T
thistle
Guest
Like what? So you mean parents are not responsible for baptising the child and bringing it in to the Catholic faith?
Accusations against Saint Teresa?
- Thread starter Willing_Spirit
- Start date
- Status
N
Nahar
Guest
Do you remember the famous line for “Gone with the wind?”
JUST KIDDING!!! Yes, I am aware of the danger to present such a totally innocent sentence.
Last edited:
T
thistle
Guest
I know the line and I don’t believe you are kidding!Do you remember the famous line for “Gone with the wind?”
D
Dorothy
Guest
In this case, the loving mother of that infant should do whatever she can to alleviate the suffering of her baby.
P
Poet
Guest
Thank you. So it’s not just me. Frankly, I know very few Catholics who think deeply enough about their faith to even think about any connection between virtue and suffering.
G
Greenfields
Guest
Just letting you know this topic has been discussed before if you do a search .
Q
QwertyGirl
Guest
I am surprised at the number of posters here who seem to deny the concept of the virtue of redemptive suffering.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
I am going to refer you to best writing on the subject. Literally everything I know about redemptive suffering can be read in this document and in the referenced scripture/documents:
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-.../hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris.html
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-.../hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris.html
N
Nahar
Guest
Very kind of you. It is a very long document. Does it contain anything about the redemptive suffering of the teething of infants? I would appreciate if you pointed it out. Just quote a few words, so I can search for them.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Honestly, there is Scripture that talks about straining at gnats while swallowing camels that comes to mind. The Vatican does not give a list of every possible sort of suffering.
If you wish to understand the teachings, it is far deeper than one universal medical issue.
If you wish to understand the teachings, it is far deeper than one universal medical issue.
N
Nahar
Guest
Every sort of suffering? I am only asking about the redemptive kind. If you cannot help me, that is fine.
B
butterlover
Guest
Can i just say, i have a few “arguments” i have heard, and reasons why people are looking at them in just the wrong light, and then judging them unfairly? Writing these from memory, right now, but the sources weren’t that hard to find (in the past)
CRITICISM. She didn’t treat them medically as well as a “real” hospital would have.
ANSWER. You would not go to a dentist, then complain they did not treat your brain tumor. You would not go to the best heart surgeons and then complain they did not treat your crooked teeth. Her charity was trying to help and comfort people who were literally dying on the streets, alone and cold. There was no one else doing anything for these people, especially as they were dying, and beyond help or reason to help them.
CRITICISM. She should have used medical supplies and whatnot to help them more.
ANSWER. First, medical supplies cost money, and they had so very little. Second, they were trying to help the dying know they were loved and not alone, not treat people’s ills. Third, they were not trained as nurses or doctors either, and probably had ignorance on many such matters. But also, as a charity origination, I have heard that the Indian government/medical board/what-not (very sorry for the bad choice of words here) refused to “do the paperwork” as it were, to allow her and her nuns’ work to be eligible for free medical supplies. They could have had some free things, but were intentionally discredited and ignored, and not made certified or eligible, probably since they were in a way doing something India was failing to do, and making them look bad
CRITICISM. But even when they had medical supplies, sometimes they would withhold them!
ANSWER. Ignorance (but not maliciously) was probably a factor. Not knowing enough about the medicine and its effectiveness, or how much they had left, too. Again, they were first treating dying people, and when they also had living people with sicknesses and injuries to treat, probably they thought they had to limit who got medicine and who didn’t, since they had a quantity of uncertain supply and no way to know when they would/could get more supplies. Actually being with dying people and having medicine to treat only 1 out of 1000 would be really hard to deal with. Perhaps it was sometimes easier to say they was no medicine than give 1 person hope but those around would be dashed with false hope and no pain relief.
I think the whole “no good deed goes unpunished” is very true in our world, and certainly here. Trying to do a nice thing for a poor dying person is suddenly full of more issues and problems and people who are not helping at all suddenly want to criticize your failings. She and her nuns were only human, and not perfect, but made a huge change in how these very poor sick and dying people were treated. Hindsight is worse, since it cannot see how it was for her in the very first few years of her work. It feels it must judge her harshly for not being super-humanly competent beyond her ministries capabilities. (which were indeed limited)
CRITICISM. She didn’t treat them medically as well as a “real” hospital would have.
ANSWER. You would not go to a dentist, then complain they did not treat your brain tumor. You would not go to the best heart surgeons and then complain they did not treat your crooked teeth. Her charity was trying to help and comfort people who were literally dying on the streets, alone and cold. There was no one else doing anything for these people, especially as they were dying, and beyond help or reason to help them.
CRITICISM. She should have used medical supplies and whatnot to help them more.
ANSWER. First, medical supplies cost money, and they had so very little. Second, they were trying to help the dying know they were loved and not alone, not treat people’s ills. Third, they were not trained as nurses or doctors either, and probably had ignorance on many such matters. But also, as a charity origination, I have heard that the Indian government/medical board/what-not (very sorry for the bad choice of words here) refused to “do the paperwork” as it were, to allow her and her nuns’ work to be eligible for free medical supplies. They could have had some free things, but were intentionally discredited and ignored, and not made certified or eligible, probably since they were in a way doing something India was failing to do, and making them look bad
CRITICISM. But even when they had medical supplies, sometimes they would withhold them!
