|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Mother Teresa
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
In writing about the various 'St Teresa's' one should not forget the relatively recent martyr Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross. She was a German of Jewish origin who read the story of the life of Theresa of Avila and who was inspired by her life to become a Christian and later to enter the Carmelite convent in Cologne in Germany.In the late 1930s she transferred to a Carmelite convent in Holland.When the Dutch Catholic bishops protested openly about the Nazi persecution of Jews she was sent with her sister to Auschwitz where she perished. In the world she was known as Edith Stein.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
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.
Is there material that isn't anecdotal? I thought the 'Lancet' article might shed light, but I can't get hold of it. Otherwise, we are left with people who visited the houses, or worked there. What else is there?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
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.
This would be the same Viz magazine that once ran a (very funny) article purporting to demonstrate that Mr Elvis Presley assassinated President John F. Kennedy, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "satire" rather than "Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalism".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
One of the difficulties in palliative care is in access to medications. We assume that opiates are freely available everywhere because in our world they are. They are not. And not all pain is readily fixable or opiate responsive.
Even now.
I have read the Lancet articles from 1994. Palliative care is very different now. But many of the same difficulties remain. In every country, health care can only be provided within the standards governments and communities set.
I reckon Mother Teresa was a hard nose pragmatist.
I reckon she was a deeply flawed person.
And I am grateful for her ministry.
Thank God.
[ 10. September 2016, 05:18: Message edited by: Patdys ]
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
One of the difficulties in palliative care is in access to medications.
Around the time of her death lots of articles pointed to her as a tormentor of the helpless who refused to use the mega millions in donations she received because she believed Jesus wants the poor to suffer. In one report volunteer staff were horrified at the reuse of needles even after becoming so so blunt they hurt, offered to buy needles themselves, were refused.
What happened to the mega millions she raised but would not spend for the poor even while writing thank you notes saying every cent will be used for the poor?
(I remember one article that said she gave lots of money to the Vatican, but others said she kept much of it in a bank, unused.)
She seems to have embraced poverty and suffering for others but not for herself -- she reportedly flew first class, and sought the best medical care for herself. Maybe she didn't really believe her own teachings about the value of suffering?
She was a master at self promotion, most charity founders struggle to attract any attention or money and die unknown.
Lots of myths, I read a book decades ago that said she had a vision to start the home for the dying and went from Eastern Europe to Calcutta arriving alone and pennyless and not knowing a word of the language to start her work - apparently that's massively untrue. There's been myth spinning promoting her for multi decades.
Was she more interested in celebrity for herself and snuggling with power and money than in helping the poor? (Where is all that money?) Are you and I more or less moral than she in the broad sense that embraces compassion (not just rules of sexual behavior)? God knows.
I see a complex woman who believed avoiding relieving suffering is good, and who saw a major part of her job as tricking people into getting baptized Catholic just before death. Maybe to some RCC that's saintliness. To me it's not. YMMV
This article briefly describes the Lancet article.
This article gives a history of her moving through stages of nun work.
The first couple reviews of this book give details about her work and beliefs that are not pleasant reading.
I have no idea which reports are true, false, or reflect misunderstandings.
Years ago I read that the RCC requires proof of joy in a saint candidate, I don't see that in her, and I don't just mean clinical depression. I also read two miracles are required, I've seen only one reported and it doesn't sound like a miracle to me (and I definitely do believe in miracles), the woman's husband reportedly says it was no miracle, her doctors say she responded to their treatment. The whole process looks to me like a rush job to please the public. But I'm not Catholic, we see some things differently.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[QUOTE] What happened to the mega millions she raised but would not spend for the poor even while writing thank you notes saying every cent will be used for the poor?
(I remember one article that said she gave lots of money to the Vatican, but others said she kept much of it in a bank, unused.)
She seems to have embraced poverty and suffering for others but not for herself -- she reportedly flew first class, and sought the best medical care for herself. Maybe she didn't really believe her own teachings about the value of suffering?
Lots of myths, I read a book decades ago that said she had a vision to start the home for the dying and went from Eastern Europe to Calcutta arriving alone and pennyless and not knowing a word of the language to start her work - apparently that's massively untrue. There's been myth spinning promoting her for multi decades.
Was she more interested in celebrity for herself and snuggling with power and money than in helping the poor? (Where is all that money?) Are you and I more or less moral than she in the broad sense that embraces compassion (not just rules of sexual behavior)? God knows.
I see a complex woman who believed avoiding relieving suffering is good, and who saw a major part of her job as tricking people into getting baptized Catholic just before death. Maybe to some RCC that's saintliness. To me it's not. YMMV
I have no idea which reports are true, false, or reflect misunderstandings.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Somehow the text I'd written to accompany the above has vanished - and foolishly I had not done a copy before posting.
