From LibDem
I fail to see the hardline ideology Newcomer speaks of in respect to the Obama administration. What I see is a pragmatic approach that seeks (in your own words) “to balance the need to both protect the innocent while also preserving the right to defend oneself/use guns in a non-violent/non-threatening way.”
The right wing, however, has been totally unwilling to compromise or offer any practical solutions beyond their hardline ideology. They have rendered the rhetoric of “balance”, of “compromise” and of “bipartisanship” as empty, overrated and a path to plain obstruction. The right wing has knowingly moved so far right that a compromise still puts them ahead of the curve. Its like compromising with the devil and reminds me of the following quote:
“Bipartisanship for its own sake is no virtue. Partisanship for the sake of what’s right is no vice.”
So while I’m glad you are willing to listen to both sides of an argument, but if you are unable to extrapolate from a debate an essence of educated truth that leads to a concrete conclusion, then you are living in a ignorant web of ambiguity that offers no substantive solutions and no practical goals.
Now I know you don’t practice this ambiguity with your religion. You are indeed an absolutist. You have developed a clear sense of what is right and what is wrong based on religious dogma. Yet you are unwilling to apply the same level of scrutiny to other matters -whether it be gun control, environmental issues, economics. I cannot understand this. Is it laziness?
This is not only a major cop, but its a sell out. A democracy depends on an educated citizenry. Your excuse- an acquiescence to religion- is counter to this and sets a dangerous precedence. Of course, it is also the very essence of why religion is a plague to humanity.
Instead of solving problems that could help humanity here and now, the religious seek to simply prepare humanity for a magical afterlife. Instead of researching for the scientific truth, the religious prefer the mystical, the unseen, the hearsay. Instead of forming opinions based on reason and evidence, the religious say “I form most of my opinions based on the tenets of my religion”. The result is a placating ambiguity that works toward holding back progress, works on preventing rebellion against oppression, works toward preserving poverty because the real world matters less than the afterlife. This is why Mother Theresa was so evil. Instead of fighting for human rights, fighting to end poverty, she taught people to simply accept it, to acquiesce to it, to seek the intangible sublime of suffering. This kind of subversive thinking thwarts self preserving activism and it allows for exploitation and control. Its no wonder why throughout history the rich and powerful have used religion to subdue and exploit the masses, insisting that they keep their eyes on the hereafter- while their present is stolen from them.
You, my friend, by your preference to “make god smile” and to pursue a life that is controlled by patriarchal dogma, rather than to truly understand and act on the issues which have great impact on your life, have not only diminished your credibility, but have hurt the movement needed to truly improve human life and dignity.

“…. Mother Theresa was so evil.” Really, LibDem, you’re joshing. Did you deliberately
use the word evil ? Or, you selected that word to elicit a response.
Sorry LibDem. If you’re going to call Mother Theresa “evil” you’re going to have to prove you’re not just trolling.
Not being religious, LibDem cannot appreciate the breath-taking scope of the word “evil.” To him it just means “the very worst bad there is.” Take his comment that way, not the way “evil” is used in the Abrahamic religions.
However, even with that, LibDem, I think you might have misspoke. Did you really mean that Mother Theresa HERSELF was evil or that what she taught and how she exhorted her followers to behave was evil? It is hyperbole at best to ascribe the characteristic of evil, or good for that matter, to an unwitting instrument. To be either good or evil without intention says nothing about the doer.
I’m supporting LibDem on Mother Theresa. If you take some time to research what she actually did and how she did it you will find she wasn’t a very good person. Just one with really good PR. So much so that the mere implication that she may have been anything other than her what her crafted public image says she was is quickly repudiated as happened here.
Thanks,
Kevin
@Kevin E Ford
“If you take some time to research what she actually did and how she did it you will find she wasn’t a very good person.”
Since you have apparently done said research, could you please post links to your sources?
Without ever citing specifics, Newcomer consistently derides both political parties for being polarized and uncompromising. Yet ironically, its OK for her to be unabashedly uncompromising on most issues- through her rigid support of the hardline absolutist ideology of the Roman Catholic Church.
