Accusations against Saint Teresa?

[HarryStotle]

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.

The Catholics you know are those who know their faith or just those who practice what they believe to be their faith? What evidence do you have that they know the teachings of the Church to a reasonable degree?

I cannot make sense of the statement “Catholics believe unnecessary suffering is virtuous.” It certainly isn’t Catholic teaching, so the fact that some Catholics happen to believe it does not make it “typical” of Catholics nor Church doctrine.

Perhaps what you are getting at is that certain virtues would allow us to undergo unnecessary suffering without being negatively impacted by it. This would be a key difference since unnecessary suffering seems to affect most people and the capacity to tolerate it would be a good thing. That is hardly the same thing as claiming “unnecessary suffering is virtuous.” Unnecessary suffering is just that, unnecessary and suffering. Nothing in either would instil virtue, necessarily.

Although the capacity to put up with unnecessary suffering and not be debilitated by it could entail some other virtue is operative – long suffering, for example.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Thank you for a reasonable response with valid questions.

To give an example of what I am talking about (this actually happened): There was a recent conversation at a BBQ on a Friday last lent. A Catholic who is highly educated in her faith made the statement that she “can’t” have meat because it is a Friday in lent. A non-Catholic said something along the lines of “That’s a shame. The steak is looking good.” The Catholic’s response was “A little suffering is a good thing. I don’t mind it. I’ll offer it up.”

To the Catholic, this was necessary/unavoidable suffering. To the rest of us, it isn’t. It is a choice. One that is completely unnecessary and avoidable.

That is all I meant by saying that “necessary vs. unnecessary” has different meanings to different people, depending on your faith and beliefs.

ETA: I feel like I need to add that the exchange I referenced was quite respectful on both sides. I observed the conversation as a third party, and there was no disrespect being shown in either direction.

 

[Zach]

In reading the criticisms here and to me it all sounds like a hit job, smear campaign, and uncharitable character assassination.

 

[phil19034]

The important thing to note is this case is not about rejecting Charles Keating’s donation when it was received, but when it’s explained the money wasn’t his to give (and that it came from multiple sources, some of whom could hardly afford to lose the money) that it’s only right to return that money.

Rich charities can afford to return donations. Poor charities typically cannot because the money is spent as soon as it’s received.

St. Mother Teresa NEVER had a large bankroll.

Furthermore, Mother should not be (and I don’t think was) legally responsible for someone stealing money and donating to her. Legally, the thief is responsible.

It’s really not different than if a thief stole all that money and bought goods & services with it. The companies the thief paid with the stolen money isn’t expected to give the money back. So why is a charity expected to do that? ESP if the money would have been spent as soon as it came in.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

@John10
Just because someone is canonized doesn’t mean that there can’t be valid criticisms of that person. Most Catholics will tell you that saints aren’t perfect, so it’s not a defense against the accusations brought forth regarding one. Do you have anything about the specific concerns some people have against Mother Teresa?

@Willing_Spirit
Thank you. There’s a spectrum of thought on the matter. On one end we have people who see Mother Teresa as evil and on the other that she was flawless. The truth lies somewhere between, although we’re going to disagree greatly where. I wish that whoever flagged my first two posts in this thread understood that . Of the people who see Mother Teresa’s actions as problematic, I’d say the people who would consider her evil are smaller than you think. It’s clear she did what she did because it was right, but people like myself have strong misgiving as to the harm her actions caused and if they were needed to enact what good she did.

@Polak
I don’t think it is prudent to dismiss Christopher Hitchens’s claims just because he’s Christopher Hitchens. Sometimes truth can come from our harshest critics. Until I see otherwise I’m fine if someone wants to question his opinion, but I see no reason to question his facts. And what you brought up about her being treated in an excellent hospital in California while letting others die in squalor is a good point. In Hitchens’s docmentary on Teresa (which is available for free on YouTube) a visitor tells the story of a boy who had a simple ailment that could have been treated if taken to the hospital, but the MoC refused. It’s not asking the MoC to do surgery, just help save a life by getting the boy to someone who can.

@JimR-OCDS
The claims against Mother Teresa aren’t that she didn’t do enough to obtain donors or wined and dined donors, but that the money in hand wasn’t used nearly well enough to help people that such an amount of money could have or should have (among other complaints). Also, your claim that Mother Teresa wouldn’t have known that she received money from people like Charles Keating withers under the very mildest of scrutiny, as I already presented an article showing that she wrote to Judge Ito asking him to take into considering how generous Keating was in donating to her charity,

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

@goout
The five points I made were after it was suggested that Mother Teresa had no way of knowing who Charles Keating was and that he was on trial for stealing money (some of which he donated to her). Those five points showed without a doubt that she was very familiar with him and his donations to her. The crime was not giving back the money that had been stolen from others.

If I steal a bike and give it to my nephew, when I’m arrested the police will take back the bike even though my nephew did nothing wrong. If my nephew hides the bike or sells it before it can be taken back then he and/or his family could get into trouble. I found a relevant article called “Should Churches Return Stolen Money That Is Given To Them As Tithe?” and the answer is yes.

