also be the first to declare herself to be a 'sinner'.

Dismissing the threat of contaminated needles since AIDS 'doesn't exist' is rather more than 'a mistake'. Why don't the people who died in Mother Teresa's care matter? Her readiness to declare herself a sinner is immaterial - an admission of guilt does not make wrongdoing not exist. She harmed people. She may have had good intentions initially - but good intentions do not absolve guilt. As a disabled person I feel that criticising Mother Teresa is part of criticism of ableism in the Church generally - something which actively harms myself and other disabled people. Why is that not a valid basis for criticism?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:

From the outside, all religions have 'whacky' beliefs. How would most Christians attempt to explain the Trinity to a non Christian ?

How does one explain the 'miracles' of Jesus to a non-Christian ?

I think there are plenty of examples of good attempts to explain the Trinity and to interpret the New Testament stories about Jesus, using reasonable arguments that try to connect with the common understanding around us. That is to say, using sound logic, understanding secular morality, having regard to acceptable forms of evidence and so on. A defence of the faith to its 'cultured despisers' to use an old phrase.

But Catholic saint creation flies on the face of reason and evidence, and relies on and seems designed to appeal to credulous anecdote and populist over-enthusiasm. It's not 'serious' in all the good senses of that word. It's more Eurovision Song Contest or BBC Sports Personality of the Year, than UCL research laboratory or peer-reviewed journal.

And that's fine if that's what they want to do, but I would have hoped the RCs would have higher aspirations.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Opinionated he might have been but he was a reputable journalist.

You would probably not be surprised that I don't accept that evaluation.

I will admit that this thread isn't a subject I know much about or thought much about, yet alone researched. However, do these accusations against Mother Theresa trace back to Christopher Hitchens's polemics, directly or at second hand, or is there other evidence for them which is both unconnected to that source and objective?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

He was certainly not the only person to raise concerns.

But there has never been any systematic investigation as far as I am aware.

[ 20. December 2015, 21:54: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:

Mother Theresa is well known in many parts of the world where the people have never heard of Malcolm Muggeridge.

Those who criticise Mother Theresa must surely be ready and willing to do more than she attempted to do.

I was serious in my reference to both Malcolm Muggeridge and Princess Diana. To bring anyone back to the faith which they had lost - and very publicly decried in the case of Muggeridge in the 50s and 60s - strikes me as an excellent work. I'd be surprised if there were not more people, inspired by her example, who re-examined their own lives and found their way to faith.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is part of the dilemma, that even in the developed world, and still in the less developed parts of the world, pain relief has hardly been available?

Yes, it's good to be able to relieve it if one can. And if so, it is good to give thanks for that. But if one can't isn't it better to have a set of beliefs that makes life liveable in spite of it?
But pain relief was available - she just prevented its use.

Citation ?

These allegations tend to be made in generalities.

FWIW in the late eighties my mother arranged funding for one of the children they cared for Sana'a, via an international women's charity, to go to Saudi for a corneal transplant. Ali was about five and had downs syndrome, his eyes didn't close therefore his corneas were scarred and impairing his vision.

This required medical assessment and intervention, there was never a problem with the sisters allowing this to happen. About a year later there was a cholera edpidemic, it swept through the home and a number of the people there died - Ali survived but, weakened as he was, he succumbed to pneumonia not long afterward. The reason they didn't all die of cholera was that medical care was accessed.

Maybe the order sometimes made crap descisions, I only had contact with one mission. But it certainly wasn't universally true that that medical care wasn't accessed.

[ 20. December 2015, 22:04: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Originally posted by Pomona:

Dismissing the threat of contaminated needles since AIDS 'doesn't exist' is rather more than 'a mistake'. Why don't the people who died in Mother Teresa's care matter? Her readiness to declare herself a sinner is immaterial - an admission of guilt does not make wrongdoing not exist. She harmed people. She may have had good intentions initially - but good intentions do not absolve guilt. As a disabled person I feel that criticising Mother Teresa is part of criticism of ableism in the Church generally - something which actively harms myself and other disabled people. Why is that not a valid basis for criticism?

