Catholics: What is "Beatification?"

I know beatification is a step towards sainthood, and Mother Teresa will be beatified Sunday. But what does it mean to be beatified?

Non-Catholics, feel free to answer this if you know!

As I recall anyway. :-)

"Beatification is the highest honor, under that of Sainthood, which the Church bestows on one of its departed members who it judges has practiced the virtues of the Gospel in an heroic way, either with the reputation through a lifetime of living out the gospel or by martyrdom for the faith.

After an investigation and the validation of a miracle for a non-martyr, the title “Blessed” is given to such an individual and allows their commemoration in the Mass and Hours, ordinarily by a specific nation, religious institute, region, or nation, though a church may not be named for them. "

http://marianist.org/english/beatification_e/why_beatification.htm

Glad to know that the pope will be doing this on Sunday! Mother Teresa was truly a living Saint I believe. We have been fortunate to witness her life during our times no doubt. O8) O8) O8) O8) O8) O8) O8)

:dem:

she opposed birth control and contraception in India. Do you know what the cost of that is in lives? Incalculable.

DO you know what she did with the money that she was donated? She built nunneries. What a saint, given millions of dollars she builds nunneries.

She never fed the poor or cared for the sick or anything, right?

I hope you have an "in" to some of Halliburton's asbestos...
:-)

control, but just because she didn't mesh with all of OUR world views..... This woman did so much more for the "untouchables" and unwanted of India than anyone else. Her compassion and self-sacrifice should award her sainthood, regardless of any "miracles"...

You know, not one of our idols, heroes, or saints -- for that matter-- was without issues... Let's look at the entire person and their body of work for God's sake and not a single issue.

She most certainly was NOT a "hag!"

I hate to think what you would have said about Gandhi (or Christ), had you met them!

:hug: I happen to be in favor of choice, etc., too, but I get sooooooooo tired of the absolute intolerance of any other point of view. I am a Roman Catholic, and I would like to remind some of the people here that The RCC FEEDS, HOUSES, EDUCATES and PROVIDES FREE MEDICAL CARE to more people *worldwide* than any other institution on this PLANET! Sheesh! ;grr:

... but they DO have a FAAABULOUS church there. Lot's of gold and gold and gold. And painting with gold frames. And gold chairs. And gold chalices. And gold candlesticks.

-- Allen

What I DO defend is the people in it and the good that THEY are doing. Mother Theresa was an important member of the RCC. She was not THE RCC, nor are all the policies (or lack of change) attributable to her.


She did her part to make a difference-- more than enough for me and something I WISH I could say about myself when the time comes....

Spend a lot of time exploring a city of 22 million people, going into all the wretched neighborhoods, and so forth? That's where the RCC would be more likely to be found.

Oh, and btw, you may well have seen priests and not known it---- I believe it's still illegal for them to wear their formal, clerical grab unless they are on Church property or in a private home.

Reader George Paz writes:
http://www.randi.org/jr/101102.html

While reading your article on the Virgin of Guadalupe, I felt compelled to write you. When I was thirteen years old I went on a vacation with my sister to Mexico City. It was a year after the massive earthquake of '86. One Sunday morning we boarded a tour bus and headed to Guadalupe. Though it was a full year after the disaster, the town looked as if the earthquake had hit just the day before. There was not one structure standing in the town, except for the basilica.

We arrived at the basilica about twenty minutes before mass. As we stepped off the bus, we were swamped by poverty-stricken children. All of us American tourists were touched and devastated at the sight of all the children who were clearly sick and malnourished. The dollars were passed out en masse. As we made our way through the crowd, we ended up in front of a gift shop off to one side of the basilica. We entered the gift shop to partake of humanity's greatest invention — air-conditioning.

I browsed among the many statues of the Virgin of Guadalupe and numerous saints, while my sister searched through a bin of T-shirts with silk-screened images of the "miraculous" painting. The church bells began to toll, calling the parishioners to mass. We walked outside to a scene which I believe I will never forget. The entire town was emptying into the basilica, most of the parishioners crawling in on their knees, over the cobblestones. We walked in behind them.

Right inside the main entrance was what looked like a large fish tank, with a solid-gold statuette inside. As the parishioners filed by they dropped the meager contents of their pockets into this tank.

Much of what was dropped in was US currency, the money that we tourists had given them just minutes before in the belief that we were helping to feed at least a few of these starving families. There were easily tens of thousands of dollars in the tank.

I was unable to go any further, and had to wait outside while I tried to process what I had just seen. My sister continued on inside and when she returned she described a scene very similar to what you did.

On board the bus, as we drove away from the town, I looked back at this mammoth, pristine structure among the ruins. It vaguely seemed like something from a sci-fi movie, like a massive alien ship sucking the life out of that dying harvest of humanity. I left my lukewarm Episcopalian upbringing and any notion of deities or religion, behind me in Guadalupe. It was an eye-opening and life-altering experience.

