Validity of Mother Teresa

[PeterTheAleut]

Here's an article that has no connection to Hitches or Susan Sheilds:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/bajuu/

You've already posted this link on this thread.

Yes, I wanted to emphasize it because I said earlier, everyone seems to ignore the criticisms themselves and go on and on about Christopher Hitchens.

That's where you err.  If you go back and read this thread SINCE you posted all those links, you will find that some of us have been willing to address your other criticisms.  However, since Christopher Hitchens has been the loudest and most belligerent of Mother Teresa's critics, it's quite natural he's going to draw the majority of our attention to himself.

[Anastasios]

I don't understand why people are against questioning some aspects of Mother Theresa. While one of the posters may have used some strong language, I think some of the points mentioned need to be investigated (and refuted if found to be untrue).

The truth is probably that she did a lot of good and made a lot of mistakes.  The process of canonization was sped up by the media attention, just like some have called for with John Paul II.  I think that this much is pretty obvious to anyone objective. It probably would have been better to wait a few decades to see what the end result would be.

[Anastasios]

That being said, some people are scandalized by the *tone* of this thread, notwithstanding the subject matter. Please keep the tone of this thread respectful and appropriate for a Christian forum.

[username!]

Whether Mother Theresa is worthy of being declared a saint or not is up to those in Rome.  One thing that really hasn't been mentioned in this post is the process of declaring a saint.  There are commissions that are for and against the beatification and then the canonization. Has not Benedict XVI once again tightened the reigns on canonizing saints after a few decades of more lax rules?  Oh wait, yes he has.  After all it took over 500 years for St. Joan of Arc to receive sainthood.  If I were Roman Catholic I would trust the Vatican on this issue and not rush to judge, and if I doubted my check book would remain tightly closed towards any charities in the name of Mother Theresa.  I mean there are ways to actually have an opinion matter.

[Fr. George]

I hope no one falls into the trap of speculating on the character or person of Mother Teresa; as in any conversation, we should only comment on action and clearly expounded intent.  When we cross the line into character commentary, we move from the realm of fact into that of opinion, and certainly open the door for hatred and sin to enter our hearts and souls.

[Ebor]

I have done some reading and research in this after reading this thread, though I haven't got Hitchen's book. 

I found a particular quote disturbing. (that there were a number of citations for it and I found it in a speech that she gave at the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994.  The whole speech in on the EWTN site)

"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.""
http://www.ewtn.com/New_library/breakfast.htm

The idea that Our Lord is giving excruciating pain to someone and that it is a "kiss" which is a token of love is one that I find alarming, to say the least. And for someone who is not in pain to say such a thing, which I will admit gave me the impression that the patient was being told to just accept it and not get any relief, seems lacking in empathy at the least. 

This kind of idea could lead to some people thinking that God is some kind of "cosmic sadist" who gives pain and calls it love.    I'm sorry that I"m not very articulate here, but I am, as I wrote, disturbed by this.

Ebor

[EofK]

^Yikes, that is a little disturbing.  To me, this is the peril of asceticism.  There are great things to be learned from the ascetic life but it can go beyond teaching us to do without and get into sadism.  It's a lifestyle that should be approached with caution and not just be offered to the average person as an explanation for pain and suffering. 

[recent convert]

The quote from Matthew 25 at the top of the EWTN article seems to be the overall framework of Mother Theresa's witness and being applied to all human conditions. I doubt I would have the ability to administer the level of mercy exhibited by the Mother. She is granting closure to a terminally ill person and seeing the suffering of Christ in that person; I also understand that in a situation like this would I understand if undergoing such suffering. Notice there is only understanding toward the one suffering in their anguish. Personally I have seen family members die and did not know Christ when these occurred. Maybe I would have had certain doubts about such a comment by Mother Theresa but now I do not and personally pray daily for the healing of a relative on life support.

[theistgal]

I have done some reading and research in this after reading this thread, though I haven't got Hitchen's book. 

I found a particular quote disturbing. (that there were a number of citations for it and I found it in a speech that she gave at the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994.  The whole speech in on the EWTN site)

"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.""
http://www.ewtn.com/New_library/breakfast.htm

The idea that Our Lord is giving excruciating pain to someone and that it is a "kiss" which is a token of love is one that I find alarming, to say the least. And for someone who is not in pain to say such a thing, which I will admit gave me the impression that the patient was being told to just accept it and not get any relief, seems lacking in empathy at the least. 

This kind of idea could lead to some people thinking that God is some kind of "cosmic sadist" who gives pain and calls it love.    I'm sorry that I"m not very articulate here, but I am, as I wrote, disturbed by this.

Ebor

Well - maybe Mother T was a little tactless to say that.  But then again, maybe she wasn't.  Since none of us was actually there to hear the conversation, it may be like what happens at Internet forums (like this one).

You know how sometimes you post something that you intend to be humorous, but you forget to put in the correct "smiley" emoticon and someone else takes it seriously (and more often than not, gets insulted)?

I think we should give Mother T the benefit of the doubt - especially as she's not around to defend herself.