But let’s take the legal aspect out of the question. Is it moral to not return what is not yours? There’s a commandment that says so. It perplexes me a bit when Catholics are warned to avoid attending a non-Catholic marriage of a baptized non-practicing persoon for fear of causing scandal, when not return stolen money that hurt a great many people would cause a much graver scandal.

@HarryStotle
If you read the entire Wikipedia article that you linked to it clearly says that the charges were overturned not because Keating was innocent but because of the judge’s instructions to the jury and because some of the jury had been influenced by outside reporting at the time. There’s no doubt that he helped convince his investors to switch from insured bonds to his fragile uninsured ones, all to the detrmient of those investors. This doesn’t even take into account two other factors: One, he had been convicted for nearly three years before thr overturning, which is more than enough time for the MoC to return the stolen money. Two, there were clear ethical breaches that, like I mentioned above, would are are causing scandal to Mother Teresa and to the Church.

@phil19034
If you read some of the articles I’ve linked to you’ll see the checks were pouring in. Of note, many of them wee earmarked by the sendeer for certain causes (various disasters at the time, and so forth), but never made it to those people in those crises. Also their locations in India (and likely elsewhere) were run on a pithance. Finally, there have been complaints that the MoC have never opened their books to saw where the money has gone, so I’m not sure how you would be able to confirm that the MoC never had a large bankroll.

 

[John10]

Just because someone is canonized doesn’t mean that there can’t be valid criticisms of that person.

There are no “flawless” or sinless persons, everybody has their own weaknesses, faults and sins. However I trust more in the judgement of the Catholic Church once they determined someone as a Saint, than other sources. It is a very through process, not to mention the certified miracles obtained by her intercession.

So regardless of what she might have done wrong during her time on Earth, she ended up going to Heaven and will forever be joined to Jesus, I do know, it is unquestionable she did a lot of charity work, and provided relief to many poor people, who would have probably died without her assistance in terrible circumstances.

And there are plenty of stories and cases of people being very evil (even some being Satanist priests) and yet being recognized as Saints, because if people allow it God can make anybody a Saint.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I really don’t understand why the majority of answers on a q&a forum have become, “don’t worry about it”.

Because any attempts do anything are usually in vain anyways.

 

[HarryStotle]

…There was a recent conversation at a BBQ on a Friday last lent. A Catholic who is highly educated in her faith made the statement that she “can’t” have meat because it is a Friday in lent.
…The Catholic’s response was “A little suffering is a good thing. I don’t mind it. I’ll offer it up.”

How is going without steak an example of suffering? You aren’t going to tell me that not being able to eat lobster thermidor for supper tonight will cause me to suffer, are you?

To the Catholic, this was necessary/unavoidable suffering. To the rest of us, it isn’t. It is a choice. One that is completely unnecessary and avoidable.

That is all I meant by saying that “necessary vs. unnecessary” has different meanings to different people, depending on your faith and beliefs.

I think even to speak of not getting something like steak as suffering isn’t an example of a different meaning but of something else entirely – a weakened constitution.

You don’t need to be a Catholic to recognize that our bodies adjust to different levels of exposure to things in the world.

If I I run my hand under cold water for a time, I can tolerate hot water for a longer time than I could otherwise. My body adjusts.

If I train for strength and endurance my body adjusts to the added demand such that I can lift more and run longer than I otherwise could. Certainly, the training is going to be difficult, but it would be a stretch to call all levels of such discomfort, suffering.

If I crave some food or drink such as a soft drink or caramel corn (or steak), it is hardly suffering to go without it.

Deprivation in the sense spoken of at the barbecue can only be called “suffering” in some facetious sense. Any honest person would see it as discipline of the body or appetites in order to raise the threshold of what a person can tolerate.

To avoid all self-discipline and merely indulge appetites will lead to a state where every minor deprivation becomes intolerable. In the long run that is setting oneself up so that minor inconveniences become intolerable imaginary “sufferings” not because they are actually harmful but because one can no longer can tolerate even slight discomfort.

That would be why Catholics, athletes, Buddhists, and pretty much any normal, healthy, rational human beings, view self-discipline as a virtue. It isn’t “unnecessary suffering,” it is training that permits your body and mind to be able to tolerate what weaker, less virtuous individuals would feel is intolerable.That is what a Catholic means by “A little suffering is a good thing." I.e., increasing your tolerance for discomfort is a good thing.

I suppose you can pick your poison: learn to tolerate gradual increases in discomfort to toughen up physically and mentally, or become soft and spongy and unable to tolerate even the slightest discomfort that eventually takes on the illusion of unbearable suffering later on.

Perhaps this is why suffering has “different meanings to different people?”

 

[AlNg]

Mother Teresa was pretty well liked and admired until she started speaking out against abortion.

