Interesting that the article doesn't mention the criticism from within the Catholic church itself that Mother Teresa couldn't be a saint because she didn't dress modestly enough (this came from a person who Pope Benedict was trying to get back into the Catholic priesthood). And, to be blunt, most of the criticisms I read in this article, especially the one about her proselytizing (from a Hindu, no less), seem to ring hollow with me. And the whole truth is that the Roman church hasn't shied away from naming as saints people whose lives and views do not necessarily coincide with what I would consider to be saintly qualities (think Father Junipero Serra, the Spanish priest who founded the California mission in Monterey in the mid-1700s). In the light of day, I think that Mother Teresa's work will stand up better than much of what Father Serra did.
When I visited her saddest facility, the "home for the dying" (?) in Calcutta in 1980, she talked to our little group before we went in. I could tell that she often did this with tourists and turned them into volunteers.
I was warned that it would be difficult going inside. That was an understatement. First, there's the smell that knocks you flat. Then a room, about the size of 2 large cultural halls, cots up and down, people lying down, moaning. Each of us visitors was asked to volunteer for half an hour or so. Me? I was placed by the bedside of a very elderly woman who felt so cold that I rubbed her arms and legs. She had one small, dirty blanket and half a blackened banana to eat. I fed and rubbed, fed and rubbed. And felt entirely useless, as we all said we did afterwards. So much more might have been done.
My *personal* sense, and I could be wayyy off, was that it was deliberately made uglier and sadder in hopes of getting more donations.
angela Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Most people don't understand or know about the > canonization process that the Catholic church > uses. Never mind what it actually means. > > Because of that simple fact, they don't understand > what makes a person a saint as per Catholicism. > > Just saying.
Sure we do. For example, the #1 requirement is: "... requiring extensive proof that the person proposed for canonization lived and died in such an exemplary and holy way that he or she is worthy to be recognized as a saint."
It's that "lived...in such an exemplary and holy way..." thing that's not so clear with Teresa.
angela Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You mean a perfect life? No, that is not a > requirement. > > Many of the canonized saints lived lives that were > far from perfect....
No, I don't mean and didn't say "perfect life." I quoted the church's own requirements -- "exemplary and holy way."
Objective eyewitness reports about Teresa don't show her to be exemplary (unless you consider examples of cruelty and inflicting intentional suffering to be exemplary) nor holy.
Yes, I'm aware the canon of "saints" is full of "far from perfect" lives. In fact, it's got a ton of examples of really nasty people. That's kinda the point -- being declared a "saint" isn't all it's cracked up to be, it's largely politics, putting on a show, and a pile of nonsense. But at least they should follow their own rules about who's "exemplary and holy." Otherwise they're just abject hypocrites (which is no surprise).
"For example, the #1 requirement is: "... requiring extensive proof that the person proposed for canonization lived and died in such an exemplary and holy way that he or she is worthy to be recognized as a saint.""
My understanding is that one of the "miracles" attributed to Mother Teresa was someone who was ill (cancer??) prayed to her AFTER 1997, so after her death.
This person was "miraculously" cured of their illness as a result.
Not too scientific and WAY too subjective for thinking people today to accept as "proof"...
Used to have a thirty year waiting period before a candidate would be considered for beatification. Seems that with MT as with JP2, they're rushing the process before anyone has a chance to reconsider.
Definitely agree. She made a lot of immoral choices. Thought that suffering was equivalent to redemption and would refuse medical care to many people so they could continue *suffering* and she could be close to all the holiness. Pretty screwed up.
I hope some enterprising soul was smart enough to get some of her blood or bones from the mortuary to sell.
Just think of the gullible types who are still into that relic $tuff.
If it weren't for DNA testing (drat!), they wouldn't even need to be from her and people would still line up to see the pretty jar.
I get that they need to set up heroes for people to revere and see for examples.
I think that's why Mormons make a big deal about their prophets by attaching miracles and telling stories about them.
Same with heroes from history.
I think it is nice that groups do have a way of rewarding exemplary, brave, or people who provided outstanding service. Of course that "service" is only idolized if it was your group.
I think M.T. helped create the problems she was claiming to help.