[Heracleides]

Well - maybe Mother T was a little tactless to say that.  But then again, maybe she wasn't.  Since none of us was actually there to hear the conversation, it may be like what happens at Internet forums (like this one).

You know how sometimes you post something that you intend to be humorous, but you forget to put in the correct "smiley" emoticon and someone else takes it seriously (and more often than not, gets insulted)?

I think we should give Mother T the benefit of the doubt - especially as she's not around to defend herself.

Or perhaps taking Mother Teresa's words at face value and thereby forming impressions could simply be Jesus' way of "kissing" her. 

[Ebor]

Well - maybe Mother T was a little tactless to say that.  But then again, maybe she wasn't.  Since none of us was actually there to hear the conversation, it may be like what happens at Internet forums (like this one).

This is a case of the lady's own words in a speech that she gave to a large group.  That is why I looked for a source of the quote, to get the context, to find out precisely what was said and what was the setting.  It's not the same thing as hearsay or second or third hand.  Why would not the printed text of a delivered speech on a site that is sympathetic to the person speaking be considered a good source for the truth of what was said, please?

I also do not think that 'a little tactless' is what should happen with an ill person in pain.  I've had occasions of some intense pain in my life, though nothing as serious as cancer. If someone were to tell me in the midst of it that it was Our Lord 'kissing me' it would not have been helpful and it is likely that there would have been something rude being said or yelled.  I've also known people who passed away from cancer or other illnesses and telling them something along those lines would not be 'comforting the dying' in my book. 

You know how sometimes you post something that you intend to be humorous, but you forget to put in the correct "smiley" emoticon and someone else takes it seriously (and more often than not, gets insulted)?

I think we should give Mother T the benefit of the doubt - especially as she's not around to defend herself.

I assure you that I am aware of the importance of the use of emoticons in 'Net communications.    Otoh, the possibility of humour in a situation of someone in agony is not something that I can see.   Is the 'benefit of the doubt' that Mother Teresa was making a jest?   

A point that I was trying to get across is that to some people such a passage could make the Christian God appear to be One who hurts lesser beings badly and calls it "kisses".  Where in the Gospels was Our Lord ever malicious or sadistic?  Nowhere that I know.

Ebor

[theistgal]

"Uncle". 

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Myrrh, considering the reputation of sanctity Mother Theresa has among people of all religions, it'd be good not to call her a fraud until you can prove that she is.  Evidence from these professionals from whom you've heard damning information would be a good place to start.

I'll stand by the position that she was corrupt, a fraud, a charlatan, and a hypocrite...not to mention a sadist, and no, not a sadist in a good way. While she partied with Haitian dictators, taking their blood money to build up her order, and enjoyed the best medical care in the world she consigned those under her care to poverty and misery...dying in filth and squalor without access to proper medical care.

She was a genuinely evil person, not simply misguided or inconsistent or uncaring or negligent, but evil in the fullest sense of the term. She does not deserve to go down in history as a saint and advocate of peace...she should go down in history with her name listed beside the despots she befriended.

As for a source, I would recommend starting with Christopher Hitchen's well researched and wonderfully written book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice.

Ah yes... Christopher Hitchens. Now there's a truly objective source. He certainly had no axe to grind did he? I mean, he is so open minded to religious view points isn't he.

Seriously, if you want to castigate Mother Teresa then you've got to give us a better source than Hitchens.

Selam

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Nothing but your own opinions and a book with which you agree.   You got anything more convincing than this?

My opinions? Is it merely my opinion that she befrended the Duvaliers? Is it merely my opinion that she took their money which was made on the oppression and slavery of their subjects? Is is merely my opinion that she enjoyed world-class medical care while consigning the poor of Calcutta to her houses of death without proper medical care? Is it merely my opinion that she would separate dying families, not allowing husbands or wives to be at the side of ther dying spouse?

These are facts about this charlatan...and there are many more, but apparently you are unwilling to actually read a book that may not be in line with your preconceived notions. Instead, you jump on the bandwagon of this Mother Teresa cult and excuse all her wrong doing because she claimed to be acting in the name of God.

Granted, there's pleanty of evidence out there that she really didn't take that god stuff seriously, but she at least put on a good enough show to pull the wool over most the faithful's eyes.

What were her motives? I mean, if she were trying to get rich at the expense of other people's suffering, then she sure lived a pretty sparse lifestyle. She wasn't driving a fancy car and living in a mansion somewhere was she? Or maybe she was actually a Madam running a lucrative underground Calcutta brothel. And what better cover than to pose as a Nun!

Thanks to Christopher Hitchens I'm now enlightened. Now I am free from that nagging conviction that Mother Teresa's example used to always cause me! The poor...? To hell with them. (Oh Yeah, there is no hell. Even better. Thanks Christopher Hitchens!)

Selam

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Ok here some articles about Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (aka "Mother Teresa")
the first one was writtten someone who actually worked with her order:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html

article from a conservative publication:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/bajuu/

http://www.newstatesman.com/200508220019

http://ffrf.org/fttoday/1996/august96/hakeem.html

wriiten by an Indian physician who saw her con job first hand:
http://www.meteorbooks.com/

Here are links to the documentary "Hell's Angel" an honest look at this fraudulent huckster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQejG7-sGk4

I hope the RCC does canonize her....money grubbing media-skanks need a patron saint too!