Interestingly, Mother Theresa was a rigid reactionary right wing hardline conservative ideologue as well. She was vehemently opposed to Vatican II and she was more vocal in her opposition to abortion, contraception and divorce than she was in fighting for better healthcare and education. Sound familiar (Newcomer)?
Despite witnessing the great poverty and desperation of thousands of woman who were victims of abuse, overburdened into a state of squalor by children they could not afford, she did not see overpopulation and forced marriage as a problem. Instead her response to these atrocities: “God will provide.”
But of course God did not provide. Instead, thousands of women and children starved to death- in utter filth- with untreated illnesses from which there was no adequate healthcare. Mother Theresa’s clinics were barren, had poor standards of care and little available pain medication- despite that she had received multi-million dollar donations and chose to treat her own illnesses at high end California clinics.
In the catholic tradition, Mother Theresa believed that suffering was good and that “it is beautiful for the poor that they accept their lot.” She would baptize patients unknowingly and rather than try to help them, she sought simply to convert them to Catholicism. Obedience, acquiescence to suffering and humility to the point of self-abuse were virtues she expounded.
So yes, Mother Theresa was evil and religion is a plague to humanity.
But my point doesn’t begin or end with Mother Theresa. She simply serves as a convenient example of the warped logic that persists amongst the religious like Newcomer. Why just in the last few editions of the Woodstock Villager, we have been subjected to the most grotesque opinions that essentially made the claim that gun regulation was useless and that the reason there is violence is “because we have taken God out of the schools.”
So rather than do the research, rather than note the facts, rather than use logic and reason to create a plan of action, it easier for the religious to “cop out” from doing this hard work (sound familiar Newcomer) and to simply advocate that we need to bring “God” back into the schools. This is ignorant and dangerous. And of course when this type of thinking prevailed the world was thrust into the Dark Ages. Suffering exacerbated, violence and torture and intolerance ruled the day.
LibDem,
I am an individual. I am one person sharing my opinions and my reasons for holding them, and discussing local and national issues with my neighbors. A political party is a large collection of individuals. On the national level, they are an extremely powerful collection of individuals at that. Since we only have 2 political parties that are dominating the governance of our country, yes, I believe that both parties should be held to high ethical standards. Further, they should be willing to clearly and honestly articulate their principles, be open about their agenda, and be able to defend why they feel they are correct and their opposition is wrong. Rhetoric, lies, and propaganda do not pass muster in that regard, IMO. That’s as specific as I care to be for now. Take it or leave it.
You can deride me all you like, but I’m not about to apologize to you for practicing my faith and the faith of my fathers. You are more than free to disagree with me, just as I am with you. I have firm beliefs and I stand by them. If you have a problem with that, well, it’s exactly that – your problem.
You asked me how I form my opinions if I don’t watch talk shows and don’t listen to talk radio. I gave you an honest answer. And you see that as an opportunity to not just disagree (which would be fine), but launch into another one of your rants against religion, specifically, the particular religion that I choose to practice. And yes, your accusations, mischaracterizations, and rants do sound quite familiar to me. That doesn’t mean they are accurate.
You are accusing me of hypocrisy for holding firm to my religious beliefs, my “ideology”. Yet you hold equally as firm to your self-described “Liberal Democratic Socialist” beliefs which you declared here publicly when you introduced us to your new username of “LibDem”. It’s perfectly OK for you to hold fast to your ideology, but it’s heinous and offensive for those with differing ideologies to do likewise? Give me a break.
I didn’t bring up Mother Teresa this time. I tried not to bring my religion into the debate we were having about gun control until I answered your direct question to me with honesty. That you view that as an opportunity to try to use my openess against me makes quite statement about you.
Mother Teresa did not have a “warped logic”. She lived out a belief system that you have previously stated you know little about. What you do claim to know are negative false assumptions made by others. She also lived out a belief system that you feel is fictional. Obviously, I disagree, but I’m not going to subject the Cafe readers to another one of our go-rounds.