I don't know what "ableism" is or what it is supposed to mean. I suspect that it's one of those sociology terms used to castigate those with whom the writer disagrees.

Of course people died in Mother Teresa's care. Her work was amongst those dying, to whom charity and compassion was shown in their last days. It's like saying that lots of people die in the nursing home nearby. And remember also that the Calcutta slums even these days do not contain the medical facilities available in the modern hospital a couple of kms from my home. The position in Calcutta in the late 40s would have been appalling.

Of course there are problems with the use of contaminated needles, but what do you do if you need to give injections to 30 or 300 people and have only a half dozen needles, if that? BTW, I doubt that AIDS would have been much of a problem until the early 80s at least.

[ 20. December 2015, 22:43: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

When I was in chemotherapy treatment a Commmunity of nuns offered to pray a novena for me. I was touched (who would not be?)

I told a friend who, being from another country, had looked up the Order's website and replied to my mail about the Novena with a terse "They want you for their miracle!" I knew the Mother who founded the Order was in a beatification process (in the dim dark corridors of The Vatican).
It was kinda weird.

Obviously, I am still alive but at the time I had "tons" of Really Clever People praying for me. How would they have been able to ascrible my survival as HER miracle.

It was indeed a miracle but...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

As usual all things are true. She was obviously a saint and we are in her crippled company. Grains of wheat in the blizzard of chaff since her death don't make her so. Her being a struggling, weak, ignorant Christian made her so.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

However, as well-intentioned as the 'beauty in suffering' narrative might be, it is still non-disabled people telling disabled people how they should feel about pain and disability. That's really not acceptable - it is for disabled people to direct the conversation on faith and pain and disability, because it is their lives it concerns. Denying people pain relief is not part of celebrating human dignity.

Yes. I think any theology of suffering starts with the challenge to help the sufferer, not to explain away the suffering.

I'm pretty clear that Mother Teresa and those who worked with her in her calling helped some sufferers and not others. To be called to "the poorest of the poor" is very difficult in practice. Some measures of rationing, and therefore discriminating, seem inevitable. In practice, there is not enough love to go around. Not in this life.

But from the comfort of my armchair I'm not going to point the finger at the imperfections, struggles and doubts of someone who in her lifetime provided a good deal more help to the poorest of the poor than I did. The real question I'd like to have asked Christopher Hitchens is "what did you ever do to help the poorest of the poor?". For all I know, maybe he had a good record in this area. But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Seriously, I'm not sure it is the business of any of us to point-score the balance sheet between saintly and sinful behaviour in anyone else. I don't think the Catholic church should do that any more than I think Christopher Hitchens should. Or me. We are all such a confused and confusing mixture of saint and sinner.

So such final judgments seem to me to rest with God, rather than the imperfect assessments of historians or moralists. No harm in being clear-eyed about what we can learn from the lives of others, but that's rather different from censorious and self-righteous finger-pointing.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

What we can see from Mother Theresa's life is that
she attempted to show compassion to others whose lives were more difficult than hers.
Her compassion was animated by her relationship with Jesus Christ and love of God.
As such the Catholic Church is able to present her to the faithful as a person who has inspired others to lead better lives.

In mentioning that she is better known than Malcolm Muggeridge I meant no disrespect to the gentleman. Whatever some people think of him , Christians should surely rejoice that he (and his wife) either came into or came back to the Christian community following their meetings with Mother Theresa.

We are all in this life in some way disabled. Some people are intellectually challenged, some people are physically challenged, some people are challenged by age, too young to know, too old to care. Yes,it sometimes sounds condescending ,even when some Christians remind others that they are sinners and in need of God's mercy. 'Ableness' is also for me a new word, but whenever we are able, we should try as far as possible to do something out of love for others to make for others their experience of life better than it would be otherwise.