Very true…

 

[thistle]

I cannot make sense of the statement “Catholics believe unnecessary suffering is virtuous.” It certainly isn’t Catholic teaching, so the fact that some Catholics happen to believe it does not make it “typical” of Catholics nor Church doctrine.

CCC 1502 The man of the Old Testament lives his sickness in the presence of God. It is before God that he laments his illness, and it is of God, Master of life and death, that he implores healing. Illness becomes a way to conversion; God’s forgiveness initiates the healing. It is the experience of Israel that illness is mysteriously linked to sin and evil, and that faithfulness to God according to his law restores life: “For I am the Lord, your healer.” The prophet intuits that suffering can also have a redemptive meaning for the sins of others. Finally Isaiah announces that God will usher in a time for Zion when he will pardon every offense and heal every illness.

CCC 618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”. But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men. He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow [him]”, for “Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps.” In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries. This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering.

Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

To be fair, weren’t their understandable criticisms about her work like admitting people who could have been healed and concerns about conditions? Is this also regarding a dichotomy between religious and secular people considering she was focused on palliative care and not conventional health care though things could have been better? And one of her critics was a right leaning person with a pro life bent?

Also, osn’t her image one that’s too good to be true for some people?

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Many people have criticized her for not being a socialist.

To be fair, doesn’t human charity have its limits? What about the poor souls who are left out or find no recourse themselves? This ain’t the main topic at hand but with massive systemic issues in society, isn’t it understandable to see why people are looking for solutions? What other options are there if I may ask? Note this post is more politically oriented.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Whatever she was doing was going on the whole time.

But it was after she spoke out against abortion that the mumble-grumbles started.

Besides, she wasn’t running a hospice, but closer to a homeless shelter.

Could she have used her donations better and more efficiently? Sure. There doesn’t seem to be any indication that she was motivated by malice. And she wasnt using the donations to live in luxury herself.

Nobody is above critique or correcting. I just find the timeline to be very interesting.

 

[neophyte]

Sorry to digress but only 36 countries in the world grant birthright citizenship, and of the developed countries only two allow it (US and Canada).

Every country grants citizenship to those born within its borders, privided at least one parent is a citizen of that country.

 

[thistle]

Every country grants citizenship to those born within its borders, privided at least one parent is a citizen of that country.

We weren’t discussing birthright with one parent being a national of that country. We were talking about foreign parents whose child was born in another country.
For example, if a filipino husband and wife have a child born in the UK there is no birthright citizenship for that child.
As I said above only 36 countries have birthright citizenship for a child born of foreign parents, i.e. neither are nationals of that country.

 

[goout]

HarryStotle:

I cannot make sense of the statement “Catholics believe unnecessary suffering is virtuous.” It certainly isn’t Catholic teaching, so the fact that some Catholics happen to believe it does not make it “typical” of Catholics nor Church doctrine.

CCC 1502 The man of the Old Testament lives his sickness in the presence of God. It is before God that he laments his illness, and it is of God, Master of life and death, that he implores healing. Illness becomes a way to conversion; God’s forgiveness initiates the healing. It is the experience of Israel that illness is mysteriously linked to sin and evil, and that faithfulness to God according to his law restores life: “For I am the Lord, your healer.” The prophet intuits that suffering can also have a redemptive meaning for the sins of others. Finally Isaiah announces that God will usher in a time for Zion when he will pardon every offense and heal every illness.

CCC 618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”. But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men. He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow [him]”, for “Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps.” In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries. This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering.

Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.

Keep the passage in context.
The accusation was that Mother Teresa allowed people to suffer unnecessarily, and may have even seen that suffering as part of being a good Catholic, as if somehow letting people suffer unnecessarily is part of the Catholic view of virtue.

No. The cross is a participation in suffering, not a wallowing in it.
Compassion means by definition to suffer with. The redemptive element of suffering doesn’t wallow in suffering, it points to the transcendence of suffering, and allowing suffering to unite us in compassion.

In the words of Henri Nouwen, we can embrace the cross that is allowed us, but we don’t go creating them for ourselves or others.

 

[neophyte]

We weren’t discussing birthright with one parent being a national of that country.

You’re right. Baptism is rather like birthright citizenship in that non-Christians can validly baptise. I guess I just think the term “birthright citizenship” is unfortunately ambiguous, and was responding to that. Sorry.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I cannot make sense of the statement “Catholics believe unnecessary suffering is virtuous.”

Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.

I would then suppose that if suffering is necessary for salvation it isn’t “unnecessary” suffering, by definition.

 

[Poet]

The issue isn’t so much whether Mother Teresa helped people, because as I said originally she did, but whether A) she did enough with what she was given compared to other charities

My point is: Have you, Mike from NJ, done enough?

I find it shocking that people who have done nowhere near what she did (which is nearly everyone on this planet in the last 150 years) feel so confident in sitting in judgment on her that “didn’t do enough”

Perhaps all those saying that (and all of us reading this forum) should be thinking about the day God asks that question of us.