I don’t deride you for being an atheist. I disagree with you, but I don’t insult you for holding the views that you do. From time to time, you make statements here extolling the virtues of humanism. I have yet to see you practice what you preach.
Diane,
Sure.
http://www.cephas-library.com/catholic/catholic_mother_teresa.html
http://www.himalmag.com/component/content/article/2755-Saint-Teresa,-Not-Quite.html
http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/20031020_en.htm
http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/shields.htm
I could keep on going. There is generally a few categories of complaints:
- She believed suffering brings you closer to god and if you found yourself in her care that’s what you could expect, suffering.
- It is unknown exactly how much money her organization received but it is estimated to be quite a bit, $100M a year. Of that, very little ever found it’s way to the poor she purported to help.
- She accepted money from criminals and ignored all requests for its return from authorities.
Thanks,
Kevin
I looked at the articles that Kevin suggested. It appears that Mother Theresa and her good works had some serious flaws. However, I wouldn’t put her in the ranks of the evil.
Yes, evil is one of those completely subjective words.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin,
Mother Teresa has already been beatified and is on her way to canonization. Given that, I want to begin my reply to you by making a simple distinction that non-Catholics may/may not be aware of. When the Roman Catholic Church declares a person to be a saint, She is not declaring that said saint is/was perfect. Sainthood does NOT equal perfection. So before I reply to one of the more common criticisms that you linked to, I will say that I am not against sincere, well-meaning questions about her. I am very definitely opposed to a witch-hunt. I’m also not saying that’s what you were doing by providing your links, but I strongly suspect that some of the authors of the articles you linked to were doing that.
There’s no way I can take everything you linked to point by point in a blog post so I’ll have to give a more general reply. In addition to the articles that you linked to, Christopher Hitchens was another person who was very critical of Mother Teresa. So my general reply applies to the bits I’ve heard from him too, though I admit that I have not read his book.
My short answer (which surely won’t seem short by the time I finish it) to such criticism is to say that the charism of Mother Teresa’s order was not, and is not, primarily directed toward nursing. There are other orders that do have nursing as their specific apostolate. The charism of the Missionaries of Charity is as the name says – charity. This is from the MC website:
“The Missionaries of Charity is an international religious family of pontifical right composed of active and contemplative branches with perpetual public vows of chastity, poverty, obedience, and wholehearted and free service to the poorest of the poor, leading each sister to the perfect love of God and neighbor and making the Church fully present in the world of today.
The Society was founded by Mother M. Teresa, M.C. in Calcutta, India, and now has houses on every continent and in most of the countries of the world. Their particular mission is to labor for the salvation and the sanctification of the poorest of the poor all over the world. Each member of the Society goes where she is sent and does not choose the place or kind of work“.
*****
I really think that a lot of the criticisms along the lines of what you cited, result from the fact that several of these critics and visitors to her “hospitals” and homes misunderstand the charism of the Missionaries of Charity. These visitors go to an MC center expecting to find fully equipped hospital wards along the lines of what we in the western world are accustomed to. They figure that the order has enough money to build and run a facility more along the lines of what we think of when we hear “hospital”. And yes, the MC order seems to have the funds to serve in this capacity, but that simply isn’t the purpose of their mission or charism. And when I say that the mission is charity, that term is also not to be taken in the context that we in the west generally use it. There is quite a bit to say about the theological virtue of charity and I don’t have room to go into it all here. In terms of trying to nutshell it for you, the term charity = love. I’ll just include a brief excerpt about it from the official teaching of the Church (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 1823):
“Jesus makes charity the new commandment (John 13:34). By loving his own “to the end” (John 13:1), he manifests the Father’s love which he receives. By loving one another, the disciples imitate the love of Jesus which they themselves receive. Whence Jesus says: “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love.” And again: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you (John 15: 9, 12)”.
