|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Mother Teresa
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
I was annoyed earlier this week by a post on Facebook, setting out all the bad things Mother Teresa is supposed to have said and done. Most of them are outlined here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa
I didn't want to get into a row on Facebook - such things inevitably leading to bad feeling and frustration, so I thought I'd start one here instead.
It rankled, because the article (from a humanist propaganda webpage, the name of which I forget) used terms such as "masochism" and "religious fanatic" - which I think shows a complete misunderstanding of the Christian take on the value of suffering.
I am particularly enraged by the Christopher Hitchens position, of criticising the efforts of Mother T and her ilk, whilst doing sod all to help the suffering poor himself.
(By the way, hello again. I've been away for ages, but it's nice to see some familiar people are still posting on here. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I would simply scroll past it on fb, rather than post a comment which would only share it among more people.
Like most of the propaganda put out about us, it falls on the first hurdle to anyone who actually thinks about it rather than letting it tickle their ears.
Why would Mother Teresa try to alleviate the suffering of people if she really thought it was good for them to suffer? Der...
Those who want to discredit anything good that religious people do will twist and distort the truth to try to make their case.
I've noticed however that anyone with a good reputation will have people wanting to put them down. Perhaps jealousy is behind it?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Raptor Eye: quote:
Why would Mother Teresa try to alleviate the suffering of people if she really thought it was good for them to suffer? Der...
The point some people are making is that she really didn't do her best to alleviate suffering, at least physical suffering. Things she said indicate that in her opinion suffering is a gift of God. Some people say that the millions of dollars of donations could have been used to better advantage to provide real medical relief. I know that CH had his own dog in this fight so am not impressed by his polemics, but I don't think it unreasonable to look closely at how her charities were administered.
From Wiki: quote:
In 1991, Robin Fox, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet visited the Home for Dying Destitutes in Calcutta (now Kolkata) and described the medical care the patients received as "haphazard".[11] He observed that sisters and volunteers, some of whom had no medical knowledge, had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors in the hospice. Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for conditions in this home, and observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment
Her organization was and is exemplary in the realm of spiritual comfort, but it seems it might do better in practical matters IMO.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I don't know the truth about her. I remember when journalist Malcolm Muggeridge spent lots of time with her, and wrote the book "Something Beautiful For God". Much of the world saw her as a saint, because of that.
Perhaps there were many Teresas*: the little girl who grew up idolizing missionaries who went to India; the young woman who entered an Irish convent, then went to India; the nun and teacher; the woman who saw a need and tried to fill it; the nun who was tough on her missionaries; the woman who evidently suffered from long-term, deep depression; the woman who grew up old-school, pre-VatII Catholic; the very flawed person; the squeaky clean image; the now-official saint.
I reject the idea that suffering is a gift from God. But it's a common idea among Christians, especially certain kinds of old-school ones. It may well be the way she looked at her own depression. (IIRC, long-ago news reports said there was something about that in her diary or letters. Not sure if she was on any medication.)
I have severe depression, too--though controlled, now. That can take many forms. But if her symptoms and suffering were anything like mine, it's a miracle she managed to do anything at all, let alone anything good.
Long way of saying that she was probably a mixed bag.
*I have her Wikipedia article open.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
As someone on this site pointed out before; it's a little difficult to be surprised when a very conservative Catholic lives her life according to her conservative principles and publicly endorses conservative Catholic ideology. Personally, I think there is some fair criticism to be made here but not in the kind of triumphalist, point scoring way it is so often made by rather hard line humanist and atheist groups. Even in this realm of criticism though, she cannot be judged in grand isolation - she was a woman of her time.
She gets a lot of criticism that she didn't take proper care of the sick and dying, but this is often judged in comparison to current levels of western hospital and hospice care. She was working in poverty for the poverty stricken and with those society would not touch. Even in giving them a roof and a basic bed she made a challenge to her society which many Hindu and Christian groups/sects have done before and since. I recently read a criticism written only a couple of years ago by a nurse who was with her in the late seventies and early eighties and criticised her for using needles with multiple patients and wasn't this just terrible, she was spreading HIV. Well, guess what, we were all doing that in fancy western hospitals then too because it was just after this period that a full understanding of the disease arose in the west.
