brighid

I would like to address this further ...

Was MT ministering to Catholics who felt suffering was an offering onto God, or was she ministering to a worshippers of a foreign God(s) who had different ideas about suffering?

Do Catholic hospitals, physicians and nurses in other parts of the world withhold necessary medical treatment to those who CAN be saved, or pain killing or quelling medication to those who have no hope but dying in peace and some modicum of comfort? I think if we compare the actions of rest of the Catholic world, who believe similarly as MT that we will find very different actions and I would think that most Catholics (at least those that I know and including my mother, a Catholic critical care nurse) that denying patients medication, medical care and the best comfort that can be offered is unconscionable. If it isn’t, it certainly should be.

I am capable of discerning the difference between the harvesting of souls and the contribution of suffering as an offering to a God. I can’t imagine this allegedly loving, merciful and compassionate Deity desiring that little children die with maggot infested wounds that could easily be cured by the medicine He gave to his followers. I also cannot imagine this God finding it acceptable to use dirty needles to humanly inflict more pain then He has allegedly chosen to give (although it is debatable what the Christian God does or does not give those who worship other Gods … and perhaps THAT is the key to all of this) by deliberately inflicting infection, pain and suffering OR withholding reasonable care. It is not as if Teresa and her nuns are ignorant of modern, sanitary conditions or the value of health care.

I would contend that no such actions would be taken in any Western, Catholic setting amongst a Catholic populous with resources that MT had at her disposal. So why is it that the “heathen” poor of Calcutta were left in such utter destitution, only to be saved from a death on some public street but perhaps denied the dignity of worshipping the God of their faith and receiving the assistance that the wealth of Western largesse had made available to these minstrels.

I do not think the local government, that is poor and corrupt should be accounted for in a discussion of MT, even if they do have responsibility. It only serves to obfuscate this discussion. We are talking about a very specific group of people, with very specific means and the moral implications of their actions. The discussion about the Indian government is entirely separate and should remain such.

No one has advocated drugging any “third-world” patient into “oblivion”, but I can conceive of the possibility where this might be the best alternative for a terminally ill patient that cannot receive relief from pain via ordinary medical care, and thereby requires extraordinary care. However, that really isn’t the point either. The point is that antibiotics, and other medications COULD have been giving to the sick and dieing to either cure their illnesses, or allow them to die with less, or NO pain.

Here is what Catholic Hospice has to say about end of life dignity and care: “We are dedicated to preserving the dignity of individuals, supporting those dealing with the challenges of death and bereavement, fostering acceptance and respect for all phases and transitions in life. We are committed to alleviating spiritual and emotional distress, as well as, physical discomfort so life may be enjoyed to the fullest.
Here are the Comprehensive Services Provided:
· Physical care including medical and nursing services.
· Medications, medical supplies and equipment.
· Assistance with insurance paperwork & other matters of financial concern.
· Pain control and symptom management, as well as dietary guidance.
· Spiritual and emotional support in accordance with the family's own religious network
· Family education regarding patient care, medications and what to expect.
· Professional grief counseling and support
· Practical care such as bathing and assistance with daily activities
· Additional services that may be required to serve an individual's specific needs. See our page for Special Programs available
http://www.catholichospice.org/Services.htm

Now tell me that a Catholic Nun, living in our day, with the same faith as this organization and hundreds of millions of dollars a year, could NOT have done better?

Brighid

edited to add: I would also say if MT was ministering to people of the same faith any "suffering" offering they made by continued pain through illness would be done voluntarily as an "offering", however it seems these men, women and children were not voluntarily offering up their suffering to this foreign God but were made to SUFFER additionally (and deliberately) for a God they did not know. How this can be justified is beyond me! Imagine a Muslim denying a Christian medical care in an Islamic country because Allah desires suffering in order to be closer to him. Christendom would be up in arms, yet the same action from one of their own only brings petty indifference, rationalization and obfuscation of the deliberately inflicted human suffering that should have been AND would have been prevented had they been white, Western Christians.

wordfailure

Hello Rhea. Sorry for the slow response. I don't have much time for this.

Rhea:
...Then she went to a bang-up hospital for her own otherwise-fatal condition?

If I see a homeless person standing on a street corner can I give him $5 or must I provide him with a standard of living equivalent to mine? If I am unable to or choose not to provide a standard of living equal to mine must I give up my standard of living and become homeless?


Rhea:
We value truth and honesty (yet take stolen money)
We value suffering (yet we take painkillers ourselves)
We value death with "dignity" (yet we don't offer clean sheets when we could)


Yes, I have some problems with the handling of the millions of dollars in contributions. At best this is a cold ends-justify-means manipulation of contributors. At worst it seems like criminal corruption.

