Yuku free message boards

Niall: ...who dedicate their lives to helping the poor.

I guess that comes down to what we mean by "helping the poor." Teresa was no saint, in my book, despite her reputation to the contrary. I think rather than trying to fast-track her canonization, the church would be better served in understanding why a figure so enamored with suffering is so revered among its followers. And I do think that if Teresa was more like Jacoby then certainly the women she was supposedly "helping" would have definitely made out better. At least, they would have been able to receive the birth control that could have helped prevent them from spiraling further into poverty.

I think a philanthropist works to ease human suffering; I don't think a philanthropist encourages and then capitalizes on human suffering. Nor do I think a philanthropist enables human suffering by assisting one of poverty's closest allies, overpopulation-all in the name of fundamental religious beliefs. Teresa definitely served some of the poorest among us; I just don't think she served them well, personally. And I don't think she should be used as an example of philanthropy, at least not the kind of philanthropy that I value.

Mad: which don't appear to be directly indicative of any particular action.

I disagree, I think her statements helped to explain and support many actions that I do not find honorable. Her approach to birth control and abortion let women who couldn't possibly care for the children they already have, continue to birth more children into even more debilitating poverty. Her aversion to divorce, even for women in abusive relationships, led to her support of a divorce referendum in Ireland that would have made divorce illegal in all situations. Her statements that suffering is beautiful and brings the sufferer closer to god resulted in impoverished facilities where the suffering and dying were not given painkillers. Again, I'm not saying that she didn't "service" for the poor, I just don't think she doled out the kind of care that I would patronize.

Either way, the fact that she serviced the poor does not make her above reproach, especially for freethinkers, which is what I think Niall inferred above.

Mad: I certainly won't argue that her approach to a number of issues didn't ultimately do as much damage as they did good. But I don't see any serious logical connection between her apparant fixation with Christ's suffering and her positions on abortion and divorce.

Nor do I, and I'm sorry if I implied that. I long ago found Teresa's approach to public service quite distasteful. The quote was meant as a preview to the article, not as a justification for my dislike of Teresa's methods. When I referenced my issues with her approaches to divorce and birth control, it was in response to your claim that her "statements of personal belief" "aren't indicative of any particular action." If by "statements of personal belief" you were merely referencing the one quote above, then I misinterpreted; I thought you were speaking of her statements in general. Certainly her above statement illustrates her preoccupation with suffering and would only possibly inform her opposition to painkillers. Essentially, it doesn't matter to me that Teresa was apparently a masochistic narcissist, her actual actions in "service" to the poor are what bother me.

Mad: I'd prefer an approach that balances approach with an assessment of the good she actually did achieve, and which, in both cases, also takes under consideration as much of her intent as we can confidently assess -- not one that dismisses action out of hand in favor of a psychological assessment based on a single quote, devoid of context.

HmmmmI don't think I made any "psychological assessment." In fact, I think the only comment I had about the crazy-ass quote from above is that I think the Church would be better served in understanding why a woman so enamored with suffering is so revered by its followers. I still think that is a question the Church would benefit from exploring. Even when I was a "good" Catholic, I never had any real respect or admiration for Teresa. Catholicism for me was an exercise in joy, not suffering. Sure there was an acknowledgement of suffering, but there was no reveling in suffering. Her whole concept of Catholicism was foreign to me, and still is. I don't dismiss her actions out of hand, I dismiss them for the inherent flaw I see in them. When you attach service to the poor with fundamental religious belief, the product is corrupt. I think that corruption is readily apparent in the refusal of birth control, or in the opposition to painkillers.

Niall: Teresa may well have what you regard as an unhealthy interest in suffering, but you might as well criticise Marx for being a communist.

Let me clarify again, the quote above was meant only as a preview for the article. That Teresa appeared to be a wackadoo does not inform my issues with her method.

Niall: And just so we're all clear about something here, Teresa did not stop anybody from getting birth control.

Teresa claimed to service the poor-service to the poor does not, in my mind, include refusing to give birth control to needy women. Teresa was no friend of the impoverished women she encountered; I would argue she was no friend of women, in general.

Niall: If Jacoby cannot be bothered to provide contraceptives and abortions to the people of Calcutta, then she certainly has no business criticising Mother Teresa for failing to.

I don't participate in any aspect of football, but I certainly criticize the players, coaches, officials, announcer-hell I had something to say about the kid that catches the football and returns them to the punter during pregame warm-ups tonight. My job actually precludes me from participating in partisan politics, but I don't shut up about commenting on all kinds of political issues. I don't think a lack of participation keeps anyone from justifiably criticizing a practice or method of which they disapprove. I think this argument is indicative of my above claim that you seem to hold Teresa above reproach.

Niall: She, like all of us, would do much better to emulate her virtuous acts, or failing that to promote the emulation of Teresa's virtuous actions.

I, as I imagine would Jacoby, would refuse to emulate Teresa's supposedly "virtuous actions." This type of defense of Teresa based on your admiration for her actions and your clear loathing of Jacoby's criticism actually solidifies my belief that you seem to hold Teresa above reproach. True public service, to me, should not be wrapped up in self-righteous, religiously dogmatic ideology.

I wrote:

"Either way, the fact that she serviced the poor does not make her above reproach, especially for freethinkers, which is what I think Niall inferred above."

To which you replied:

"That is not what I meant."