Perfection will only be achieved in Heaven.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I think the key issue for many critics, like Hitchens, is they perceive her to have done more harm than good.

I think they're wrong - but I do accept those criticisms arise out of sincere concern.

[ 21. December 2015, 09:53: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Doublethink.: I think the key issue for many critics, like Hitchens, is they perceive her to have done more harm than good.

This is my opinion also. Whatever people think of her as a flawed human being is up to them. But when it comes to working with the poor, hers is an example to be avoided. She basically taught the poor to hold up their hands as beggars, and shut up. And I do think there was a lot of ego involved in being the person who put something in those hands. Of course, this can never be fully avoided: there is always going to be an imbalance between donor and recipient. But instead of trying to do something to address this imbalance, she relished in it. Even in those days, it was clear already that this is not the way to go. When it comes to working with the poor, she is not a person who is missed.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

We may have to agree to differ on this.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Doublethink.: I think the key issue for many critics, like Hitchens, is they perceive her to have done more harm than good.
This is my opinion also. Whatever people think of her as a flawed human being is up to them. But when it comes to working with the poor, hers is an example to be avoided. She basically taught the poor to hold up their hands as beggars, and shut up. And I do think there was a lot of ego involved in being the person who put something in those hands. Of course, this can never be fully avoided: there is always going to be an imbalance between donor and recipient. But instead of trying to do something to address this imbalance, she relished in it. Even in those days, it was clear already that this is not the way to go. When it comes to working with the poor, she is not a person who is missed.

In a way you could say the same about foodbanks. They are not a solution to poverty, and in the UK I'd see the solution being about social policy. But, if someone has no food they should not be left to starve. I don't necessarily expect the food banks, and those who staff them, to address the social policy issues that have led to people needing them.

[ 21. December 2015, 11:43: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Some thoughts on Christopher Hitchens.

quote:
"He understood that the universe doesn't care about our existence or welfare and he epitomized the realization that our lives have meaning only to the extent that we give them meaning." Cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, a friend of Hitchens

The outworking of this, the major motivation it seems to have produced for Christopher Hitchins, looks like a desire to knock down idols. That's not without value, of course. The human tendency to idolise is not good for us. I think the problem that it produced for his life was that he became a career controversialist. Couple that with his self-admitted problems with alcohol you got the toxic combination of a particular kind of fame and a particular weakness. But I guess we can learn something from his fearless pursuit of inconsistency and humbug.

I find on reflection that I have a kind of sneaking admiration for his iconoclastic abilities. They appeal to the nonconformist in me. And you have to have some respect for someone who, shortly before his death, could come up with these two excellent one-liners.

quote:
"It also seems that rumours of my life have been greatly exaggerated."

"There'll be plenty of time for unconsciousness once this is all over."

Here is his widow being interviewed. I enjoyed reading and listening to it.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

It seems to me that there are some people on this thread who think that helping the poor in whatever way you can doesn't count for shit unless you're also actively campaigning for political change.

I wonder what they might have said to a certain itinerant preacher in 1st Century Judea when he came out with his "the poor will always be with you" line. Maybe they'd say he was relishing in being the healer a bit too much rather than trying to do anything to actually address the imbalance...

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Doublethink.: In a way you could say the same about foodbanks. They are not a solution to poverty, and in the UK I'd see the solution being about social policy.

Agreed on both counts.

Food relief is necessary sometimes, but it depends a lot on how you do it. Mother Theresa's is an example of how not to do it.

quote:
Marvin the Martian: I wonder what they might have said to a certain itinerant preacher in 1st Century Judea when he came out with his "the poor will always be with you" line.

I'd say that this is one of the most poorly understood sentences in the Bible (I don't understand it very well either.)

