Pope Francis to give a dead person a title. | INFJ Forum

Pope Francis to give a dead person a title.

J

JJJA

Permanent Fixture
Jun 13, 2015
1,120
489
667
MBTI
Na
Enneagram
1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35809891

She practically endorsed poverty by refusing to acknowledge that contraception was the antithesis of her Church and therefore starved people to death due to high birth rates. She used the Catholic Church like any other criminal that hides behind Vatican borders. That's just my opinion of her work summed up in a sentence.

I suppose Francis should move to North Korea; I hear they have a preference for celebrating dead narcissists.
 
Mother Theresa is known the world over for being a gentle and compassionate human being, bringing comfort to the ill, the poverty stricken, and the hopeless. What most people don't know is that she greatly pushed the agenda of the Catholic Church. Instead of counseling safe sex options, simple little things like condoms, in remote African villages where HIV is rampant and helping to control the birth count in extreme poverty, she preached that God would take care of them, and if their children died from starvation, it was His will. If they died from HIV it was because the Lord had a greater plan. Although I do admire her for devoting her life to helping those truly in need, I cannot stomach the fact that so many lives would have been saved and so many unwanted babies wouldn't have to struggle through a horrible existence if only she had condoned safe sex practices.
 
The meaningless Pope will give a meaningless title to a dead person....
Business as usual in another day of religion.
 
Hm, there are quite a few allegations raised against Mother Teresa. Apparently she supported brutal dictatorships and corrupt leaders and the conditions in her clinic were atrocious. Of course most of that is based on circumstantial evidence.

Though her thoughts on abortion are fairly clear, as she called it "the greatest destroyer of peace". Not genocide or nuclear armaments. Nope, abortion.
 
Jacobi said:
Hm, there are quite a few allegations raised against Mother Teresa. Apparently she supported brutal dictatorships and corrupt leaders and the conditions in her clinic were atrocious. Of course most of that is based on circumstantial evidence.

Though her thoughts on abortion are fairly clear, as she called it "the greatest destroyer of peace". Not genocide or nuclear armaments. Nope, abortion.
Click to expand...

I continue to be upset by the Catholic Church's stance on contraception. Pope Francis has rather severely declared that "Catholics don't need to breed like rabbits," yet he continues to insist that artificial contraception and abortion are sins. Women, especially in South/Central America are being horribly effected by this. I am not even talking abortion specifically, but just mainstream access to the pill with the Pope's assurance that they don't need to fear going to hell for using it, would infinitely reduce human suffering at so many levels.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/pope-francis-contraceptio_n_6504580.html
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Free
Jacobi said:
Hm, there are quite a few allegations raised against Mother Teresa. Apparently she supported brutal dictatorships and corrupt leaders and the conditions in her clinic were atrocious. Of course most of that is based on circumstantial evidence.

Though her thoughts on abortion are fairly clear, as she called it "the greatest destroyer of peace". Not genocide or nuclear armaments. Nope, abortion.
Click to expand...

Just imagine what they were doing with her implant to get her to say that.
 
It is what it is. The qualifications for canonization are clear and it goes through certain stages: Servant of God → Venerable → Blessed → Saint. Mother Theresa is already at the third stage. The main qualification for the last stage is at least two miracles must have been performed through the saint's intercession after his or her death. This has been certified by the Church. Such designations only have meaning for believing Catholics.

When Chris Hitchens was called upon to be a sort "devil's advocate" for her and wrote a really famous takedown of her and her legacy. "It was by talking to her that I discovered, and she assured me, that she wasn't working to alleviate poverty," says Hitchens. "She was working to expand the number of Catholics. She said, 'I'm not a social worker. I don't do it for this reason. I do it for Christ. I do it for the church.

The above is likely true, as are the statements and view on abortion and contraception.

Having said all of that, the question for non-Catholics is did she do more good than harm? The answer is a qualified yes, at least from me.
 
brightmoon said:
Having said all of that, the question for non-Catholics is did she do more good than harm? The answer is a qualified yes, at least from me.
Click to expand...

She probably did more harm that good, believe it or not. Some times pushing agendas like these is worse than doing nothing at all.

She cannot help the poor from her grave yet the beliefs she pushed for are going to keep hurting people long after her death.
 
She pushed the Catholic agenda which endeavored to create more Catholics, not to help the actual problems afflicting the peoples of third-world countries in which she was a missionary. Real fixes need to be implemented, not faith. Ways to provide clean water, implement new farming techniques, health education to combat the diseases that overrun these areas, sex education to combat overpopulation in places where their people are already starving. Bringing the word of god to these people will not fix their problems. Bringing the teachings of god, such as no birth control, are only helping to make the sufferings of these people greater. I believe that she did much more harm than good. If the Catholic church would endeavor to help in ways that I mentioned instead of only offering help with a faith conversion price tag, we would actually have real fixes for seemingly simple problems in countries that need it most.



sprinkles said:
She probably did more harm that good, believe it or not. Some times pushing agendas like these is worse than doing nothing at all.

