Thursday 18 February 2010

Mother Teresa

Over the last 24 hours I've thrust myself into an argument about Mother Teresa. The exchange has taken place online, through Facebook, primarily between a 27 year-old Catholic minister and myself. He also happens to be the boyfriend of a friend of mine who I sit next to in class, so I didn't exactly give him both barrels. Below is the unedited transcript for your amusement; I'm assured it's rather entertaining. Being of the intelligent ilk, dear reader, I think I know who you'll be favouring, but I'd relish and wallow in your support nevertheless. Also, I haven't come back to him yet (as I'm quite tempted to leave him alone with his anger), but if you've got any suggestions or comments I'd welcome them.

=====


Susana Helms
"Don't give in to discouragement. If you are discouraged it is a sign of pride because it shows you trust in your own powers. Never bother about people's opinions. Be obedient to truth. For with humble obedience, you will never be disturbed." - Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Robert Iddiols
"I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing - direct murder by the mother herself." - Agnese Bojaxhiu. AKA Mother Teresa.

Paige Dowler
Me likes!

Susana Helms
I like that one Rob. Its powerful.

Robert Iddiols
I was actually trying to demonstrate that she was an idiot.

Susana Helms
Well it didn't work. You know me better than that Rob!

Andrew Starbuck
Rob - I don't understand how that quote would demonstrate to anyone with half a brain that Mother Teresa was anything other than brilliant. She had a knack for simplifying what society wanted to complicate.

Robert Iddiols
Are you suggesting that I have less than half a brain? There is nothing motherly about Mother Teresa. She was a fraud. A friend of poverty rather than a friend of the poor, who used and maintained the suffering of others to celebrate her position within the Catholic church, while espousing the most fanatical, backward teachings and ideologies that poison the wells of India to this day.

Paige Dowler
Robert.. uh.. buddy, I believe you're wrong.

Andrew Starbuck
"Used and maintained the suffering of others?" Haha. You are seriously mistaken. Mother Teresa was recognized again and again for her work with the poor, including a Nobel Peace Prize (which isn't much of an award anymore..but that's a different conversation entirely). Her sisters, following her example, have opened over 600 missions in over 100 countries, not including the countless schools, orphanages, and homes.

I assume, based upon your comments, that your ire towards this (soon to be) saint is based upon her beliefs on contraception and abortion. I gotta say, man, that you have a lot to learn. Concerning the spread of AIDS and other diseases, condoms deter but aren't enough of a prevention to be worth it. There are tons of testimonies about people getting HIV with consistent condom use, if you take the time to look.

As for pregnancies, the Church (and Mother Teresa) teach NFP techniques that are actually more effective than condom use...and cheaper. Of course, if you feel that no one should have to take personal responsibility...than there's not much to say here. The contraceptive companies and abortion mills make bank off of people with your beliefs selling eugenics to the world. I'm sure you feel its an injustice if innocents in Haiti are slaughtered by local militia, rightfully so, but do you not feel a thing for human beings being pulled apart in the womb?

But back to the point of Mother Teresa, you say she celebrated her position...when really she hardly sought any media coverage at all...and every time it was to plead for more aid in the poorest places. Sorry, Rob, but I don’t see you making any worthwhile arguments here. It’s obvious the many things the Sisters of Charity have done to help those in need, how about you?

Renise Alexis Rodriguez
whoa. that's all.

Ricardo Ramon Guzman
amen to that Starbuck

Robert Iddiols
Pleading for aid in the poorest places, indeed, and it’s Interesting that you should bring up Haiti. She visited Haiti in the 80s by invitation of the corrupt dictatorship lead by the Duvalier family, wealthy by virtue of stealing from the impoverished members of their country. She accepted a large donation from Jean-Claude Duvalier in exchange for a public declaration of the Duvalier's kinship with the poor. She said how wonderful the situation for the Haitian poor was, how they loved the Duvaliers, and how they loved them back.

This sort of bolshie claim was not unusual. At a press conference in 1981 she said: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." Indian volunteers to the convents and clinics set up by Teresa describe them like they would a concentration camp: no chairs, only stretcher beds; no medical care or painkillers were administered beyond aspirin. As I said before, she was interested in the maintenance of the poor, not in their emancipation. She taught the suffering to “accept their lot”, and that it was a gift from God, often refusing to take them to hospital where curable diseases and ailments would have been dealt with easily.

It’s not as if she hadn’t the money to equip proper teaching hospitals, where the liberation of women living in patriarchal, third-world conditions could be instigated, educating them about PROPER family planning techniques, such as the use of condoms. Note also that when she got sick herself, she’d prefer the private clinics in California to one of the 500 convents bearing the name of her own order.

