A
Alexander17
Guest
"I’m also a little unsettled that she insisted on the poverty of her institutions so fiercely. It makes sense for nuns to live in poverty, but it seems hypocritical and sanctimonious when the poverty of the nuns limits the comfort offered to the sick and dying (as it most certainly did).
Mother Teresa’s view of poverty is also, in my opinion, profoundly upsetting. (The two anecdotes I’m sharing here seem pretty well corroborated; I’ve supplied a link that links to other places.) There’s her famous quotation: "“There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering.” (One has to wonder, if this is true, why would anyone attempt to alleviate the suffering of the poor? If the suffering of the poor is valuable to the world, don’t we have an obligation to increase it?) She presented herself as someone devoted to alleviating the suffering of the masses, yet she found their suffering beautiful and valuable.
There’s also this anecdote, in which she addresses a suffering woman. “You know, this terrible pain is only the kiss of Jesus — a sign that you have come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss you.” (one wonders: in paradise, where all tears will be wiped away, will Jesus no longer kiss us?)
It is, once again, worth remarking upon that Teresa had the resources/influence to alleviate a tremendous amount of suffering, and opted not to (it’s undeniable that she could have done much more than operate soup kitchens and baptize the dying). Trained medical personnel could have been hired; analgesics could have been purchased. And yet, for whatever reason, these measures were not taken. And then Teresa had the gall to deliver such drivel to her suffering patients.
I can understand a Saint’s acceptance of suffering. However, to look at the suffering of the collective poor as a good, to naively think that the poor have the same outlook on suffering as Catholic saints, seems terribly twisted.
Indeed, this whole way of viewing the suffering of the masses seems sick. It’s this aspect of her mission that strikes me as being evil. It seems palpably sadistic to be able to look at the “poor accepting their lot” and say that their suffering is beautiful and valuable (imagine trying to explain this to a homeless person). (Here’s a link that appears to corroborate the anecdotes just discussed)
Mother Theresa’s Masochism: Does Religion Demand Suffering …
www.alternet.org
I suppose what really gets me about Teresa’s whole mission is that it was devoted to gathering up the most helpless people of Calcutta and giving them a place to die. Essentially, it was a soul-catching device, meant to funnel people into heaven. Now, I suppose if one subscribes to Christian doctrines of salvation, this is a “good” institution. However, there’s something deeply unsettling about choosing the most hopeless and helpless people as the main target for proselytizing. People who have nowhere else to turn make strikingly easy targets for enterprises like this. I guess this could be construed as charity/compassion. Nevertheless, the fact that they insisted on baptizing the dying seems to evince a strange sort of utilitarianism toward human life: namely, that a human being is simply a soul that needs to be coaxed, coerced, and possibly connived into heaven. (One wonders, if given the option to cure or baptize a dying patient, what Teresa would have done. She did, after all, have the resources to cure many of them). Her actions seem to evince the belief that, given the choice, it’s better to die and go to heaven than to be cured of an illness. Even if we accept Christian soteriology (a generous concession, you must admit), this seems twisted. However, if we admit that Christian soteriology remains a tendentious proposition, Teresa’s treatment of the dying immediately seems many times more twisted and irresponsible. It’s actually quite fanatical. Should such a person really be allowed to provide (or withhold) care from dying non-christians?
It’s also a bit unsettling that Teresa’s mission has not really done anything to alleviate the terrible poverty in the slums of Calcutta (despite having the resources to do meaningful work). As reported in the article from Forbes I shared previously, their charitable activity is negligible. Of course, this wasn’t really the role of her institution, as you’ve conceded. However, it draws attention to the fact that extreme poverty and suffering are conducive to Teresa’s mission: without a large population of sick and dying, her main clientele essentially vanishes. Just seems like her mission has a symbiotic relationship to poverty; business is booming when poverty is rampant. The alleviation of poverty means fewer souls to sent to heaven. Seems like a conflict of interest, no?
All right, maybe you disagree with all of this, or see it as a warped view of Teresa’s mission. So, I suppose my challenge to you (and it should be trivially easy) is to find tangible evidence of the good that Mother Teresa’s mission has done. What I’m asking is for you to show that she did more than operate an international soup-kitchen. It seems evident that she did much to ease the passing of the terminally ill. However, can sustained relief efforts be attributed to her? Has her work served to change the status quo in impoverished communities? Have the massive resources allocated to her been utilized effectively? And of what value is the sentiment generated by her work, if poverty continues to run rampant in the communities she purportedly helped?"