Thanks for letting me share.

George, my own experience with this cruel farce was far more serious and shocking, but I do appreciate that you shared yours with our readers. Though I'll someday write up my account, I'll only tell you now that during the filming session there, I wandered down a flight of stairs — not unintentionally — and found the vast counting room where currency of many nations was being busily and noisily sorted and counted. The amount of cash I saw there was staggering. The stark contrast between the tiny copper coins the stricken poor were dropping into the many collection-boxes upstairs, and the gold-clad altars, figures, and ornaments that were set up to glorify this stupid painting as one of divine origin, stays in my mind like a scar.

Just thinking about all this depresses me and re-affirms my determination to fight this sort of flummery. Thanks very much for your contribution.

===

Yeah... they sure do do a lot of good. For themselves.
-- Allen

Get real. You may *believe* that the RCC should be dead broke as the best way to serve its mission in the world; there are equally valid arguments why an institution is better able to pursue its mission on Earth by being solvent.

...maintaining such obvious wealth in the middle of such squalor is in incredibly poor taste in my opinion. The gold on that statue, and elsewhere in teh church, would serve a much more noble purpose if it was properly invested and the proceeds being used to house and feed the poor. Sitting, as it does, in a church it provide no real value. Those who find spiritual value in such trapping would do much better to look for that spirituality within themselves.

It's the opulence of the Church that bothers me the most. Christ didn't need the trappings and luxury, in fact he scorned them. It is, for me, the most glaring public example of how the Church has fallen from the original teachings and spirit of Jesus.

Where would you sell the gold? Would you melt it down and sell it as bullion, orkeep it intact and sell it as fine art? Would you have it appraised and borrow against it, using it as collateral, or would you sell it outright on the open market, possibly flooding the market and depressing prices? Do you know for a fact that the RCC isn't doing some combination of the above?

Everyone always seems to think it should be disposed of, but no one ever seems to have a practical answer as to the best way top do that...

...sell it as is.

As to "do I know" I can feel pretty safe in assuming that it isn't happening with the pieces in question.

Let's get The Louvre, The National Gallery, The hermitage, et al to sell of THEIR stuff, too! That way no one except private owners would have access to great pieces of art.

Sounds wonderful, huh? :eyes:

...don't claim to help feed and shelter the poor. PLease, that isn't even close to being an adequate comparison.

Why not use the example? It makes just as much sense.

...and no matter how you want to spin it Chruches are not.

But given your point, and if other agree to it, then yes. Those works of art should be sold off as well to provide housing and shelter for the poor.

So much of the artwork of the Church is beautiful and I'd hate to see it broken down and sold as constituent parts. I'd also hate to see it sold outright and possibly disappear forever into private collections where the public would never see it. I'm not against churches being beautiful - I understand the value of art to the soul. I just think it's wrong for the Church to have amassed such wealth over the centuries and not do all it can with it.

You are complaing that a church to which you don't belong nor donate doesn't spend it's money how you would like them to?

HOw about telling us who YOU help and which organized groups YOU belong to and what THEY do to help the poor.

to anything? There was nothing inflammatory about what I said but you insist on being offended. Fine.

And yes I have a right to complain about how the Church spends it's money. Just like I have a right (hell, the obligation) to complain how any other big business impacts the world.

Not that it's any of your business how I spend my money but I am a member of or donate to a variety of charitable organization ranging from Greenpeace to Amnesty International to Planned Parenthood to Doctors Without Borders to my local food bank and Goodwill.

You complain that the church won't sell off things it has acquired "over centuries".

Now gee let's think for a moment. Why would a group based on tradition not be in a hurry to sell off all the things they've acquired over the years..... hmm.....

Also I never said you didn't have the right to complain. My point is being that you are not a donor to the church, it's not your place to complain about how they spend their income.

All she's asking is that you tone down the sarcasm and argue your points. But all you really seem to want to do is be outraged that someone doesn't agree with you.

I've made reasoned arguments on this topic for MONTHS. Now I'm showing a little of the same mindless anger shown by the other side and now it's unacceptable.

Where the hell are you when idiots are tossing names and bullshit at me and others like me? Like the rest of you, NO WHERE TO BE FOUND.

So spare me.

who called you names (although you make that really difficult sometimes). I have never personally experienced anything but "mindless anger" from you and that is sad to me. If you were legitimately pushed to this point then I am sorry. But you take it out on anyone who disagrees with you whether they are picking a fight or not and you encourage the very flamewars that have upset you in the past.

You will note that I have made a sincere attempt to never use the phrase "Catholics do such and such". I have talked about the things I wish Mother Teresa would have done and about the things I wish the Church hierarchy would change, but not about "Catholics" as a monolithic body.

What would you do to help people in India?

