View Single Post
  #82  
Old 17 March 2010, 07:07 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Jay View Post
IMO, not doing enough good is not the same as not doing good. She could have definetly done a lot more, but her net contribution to the world has been a positive one
This is generally true, but we are talking about a special case.

She was doing next to nothing, and had the capability of doing exponentially more, and was receiving financial donations from people for the specific purpose of doing more.

Then, she was not doing less than she could, because rather than volunteer 2 hours at the soup kitchen, she wanted to volunteer one hour, then go home and play Nintendo for one hour. She gave people dying of cancer, TB and AIDS aspirin for their pain, or nothing at all, and told them it was good to suffer, because Jesus liked it, when she could have given them morphine.

She wouldn't let HIV- women married to HIV+ men have condoms, and being a medical center (although I use the term loosely) she was the natural distribution center for such things, but she refused to stock them. In her opinion, it was better for the couple to have unprotected sex, even if the woman caught HIV, and both parents died of AIDS, leaving behind an HIV+ baby who also died very soon, since the mother was denied AZT during pregnancy, and the baby was denied it after birth.

All that was just ducky, as far as M. Teresa was concerned, because they suffered, so they would get to go to heaven and be with Jesus.

BTW: Catholics on the board-- does the church really go in for suffering like this? I know there are individuals who do, and probably would justify some other way if they were not Catholic, but is this really a doctrine of the church at large?
Reply With Quote