Mother Teresa; witch, not saint. Her scam perpetuated by Catholic church (birth control, Satan)

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by mordant

Who indeed? It isn't so much that everyone screws up, as that much of society is willing to overlook close to 100% of some folk's screw ups.

Very disappointing, mordant. Sour grapes doesn't remotely capture it. Your bitterness, envy, or whatever the hell your problem is with the adulation accorded MT is from within YOU. Engage in introspection of your motives for this trashing of MT's legacy. WHAT is your goal and how do you see this accomplishing ANYTHING positive and good for society???

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by mordant

I don't think anyone argues that MT did not live consistently with her misguided belief that suffering is a calling and a virtue. That meant BOTH living in abject poverty conditions like the people ministered to, AND denying them "mere" physical comforts or rescue attempts in favor of emotional support. I'm sure that at first it was a moot point: money and respect for what they were doing were both scarce. Later, it seems to have become a point of doctrine and a matter of outright resistance -- both because of the "suffering is ennobling" trope and because of a fear that becoming mainstream and accepting mainstream methods would undermine their spirituality (in my view she was actually right about this, but wrong in judging it a bad thing).

This is interesting and I'd like to learn more about it but where did the information come from?

[mordant]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Very disappointing, mordant. Sour grapes doesn't remotely capture it. Your bitterness, envy, or whatever the hell your problem is with the adulation accorded MT is from within YOU. Engage in introspection of your motives for this trashing of MT's legacy. WHAT is your goal and how do you see this accomplishing ANYTHING positive and good for society???

I have answered your questions repeatedly, both about what I am trying to accomplish and about the substance of my critique of MT. I won't be answering further. Have a brandy and calm down. Maybe you should introspect and see where the sour grapes are actually coming from here.

[elyn02]

Originally Posted by JerZ

I don't, because otherwise I'd think it would work the opposite way as well - and I, who have never been part of a church, see this as: MT thought she was doing what was best, and was not a sadist (or "a witch," LOL, still laughing about that one). So, being apparently enlightened as I am not tethered to a church, I should be taking a very cupper stance, right?

Now...I do disagree with certain things she did/believed in. For example, I'm pro-choice and always will be. That doesn't mean I can't see where MT's heart appeared to be coming from...for a scam, it sure would have been one loooooooooong (decades long), brutal (living among the poorest of the poor and the sickest of the sick), overall thankless job...I just can't see what was "in it for her" and still haven't really seen much theorizing as to why she would have perpetuated a "scam" personally (rather than naively just allowing the church to do over and do as they wished with these large sums of money). Now if we had candid photos of MT and Elton John on a lear jet sipping champagne and comparing their new Mackey outfits that would be one thing. I did see a reference that she built more missions with much of the money - well duh, that's a Christian ideal, spreading the word et. al. I mean...no shyte. I mean I don't agree with the whole "keep spreading the word" thing myself (another thing I disagree with the RCC on, and other denominations on) but that doesn't mean I believe pure evil went into such a decision, I mean give me a break. Show me some proof of evil motives and then we may have a conversation going there...

Getting back to the point...I know many, many, many people who, though they don't believe MT was perfect (who believes that? I doubt anyone does), do think she's an example of someone who truly did give her entire life to one goal and that goal was, ultimately, humanitarian - and by far these are not only Catholics. They're not even all Christians. However, at the same time I notice they don't have to have left their churches in order to believe MT was fallible and screwed up at times. Who isn't fallible and who doesn't screw up?

No. I don't think you have to leave the RCC to be taking Cupper's stance. I don't. I think you and I agree more than disagree.

[Tzaphkiel]

if she believed in people suffering,
then she would have done nothing,
and simply left the poor and the indigent and the sick and the hungry lying in the streets and gutters where she found them

sort of like most of the people posting on this thread do on a daily basis

[mordant]

Originally Posted by JerZ

This is interesting and I'd like to learn more about it but where did the information come from?

From the totality of my reading of various articles on MT, many of which I've cited here.

I don't think it's in dispute that she had an initial vision for her work that was not even shared by the RCC at first. She faced cultural opposition too, such as the taboo against touching the untouchables such as lepers and the well known caste rules that tended to consign the poor to their fate. I actually DO admire her initial persistence against the general indifference. And it is reasonable to assume that better procedures and facilities were not even possible when her initial funding came in part from her own nuns begging on the streets.

So far so good.

But the greater question IMO is what were her actual motivations? Most of us putting ourselves in that particular position might imagine ourselves having a compassion for the suffering of the poorest of the poor and a desire to ease that suffering, maybe even someday eradicate it -- so we would tend to project that on MT. But what exactly did she BELIEVE about suffering?

