Ship of Fools: Mother Teresa

Thread: Mother Teresa Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030217

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

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]

)

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

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?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

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.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

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.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

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 ]

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

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.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

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.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

The Little Flower of jesus; who rather ironically had been deflowered quite extensively.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

i HAVE NO TIME FOR HER.

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Sorry, my flippancy got the better of me confusing Teresa's. Not that it changes the point I was making.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by catnip (# 18638) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

How do I get the whole of her?

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

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.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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.

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
i HAVE NO TIME FOR HER.

Go on, Leo, tell us why?

And why the need to shout?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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).

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

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

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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!

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
i HAVE NO TIME FOR HER.

Enough time to post this though.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

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 ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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).

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

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.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

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?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

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.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

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).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
i HAVE NO TIME FOR HER.
Go on, Leo, tell us why?

And why the need to shout?

had a stroke so keyboard use difficult.

she let a 17 year old die over an old person

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

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'.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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?

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

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".

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

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 ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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 ]

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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 ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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 ]

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

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).

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

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.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Are we going to end up with a "one true Protestant" argument? [Biased]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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]

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 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

sigh To avoid further tangentialism, I started a New Thread.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

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.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0