In essence, I pointed out the contradicting material in the first 2 paragraphs, then went on to refer to the "reportedly" aspects of much of the rest. No real evidence at all. The book reference about her call gives a very different account to the one publicly given by Mother Theresa that her call to her street ministry came when she was a professed nun already in India.
Lastly, I drew attention to the claim that Mother Theresa had the most expensive medical treatment herself. Apart from no evidence being given to support this, apart from some unnamed material. Mother Theresa did not claim to be giving medical treatment. Her claim was that her work was in providing love and comfort to the poor, homeless and dying, with no strings about religion attached.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
Thank you Belle Ringer.
I don't think I can answer your points satisfactorily. I am suspicious of anecdotes both for and against. We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions...
I really don't have knowledge of Mother Teresa the person. I think when you become the 'brand', you carry a lot of baggage not of your own making. It is a bit like I am Australian but I don't believe in torturing refugees and believe casual racism is something we need to work against. {Jesus wept}
I don't believe that Saints are any less flawed than any of us. I don't have a Catholic background.
But I do believe the organisation has done a lot of good in places where it was needed. I think the world is better for her existence. For me, that is enough.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, there are anomalies, contradictions and causes for concern - and from what I can gather, some RCs feel the canonisation of Mother Theresa is somewhat premature.
Like everything else, it's messy.
The RC concept of Sainthood doesn't require someone to be perfect in every respect.
One could argue that Mother Theresa's much-reported depression, doubt and 'dark night of the soul' type experiences actually strengthen, rather than weaken, any case for her to be commemorated or canonised in RC terms ...
She pursued her ministry despite doubts and periods of intense spiritual dryness.
How do we quantify 'joy'?
Is it walking around with what, in my university Christian Union days, we called 'SWEG' - 'Soppy Wet Evangelical Grin' ...
We've got to be careful on all sorts of levels here. If we're Protestants we can roll back onto an anti-RC, anti-Vatican knee-jerk response. If we're Orthodox we can say - as I've seen some say online - 'But she was from Albania and was raised Orthodox! She shouldn't have become an RC nun in the first place! Is outrage!'
If we're secularists then the religious aspects are going to be problematic from the outset ...
Ultimately, I suppose, 'wisdom is proved right by her actions' ... if there's a lasting legacy worldwide from the work of Mother Theresa - flawed and 'of its time' as it might have been ... then that's great. Otherwise, then the longer term legacy will be viewed differently. Time will tell.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Most Protestant churches don't do "new" saints, yes? So MT is a moot point for them regardless. Some Reformed Catholic traditions like Anglicanism still do. I assume they also are intra-faith as the RCC are as far as official recognition. Anglicanism has historically included knee-jerk anti-RCC as well, but it does share (somewhat) the tradition of new saints. So where do they stand on MT? As worthy of sainthood if she had only not been RCC?
[ 11. September 2016, 11:26: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
With the possible exception of King Charles I, I'm not aware of Anglicanism promoting any new saints. In that respect, as in many others, it behaves in the same way as its fellow Protestant churches.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The ninth Lambeth Conference held in 1958 Resolution 79 appears to disagree.
Scroll down to Modern Anglican Saints.
ETA:There is debate as to whether Anglicans are truly Protestant. They merely switched sovereigns. There was nothing nailed to the door of Westminster, so to speak.
[ 11. September 2016, 13:03: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
The Church of Ireland has added new saints and saints days as recently as 2004. It tends to be a slower process and some new saints are very ancient saints whereas others are dropped or fade from significance. You might be taking a very Anglocentric view of things when in fact the Anglican Communion is world-wide and rarely in a place with a sovereign.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
You might be taking a very Anglocentric view of things when in fact the Anglican Communion is world-wide and rarely in a place with a sovereign.
Granted, but I am referencing how it started. The initial difference was merely who was the head of the church. Whilst power was a component of at least several of the Protestant sects, they had other stated purpose. Doctrinal differences.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Somehow the text I'd written to accompany the above has vanished - and foolishly I had not done a copy before posting.
In essence, I pointed out the contradicting material in the first 2 paragraphs, then went on to refer to the "reportedly" aspects of much of the rest. No real evidence at all.
Why do the first paragraphs (as quoted) contradict each other? It is known she raised large amounts of money, no one is quite sure where it was spent (most believe much of it flowed back to the Vatican to fund other projects), what is known is that it wasn't spent on the poor in Calcutta.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The paragraphs don't - but the material in the second gives 2 recipients of the multi-millions. Those relying upon anecdotes can't rely upon either account. And again, what solid evidence is there to support your comment that none of the money ended up with the poor for whom it was intended.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
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.
Why? Surely Hitchens' criticisms were either justified, or they were not, regardless of his own personal merits?
Besides, while Christopher Hitchens wasn't a professional aid worker, he was a professional journalist and writer, and a bloody good one at that. He employed his considerable gift for controversy in the service of what he believed to be justice, and part of that certainly included holding the powerful and the popular to account. That isn't the same as "doing sod all". It is a vital social function.
