Mother Teresa made a 'saint'!

[Quiddity]

Outside of Catholic theology, it's extremely difficult to see any value in suffering. It's even harder to live it out. Especially given the fact that the human person repels away from suffering and toward pleasure. That isn't to say that one must cause one to suffer; it simply means that one chooses not to repel from it precisely because they see the value of meshing their suffering with that of Christ's suffering and essentially offering up their sufferings up for a cause of their choosing.

 

[Jainarayan]

Her words alone are enough to turn me off.

Were they "soundbites" or excerpts from a book or speech? Even an audio or video recording can be fudged. Are you sure she was quoted correctly and in context? Can you give me an example, since I've never read anything from her, only pros and cons about her.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Were they "soundbites" or excerpts from a book or speech? Even an audio or video recording can be fudged. Are you sure she was quoted correctly and in context? Can you give me an example, since I've never read anything from her, only pros and cons about her.

Why don't you go out and do some research before attempting to criticize my ability to do so.

Start by reading her own words. They're easy to find.
Then you could read Hitchen's investigative essay/book in which he observed and interviewed her. He also included people who have worked with her in the past. He was called by the Vatican to testify against her at her beatification fast-track hearing.
Then you could read Serge larivee, Carole Senechal and Genevieve Chenard Larivée's study on her in Religieuses.

 

[metis]

The problem I see with this question is that it side-steps the "first do no harm" adage. So it could be that doing nothing would have been better than what she did.

But that goes against pretty much not only pretty much everything I've read on her, but it also goes against what the priest from my wife's church who worked in conjunction with her for several months told us. However, I'm certainly not saying she never did anything wrong.

A book I read about 30 or years ago was very interesting, and it was "Something Beautiful for God" by Malcolm Muggeridge, who was a rather famous atheist up until he met and filmed her in action, and shortly thereafter ended up converting to Catholicism.

BTW, just a reminder that I am neither Catholic nor Christian.

 

[metis]

Outside of Catholic theology, it's extremely difficult to see any value in suffering. It's even harder to live it out. Especially given the fact that the human person repels away from suffering and toward pleasure. That isn't to say that one must cause one to suffer; it simply means that one chooses not to repel from it precisely because they see the value of meshing their suffering with that of Christ's suffering and essentially offering up their sufferings up for a cause of their choosing.

The point of the teaching, which can also be found in some other religions as well, is that suffering can be turned into a good-- not that suffering itself is intrinsically good. However, in the "good old days", there was indeed a teaching that suffering may have involved being "put to the test" by God, which indeed is found in the scriptures but is pretty much disregarded nowadays.

 

[Quiddity]

The point of the teaching, which can also be found in some other religions as well, is that suffering can be turned into a good-- not that suffering itself is intrinsically good. However, in the "good old days", there was indeed a teaching that suffering may have involved being "put to the test" by God, which indeed is found in the scriptures but is pretty much disregarded nowadays.

Well, the "turning" isn't something done by one's own accord. It's more of a voluntary involvement in the ultimate sacrifice done on the cross by Jesus. But yes, good can derive from it. For some people that suffer daily, that can be a great comfort.

 

[Jainarayan]

Why don't you go out and do some research before attempting to criticize my ability to do so.

Because I'm not the one making the claims against her.

Debating 101...

1. Make a statement.
2. Back it up.

 

[metis]

Well, the "turning" isn't something done by one's own accord. It's more of a voluntary involvement in the ultimate sacrifice done on the cross by Jesus. But yes, good can derive from it. For some people that suffer daily, that can be a great comfort.

The "turning" has to be done of "one's own accord" or it's meaningless. Regardless as to whether one is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc., suffering can be turned into a plus. A quick example that comes to mind is Malcolm X, who transformed from a man of violence and bigotry to a man of peace and tolerance.

 

[Quiddity]

The "turning" has to be done of "one's own accord" or it's meaningless. Regardless as to whether one is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc., suffering can be turned into a plus. A quick example that comes to mind is Malcolm X, who transformed from a man of violence and bigotry to a man of peace and tolerance.

I'm talking about something more then a state of mind that one chooses to put into it. I'm talking about natural and supernatural implications like suffering so that someone heals and or that someone move toward spiritual maturity. This cannot come from one's own accord.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because I'm not the one making the claims against her.

Debating 101...

1. Make a statement.
2. Back it up.

Do people generally enter into debates when they don't know the first thing about the person/place/thing being debated?

 

[metis]

I'm talking about something more then a state of mind that one chooses to put into it. I'm talking about natural and supernatural implications like suffering so that someone heals and or that someone move toward spiritual maturity. This cannot come from one's own accord.

OK, I now see what you're saying, so thanks for the clarification.

 

[Jainarayan]

Do people generally enter into debates when they don't know the first thing about the person/place/thing being debated?

I'm not debating, I'm not making a claim that she was good or evil. I've been asking for concrete evidence for the claims from others that she was not the person she was purported to be. And there is none. As I've said at least two or three times, I care not one way or another. There are equal numbers of people who praise her as demonize her. Who is right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not debating, I'm not making a claim that she was good or evil. I've been asking for concrete evidence for the claims from others that she was not the person she was purported to be. And there is none. As I've said at least two or three times, I care not one way or another. There are equal numbers of people who praise her as demonize her.

