True, but practically, the reaction of a lot (maybe even the majority) of people tends to be: “Oh, <hero> did X, Y, and Z? Then I’m going to discount everything they did and believed as being the actions of someone who was hypocritical/evil/whatever”.
Maybe, but I think in this specific case there’s a strong argument that the very thing MT was famous for doing, she wasn’t doing. If you criticize Martin Luther King for being a womanizer or whatever, you can still recognize that he powered a movement for equal rights. If you find that Mother Theresa was not doing all she could to help and aid and succor the poor at great personal sacrifice…well, for a lot of us, that’s pretty much her entire image. If you take that away, she’s no longer a hero.
You can’t take from her what she has accomplished, Nobel Prize, et al. No one can do that, you were not there, you don’t know. Neither does anyone else. She was a fine lady and shall remain so in the hearts of millions.
If nobody knows, then it follows you don’t know either.
Arafat received the Nobel Peace Price and he was hardly a worthy recipient. So did Obama, who frankly hadn’t done anything yet to earn it. Many poor people in depression era Chicago saw Al Capone as a hero because he ran soup kitchens along side all his criminal enterprises.
Many people in the former Soviet Union look back fondly to the days of Stalin and many in Iraq look back to the good ole days of Saddam Hussein.
BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | Hardship and nostalgia in Iraq
From what I have seen and read about MT she was in no way a fine lady in spite of what millions of people may think. She caused or allowed much more suffering to go on in spite of being able to or having the resources to alleviate at least some. Yet, when it was her time, she got the best treatment money could buy.
I am not, for all appearances to the contrary defending Mother Teresa as a hero, saint, or even a roll model. I don’t even defend her imagined iconic self as a hero, and for me, whether she is a saint is up to Christ, and not of her doing.
I am defending the basic concept that who you admire, even who you emulate is really rather unimportant, in the final analysis. Despise who you will, and admire who you choose. But each of us must do our own deeds, and by those are we judged. Good PR will fool the masses. Sainthood from the Church is an earthly judgment, as well. (Since, obviously I do not hold the doctrine of papal ex cathedra infallibility.) I do believe in the infallible judgment of Christ, but also believe in His infinite mercy. I too, shall be a saint. But that is not because of merit of mine, but rather because of Salvation.
But it is also given to me to judge by that same standard. I must judge with mercy. So, I shall not compare St. Teresa to the Lord, and find her wanting. I shall compare her to my own sinfulness, and know that she too fell short, though perhaps less short than I. But if some lonely soul is comforted by the belief that she led the Sisters of Mercy to bring comfort to the poor, it costs nothing to let them believe. It also does not relieve me from the duty to care for the poor as well.
It also does compel me to judge the charity I support before I give to them, rather than to wait, and complain after the fact that they should have done better.
Tris
All great people without exception have detractors who try to pull the great person down in order to lift themselves up, but life doesn’t work that way. The detractors only succeed in pulling themselves down more. Million of people know about her work and efforts in helping people no one cared about. The detractors never helped anyone but themselves.
I think this is enough said on the subject, by me, anyway.
I agree with Lekatt. I have read books on Mother Teresa of Calcutta and met Susan Conroy who spent a summer in Calcutta helping Mother Teresa. That one summer inspired the rest of her life. She has written two books and drew a sketch that I have a copy of while over in Calcutta. She also painted the nursery’s so the children would have something colorful to look at. Like Mother Teresa all Susan’s profits go to charity.
Whenever someone is saintly there will always be people that will try and destroy the beauty of that person. It is an ugly fact of human nature. I highly recommend reading one of Susan’s books before you try and say she was anything but a good and loving servant of God. I can’t imagine how hard her life must have been but she did it for God. She had the utmost respect for every human life.
Before you try and say she could have done “more” why not look and see what she did do. She chose the poorest place on earth to go and daily pull the dying off the streets. Is this the work of a saint or a monster? When she received the Nobel Peace Prize she refused to have the dinner and took the 100,000 dollar savings and gave it to charity. All her money went right back into the Sisters of Charity. Her detractors made money by trying to discredit her.