[ 12. September 2016, 22:21: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The ninth Lambeth Conference held in 1958 Resolution 79 appears to disagree.
Scroll down to Modern Anglican Saints.
ETA:There is debate as to whether Anglicans are truly Protestant. They merely switched sovereigns. There was nothing nailed to the door of Westminster, so to speak.
I was not aware of the Ninth Lambeth Conference, let alone Resolution 79 - thank you for bringing it to my attention. However, the list of names are of people considered "heroes of the Christian Church", and personally I've never heard any of them referred to as St Soandso.
As to the question of whether Anglicans are Protestant or not, it's a debate I've only ever come across on the Ship. Maybe it deserves a thread in its own right, but I'm too lazy to start one. IMNSVHO for hundreds of years the CoE was considered Protestant; it's a modern high church whimsy to deny the title. In fact it makes it sound as though there is something to be ashamed of in being Protestant, which is absurd. One of the many reasons I love the CoE is that it is both Protestant and Catholic (not to mention Orthodox as well).
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
quote:
One of the many reasons I love the CoE is that it is both Protestant and Catholic
I think you've hit the nub here and answered why the term does't quite fit rather than being a matter of 'high church' whimsy. The term 'Protestant' doesn't quite cover it. While it may be historically and probably largely doctrinally true, it still isn't true in many other senses.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Are we going to end up with a "one true Protestant" argument? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
IMO, Heroes v Saints is semantics.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
quote:
One of the many reasons I love the CoE is that it is both Protestant and Catholic
I think you've hit the nub here and answered why the term does't quite fit rather than being a matter of 'high church' whimsy. The term 'Protestant' doesn't quite cover it. While it may be historically and probably largely doctrinally true, it still isn't true in many other senses.
Y'all can argue current doctrine, but the historic reason the CofE (and therefore Anglican and Episcopal) exists is power, not doctrine. There was no protest, but a hostile takeover. That other factors made it easier and that there was subsequent change is irrelevant.
I am not sure that this would make a separate thread as I think it is that simple.
I am not taking any position as to who is more right,* just laying down the basic history.
*Or, ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) who is more wrong.
ETA: quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Are we going to end up with a "one true Protestant" argument?
I think a Protest of doctrine is all that is necessary. There are several churches that split with Rome and are not considered Protestant. The CofE fits more with them than it does Luther and his step-children.
[ 13. September 2016, 15:13: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
... As to the question of whether Anglicans are Protestant or not, it's a debate I've only ever come across on the Ship. Maybe it deserves a thread in its own right, but I'm too lazy to start one. IMNSVHO for hundreds of years the CoE was considered Protestant; it's a modern high church whimsy to deny the title. In fact it makes it sound as though there is something to be ashamed of in being Protestant, which is absurd. One of the many reasons I love the CoE is that it is both Protestant and Catholic (not to mention Orthodox as well).
I agree. The CofE has traditionally been described as the Protestant Church as by law established. I'd go further and say that it is a specifically Anglo-Catholic affectation to deny that the CofE is Protestant. Anyone high church in the old sense took their Protestant description for granted.
Yes, Lilibuddha, the CofE is not specifically Lutheran. Nor is it specifically Calvinist. But objectively it has been consistently on the Protestant side of the Reformation line since 1558. Although some of the differences between Protestant and Catholic are less marked than they used to be, at parish level that remains its identity fairly consistently to this day.
There are quite good arguments incidentally for saying that since Vatican II the character of the RCC in the UK has become more Protestant.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Are we going to end up with a "one true Protestant" argument?
Och aye. Though a True Protestant cannae be some Sassenach Episcopalian. The True Protestant is Presbyterian. Wee and Free. Singing metrical Psalms. In Gàidhlig.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
sigh To avoid further tangentialism, I started a New Thread.
--------------------
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
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
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.
Why? Surely Hitchens' criticisms were either justified, or they were not, regardless of his own personal merits?
Besides, while Christopher Hitchens wasn't a professional aid worker, he was a professional journalist and writer, and a bloody good one at that. He employed his considerable gift for controversy in the service of what he believed to be justice, and part of that certainly included holding the powerful and the popular to account. That isn't the same as "doing sod all". It is a vital social function.
If Mother Teresa had taken it upon herself to tell Christopher Hitchens what he should write about and how he should do it, he would have been justified in telling her to mind her own business. I take your point that his criticisms might be valid, (who knows - there doesn't seem to be much evidence) but I hate the spirit in which it was done.
Hitchens pretended to be full of concern for the people he said MT failed to help but his real concern was to demonstrate that Christanity was a force for evil in the world. Seeking to discredit charities as a means of masking your own uncharitableness is a common enough phenomenon.
Give me a well-meaning blunderer over a mercenary with acuity any day.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