What really strikes me as a strange and mixed up paradox is the criticism of her as a saint. It's as if humanists and atheists have a much better understanding of what a saint is, when in reality they are working on the basis of parody. A saint is not all good all of the time - there is not one who fits this mould. I hope I don't have to point to the failings of the disciples. Teresa* had a sex drive that would have put Prince in the shade. Francis quite deliberately wasted good money and opportunity. Columba was by all accounts an argumentative wretch. St David was so strict he'd make a ascetic Buddhist monk look greedy and tried to make a virtue out of misery. I could go on, but perhaps you get the point. It just seems a little hypocritical to me for humanists and atheists to point at a saint and accuse them of not being saintly enough.
*Not Mother Teresa; although, who knows!
[ 07. September 2016, 08:23: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
I offer no opinion on Mother Teresa.
In 1990/91 I worked in a Mission Hospital in northern Haiti for a while. I was there for the first democratic election and for an attempted coup.
One weekend, we travelled 6 hours south to the capital and we visited a Sisters of Charity home for the dying in Port au Prince.
It was in the midst of a slum. Filthy outside, immaculate inside. There were whitewashed walls and statues. There were rows of cots with dying emaciated patients being massaged, touched and cared for. This was when AIDS was new and frightening and Haiti was an epicentre. There were no doctors I saw but simply the dying being treated with respect and care. And touch! No one touched AIDS patients- I remember the fear we felt when a mosquito bit an AIDS patient in our clinic...
I have no photos.
This was the most sacred space I have ever been in.
The sense of God was palpable.
I have no comment on the person, Mother Teresa. I cannot comment on the broader order she established. But for me, this exposure to this Hospice was life changing and has led me into palliative care. And I am profoundly grateful.
This was praxis of faith. This was the relationship of the Trinity in action. Every nun in that place was a saint. Flawed, but a saint none the less.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
fletcher christian--
--Which Teresa? D'Avila?
--Re criticism of saints by atheists and humanists: Perhaps some of them think "perfect and total holiness" is what it officially says on the label, and they think what's in the tin doesn't measure up? (As opposed to those who might want to pick apart Christianity, for other reasons.) Sometimes, critics are people who want to believe or like something. FWIW.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
The Little Flower of jesus; who rather ironically had been deflowered quite extensively.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hilda of Whitby
Shipmate
# 7341
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The Little Flower of jesus; who rather ironically had been deflowered quite extensively.
Are you talking about St. Therese of Lisieux?? Who entered the Carmelite convent at Lisieux at age 15?? She, not Teresa of Avila, is commonly known as "The Little Flower". If you do mean Therese of Lisieux, I'd like to see some trustworthy documentation of your claim.
Like Lyda Rose, I think Mother Teresa's organization gives exemplary spiritual sustenance and care to the most wretched people in society, but there have been valid questions raised about the administration of her organization.
I personally was not crazy about her apparent cozying up to despots like the Duvaliers in Haiti.
I have never bought for one minute the idea that some of Mother Teresa's critics have raised-- that because Mother Teresa went through a decades-long "dark night of the soul", this somehow invalidates her. To me, it makes her religious commitment even more astonishing because she was getting no emotional sustenance from it.
Saints are people; they are not divine and they are not perfect. I'm not Catholic, and in my view, Mother Teresa, flaws and all, was an exemplar of Jesus's teachings to recognize the inherent worth and dignity of the most needy in society, to serve them, and to share in their poverty.
--------------------
"Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world is mad."
Posts: 412 | From: Nickel City | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Just to check, there are at least three Sts Theresa, and as I'm writing in English I'm going to spell them all the same way with an 'h' and an 'a'. They have nothing in common except their name.
St Theresa of Avila, C16 Spanish mystic, writer of the Interior Castle etc and subject of a famous statue by Bernini.
St Theresa of Lisieux, C19 French nun, also known as the Little Flower. Some find her piety very inspiring but it can strike others as a bit neurotic and mawkish.
As of this week, St Theresa of Calcutta, otherwise Mother Theresa, the subject of this thread.
