Accusations against Saint Teresa?

[Polak]

One of her most outspoken critics was atheist Christopher Hitchens. How predictable.

I have heard the odd accusations levelled at her, but when this type of stuff happens, I like to first check who is doing the accusing. In this case, it always seems to be very anti-church atheists.

I remember that she was accused of being taken to a top quality hospital when she fell very ill, but would allegedly constantly tell others they should not complain about the conditions they are in, as they were suffering/dying in dignity.

To be honest I haven’t paid attention to much of the attacks on her though.

 

[Polak]

Just to follow up on Hitchens and his attacks on her. He said ‘her intention was not to help people’ but to expand the number of Catholics.

He reached this conclusion after talking to her, and her telling him that she wasn’t working to alleviate poverty, that she wasn’t a social worker, but that she was doing it for Christ and for the church.

If only he understood that in doing this, she was helping people. The most important thing she could do for them was to bring them to the church.

It isn’t our mission to wipe out poverty. Where we are now isn’t heaven and it won’t ever be perfect. We won’t know perfection and a place without suffering until we are in heaven.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Among many people, private acts of charity are actually evil,

Among no one is that true. It is one giant straw man.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Try to keep in mind that when the critics of Mother Teresa came out of the wood-work, she was already dead and not here to defend herself, even if she would bother.

I’ve met people who worked in Calcutta at Mother Teresa’s hospice and also the one in NYC. They observed how the sisters take nothing for themselves, but they also don’t give bragging points to donors.

Mother Teresa refused those who tried to have big fund raisers for her charity. Her policy was that if an individual wants to make a donation, let them do so, but quietly.

 

[VeryBlessed]

A second big criticism of her is that she accepted donations from some very bad people.

I can’t quote a source, but i believe the early church struggled with this issue and settled it. They came to the conclusion that funds received from “bad” sources was OK to get, as it “redeemed” those resources out of “the world” and into the service of the Kingdom of God. Plus, none of us are altogether good, nor many of us altogether bad. Where would you draw the line?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

A second big criticism of her is that she accepted donations from some very bad people.

She insisted that donations be made as free will offerings, anonymously.

So, if a bad person claimed they gave Mother Teresa a large donation,if ture, she would’ve had no idea about it.

 

[on_the_hill]

I’m not entirely sure the criticisms came after she died. I haven’t looked at any articles for a while, but I think she had critics (even Catholic critics) while she was still working.

 

[on_the_hill]

How much of her defense is based on a boilerplate reaction to any and all criticisms of Catholics?

 

[goout]

Most of the criticism I am aware of stems from her attitude and views on unnecessary suffering. Typically, Catholics believe there is virtue in this. The rest of us, not so much.

Just to be clear:
Unnecessary suffering is not a virtue.
Virtues are habituated and firm dispostions to do good things. Some examples: patience, fortitude, prudence, etc…These things are practiced. That’s what a virtue is: the practice of the thing in question.

Suffering is not a virtue, it is simply an unavoidable part of life. Just like death. Everyone suffers, everyone dies. The way we endure these things brings the practice of virtue to light. We can despair and avoid them to an inordinate degree, as in euthanasia and abortion. Or we can endure them prudently, faithfully, patiently. And there is nothing virtuous about allowing someone to suffer unnecessarily. That is not part of Catholic thought.
Catholics believe the practice of virtue enlivens all of life, not just times of suffering. Also times of joy and all times in between, these are all lived in virtue.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The critics were there, but rarely heard

After her death, books came out against her, especially Hitchens who tried to claim that Mother Teresa had lost her faith.

He and his followers had no clue what the “Dark Night of the Soul,” was.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Of course. But what I said is that typically, Catholics believe unnecessary suffering is virtuous. I stand by that statement. I have known a lot of Catholics in my day, and more often than not, this is what they believe.

 

[goout]

I linked to this article upthread, and I’ve linked to it again.

For copyright reasons I won’t copy and paste the whole part about Mother Teresa and Charles Keating, but here are a few key points:

1. He gave her donations totaling one million dollars.
2. He allowed her the use of his private plane, so clearly he wasn’t some stranger dropping a check off in a donation box somewhere.
3. To thank him she gave him a personal crucifix.
4. During the trial Mother Teresa wrote to Judge Ito (yes, that Judge Ito) and asking for leniency. This clearly shows that not only was she aware of the crimes that he was accused of committing, but that he was on trial at the time for them.
5. {EDITED} After seeing that letter and after Keating was convicted Paul Turley, the deputy DA for Los Angeles, wrote a reply explaining that Charles Keating defrauded 17 different individuals, some of whom could not afford to lose these funds.

