I’d say, though, that despite her wishes, she was well aware that the world was watching her.
You raise an interesting point here. In her cause of canonization it has been argued and accepted that Mother had no awareness of her impact on the world. She was so wrapped up in her contemplation of the Lord and his presence among the poor that she seemed totally clueless as to her consequence in the world community.
When she received the Nobel Peace Prize, she was assaulted by surprise that anyone had ever heard of her. She writes in her journals that “they must have heard about the work and it is the work that they want to honour.”
Like our father Francis, she was totally immersed in both material poverty and personal poverty. That is, she was aware of her nothingness before God and therefore assumed that she was also nothing to the world. Thus she was completley unaware that the world was paying attention.
There seems to be no psychological explanation for this, as she was a mentally healthy woman and an intelligent woman. The only explanation is a mystical one that is very difficult to unravel, other than to say that the soul who is wrapped up in God’s love and presence, lives in God’s eternal present 24/7.
This would make perfect sense as she wanted to imitate Christ as Francis had and love him in darkness. Therefore, it would be consistent that she would not be attentive or would even be dismissive of any attention paid to her. This was also proven true of our father Francis in the sermons of Bonaventure on the Master and the Disciple.
Mother seems to have captured that same spirit as her seraphic father. We really do not know how aware she was of her own presence in the world. We know that she was keenly aware of her call to satiate Jesus’ thirst in the poorest of the poor and she was keenly aware of world issues that devastated human dignity. She often spoke out on such things as abortion, the plight of the disabled and the elderly, the evils of discrimination (even religioius discrimination), and the importance of the family. But notice that all of these concerns are outside of her. She spoke nothing about herself, not even to her confessors or her spiritual directors. In her letters and journals she constantly repeats the same things to her confessors and spiritual directors, “I don’t want to speak to you, because I have nothing to say.”
Also, many of the things she said could be categorized as “advice” - she wanted to have her opinions known (of course).
Actually, no she did not want her opinions known. Franciscans are to be totally poor. We do not own our opinions. This has been a point of contention in contemporary times where a false brand of psychology has put it into people’s minds that they must be assertive and make their presence felt and voices heard (there is a good brand of psychology). This is completely contrary to Francis understanding of Christ’s poverty.
Our opinions on the holy are insignificant and do not warrant expression. The only opinion that warrants any public audience is Christ’s revelation of his Father. Franciscan assertiveness is the proclamation of the Gospel through silence, obedience, joy, poverty, charity, brotherhood and constant prayer.
Also, I do not think her habit of reception on the tongue can be brushed away so easily.
As already stated, the Church does believe that like Francis, she was totally unaware and not interested in what people attended to. As to receiving on the tongue, it is not point that is important to the Church in judging her cause. I do not know what the rule is in the diocese of Calcutta. We have to remember that the Society of the Missionaries of Charity were originally a diocesan institute. They were founded in the 1940s, but did not become an exempt pontifical community until the 1980s.
As for this particular quote, maybe she didn’t actually say it, but I think it would be strange for it to have been “invented”.
Her successor, Sister Nirmahla denies the quote. She believes that it is taken out of context. Her Brothers and Sisters also deny it. They say that whatever Mother said, it was not this black and white. They also claim that she never said such a thing to them. Their community receives communion in the hand in those dioceses where it is allowed. As Superior General, she had the authority to forbid it, but never did.
The Mass may not be mentioned in Franciscan rule, but does that mean it’s not an important part of their lives? Does that mean that no good Franciscan would have opinions regarding it?
The mass is the centre of our lives. Many holy Franciscans have written on the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Many of our theologians have written about the mass. Many of our priests and brothers have preached about the mass. Many of our lay brothers are spiritual directors and retreat masters. They certainly have a thing or two to say about the mass. Our Secular Franciscan Order has preserved the mass in countries where the Church has been under attack. Our Poor Clare nuns have a long tradition of Eucharistic adoration and have written much on the mass and on the Eucharist. You cannot be Franciscan and not be Eucharistic.
There is no reason to believe that it would not be important to Mother Teresa’s spirituality. Mother also borrowed a great deal from Benedict, who was totally Eucharistic and liturgical.
The issue is that neither Franciscans nor Benedictines are allowed to preach their own opinion. They may only preach what the Church teaches. Otherwise, they fail at the obedience that was dear to Benedict and Francis.
Fraternally,
JR
