News Mother Teresa

[Ed Norton]

I came across a picture of Mother Teresa that was photoshopped and I wanted to know the story behind it and I ended up doing some research. It really seems like she was very sadistic and heartless. Does anyone have any insight into this?

 

[reallydown]

I have read some very nasty things about her and I am inclined to believe them...even though Hitchens, I feel, went off his rocker a bit at some point. No insights though. I'm guessing you've read pretty much the same kind of things I have.

 

[Recovery4Me]

Link Removed

Things are always opened to interpretation, I suppose, even when one wins a Nobel Peace Prize or is canonized a Saint. In the end, we believe what we want to believe. I believe, I would be blessed to have known her.

 

[hodge]

Lol, RD, Hitchens went off his rocker? Again??

Anyway, yes, I've also read that she wasn't exactly the selfless saint she was made out to be. Can't remember specifics now.

 

[goingonhope]

Just a few thoughts:

Choice (what and/or whom one choices to invest in); ?
Reading material (credibility and sometimes unfortunately so, only the presumption of credibility); ?
Perception (what one gathers); ?
Beliefs (the degree or level of trust applied); ?
Agenda (what one wishes to accomplish); ?

All things for many to perhaps:
Question (...or not question at all) ?
Consider (...or not consider at all) ?
Accept and Live with (...or perhaps simply reject) ?

Personally, I don't buy it.

Quoted from above: "It really seems like she was very sadistic and heartless." Ed
Not sure how to properly quote, but in direct response to it.

Countless people and/or things seem to be not as they are.

And furthermore, just as there is either clarity; mere seeming clarity; clarity once again; this too all up and changes,
and sometimes all in just a single moment's time.

 

[Fadeaway]

Yes, I have heard that she let people die that could have easily been saved and that the conditions in her hospital were needlessly unhygienic and such.

 

[Justmehere]

There were a number of Universities that did an expose of sorts on her, and the NY times, Patheos, and others published a number of articles about it. Consider everyone's agendas in all of it. The authors were clearly against divorce and not supportive of the catholic church in general. Others who support her usually have agenda's too.

The expose of sorts did validate that she did do a lot of good things for the poor, no doubt. She also felt that suffering and pain should not be interfered with, because it was an achievement, a path to understanding the sufferings of Christ. She believed that there was joy to be found in suffering. She did provide homes for the poor, places for them to die, which was helpful to them, but then did things like having her sisters bar family and friends from coming to be with the dying. Her organization does not deny these things.

I wouldn't call it sadism. A sadist would not have done as much good as she genuinely did. It seems more like a religious belief gone ary.

There is a difference between finding joy in the midst of suffering, and inviting suffering in as a path to joy. The former is spiritually and psychologically healthy. The latter is not.

 

[hodge]

Yes, that info definitely rings a bell with me, JMH. It was her tolerance, if not invitation, of suffering that struck me as just wrong.

 

[Justmehere]

Yeah. It wasn't so much intentional acts to cause pain and suffering, which is what a sadist would do, but rather acts of not intervening to stop pain that was already there. It's a subtle/not subtle distinction.

 

[J_trustno1]

I heard rough comments about mother Theresa back in 2007 from a friend when I was talking about her. He said she isn't what she shows to be and I didn't believe in what he said but I've always wondered if what he said about her was true? I would like to read the information you have read Ed and from other members too.

ADD: I've just found this and I'm shocked!

 

[Ed Norton]

I don't re want to start an argument about religion but I think that some of my personal beliefs are important in order to go understand my comments. Ok, so I'm a Catholic but mainly because my dad was and he died so I made the conversion. I differ greatly in my personal beliefs from the Catholic church. I don't believe that salvation is through works but through faith in Christ alone, as stated in John 3:16. I think that Jesus already died and suffered for our sins. So I don't believe that suffering on earth is a beautiful thing if it's preventable through technology. I'm a little hypocritical in that I attend church and do the sacraments although I don't think that it makes a difference as long as you believe in Christ. I'm also a little heretical to the Catholic church. But I do need a foundation to commune with God and to worship and also for cultural reasons, so I follow Catholicism.

Yes, it was Hitchens and a little of the mainstream media that I found this information but I don't really care about them. I trusted my own eyes and with all of that money. I don't understand why they were living like that in squalor with only aspirin for pain. I didn't understand why Mother Teresa kept opening convents in instead of hospitals. It's very hard for me to understand,.

My biggest problem is that I didn't know if the allegations were true or if what I was reading was falsehood. Unfortunately, it seems as if the allegations against her are true. Maybe I did know that what I was SEEING with my own eyes was true but I didn't want to believe it.

I guess that it's not important since I don't worship people because they
can disappoint.

Yes, I'll continue in my hypocrisy and I'll stay a Catholic because most Churches are very dissapointing anyway so I'll stick with this disappointment.

There are a few other things that I disagree with but they are not germane to this discussion and I didn't start this thread to teach the Bible or religion.

I do hope that the discussion continues and I thank all of those who have responded.

 

[Lucycat]

I read that she believed that pain and suffering was good for the soul and that is why she did noy treat people with available medication in their dying days. It was more important for her to save their souls.

Personally I think she was evil. Her belief was used on the poor, vulnerable and dying people. Why did she not try and force the suffering on the Western world?