Seriously. Not trying to be an ass but how would you go about it.

I'll start. First you have to make sure people are fed and provided with modest health care. Let's say you are able to accomplish this task, and you now enter the real problem. Now what?

and I'm glad you decided to talk. This is always much better.

I'm not sure that getting people fed and modest health care wouldn't be the big problem. We haven't accomplished it yet even with huge multi-national aid organizations, like the Church, trying their hardest for decades. Hell, we haven't even accomplished it here in the US with out astounding standard of living for most people.

But, since you set up the scenario, I'll bite. For me what comes next is a living wage. I'd really like to see the various labor movements around the world get their act together and do something about the way the poor in developing countries have their labor exploited to keep prices low in the US.

When I'm paranoid I believe it's intentionally intertwined. That the corporations want a huge stock of desperate poor people around teh world who will work for whatever they will pay. My next step in your scenario would be a movement ot make sure that no one does a days work for less than a living wage.

I'm not sure that getting people fed and modest health care wouldn't be the big problem.

You'd be surprised. While obvioulsy the most urgent step in helping anyone it is also the easiest. People are far more likely to give money to help starving children then they are to provide loans or education.

We haven't accomplished it yet even with huge multi-national aid organizations, like the Church, trying their hardest for decades. Hell, we haven't even accomplished it here in the US with out astounding standard of living for most people.

The people starving on the planet at this moment are doing so because their goverment is allowing it. It's that simple. If we wanted to feed everyone we would. It's sad that we even require church's and other aid org's to do anything.

As for the US, all people are allowed emergency room attention and can find other health care if they look for it. You can't compare the conditions here to the real poor around the world. Also if you starve in the US you simply aren't trying hard enough to feed yoruself, there are ample resources available.

For me what comes next is a living wage. I'd really like to see the various labor movements around the world get their act together and do something about the way the poor in developing countries have their labor exploited to keep prices low in the US.

You skipped a lot. But no shame in it as most people aren't really clued in as to how you actually go about helping the poor. I work for a micro charity so I've learned a few things.

1- Living wage will never be set in poor areas because the goverment doesn't respect the people. Kepp in mind that in places where people were starving, they were in these conditions because the goverment knowingly refused to act. Think about what that means.

2- Labor movements don't work in the poorest areas becauze there are no jobs. People after rising above absolute poverty (no food) turn to scavenging and begging. They have grown dependent on handouts and now do a bare minimum to survive otherwise. Lack of hope translates to little or no motivation.

3- Those that you claim are "exploited" are considered lucky. You won't find them protesting while that mind set exists.

When I'm paranoid I believe it's intentionally intertwined. That the corporations want a huge stock of desperate poor people around teh world who will work for whatever they will pay.

I don't think you are paranoid at all. In fact your belief here is perfectly logical. Cheap labor allows compaines to increase profits.

My next step in your scenario would be a movement ot make sure that no one does a days work for less than a living wage.

This won't happen in our lifetimes around the world. Perhaps in the western world but not in the rest of it. Keep fighting though it is a just cause.

I'm not sure that getting people fed and modest health care wouldn't be the big problem.

You'd be surprised. While obvioulsy the most urgent step in helping anyone it is also the easiest. People are far more likely to give money to help starving children then they are to provide loans or education.

This is true - people are more likely to give to feed people. I'm just saying that if it was "easy" to end hunger we would have already done it.

We haven't accomplished it yet even with huge multi-national aid organizations, like the Church, trying their hardest for decades. Hell, we haven't even accomplished it here in the US with out astounding standard of living for most people.

The people starving on the planet at this moment are doing so because their goverment is allowing it. It's that simple. If we wanted to feed everyone we would. It's sad that we even require church's and other aid org's to do anything.

I suppose I should have included government in there along with the aid organizations - just forgot or had a brain fart or something. One of the big things that needs to happen in entirely too many countries around the world (including the US) is a change in government and a change in the way government and the people relate to each other.

It's also hard to put the blame solely on the backs of the governments of poor countries. While some are run by corrupt regimes, others are at the mercy of "globalization" and the IMF and World Bank and their insane policies.

As for the US, all people are allowed emergency room attention and can find other health care if they look for it. You can't compare the conditions here to the real poor around the world. Also if you starve in the US you simply aren't trying hard enough to feed yoruself, there are ample resources available.

Yes, conditions for the "real" poor around the world are worse than the conditions for most poor people in the US. But not all. I spent a year working in the colonias along the TX border. No water. No sewer. No electricity.

For me what comes next is a living wage. I'd really like to see the various labor movements around the world get their act together and do something about the way the poor in developing countries have their labor exploited to keep prices low in the US.

You skipped a lot. But no shame in it as most people aren't really clued in as to how you actually go about helping the poor. I work for a micro charity so I've learned a few things.