The practical application of this form of charity is to live out the corporal and spiritual works of mercy by “feeding the hungry”, “visiting the imprisoned”, “caring for the sick”, and “comforting the dying” to name a few. Mother Teresa and the women who profess vows and join her order as sisters are trained in theological charity. They are not trained health care professionals. They don’t run a medical center or hospital as we might expect, as in the sense of an ER or walk-in clinic. Generally, the people who show up for “hospital” care at their centers have nowhere else to go and are very ill, if not dying. The nuns do what they can while living in poverty themselves. But among other things, the nuns are trained in how to minister to a person’s soul, provide for their basic needs, and help them to endure their suffering with dignity. So while I can see how it’s possible that some doctors or other medical professionals have visited “patients” (again not a term to be used as we are accustomed to using it) in MC centers who could have been easily cured had the sisters been more educated and knowledgeable, I believe that it is a mischaracterization to imply that they are maliciously withholding care so as to escort people to their afterlife. That simply goes against everything they do and are.
I know I’m not addressing everything you brought up, but I had to start somewhere. I hope this will do for now.
Newcomer, While you are at it why don’t you defend the multitude of pedofile priests who are in the news almost on a daily basis. This week’s development is in the Los Angeles diocese.
Newcomer,
I don’t have much skin in this but I am interested in the phenomenon where she seems above reproach. Her good works seem to be more of a brand than anything else. A couple of thoughts.
- My primary focus isn’t on nursing either. Having said that if I started to do it I would be a valid target for criticism if I did it poorly, particularly if people needlessly suffered in my care.
- If you collect donations for a particular cause but don’t actually use the majority of the money (or it appears in some cases any of it) on that cause it was donated for then you probably can expect some pretty valid criticism.
- Certainly if you get a donation and later find out that that the money was stolen, a moral person would return it to those it was swindled from. This would be particularly true if it happened more than once, which it apparently did.
Thanks,
Kevin
John,
I’m not going to defend criminal activity by some terrible priests, and those who covered up the abuse are at fault too. That goes without saying. If there were frequent media reports that rabbi’s had abused young children who attended their temples and the abuse was common and widespread, and you found out that it went on for decades, would you decide that all of Judaism is flawed, and everyone in it is a criminal? Or would you decide that those who acted criminally were to blame but that many good rabbi’s remain faithful men of service to their temple communities?
I don’t see how that has anything to do with Mother Teresa.
Once I’ve had the guts to give up my creature comforts in Woodstock and go live in Calcutta for just a few months (let alone decades), with my hands sinking into the rotting, decaying flesh of leprosy while I try to clean and bandage a leper’s wounds, then maybe I’ll criticize her. Or maybe I’ll criticize her after I’ve finished bathing some person who was just taken in from out of a gutter in the street; someone who is cold, naked, and hungry while I’m here in the U.S. living like a billionaire in comparison. When I’ve walked that walk, then maybe I’ll be qualified to criticize about why she didn’t know that leprosy can be treated, or why she didn’t treat it the way we do in the west.
Kevin,
I don’t know how true some of these accusations are. I don’t think that anyone is above reproach, but I do think that there is a difference between an impartial inquiry and an inquiry made by someone with an agenda. Some of her attackers have been Communist leaders in India and people who vehemently oppose the Catholic Church and its teaching. If someone is known to be a hater of either Mother Teresa personally and/or the Church whose spirituality she practices, well, to me, that raises a red flag as to whether such a person is making a fair criticism or writing a hit piece.
Here’s an article that was written before she died. It’s actually 1/2 book review and 1/2 article:
http://www.maryellenmark.com/text/magazines/saturday%20night_new/907A-000-001.html
The first article is from Stern magazine, not exactly a leftist anti Catholic source. Give it a read… Plane about to take off, take care.