Now, my questions:-
1. Which one is it alleged had been "deflowered quite extensively"? And on what evidence? That's an extraordinary and scandalous allegation that I've never heard that of any of them. Nor does it does it fit with their lives as they are normally recounted.
2. Which one, Leo, have you so emphatically no time for? Is my suspicion correct that it is Theresa of Lisieux? Or am I making that assumption because, although I wouldn't be so emphatic, I don't really get her either?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by angelfish quote:
...a complete misunderstanding of the Christian take on the value of suffering.
The trouble is there are two Christian "takes" on the value of suffering.
For the most part, 20th/21st century Christianity may accept the line that 'suffering is good for the soul' but it goes hand-in-hand with the given that it is for an individual to 'choose' suffering for themselves.
This is in contrast to much earlier belief in the value of suffering - as typified by the attitudes and actions of the crusades and the inquisition - that the 'choice' could be applied to others, even (sometimes especially) non-Christians.
Where MT has aroused controversy is that she was clearly of the second, older school which believed that it was acceptable to 'choose' suffering on behalf of someone else - and in the case of her Homes for the Dying this meant lack of provision of basic pain relief, poor standards of hygiene, etc, etc, etc.
For decades there were cases of returning volunteers from MT's Houses who were particularly sickened not only by the lack of pain relief but by a failure to get people brought to her properly diagnosed: particularly shocking when you know that her Houses were in the middle of three good hospitals, one specialising in kidney disease which is especially prevalent in this part of the world and from which many of her 'patients' suffered.
MT and her nuns employed a policy of deciding that the people brought to her were, in effect, choosing suffering: perhaps if they had bothered to ask their views they might have discovered different?
(corrected typo/omission)
[ 07. September 2016, 12:11: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The most disturbing story about MT is that the incurable were mixed up with the curable, and the latter might die of medical neglect. However, of course, for me, this is hearsay, and I have no direct knowledge.
Interesting points by L'organist. One of Hitchens' points was that MT loved poverty not the poor; I suppose you could argue that she loved suffering, not those suffering. But again, while this is an interesting issue about ideology or theology, it's difficult to ratify.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Sorry, my flippancy got the better of me confusing Teresa's. Not that it changes the point I was making.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There is a well-known 'Lancet' article on MT, but I can't find a way to it, it's either via payment, or via membership of ScienceDirect.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The most disturbing story about MT is that the incurable were mixed up with the curable, and the latter might die of medical neglect. However, of course, for me, this is hearsay, and I have no direct knowledge.
And further, one would need to know if there was access to better medical care for this particular group of poor-but- curable patients. The Sisters of Charity were able to offer one sort of care, the fact that they weren't Doctors w/o Borders does not diminish the care and comfort they were able to provide. Now, if there is evidence that they somehow prevented the curable from reaching superior medical care, that would be a problem. But the fact that they weren't everything to everyone should not be.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, some defenders of MT argue that India is very poor, that they were not offering medical care, and so the lack of pain-killers, clean needles, and antibiotics is explicable. OK, but were these things available at the hospital down the road? I don't know.
There is also the issue of finance, since I think they have always refused any kind of audit of accounts.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
catnip
Apprentice
# 18638
|
Posted
quote:
I am particularly enraged by the Christopher Hitchens position, of criticising the efforts of Mother T and her ilk, whilst doing sod all to help the suffering poor himself.
I am too. I have found that most of his criticisms are hot air and can be answered to. Perhaps she didn't do things the way he would have, had he been moved to help suffering humanity in some self-sacrificing way. Perhaps she was just too much an example of the good that is religion and he had to attack it. Simply, she was chosen as a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and India paid all her air travel expense--there must be a reason. At any rate, there are now 6,000 people living lives dedicated to her mission and that in itself is impressive to me.
I'm glad she is a saint now and hopefully the campaigns and controversies concerning her mission will cease.
May they both rest in peace.
Posts: 17 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Aug 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As someone on this site pointed out before; it's a little difficult to be surprised when a very conservative Catholic lives her life according to her conservative principles and publicly endorses conservative Catholic ideology. Personally, I think there is some fair criticism to be made here but not in the kind of triumphalist, point scoring way it is so often made by rather hard line humanist and atheist groups.