The excuse that Mother Teresa was not aware of what was going on with the million dollars she did not return simply does not fly.

Of the things you just listed (and I am not going to bother trying to refute them) which of them makes her guilty of a crime?

 

[goout]

It’s a little bit embarrassing and even more heartbreaking, seeing someone compelled to attack a person who cleaned the sores of dying people.
I think that might make C Hitchens The Most Cynical Man in the World. And let’s not confuse cynicism with reason.

 

[goout]

Of course. But what I said is that typically, Catholics believe unnecessary suffering is virtuous. I stand by that statement. I have known a lot of Catholics in my day, and more often than not, this is what they believe.

I know of no Catholics who believe unnecessary suffering is virtuous. That is sadism.
You are projecting and while you can stand by your statement, there aren’t any Catholics standing there. So…ok

 

[HarryStotle]

1. {EDITED} After seeing that letter and after Keating was convicted Paul Turley, the deputy DA for Los Angeles, wrote a reply explaining that Charles Keating defrauded 17 different individuals, some of whom could not afford to lose these funds.

Charles Keating’s conviction was problematic even as the trial progressed.

Keating Fraud Trial: Still No 'Smoking Gun' : Courts: The prosecution hopes the accumulation of evidence against the former chairman of American Continental Corp. is enough for the jury to find him criminally accountable.

Prosecutors said a year ago, after Charles H.

www.latimes.com

The State court conviction was eventually overturned by the federal court.

FEDERAL JUDGE OVERTURNS CHARLES KEATING CONVICTION, CITES ITO\ ERRORS

A federal judge overturned the state court conviction of Lincoln Savings & Loan boss Charles H. Keating Jr. on Wednesday, ruling that Judge Lance Ito's jury instructions were flawed.

www.djc.com

And an appeal by the State was refused by the Supreme Court.

In October 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the government’s appeal of the overturning of the state conviction. This left Keating without any convictions other than that from his plea bargain. State prosecutors declined to move for a retrial, saying it would bring no more than a six-month jail sentence and that many witnesses had died in the interim or were in bad health.
Source: Charles Keating - Wikipedia

 

[on_the_hill]

I think it’s an older approach to the faith, and was a way people explained pain and misfortune.

 

[QwertyGirl]

I know of no Catholics who believe unnecessary suffering is virtuous. That is sadism.
You are projecting and while you can stand by your statement, there aren’t any Catholics standing there. So…ok

Perhaps the difference is that many times, Catholics view certain sufferings as unavoidable, while those who aren’t Catholic have different views.

You and I must not know the same Catholics.

 

[goout]

goout:

I know of no Catholics who believe unnecessary suffering is virtuous. That is sadism.
You are projecting and while you can stand by your statement, there aren’t any Catholics standing there. So…ok

Perhaps the difference is that many times, Catholics view certain sufferings as unavoidable, while those who aren’t Catholic have different views.

You and I must not know the same Catholics.

You claimed Catholics see unnecessary suffering as virtuous. I pointed out to you that the terminology you used is a little disconnected, and that in any case, Catholics do not champion unnecessary suffering.
I pointed out to you what virtues are.

Where are you going now?

Catholics view certain sufferings as unavoidable,

Yea? So do you. Does that mean you’re Catholic?

What exactly are you trying to say…

 

[QwertyGirl]

My point was that Catholics find virtue in suffering, quite often. Some Catholics believe some things. Not all believe the same things. Those who aren’t Catholic, and may have a problem with Mother Teresa (I am not one of them, btw), often do so because of her ideas and attitudes about suffering done by the sick and dying.

You seem to feel that an explanation of what “virtuous” means was required. It wasn’t. I must tell you, the tone in your posts was pretty rude. I hope you didn’t intend it to be. Muting now.

 

[goout]

My point was that Catholics find virtue in suffering, quite often.

You seem to feel that an explanation of what “virtuous” means was required. It wasn’t. I must tell you, the tone in your posts was pretty rude. I hope you didn’t intend it to be. Muting now.

Oh geez. You lay out some vague statements, I try to clarify very charitably, and here we are. Thanks for muting.