I read the testimony of this former Sister of Charity. She gives her opinion of Mother Teresa's religious philosophy which she eventually decided was different from her own. So she left. That was her decision and she apparrently had good reasons for doing so. But thousands of others had a different view. They stayed and endured and did what they believed was God's work. I don't think any of them would say it was easy.

I have read a lot of Mother Teresa's own words. The situation in India was dire. She was not a nurse, and that was not her calling. She said that one of her main goals was to make sure that dying people could die in the presence of somebody that loved them. They would often take people off the streets mere hours before they died and give tham as much love and comfort as they could in their last moments. If they didn't so this, then these people would die with the callous people of the world passing them by with indifference.

I am not Catholic, and I have some serious problems with the Roman Catholic Church. So, I do not glorify Mother Teresa. But I do respect her, and her example is covicting and challenging to me when I consider how little I do compared to her and her Sisters.

Selam

[ialmisry]

Here's an article that has no connection to Hitches or Susan Sheilds:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/bajuu/

You've already posted this link on this thread.

Yes, I wanted to emphasize it because I said earlier, everyone seems to ignore the criticisms themselves and go on and on about Christopher Hitchens.

Just considering the source, in particular, as someone pointed out, his criticism is short on biography and long on agenda.

[rwprof]

That being said, some people are scandalized by the *tone* of this thread, notwithstanding the subject matter. Please keep the tone of this thread respectful and appropriate for a Christian forum.

Thank you, father.

Cleveland:

I hope no one falls into the trap of speculating on the character or person of Mother Teresa; as in any conversation, we should only comment on action and clearly expounded intent.  When we cross the line into character commentary, we move from the realm of fact into that of opinion, and certainly open the door for hatred and sin to enter our hearts and souls.

Lord, have mercy!

[GiC]

Myrrh, considering the reputation of sanctity Mother Theresa has among people of all religions, it'd be good not to call her a fraud until you can prove that she is.  Evidence from these professionals from whom you've heard damning information would be a good place to start.

I'll stand by the position that she was corrupt, a fraud, a charlatan, and a hypocrite...not to mention a sadist, and no, not a sadist in a good way. While she partied with Haitian dictators, taking their blood money to build up her order, and enjoyed the best medical care in the world she consigned those under her care to poverty and misery...dying in filth and squalor without access to proper medical care.

She was a genuinely evil person, not simply misguided or inconsistent or uncaring or negligent, but evil in the fullest sense of the term. She does not deserve to go down in history as a saint and advocate of peace...she should go down in history with her name listed beside the despots she befriended.

As for a source, I would recommend starting with Christopher Hitchen's well researched and wonderfully written book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice.

Ah yes... Christopher Hitchens. Now there's a truly objective source. He certainly had no axe to grind did he? I mean, he is so open minded to religious view points isn't he.

Seriously, if you want to castigate Mother Teresa then you've got to give us a better source than Hitchens.

Selam

He gives religion as much credit as it deserves...and then some. But the evil and absurdities of religion in general are for another thread, this one is for the evil and absurdities of Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu .

You want another source? How about her friends, the Duvaliers?

Nothing but your own opinions and a book with which you agree.   You got anything more convincing than this?

My opinions? Is it merely my opinion that she befrended the Duvaliers? Is it merely my opinion that she took their money which was made on the oppression and slavery of their subjects? Is is merely my opinion that she enjoyed world-class medical care while consigning the poor of Calcutta to her houses of death without proper medical care? Is it merely my opinion that she would separate dying families, not allowing husbands or wives to be at the side of ther dying spouse?

These are facts about this charlatan...and there are many more, but apparently you are unwilling to actually read a book that may not be in line with your preconceived notions. Instead, you jump on the bandwagon of this Mother Teresa cult and excuse all her wrong doing because she claimed to be acting in the name of God.

Granted, there's pleanty of evidence out there that she really didn't take that god stuff seriously, but she at least put on a good enough show to pull the wool over most the faithful's eyes.

What were her motives? I mean, if she were trying to get rich at the expense of other people's suffering, then she sure lived a pretty sparse lifestyle. She wasn't driving a fancy car and living in a mansion somewhere was she? Or maybe she was actually a Madam running a lucrative underground Calcutta brothel. And what better cover than to pose as a Nun!

Nah, she would never manage a brothel, for to do so might bring others pleasure and through doing so only bring herself pain. Her pleasure came through the suffering of others...and not mere temporary suffering, but severe and lasting pain.

Thanks to Christopher Hitchens I'm now enlightened. Now I am free from that nagging conviction that Mother Teresa's example used to always cause me! The poor...? To hell with them. (Oh Yeah, there is no hell. Even better. Thanks Christopher Hitchens!)

Selam

So as Christopher Hitchens would never consign any to hell, we must logically assume that he is mornally superior to Duvaliers who would.