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Gee D and Forthview:

Ableism is simply the institutional discrimination and prejudice of society against disabled people. No, we're not all disabled, just as we're not all black or gay or women. That society's institutional disregard for disabled people may not have occured to people to be a factor in the deification of 'saints' who help 'those poor disabled people' rather than helping disabled people raise their own voices and fight against institutional harm committed against them is sad but not surprising. As a disabled Christian it is incredibly hurtful and harmful to have these attitudes be accepted as normal in the Church.

Marvin - I certainly don't think that Mother Teresa should have been involved in political activism in the sense I think you mean, in a legislative sense. There are many examples of good practice regarding religious (and indeed most of them Catholic) organisations caring for the poor and disabled who have not campaigned for changes in legislation or big political projects, eg L'Arche, many Franciscan projects, and so on. To me this makes the problem much bigger - the RCC has many examples of it being done well, so why reward someone who did it badly? I know Jean Vanier is not dead yet so not eligible for canonisation, but L'Arche is a great example of supporting disabled people by listening to them and treating them as people rather than feelgood story fodder.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Calling out wrongdoing is surely a Christian duty - especially so regarding someone who has been granted a great honour, albeit posthumously.

We fundamentally disagree. I do not feel compelled by my faith to call out anyone. I feel compelled to love and to do the next right thing without worrying about how God is managing everything else.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Pomona - it depends how you define 'disabled'.
Almost everyone has to make some compromise between what they would love to do and what they are able to do.

Not everyone can get a first class honours degree, but fortunately many people are quite happy without that particular qualification.

Not everyone can become an airline pilot, because of some problem with their eyes, but again not everyone would worry about not being able to be an airline pilot.
Some people would not particularly like to be a one-legged, black, lesbian but others could be proud of being black and/or proud of being lesbian. I don't suppose many people would want to be one-legged BUT there are some who would just pick themselves up ad get on with it as best they can.
Of course there are times when society in general discriminates unfairly against particular people
because of their ethnic origins or religious beliefs, even sometimes because of particular physical or intellectual disabilities. Those who suffer from these unjust discriminations are right to raise their voices and complain and hopefully help those who discriminate to see that they(those who discriminate) are in someways suffering from a disability to see the good in others.

From working for several years with severely handicapped children I think that there are times when one sees that all one can do is to try to make life the best it can possibly be for those persons,encouraging them,praising them and loving them as much as one would with those who have lesser disabilities.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Gee D and Forthview:

Ableism is simply the institutional discrimination and prejudice of society against disabled people. No, we're not all disabled, just as we're not all black or gay or women. That society's institutional disregard for disabled people may not have occured to people to be a factor in the deification of 'saints' who help 'those poor disabled people' rather than helping disabled people raise their own voices and fight against institutional harm committed against them is sad but not surprising. As a disabled Christian it is incredibly hurtful and harmful to have these attitudes be accepted as normal in the Church.

I stick by what I said beforehand about it just being a label sociologists apply to attack others. Labels are easy to use, they make no demands on thinking. I strongly suspect that those helped by Mother Teresa would have been much more grateful for the help she provided than they would have been to have had their voices raised in fight against an institutional harm.

BTW, no-one "deifies" saints as far as I know. They may be included on the canon, remembered especially on a certain day, their assistance in prayer to God sought, but not deified.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

There is a widespread view amongst aid professionals that there is "good" and "bad" ways to deliver services, that the focus should be on the needs of the recipient rather than promotion of the giver (or donor) and that "doing something is better than nothing" is a poor way to make choices.

I think this fundamentally is a different way to think than many others think. Faced with a massive need, it is tempting to bolt together quickly a response that attempts to reach as many as possible with whatever is immediately available.

Which is the equivalent of turning up at a mass casualty site, finding limited medication, and attempting to administer low doses of inappropriate drugs to everyone.

It doesn't feel right in those circumstances to do the right thing; which might include limiting the medicine administration and care to those most likely to benefit from it (those in the greatest need are sometimes not treated) but this is the concept of triage.