1- Living wage will never be set in poor areas because the goverment doesn't respect the people. Kepp in mind that in places where people were starving, they were in these conditions because the goverment knowingly refused to act. Think about what that means.

Like I said above - we need a change in governments on a worldwide scale. We have the resources to help with that. It walks hand in hand with the notion of a more global worker's movement.

2- Labor movements don't work in the poorest areas becauze there are no jobs. People after rising above absolute poverty (no food) turn to scavenging and begging. They have grown dependent on handouts and now do a bare minimum to survive otherwise. Lack of hope translates to little or no motivation.

There are other programs that have been tried on small scales that do work. The various loan programs for poor women to start their own businesses and co-ops that have shown some success spring immediately to mind.

3- Those that you claim are "exploited" are considered lucky. You won't find them protesting while that mind set exists.

Just because they're considered lucky doesn't mean they aren't still exploited. They know they're exploited too. There are plenty of stories of strikes and attempts to unionize around the world - and of the too often violent suppression of those attempts. *sigh*

When I'm paranoid I believe it's intentionally intertwined. That the corporations want a huge stock of desperate poor people around teh world who will work for whatever they will pay.

I don't think you are paranoid at all. In fact your belief here is perfectly logical. Cheap labor allows compaines to increase profits.

I was trying to be funny and it obviously didn't work. It's not a paranoid thing - I do believe they keep wages down on purpose. Finally. Something we agree completely on. :)

My next step in your scenario would be a movement ot make sure that no one does a days work for less than a living wage.

This won't happen in our lifetimes around the world. Perhaps in the western world but not in the rest of it. Keep fighting though it is a just cause.

It won't happen as long as people keep believing it won't. You said it yourself earlier about lack of hope and what it does to motivation. Hope. And fight. :)

Thank you.

You are no one to me so who the hell cares.

...that isn't a very Christian attitude from you. Tsk, tsk.

to sarcasm? If it does you're in deep trouble honey. ;-) (Me too for that matter.)

They come in make broad/half-truthed attacks on an institution that does a lot of good in the world, based on a few points (and its a continued pattern of disruption and attack) and you really expect people not to respond in the slightest? The points are there and last I checked sarcasm was usually an effective way to get your point across in a debate :eyes:

perhaps you would better criticize those trying to shut down debate tactics and make attacks on people's faith unecessarily

anything, quite the contrary. My own words were that I'd hate to see the art sold off into private hands where no one would see it. I advocated leveraging it as collateral. Imagine it's value - it must be staggering.

And it is my place to complain about the Church's behavior as long as they are so interwoven into society. They affect non-Catholics whether we like it or not. The Church hierarchy sticks it's nose into my business all the time. If I'm not allowed to poke my nose into their finances then I want them to stop lobbying my government and poking their nose into what I do with my body. As long as they use their wealth in ways that impact the rights of women around the world I have an obligation to speak.

The complaint is that they are amassing tons of waelth while still maintaining status as a non-profit entity. They are a NPE that is supposedly helping the poor. The funds tied up in all of that art and treasure, a great deal of which isn't available for public display BTW, and all the real estate they own, of which a good protion isn't actually used for churces or for the benefit congergation and was stolen from non-Christian individuals after they were burned at the stake or worse.

Some folks would rather be self righteous and put on sanctimonious airs and complain about how you've "personally injured" them with your "inconsiderate" and "abusive" tone... instead of actually addressing the issues.

They like to pretend that any criticism at all is considered an attack that they take personally. This is apparently easier than actually trying to defend their position, or rather than trying to make you understand why they think you are being unfair.

It's frustrating, I know. But... There's nothing you can do about it.

-- Allen

You mean like faulting the church for Mexicos problems.

care to answer? or would you do what you're accusing him of and block off debate arrogantly

... but I'll be darned if I can figure it out. Unless you're just 'thinking-out-loud', then I'm not sure where you were going with that. --- No big deal...I'm often guilty of forgetting the point I was making and trailing off in mid-thought. Usually it's because someone has truly pissed me off. So it's a fair bet that I've probably pissed you off.

In any case, I don't think that you've made a very good case of explaining away or justifying the opulence amid the squalor. The evidence speaks for itself. Seems to me that it's now up to the RCC defenders to account for their neglect of---and taking advantage of---those who need it most.

Exactly HOW they choose to do that--if ever--is up to them (and their accountants). I think it's a bit revealing (amusing?) when you envision the possibility that the RCC could "flood the market" and "depress prices" if they were to suddenly 'unload' all their opulence. Not that this scenario would EVER happen, but acknowledging the possibility certainly says a lot.

-- Allen

You could also help me out by letting me know EXACTLY what it is that I wrote that would give the impression that I'm suggesting that the Catholic church must be "dead broke". (HUH????)

There's quite a difference between being solvent and obscene opulence and accepting money (no... SEEKING and SOLICITING money) from people who are living in squalor.