[Pravoslavbob]

That being said, some people are scandalized by the *tone* of this thread, notwithstanding the subject matter. Please keep the tone of this thread respectful and appropriate for a Christian forum.

I am taking the liberty of repeating to all thread participants this request made by Fr Anastasios several months ago.  Thank you. 

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Moderator

[ialmisry]

Nothing but your own opinions and a book with which you agree.   You got anything more convincing than this?

My opinions? Is it merely my opinion that she befrended the Duvaliers? Is it merely my opinion that she took their money which was made on the oppression and slavery of their subjects? Is is merely my opinion that she enjoyed world-class medical care while consigning the poor of Calcutta to her houses of death without proper medical care?

What did she do?  Close down all those hospitals in Calcutta?  Run out of town all those doctors lining up to serve the poor?

What were her motives? I mean, if she were trying to get rich at the expense of other people's suffering, then she sure lived a pretty sparse lifestyle. She wasn't driving a fancy car and living in a mansion somewhere was she? Or maybe she was actually a Madam running a lucrative underground Calcutta brothel. And what better cover than to pose as a Nun!

Nah, she would never manage a brothel, for to do so might bring others pleasure and through doing so only bring herself pain. Her pleasure came through the suffering of others...and not mere temporary suffering, but severe and lasting pain.

Yes, prostitution is SOOO much a trade in flesh full of happiness.  Every father's dream is to have his daughter sell herself (the pimp, of course, taking his "fair share.").  That why prostitutes are know for their long lives, looking back on a life wallowing in happiness.

Thanks to Christopher Hitchens I'm now enlightened. Now I am free from that nagging conviction that Mother Teresa's example used to always cause me! The poor...? To hell with them. (Oh Yeah, there is no hell. Even better. Thanks Christopher Hitchens!)

Selam

So as Christopher Hitchens would never consign any to hell, we must logically assume that he is mornally superior to Duvaliers who would.

So we must logically assume that enablers love some more than those engaged in intervention.

[GiC]

Nothing but your own opinions and a book with which you agree.   You got anything more convincing than this?

My opinions? Is it merely my opinion that she befrended the Duvaliers? Is it merely my opinion that she took their money which was made on the oppression and slavery of their subjects? Is is merely my opinion that she enjoyed world-class medical care while consigning the poor of Calcutta to her houses of death without proper medical care?

What did she do?  Close down all those hospitals in Calcutta?  Run out of town all those doctors lining up to serve the poor?

It's good she didn't have the power of the Duvaliers, or no doubt she would have been just as cruel...probably moreso. The fact that the damage she did was limited by the limits of her power is hardly a justification for the harm she did do to the poor of calcuta, for the waste of resources, for the destruction of families.

What were her motives? I mean, if she were trying to get rich at the expense of other people's suffering, then she sure lived a pretty sparse lifestyle. She wasn't driving a fancy car and living in a mansion somewhere was she? Or maybe she was actually a Madam running a lucrative underground Calcutta brothel. And what better cover than to pose as a Nun!

Nah, she would never manage a brothel, for to do so might bring others pleasure and through doing so only bring herself pain. Her pleasure came through the suffering of others...and not mere temporary suffering, but severe and lasting pain.

Yes, prostitution is SOOO much a trade in flesh full of happiness.  Every father's dream is to have his daughter sell herself (the pimp, of course, taking his "fair share.").  That why prostitutes are know for their long lives, looking back on a life wallowing in happiness.

All things considered, I'd most certainly rather see a person grow up to be a prostitute than be like Mother Teresa...the former would certainly, without any shadow of a doubt, be a more noble profession. Perhaps it would not grant the same sadistic pleasure enjoyed by Mother Teresa or Le Marquis de Sade (not that the temporary pain enjoyed by the latter should even be reasonably compared to the lasting pain the former found pleasure in)...but the profession is certainly more noble.

Thanks to Christopher Hitchens I'm now enlightened. Now I am free from that nagging conviction that Mother Teresa's example used to always cause me! The poor...? To hell with them. (Oh Yeah, there is no hell. Even better. Thanks Christopher Hitchens!)

Selam

So as Christopher Hitchens would never consign any to hell, we must logically assume that he is mornally superior to Duvaliers who would.

So we must logically assume that enablers love some more than those engaged in intervention.

When talking about liberation from a sadistic lie...most certainly.

[LBK]

All things considered, I'd most certainly rather see a person grow up to be a prostitute than be like Mother Teresa...the former would certainly, without any shadow of a doubt, be a more noble profession. Perhaps it would not grant the same sadistic pleasure enjoyed by Mother Teresa or Le Marquis de Sade (not that the temporary pain enjoyed by the latter should even be reasonably compared to the lasting pain the former found pleasure in)...but the profession is certainly more noble.

To quote Mandy Rice-Davies: He would say that, wouldn't he? 

[Αριστοκλής]

Just because GiC is back to play doesn't mean one has to take his trolling bait so readily.

[GiC]

Just because GiC is back to play doesn't mean one has to take his trolling bait so readily.

You just get upset when someone offers an opinion different from your own...I'm not the only one towards whom you make such accusations.

