4 ms·

"...caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it" seems bad enough.

by zaat 4y ago

dale_glass 4y ago
I recently changed my mind on Mother Teresa situation after reading some of her writings. Not that I like her more after that, but I do think of the situation itself differently. Mother Teresa sounds very unsurprisingly as an extremely religious person. She constantly talks about God and Jesus and how people's spiritual needs are paramount, and how abortion and contraception is evil, and how her agenda is spiritual, and how she's not a social worker. All of that is said in very plain language. Now as an atheist that doesn't cause any particular positive impression on me, but what I find it interesting is that she's 100% clearly a religious worker first, second, third and probably fourth before she's anything else. The Catholic Church was very right in canonizing her, if you take canonicalization as a recognition of somebody's religious work, not as some sort of "very good person" stamp of approval. With her there seems to be no "dirty landry" like Gandhi having his weird tests of will or whatever that was. No, she's very upfront about what she is, and barely shuts up about it. So it baffles me why she ended up with the reputation she did. She's very clearly a religious worker and has that as a first priority above anything else. Seeing her as somebody would want to take care of people in a manner people who aren't religious zealots would approve is just a mistake.
- refurb 4y ago
  This is a very reasonable take. One needs to remember that for many religious people, the spiritual “health” is as important, if not more important, than the physical health. I would assume her argument about using funds for the church rather than healthcare would be something like “the money is used to for both the spiritual and health needs of the destitute”. You can clearly disagree with that take, but it’s not like she was stealing the money or diverting it for her own gain.
- lucozade 4y ago
  That's all fine if all she ever did was preach. No real harm done. But that's not what she did. You can't dismiss someone's actions because they believe they were doing the right thing or that the impact was unimportant to them. That may help explain why they did them but they still did them.
- yostrovs 4y ago
  There's a short book by Christopher Hitchens called The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, which does go into her dirty dealings and doings. Recommended read, as it may very well change your mind again.

"...caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it" seems bad enough.

by zaat 4y ago

"...caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it" seems bad enough.

I recently changed my mind on Mother Teresa situation after reading some of her writings. Not that I like her more after that, but I do think of the situation itself differently. Mother Teresa sounds very unsurprisingly as an extremely religious person. She constantly talks about God and Jesus and how people's spiritual needs are paramount, and how abortion and contraception is evil, and how her agenda is spiritual, and how she's not a social worker. All of that is said in very plain language. Now as an atheist that doesn't cause any particular positive impression on me, but what I find it interesting is that she's 100% clearly a religious worker first, second, third and probably fourth before she's anything else. The Catholic Church was very right in canonizing her, if you take canonicalization as a recognition of somebody's religious work, not as some sort of "very good person" stamp of approval. With her there seems to be no "dirty landry" like Gandhi having his weird tests of will or whatever that was. No, she's very upfront about what she is, and barely shuts up about it. So it baffles me why she ended up with the reputation she did. She's very clearly a religious worker and has that as a first priority above anything else. Seeing her as somebody would want to take care of people in a manner people who aren't religious zealots would approve is just a mistake.

refurb 4y ago
This is a very reasonable take. One needs to remember that for many religious people, the spiritual “health” is as important, if not more important, than the physical health. I would assume her argument about using funds for the church rather than healthcare would be something like “the money is used to for both the spiritual and health needs of the destitute”. You can clearly disagree with that take, but it’s not like she was stealing the money or diverting it for her own gain.
lucozade 4y ago
That's all fine if all she ever did was preach. No real harm done. But that's not what she did. You can't dismiss someone's actions because they believe they were doing the right thing or that the impact was unimportant to them. That may help explain why they did them but they still did them.
yostrovs 4y ago
There's a short book by Christopher Hitchens called The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, which does go into her dirty dealings and doings. Recommended read, as it may very well change your mind again.