Thanks,
Kevin
Its amusing for me to see the response from others when the word “evil” is invoked. Of course, this word derives much of its widespread use and interpretation from the religious- who have used it throughout history to justify their witch hunts. Yes, it is a strong word and yes it invokes a highly negative response, yet moreso, it is divisional. Good vs. Evil. A prevalent theme that runs strong throughout mythology/religion and while its intent is to teach us right from wrong, it has unfortunately been used by the church to discriminate in the cruelest of manners. Yet, interestingly, when it is used against them, their indignation runneth the cup over. Hypocrites of the highest order.
Kevin,
I would disagree with your assessment that “Der Stern” magazine is not a leftist, anti-Catholic source – so says them. I know the article that you linked to said that “Stern” isn’t leftist, but that doesn’t make it true. Der Stern is exactly that (a dissident, leftist Catholic source), as is Walter Wuellenweber, author of the article that you linked to.
The following link is to a blog run by Germans (now German-American in the case of at least one of them). The folks running this blog are conservative and comment from that perspective.
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2006/07/stern_selling_s.html
I realize that the Cafe is a great place to discuss just about everything that affects multitudes of people, locally and nationally, and I enjoy the variety of topics that come up.
However, I, for one, am getting tired of just about every conversation here lately reverting to interrogating Newcomer and dissecting her beliefs.
Does anyone realize it will never end, that it’s a vicious cycle? There’s always something new to berate Newcomer or the Church about, and her answers are never good enough so the discussion drags on and reappears in a later thread, with the jabs being made harder and the defences getting more convoluted on both ends? Either some sort of agreement has to be made, someone has to admit defeat, or better yet, continue the discussion on some other site devoted to politics and religion, or even via email.
I’ve always read every article and every comment here whether or not I really wanted to, but it’s becoming a waste of time.
And who knows how many people are reading who would otherwise comment for fear of relentless interrogation. Yes, discussion means questions, answers, and assertions, but not in endless loops.
@Kevin
Thank you for the links to articles about MT which are less than flattering. As I read them, I realized that NC might have a point, ie, sour grapes, agendas, etc, and decided the best way to ascertain the accuracy of the thrust of those criticisms, if not the the specific charges, was to read what MT herself said vis-a-vis the poor, the rich, and the purpose of her Mission. While googling “‘Mother Teresa’ quotations” will get you a lot of warm fuzzies, I didn’t see any hits that looked promising as statements of philosophy/theology, with the exception of her outspoken criticisms of abortion.
Do you know any “smoking guns” here on the Web or are we left to extrapolate her overall admiration of poverty, misery and the cleansing value of donations for the rich from her reasoning on abortion? Alternatively, can you suggest a more profitable search than the one I referenced?
Re: #16 & #18
Whether der Stern is conservative or leftist is irrelevant. In fact, it is no more relevant than that the organization which republished this piece, Cephus, is rabidly fundamentalist, “Evolution is atheism,” and anti-Catholic. What is relevant is the bias of the author of this, or any other piece. So, in this case, who is the author, Walter Wuellenweber? Is he anti-Catholic?
@A Student
“However, I, for one, am getting tired of just about every conversation here lately reverting to interrogating Newcomer and dissecting her beliefs.
Does anyone realize it will never end, that it’s a vicious cycle? There’s always something new to berate Newcomer or the Church about, and her answers are never good enough so the discussion drags on and reappears in a later thread…”
Agreed. It’s getting old. Ad Hominem and Moving the Goalpost attacks aren’t just tacky and boring, they’re invalid.
Diane,
I don’t believe I have been doing either interrogating Newcomer or dissecting her beliefs. …(See Kevin’s new article. Admin).
Student-
Instead of balking at such debates, you should be paying close attention and learning from them. Now is the time for you to not only start developing a belief, but also to formulate your own argument in defense of it.
I understand that these discussions seems like an endless loop of interrogations and tautological arguments, but there is relevance in trying to appreciate them and garner from them an opinion that you can support.
Try jumping in a little bit more. Don’t let the fear of being “interrogated” stop you. You might find that as you argue you will develop a rhetorical pattern that is consistent and logical. This skill can carry you far in your non-blog life.
LibDem,
Thanks for the advice. …(see A Student’s new article. Admin).