It's shameful.

-- Allen

I know & you do.

It's because the Mexican government has been quite anti-clerical since the Revolution (the 1910 one, not the 1810 one--which was started by 2 priests). Partly in response to abuses by the Church, but also as a means of grabbing power, the Mexican government treated the Church rather harshly in the 20th Century. The Cristero rebellion was one result.

From the beginning, some religous abused the natives but others fought to defend them. It's not a simple story & the Church has never been as monolithic as outsiders might think.

The reason that the Church has power in Mexico is because the Mexican people wish it so.

do the Church thing well.
Lotsa glitter, gold, bloody things.
Like old Hollywood. I figger if I'm gonna do the religion thing I might as well do it with good production values!!!!!!!!!!
I miss the Latin bit - reeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaal spooky :)

?

Who did you help while you were there. I mean if you had the time to bitch about what a shitty job the church was doing, surely you helped someone?

So please tell me, what you did and where you went.

... we hired a day-driver (for two days) rather than hail cabs and ride charter busses. Also hired an English-speaking tour guide for a driving tour of the city, the National Museum, and the Teotihuacan(sp?) pyramids/temples.

We TIP very well and did our part quite nicely for tourists. We weren't there to SAVE the city, you silly goose. But certainly made the lives better of those we came in contact with. (Except for that guy on the street who wanted to sell us his 'sister.')

I'm certain that you'll be able to fault-find my contribution. Oh the pain. You do know that I'm on this earth to please you and earn your approval. I'll be absolutely crushed if you don't approve of me.

And... by the way... nice try, pal. But it doesn't work. --- I see what you're doing. You try to suggest that I (or anyone else for that matter) cannot criticize the RCC because I have not (in your estimation) done enough MYSELF to PERSONALLY solve the problems I'm accusing the RCC of being guilty of.

That's like telling me that I cannot criticize Bush's war because I haven't done enough to PERSONALLY help the Iraqi people. What nonsense! What diversionary BULLSHIT!

May we return to the original subject?

So now... you please tell me, why would you rather make excuses for them instead of attacking their critics or instead of insinuating that their critics are somehow "unqualified" to point our the RCC's obvious flaws.

Shutting your eyes, pretending it doesn't exist, attacking the critics, and doing NOTHING simply enables the RCC to continue this tragedy.

Reply if you want. I don't care. --- I'll read it, but I already know what you're going to say. I'm done with you and this little diversion. You may now have the last word.

-- Allen

and so this is kinda hopeless, but *gets down on knee* arwalden, would you marry me? ;-) *smooches*

But we can double-date sometime... or we can go shopping!!!

-- Allen

for shoes maybe. ;-)

But I noticed you didn't actually visit any of the Catholic aid areas. No hospitals to ask the priests there what they were up to? No schools? No nothing?

You just took in the poverty and blamed the church for having gold candle sticks while people are poor. I guess you never paid a thought to the fact those people don't need a hand out, they aren't starving to death. They need jobs, they need a chance to create wealth for themselves. While the church can do much it can't fix the Mexican goverment.

I love it when people that don't know the first thing about what it takes to actually help people bitch about the what others are doing. You "tip well" gee well thank god for you. How about volunteering at a micro charity in the area? Perhaps you can't give up the trappings of your cushy life like the catholics that live in the area do?

Here's an idea, next time you go contact a catholic organization and ask them if you can drop by one of their centers in poor areas so you can actually see what they are doing instead of blaming the coinditions brought upon by corrupt politicians on the church.

...but they couldn't hold their beer. My mom would have said Gandhi needed to eat more. Least ways she says that about me all the time.

But *some* RC's don't neccessarily think the RCC is wrong about every aspect of reproduction and human sexuality...

Sorry, I felt the uncontrolable desire to quote Shakespere.

when a very sincere relgious person who genuinely followed her faith is denigrated with the same lack of respect expressed toward the most hypocritical of "philistines".

We non-religious folk should be very careful to appreciate the difference before we speak.

is that it's hard not to consider her a hypocrite. She spent all that time trying to improve the lot of the poor of the world but wouldn't stand up for a simple concept - birth control - that would have helped to reduce their number. One is led to conclude either that she didn't think the issue through or that she was so blinded by dogma that she hampered her own work or that she was too cowardly to stand up to the Church hierarchy if she disagreed or that she was willingly complicit in keeping the number of poor Catholics worldwide high. I don't pretend to know which.

Do I think her work with the poor and "untouchable" was worthwhile and necessary - absolutely. I just think she could have done something much more important and didn't. She had to have known first-hand how overpopulation was effecting real live human beings. She had to have known first-hand the way having child after child after child affected poor women. She had an effective means to help stop it and did NOTHING about it. I believe she had enough public support that she could have moved the Church on birth control if she had wanted to. But she didn't.