All she did, she did it for God. This is all I have to say about Mother Teresa.
“See! I will not forget you…
I have carved you on the palm of my hand.
I have called you by your name.
You are mine.
You are precious to Me.
I love You.”
-Isaiah-
From Susan’s sketch commissioned by Mother Teresa
I’ve provided proof. I dug a couple from my country (sorry, we speak Spanish) and a couple more.
You know, the quotes are in Spanish, not Tocharian, and fairly short, no doubt an intelligent and well-read person with an inquiring mind and a sceptical view of the world can understand it or at least find someone to read them for your or use free tranlsation for the web.
You can search thing for yourself if truth is what you want.
Piffle. As Chatterjee makes abundantly clear, she wasn’t pulling anyone off the streets, at least for the last several decades of her life. Hell, she wasn’t even there most of the time. How were the Sisters supposed to pull people off the streets when they were riding past them in taxis and ambulances (which never got used to pick up sick people, BTW!)
…to build convents and proselytize, not build hospitals or buy drugs. Big sacrifice, that.
The first criticism, the BBC show, was a public broadcast in the rue sense of the word, not a money spinner.
Well, that’s no surprise. It’s also no defense, actually.
No, you made the assertion. You back it up. You do your own work.
The one English cite you provided did not prove what you claimed it did. Why should I believe your Spanish cites are any better?
RE Saints In General
Cumberland has it. Here in Philadelphia, we LOVE Benjamin Franklin. We consider him a great defender of freedom, a great scientist, and a sharp wit. We also acknowledge that he had his failings. He neglected his wife and cheated on her. He was human. He had faults. I don’t think we’ll be renaming the Franklin Institute or taking down any of the many Ben sculptures around town.
Mother Theresa’s claim to fame and saintliness was helping the poor. When it turns out she denied them pain medication and other care, she falls apart. Her legend is a fraud.
Wow. So anyone who is critical of someone like MT has never helped anyone? I think you were just unable to counter what has been said and now can only attack those who disagree with you.
So did the Crusaders who killed Jews in the Middle Ages.
Unfortunately, there’s nothing preventing people from doing bad things and believing that they are doing them for God.
That’s not the same thing as all her money going to helping the poor.
It’s one thing to call God ineffable, or to say that we can’t actually prove the jews didn’t sneak out of egypt and kill the pharoah without anybody noticing, but Mother Theresa is recent history. When you are forced to fall back on the “oh, oh, nobody saw a dinosaur so you don’t know” argument for a recent famous person, you know you’ve got nothing.
Didn’t some of those crusaders become saints, though? So if they can become saints, what’s wrong with Mother Theresa becoming one?
Yeah, you shouldn’t believe them, Spanish is such an obscure language it may be about Olympic curling.
Now there’s a standard we can all strive for. “Hey, at least she’s better than a Jew-killing crusader!” Rah!
Technically being no worse than a Jew-killing crusader would be sufficient.
But I think this just underscores that we are using the wrong standard - we’re assuming that saints should be good. This isn’t the case - officially they merely have to be effective to pray to, and I’d hazard that unofficially they just have to be good for the church - be that monetarily or for publicity or with military might.
I think The Master wrote an article about bad saints that would be relevent - has it been linked yet?
That seems an illlogical snipe. The questionableness of your cites isn’t being claimed to be based on them being in Spanish, but rather, that the English cite you provided turned out to be inaccurate. The Spanish cites can’t be checked by a non-Spanish reader, but that’s not what makes them questionable, it’s what makes them difficult to check.
Honestly, it doesn’t seem particularly reasonable to supply cites in a language that others don’t understand and then consider the burden of proof to have shifted to them, regardless of the widespread nature of the language in question.
It is now:
Were Pius XI and Pius XII anti-Semitic?
And, less relevantly, Who decided saints have halos?