I'd add Protestants to your list for this example.
I agree, if you look for flaws, they will be there. Mother Teresa was not perfect, neither in her person or in her efforts, but in all but the most biased slant she comes out pretty good.
quote:
Even in this realm of criticism though, she cannot be judged in grand isolation - she was a woman of her time.
This is not an acceptable excuse for anyone. Where Mother Teresa failed, she failed. She was human.
Looking at the whole of her however, she passes.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
How do I get the whole of her?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
On the one hand, it bothers me that the RCC suspended its traditional rules and procedures for vetting candidates for sainthood in her specific case, apparently in order to fast-track her canonization as a foregone conclusion.
On the other hand, in the abstract, as a liberal Protestant I recognize that we are all simul justus et peccator, so I don't myself expect saints to be inhumanly sinless, and as a liberal Protestant I don't myself require proof of supernatural posthumous miracles in order to deem someone saintly, so I can hardly blame another denomination for moving closer to my own attitude.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, some defenders of MT argue that India is very poor, that they were not offering medical care, and so the lack of pain-killers, clean needles, and antibiotics is explicable. OK, but were these things available at the hospital down the road? I don't know.
There is also the issue of finance, since I think they have always refused any kind of audit of accounts.
Mother Teresa was A Name and amassed quite a lot of donations. Somehow I think services of a doctor who could write prescriptions, even on a part time basis, would not be beyond the charity's means.
Anyway, I have read that the facilities of the hospices were kept clean and comfortable in a general way, and I'm sure that the kind care and attentions of the sisters were a great comfort to the patients.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, some defenders of MT argue that India is very poor, that they were not offering medical care, and so the lack of pain-killers, clean needles, and antibiotics is explicable. OK, but were these things available at the hospital down the road? I don't know.
There is also the issue of finance, since I think they have always refused any kind of audit of accounts.
Mother Teresa was A Name and amassed quite a lot of donations. Somehow I think services of a doctor who could write prescriptions, even on a part time basis, would not be beyond the charity's means.
Sure. She would also have the means to set up a facility for training guide dogs, or a recycling center, or water purification systems. There are all sorts of good and worthy things MT could have done with her fame and the clout it gave her for raising $$. She chose to do this thing-- provide care and comfort to the sick and dying. If you prefer to give to medical aid (and there are of course very good reasons to do so), there is doctors without borders-- just as there are charities to train guide dogs, set up recycling centers, and build water purification systems. But the fact that Sisters of Charity was not those things is no reason to criticize them unless, again, they somehow prevented people from accessing those other services.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
i HAVE NO TIME FOR HER.
Go on, Leo, tell us why?
And why the need to shout?
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
On the one hand, it bothers me that the RCC suspended its traditional rules and procedures for vetting candidates for sainthood in her specific case, apparently in order to fast-track her canonization as a foregone conclusion.
Which seems problematic because, as I understand it, those rules are in place for exactly such cases as Mother Teresa; someone with a lot of contemporary fame whose followers' zeal may put undue pressure on the consideration of sainthood.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by LilBuddha:
quote:
This is not an acceptable excuse for anyone.
I think that would be manifestly unfair to a lot of people throughout history. For instance, those who worked in medical care and used un-sterilised instruments to treat patients just before the necessary advances pointed out the flaw can hardly be held to account in guilt for their lack of knowledge. They were a people of their time, doing what they believed was right and proper. In the case of Mother Teresa I'm quite sure there are many things with the gift of hindsight that she could have done differently or better, but some of that may be judging her actions and activities through our time.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Sorry, my flippancy got the better of me confusing Teresa's. Not that it changes the point I was making.
Fletcher, some of us would still like to know which St Theresa is the one who is alleged to have had a lurid private life, and what those allegations are. Please could you enlighten us.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by LilBuddha:
quote:
This is not an acceptable excuse for anyone.
I think that would be manifestly unfair to a lot of people throughout history. For instance, those who worked in medical care and used un-sterilised instruments to treat patients just before the necessary advances pointed out the flaw can hardly be held to account in guilt for their lack of knowledge.