Mother Teresa’s view of poverty is also, in my opinion, profoundly upsetting. (The two anecdotes I’m sharing here seem pretty well corroborated; I’ve supplied a link that links to other places.) There’s her famous quotation: "“There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering.” (One has to wonder, if this is true, why would anyone attempt to alleviate the suffering of the poor? If the suffering of the poor is valuable to the world, don’t we have an obligation to increase it?) She presented herself as someone devoted to alleviating the suffering of the masses, yet she found their suffering beautiful and valuable.
There’s also this anecdote, in which she addresses a suffering woman. “You know, this terrible pain is only the kiss of Jesus — a sign that you have come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss you.” (one wonders: in paradise, where all tears will be wiped away, will Jesus no longer kiss us?)
It is, once again, worth remarking upon that Teresa had the resources/influence to alleviate a tremendous amount of suffering, and opted not to (it’s undeniable that she could have done much more than operate soup kitchens and baptize the dying). Trained medical personnel could have been hired; analgesics could have been purchased. And yet, for whatever reason, these measures were not taken. And then Teresa had the gall to deliver such drivel to her suffering patients.
I can understand a Saint’s acceptance of suffering. However, to look at the suffering of the collective poor as a good, to naively think that the poor have the same outlook on suffering as Catholic saints, seems terribly twisted.
Indeed, this whole way of viewing the suffering of the masses seems sick. It’s this aspect of her mission that strikes me as being evil. It seems palpably sadistic to be able to look at the “poor accepting their lot” and say that their suffering is beautiful and valuable (imagine trying to explain this to a homeless person). (Here’s a link that appears to corroborate the anecdotes just discussed)
Mother Theresa’s Masochism: Does Religion Demand Suffering …
www.alternet.org
I suppose what really gets me about Teresa’s whole mission is that it was devoted to gathering up the most helpless people of Calcutta and giving them a place to die. Essentially, it was a soul-catching device, meant to funnel people into heaven. Now, I suppose if one subscribes to Christian doctrines of salvation, this is a “good” institution. However, there’s something deeply unsettling about choosing the most hopeless and helpless people as the main target for proselytizing. People who have nowhere else to turn make strikingly easy targets for enterprises like this. I guess this could be construed as charity/compassion. Nevertheless, the fact that they insisted on baptizing the dying seems to evince a strange sort of utilitarianism toward human life: namely, that a human being is simply a soul that needs to be coaxed, coerced, and possibly connived into heaven. (One wonders, if given the option to cure or baptize a dying patient, what Teresa would have done. She did, after all, have the resources to cure many of them). Her actions seem to evince the belief that, given the choice, it’s better to die and go to heaven than to be cured of an illness. Even if we accept Christian soteriology (a generous concession, you must admit), this seems twisted. However, if we admit that Christian soteriology remains a tendentious proposition, Teresa’s treatment of the dying immediately seems many times more twisted and irresponsible. It’s actually quite fanatical. Should such a person really be allowed to provide (or withhold) care from dying non-christians?
It’s also a bit unsettling that Teresa’s mission has not really done anything to alleviate the terrible poverty in the slums of Calcutta (despite having the resources to do meaningful work). As reported in the article from Forbes I shared previously, their charitable activity is negligible. Of course, this wasn’t really the role of her institution, as you’ve conceded. However, it draws attention to the fact that extreme poverty and suffering are conducive to Teresa’s mission: without a large population of sick and dying, her main clientele essentially vanishes. Just seems like her mission has a symbiotic relationship to poverty; business is booming when poverty is rampant. The alleviation of poverty means fewer souls to sent to heaven. Seems like a conflict of interest, no?
All right, maybe you disagree with all of this, or see it as a warped view of Teresa’s mission. So, I suppose my challenge to you (and it should be trivially easy) is to find tangible evidence of the good that Mother Teresa’s mission has done. What I’m asking is for you to show that she did more than operate an international soup-kitchen. It seems evident that she did much to ease the passing of the terminally ill. However, can sustained relief efforts be attributed to her? Has her work served to change the status quo in impoverished communities? Have the massive resources allocated to her been utilized effectively? And of what value is the sentiment generated by her work, if poverty continues to run rampant in the communities she purportedly helped?"
Little ax to grind there, dearie? My goodness…
So has their work been pointless? Are they just a sham? Is my friend’s work a lie? Are he and all the other workers there thieves who use the continued homelessness crisis to line their pockets? Is their very existence a “conflict of interest” in ending the homelessness problem? I mean, if homelessness ends, my friend and his colleagues will be out of a job! The scoundrels!
While you sit there saying that SHE should have found the cure for the hatred and apathy that have plagued human hearts for millennia, SHE took care of the immediate needs of those who are suffering! By your reasoning, she should have ignored the dying, the starving, the orphans – so she could join a think-tank or a UN committee or some other bureaucracy that talks and talks while people die.
Of course, first we’ll have to stop spending all our energy condemning the life work of others… just saying…