Is a result of the world being a zero-sum game. You know very well that there is enough material goods to support the entire world as it is now, the real crime isn't the population of brown skinned people it's the distribution of the current goods of the earth.

"know" anything of the sort. There are over 6 billion people on this planet now and that's too damn many regardless of what color their skin is. That said, I so agree with you that the wealth of the planet is not distributed in the most equitable way and this creates much of the poverty that plagues the planet.

However, I don't think that addresses my main point at all. The world isn't going to suddenly realign how the wealth is distributed overnight. And you can see from arwalden's posts on this thread that the Church isn't exactly giving up it's opulent lifestyle either. You work within the situation as it exists now. And as it exists now too many women in developing countries have children that they can't afford and wouldn't have had if they had effective birth control. That the Church discourages people from doing what is necessary to NOT bring a child into the world that is going to suffer is incomprehensible to me.

If you want to help lift people, especially women, out of poverty the best way to do it is to educate them and reduce the number of children they have to take care of. It's that simple. The more control of their reproduction women have the better off they tend to be economically.

It has nothing to do with the people being dark or light skined. Nice how you decided to turn this into a racial issue though.

Distribution of goods is also a crime. However tehre is not enough in teh world to support everyone at the American standard. Settling for anything less isn't something taht most people are willing to do. Funny that.

That we seem to be concerned about the increasing numbers of Brown skin people and not the consumption of fat white people. Controlling the popluation will not make the conditions of the poor any better, it just means there will be less people.

and you cannot tell me you actually believe that the lot of poor people in, for example say, India, would be as bad if there were not 1 Billion (with a B) people packed into that country. Poverty is exacerbated by overpopulation. Poverty is exacerbated when a family has 6 or 8 or 12 children (regardless of what color they are).

Yes, we need to do something about the ridiculous consumer culture we live in. But that doesn't mean we do nothing about overpopulation. Even if there was a completely equitable distribution of the Earth's resources, if we continue to overpopulate the planet then we ALL suffer the consequences. It eventually does become a zero-sum game when you reach the limit of what the planet can support.

How many then? I want to know the judgement you have so I may spread your message of love amongst the poor.

hear ye poor fools! The liberal hath spoken and thou mayeth no longer breed!

I don't know. I don't feel like you listen at all.

I'm going to try to explain this to you. I never said people shouldn't have children. I never said I had all the answers. I just said that Church doctrine encourages people to have more children than they can take care of. Church doctrine helps exacerbate an already bad situation re: poverty.

I will ask you one more time, nicely even, to try to have a civil conversation about this rather than the little snark-fest you seem determined to engage in.

Now while you may see this as encouraging people to breed like bunnies I do not. There is something very wrong with society when kids are seen as a hassle that should be avoided at all cost.

with children being a "bother". I was talking about people having more children than they have the financial resources to take care of. People are going to continue to have sex and if they do not use birth control they will continue to have children. But the Church seems so wrapped up in the idea that birth control promotes "sinful" behavior that it would deny people the means of controlling their bodies and the size of their families if they chose to.

And before you go ballistic and think I'm saying the poor shouldn't be allowed to have children take a deep breath and really listen to me. I don't think people should have children until they are emotionally, physically, spiritually, and financially capable of raising them. I make good money. I have no children because I don't believe I meet those other criteria.

All I am saying, all I have ever been saying, is that by discouraging birth control the Church helps contribute to overpopulation and poverty on the while it tries to help alleviate poverty with the other. It doesn't make sense.

From the concept of the "seamless garment", Every position it takes is directly connected to one another. The Dignity of Human Life is the unifying concept of the Social Justice of the Church, you can't debase any human life, that's why they are against the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia and pro-social welfare, Unions, enviornmental protection. The RCC operates on the "Preferential option for the poor" which is more than we can say about today's democratic party.

Second, the Church is against artifical conception. They support Natural Family Planning, which is more effective (and cheaper) than the artificial means.

Finally, economic advances slow down "overpopulation", you can throw as much condoms, pills and IUD's at them, but if they don't have anything better to do, they will have kids.

making a difference in birth rates. However, the Church has never advocated the societal empowerment of women that is vital to their economic advancement. Where women's economic power increases their number of births decreases. It all ties together - control over your body and your repoductive choices and economic empowerment and lifting women and their children out of poverty (because most of the world's poor are women and children). But the Church hierarchy is an all-boys environment. So it's no big surprise I suppose that they don't do more to advance women. They set the tone from the top - no girls allowed.

And of course you decide to be an ass and make this a racial issue again. I complain about too many westerns also. Including the brown skined westerns BTW, which you seem to be ignoring in your blind racism. Or are you assuming that all brown skinned people are poor and living in third world countries?

..in the party platform. It is dogma.