I wasn't speaking of that, but of the associations with dictators and such.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, some defenders of MT argue that India is very poor, that they were not offering medical care, and so the lack of pain-killers, clean needles, and antibiotics is explicable. OK, but were these things available at the hospital down the road? I don't know.
There is also the issue of finance, since I think they have always refused any kind of audit of accounts.
Mother Teresa was A Name and amassed quite a lot of donations. Somehow I think services of a doctor who could write prescriptions, even on a part time basis, would not be beyond the charity's means.
Sure. She would also have the means to set up a facility for training guide dogs, or a recycling center, or water purification systems. There are all sorts of good and worthy things MT could have done with her fame and the clout it gave her for raising $$. She chose to do this thing-- provide care and comfort to the sick and dying. If you prefer to give to medical aid (and there are of course very good reasons to do so), there is doctors without borders-- just as there are charities to train guide dogs, set up recycling centers, and build water purification systems. But the fact that Sisters of Charity was not those things is no reason to criticize them unless, again, they somehow prevented people from accessing those other services.
I respectfully disagree. She and her order took on the responsibility of caring for people with severe physical ailments. What are they going to do? Walk down to the hospital? I do feel the need to criticize them for neglecting their clients' physical suffering. Bringing recycling centers, seeing-eye dogs, and water purification into the discussion is out in left field. I am speaking of the care of her charges.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A lot of critics allege that she glorified suffering. Well, that could be OK, in fact, many religions glorify suffering, as a means of breaking attachments.
But I suppose here we are talking about not treating the suffering with adequate care, since their suffering was more important as a path to holiness, the so-called 'kiss of Jesus'. One patient is suppose to have said, please stop Jesus kissing me.
This would be inflicting suffering.
However, the same provisos apply - a lot of this stuff is anecdotal, it may miscontrue a different culture, and there is a built-in hostility to her (for example, by atheists).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A lot of critics allege that she glorified suffering.
And then there are all those medieval saints who whipped themselves and lived on a crust of bread per day, etc.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A lot of critics allege that she glorified suffering.
And then there are all those medieval saints who whipped themselves and lived on a crust of bread per day, etc.
sabine
Go for it!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Enoch:
quote:
Fletcher, some of us would still like to know which St Theresa is the one who is alleged to have had a lurid private life, and what those allegations are. Please could you enlighten us.
Ok, before you enter your own repulsive orgasmic ecstasy over this and for the sake of keeping the thread on track I shall be brief.
Firstly I made correction in the thread above; you likely missed it when you were off playing with yourself while contemplating your conquests on this thread. Teresa's own Life document (Vida) is very revealing. Only the most terminally unimaginative would read the friendship with Ana and/or Guiomar as a platonic friendship. They weren't the only ones to visit the palacio. One particular family friend (a female) is also mentioned with very revealing text. Traditionally it has been translated in rather conservative and frankly silly ways. Her father is terribly disapproving. His reaction is swift and extreme.
The accusations at her trial essentially centre on her orthodoxy but also make accusation of her sexual conduct and appetites. Now this may well be scandal, but it does mirror Teresa's own statements about her former life. There has been much written about whether much of this is in response to a chronic grief, but over time it morphs into a religious experience. From 1535 to 1540 Teresa's recorded prayers, utterances and visions become increasingly erotically charged until of course we get to the famous orgasmic moment.
Anyway, I doubt you actually care.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
i HAVE NO TIME FOR HER.
Enough time to post this though.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Fletcher, leaving aside some of your language, that would have been interesting. Certainly, I am not knowledgeable enough to have heard those allegations. Also at the time of your earlier post, there was quite a lot of confusion as to which Theresa the various people posting were referring and when.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The Mother Teresa debate to me, seems to be stuck in a conflation between the popular understanding of sainthood and the Christian theology of it. If the objection to Teresa being canonized is that she wasn't as perfect as she is made out to be, well then, none of the saints, save the BVM in RC interpretation, meets the criteria. Indeed, St Jerome is often held up as an example as a really, really nasty guy, who nevertheless because of his translation, the Vulgate, entered into the canon.