O.k., then why in the next breath do you state:

"What I can't understand is why people would attack Mother Teresa of all people!"

Or when you wrote:

"I'll never understand why certain groups have decided to pick on the woman."

What is meant by "of all people?" Why can you "never understand" that Teresa is criticized by "certain groups?" Are we not to criticize Teresa because she was old, or because she was, at times, sickly, or because she was a woman? Why, "of all people," is Teresa outside the realm of criticism? Defend her actions, defend her methods, defend her ideology. But don't in one breath tell me that you don't hold her above reproach, and in the next attack the person who chooses to criticize Teresa, rather than the criticism.

Niall: But why is nobody attacking her for her stance on contraception or abortion?

I didn't talk about Sister Random Mary, because Sister Random Mary doesn't go about pondering her own canonization, nor does she represent to the world an, apparently from your response, irreproachable example of charity. I loathe Sister Random Mary's approach to such issues as birth control and divorce as much as I do Teresa's. If you need to me to state that unequivocally, there it is. But this article wasn't about Sister Random Mary, it was about Teresa, who is a world-recognized figure and certainly not beyond reproach.

In the end, though, I can't believe this stupid thread has garnered this much attention. It was just a random article that I read and thought Chris might enjoy, because I remembered him being fairly critical of Teresa in a discussion from the past. That she is not that significant to me is apparent in my choice to put this in "General Discussion" which I perceive to be for chit chat, rather than the "Current Events" forum, which is for matters of more consequence and substance.

Mr. P.: I think you are rationalizing now...

Niall's statements are correct within the context of the Church, Mr. P. So it would be the Church's rationalizing, rather than Niall's. All souls who achieve heaven are saints within the doctrine of the Church. The recognition of that distinction is evident in the Church's two separate remembrances-All Saints' and All Souls' days. The feast of All Saints, a holy day of obligation, commemorates all those departed who have attained heaven; while the feast of All Souls commemorates all those who have departed and have not yet attained heaven. It is impossible to know if a soul that has departed has attained heaven, unless she is canonized by the Church. So my grandmother is a soul, and though she may be a saint, she will never become a Saint.

Niall: Teresa spoke of becoming a saint alright, but it seems that you don't understand what that means.

Niall, this is one of a few times now that you have called my understanding of Catholicism into question, rather than considering the possibility that we have different understandings. Just to clarify, I have a pretty solid background in Catholicism and I think you would be remiss to lump me into a generic atheist group with regard to my comprehension of Catholicism. In the quote to which I referred, "If I ever become a Saint," Teresa capitalizes Saint. In Catholicism, the capitalization of Saint refers to institutionally recognized saints-i.e. canonized saints. Thus my reference to Teresa's pondering of her own canonization by the Church, not her generic place in heaven. I recognize you really can't blame her for considering her own canonization, as it was part of Catholic discourse long before her death. That I might have jumped to a conclusion-considering the possibility of misquotes, unclear translations, or differences in cultural distinctions of "Saint" between the U.S. and India-I'll admit is possible. But I certainly understand the concepts of saint and Saint within Catholicism.

Me: Teresa claimed to service the poor-service to the poor does not, in my mind, include refusing to give birth control to needy women.
Niall: Try telling that to the starving women she fed.

And here, it is obvious that we have very different perceptions of public service. The difference seems to be between the old "give a man" "teach a man" axiom. The fact that Teresa may have fed the poor does not make her above reproach, nor above criticism for her methods. And just because this article, and my comments about this article, have focused on Teresa, does not mean that the criticism isn't applicable to all people who practice such methods. I've had a whole discussion about my criticism of certain methods of public service on this forum, without ever raising Teresa specifically. That Teresa may have done some good does not make her immune to criticisms of those methods.

Niall: I see nothing wrong with criticising some of Teresa's methods, but to criticise them while not placing them within the context of her overall contribution is ridiculous. Jacooby did not even attempt to write anything balanced. It's a simple attack on Teresa that does not even attempt to place her actions in any kind of context. Here message is not "Yes it was nice that Teresa did these things, but I think it would have been better if she did X, Y and Z" it's "Teresa was a self obsessed nutter and should not be held in high regard".

And this really seems to be the first time, Niall, that you actually raised an argument that wasn't about defending Teresa's virtuous acts, as though they are above reproach. I never said that Jacoby's article is fair or particularly useful. I thought it was an article that would be of interest to a few here. As I said before, if I thought this article or subject had any real value, outside of passing interest, I would have started the thread in "Current Events." My only participation in this thread was with the presumption that Teresa could do no wrong and had done no wrong. I find her methods relatively corrupt; thus, any possible good that might have come from those methods, are likewise tainted. This is based on my ideas of how we should be addressing public service. Again, this is something that I think a lot about and feel strongly about, which is devoid of any consideration of Teresa herself.

Really, I've wasted more time discussing Teresa than I ever meant to in my life. Outside of disapproving of her methods, I have no real opinion of Teresa. My issue lies with those who think criticism of her is unwarranted because of her place in people's hearts and the Church's media campaign. The only reason I replied thus far is because I feel obligated to respond to someone's comments directed specifically to me. This is all a way of letting you know that I won't be responding anymore with regard to Teresa. I'm not trying to be rude, or dismissive, I just don't want to feel guilty about not replying to something directed specifically to me. I will read and consider anything you have to say here; but, I won't spend any more effort writing about Teresa, the subject is just too inconsequential to me.