ANSWER. Ignorance (but not maliciously) was probably a factor. Not knowing enough about the medicine and its effectiveness, or how much they had left, too. Again, they were first treating dying people, and when they also had living people with sicknesses and injuries to treat, probably they thought they had to limit who got medicine and who didn’t, since they had a quantity of uncertain supply and no way to know when they would/could get more supplies. Actually being with dying people and having medicine to treat only 1 out of 1000 would be really hard to deal with. Perhaps it was sometimes easier to say they was no medicine than give 1 person hope but those around would be dashed with false hope and no pain relief.
I think the whole “no good deed goes unpunished” is very true in our world, and certainly here. Trying to do a nice thing for a poor dying person is suddenly full of more issues and problems and people who are not helping at all suddenly want to criticize your failings. She and her nuns were only human, and not perfect, but made a huge change in how these very poor sick and dying people were treated. Hindsight is worse, since it cannot see how it was for her in the very first few years of her work. It feels it must judge her harshly for not being super-humanly competent beyond her ministries capabilities. (which were indeed limited)
Last edited:
P
Poet
Guest
Exactly. Your whole post is excellent.
I have only one addition/question: on what authority do we know they withheld medication? This is the sort of thing that I wonder what the kernel of truth is–did they routinely look at someone in pain and deliberately hoard the pain medication because…because why would you do that?
Or did someone new to the facility not realize it was there one day and say No, I have nothing for you, and the person later discovered there was something and the story got blown up by people who need to discredit Christianity? Or even by people who heard exaggerated tales and were appalled because they believed them?
My point is, we’re told a lot of things in this world and we make a lot of judgments and all too often in our personal lives and certainly in worldwide matters of which we have no personal knowledge–we find that we had the story wrong and things were not quite as we were told or as we believed.
T
thistle
Guest
You continue to be sarcastic. Remember this is a Catholic forum. Please show respect here.
B
butterlover
Guest
I for one, do not know. I haven’t read many books about the “behind the scenes” or the origin of St. Teresa and her nuns’ work, and am not pretending to be an expert. Neither, I confess, do i have any wish to look into stories written by journalists (with anti-Catholic bias or without) looking to dig up dirt on such a thing. People and organizations aren’t perfect, ever, even if they are trying to do good in the world.
As much as I personally would hope that the “withholding claim” is just a claim and nothing more, my paragraph above is meant to answer it in a “suppose it did happen” way, and to address their human faults and lack of foresight. I think it entirely possible one would not give someone medicine if they were dying, when the medicine could help very presently heal someone with less severe a condition.
Not knowing who needs medicine the most and trying your best judgement is still not a horrible crime, but a difficult situation where one can only try to treat both patients with charity, if not equal pain relief. Maybe the nuns sometimes did have bad days when they felt caregiver burnout (as it is commonly called these days) or feel overwhelmed with so many people needing help, but I still would not believe any of their inactions or less charitable interactions were meant maliciously, but rather from exhaustion.
Last edited:
From what I understand of some critics, it has to due with her conception of the redemption suffering, or the normality of natural suffering. She opt to not give some pain medication to dying patients even if they would have been availables on some circunstances if she truly wants it because it does not match her views on suffering.
C
Crocus
Guest
I am inclined to think Mother Teresa’s statement about redemptive suffering, as so often happens, was misjudged by people who have no understanding of Catholic teaching, presuming we are a bunch of sadists.
It is very likely, in expressing her love for the poor dying, who could no longer be helped physically, she observed courage and those virtues of acceptance in the face of the inevitable, and it was her words of praise to honor them, that attracted misplaced criticism.
It is very likely, in expressing her love for the poor dying, who could no longer be helped physically, she observed courage and those virtues of acceptance in the face of the inevitable, and it was her words of praise to honor them, that attracted misplaced criticism.
N
Nahar
Guest
If this is considered to be sarcastic, or showing disrespect, then there is something very wrong here. My question was honest. I am seriously interested how can the very significant pain and suffering for the teething of infants be redemptive or even reconciled by God’s alleged infinite love for us.
I will explain. If there is ANY gratuitous pain and suffering then God is not “good” - at best indifferent or evil. Necessary pain and suffering is a separate category. “Necessary” means that there is some (well defined) greater good, which will more than compensate for the pain and suffering, and which greater good could not be achieved if that pain and suffering would be even lessened, not to mention removed. Especially, since God’s omnipotence can deal with any problem - EXCEPT logically contradictory states of affairs.
Gratuitous pain simply cannot be reconciled with “goodness”.
P
Poet
Guest
Exactly! And my major issue with all of this is that people who are doing little to nothing are criticizing the one who was actually down in the gutters, literally, caring for people. If they can do it better–let’s have them get to work. SHOW me how to do it right!
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
People don’t have to accept that premise at all.
- Status