When it comes to the question of suffering, the ethical question is the distinction between accepting suffering as part of existence, and the imperative to relieve suffering as an ethical demand of compassion. Teresa can be criticized theologically for having a somewhat superficial understanding of identifying others' suffering with that of the suffering of Jesus.
She isn't the first to make this error, but one thing I learned is that everyone is entitled to interpret their own life experience however they see fit, but they can't interpret others' suffering for them. For example, I am free to see my own suffering or distress through the lens of the suffering Christ, but I am not entitled to tell others to see their own suffering that way.
None of this necessarily "disqualifies" her from sainthood, but one can be sympathetic to her, while still be constructively critical of her theology and her practices.
[ 07. September 2016, 23:58: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I respectfully disagree. She and her order took on the responsibility of caring for people with severe physical ailments. What are they going to do? Walk down to the hospital? I do feel the need to criticize them for neglecting their clients' physical suffering. Bringing recycling centers, seeing-eye dogs, and water purification into the discussion is out in left field. I am speaking of the care of her charges.
She took responsibility for caring for ailing people-- providing comfort and palliative care. She didn't take responsibility for curing people, and to my knowledge, didn't prevent anyone from seeking a cure anywhere one was available to them. She wasn't some con artist selling quack cures or prayer cloths or some such thing-- she was the leader of a group of women who would (as described above) massage and touch and soothe the wounds of people (e.g. HIV+) no one else wanted to massage or touch or soothe.
I am a huge admirer and supporter of the work of organizations like Doctors w/o Borders-- who ARE focused on providing cures. If MT were passing herself off as that-- as providing a cure, or preventing people from seeking medical care (as some prosperity-gospel faith healers might do) I would see a huge problem. But I don't see any evidence that that was the case. I simply see evidence that she felt a calling to one particular thing-- providing a human touch, a compassionate touch, to people who were suffering. Faulting her for not being Doctors without Borders does not appear to me to be much different from faulting her for not training guide dogs or building water purification systems (which, btw, is another way to cure disease).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I don't so much fault her for not providing cures as much as not arranging for some relief from physical pain. I repeat: what were her clients supposed to do? Walk to the nearest hospital? Some might have had family to help them get there, but if most of her clients had such resources, they wouldn't have been in her hospice. If you ever get a serious, painful illness, imagine how you would feel without modern pain meds. I applaud her order for providing love and kindness. I just think that with their resources they could have arranged some physical comfort as well, without setting up a full-blown clinic.
My father died at home in hospice care. Our family provided the loving touches and company that the sisters provide for their clients. But he would have been much more miserable without the resources provided by the nurses who visited a few times a week. I truly think that some relief could have been provided for pain given all the donations that poured in for this worthy endeavor.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I find that I am mystified as to the issue of sainthood. There have been a few wonderful individuals in my life whom I would regard as saints and yet they can't be as they are not of the Roman Catholic faith, nor would they be able to be proved as having performed miracles. We are told that the Anglican church doesn't create saints and yet most of our churches bear saints' names.
Does God only regard someone as worthy of sainthood if they are Catholic? I don't ask this to have a go at Catholics, but just out of curiosity. How do you go about proving miracles? If a highly skilled surgeon saves someone's life is that a miracle, or is he just doing his job?
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Does God only regard someone as worthy of sainthood if they are Catholic?
Of course not. But it's hardly the Catholics' job to declare that Joe Methodist is a saint. That's up to the Methodists.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
We are told that the Anglican church doesn't create saints and yet most of our churches bear saints' names.
The Anglican church recognises certain saints, as do most protestant churches.
quote:
How do you go about proving miracles?
There is a process, but it requires belief in that process.
quote:
If a highly skilled surgeon saves someone's life is that a miracle, or is he just doing his job?
Just doing his job. A miracle is not merely a good outcome, a miracle is something beyond the laws of nature. Again, if one believes.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
I don't have an issue with Mother Theresa being referred to as a Saint (she was true to God's calling to her), the real issue I have is that there are so many others who aren't.