She was not "blinded by dogma" to what others consider a reasonable option (birth control). She no more would have considered birth control an option than she (or you, I assume) would have advocated infanticide or the death penalty.

Mother Theresa lived her life in the service of some of the poorest on earth, consistent with her beliefs and faith, and within the framework of her and the Church's world view.

She, like myself, believes the RCC's position on birth-control is wrong, but hey, we RC's are not The Borg--- we disagree on a lotta stuff. :P

...I just don't consider those that do agree with it to be hypocrites. Quite the contrary.

Realistic? No. But I can respect it without agreeing with it.

Why is it Mother Teresa's job to encourage the use of contraceptives? She tended to the poor and the needy -- why aren't doctors and international health organizations in Calcutta taking care of birth control? Do you honestly think that was Mother's responsibility? She did what she could do, considering her morals and her viewpoint. And what she did was positive.
John
Jeez -- she fed the hungry and comforted the sick. She's supposed to run a pharmacy, too?

with infanticide or the death penalty is the thing that I find difficult to comprehend.

It seems to me that the Church hierarchy lives in the same little dream world with other fundamentalists who seem to think that the answer to AIDS and unwanted pregnancies is to tell people to abstain. It isn't realistic in the real world...but then how long has it been since any of the people in positions of real power in the Church lived in the real world.

I'm not trying to be mean spirited or piss off Catholics just for fun. I think the Church does a lot of good but on the subject of helping the poor I think they are being counter-productive by working on one hand to alleviate their lot while on the other tacitly encouraging them to have more children.

But that's my understanding of the matter.

And, unlike many posts, I do NOT find yours mean spirited or capriciously bashing Catholics, VelmaD. I appreciate that you can express your disagreement without rancor. :-) :thumbsup:

...that RC Dogma, would not allow her to even consider BC as an option then she is blinded by it. If she weren't blinded than she would be able to consider it. If she accepted it or not is a different issue.

In the early '70's several Peace Corps and CARE agencies tried to introduce birth control and contraception in India and found after several generations and multiple millions spent in free product, they could not get the culture to adopt it.

India's population is poor, but not ignorant. It may surprise many in the U.S. to learn that India's schools and universities are better rated than our own and judged far more rigourous.

It is a religious and cultural belief that keeps the poor of India from using products and devices to inhibit the birth of their children. Hindi strive to produce healthy male children. In the event of poverty they produce even more children, knowing that the survival rate is lower and figuring to improve their chances of having a healthy male child survive to adulthood.

Mother Theresa and the agents of secular care missions to India would not and will not teach birth control in India because it is first and foremost a waste of time, money and effort. It would be trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Or you could think of it as dogma if you like. But the lion's share of the responsible dogma would be that of the Hindi, not Mother Theresa's.

"I did not know that." (although I should have.)

sexism and poverty and religious teaching and tradition that it's hard not to want to just cry. It gets worse, because you left out the part where they leave little girl babies exposed to the elements or just don't feed little girls because they want to focus all their resources on producing boys.

I wish somebody had the answer. I wish somebody knew how to convince people that putting more resources into fewer children was just as good a survival strategy as having lots and hoping one or two make it to adulthood. I'm sure there's a site out there somewhere that estimates the number of children who die every year because the world thinks this way but I'm scared to go look for it.

where men in the culture blackmail, extort, and browbeat money out of the parents of a female as an ongoing dowry. Failure to produce the required sums can leave an entire family in disgrace.

The more awareness one has of differing cultures the more blessed one feels at home.

Would that enlightenment were a button we could press.

but minus a daughter when the in-laws decide it's time for a dowery death. One little "accidental" kitchen fire and they can move on and do it all over again to another family.

I want my momma. *sigh*

And don't get me started on cultures that practice female circumcision or sexual enslavement.

The thing is, I don't hold it against any aid worker, secular or religious, for recognising that they cannot stem the tide against a culture.

But I do believe that time, persistence and compassion can acheive what even a well-organised assault cannot.



Go hug someone you hold dear and know a moment's peace.

You're a good soul to trouble yourself over the pains of those so far removed from your own life. It's a gift.

and the good advice. I love that little head rub icon. :-)

I'm seeing my parents tomorrow and I'm gonna hug my momma and daddy and everything will be alright for a little while. :-)

Because her belief's were different than yours that makes her a hypocrite? I love how you believe her to be either obviously deluded or a coward because she has come to a different conclusion on the issue of Birth Control. I happen to agree with you personally, but can still at least respect another person's right to act on their own (mistaken) belief. What she did was incredible, and one can always do more in their life, that's certainly true. Is she perfect, nah very few people are. Does she deserve to be beatified, I'm not big on the whole saint thing but if there was anyone in the world recently worthy of that title...it would probably be her.