The suffering/painkiller thing I think you misunderstand. I don't think suffering is valued in itself. "Offering up" pain and suffering, as I understand it, is not an end in itself. It seems to be an attempt to offer some sense of personal worth to those in basically hopeless situations. I think it unreasonable to automatically assign evil motives to everything the Catholic Church does. Being wrong is one thing, being sinister and evil of intent is another. I read somewhere that the Catholic Church does more charity work in the world than all other organizations combined. Even if this is not true it is undeniable that they do a great deal. It seems disingenuous to detest them and accuse them of evil intent for not doing more or for not doing it according to our ideal standards. I do not wish to play apologist for Mother Teresa or the Catholics. I think the beliefs are erroneous. My two major problem areas with all this are in regard to the money and with what seems to me to be odd motivations. It appears to me that Mother T as religious mystic saw this all in the beginning as a call for her to sacrifice rather than as a human need that should be addressed. Even now it seems more like an opportunity for the sisters to serve their god than as a human suffering being confronted for its own sake. But in fairness my suspicions that the motivations may not be of the totally ideal selfless variety does not make Mother T and the Catholic Church vile and contemptible-- just imperfect and human.


Rhea:
By the way, someone has claimed that "Theresa never intended to 'harvest souls'. " This claim is intended to show how loving and charitable (and presumably beyond reproach) she is.

If you are referring to me, I said "All this may be hogwash, but it is in fact not the same as being indifferent or ruthlessly harvesting souls or such". It is only through an extreme bias that one can see in this an intent to show how loving or beyond reproach Mother T was, IMO. Such bias (at least as I see it) was the cause of my rant.

Queen of Swords

I don't know if Mother Teresa took a vow of poverty or not, but if she did, how would one justify her spending a great deal of money on herself, even for sickness?

wordfailure

Hello Brighid.

Your questions deserve thoughtful response but I'm out of time. I'll try to reply tonight. Sorry.

Rhea

No problem with slow response, I understand! Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

M. Teresa DID take a vow of poverty - read my link. She also vowed to put herself in their shoes. If you vowed those things, then yeah you owe them a standard equivalent. Read MT's "vow".
I agree.
I disagree. She STATES that "suffering is beautiful" and glorifies christ.

When did I ever say anything about "everything the catholic church does"? Why are you accusing me of that? We're talking about MT here. At least I am. If I went off on the church in general, please quote me so that I can retract it.

If you can't find a quote, your apology for falsly accusing me is accepted.

Is MT's work included in this accounting? Is that "charity work" and is that good?

Again, please show where anyone accused the entire catholic church of being evil and detestible. Brighid showed a quote of how Catholic charities can be most charitable. She seems to suggest that if MT followed this guideline, she would not be reviled.


What makes them worthy of discussion and censure is that they are GLORIFYING HER WORK. And her work was vile and contemptible.
Fair enough. I believe she WAS harvesting souls. I obviously erred in understanding why you would make the claim that she was not. Why would you claim that if not to mitigate her case? What would be the point in uttering the words if it was not to quell my position? And if your purpose in writing those words was to quell my objections to her work, her reputation and her status, then how is that different from attempting to "make her beyond reproach"? I'm not sure I understand your objection here. Please help me understand the difference. Why did you claim she was _not_ "the same as being indifferent or ruthlessly harvesting souls or such"? What was the purpose, intent or desired result of making that statement?

Rhea

re: did she make a vow of poverty (including medical hardship?) These are exerpts from HER LETTER to the archbishop VOWING to follow the request of Jesus (including her replies to Jesus about her fear of not being able to do it, but then saying she would.

Again, THIS IS HER VOW.
If she is "only human" and was unable to keep her vow, then perhaps sainthood is rather silly to bestow, no?

And it is wrong to claim that she did keep this vow. She did not. repeatedly. To call her perfection is to lie, is it not?

brighid

Wordfailure,

Don't worry about the response time, but I sincerely appreciate the heads up. That is very courteous. Believe me, I understand how busy life is so please take you time and get back to the discussion when you can.

Brighid

Rhea

I would be interested in comments on this analogous question.

The time: September, 2001
The Place: NYC
The Charity: American Red Cross.
The Problem: ARC accepted funds from people who "wanted to help the victims". There was not enough medical need to warrent spending all of those funds. The ARC intended to "bank" them against future disasters.
The Public Outcry: "Fraud!", "Wrong!", "It should be given as cash to the victims!", "That is who the donors were intending to help with their gifts!"
The Result: Public relations disaster for ARC. Resignation of head. Congressional interference. "Standards" for the future.


and Missionaries of Charity?

Well, they won't even tell you where the money is, let alone how much there is.


This is not a disturbing situation? It disturbs me deeply.

Not just for the helping funds which never get to help (and the people who suffer therefrom), but the people who feel they have some reason to believe that they shouldn't ask, or can't ask, or don't deserve to ask - what is happening to their donation. That's a disturbing mindset. This organization is beyond reproach.