[Αριστοκλής]

Just because GiC is back to play doesn't mean one has to take his trolling bait so readily.

You just get upset when someone offers an opinion different from your own...I'm not the only one towards whom you make such accusations.

Nice try...

[ialmisry]

Nothing but your own opinions and a book with which you agree.   You got anything more convincing than this?

My opinions? Is it merely my opinion that she befrended the Duvaliers? Is it merely my opinion that she took their money which was made on the oppression and slavery of their subjects? Is is merely my opinion that she enjoyed world-class medical care while consigning the poor of Calcutta to her houses of death without proper medical care?

What did she do?  Close down all those hospitals in Calcutta?  Run out of town all those doctors lining up to serve the poor?

It's good she didn't have the power of the Duvaliers, or no doubt she would have been just as cruel...probably moreso. The fact that the damage she did was limited by the limits of her power is hardly a justification for the harm she did do to the poor of calcuta, for the waste of resources, for the destruction of families.

That's a heavy spin versus fact ratio, even for you.

What were her motives? I mean, if she were trying to get rich at the expense of other people's suffering, then she sure lived a pretty sparse lifestyle. She wasn't driving a fancy car and living in a mansion somewhere was she? Or maybe she was actually a Madam running a lucrative underground Calcutta brothel. And what better cover than to pose as a Nun!

Nah, she would never manage a brothel, for to do so might bring others pleasure and through doing so only bring herself pain. Her pleasure came through the suffering of others...and not mere temporary suffering, but severe and lasting pain.

Yes, prostitution is SOOO much a trade in flesh full of happiness.  Every father's dream is to have his daughter sell herself (the pimp, of course, taking his "fair share.").  That why prostitutes are know for their long lives, looking back on a life wallowing in happiness.

All things considered, I'd most certainly rather see a person grow up to be a prostitute than be like Mother Teresa...the former would certainly, without any shadow of a doubt, be a more noble profession. Perhaps it would not grant the same sadistic pleasure enjoyed by Mother Teresa or Le Marquis de Sade (not that the temporary pain enjoyed by the latter should even be reasonably compared to the lasting pain the former found pleasure in)...but the profession is certainly more noble.

You cares what you would rather?  Just go spend your money elsewhere.

Thanks to Christopher Hitchens I'm now enlightened. Now I am free from that nagging conviction that Mother Teresa's example used to always cause me! The poor...? To hell with them. (Oh Yeah, there is no hell. Even better. Thanks Christopher Hitchens!)

Selam

So as Christopher Hitchens would never consign any to hell, we must logically assume that he is mornally superior to Duvaliers who would.

So we must logically assume that enablers love some more than those engaged in intervention.

When talking about liberation from a sadistic lie

Like the Enlightenment?

...most certainly.

[lubeltri]

I have done some reading and research in this after reading this thread, though I haven't got Hitchen's book. 

I found a particular quote disturbing. (that there were a number of citations for it and I found it in a speech that she gave at the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994.  The whole speech in on the EWTN site)

"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.""
http://www.ewtn.com/New_library/breakfast.htm

The idea that Our Lord is giving excruciating pain to someone and that it is a "kiss" which is a token of love is one that I find alarming, to say the least. And for someone who is not in pain to say such a thing, which I will admit gave me the impression that the patient was being told to just accept it and not get any relief, seems lacking in empathy at the least. 

This kind of idea could lead to some people thinking that God is some kind of "cosmic sadist" who gives pain and calls it love.    I'm sorry that I"m not very articulate here, but I am, as I wrote, disturbed by this.

Ebor

You can listen to this talk here:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/audios/mother-teresa-speech.mp3

The line about telling Jesus to stop kissing her was clearly meant to be humorous and not serious (you can hear the laughter in the audience). I think it is clear from the context that Blessed Teresa did not mean that Christ was "giving" the woman pain. But God was using the pain the woman bore to bring her so close to Jesus that he could kiss her. She was bearing the Cross, united with Jesus.

I mean, it's the same thing with the Crucifixion. God didn't cause it, but he used it out of love to bring us to Him.

It's one of the great mysteries of God that He can make sure that suffering need not be in vain, but instead accomplish great things. That's why He allows it to happen.

[StGeorge]

Nothing but your own opinions and a book with which you agree.   You got anything more convincing than this?

My opinions? Is it merely my opinion that she befrended the Duvaliers? Is it merely my opinion that she took their money which was made on the oppression and slavery of their subjects? Is is merely my opinion that she enjoyed world-class medical care while consigning the poor of Calcutta to her houses of death without proper medical care?

What did she do?  Close down all those hospitals in Calcutta?  Run out of town all those doctors lining up to serve the poor?

It's good she didn't have the power of the Duvaliers, or no doubt she would have been just as cruel...probably moreso. The fact that the damage she did was limited by the limits of her power is hardly a justification for the harm she did do to the poor of calcuta, for the waste of resources, for the destruction of families.