While I disagree with her about birth control that by itself is not enough for me to call her hypocite. The reason I said hypocrite is that she appeared to hold 2 beliefs that actively contradicted one another. She wanted to reduce poverty in the world while at the same time advocating a position against birth control that directly contributed ot the number of the poor on the planet.

though there there is indeed one. The case here is while she may have wanted the goal of ending poverty and overpopulation, her moral beliefs stated that the end did not justify the means in this case.

I cannot know what her actual "moral beliefs" were. You seem willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and that's fine. I am not inclined to today after having seen the quote on the Mother Teresa pool thread here in the Lounge:

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."- "Mother" Teresa

That quote and the attitude behind it concerns me. It doesn't seem to point to someone who was dedicated to easing the lot of the poor.

is it in the context that their suffering raises awareness (as she did with her ministries). What I have read and seen of her work, yes she had flaws, yes she did not choose the path that I would, but she did something for those people...which is more than can be said of most of her critics.

I guess MT is a an evil hag because she opposed contraception(which the Vatican has for time immemorial).

So the Right Wing hates her for helping the poor

The left wing hates her because she opposed contraception.


Nope, no warts on us libs, no sir.


Pathetic.

... whenever the RCC is the topic, it becomes a game of "Let's all pile on!", even though this requires going into complete denial about the *enormous* amount of good the RCC does in this world. *sigh*

Hell's bells, I don't agree with everything the RCC does or stands for (and I'm RC), but sonofabitch, the RCC is hardly 'Evil Incarnate'! :grr:

From what i've read MT was a woman with strong beliefs, just like us here at the DU.

If part of her belief was that contraception kept souls from being created which would eventually meld with god, well, i find it strange, but at least she sublimated her faith into helping sick and poor people and not blowing them up and attacking their countries!!!

...the font of all that is good and right.

...

equal time.

this whole thread or do you just jump in on any thread about religion and spew your shit?

No one on this thread said anything about Catholics that even came close to what you just did, in fact we were pretty much argued out and starting to really communicate with each other. So knock it the fuck off if you aren't capable of carrying on a conversation like a grown-up.

"No one on this thread said anything about Catholics that even came close to what you just did"

:eyes:

at least the person who posted it carried on and explained WHY they thought that way. They actually listed the reasons they didn't like her. Actual behavior she engaged in that they thought was wrong. All you did was call people names and then leave.

Whatever. Let's be honest here. Catholics are bashed almost as often as Bush lately and Mother Theresa is called all sorts of interesting names. But I say one thing about a few people you like and all the sudden "Oh no you can't do that!"

Please.

Michael Newdow is and I couldn't care less about O'Hair so it's not a matter of you insulting someone I like.

My issue is the tactic I have seen you display of performing drive-bys. This thread had backed away from the edge of becoming a flame-war and you had to jump in and holler something rude and then then leave. It's counter-productive and juvenile and does nothing to advance your side of the argument. If you want to carry on a real conversation (or even an argument) on any of the topics this thread has meandered through I'm more than willing.

DV
P.S. Have you considered that some of the "Catholic-bashing" is a direct result of the steady diet of Pope worship we get fed by the media. He's been crammed down our throats lately and we get understandably tired of it.

My issue is the tactic I have seen you display of performing drive-bys.

have you bothered to look around? I never left the thread.

P.S. Have you considered that some of the "Catholic-bashing" is a direct result of the steady diet of Pope worship we get fed by the media. He's been crammed down our throats lately and we get understandably tired of it.

I don't know where you live but the US press has never been slanted towards "pope worship" they do however show respect. Sorry that you can't tell the difference.

...didn't act as stuck up, hypocritical, and stuck in the Middle Ages as the Bush Administration does then they would come in for far less "bashing" than they currently are.

:eyes:

and some would suspect, the same thing.

If any of you had a discussion with me in real life concerning theology, you'll find that I am about 99% opposed to organized religion.

What I won't have is the selfless actions of some folks marginilized just because they happened to be amember of a certain religion.

Cripes, one of my better friends is a Sepherdic Israeli Jew, and anyone who knows me knows I hold most Israelis(their government mostly) in the lowest regard, and that doesn't detract from our friendship even though we have heated debates. I don't SAY: "Sharon is an evil, warlike man", I say "the way Sharon acts, it would be easy to call him an evil warlike man".


My admiration of a person isn't conditional on their religious background, political affiliation, economic background.


Obviously that is a requirement around here.

is you have to be DEAD to get beatified...

"beatification" was ritual physical abuse of a target or person sanctioned by Rome.
Thus the laity had free reign to "beat down" Mother Theresa.
POST VATICAN II
It means the Holy See is about to enroll a suitable Catholic in the Beatles as a church sanctioned "fifth" member of the band.
THIS IS A GREAT HONOR FOR MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA EVEN IF SHE CAN'T PLAY THE ELECTRIC PIANO....
:)
:)