That's a dangerous, dangerous situation to allow. Don't you think?

brighid

dbporter,

Sabine, is in fact a Christian and a Catholic if I remember correctly. I am not positive at the moment, but I believe that information would be in ones profile.

If one is not informed enough to come to a conclusion one has a number of options at her disposal: become educated and formulate an opinion. (enough time has passed and enough information has been provided to do so.) Perhaps state that one does not wish to become informed, or to engage in debate. If one is not informed enough to form an opinion perhaps one shouldn't criticize others who provide information contrary to one's belief.

I do not think it was necessary to use language such as bitch, or "c--t", but one can address that by contacting the forum moderators and objecting to the use of such language. However, use of such language by some posters does not negate the discussion, or invalidate the information provided.

I, personally, have not classified any theist as "bad" for their silence on this particular issue. All I have said is that this behavior seems to be, IMHO and experience, typical not only of theists on this thread, but in general with these sorts of subjects. Some theists are quick to come to the defense of one of their esteemed, but reluctant to answer relevenent and meaningful questions meant to bring about more accurate conclusions (for both sides). Often times, some are downright hostile. It gets rather old and annoying, that is all. Call it frustration on my part (and no doubt on the part of others) but really if this isn't the case all one need to do is take the appropriate action to disprove this claim by actually answering the logical questions and engaging in dialogue/debate.

Brighid

hinduwoman

Mother Teresa's defenders are not defending her against the factual charges. She might have thought suffering beautiful, but none of her patients had been brought up to believe that. They never offered their sufferings to Teresa's God. Besides, she herself refused to accept Jesus' kiss and instead took painkillers and checked into extremely wealthy uptodate medical institutions. This, in spite of her saying that she lived like the poor and being acclaimed as a saint for it.

Any volunteer who had worked at the various homes insists of their filth and the lack of medical training for the nuns. New syringes are coming in all the time, but the preference is to use the same needle. Dish washing was done in the same place in Kalighat as soiled blankets and even now they are washed in stagnant waters. Food is nutritionally inadequate and patients crammed in a little room forbidden to move around without permission. Handicapped patients are denied therapeutic massages and medicine. An injured child is frequently not attended to because it is the will of God whether he would grow up disabled or not. In one centre food donated for the poor of the locality are stored in the compound and allowed to rot . All this somehow miraculously compensated by love and Godliness? Any govt. centres run in this way would have people up in arms. So why is the Indian govt. not excused on these same emotional grounds? I am sure the local communist govt. with their high communist ideals means well and feels only love for the destitute.
Interviews with the destitutes of Calcutta give the same grim picture --- they have either never heard of the Sisters or says that they receive hardly anything. I notice that none of the defenders have said anything about the charge that the gifts arriving from the West are sold off to local traders or taken away by relatives of nuns. What does the Catholic doctrine say about such practices?
Chatterjee observes, "They [conditions at Calcutta] make the volunteers angry, including the Catholic ones … the Catholics operate a system of defensive denial --- and many deal with their anger and disappointment by adopting an over-enthusiastic trumpet of support". Yet sometimes even Catholic ones are forced to criticize. On this board the defenders seem to be in similar denial; apparently they think if they focus on abstract concepts, them somehow the facts --- which I have repeated on every post --- will go away, and they need not address them.

The 'Hindu fundamentalism' thing is a red herring in this case. Chatterjee is not trashing Teresa because she is Catholic but because he wanted to expose the truth and show that his native city Calcutta is not Teresa's playground. His wife is an Irish Catholic who had been brought up to worship Teresa. She came to India to serve as a volunteer. But the disillusionment was too much for her to stomach, and so she supported her husband in getting the truth come out.
The latching on to Hindu fundamentalism defense begins with the assumption that MT could not have done something really wrong. The criticism is being done by Hindu fundamentalists who want to degrade Christianity. Therefore we need not give such accusations serious consideration. Once again the FACTS are ignored.
Not to mention that all the volunteers interviewed by Chatterjee are Christians and often Catholics. Are they that eager to shore up Hindu fundamentalists?

It is interesting how people leap to the defence of a media idol and their 'own side'. If I refuse to give medicine to a patient under my care on the grounds that his karma has determined his suffering and so Hinduism will not allow me to help him I would be condemned roundly for being cruel and the cry would be 'What a horrible religion Hinduism is!'. But replace my name with that of MT and suddenly it is ok, replace Hinduism with Christianity and suddenly it is no longer a horrible religion but one of love and suffering and so that is all right.

Chatterjee lists a number of defences in his book. They all say the same things: yes, the facts cannot be contested but there is so much love, and so we must not criticize.
Anyone care to discuss the facts, which prove that MT is not such a noble person after all?