How did she get from Calcutta to Haiti? She used the private jet that Charles Keating gave to her along with $1.25 million. Keating served a ten year prison sentence for defrauding his investors of over $250 million in the 90s. When Judge Lance Ito wrote to Teresa asking for the money back he received no reply other than a scrawled message begging him to look into his heart and acquit Keating on account of his generosity.

I fear, however, there may be little audience for my argument, as there has been a stirring of fawning propaganda about this woman ever since her death, about which you do nothing other than fall prey.

I’m sure you’re aware that to be ascribed as a Saint by the Vatican you must purport a miracle, and in this instance I only urge you to look into the case at hand and you’ll see the obvious fakery. As for your comments about condoms and HIV (which I cannot fail to address, even flippantly), I feel you may be a lost cause.

Andrew Starbuck
Saintly behavior seems to be lost on you. Most certainly the grace involved in suffering. She was speaking about how, rather than being consumed by their poverty, it's beautiful to see them immersing themselves in life and really living. Being an atheist, you ignore the good that comes from suffering and how God allows us to suffer in order to really enjoy the life He made for us. Not much else to say on that, you simply can't comprehend it.

All of your "points" are about her accepting money from sinful people...so? She never changed her ideals or plans for that money, she just didn't judge them. Her focus was firstly on the poor. You say she "refused to take them to hospitals". What hospitals? A major reason for her mission was because these people weren't able to receive any care at all. Oh, did they not have chairs to sit on? Really? That's one of your points? So even though you admit that there was barely enough basic medicine to go around, she should've got some chairs? Petty. And the fact that you would compare any camp created to help people (regardless of your definition of "help") to a Nazi extermination camp is despicable.

I've got an idea. Ask the millions that have been through her convents and missions. Ask them if they think she was a monster. Ask them if they are grateful for this "minimum care" that you turn your nose up at. I can guarantee you that you'd have an overwhelming positive response. As a matter of fact, if you went into Calcutta and said the things you're saying you would probably get the crap kicked out of you. God bless America, right?

Finally, you should check your facts about her personal health care. Her first heart attack was in Rome when she was visiting the Pope and later she was ordered by the Pope to get treatment in the States. How can you judge her for being obedient? Again...pretty lame point.

You are right about one thing. There is no audience for your argument. Mostly because its an idiotic argument that is so petty its simply unbelievable. I think its even more contemptible since you're arguing against her becoming a saint...something that, in your case, shouldn't matter anyway. Atheists can be so quick to judge those with faith and love to push their anti-faith agenda down other people's throats...while screaming at anyone who happens to have or share faith. Take for example, the origin of this whole conversation. Sus, who you well know is a devout Catholic, puts up a quote that could possibly be the least debatable quote ever (it doesn't even really have a faith angle). Then you attack her, simply to start a debate, and insult someone she looks up to. This just shows a huge lack of respect for your friend and teammate, and it'd be the honorable thing to apologize to Sus.

1 comment:

Clinton Matthews-Stroud said...

It is very dissappointing that this debate should end, or even hardly begin, on the basis of offence being caused to any one side of the debate.
I think there is a valid point to debate here and I am concerned that the generation that will lead us through the next 50 years cannot discuss such an important issue openly and without rancour.
I would hope University students would develop the technique of debate, often taking and arguing the opposing view to their own beliefs.
It seems to me that there is an issue here. The "facts" are well set out in the book and television video produced by Christopher Hitchens. Whether you like Christopher Hitchens or not the facts have not been chalenged by the church and indeed they asked him to be "devil's advocate" for the cannonisation process.
In shortened terms the "hospitals" for the dying were not hospitals in the common idea. They were dying rooms where very basic and limited care was given to the dying poor. Large sums of money was raised and not spent on the hospitals but on the setting up of the missions for the care and well being of the nuns.
Christopher's main arguement is that that money should have been spent on proper medical aid and the relief of suffering to be considered praiseworthy, not the support of a church that seems to be more concerned with it's missionary role.
The catholic church wields an immense amount of influence and power in the third world. Are they improving the life chances of the poor? Look at their policies and debate the issue. If the policies of the church need improving then the best people to change those policies are the members of that church.
If you need to be angry then be angry that too many of the world's population lives without clean water, basic shelter or power.
I cannot support the view that this suffering leads to some form of enlightenment. It is a stain on humanity and and humanity needs to work to alliviate this.
You are the generation that should be producing the great ideas, the passion and the motivation to solve these issues.
Get talking, get debating, don't accept everything your told by proffesors, teachers, priests and other assorted wise men.
Come on, your better than this.