I don't have enough information to judge Mother Teresa, but it strikes me that there are a few things to take into account. First, she was operating in difficult circumstances with limited training from a specific theological/philosophical bent. Second, to counter-balance, she seemed to want to court publicity and made some fast-and-dubious friends.

How we resolve that balance probably reflects our own personalities, but I don't think there is much argument that the services provided by Mother Teresa would not be considered to be following best practice today. But then likely Florence Nightingale (different era, I know) wouldn't either.

My worry (very limited and none of my business really given I'm not RC) about making her a saint is that this might suggest to some that this is a model to emulate.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I really know little about Mother Theresa.
However it isn't surprising that she sometimes enunciated traditionally Catholic views about sexuality and the acceptance of suffering in union with the sufferings of Christ. Nor even that ,like Christ, she made friends with modern equivalents of prostitutes and tax-collectors.

what is clear however is that what she did,she did as a response to what she saw as God's love for her. It is also clear that she was an inspiration to many to see and understand something more of God's love for humanity.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is a widespread view amongst aid professionals that there is "good" and "bad" ways to deliver services, that the focus should be on the needs of the recipient rather than promotion of the giver (or donor) and that "doing something is better than nothing" is a poor way to make choices.

I think this fundamentally is a different way to think than many others think. Faced with a massive need, it is tempting to bolt together quickly a response that attempts to reach as many as possible with whatever is immediately available. ....

My apologies, Mr Cheesy, but the second of those paragraphs does not follow on from the first.

In the first paragraph, you draw out the distinction between whether how one does good should be, what benefits of the people who receive the good, or what benefits you. That is excellent. Obviously the first is the right approach.

In the second paragraph, though, what you're actually criticising is a different failing, the quick short term good against the more measured long term one.

Need, means that the benefit of the people affected often requires an immediate response.

It's fair to argue that 'I would do it differently'. It's not fair on those that go for that to accuse them of doing good for their own benefit rather than for those they are seeking to help.

Of course, it isn't really fair to argue 'I would do it differently' if one isn't doing it.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Wasn't the point of though, to help those whom no one else would help ? Perhaps because the proper triage had been done sometimes.

To take your analogy; if you are going to give no surgery to the person blown to bits with little chance of survival someone who is not a surgeon could at least sit with them so they do not die alone.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
My apologies, Mr Cheesy, but the second of those paragraphs does not follow on from the first.

In the first paragraph, you draw out the distinction between whether how one does good should be, what benefits of the people who receive the good, or what benefits you. That is excellent. Obviously the first is the right approach.

In the second paragraph, though, what you're actually criticising is a different failing, the quick short term good against the more measured long term one.

No apology necessary, but I think it isn't about the long vs short term, but about the philosophical way one approaches such problems. At a motorway pileup, ambulance crews could attempt to treat everyone, and in the process a) waste time on those who are going to die very quickly or b) those who do not need treating.

Faced with a massive aid delivery problem, one can also try to reach the maximum number of people, but end up giving each person less than they need to survive. It sounds counter-intuitive, but it might well be better to properly feed less people (for example).

quote:
It's fair to argue that 'I would do it differently'. It's not fair on those that go for that to accuse them of doing good for their own benefit rather than for those they are seeking to help.

Of course, it isn't really fair to argue 'I would do it differently' if one isn't doing it.

I think it is absolutely fair to point out when actions are not following accepted best practices and to ask questions about the motivations of people who do not want to follow the best practices even when these are pointed out to them.

And "you are not doing anything" is one of the shittiest excuses for doing a bad job at something that has ever been invented.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Wasn't the point of though, to help those whom no one else would help ? Perhaps because the proper triage had been done sometimes.

To take your analogy; if you are going to give no surgery to the person blown to bits with little chance of survival someone who is not a surgeon could at least sit with them so they do not die alone.