Well there are plenty of places to glean that information. Predictably a lot of it comes from her detractors and sources such as anti-Catholic fundamentalist Protestant sites that I don't consider credible. But let's let MT speak for herself:

One day I met a lady who was dying of cancer in a most terrible condition. And I told her, I say, "You know, this terrible pain is only the kiss of Jesus — a sign that you have come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss you." And she joined her hands together and said, "Mother Teresa, please tell Jesus to stop kissing me". (address to national prayer breakfast, 1994)

Ha ha. That MT was funny. What a comedienne!

Not only did she refuse to alleviate the pain of her patients but she gloried in it. As she herself said: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
Her famous 'Home for the Dying' in Calcutta was deliberately kept as barren, destitute and inadequate to the needs of her patients as possible. This, according to Teresa, was God's will. Even though the donations from wealthy patrons were enough to fund a number of world-class clinics, her patients languished in Dickensian poverty. In 1994, Robin Fox, of the medical journal Lancet, shocked many by saying that her "TB patients were not isolated and syringes were washed in lukewarm water before being used again. Even patients in unbearable pain were refused painkillers, not because the order did not have them but on principle". Fox was only one of many who have reported back about the true nature of Teresa's ministry, only to be ignored. (The Independent, Ireland, Dec 2015)

Now that bolded quote was in Christopher Hitchen's book so make of it what you will. The source is not credited here. But this person from The Lancet, Robin Fox, is also quoted, and I would like to think that The Lancet is a rather credible source. Nor is she the only person to report the deplorable conditions -- just one of many. I've previously cited another, a Florida businessman moved by MT's ministry who went to volunteer in Calcutta and came away appalled too.

We can also find what the RCC publicly teaches about suffering and presume that MT embraced that, and probably embraced the more conservative versions of it. In a nutshell the RCC teaches that suffering is a privilege, a way of mystically participating in Christ's redemptive work by accepting for ourselves suffering just as Jesus accepted the cross for himself. So what MT is alleged to have believed is entirely consistent with RCC doctrine, for example:

Jesus Christ, when He redeemed us with plentiful redemption, took not away the pains and sorrows which in such large proportion are woven together in the web of our mortal life. He transformed them into motives of virtue and occasions of merit; and no man can hope for eternal reward unless he follow in the blood-stained footprints of his Saviour. “If we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him.” Christ’s labors and sufferings, accepted of His own free will, have marvellously [sic] sweetened all suffering and all labor. And not only by His example, but by His grace and by the hope held forth of everlasting recompense, has He made pain and grief more easy to endure; “for that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory.” (Reverum Novarum, bolding mine)

Putting this all together it seems to me that MT was a typical conservative Roman Catholic who believed suffering was to be embraced and reveled in, in order to gain merit in the afterlife. And I believe this fundamentally influenced her priorities as her mission grew and matured.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Very disappointing, mordant. Sour grapes doesn't remotely capture it. Your bitterness, envy, or whatever the hell your problem is with the adulation accorded MT is from within YOU. Engage in introspection of your motives for this trashing of MT's legacy. WHAT is your goal and how do you see this accomplishing ANYTHING positive and good for society???

Originally Posted by mordant

I have answered your questions repeatedly, both about what I am trying to accomplish and about the substance of my critique of MT. I won't be answering further. Have a brandy and calm down. Maybe you should introspect and see where the sour grapes are actually coming from here.

Yet again you fail to answer while claiming you have! You have not mentioned ANY positive impact you see this trashing of an inspirational icon actually achieving. There is some deep dissonance operating in this trashing of MT's legacy, mordant.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

if she believed in people suffering, then she would have done nothing, and simply left the poor and the indigent and the sick and the hungry lying in the streets and gutters where she found them

No, she would have acted in accordance with her exact beliefs which were more that suffering is a virtue and a gift, that suffering should have compassion in the form of acceptance and encouragement but not in the form of deliverance. This is what allowed her to touch the untouchable, on the one hand, and deny them morphine on the other.

[elyn02]

Originally Posted by mordant

Putting this all together it seems to me that MT was a typical conservative Roman Catholic who believed suffering was to be embraced and reveled in, in order to gain merit in the afterlife. And I believe this fundamentally influenced her priorities as her mission grew and matured.

I remember reading these details about how MT felt about poor people. All I can say is be careful about who you put on a pedestal.

[cupper3]

For those that keep asking for proof that conditions were appalling, and unsterilized needles were used, even though millions were available to buy sterilized ones, I have given many GOOD references.

Mordant had given some GREAT ones. Not accepting them is being obtuse.