Saint Teresa

[ProfessorDavey]

Many people just seem to have got into the habit of being skeptical and scornful. Compulsive disorder almost. 

St.Teresa has done remarkable things that none of us here  would even thing of doing. She is considered a saint because she showed love and care to people (lepers) who no one (even many doctors) would even touch. She literally picked them up from the streets and gave them some dignity and care.

You people are going on and no about injections and needles.  She gave them whatever care was available locally at that time. Five star treatment was never the option. Even today in India and many other poorer countries, over crowded hospitals in rural areas and even urban areas probably run with the same kind of very basic care.

Wrong on so many counts.

She wasn't the only one providing care - despite the western 'myth' there were (and still are) many, many similar organisations working in Calcutta - indeed in one of the most well research and damning critiques of her work (by a person from Calcutta, so someone who actually knows what was going on on the ground) her organisation wasn't even in the top 20 in the city in terms of the number of poor people it helped. So hers was a astonishingly wealthy organisation doing very little while many other organisations with a fraction of her funding were doing far more.

And no I'm not banging on and on about needles - we are talking about basic fundamental care here. She could afford to provide basic care (clean needles, proper pain relief, basic diagnostic tests, antibiotics) - but she chose not to. The result that people with easily treatable diseases were assumed to be dying and were allowed to die. Others arriving would become infected with life threatening disease due to lack of basic medical hygiene. Those dying suffered unnecessary painful deaths (which if anyone has seen someone die in this manner is where dignity goes out of the window) because she withheld the necessary analgesics needed to manage their pain. She had tens of millions in funding - plenty to be able to provide such basic (and extremely cheap) items - she made the choice not to offer this basic care to the people she took in.

At best her choice on this is gross neglect, at worse massively abusive. Bad luck for anyone on the streets who encountered her organisation rather than one of the many others who provide much more appropriate basic and medical care to the most needy.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think it's just she had so much money donated, Sriram.

People want to see where it was spent.

Sometimes I think ALL charities that get donations from the public should make their finances known even to be given the status of being a charity and to be allowed to advertise as such.

It would at least show people which ones were genuine.

Indeed - yet she has refused to do so in virtually all countries in which she works - in some cases acting against the law.

And you are right that people who donate should know how their money is being used and how the 'ethos' of the charity is being delivered.

I sure many of her donors would be horrified to learn that despite being able to afford basic care (clean needles, proper analgesics etc) she chose not to buy them and provide them to those in her care.

[Nearly Sane]

Many people just seem to have got into the habit of being skeptical and scornful. Compulsive disorder almost. 

St.Teresa has done remarkable things that none of us here  would even thing of doing. She is considered a saint because she showed love and care to people (lepers) who no one (even many doctors) would even touch. She literally picked them up from the streets and gave them some dignity and care.

You people are going on and no about injections and needles.  She gave them whatever care was available locally at that time. Five star treatment was never the option. Even today in India and many other poorer countries, over crowded hospitals in rural areas and even urban areas probably run with the same kind of very basic care.

Being named a Saint by the Catholic Church though needs something more than that, it needs miracles.

[Sriram]

Wrong on so many counts.

She wasn't the only one providing care - despite the western 'myth' there were (and still are) many, many similar organisations working in Calcutta - indeed in one of the most well research and damning critiques of her work (by a person from Calcutta, so someone who actually knows what was going on on the ground) her organisation wasn't even in the top 20 in the city in terms of the number of poor people it helped. So hers was a astonishingly wealthy organisation doing very little while many other organisations with a fraction of her funding were doing far more.

And no I'm not banging on and on about needles - we are talking about basic fundamental care here. She could afford to provide basic care (clean needles, proper pain relief, basic diagnostic tests, antibiotics) - but she chose not to. The result that people with easily treatable diseases were assumed to be dying and were allowed to die. Others arriving would become infected with life threatening disease due to lack of basic medical hygiene. Those dying suffered unnecessary painful deaths (which if anyone has seen someone die in this manner is where dignity goes out of the window) because she withheld the necessary analgesics needed to manage their pain. She had tens of millions in funding - plenty to be able to provide such basic (and extremely cheap) items - she made the choice not to offer this basic care to the people she took in.

At best her choice on this is gross neglect, at worse massively abusive. Bad luck for anyone on the streets who encountered her organisation rather than one of the many others who provide much more appropriate basic and medical care to the most needy.

And that's the point I am making. Its not about the kind of care they got or the technology and state of the art stuff that they were provided. That needs doctors and money. She was special because she picked people (lepers) up from the streets and provided them love and care.....which no other doctors and wealthy people would do.  So...its not about the kind of technology and  care they received. The fact that they received something when no one else did anything, is what is special.

Money....many people (especially the missionary types) may not realize the importance of keeping up to date accounts and declaring their P&L and B/S and stuff. They will leave it to some accountant... and that is that. Their minds don't work from a commercial angle.

[Sriram]

Being named a Saint by the Catholic Church though needs something more than that, it needs miracles.

Yes...and the fact that the Catholic church has done decades of investigation into the miracles that she is said to have performed, is proof that there is something to it. In today's world of science and transparency, it cannot be just a hoax.

[floo]

Yes...and the fact that the Catholic church has done decades of investigation into the miracles that she is said to have performed, is proof that there is something to it. In today's world of science and transparency, it cannot be just a hoax.