Well that might be fair comment, except that the criticisms about the practices of Mother Teresa are much longer and more involved than simply saying this.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.
To take your analogy; if you are going to give no surgery to the person blown to bits with little chance of survival someone who is not a surgeon could at least sit with them so they do not die alone.
Well that might be fair comment, except that the criticisms about the practices of Mother Teresa are much longer and more involved than simply saying this.

I think that is the point. The mission started as a means of giving comfort to the dying who were not receiving comfort from anyone else. And that seems to me to be entirely laudable, if the giver does not have much to give. What happened afterwards was a kind of "bigging up", producing a fame and I guess an initially unlooked for profile and responsibility which doesn't seem to me to have done the founder a lot of good.

When the honest answer to the question "is this the best you can do" is "yes, for now. We need more resources to do a better job, can you help us with that?", then the mission may evolve from the most basic of care to something better. I may be wrong about this, but it looks as though that didn't seem to get much priority as the mission grew.

I think Mother Teresa got taken over, made into a "brand". How willing a participant she was in all of that is a matter between her and God. But I have absolutely no reason to doubt her initial good intentions, and not much reason to doubt that she was taken out of her depth. That can happen to good, well-intentioned people.

[ 22. December 2015, 09:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I wonder what they might have said to a certain itinerant preacher in 1st Century Judea when he came out with his "the poor will always be with you" line.

Mary of Bethany has just broken ointment over Jesus' feet, and critics have suggested that she could have given money to charity instead.

The contrast isn't between 'political action to relieve poverty' and 'giving to charity'. Jesus has not been asked about potential economic arrangements. The contrast is between 'spending money on Jesus now' and 'spending money on the poor now'. To which Jesus' reply is that you can relieve poverty at any time, but this was Mary's opportunity to give to Jesus.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Wasn't the point of though, to help those whom no one else would help ? Perhaps because the proper triage had been done sometimes.

To take your analogy; if you are going to give no surgery to the person blown to bits with little chance of survival someone who is not a surgeon could at least sit with them so they do not die alone.
Well that might be fair comment, except that the criticisms about the practices of Mother Teresa are much longer and more involved than simply saying this.

What is it that you think they should have been doing, specifically, in say Yemen in the late 1990s ?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Doublethink.: What is it that you think they should have been doing, specifically, in say Yemen in the late 1990s ?

I'm not sure who 'they' are in this sentence, or if this answers what mr cheesy was saying, but some things that could be done in situations like this:

Being aware that as an outsider you aren't aware of everything that's going on in a country like Yemen, so not barging in thinking you know what needs to be done, but leaving this in the hands of local people as much as possible. Especially the people in the communities, allowing them to be in charge of when, where, how and to whom relief is delivered as much as possible. Being aware that their needs have causes, allowing the community to analyse these causes and to come up with ways to address them, be it through other agricultural practices, financial buffers or political influence. When the media arrive, being zealous of the dignity of the people, letting them decide as much as possible about how they are portrayed. Making sure that the media don't portray you as the guardian angel taking away the suffering of these miserable sods. And only meeting in public with the leaders of their country if the community thinks this is a good idea (and preferably together with them, taking a step back to allow them to take centre stage).

Whether it is emergency relief or development work, a large part of it is making yourself as small as possible. Of course you can never do this 100%; there will always be an imbalance. But what you can do is be aware of this imbalance, and do your best to keep it small.

Put a statue of Mother Teresa on your mantelpiece, light a candle, pray to her, whatever floats your boat. But when it comes to working with the poor, the first rule of thumb is pretty much: don't become a Mother Theresa.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Being aware that as an outsider you aren't aware of everything that's going on in a country like Yemen, so not barging in thinking you know what needs to be done, but leaving this in the hands of local people as much as possible.

I don't think it is clear who you would mean to ask - in this case I believe the Missionaries of Charity had negotiated directly with the Yemeni government.