Perhaps some will find my protestant - and I believe, biblically based - definition of "saint" rather too broad for their liking. We're all saints and the Kingdom knows of no hierarchical distinctions.
[ 08. September 2016, 06:27: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I love it that she struggled in her weakness and ignorance for the light that brought some comfort to those weaker and more ignorant, abandoned in the gutter by everyone else.
As for Saint Teresa of Jesus, it's good to know that she was a person of disordered passions too which were redeemed in the poem attributed to her, Christ Has No Body.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
On the one hand, it bothers me that the RCC suspended its traditional rules and procedures for vetting candidates for sainthood in her specific case, apparently in order to fast-track her canonization as a foregone conclusion.
Which seems problematic because, as I understand it, those rules are in place for exactly such cases as Mother Teresa; someone with a lot of contemporary fame whose followers' zeal may put undue pressure on the consideration of sainthood.
In fact, though, the only one of the usual procedures that was "fast-tracked" was the standard waiting period of five years after the person's death before opening her cause (i.e. allowing the formal process of investigating her sanctity to begin). Pope JPII allowed her cause to be opened only two years after her 1997 death; she was beatified in 2003; and all the standard procedures and criteria for sainthood to be pronounced were followed, including the need for two approved miracles (the latter of which Pope Francis recognised in 2015).
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
A terrible decision to have to make, if it were in fact hers to make. She offered palliative care, not treatment to cure - as said so clearly above by others.
But let us assume that what you say is somehow correct. Those caring for the extremely ill have to make that sort of decision on a daily basis. The son of friends was working in the major hospital of a country none too far away. While even the most remote hospital here would have multiple appliances of a particular sort, this major hospital had only one - and regularly he had to decide which of 2 patients got to use it; the chance of the other's survival was almost zero.
Was the situation you describe one similar? And how do you answer the palliative care point?
[ 08. September 2016, 12:04: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
They offered palliative care, fine, but it's been claimed that they took in people who were ill, but not dying, who then died, because of a lack of diagnosis and medical therapy.
Hence the charge that MT valued suffering in itself.
The usual provisos apply - anecdotal stuff, of course.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
A long while back, maybe when MT was still living, I came across a Viz magazine which as good as implied she actively prevented medicines reaching those in her care.
Just dismissed it as bit of lampooning at the time, yet this thread now makes me think someone knew something to have come up with that.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
A long while back, maybe when MT was still living, I came across a Viz magazine which as good as implied she actively prevented medicines reaching those in her care.
Just dismissed it as bit of lampooning at the time, yet this thread now makes me think someone knew something to have come up with that.
Sounds like a lot of comments when someone is not charged with a criminal offence "But everyone knows he's guilty". Never say why or how they know, what the evidence is. The same applies to quetzalcoatl 's post - anecdotes are not evidence.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
For bib who is 'mystified' with the process of declaring 'saints' Saint,of course,just means 'holy'. Most of us will have met some people in the course of our lives who have shown certain admirable qualities either throughout their lives or at certain moments of their life.
If we want we can call them 'holy' we can call them 'saint'. Every Christian, indeed every human being, can exhibit the qualities of a saint.
The Catholic Church, usually after a long process of investigation, bestows the title of 'saint' upon certain limited individuals who have either spent a certain period of their lives in the service of the Gospel, or indeed given their lives (martyrs) in the service of the Gospel.
It simply means that the person is proposed as a model for the faithful ,either in particular parts of the world or ,in the case of some, throughout the Catholic world. It means also that their names are recalled annually in the liturgy.
All this is done at the direction of the Roman Pontiff,who by formally enrolling the person's name in the calendar of the SAINTS , gives the 'green light' for public veneration of the person.
It most certainly does not mean that one can only be a saint if one is a Catholic. However the Church tries to choose for enrolment in the calendar of Saints only certain people. In general the Church does not try to propose for the veneration of the Catholic faithful those who might be of other confessions and who might not wish to be considered as Saints of the Catholic Church.
Remember also that the First Day of November is a day devoted to ALL THE SAINTS, (a public holiday in many traditionally Catholic countries ), where the faithful are exhorted to remember and to honour all those whom they have known and believed to be 'Saints'.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
