Mother Teresa made a saint

[BH]

Just so you all know the news wires are saying the Catholics just declared Mother Teresa a saint.

 

[fast]

Well, postmortem miracles are newsworthy.

 

[Ford]

Whenever I start to think "well maybe Pope Francis isn't half bad" he reminds me that he's still in charge of the Catholic Church.

 

[Juma]

Yeech.

Mother therea was a religious nutjob that thought it was a good thing to die in pain.

Yeech.

 

[DBT]

For all her faults, she did offer some degree of help to those that very few in India would have even considered worthy of the effort, lepers, untouchables, people who probably would have just died in the gutter with no one to even pretend to care.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is a good modern example of how a person will be remembered as being a much better person than she actually was because people turn her into more myth and legend than actual historical figure.

 

[Angry Floof]

Of course she's a catholic saint. They revere their best worshipers of death and suffering.

 

[DrZoidberg]

For all her faults, she did offer some degree of help to those that very few in India would have even considered worthy of the effort, lepers, untouchables, people who probably would have just died in the gutter with no one to even pretend to care.

Hmm... no. Her "help" crowded out other forms of help. It made people believe she was on it, and that we didn't need to help them more. It focused aid from the rest of the world elsewhere.

When it comes to welfare it really is a zero sum game. Money to one place means less money to another. This was in a time when a newly liberated India went full steam ahead on the communist route with disastrous consequences. They needed a lot of aid indeed. It wasn't forthcoming. India managed to lift themselves out of poverty on their own. Which is awesome and cool. But we could have helped them. And the fact that we didn't, is not cool.

 

[iolo]

Of course she's a catholic saint. They revere their best worshipers of death and suffering.

I suppose that if you are really into this stuff you know that The RC Church can't 'make' saints - merely recognise them. Given the way it has developed under the Papacy, the Church will recognise some very dodgy candidates.

The key point about 'charity' is to make sure you have the poor always with you, rather than abolishing that state, which would be perfectly easy nowadays.

 

[credoconsolans]

Of course she's a catholic saint. They revere their best worshipers of death and suffering.

I suppose that if you are really into this stuff you know that The RC Church can't 'make' saints - merely recognise them. Given the way it has developed under the Papacy, the Church will recognise some very dodgy candidates.

The key point about 'charity' is to make sure you have the poor always with you, rather than abolishing that state, which would be perfectly easy nowadays.

It takes a laundry list of items for the Catholic church to 'recognize' them, so it seems to me, they DO 'make' saints.

 

[DBT]

For all her faults, she did offer some degree of help to those that very few in India would have even considered worthy of the effort, lepers, untouchables, people who probably would have just died in the gutter with no one to even pretend to care.

Hmm... no. Her "help" crowded out other forms of help.

How so? The reports I've seen suggest that she filled a gap. Taking in those who would otherwise have been left in the gutter.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hmm... no. Her "help" crowded out other forms of help.

How so? The reports I've seen suggest that she filled a gap. Taking in those who would otherwise have been left in the gutter.

Stuff like this is extremely hard to measure. But I maintain that her missions might have kept people willing to donate, but thinking Mother Theresa was on it, so they didn't have to.

 

[DBT]

How so? The reports I've seen suggest that she filled a gap. Taking in those who would otherwise have been left in the gutter.

Stuff like this is extremely hard to measure. But I maintain that her missions might have kept people willing to donate, but thinking Mother Theresa was on it, so they didn't have to.

Probably. On the other hand, I heard that she inspired others to do similar work. Of course, at the time it was not generally known how she actually ran her clinic, her attitude toward suffering, etc.

Overall? Perhaps a bit more good done than harm? More harm than good? Who knows.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Stuff like this is extremely hard to measure. But I maintain that her missions might have kept people willing to donate, but thinking Mother Theresa was on it, so they didn't have to.

Probably. On the other hand, I heard that she inspired others to do similar work. Of course, at the time it was not generally known how she actually ran her clinic, her attitude toward suffering, etc.