Of course it is a hoax!

[Nearly Sane]

Yes...and the fact that the Catholic church has done decades of investigation into the miracles that she is said to have performed, is proof that there is something to it. In today's world of science and transparency, it cannot be just a hoax.

no, it doesn't because the Catholic Church doesn't have a method what are in this case claims of the supernatural. And your position on this does not help then since despite their 'decades' of research you are telling them that their claims are not miracles as how they regard them.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course it is a hoax!

the idea of miracle or a hoax is a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible that the miracle  claims are being made by entirely genuine people.

[floo]

the idea of miracle or a hoax is a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible that the miracle  claims are being made by entirely genuine people.

Claims yes, but there is a natural explanation for them, imo. I experienced a 'miracle' of healing once, but firmly believe it was nothing to do with any supernatural entity.

[Gordon]

Yes...and the fact that the Catholic church has done decades of investigation into the miracles that she is said to have performed, is proof that there is something to it.

They may well think this, but without some form of method underpinning their 'investigations' their conclusions are at best unfounded and at worst fallacious - so no 'proof' at all.

In today's world of science and transparency, it cannot be just a hoax.

That they accept these miracle claims doesn't imply a hoax though. It may be that by setting the evidential bar so low they could trip over is sufficient for them to genuinely support their desired conclusion of divine intervention.

[floo]

Do people actually pray to saints for miracles?

[Nearly Sane]

Do people actually pray to saints for miracles?

Yes but to get to be a saint , you need to 'perform' first one miracle which gets you beatified, and then a second one to get canonised (special rules apply for martyrs)

[floo]

Yes but to get to be a saint , you need to 'perform' first one miracle which gets you beatified, and then a second one to get canonised (special rules apply for martyrs)

Is that before or after they are dead?

[jeremyp]

I repeat:    do you acknowledge that she and her followers have done much good for the deprived?

I think, in net terms, she made it worse for the poor and sick of Calcutta. She may have improved the lot of some people but she made others worse, perhaps even killing them.

Furthermore, because of her profile, other better charities working in Calcutta didn't get the funding they needed.

Also, note that when she became ill, she didn't spend her time lying on a camp bed in a room full of 50 other women being injected with dirty needles and being denied proper analgesics.

[Nearly Sane]

Is that before or after they are dead?

After

[ProfessorDavey]

I think, in net terms, she made it worse for the poor and sick of Calcutta. She may have improved the lot of some people but she made others worse, perhaps even killing them.

Furthermore, because of her profile, other better charities working in Calcutta didn't get the funding they needed.

Also, note that when she became ill, she didn't spend her time lying on a camp bed in a room full of 50 other women being injected with dirty needles and being denied proper analgesics.

I agree with that.

The perception that she was necessarily doing good is predicated on the myth that hers was the only organisation helping the poor in Calcutta - it wasn't. There were and still are many other organisations that were helping more people, trying to help them more effectively (in other words believed in providing basic medical care such as clean needles, proper analgesics, antibiotics etc) yet were starved of the resources they might otherwise have received due to the tens of millions hoarded by MT which failed to be translated into a level of care commensurate with that level of funding.

[floo]

After

So how can you attribute a miracle to someone who is dead?

[Udayana]

Imagination is a powerful tool!

[BeRational]

So how can you attribute a miracle to someone who is dead?

Whatever you do, do NOT use evidence, as that will mean that none will be attributed.

[jeremyp]

So how can you attribute a miracle to someone who is dead?

In the opinion of the Catholic Church, Mother Teresa is not dead.

[Nearly Sane]

So how can you attribute a miracle to someone who is dead?

I don't really see it makes any difference if they are alive or dead, but the Catholic Church's approach for miracle cures, and that seems to be all that is currently used for beatification and canonisation,is as follows:

'The patient was sick, there was no known cure for the ailment, prayers were directed to the Venerable, the patient was cured, the cure was spontaneous, instantaneous, complete, and lasting, and doctors cannot find any natural explanation.'

[BeRational]

I don't really see it makes any difference if they are alive or dead, but the Catholic Church's approach for miracle cures, and that seems to be all that is currently used for beatification and canonisation,is as follows:

'The patient was sick, there was no known cure for the ailment, prayers were directed to the Venerable, the patient was cured, the cure was spontaneous, instantaneous, complete, and lasting, and doctors cannot find any natural explanation.'

Does this mean that if a natural explanation is found in the future, some saints will be dropped?

[Nearly Sane]

Does this mean that if a natural explanation is found in the future, some saints will be dropped?

I know the Catholic Church had a big clear out of saints but iirc that was done in the basis that there was no evidence the person existed.  I don't know of any cases where the miracles were revisited and found to be natural but I am no expert on the subject.


ETA had a quick check and though there was a clear out of the liturgical calendar for Saints' days it appears the saints are still saints

[floo]

Statistically speaking it would be interesting to know how often prayers for healing to god or the saints result in a positive response?

[Nearly Sane]

Statistically speaking it would be interesting to know how often prayers for healing to god or the saints result in a positive response?

there have been studies in prayer that show no effect but given the caveats placed around the concept it has little value. In addition even if there was a noticeable effect, we have no methods that would support the claims as to the supernatural.