Okay then, we're not debating. I was just sharing how I feel about her.

I did provide you with some resources to start with. You seem to have ignored them and declared that you haven't been given any.

It's not like I've said anything completely out of thin air anyway. Her views on suffering are/were pretty clear and available for anybody to hear/read.

Who is right?

Maybe there is no "right." Maybe she's got her good stuff and her bad stuff, like a lot of people. Maybe it depends on how one views suffering. Maybe it depends on one's view of morality. Or god.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

After all, it seems plausible that Catholics would vanish without a reservoir of desperate people. Their irrational opposition to birth control seems to confirm that.

You seem to assume that we all share the same opinions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

She was doing the right thing according to her views. Giving aspirin tables to all dying people, in some way making them accept Christianity, taking all their money if they had any (people who had some money but not enough to make the families interested) and giving it over to evangelist Catholic organizations. After that if somebody died, it was God's will. That is Teresa for you. At least she got these people a chance for heaven. Kudos, a real saint. Words do not mean much, it is actions which speak.

 

[viole]

You seem to assume that we all share the same opinions.

Yeah, you might be right. If I watch Italy, i see a very Catholic country with one of the lowest birth rates in the world. And I suppose they are not applying celibacy. But I wonder how coherent they are.

Nevertheless, since you a Catholic, I am interested in the promotion process. How does it work? Did Mother Teresa and all those big shots in Heaven waited for the pope to declare her saint before actually promoting her? And what does the promotion entail? An electric harp? Or a double ringed halo?

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

She was doing the right thing according to her views. Giving aspirin tables to all dying people, in some way making them accept Christianity, taking all their money if they had any (people who had some money but not enough to make the families interested) and giving it over to evangelist Catholic organizations. After that if somebody died, it was God's will. That is Teresa for you. At least she got these people a chance for heaven. Kudos, a real saint. Words do not mean much, it is actions which speak.

Nonsense on numerous counts, so maybe read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Criticism

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Whatever she did for them was more than they were getting lying in the streets, starving and dying in horrible agony.

No, they got BETTER: the PROMISE of healing while suffering in horrible agony. [/sarcasm]

At least on the street, their suffering was honestly just being SOL, not because a "saint" was actively trying to make it worse.

Mother Theresa herself is said to have never underwent medical care at her own facility whenever the need requiring hospitalization arose.

People wonder about things like that.

Exactly, like when restaurant staff won't eat their own food at work or something.

You're probably right. And while she may have been the head of the hospital, in name, she certainly wasn't qualified as a doctor or nurse. She was a nun, from what was Yugoslavia, in one of the poorest sections of India, under the thumb of the RCC. What does that tell us?

Don't practice without a license?

Primum non nocere, "first do no harm" is a credo of the medical community. She wasn't a medical professional.

Would Jesus have agreed with the sentiment?

That's pretty messed up. This is the loathsome stupidity Mother Theresa and her generation were indoctrinated with. So let's try not to muddy-up the issue with facts.

People can turn against immoral systems. A true saint would've stood up to the BS the Catholic Church continues to do, even in US hospitals they control. I fear, as a woman, ever being forced to go to one. I'd rather watch a surgery on youtube and do it myself.

But that goes against pretty much not only pretty much everything I've read on her, but it also goes against what the priest from my wife's church who worked in conjunction with her for several months told us. However, I'm certainly not saying she never did anything wrong.

I can accept that people with exposure to Mother Theresa might have more favorable opinions. Unless they were with her 24/7 and kept well informed of the minutiae of her business, though, those people ONLY experienced what she wanted others to see so they could spread the word about how awesome she was. The people who died under her care aren't alive to disagree with such praise, no?

 

[metis]

I can accept that people with exposure to Mother Theresa might have more favorable opinions. Unless they were with her 24/7 and kept well informed of the minutiae of her business, though, those people ONLY experienced what she wanted others to see so they could spread the word about how awesome she was. The people who died under her care aren't alive to disagree with such praise, no?

There are so many who worked under her and were impressed by her to a degree rarely experienced in our lives. As a non-Christian and a non-Catholic, I have read much about her over the decades by people of different religious faiths and some with no religious connections, who overall concluded that he was one remarkable and highly dedicated person.

What we see happening all too often is the good old American tradition of tearing good people down, I guess because it makes some feel better about themselves. I'm not referring to you, btw.

Why do some nit-pick some things she may have done while disregarding how much she did do, and in an area of extreme poverty and suffering? Does anyone here serious think that she did this for some sort of "luxury"? Does anyone here think that she couldn't have spent a more comfortable life elsewhere?

She was not a perfect person, and she well admitted that, but I guess I'll close this by passing on one piece of good advice my mother taught me many decades ago: "never speak ill of the dead".

Sorry for the rant, and it's not aimed at you, btw.

 

[Aupmanyav]

She was not a perfect person, and she well admitted that, but I guess I'll close this by passing on one piece of good advice my mother taught me many decades ago: "never speak ill of the dead".

She was doing the right thing according to her views.

That is what I said. She sincerely believed in what she was doing. Bringing Christianity to people before they died so that they could have a chance to go to heaven. It is only in Mormons that you can make people Christians by prayer even after their death, but among Catholics. One has to embrace Jesus before death if only that is moments away..