homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Mother Teresa to become saint (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Mother Teresa to become saint
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. ]

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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...

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.)

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ?

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools