Mother Theresa's Beatification

[Wonk]

Poll question: Mother Theresa's Beatification

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/09/60minutes/main577394.shtml

(snip)

Next Sunday in Rome, Pope John Paul II will beatify Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who aside from the pope, was probably the most revered Catholic in the world at the time of her death.

The beatification ceremony will mark the midway point on her journey toward sainthood. And the pope is doing this at record pace, only six years after her death.

It usually takes decades or even centuries. But this is just one example of what a Vatican observer called the pope's "extraordinary saint-making proclivity."

In fact, the most historic feature of this papacy may be the fact that Pope John Paul II hasn't just canonized more saints than any previous pope -- he's canonized more than all previous popes combined.

more...

Let's try and keep the holy wars in this thread to a minumum, ok?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

1. Wonk and just why should non catholics be allowed to vote on this issue?

[Wonk]

5. It's not a binding referendum, just a DU opinion poll...

I voted "indifferent".

[Loyal]

37. How stupid

Mother Teresa didn't only help catholics, she helped millions worldwide.

[MrPrax]

83. By Non-Catholics?

Do you mean Protestants?

or just anyone who might have an opinion that the Catholic Church is a little behind the times...

[goddess40]

2. Not a good thing

"Let's try and keep the holy wars in this thread to a minumum"

That's hard to do as Mother Teresa did such a disservice to women. She continued to foster the barefoot and pregant philosophy that kept women down for so many centurys. Many religious either require you take on their beliefs or they heavily imply it.

I never thought what Mother Teresa did was admirable.

edit - as an ex-catholic I feel I have every right to vote. Besides religion has become just another political forum. When the priests and other clergy started using the church to tell people who to vote for they became open to political discussion and critisim.
Mother Teresa kept women of other faiths oppressed to hold her up as someone to honor does a disservice to the entire world.

[trotsky]

3. Also withheld pain medication from those suffering.

A lot of Christian orthodoxy (not just Catholic) believes that pain & suffering brings you closer to Jesus. Mother Teresa was a particularly strong adherent of that tenet.

[arcane1]

33. "Jesus is kissing you"

I'll never forget those goddamned words :grr:

[JNelson6563]

4. Sainthood and beatification within

the Catholic Church should be of little concern to non-Catholics. It's not like it will in any way play into the lives of the non-Catholic.

Julie

[goddess40]

6. is that like who ever is pres of the US shouldn't concern....

...those in other countries. The catholic church is tell the world by confering sainthood on Mother Teresa that she is someone to emulate. I'm afraid it does affect the rest of the world as she was a world figure.

[JNelson6563]

35. whatever

you analogy of a Catholic saint and a secular leader of a nation is way off the mark.

Why would anyone care who the RCC canonized? Non-Cathoics disregard Catholic doctrine/dogma and sainthood is part of that.

Besides, what is MT known for? Charity work. What will people attribute her canonization to? Charity work.

Julie

[mitchum]

7. Because we are expected to respect the legitimacy of the Vatican...

even when its policies are repressive and counter-productive.

on edit: this was supposed to be a response to reply #1

[WoodrowFan]

8. pay, pray and obey?

that's what a Catholic friend of mine calls it.

[Blue_Chill]

9. This M.T. thing has gotten me to the point

where I'm seriously considering many DUers a threat as great as the RW. They seem to be hell bent on destroying the church, which I see as threatening and frankly evil. I have grown to see the anti-catholic/anti-religious crowd as a group as sinister if not more so then the fundies on the right wing. Falwell is no more or less hate filled or destructive.

Because of this I will be sure to vote against any and all politicians that show even a hint anti-religious or anti-catholic beleif. Even if I have to vote for some no name third party.

I thank DU for opening my eyes to this situation.

[Wonk]

11. Any thoughts on Pope John Paul II canonizing more saints than all

previous popes combined?

[Blue_Chill]

14. Yes he's gone stark raving mad

but then again I've never thought saints were anything more then a MVP list of the church to begin with. So I couldn't care less.

[Wonk]

46. I thought you once said you were catholic. Isn't your post heresy then?

It's interesting how in one post you proclaim "I will be sure to vote against any and all politicians that show even a hint anti-religious or anti-catholic beleif (sic)" then in another post you call the Pope "stark raving mad" and how you think of saints as nothing more then a MVP list of the church.

Got some cognitive dissonance going on here? :shrug:

[Blue_Chill]

48. It's really amazing how some of you think

Do you really think Catholics don't question their leadership? FFS people, Catholics are no differnt then anyone else, we think for ourselves and come to our own damn conclusions.

The reason I told someone, maybe you, just now that I'm sort of Catholic is because I differ in a huge way. I don't see the bible as literal. And that makes me an outsider.

[DemBones DemBones]

98. I've got to interject here that Catholics do not interpret the Bible

literally, in the sense that usually conveys, or believe it to be completely "true" in the sense of all being historical fact. People could be confused by your statement, if they're thinking in terms of Protestant fundamentalists who believe the Bible is literally true and to deny the truth of any of it would undermine it all. Catholics, like most Protestants, think that the Bible has parts that are pretty straightforward historical fact, parts that are prophecy, parts that are parables or stories to illustrate a teaching, parts that are poetry.

[DemBones DemBones]

61. Reads like sarcasm rather than cognitive dissonance to me.

By the way, Catholics can disagree with the pope without committing heresy. Heresy deals with core beliefs.

[Padraig18]

13. Sadly so

There is a VERY heavy anti_catholic element at DU. *sigh*

[CWebster]

20. No there is not

Speaking out and against the twisted and patriarchal domination of the Church IS defense of it.

This argument that it is bashing is the exact same one leveled from a government that betrays the country's founding principles and accuses those who dissent as anti-American.

[Padraig18]

21. Nice *opinions*

What may be 'twisted and patriarchal' to YOU, may be religious *belief* to someone else. Your *opinion* is your opinion; it makes it no more valid than a contrary one.

[CWebster]

28. I'm not the one making the charge.

on wonders what matters more --the message of Christ or the power politics of the Church?

[ant]

29. are you saying...

..that the church's polices are in line with your beliefs?

From http://www.seechange.org/media/shadowreport031000.htm :


· The Holy See has failed to ratify the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

· The church has dealt harshly with women who disagree with it on issues of sexuality, going so far as to silence Brazilian nun and theologian Ivone Gebara.

· The Catholic hierarchy has failed to make room for women in positions of authority within the church. Women are conspicuously absent from senior positions within dioceses and on the pontifical councils that advise the pope on issues of family and sexuality.

· In countries like Kenya where women are increasingly vulnerable to HIV/AIDS, the church hierarchy has consistently attempted to block or undermine safe sex programs.

· The Vatican said that women who had been raped in Kosovo should not take emergency contraception. Previously, the pope had said that women raped in Bosnia should "accept the enemy" and make him "flesh of their flesh" rather than take emergency contraception.


Does this reflect what you believe?

[Blue_Chill]

41. Some of them are

And to fairly judge anything one must look at them as a whole and not simpley examine the rotten parts.

By your methods we should all oppose the ACLU for hleping the KKK and NAMBLA. However we all know they do much more then stand up for hate filled bigot and child molestors.

[ant]

47. OK then

The ACLU defends free speech. Their help for the KKK and NAMBLA is done because they support free speech. While I may not agree with these individual organizations I do believe in free speech for everyone and therefore the ACLU's actions reflect my beliefs.

Your turn. Give exactly that sort of explanation for the Church and their treatment of women as reflected in my previous post.

[Blue_Chill]

52. So then you agree

that people should have the right to encourage child molesters? Because while free speech is well and good in effect what the ACLU did was defend the right for a group to encourage the sexual abuse of children.

YOu see that is how the Catholic church is treated with it's pro-life stance. In their minds they are simply defending life, in practice however they cause pain. Just like the ACLU does when they defend monsters.

[iverglas]

60. apparently ant does

"... agree that people should have the right to encourage child molesters", that is.

(I don't agree with a number of things that your ACLU does, and I say so when asked. And I criticize the ACLU for doing them, whether what it's doing is consistent with its own principles or not. Just like I do with the RC church, amazingly.)

Now how are the chances that you are going to respond to ant's request:

"Give exactly that sort of explanation for the Church and their treatment of women as reflected in my previous post."

?

Slim to non-existent, would be my bet.

.

[Blue_Chill]

66. I'm giving ant the same treatment offered the church

Spinning and framing every argument to best avoid giving it any credit. Now what are the odds you will ever recognize the good done in the world by the church? Slim to non-existent, would be my bet.

If I can't get into a fair discussion, then I can not be expected to be fair. You spin I spin, don't like it? Then ignore me or fuck off.

[iverglas]

95. and what are the odds

(as I think I've asked) that you might occasionally pay attention to something anyone else says and/or talk about it without misrepresenting it?

If I can't get into a fair discussion, then I can not be expected to be fair.

If you can't demonstrate what is not "fair" about the discussion you're in ... well, just say it's unfair anyhow, right?

"Now what are the odds you will ever recognize the good done in the world by the church?"

What has this got to do with the discussion at hand?

Is no one permitted, ever, to criticize anyone or anything without acknowledging something good about him/her/it?

This ain't marriage counselling, friend. Anybody who wants to is entirely entitled to criticize anything and anyone s/he likes, and under no obligation whatsoever to offer praise to counteract the criticism. When I criticize George W. Bush for overseeing the killing of civilians around the world, I feel no compulsion to praise him for being nice to his pets.

No one is under any obligation to be "fair" to the RC church. Period.

The fact that you choose not to respond to criticism of the church, unless the critic also offers up praise, says nothing about your interlocutors.

"You spin I spin, don't like it?"

Really? Where have I spun? Quotation marks, please.

And who said you were spinning? Not I. I said you were refusing to respond to direct requests, which means you are refusing to engage in civil discourse in a discussion which you voluntarily joined. No spin there. Just the diametric opposite of democratic with a small "d" values.

A person who values democracy does not react to criticism by attempting to discredit the critic without addressing the criticism; does not make assertions without responding to requests for fact and argument in support; does not respond to fact and argument in support of others' assertions by throwing red herrings around; does not mischaracterize critics and their motivations by pulling guilt-by-association tricks based on vague statements made by unidentified straw folk; ... does not try to get his/her own way other than by persuasion, which occurs only through honest, sincere, good faith advocacy of his/her positions.

A person who values democracy argues sincerely and honestly and in good faith for the policies s/he advocates. This IS relevant to a discussion about the Teresa person, because she IS used by her admirers in attempts to influence public policy. And in this case, it IS appropriate to discredit her, because those who use her are not arguing sincerely and honestly and in good faith for their policies, they are citing her as authority for their policy positions.

So if THEY would just keep her out of the discussion, I suspect that everybody else would too.

Ditto the RC church. The Vatican and its adherents can go right ahead and argue for whatever policies they advocate, and I'll be happy to stick to the subject. However, it is THEY who cite their church/dogma as AUTHORITY for their policy positions, who seek to exercise influence based not on their positions but on their authority. It was an RC archbishop who told my Prime Minister that he risked burning in hell if he supported allowing same-sex marriages in Canada, in an effort to influence public policy on the issue.

And yet apparently saying that a policy position is wrong because it is contrary to RC dogma and some RCers don't like it is different from saying that a policy position is wrong because it reflects RC dogma and RCers like it ... oops, what sense did that make? Who here has said any such thing about policy positions that reflect RC dogma and that RCers like? (That's a question. You can take it as rhetorical, with the answer being "no one", or you can answer it. Your choice.)

And the Vatican and its adherents, if they wish to be treated like any other private organization / private individuals in the public arena (isn't that what they want? </sarcasm> ), can ACT like any other such organization or individuals. And that does not mean having special status at the United Nations superior to other private organizations, or shirking the legal responsibilities that rest on any other private organization, or attempting to influence authorities to violate the fundamental rights and freedoms that the society has agreed to respect by claiming authority that it does not have in that society.

You could start by simply responding to what is said to you, honestly, sincerely and in good faith. Or you could keep dodging and weaving and pretending and misrepresenting.

I have no intention of ignoring you.

"For evil to triumph, it is only necessary for good men to do nothing."
That source seems appropriate, somehow.

.

[ant]

62. you missed my point

The ACLU's actions reflect a consistent belief in the value of free speech.

The Vatican's actions reflect a consistent belief in the second class status of women.

Yes, you can argue they're against contraception because they believe in the value of life, and you value life - hell who doesn't? BUT, the effects of their policies are to KILL WOMEN: too many children in countries with no adequate medical care, too many children in poverty stricken countries, inadequate defenses against HIV, etc. You can't deny that this is the reality of their policies, and you can't deny that they KNOW this is the reality of their policies. Therefore, you must conclude that the lives of women are not valued as much as the lives of the unborn, or even the unconceived, or whatever it is these policies reflect.

As a woman this is NOT something I can support, and I would hope the people around me, in my family and community, would stand up and reject and institution that says it's OK to kill me for whatever it is the Church thinks is more important here.

[Blue_Chill]

68. No I saw your point.

But I decided to avoid the framed argument you planned rather nicely.

BTW - the church is against contraception because they believe it encourages immoral behavior.

[ant]

74. oh please

I asked if the church's policies on women and issues related to women reflected someone's beliefs and how they planned to reconcile that. If by avoiding the "framed argument I planned nicely" you mean avoiding my question all together well, yes, you did do that, didn't you?

[Blue_Chill]

79. Yes I did

because like I said you framed it extra special. Just like Fox does!

[ant]

89. how so?

Please explain how I framed it "extra special." As far as I can tell I asked a question, you turned it on me with the ACLU, and when I answered my own question for the ACLU and then turned it back on you for the Church, well...that's when all of a sudden I'm the same as Fox News.

[iverglas]

104. cripes

"the church is against contraception because they believe it encourages immoral behavior."

What weird branch of the RC church have you been frequenting?

That has virtually nothing to do with the RC church line on contraception. Oh, well, unless you define sexual relations between, say, a married heterosexual couple for a purpose other than procreation as "immoral". Alrighty then.

"But I decided to avoid the framed argument you planned rather nicely."

Nah. You refused to respond to what was said and invented something else instead.


The RC church and its adherents can oppose contraception til the bloody cows come home, for all I care. Disregarding the illegitimate influence that it exercises directly, over its own flock, for the moment, I don't give a pinch of poop whether the RC church and its adherents oppose contraception or oppose abortion or oppose eating pizza for breakfast.

It is when they attempt to have people denied access to contraception or abortion, or pizza for breakfast, or anything else that they might turn their noses up at, that the little problem arises.

Aw, c'mon, we ALL know that you can tell the difference.

The RC church can oppose same-sex marriage; it can oppose abortion; it can oppose emergency contraception for victims of genocidal rape; it can oppose promoting condom use among people at risk of AIDS infection from coerced sexual contact. Nobody's trying to make the RC church facilitate any of those activities, or force its adherents to engage in any of those activites.

The RC church and some its adherents DO use their influence to persuade (or, more often, otherwise influence) authorities to FORCE other organizations not to facilitate those activities and DO use their influence to persuade (or otherwise influence) authorities to FORCE other individuals not to engage in them.

Again. We all know that you can tell the difference.

Just to harken back to that burning-in-hell scenario in Canada's public discourse about same-sex marriage: the RC church and its spokespeople have not once addressed the real issue: whether there is justification, within Canadian society and according to the values and rules expressed in the Canadian constitution, for denying gay men and lesbians the equal benefit and protection of the law.

That IS HOW the debate is "framed" in this free and democratic society. That IS HOW disagreements are settled -- by applying the fundamental agreements that DO EXIST, one of which is that every individual is entitled to the equal benefit and protection of the law without discrimination.

For the RC church to attempt to "frame" the debate as one about "morality", without addressing the "morality" that the society has adopted by consensus in its constitution, is for it to reject freedom and democracy in favour of illegitimate influence, and that is corruption.

For one of its spokespeople to threaten the head of the country's government with hellfire and damnation in an attempt to influence the country's public policy, without engaging in the debate as it is framed by common consensus, is to attack the very legitimacy of the society and its government, and is absolutely unacceptable in a free and democratic society.

Anyone who seeks to exercise influence in public discourse other than by honest persuasion is an enemy of democracy, and anyone who exerts influence on a government to act contrary to the agreed principles of its society is corrupt.

And those are pretty good descriptions of what I see all too often on the part of the RC church and much of its leadership and many of its adherents.

.

[ant]

67. your post changed while I was typing up my last response

So you agree that people should have the right to encourage child molesters? Because while free speech is well and good in effect what the ACLU did was defend the right for a group to encourage the sexual abuse of children.

No, what they did was defend the right of a group to speak on a subject.

Did you support the war in Iraq? Have you tried to silence those who did? If you didn't then *obviously* you support the war in Iraq. (/sarcasm)

YOu see that is how the Catholic church is treated with it's pro-life stance. In their minds they are simply defending life, in practice however they cause pain. Just like the ACLU does when they defend monsters.

The ACLU is not causing pain. WHO has been hurt by NAMBLA's words? The ACLU is not defending their right to molest children - that's against the law and DOES cause pain. Mere words do not.

That makes a huge difference in this comparison.

[Blue_Chill]

71. response

No, what they did was defend the right of a group to speak on a subject.

Did you support the war in Iraq? Have you tried to silence those who did? If you didn't then *obviously* you support the war in Iraq. (/sarcasm)

So then you jumped in defense of the DUers who supported the war and were silenced by the majority opposition here? No, you didn't.

Interesting.....

The ACLU is not causing pain. WHO has been hurt by NAMBLA's words? The ACLU is not defending their right to molest children - that's against the law and DOES cause pain. Mere words do not.

That makes a huge difference in this comparison.

You honestly think no one is hurt by a group that tells molestors that nothing is wrong with what they are doing? Are you joking?

[ant]

80. I actually never saw that

So then you jumped in defense of the DUers who supported the war and were silenced by the majority opposition here? No, you didn't.

Were there pro-war DUers? I don't think I ever encountered one. But if I HAD seen someone try to silence a pro-war person I WOULD have objected to it, so there. :P

I don't support banning people - I think people should be allowed to say whatever they want. I would certainly have engaged in a debate with such a DUer but I would NOT have asked that s/he be banned. That's just not my style.

You honestly think no one is hurt by a group that tells molestors that nothing is wrong with what they are doing? Are you joking?

As far as the ACLU is concerned all NAMBLA is doing is speaking out. The ACLU wasn't demanding that they be given the right to actually molest children, were they? No, they were not. Do you really not see this distinction or are you just very stubborn?

[Blue_Chill]

84. Ah I see!

So because NAMBLA can't convince anyone they should be defended, but because the churchs message actually get put into practice it must be opposed.

I get it.

[iverglas]

101. ah, the intellectual dishonesty

"So then you jumped in defense of the DUers who supported the war and were silenced by the majority opposition here? No, you didn't."

How many DUers were tossed in prison by other DUers for supporting the war against Iraq on a DU message board?

What? None?? Gosh, then I guess none were silenced. I guess some may have chosen to shut up; I wouldn't know.

I do know that YOU know the difference between PROHIBITING someone from saying something and PUNISHING him/her for saying it, and expressing loud disapproval of what they say.

Or maybe you don't.


"You honestly think no one is hurt by a group that tells molestors that nothing is wrong with what they are doing? Are you joking?"

And if you think that such people should be SILENCED -- that their speech should be PROHIBITED and they should be PUNISHED if they engage in it -- why don't you say so? (Me, I'd be more likely to be on your side, and what a can of worms we'd find ourselves in then.)

You and ant would appear to disagree, if that is the case.

What's next: people who speak words that say that contraception is evil should be silenced? Surely *you* couldn't say that no one is hurt by THOSE WORDS, if you applied the same standard as you apply to NORML. The people who act on the words cause harm. Case closed.

But what ant is objecting to is not the words of the RC church and some of its adherents, it is their deeds. Another of those actual statements made by actual people that you eschew responding to in favour of erecting and smiting straw figures.

And what you are pretending is that ant approves, not of the policy position that such speech should not be prohibited and those who engage in it should not be punished, but of the speech itself.

If you don't know that ant does not approve of the speech itself, you at least know that you have not one shred of a foundation for saying that ant DOES approve of the speech itself.

So why in dog's name would you "ask" whether ant "honestly think<s> that no one is hurt by a group that tells molestors that nothing is wrong with what they are doing" -- when ant said no such fucking thing -- unless you were trying to discredit ant in others' eyes by making it appear that such a conclusion from what ant said is plausible?

Why don't you just respond to what ant said?

Fret not, that one's meant as a rhetorical question. I know the answer.

.

[Blue_Chill]

112. Your subject line describes your post very well.

How many DUers were tossed in prison by other DUers for supporting the war against Iraq on a DU message board?

How many DUers hav ethe power to toss other into prison for whatever they wish? What's that? It's not possible? oh right, your argument is just a silly strawman. Of course.

I do know that YOU know the difference between PROHIBITING someone from saying something and PUNISHING him/her for saying it, and expressing loud disapproval of what they say.

The difference is method, the result isn't too different as both silence opposing viewpoints thru intimidation. One form uses the goverment the other peer pressure.

Nice try.

What's next: people who speak words that say that contraception is evil should be silenced? Surely *you* couldn't say that no one is hurt by THOSE WORDS, if you applied the same standard as you apply to NORML. The people who act on the words cause harm. Case closed.

Apples and oranges. Contraception is legal and is a choice. Sexual abuse is not a legal choice. Big difference wouldn't you say?


Fret not, that one's meant as a rhetorical question. I know the answer.

Amazing how you go out of your way to increase the smug tone of your writing.

[iverglas]

122. ya almost got it

"How many DUers hav ethe power to toss other into prison for whatever they wish? What's that? It's not possible? oh right, your argument is just a silly strawman. Of course."

Of course, it's your "argument" that was the silly straw fella, but you knew that.

The point was precisely that no one at DU has the power to PROHIBIT anyone from saying anything, or PUNISH anyone for saying anything, and so no one at DU has ever silenced anyone. The fact that you asked a question containing the premise that someone had been silenced does not mean that said premise was true.

"The difference is method, the result isn't too different as both silence opposing viewpoints thru intimidation. One form uses the goverment the other peer pressure."

Yup. And one form uses laws and prisons, and the other uses ... what would that be? Disagreement and disapproval? Gosh. That must hurt.

I *know* you can tell the difference between disagreement/disapproval and prohibition/punishment. I just know you can. I mean, maybe you don't see it quite yet, but I just know that if you try, and maybe squint and grunt a little, it will happen.

"Apples and oranges. Contraception is legal and is a choice. Sexual abuse is not a legal choice. Big difference wouldn't you say?"

Distinction without a difference is what I would say, if the criterion you are using is whether the speech should be suppressed BECAUSE IT CAUSES HARM, which is the criterion you were using.

Really, I'm just not so addled that I can't follow what *you* say from one post to another. The apples and oranges are in your shopping cart, not mine.

And gosh, I just can't follow you anyhow, Johnny Appleseed.

Contraception "is legal and is a choice" in North America so it's okay for the RC church to oppose it being made available to people in other places or even being legal for people in other places to access it?

Hey, I know that doesn't make sense. But if I assume that you are talking about the RC church's efforts to influence public policy, which is what I am talking about and what ant is talking about, and so in assuming that I can safely think that it is what you are addressing, it's the only interpretation I can offer of what you're saying.

One more time: I don't give a crap what the RC church or its leaders or adherents might think or say about contraception. I object to their efforts to influence governments and international organizations to deny access to contraception to people who disagree with them.

The RC church, you say, opposes contraception because it promotes immoral behaviour.

Who the fuck cares? I say. In our society, the "immoral behaviour" in question is not a fit subject of law and public policy, by democratically reached agreement. Is there something that makes "immoral behaviour" a fit subject of law and public policy in, oh, say, Ireland where it fought tooth and nail to keep contraception unavailable, or Chile where it is doing the same to keep divorce unavailable?

"Amazing how you go out of your way to increase the smug tone of your writing."

I don't seem to have sunk to "takes one to know one" yet. Could you be trying to get the thread locked, by flaming?

.

[ant]

25. correction

It is NOT anti-catholic, it is anti-catholic church. HUGE difference.

[Blue_Chill]

44. Huge difference? No, that's BULLSHIT.

You can't declare war on the US and then state "we only dislike the greedy ones" because in the long run you attack them all.

Same goes here. You can't seek to destroy the church and then tell the Catholic you don't mind that it doesn't concern them.

[ant]

50. again, are you kidding me?

There's a very real difference between criticizing someone's personal beliefs and criticizing the social policies of a global institution. I don't really care what you or others believe about god, jesus, the after life, etc. Not relevant.

What I DO care about is what the church does to people on the planet. This is a debate over social policy, and wishing for an end to the Vatican's influence on these issues is no different than wishing for end to Republican control of the white house or whatever else. Because it's about religion, though, people seem to take it all personally. They get incredibly emotional and can't seem to separate their own spirituality from the reality of what the Vatican does.

[Blue_Chill]

56. are you kidding me?

are you serious that you don't understand why telling a GIANT GROUP OF PEOPLE that you want them silenced on issues they care about?

Who the fuck do you think the vaitcan represents? When you try to silence the church on ANY ISSUE you are telling most of the billion catholics that agree with them on it to stfu.

[iverglas]

64. are YOU serious?

ant says:

"This is a debate over social policy, and wishing for an end to the Vatican's influence on these issues is no different than wishing for end to Republican control of the white house or whatever else."

and you respond by saying:

"are you serious that you don't understand why telling a GIANT GROUP OF PEOPLE that you want them silenced on issues they care about?"

Apparently according to you, "wishing for an end to the Vatican's influence on these issues" = "telling a giant group of people that you want them silenced".

Damn, there's nothing like a good object lesson on misrepresentation for the purpose of vilifying and thereby discrediting one's opponent rather than responding to what one's opponent has said.

.

[Blue_Chill]

75. Do you need me to draw you a picture?

Vatican = leaders of a group numbering 1 billion
Catholics = a billion people who largely agree with the vatican.

Telling the Vatican to shut up and stay out of politics because you don't like their position, in effect tell the people the vatican represents to stay out of politics.

Do you get that, or do I need to rent a jackhammer to get this very simple reality thru to you?

[iverglas]

108. who was that?

"Telling the Vatican to shut up and stay out of politics because you don't like their position, in effect tell the people the vatican represents to stay out of politics."

Telling the Vatican not to exercise corrupt influence over legitimate governments (or hell, illegitimate governments; which is even easier for it to do, usually) = telling the Vatican not to exercise corrupt influence over legitimate governments.

I won't ask whether *I* need a jackhammer to get that through your head, both because doing so would be insufferably childish and rude and because I already know that you already know it.

Attempting to influence public authorities to do what is in one's own interests and contrary to the stated values of the society that the authorities govern, and to the interests of the people they govern, and to the rules by which they govern them = corruption.

The Vatican seeks to get its own way by influencing governments and international organizations, without regard for the agreed values and policies adopted by those governments' publics and those organizations' member states.

The sources of its influence are complex, but they are NOT democratic, and it is NOT representative of ANYONE.

.

[Forkboy]

85. be careful

you're setting yourself up for a nasty PM.

[ant]

69. show it to me

Show me where I said that I want catholics "silenced on issues they care about." I DARE YOU.

Quote it or admit to misrepresenting/misunderstanding my position.

[Blue_Chill]

78. You can't cliam to want to silence the organization

and then claim that you aren't trying to silence their members. Catholics are in large part represented by the vatican, and it doens't matter if you like that or not, it's the truth.

[ant]

86. I never said that

I never said I wanted to "silence" the organization. Again, give me a direct quote or take it back.

I said I wanted to end the Vatican's INFLUENCE on social policy.

They can continue to speak out on whaveter issue they want. They can continue to run their own missionaries and charities and whatever else according to their own beliefs - I don't plan to stop them from doing that.

[Blue_Chill]

93. What?!

What the hell is the difference between influence and speech? Answer: effectiveness in delivering message.

So basically you want them to say whatever they want but for society to ignore them?

lol....

[ant]

100. still no quote, huh?

Is it really that difficult to answer a direct question? Look, I'll show you how it's done:

What the hell is the difference between influence and speech? Answer: effectiveness in delivering message.

No, the difference is POWER. The difference is a seat at the UN.

I want them to have LESS POWER.

Get it now?

Are you going to take back your misrepresentation of my position now or keep changing the subject and hope no one will notice the dodge?

[Blue_Chill]

106. still no reason to give you one

I want them to have LESS POWER.


At the moment the Vatican represent a third of the world. From that perspective the power they have doesn't seem like much to me.

BTW - their seat at the UN is to observe, they don't get to vote.

[ant]

113. how about to save your own credibility?

You accused me of saying something I clearly didn't say. When I asked you to back it up, you danced around. Now you claim you don't need to back it up at all.

Hey, it's your problem, not mine. I think the thread holds my credibility up quite well.

And, of course, here you are changing the topic again:

At the moment the Vatican represent a third of the world. From that perspective the power they have doesn't seem like much to me.

BTW - their seat at the UN is to observe, they don't get to vote.

You're right about them not voting, but you're wrong about the power they have.

(Watch, this is what's called "backing up your claims.")

As I just posted further below, from
http://www.seechange.org/media/ms%20magazine%2010%2099.htm

The Roman Catholic Church, represented at the U.N. by the Holy See, is the only religious body to enjoy "nonmember state permanent observer" status. NGOs such as the Women's Environment and Development Organization and U.N. agencies such as the World Health Organization also observe—but silently, from a raised gallery above the debate floor. The Holy See's "observer" gets to speak, to lobby, and to negotiate on virtually equal footing with any nation. The See may not vote, but it can and does influence the documents the nations vote on. And in the case of Cairo+5, the document contains elements as beneficial to women as they are odious to the Holy See.

[Blue_Chill]

117. oh my

You accused me of saying something I clearly didn't say. When I asked you to back it up, you danced around. Now you claim you don't need to back it up at all.

Hey, it's your problem, not mine. I think the thread holds my credibility up quite well.

we've been over this cowboy, you think reducing their influence (shutting them out of govermental issues) is different then silencing them. I don't. OK, we can agree to disagree on this, I don't really give a damn.

And, of course, here you are changing the topic again:

Um no. You claimed they have too much power. You brought it up, champ.

You're right about them not voting, but you're wrong about the power they have.

(Watch, this is what's called "backing up your claims.")

How can I be wrong on a opinion? I said being that they represent a damn near a third of the world their power isn't all that great.

BTW - you seek to disporve me by saying they can lobby? LOBBY? They represent more people then the population of the US and they can lobby? lol. wow fear the great lobbiest!!!!!!

[ant]

121. really?

we've been over this cowboy, you think reducing their influence (shutting them out of govermental issues) is different then silencing them. I don't. OK, we can agree to disagree on this, I don't really give a damn.

So, if there's no difference between silencing someone and shutting them out of governmental issues, as you're claiming here, isn't the US' separation of church and state an effort to "silence" the church? Isn't it, according to YOUR logic here, actually a violation of the right to free speech?

That's very interesting.

How can I be wrong on a opinion? I said being that they represent a damn near a third of the world their power isn't all that great.

BTW - you seek to disporve me by saying they can lobby? LOBBY? They represent more people then the population of the US and they can lobby? lol. wow fear the great lobbiest!!!!!!

You're wrong because this isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact, facts concerning the role and influence the Vatican carries at the UN. You can mock my post all you want, but unfortunately for you it's not going to change the facts.

[Blue_Chill]

126. Yes really

So, if there's no difference between silencing someone and shutting them out of governmental issues, as you're claiming here, isn't the US' separation of church and state an effort to "silence" the church? Isn't it, according to YOUR logic here, actually a violation of the right to free speech?

That's very interesting.

US seperation of church and state is to prohibit the goverment from establishing a religion. Not to stop religion from having any influence on goverment.

Nice try.

You're wrong because this isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact, facts concerning the role and influence the Vatican carries at the UN. You can mock my post all you want, but unfortunately for you it's not going to change the facts.

The fact is a group that represents 1/3 of the world is allowed to lobby the UN. Wether that is too much or too little power is a matter of opinion.

[Wonk]

128. You've tossed that "fact" around a few times now and it's wrong.

re: "represents 1/3 of the world"

Give or take a billion people....

It's much closer to 1/6 than it is to 1/3.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=7581



edit: removed extra "than" for clarity

[iverglas]

130. hmm, yes

I figured maybe he was counting square kilmetres or something. If 45% of Canada self-reports as RC on the 2001 census, how many square kilometres would that be? Do we count Baffin Island?

.

[ant]

131. again, really?

US seperation of church and state is to prohibit the goverment from establishing a religion. Not to stop religion from having any influence on goverment.

Then why were those 10 commandments removed from that courthouse in Alabama (if I remember correctly, it was Alabama)? It's a two way street, blocked in both directions.

Nice try indeed.

The fact is a group that represents 1/3 of the world is allowed to lobby the UN. Wether that is too much or too little power is a matter of opinion.

Where are you getting this 1/3 number, by the way? Got a source? I have no clue how many catholics there are in the world.

Anyway, a quantitative, relatively objective measure of the Vatican's power can be found in the EFFECTS of its lobbying.

Again, visit the seechange.org site - if you can find a problem with their FAQs and statements, let me know, otherwise you are simply incorrect. There's really no way around it.

[iverglas]

129. fairy tales

"At the moment the Vatican represent a third of the world."

Hmm. Are all those people in that "third of the world" not organized into states? Do those states not have representation at the United Nations?

Do all the RCers in Canada and the US and similar places not get to mark their ballots on election days?

If the answers to those questions are what I think they are -- if all the RCers in the world do indeed live in countries that hold seats at the UN, and if all the RCers in countries where elections are held do indeed get to vote in those elections -- well, I'm smelling something funny.

I'm smelling someone who thinks that he and his group should have MORE "representation" than I have. That they should have MORE influence than I have. That they should somehow get COUNTED TWICE when weighty matters get decided.

I can think of a number of groups that I belong to that "represent" what I think. Where do we go to apply for observer status at the UN, or get our votes counted twice?

In point of absolute fact, the Vatican's status at the UN is NOT as representative of ANYBODY. Look it up, eh?

"BTW - their seat at the UN is to observe, they don't get to vote.

Btw, disingenuousness just doesn't work here like it does some places.

The Vatican is the ONLY organization of its kind to have that observer status at the UN, you forgot to mention. (Of course, strictly speaking, it's the only organization of its kind. The only outfit on earth that rules a bit of land for reasons having nothing to do with the purposes of a "state".)

http://www.population-security.org/crlp-94-07.htm

Finally, on March 21, 1964, Pope Paul VI
established the first Holy See “permanent observer” mission at
the United Nations. As a result, the Holy See is regarded as a
“non--member state” permanent observer.20 Switzerland is the
only other entity that currently maintains non--member state
permanent observer status.

20. There are five types of permanent observers: (1)
Non-Member States; (2) Specialized Agencies of the UN.
system; (3) Intergovernmental organizations not part of the UN.
system; (4) National liberation movements recognized by the
General Assembly; and (5) Non-governmental organizations.
See R. G. Sybesma-Knol, Status of Observers in the UN. (1981).

The Vatican is a non-member state in the UN.

The Holy See has also participated actively in several United
Nations conferences. Its position as a non-member state
permanent observer has provided it with many advantages.
Rules regarding access to and procedure for United Nations
conferences are most often determined by the specific United
Nations agency charged with organizing the meeting;25 the
organizing body can thus determine whether it will permit a
permanent observer to attend. Moreover, access to conferences
convened by the General Assembly or ECOSOC is also
established by the parameters set out by these United Nations
agencies. Because the current United Nations trend is to
provide widespread access to international conferences,
participation in these meetings has been liberally granted.26
Recent General Assembly resolutions convening world
conferences have invited “all States” to participate. States
invited to participate in a conference in this manner are able to
participate “in full, with full voting rights,” unlike the
restricted manner in which other types of permanent observers
participate.27 Because the United Nations treats the Holy See
as a state, the Roman Catholic Church is able to participate
fully and to vote in most conferences.

26. Id. at 34.

27. Id. at 35.

And of course those conferences are precisely where it does most of its dirty work. The Vatican can best achieve its aims, particularly the aim of preventing women from exercising their rights fully, by influencing the outcomes of those conferences ... something it likes to do by teaming up with countries like, oh, Iran, Algeria, Pakistan, Sudan, and Libya (cf. Beijing 5).

Oh, btw ... attack the messenger (the web site), if you like and as I fully expect. Or address the information. Your choice.

.

[LittleApple81]

15. I don't consider myself as "anti-Catholic". I consider myself

"independent." And with independent thought come questioning and possibly criticism. I was raised as a Catholic, and in Latin America they have been a terrible presence.
I won't try to prevent anybody to believe in his/her religion as long as they don't try to impose it on the rest of the world.

[CWebster]

22. They are a destructive force in Africa too

The Pope and his boys latest proclamation that condoms are uneffective in the fight against AIDS has caused confusion and extended needless human suffering. For that they should burn in their own hell.

It was reported on the news last night. I suppose the revelation is "Catholic bashing".

[Blue_Chill]

42. CWeb

The catholic church bring more aid and relief into Africa then any other organization. They run schools, bring in food, etc etc.

WTF does ANY organization you are tied to do for them? Not a damn thing. I'm getting sick of do nothing ivory tower wing nuts thinking the african crisis all boils down to contraception. Considering the mess that area is in the ONLY logical choice is to stop ALL non committed sexual realtions PERIOD.

Casual sex of any kind using any method of contraception is far to risky to even be considered. The spread can not and will not be stopped by such nonsense that does not take into account poverty level and the fact that all such things are REUSED in africa. Even needles for chirsts sake, what makes you think condems won't be saved the same way?

[CWebster]

63. blue...

"...stop ALL non committed sexual realtions PERIOD."

I'm sorry--and I know it will piss you off, but the Church couldn't even impose abstinance among it's own ranks - and why should a culture that may not embrace sexual taboos be forced to adopt the repressive morality?

There has been a hugh public health campaign to encourage people to use condemns and instruct them properly, and then the Church announces that condemns do not provide a sufficient barrier... That just promotes more ignorance and confusion in a human health crisis of massive proportions.

[Blue_Chill]

73. repressive morality?

Is this what you call responsible behavior?

Sorry but let's stop there. Because I don't buy into that whole bed of bullshit.

[CWebster]

77. yes, use of condems under the circumstances

would be responsible behavior.

Personally I don't believe Western opposed hysteria about promiscuity should be a death sentence for not obeying.

[Blue_Chill]

81. Actually no it wouldn't

It's less risky.

It's like having the least drunk person drive everyone home as opposed to simply not having anyone that drank at all drive.

[CWebster]

82. right

well --better than no precautions at all.

[Blue_Chill]

88. That kind of thinking

is why diseases are spreading in the first place. It allows people to have their cake and eat it to.

[ant]

17. the church is destructive

This isn't about religion, it's about a religious institution - with a seat at the UN, remember - that influences and shapes policy around the world, policies that are often destructive and downright evil.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/341833.stm
http://www.seechange.org/media/national%20post%208%2012%2099.htm
http://www.seechange.org/media/shadowreport031000.htm

If you want to defend the church you have to defend denying rape victims emergency contraception, denying the sick pain medication, denying poor women adequate family planning, etc. These are very real social issues, and the church is a very real organization influencing them. If you're going to open your eyes to anything, open them up to the people who suffer because of the church.

If you want to defend your personal beliefs and religion, well, no one's asking you to do that.

[Padraig18]

19. Show me ONE perfect institution

And i will personally deliver you an engraved gold ingot. The Catholic Church is an institution, and as such, it is no different than any other. Why is IT singled out for such special abuse at DU?

[ant]

24. are you kidding me?

It's singled out for the same reason the Heritage Foundation or the NAPC or whatever else is singled out - because it is an institution that pursues an agenda contrary to liberal values and basic human rights. What part of that are people not getting?

The difference, of course, is that at least the Heritage Foundation doesn't get a seat at the UN.

Like I said, if you want to defend the church then you defend denying rape victims emergency contraception. That's it. There is no way around it. I would criticize ANY institution that did that, and the church is no different. It is, in fact, more dangerous because it affects the lives of so many who don't have the resources to fight back.

[sangh0]

58. In defense of The RC Church

1) The Church strongly objected to the invasion of Iraq
2) They do NOT deny anyone contraceptives. They just don't supply any.
3) They DO supply food, medicine, and shelter to people who desperately need them

[Blue_Chill]

38. I agree with you on certain things

However I also read up on the good the church does and thus I will not stand by and support those that seek to do it harm. Until I see the people that attack it doing something to help the world other then engage in bitching fests or acting as if Abortion will solve the worlds problems I won't support them at all. In fact I will very much oppose them.

[iverglas]

57. and if only

"Until I see the people that attack it doing something to help the world other then engage in bitching fests or acting as if Abortion will solve the worlds problems I won't support them at all. In fact I will very much oppose them."

... you could name them.

In the alternative, if only you and your fellow travellers would occasionally respond to what is actually said by some identifiable person, instead of making up bogeypeople and putting words in their mouths ...

Talk about yer tilting at straw people, eh?

.

[Blue_Chill]

87. Name them? OK then here's one - iverglas

What do you do to help the people of the world. Not what do you support, what do you or a group in which you actually belong that is not a nation or state actually DO?

[iverglas]

133. fascinating

I ask that Blue_Chill "name one" of

"the people that attack" the RC church

whom he wants to see

"doing something to help the world other then engage in bitching fests or acting as if Abortion will solve the worlds problems"

and he responds:

"OK then here's one - iverglas
What do you do to help the people of the world. Not what do you support, what do you or a group in which you actually belong that is not a nation or state actually DO?"

Hmm. He is naming me as one of "the people" who engage in bitching fests or act as if abortion will solve the world's problems.

So, is the allegation that I (a) engage in bitching fests, or (b) act as if abortion will solve the world's problems, or maybe (c) both?

And what will he offer to substantiate whatever the allegation is?

I'll go with being one of the people who "criticize the corrupt influence exercised by the Vatican in international and national affairs", myself. Given that this is what I happen to be that is relevant here.

Hmm. I also criticize the oppressive policies of the Bush administration in the US and abroad. Is my criticism invalidated by my failure (read: lack of entitlement) to vote in US elections? Would it be invalidated by my driving an SUV (if I did)? By my eating meat? By my failure to shower today?

Is he actually saying that my criticism of the RC church would be validated if I gave 50% of my income to charity, and spent 50% of my spare time working in a soup kitchen?? (Would 10% of each be enough for the job?)

What exactly would validate my criticism? I'd love to know.


You got one funny notion of that whole concept of the honest, sincere, good faith discussion of policy issues, friend.

How 'bout if I said that *your* criticism of abortion policies can be disregarded because *you* are an RCer, and this discredits you and invalidates your criticism?

Ooooh, wouldn't like that one a bit, would you?

Of course, I never have and never will say any such thing. Me, I don't use anti-democratic tactics to discredit my adversaries and purport thereby to invalidate their arguments.

If you thought I was going to get diverted from those arguments by your little insinuations and rush to my own defence, you were wrong. *I* am not the issue here. The activities of the RC church and some of its adherents are.

If you want to make my activities an issue, then you'll need to know something about them. Since you apparently don't, I'll wish you luck. And invite you to address the actual issues on the table.

.

[5thGenDemocrat]

91. The Vatican is NOT a member of the United Nations

It has permanent observer (non-voting) status.
As far as the Church "denying rape victims emergency contraception," etc. -- I believe that is a function of doctors and hospitals and health organizations, not the RCC. My suggestion (not that you asked)? Contribute generously to such groups who provide these things and exclude such contributions to the RCC.
John
Noting that this thread was originally about Mother Teresa's beatification.

[ant]

119. my bad, but the point remains

I know they don't vote; that was lousy language on my part. They do have a lot of influence, though, and that was my point.

And yes, it IS the function of doctors and hospitals and health organizations to give rape victims emergency contraceptions, which is why it's so annoying to see the church get in their way.

For instance,
http://report.kff.org/archive/repro/2000/09/kr000906.5.htm
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1209

[iverglas]

26. my goodness

"... I'm seriously considering many DUers a threat as great as the RW.
They seem to be hell bent on destroying the church, which I see as
threatening and frankly evil."

You see the church as threatening and frankly evil??

So do I! For all the many reasons that have been so often and eloquently stated.

Of course, that didn't stop me from voting for an RCer as the new Premier of Ontario two weeks ago (or campaigning multiple times for my RC priest former city councillor, just like my Jewish former MP ...), or having an RC nun as one of the officiants at my protestant grandfather's funeral, or collaborating with RCers, including nuns and priests, on social justice and international development initiatives locally and around the world.


"Because of this I will be sure to vote against any and all politicians
that show even a hint anti-religious or anti-catholic beleif."

Yeah, just like I'll be very sure to vote against anyone who misrepresents my or anyone's reasoned, legitimate opposition to the exploitive and oppressive actions of ANY organization, or its leaders or adherents, as any kind of bigotry.

It is not bigotry to oppose bigots. And people and organizations that oppose equal respect for all individuals, and equal opportunity for all individuals to exercise their rights and freedoms, are bigots.

One of those organizations is the Vatican and its network, and some of those people are RCers. Their religion is no concern of mine, and my criticisms are of them as bigots and oppressors and exploiters, not as Roman Catholics, no matter how much you allege, or claim to think, otherwise.

And I fully expect you go to on alleging / claiming to think it, without a shred of evidence to support your allegations or justify your claim.

.

[Walt Starr]

10. MT cannot become a Saint

Show me the miracles. Even she admitted she never performed a miracle and miracles are required for sainthood.

[DemBones DemBones]

39. Wrong. One miracle has been verified by Indian doctors and is

attributed to Mother Teresa's intercession. This occurred after her death, as most miracles attributed to saints do -- it's from heaven that saints intercede for those on earth.

[Walt Starr]

107. Yeah, uh huh

I have a bridge for sale if you believe that.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. Beatified

[scottxyz]

16. I don't think she should be beatified

Two DU threads will explain the reasons why:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=530339

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=529736

[bookworm65t]

18. too soon

most saints in the Roman Catholic Church are beautified decades after their death. It took 500 years for Joan of Arc, but than again, her case was political. So why is Mother Teresa special?

[CWebster]

23. Because her case is

political.

[argonne]

27. So why is Mother Teresa special?

Ask the Church Lady.

[PATRICK]

30. a good thing for different reasons

Namely it helps the Sisters of Charity. A BIG reason for canonzation is to boost the religious orders connected with the founder or heros. Since her status is so popular and recognized the official canonization process is not very copntroversial or all that big a thing, but for the poverty dedicated workers in the field it is a big help and recognition now that their only spokesperson is gone.

This is sort of reverse cynicism. The honors of the Church are rather ironic since imitation is the only thing our Founder called for, not titles, cathedrals, obeisance and worldly power. The usual institution building motives of religious order saints here is here more apporpriate than ever. I only hope none of the perks spoil or make moribund the simple spirit of the Sisters of Charity who had to make little effort to advance their cause this time.

Then of course, when the Catholic layperson dies, what institution sponsors him? Such as Ralph Nader?

(Moderators delete this post or the last three words if my innocent humor is apt to ignite the usual.)

[ant]

31. and who do the sisters of charity help?

No one, from what I hear.

[Padraig18]

34. Since you asked:

http://www.sistersofcharity.org/soc.htm

[ant]

36. How about a real answer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa#Controversies_concerning_Agnes_Bojaxhiu's_activities

Insufficient medical care

One major point of contention by all critics is the actual situation in Mother Teresa's facilities. Hitchens cites Dr. Robin Fox, then editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, who visited the Home for Dying Destitutes in Calcutta. He wrote about this visit in the September 17, 1994 issue of the journal. A less selective quote than the one provided by Hitchens follows:

What sort of medical care do they get? It is haphazard. There are doctors who call in from time to time but usually the sisters and volunteers (some of whom have medical knowledge) make decisions as best they can. I saw a young man who had been admitted in poor shape with high fever, and the drugs prescribed had been tetracycline and parcetamol. Later, a visiting doctor diagnosed probable malaria and substituted chloroquine. Could not someone have looked at a blood film? Investigations, I was told, are seldom permissible. How about simple algorithms that might help the sisters and volunteers distinguish the curable from the incurable? Again no. Such systematic approaches are alien to the ethos of the home. Mother Theresa prefers providence to planning; her rules are designed to prevent any drift towards materialism; the sisters must remain on equal terms with the poor. So the most important features of the regimen are cleanliness, the tending of wounds and sores, and loving kindness. (One requirement is that all prescriptions be written in pencil, and subsequently rubbed out, to allow re-use of the paper.) If you give money to Mother Theresa's home, don't expect it to be spent on some little luxury.

Finally, how competent are the sisters at managing pain? On a short visit I could not judge the power of their spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn that the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Theresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer. (source text, includes responses)

****************************

You might want to do a little googling on Susan Shields and see what she has to say about what MT's group does with their money. A good start can be found here:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

It's good to suffer, after all. God loves that you're in pain. Your misery is a joy to him. This is the MT approach, and that is what's truly sick.

By the way, I notice you haven't answered my question in post #29.

[Padraig18]

40. And I don't intend to

I'm withdrawing from this flame war. You're right, I'm wrong, eom. :eyes:

On edit: Had you the least interest in an answer to your question, the webiste would have answered your questions; you are plainly interested in an anti-Catholic/Catholic Church flame war, which is an entirely different matter.

[ant]

45. *sigh*

This isn't a flame war - it's a discussion where you're unable to answer the questions posed to you. If blaming me for your dodge makes you feel better, though, go for it. Of course, I notice you haven't countered a single fact presented, merely complained about how anti-whatever people are.

I'm interested in the truth, and like I said, this isn't about being anti-catholic, it's about being anti-catholic church. The fact that you can't seem to understand or acknowledge that distinction reflects either a real thickness on your part or good ol' intellectual dishonesty.

[Padraig18]

49. If YOUR intellectual dishonesty make YOU feel better, go with it

You asked, i answered. You are NOT interested in answers, or you would have gotten them where I directed you! DON'T misrepresent my HONEST answer to you. YOU are being intellectually dishonest, and I would wager you didn't even open the page.

I AM GONE!

[ant]

53. heh

I asked sarcastically - sorry if you missed that. Of course I knew the answer to the question. I gave it in the post.

My point was that they don't really help anyone at all, a fact supported by the links I gave. You can insult me all you want, my facts still stand. That's all that matters to me, and it's kind of funny how it burns you up.

[iverglas]

70. and don't forget

Next time you want to know whom the Republic Party helps, be sure to check its website!

You might be surprised to learn that it helps you and all the common people, and might have some lingering suspicion that maybe it helps some other people a lot and doesn't help you much at all -- but you'd obviously be wrong.

If you want to know the truth about anyone or any organization -- why, just ask him/her/it!!

This would obviously be, for example, why we have criminal courts: so that accused persons may raise their right hand, say "I didn't do it", and be acquitted ... . What's that you say? Independent evidence??

Don't be silly.

.

[Blue_Chill]

97. So then you think the truth

Comes from listening to only one side of the story?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ant]

102. is that what Iverglas said?

Really - do you misrepresent people's posts on purpose or do you just really not understand what people are saying?

SURELY you understand the logic of not asking the Republican party who it is they help. SURELY you understand how that logic applies to the situation in this thread.

If anything Iverglas' post was about getting more than one side of the story, and the fact that you totally missed that is just absolutely astounding to me.

[Blue_Chill]

109. Yes it is.

It's not a misrepresentation of anything.

[ant]

114. wow

Do you really believe that? C'mon, just between you and me....

[Blue_Chill]

96. It is a flame war.

You refuse to accept any source other then those that are obviously bias.

[ant]

99. what sources?

I've gotten ONE - the actual sisters of charity site. Iverglas made a good point on asking the accused whether or not he's guilty.

The rest of the discussion was actually on the Vatican's behavior overall, not just MT's group. I don't think anyone's provided any sources at all on those points.

[sujan]

32. whatever

the beatification criteria is nonsense and laughable.

But then again, this is the catholic church, what would you expect?

The biggest anti-feminist of the 20th century - Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu aka 'Mother Teresa'.

[LittleApple81]

43. Wonk: I think you wanted a flame war. Anything related to this

beatification has been a flame war. Lets stop it. Why don't you call the admins on yourself?

[Bridget Burke]

51. Of course he wants a flame war.

Anything for a distraction. All the time we spend either attacking the church or defending it is time NOT spent attacking Bush & his minions.

Mission Accomplished!

[Wonk]

54. "Let's try and keep the holy wars in this thread to a minumum, ok?"

That's from the post that started the thread.

Some DUers apparently have difficulty discussing this without flaming, but this issue is news and I don't think the topic should be off limits. If admin wants to make a new rule that no threads having anything to do with religion or religious issues are allowed that's their prerogative, but then the spinoff implications would stifle all kinds of other discussions as well as this particular one.

[Terwilliger]

55. other: not indifferent

but not willing to judge

[DemBones DemBones]

59. A hint for the anti-Catholics here: If you don't like Catholicism, don't

be Catholic. Pretty simple, isn't it?

The amount of ignorance about Catholicism I read here at DU is absolutely staggering. If anyone posted this sort of uninformed crap about Islam or Judaism, all "liberal" DUers would be up in arms, outraged at their insensitivity. But when the hate is directed against Catholics, too many "liberals" look the other way.

As I explained at some length in the Let's-Bash-Mother-Teresa threads, her detractors' testimony is questionable. Further, I know someone who actually worked with Mother Teresa in Calcutta and returned home believing her to be a living saint. There are many others who knew her and her work and agreed with that assessment -- her supporters far outnumber her detractors.

Pope John Paul II has canonized and beatified many, many people in his twenty-five years as head of the Catholic Church. He believes that it's a good thing for Catholics to have good role models and he has canonized/ beatified people of a wide variety of ethnic and national origins, people from different eras, lots of Catholic laity (including lots of women.) He's sought out married people to beatify and canonize and generally tried to give Catholics more saints they can relate to and identify with. How is this not a good thing? In Catholic teaching (and all Christian teaching, as far as I know), believers are called to become saints themselves. Emulating people who are believed to be saints is a good way to work toward that goal.

However, Catholics don't have to "do" anything about the saints. We can honor them and ask them to pray for us, but we can also honor our family and friends and ask them to pray for us. We're not required to ask saints to pray for us, we're not required to honor them.

[sangh0]

65. A voice of reason

Off with your head!! :-)

[DemBones DemBones]

105. LOL, it often seems that we're through the looking glass here,

and it's a shame DUers foster that when there's so much political craziness that really does impact us all.

Who here at DU will suffer in any way because Mother Teresa is being beatified this week? Who will suffer if she's canonized?

If a few people in the world are inspired enough by Mother Teresa's life work (whether it's truth or myth) to attempt to help the poor in the way that they believe she did, that will benefit the world. If people believe in the possibility for goodness of the human spirit because of what they hear or read about Mother Teresa, that will benefit the world.

In a world that celebrates some pretty questionable people and forgives them all sorts of imperfections, why do people want to tear down a woman who devoted her life to the poor and dying?

[Forkboy]

72. hmmm

A hint for the anti-Catholics here: If you don't like Catholicism, don't be Catholic. Pretty simple, isn't it?

Not really.Believe me I'd love nothing better than to be able to ignore religion (not just Catholicism but ALL of them)...but religion keeps trying to tell me how I should behave.If the Church doesn't like the way I live they should just ignore me.That would be pretty simple too.

[sangh0]

90. Hmmm

What does the church do to stop you from doing whatever it is you want?

religion keeps trying to tell me

"Religion"? We're talking about the RC Church. Not all religions are the same.