What were her motives? I mean, if she were trying to get rich at the expense of other people's suffering, then she sure lived a pretty sparse lifestyle. She wasn't driving a fancy car and living in a mansion somewhere was she? Or maybe she was actually a Madam running a lucrative underground Calcutta brothel. And what better cover than to pose as a Nun!

Nah, she would never manage a brothel, for to do so might bring others pleasure and through doing so only bring herself pain. Her pleasure came through the suffering of others...and not mere temporary suffering, but severe and lasting pain.

Yes, prostitution is SOOO much a trade in flesh full of happiness.  Every father's dream is to have his daughter sell herself (the pimp, of course, taking his "fair share.").  That why prostitutes are know for their long lives, looking back on a life wallowing in happiness.

All things considered, I'd most certainly rather see a person grow up to be a prostitute than be like Mother Teresa...the former would certainly, without any shadow of a doubt, be a more noble profession. Perhaps it would not grant the same sadistic pleasure enjoyed by Mother Teresa or Le Marquis de Sade (not that the temporary pain enjoyed by the latter should even be reasonably compared to the lasting pain the former found pleasure in)...but the profession is certainly more noble.

Thanks to Christopher Hitchens I'm now enlightened. Now I am free from that nagging conviction that Mother Teresa's example used to always cause me! The poor...? To hell with them. (Oh Yeah, there is no hell. Even better. Thanks Christopher Hitchens!)

Selam

So as Christopher Hitchens would never consign any to hell, we must logically assume that he is mornally superior to Duvaliers who would.

So we must logically assume that enablers love some more than those engaged in intervention.

When talking about liberation from a sadistic lie...most certainly.

What I don't understand, greekischristian, is why you still hold on to intrinsic values. 

 

[recent convert]

I see the mediocrity of recurrent slander of this dear woman has resumed ad nauseum. Lord, have mercy!

[GiC]

Nothing but your own opinions and a book with which you agree.   You got anything more convincing than this?

My opinions? Is it merely my opinion that she befrended the Duvaliers? Is it merely my opinion that she took their money which was made on the oppression and slavery of their subjects? Is is merely my opinion that she enjoyed world-class medical care while consigning the poor of Calcutta to her houses of death without proper medical care?

What did she do?  Close down all those hospitals in Calcutta?  Run out of town all those doctors lining up to serve the poor?

It's good she didn't have the power of the Duvaliers, or no doubt she would have been just as cruel...probably moreso. The fact that the damage she did was limited by the limits of her power is hardly a justification for the harm she did do to the poor of calcuta, for the waste of resources, for the destruction of families.

What were her motives? I mean, if she were trying to get rich at the expense of other people's suffering, then she sure lived a pretty sparse lifestyle. She wasn't driving a fancy car and living in a mansion somewhere was she? Or maybe she was actually a Madam running a lucrative underground Calcutta brothel. And what better cover than to pose as a Nun!

Nah, she would never manage a brothel, for to do so might bring others pleasure and through doing so only bring herself pain. Her pleasure came through the suffering of others...and not mere temporary suffering, but severe and lasting pain.

Yes, prostitution is SOOO much a trade in flesh full of happiness.  Every father's dream is to have his daughter sell herself (the pimp, of course, taking his "fair share.").  That why prostitutes are know for their long lives, looking back on a life wallowing in happiness.

All things considered, I'd most certainly rather see a person grow up to be a prostitute than be like Mother Teresa...the former would certainly, without any shadow of a doubt, be a more noble profession. Perhaps it would not grant the same sadistic pleasure enjoyed by Mother Teresa or Le Marquis de Sade (not that the temporary pain enjoyed by the latter should even be reasonably compared to the lasting pain the former found pleasure in)...but the profession is certainly more noble.

Thanks to Christopher Hitchens I'm now enlightened. Now I am free from that nagging conviction that Mother Teresa's example used to always cause me! The poor...? To hell with them. (Oh Yeah, there is no hell. Even better. Thanks Christopher Hitchens!)

Selam

So as Christopher Hitchens would never consign any to hell, we must logically assume that he is mornally superior to Duvaliers who would.

So we must logically assume that enablers love some more than those engaged in intervention.

When talking about liberation from a sadistic lie...most certainly.

What I don't understand, greekischristian, is why you still hold on to intrinsic values. 

One does not need religion to appreciate the intrinic value of humanism. The evolutionary developments of the human intellect, human civilization, and human science alone are sufficient. Death, poverty, suffering, and squalor waste the resources of human intellect and commodities and have a universially negative effect.

[theistgal]

Just wondering if the criticism of Mother Teresa also applies to the women who have joined her order around the world, and continue to do so?  Or is it just MT personally you don't like? 

[buzu]

Declaring Mother Theresa a saint will be up to the RCC. Its not really our concern, nor will we need to venarate her as she is not of our communion. We can recognize the works of charity she has done, and going beyond the call of duty required, which she never thought of as "going beyond the call". This is something to emulate.

In another thread on this forum we discussed the faults of orthodox saints, namely emperors who have been glorified by the church, and if they were able to overcome I dont think we need to dwell to much on Mother Theresa.

[StGeorge]

Nothing but your own opinions and a book with which you agree.   You got anything more convincing than this?