Some info about Yemen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemen I am basically talking about the situation and work of the Missionaries if Charity in the late eighties in North Yemen, on into the early years of unification.

The leper colony existed because villages would not allow people who had been treated to return, fearing the spread of the disease. So survivors ended up destitute, without access to the extended family network that was the key social unit. There were various projects addressing health education and infection control run by other aid agencies - but at that time those people had no where to go. Ultimately, when it had been running for a while the sisters were able to hand the project over to local people to manage and run - which is presumably what you were thinking they should be aiming to do.

The Missionaries of Charity home in the capital hadn't originally been planned to take children, but people turned up and left them with the nuns.

Especially the people in the communities, allowing them to be in charge of when, where, how and to whom relief is delivered as much as possible.

I am not sure what you mean by "the communities" is this context - the tribal elders perhaps ? There were a whole range of charities working in the Yemen at the time - all engaged in different roles - CAFOD, The White Fathers, British government aid in the form of vetinary services etc etc.

Being aware that their needs have causes, allowing the community to analyse these causes and to come up with ways to address them, be it through other agricultural practices, financial buffers or political influence.

There was ongoing local reform - that has sadly all gone to crap now - resulting in improved living standards, universal sufferage, the beginings of democratic government and increased tolerance etc.

When the media arrive, being zealous of the dignity of the people, letting them decide as much as possible about how they are portrayed. Making sure that the media don't portray you as the guardian angel taking away the suffering of these miserable sods. And only meeting in public with the leaders of their country if the community thinks this is a good idea (and preferably together with them, taking a step back to allow them to take centre stage).

I don't think the Missionaries of Charity had a particularly high media profile there most of the time. Disability rights were at an early stage, I know that a Yemen handicapped society was set up - and one of their early achievements was to get a disabled man employed in the presidents office, as an interpreter I think. Also getting a team to the Stoke Mandeville games as they were then. But these iniatives were led by different groups.

Whether it is emergency relief or development work, a large part of it is making yourself as small as possible. Of course you can never do this 100%; there will always be an imbalance. But what you can do is be aware of this imbalance, and do your best to keep it small.

Virtually all the population of Yemen at that time were poor, the people who the nuns were working with were chronically disabled people whose own communities did not feel able to care for them - or were immigrants unconnected to the tribal system and therefore could not get assistance.

[code]

[ 24. December 2015, 05:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Wandering here, a bit.

Might some of the difficulties be related to Teresa growing up in Yugoslavia, then being in an Irish convent? (IIRC.) Both were troubled places. I think the Magdalene laundries were still around then. This was long before Vatican II. And I think she was around 19 when she entered the Irish convent. (Though I see from Wikipedia that she was only there a year, before going to India.) She might not have had much schooling.

I'm not defending any wrong actions. But I wonder if, given her background and conservative Catholicism, that some ideas just couldn't get through?

Thinking aloud.

Posted by Divine Outlaw (# 2252) on :

It's probably worth at least minuting that when the Catholic Church canonises someone it isn't saying that it agrees with their every action, still less that they are beyond criticism. Canonisation is a statement that a person is (a) sharing the life of Christ, and (b) to some extent, an example to the Church and so deserving of veneration and emulation.

All of this is perfectly compatible with the person having lived out the love of Christ in the fragmentary, partial, and fallible way that all of us do. In fact, I think it's *part* of human, as a opposed to divine love, that we don't get to love in all the ways it would be possible for us to love in one lifetime. So, for example, we have a finite amount of time to be divided between works of political justice and works of immediate alleviation of suffering. One excellent reason for the Church to be a body with many members, each with different gifts, is that it allows these different forms of love to co-exist.

As for the birth control stuff. We're basically saying that Christopher Hitchens disagreed with a fairly traditional Catholic sister about contraception, right? That doesn't strike me as a very deep observation.

[ 04. January 2016, 15:05: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0