Christian hooligans
Arguing about Mother Teresa
I revere people like Mother Teresa and Pope John-Paul II. But the fact that they are now saints of the Catholic Church does not disqualify them from critical consideration of their faults. I remember them both very well when they were alive and I remember the controversies that followed them. Mother Teresa in particular has some difficult baggage. It’s got nothing to do with the contents of her secret diaries. It has to do with her finances and the organization and function of her religious order.
Now, I have a Facebook friend, a young Irish guy, who repeatedly posts Catholic pro-life, anti-abortion means to his timeline, and other religiously-themed links. It’s like that’s his mission in life, or something. Fool that I am, I try to engage in dialogue with these issues, trying to use social media for communication. That’s what I do. I love discussing issues. But that is a mistake on social media where people are less interested in genuine communication than is affirmation. So, discussion of issues is habitually met with a belligerent response. Failure to be agreeable is taken as opposition and dissent, and people cannot tolerate dissension, the airing of multiple views, consideration of comprehensive argumentation, nor the practice of freedom of thought. It reminds me of the famous Clash lyric, “You have the right to free speech as long as you’re not fool enough to actually try it” (“Know Your Rights,” 1982). So, after some back-and-forth on the matter I get bored and give it up. Mostly I’m just having fun, because discussing the issues is a pleasure. But everyone else seems to think that what I write is a genuine reflection of what I believe. Fools!
Anyway, on Wednesday, January 8, 2020 my friend posted the following meme about Mother Teresa of Calcutta:
The link connects to a Catholic FB page dominated by conservative opinion, and these other commenters immediately jumped on me - without due reflection, I thought - like a gang. A gang of Christian hooligans incapable of having or appreciating a polite conversation. Maybe they’ve been conditioned to act like that, overcome with feelings that their Christianity is under attack and so they respond to non-conformist or irregular views like rabid animals. In reality, though, my religious views are very orthodox. But I don't believe anything just because it's dogma. I don't believe anything because it's on the menu, or I've been told to. But these belligerent characters on the internet will never know that. Their belligerence is their sty. Oh, well.
Me: A close examination of her work tarnishes her
reputation.
Tony C. Evers: You’re a sick person. Shame on you.
Me: I love you, too.
Margie Meleski: Not true. Not in the slightest.
Me: Godliness and goodness are two different things. It
is not to be unexpected that there is a contrary
argument opposing Teresa's good reputation.
Doreen Bryson: you are poor in spirit and I piti (sic) you.
Me: Personally, I revere Mother Teresa and I oppose
abortion. But no one is above critique. If you
disagree with me, I must wonder why you do not
revere her and why you do not oppose abortion.
And, what does “piti” mean? Do you mean
“pity?” Then say so.
Irene Haas
Kazmierczak: helping poor people? Even the secular noble prize
committee recognized it. Smh
Me: Mother Teresa was a very controversial figure in her lifetime. I haven't forgotten that, nor the
reasons why. Her aide to the poor is subject to
question, and the proposition has been advanced
that she was less a friend of the poor than a friend
of poverty itself because her assistance to the destitute was not based on humanitarianism. As you recall, she even said so herself. Nevertheless, I
revere Mother Teresa and I do not think that you
and I disagree about her and her stance on abortion.
I am only trying to consider the broader matter of her life, which deserves consideration.
Here is a fuller exposition of the matter:
Mother Teresa was a very controversial figure in her own time. She was both praised and criticized for her anti-abortion views, and she was fairly criticized for the sanitary conditions in the houses for the dying that she ran - conditions which did not reflect the donations she received, raising questions about financial mismanagement and fraud.
It has been said that she welcomed appalling conditions as a reflection of her belief in the virtue of suffering. She oversaw a disturbing shortage of proper medical care, systematic poor diagnosis and necessary nutrition, as well as a decided lack of pain killers. Teresa said, “Suffering is an opportunity to share in the passion of Christ.” In that, it might be said that she represented a return to the medieval corruption of the Church, which sold indulgences to the rich while preaching hellfire and continence to the poor.
Mother Teresa was not a friend to the poor. She was a friend of poverty, preaching that suffering was a gift from God while opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and their emancipation from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.
By accepting advanced Western treatment for her heart condition while denying basic medicines and pain killers to her own patients she exposed herself to legitimate accusations of hypocrisy.
Teresa was not working to alleviate poverty. She was working to expand the Catholic population. She said, “I am not a social worker. I don’t do it for this reason. I do it for Christ. I do it for the church.” So, she was not a humanitarian and never claimed to be.
Teresa exuberantly spread Catholicism at the expense of the health, comfort and humanity of her patients. Her hospitals became known as Houses of the Dying where she and her Sisters would baptize the ailing without their consent or understanding. They were out to make converts, not save lives. If someone got a room over their head in the process - well, that’s great PR. She opposed abortion and birth control in one of the most cripplingly over-populated countries on earth, thereby ensuring the vicious cycle of poverty continued.
Hopefully, the next time an enterprising nun appears to save the day she will have higher standards than Mother Teresa.