[iverglas]

134. some people do seem to think

that the entire world lives in Peoria.

"What does the church do to stop you from doing whatever it is you want?

A woman in Ireland who was unable to obtain contraception legally in her own country for her entire reproductive life might be able to give you an answer. A woman trapped in an abusive marriage (or hell, any married couple who'd like to end it) in Chile right now could probably answer it for you too.

And then there are the millions of women all over the world whose lives are made miserable and cut short because the RC church exercised its influence to ensure that they are denied family planning services by their governments or by international organizations that rely on funding from sources influenced by the RC church, or because the RC church exercised its influence to ensure that their husbands were not encouraged to use condoms to prevent them from contracting HIV and passing it on to them ...

Yuppers, "not all religions are the same". Not all religious organizations and their adherents do these things. Some others do, but of course I haven't heard any praise being spoken for, oh, the fundamentalist Shia of Iran in this thread. And of course, if anybody does criticize said fundamentalist Shia and their leaders, s/he had better praise them simultaneously for something, or Blue_Chill will tell us not to listen to him/her. Ya can't criticize without saying something nice, too; that's his rule.


(html fixed)

.

[Bridget Burke]

94. EVERYONE is telling you how you should behave!

Turn on the TV or radio, read a newspaper or magazine, just go out in public. All over the place, people are telling you what to think, what to do, what to wear, who to (whatever). Sometimes they even come knocking on your door.

Once you grow up, you realize that it's up to you. You need to make allowances for traffic cops, bosses & landlords. Otherwise, you've got quite a bit of freedom to ignore what you consider irrelevant.

Of course, if you're not independent yet--either actually or psychologically--I can see that you've got a problem.

[DemBones DemBones]

103. Excellent point, Bridget! And if Catholics can ignore some of the

Catholic Church's teachings, why can't non-Catholics? :7

[ant]

110. you're both missing the point

You need to step outside your comfort zones and realize that not everyone lives like you do.

http://www.seechange.org/media/ms%20magazine%2010%2099.htm

...The Roman Catholic Church, represented at the U.N. by the Holy See, is the only religious body to enjoy "nonmember state permanent observer" status. NGOs such as the Women's Environment and Development Organization and U.N. agencies such as the World Health Organization also observe—but silently, from a raised gallery above the debate floor. The Holy See's "observer" gets to speak, to lobby, and to negotiate on virtually equal footing with any nation. The See may not vote, but it can and does influence the documents the nations vote on. And in the case of Cairo+5, the document contains elements as beneficial to women as they are odious to the Holy See.

Yes, this means little to the very privileged women of the US, but it can mean a lot of ugly things to women around the globe.

[sangh0]

111. No, you're still missing the point

Everyone has the opportunity to influence the UN. Public opinion led many UN representatives to vote against an invasion of Iraq.

[ant]

115. give me a break

FACT: The Vatican holds "nonmember state permanent observer" at the UN and gets to influence UN policy through its influence on other nations.

FACT: No other organization, let alone another religion, gets that sort of power.


Why the insistence that up is down, black is white, etc?

[sangh0]

118. Nope, no "breaks"

You can repeat "FACT" until the cows come home, but the real fact is that no nation changes it's policies due to their emotional attachment to the RC Church's UN representative. If the Church has influence, it's because it represents the beliefs of millions of people all over the world. You don't expect the UN to disregard the opinions of millions, do you?

Your 2nd "FACT" is just as wrong. The US government, another institution, has much more influence over the UN than the RC Church.

So why do you insist that "up" is "down"?

[ant]

124. like Alice in Wonderland

You can repeat "FACT" until the cows come home, but the real fact is that no nation changes it's policies due to their emotional attachment to the RC Church's UN representative.

You're just wrong. My god - it is amazing to me that you can just say things like this that are so totally and completely untrue!

You really should poke around the Catholics for a Free Choice site (http://www.seechange.org), or google up what some of the Church's reformers have to say. I lef the Church; I had no interest in sticking around. Many others DID decide to stick around and are trying to change it. You really should educate yourself on this.

Your 2nd "FACT" is just as wrong. The US government, another institution, has much more influence over the UN than the RC Church.

I kind of thought it was a given that I was referring to NON-GOVERNMENTAL orgs. OF COURSE govts are part of the UN! Sheesh.

[sangh0]

127. Oy vey!

1) The link you cite, www.seechange.org doesn't have one bit of evidence to support your claim that the Church has undue influence at the UN.

2) I kind of thought it was a given that I was referring to NON-GOVERNMENTAL orgs

Umm, maybe you haven't noticed, but aside from the Vatican, almost all of the UN's members are governmental. Basically, if you restrict your claim to NON-governmental orgs, then all you've said is that The RC Church is the most influential of a few organizations in the UN.

WOW! It's big fish in a small pond of UN NGO's. How scary!

[ant]

132. oy vey indeed

The link you cite, www.seechange.org doesn't have one bit of evidence to support your claim that the Church has undue influence at the UN.

Excuse me - the Church has a position that no one else gets to have. They get to attend meetings and see documents that no other NGO gets to see. This is a RELIGION we are talkinga bout. That one fact alone is evidence for my claim.

And if you'd like evidence for the claim that the above translates into an effect on policy, here you go:
http://www.population-security.org/29-APP3.html


Because of his position and the length of his tenure, Milton P. Siegel is considered among the world's foremost authorities on the development of World Health Organization policy. In this videotaped interview (available from the Center for Research on Population and Security, P.O. Box 13067, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, for $19), he reveals the influence of the Vatican in shaping WHO policy, particularly in blocking adoption of the concept that overpopulation is a grave public-health threat -- a concept which, in WHO's early years, enjoyed a broad consensus among member countries.

Without this separation of population dynamics from WHO public-health policy, the Vatican would have found it much more difficult to subsequently manipulate governments on such issues as family planning and abortion. National leaders would have been able to refer to the international consensus, as demonstrated by WHO policy. WHO, they could have insisted, has determined that family planning and abortion -- like clean water, good nutrition, and immunizations -- are necessary to protect public health.

Umm, maybe you haven't noticed, but aside from the Vatican, almost all of the UN's members are governmental.

Precisely my point.

Basically, if you restrict your claim to NON-governmental orgs, then all you've said is that The RC Church is the most influential of a few organizations in the UN.

The RC is the ONLY organization to get the status it has. THE ONLY ONE. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

WOW! It's big fish in a small pond of UN NGO's. How scary!

That other poster I've been talking to used this same tactic: belittle the concern as somewhat paranoid and exaggerated, as if that's going to somehow change the reality. Here's a hint: it won't.

[ant]

92. one point

A hint for the anti-Catholics here: If you don't like Catholicism, don't"be Catholic. Pretty simple, isn't it?

Simple for me. I can afford my own birth control, I can visit whatever doctor I want, I can have an abortion if I want, control the number of children I have, attend school, get a job, etc...not all women in the world enjoy that luxury, of course, and it's because of the Church's influence on their governments. I happen to care about that. It makes me angry that women die because of the Church. It makes me angry that that is acceptable.

And, by the way, I speak out against it the same way I spoke out against the Taliban back before 9/11. Lord (heh) knows governments influenced by Islam are usually no better.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

123. exactly dembones..thank you

[Brian Sweat]

76. Since I am an atheist, it really doesn't matter to me.

[mmonk]

116. Wish you hadn't posted that.

I'm Catholic and wish you hadn't posted it in that its irrelevant to the current political discussion in this country (being a Catholic matter). Another reason is that religious hatred runs deep in this country as it does around the world. Does anyone know how many wars have there been which were by induced by religion besides the current one? Oh well.

[Jack The Tab]

120. Speaking as someone who has serious disdain for organized religion..

I usually do not even post on these religious threads, because I feel that getting into an argument about religion with a churchmember is the same as the missionary trying to convert people of other religions. Agree to disagree, and never force or try to convert.

It assumes a very arrogant attitude towards those with different beliefs.

[ForrestGump]

125. I think she was quite beatiful as she was

I don't really care either way - solely because it doesn't really mean anything at all to me. She did some good things, and she is remembered with honored affection and with gratitude and for those deeds. Anything else is just groovy, in my eyes.