Overall? Perhaps a bit more good done than harm? More harm than good? Who knows.

I have a friend who works with NGO's. He's on a team evaluating efficacy. His specialty is education. He's been on all manner of boards, many of which have been various UN constructions. He's at the top internationally.

Overall, badly run NGO's do more harm than good. As they mostly act to enrich local maffias, making life even harder for the poor. This also acts to destabilize already weak democracies. This is a massive problem in Africa.

Rule of thumb, go through the Red Cross or a national government agency. Médecins Sans Frontières are also top notch. It's got to be huge. Or they don't have the resources to monitor and control where the aid ends up. There's very very few who have this clout.

Oxfam is huge. But not big enough. They've done a wide variety of charitable actions. End result? They've most likely done about as much harm than good. Which is depressing.

Never go through a church. Never go through a small charity. The smaller the worse. One off relief drives (not co-ordinated by the Red Cross) an absolute total waste. And like the Mother Theresa example showed, religious charities will use the money to spread their religion, rather than helping people.

And then there's the issue of doing direct harm. There's plenty of charities like that. Steer well clear of environmentally slanted NGO's. Greenpeace for instance. They have a horrendous track record. You'd do less environmental harm going into the woods only shooting endangered owls. They're just fucking crazy.

Bottom line, having a good heart just isn't enough. The world needs less white guilt bleeding hearts, and more pragmatists who actually give a shit.

 

[iolo]

I suppose that if you are really into this stuff you know that The RC Church can't 'make' saints - merely recognise them. Given the way it has developed under the Papacy, the Church will recognise some very dodgy candidates.

The key point about 'charity' is to make sure you have the poor always with you, rather than abolishing that state, which would be perfectly easy nowadays.

It takes a laundry list of items for the Catholic church to 'recognize' them, so it seems to me, they DO 'make' saints.

Presumably the saints just are, like all the ones we had here before the Papal Aggression under Augustine. The RCs make what they choose, which is another matter.

 

[braces_for_impact]

For me, this story highlights a common problem not just in the U.S., but around the world, and that is the assumption that religious equals morally correct. It's built into the U.S. tax code, where churches skate by tax free, but have to show no proof of their good works, unlike secular charities that must file the appropriate paperwork. It shows in the way that Mother Theresa was able to become a public monument to love and compassion when in reality all she was good for was filling catholic coffers (often from some very unsavory people.) It shows in the way it took so long for people to accept the knowledge that the Catholic church consists of (and continues to enable) child molesters. Religious charities often are merely charities in name, and "Faith healers" scam with impunity - all because people assume that religious = good. This is one meme we have to shake the public out of buying into.

 

[RavenSky]

Did they make her the patron saint of misers?

 

[Angry Floof]

Did they make her the patron saint of misers?

Or the patron saint of sucking up to money and power for political causes?

 

[ronburgundy]

Stuff like this is extremely hard to measure. But I maintain that her missions might have kept people willing to donate, but thinking Mother Theresa was on it, so they didn't have to.

Probably. On the other hand, I heard that she inspired others to do similar work. Of course, at the time it was not generally known how she actually ran her clinic, her attitude toward suffering, etc.

Overall? Perhaps a bit more good done than harm? More harm than good? Who knows.

Other things on the "harm" side of the net-effect ledger include that beyond India itself she legitimized and helped empower cruel murderous dictators in a symbiotic relationship where they caused the suffering that she then used to spread her ideology.

 

[Juma]

Hmm... no. Her "help" crowded out other forms of help.

How so? The reports I've seen suggest that she filled a gap. Taking in those who would otherwise have been left in the gutter.

What? The gap that needed filling of "taking in huge donation but not using for what it was donated"? (Most of the money went directly into the catolic church, not into her projects). The gap that needed filling of letting poor people die in pain? (She refused them pain killers because dying in pain was the highest of good in her twisted mind)