My opinions? Is it merely my opinion that she befrended the Duvaliers? Is it merely my opinion that she took their money which was made on the oppression and slavery of their subjects? Is is merely my opinion that she enjoyed world-class medical care while consigning the poor of Calcutta to her houses of death without proper medical care?

What did she do?  Close down all those hospitals in Calcutta?  Run out of town all those doctors lining up to serve the poor?

It's good she didn't have the power of the Duvaliers, or no doubt she would have been just as cruel...probably moreso. The fact that the damage she did was limited by the limits of her power is hardly a justification for the harm she did do to the poor of calcuta, for the waste of resources, for the destruction of families.

What were her motives? I mean, if she were trying to get rich at the expense of other people's suffering, then she sure lived a pretty sparse lifestyle. She wasn't driving a fancy car and living in a mansion somewhere was she? Or maybe she was actually a Madam running a lucrative underground Calcutta brothel. And what better cover than to pose as a Nun!

Nah, she would never manage a brothel, for to do so might bring others pleasure and through doing so only bring herself pain. Her pleasure came through the suffering of others...and not mere temporary suffering, but severe and lasting pain.

Yes, prostitution is SOOO much a trade in flesh full of happiness.  Every father's dream is to have his daughter sell herself (the pimp, of course, taking his "fair share.").  That why prostitutes are know for their long lives, looking back on a life wallowing in happiness.

All things considered, I'd most certainly rather see a person grow up to be a prostitute than be like Mother Teresa...the former would certainly, without any shadow of a doubt, be a more noble profession. Perhaps it would not grant the same sadistic pleasure enjoyed by Mother Teresa or Le Marquis de Sade (not that the temporary pain enjoyed by the latter should even be reasonably compared to the lasting pain the former found pleasure in)...but the profession is certainly more noble.

Thanks to Christopher Hitchens I'm now enlightened. Now I am free from that nagging conviction that Mother Teresa's example used to always cause me! The poor...? To hell with them. (Oh Yeah, there is no hell. Even better. Thanks Christopher Hitchens!)

Selam

So as Christopher Hitchens would never consign any to hell, we must logically assume that he is mornally superior to Duvaliers who would.

So we must logically assume that enablers love some more than those engaged in intervention.

When talking about liberation from a sadistic lie...most certainly.

What I don't understand, greekischristian, is why you still hold on to intrinsic values. 

One does not need religion to appreciate the intrinic value of humanism. The evolutionary developments of the human intellect, human civilization, and human science alone are sufficient. Death, poverty, suffering, and squalor waste the resources of human intellect and commodities and have a universially negative effect.

Yes, I understand you to be a [secular] humanist. 

The humanist can see his humanism as of intrinsic value; but when the source of value and disvalue is man, and when various men have have created their own values and disvalues (and non-values), I don't see how a value can make any claims of being an in-itself end for those who do not regard it as a value, much less an intrinsic value of universal scope.         

In any case, my alter ego tends more towards nihilism.     

[Jakub]

Declaring Mother Theresa a saint will be up to the RCC. Its not really our concern, nor will we need to venarate her as she is not of our communion. We can recognize the works of charity she has done, and going beyond the call of duty required, which she never thought of as "going beyond the call". This is something to emulate.

In another thread on this forum we discussed the faults of orthodox saints, namely emperors who have been glorified by the church, and if they were able to overcome I dont think we need to dwell to much on Mother Theresa.

Excellent...

[GiC]

Just wondering if the criticism of Mother Teresa also applies to the women who have joined her order around the world, and continue to do so?  Or is it just MT personally you don't like? 

Each and every person must be judged on their own merits...I cannot condemn someone just because they adhear to some absurd and perverted philosophy/theolgy. They may be good people with unfortunate tramatic situations in early child hood, frightened and without aid they may have turned to the sadistic ideals of this woman in desparation. Or perhaps in ignorane, following her popular cult, they embraced her teachings, never allowing themselves to fully understand the evil they engraned themselves into. So, no, it's just her that I condemn here. More than anything else I feel pitty for her truly devouted followers.

[GiC]

Nothing but your own opinions and a book with which you agree.   You got anything more convincing than this?

My opinions? Is it merely my opinion that she befrended the Duvaliers? Is it merely my opinion that she took their money which was made on the oppression and slavery of their subjects? Is is merely my opinion that she enjoyed world-class medical care while consigning the poor of Calcutta to her houses of death without proper medical care?

What did she do?  Close down all those hospitals in Calcutta?  Run out of town all those doctors lining up to serve the poor?

It's good she didn't have the power of the Duvaliers, or no doubt she would have been just as cruel...probably moreso. The fact that the damage she did was limited by the limits of her power is hardly a justification for the harm she did do to the poor of calcuta, for the waste of resources, for the destruction of families.

What were her motives? I mean, if she were trying to get rich at the expense of other people's suffering, then she sure lived a pretty sparse lifestyle. She wasn't driving a fancy car and living in a mansion somewhere was she? Or maybe she was actually a Madam running a lucrative underground Calcutta brothel. And what better cover than to pose as a Nun!