She cannot help the poor from her grave yet the beliefs she pushed for are going to keep hurting people long after her death.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PintoBean
PintoBean said:
I continue to be upset by the Catholic Church's stance on contraception. Pope Francis has rather severely declared that "Catholics don't need to breed like rabbits," yet he continues to insist that artificial contraception and abortion are sins. Women, especially in South/Central America are being horribly effected by this. I am not even talking abortion specifically, but just mainstream access to the pill with the Pope's assurance that they don't need to fear going to hell for using it, would infinitely reduce human suffering at so many levels.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/pope-francis-contraceptio_n_6504580.html
Click to expand...

This brings up a whole other issue that I have with the "sin" of birth control. I couldn't agree with you more on this.
 
Free said:
She pushed the Catholic agenda which endeavored to create more Catholics, not to help the actual problems afflicting the peoples of third-world countries in which she was a missionary. Real fixes need to be implemented, not faith. Ways to provide clean water, implement new farming techniques, health education to combat the diseases that overrun these areas, sex education to combat overpopulation in places where their people are already starving. Bringing the word of god to these people will not fix their problems. Bringing the teachings of god, such as no birth control, are only helping to make the sufferings of these people greater. I believe that she did much more harm than good. If the Catholic church would endeavor to help in ways that I mentioned instead of only offering help with a faith conversion price tag, we would actually have real fixes for seemingly simple problems in countries that need it most.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that people in some of these countries are very vulnerable.

They are not like us where we can just say we believe and take it or leave it. They aren't like us with being able to filter out bullshit. These people are fragile and impressionable and simply telling them the wrong idea can destroy lives for many generations.
 
sprinkles said:
Not to mention that people in some of these countries are very vulnerable.

They are not like us where we can just say we believe and take it or leave it. They aren't like us with being able to filter out bullshit. These people are fragile and impressionable and simply telling them the wrong idea can destroy lives for many generations.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's the problem I have with this, the ideas will continue to e/affect millions of people who aren't even born yet.
 
Free said:
Exactly. That's the problem I have with this, the ideas will continue to e/affect millions of people who aren't even born yet.
Click to expand...

And they'll be born pretty soon because of it.
 
Y0u said:
Indeed, it almost looks like eyeryone between Jesus and her are Saints, God Bless our times. Surely [MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] would have done better, we can all tell.
Click to expand...

I'm already doing better by telling people to use condoms.

I'm also spelling words better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PintoBean and hush
The legacy of her hardline Catholic teachings will probably last until after WE die, let alone the short-term effects. [MENTION=13729]Free[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] already make good points on this; the vulnerabilities of the Third World families in poverty-stricken villages that are rampant with HIV were being told that safe sex was immoral. Missionaries didn't bring supplies, they brought Bibles. They told people all kinds of ugly things that God was capable of, but did they once suggest that one little condom could save an entire family?

The legacy of her effect on people, can you imagine? She appeared as a frail old woman looking to help in any way she could, a nurse that will do anything for the poor. She projected this image of her and of God onto the vulnerabilities of those in the Third World and made them suffer because of it. She continued to tell women to stay on the endless reproductive cycle, create more babies and creating famine families because they couldn't control their own growth of resources. She, just like the Church, was an agent of God and did more harm than any good she could have hoped to achieve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PintoBean
I don't think she was an agent of God at all, and my own belief is that no one can ever be truly called an agent of God. She was an agent of the Catholic Church though, an interpreter of a book that is supposedly authored by God through fallible human hands and passed through many many many other human hands editorially, and she was certainly an agent of her own beliefs.

I find it quite surprising that the Church would make such a shitty business decision as to persistently celebrate such a controversial figure. (I mean, it's a bit naive to think that the Church is not a business, isn't it? Of course it may be other things than a business, but it is definitely a business.)

I agree with JJJA that he is doing better in the world than the person being discussed, but actually the question of whether he is or not seems totally irrelevant to this thread.

It's interesting to think about the idea that contraception is a sin. Because the interesting thing to think about this exactly is where this idea comes from. Is it based on the idea that contraception itself is sinful, or is it based on the idea that sex for purposes other than procreation is sinful? Because even Renaissance poets were writing about how sex is allowed to be fun in the context of marriage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Free
Its bad mouth Mother freaking Teresa day! Woo who!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back