Nah, she would never manage a brothel, for to do so might bring others pleasure and through doing so only bring herself pain. Her pleasure came through the suffering of others...and not mere temporary suffering, but severe and lasting pain.

Yes, prostitution is SOOO much a trade in flesh full of happiness.  Every father's dream is to have his daughter sell herself (the pimp, of course, taking his "fair share.").  That why prostitutes are know for their long lives, looking back on a life wallowing in happiness.

All things considered, I'd most certainly rather see a person grow up to be a prostitute than be like Mother Teresa...the former would certainly, without any shadow of a doubt, be a more noble profession. Perhaps it would not grant the same sadistic pleasure enjoyed by Mother Teresa or Le Marquis de Sade (not that the temporary pain enjoyed by the latter should even be reasonably compared to the lasting pain the former found pleasure in)...but the profession is certainly more noble.

Thanks to Christopher Hitchens I'm now enlightened. Now I am free from that nagging conviction that Mother Teresa's example used to always cause me! The poor...? To hell with them. (Oh Yeah, there is no hell. Even better. Thanks Christopher Hitchens!)

Selam

So as Christopher Hitchens would never consign any to hell, we must logically assume that he is mornally superior to Duvaliers who would.

So we must logically assume that enablers love some more than those engaged in intervention.

When talking about liberation from a sadistic lie...most certainly.

What I don't understand, greekischristian, is why you still hold on to intrinsic values. 

One does not need religion to appreciate the intrinic value of humanism. The evolutionary developments of the human intellect, human civilization, and human science alone are sufficient. Death, poverty, suffering, and squalor waste the resources of human intellect and commodities and have a universially negative effect.

Yes, I understand you to be a [secular] humanist. 

[quote}
The humanist can see his humanism as of intrinsic value; but when the source of value and disvalue is man, and when various men have have created their own values and disvalues (and non-values), I don't see how a value can make any claims of being an in-itself end for those who do not regard it as a value, much less an intrinsic value of universal scope.         

In any case, my alter ego tends more towards nihilism.     
[/quote]

I make arguments based on the evolution of the human mind, sure some will think differently; biology is a messy process, the combination of chromozomes from two different people does not always produce ideal results, I am certain that some will experience mutations that make them unable to interact in the manner expected of human beings. But what is consistent is the mean of the human behaviour, the average human outlook represents the current state of the evolution of our species and from that, not from the mutated exceptions, can we derive a truly humanistic philosophy based on the evolution of our species.

[Pravoslavbob]

Let's keep this discussion on topic please people.

[theistgal]

Just wanted to say that I read Hitchens' book, and my impression is that his major beef with Mother Theresa is that she (gasp!) adhered to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, specifically in the areas of contraception and abortion.

Now I know some of you disagree with the RCC's teachings in those areas, and that's fine, but it does seem rather unfair to criticize a loyal member of the Church for being - well - a loyal member of the Church.

[Tallitot]

text deleted by poster. a happy pascha to all.

[PoorFoolNicholas]

I think Hitchens is a proto totalitarian & does not even realize it. He espouses freedom of thought but does not allow it if one's thougt is religious. This article is one big self rationalization on how one ought to think, virtually denies indivdual accountability, & blames everything on religion. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070606_christopher_hitchens_religion_poisons_everything/

A quote from Hitchens from the link above: "All that’s required now is that everybody realize the truth of this book.  That’s extremely dangerous preaching, in my opinion." (Referring to the Quran). Should we also use this same logic for his book?

[PoorFoolNicholas]

Here is another quote from the link above that I thought was a little dodgy, to say the least:

Wiener: I know you’ve often been told that everybody has faith in something—for most Americans, it’s Jesus; for you, it’s reason and science.

Hitchens: That’s not faith, by definition.  You can’t have faith in reason.  It’s not a dogma.  It’s a conviction that this is the only way that discovery and progress can be made.

Semantics 101?

[Fr. George]

Hitchens political talk split off to its own thread:

Re: Hitchens, Mother Teresa, and Politics
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20773.0.html

[Papist]

Here is another quote from the link above that I thought was a little dodgy, to say the least:

Wiener: I know you’ve often been told that everybody has faith in something—for most Americans, it’s Jesus; for you, it’s reason and science.

Hitchens: That’s not faith, by definition.  You can’t have faith in reason.  It’s not a dogma.  It’s a conviction that this is the only way that discovery and progress can be made.

Semantics 101?

Don't we need to have faith in the basic premises of reason in order to accept the validit of reason?

[PoorFoolNicholas]

Here is another quote from the link above that I thought was a little dodgy, to say the least:

Wiener: I know you’ve often been told that everybody has faith in something—for most Americans, it’s Jesus; for you, it’s reason and science.

Hitchens: That’s not faith, by definition.  You can’t have faith in reason.  It’s not a dogma.  It’s a conviction that this is the only way that discovery and progress can be made.

Semantics 101?

Don't we need to have faith in the basic premises of reason in order to accept the validit of reason?

I would think so, yes.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics > Topic: Validity of Mother Teresa