The horrible ecummenicism of Mother Theresa

Ed, I stand and take my hat off to you. That took guts.

But I would say that we are to spread the Gospel of Christ, and him crucified, to all people.

And about mother Theresa, I never saw the reason so many were endeared to her. From my studies, the only thing she did was make sure people had clean sheets to die in.

 

Brother Ed,

A few things I'd just like to toss out:

1) A saint is not someone who lived a perfect life. Most of our saints that we celebrate lived some pretty terrible lives, and even after conversion, they were certainly not always saintly. However, they left for us examples to follow, and we know that when they died, they went straight to Heaven. It doesn't mean they lived sinless lives; it means they died perfectly purified by the Lord's grace.

2) St. Francis of Assissi said, "Preach the Gospel everywhere, and if necessary, use words." I think the point is that Blessed Teresa loved all as Christ loves all regardless of their creed, and I am sure that she fervently prayed that the love of Christ that she allowed to shine through her would radiate on others to help them believe in Him. If she was truly indifferent to religion, it would be rather silly of her to make such bold Catholic proclamations that periodically got our non-Catholic brethern in a fit, as well as devote her entire life to the service of the ONE TRUE GOD.

3) I am not saying I agree with some of the "much espoused" quotations used here. But you and I should also know quite well that often thes "much espoused" quotations are those given out of context simply because, by themselves, they are "sensational."

4) We have no idea how many people who died in the care of Blessed Teresa made deathbed conversions to the Lord; for all we know, most or all of them! We simply can't say; that is for the Lord to know. Her Christian example, however, surely left an impact on those she cared for, whom NNE ELSE CARED FOR.

5) When you make this statement, "I also hope it will make them THINK about where the Church has gone in the last 200 years and how She has compromised the truth" that DOES worry me, dear brother. I hope you will elaborate on what you truly mean by this.

 

I ask seriously, who appointed you the authority over the church to decide that She has compromised in the last 200 years? This sounds like the very same thing you condemn us of doing, of setting ourselves up as the authority about whether the church is right or wrong. When I say the church is wrong, I am rebellious against the church and the truth. What are you when you say the church is wrong?

 

Ed,

You're right about this being somewhat of a touchy topic. It almost feels like our airing of our dirty laundry in an un-sympathetic venue. To some degree it invites the Protestant reaction of something akin to: "So what else is new! We've been telling you guys about Catholics making Jesus just another Way for quite some time." or something similar. The Bob Ryan's of the board will add their vitriol to the topic and will feel smug in doing so.

My take is not to necessarily counter what you are saying by trying to defend the comments or quotes of Mother Teresa. My take would be to perhaps present an additional aspect to the discussion.

When I think of Mother Teresa, I recall two stories that were told to myself and others by Monsignior Stephen Barham, a dual rite Catholic priest who personally had visited Mother Teresa in Calcutta. I will relate the stories as best I recall:

The first story told of Mother Teresa told of when she first arrived and set up her house in Calcutta. The house was located adjacent to a Hindu worship center (for lack of knowing the proper term).
Being a Catholic nun the local populace was very adamently opposed to her setting up of a Christian house so close to their center. They were concerned that Mother Teresa would be actively attempting to convert their people to what was viewed as an opposing belief system. They were up in arms! How dare she attempt to force her religion on our people! Their anger and indignation eventually reached a fever pitch and a large group had gathered and approached a city and government official (again I don't recall the proper term-just the conceptual term). The outraged people convinced the city official to go to the house and forcibly evict Mother Teresa.
So with a large and boisterously angry mob in tow the official proceeded to the Mother-house.
The official opened the front door and walked in. There with her back to the city official was Mother Teresa on the floor ministering to a man who was near death and covered in open sores. One of the discarded of the local populace. She was scooping maggots out of a wound in his leg with her bare hands.

The city official stopped in his tracks and turned around and quietly closed the door.

He faced the mob and addressed them with these approximate words: I'll evict this woman.... (to I'm sure a rowdy cheer) I'll evict this woman, when I see you people caring as much for your own people as she does".
And with that the crowd was quieted and the rest is history.

The second story is one told from Father Barham's own personal experience.

Father Barham was at the hospice in Calcutta and was touring the facility. A part of the house was set up as a ward for the truly, truly critically sick and dieing. This was a place where the individuals were brought who were very near death.
Father Barham entered the room of 20 -30 people on cots etc. and was immediately motioned to by a nun at the bedside of a emaciated older man. The man was in terrible shape and as Father Barham had described him, he had what is referred to as the "death rattle". The nun asked Father to administer to him an annointing and prayer etc. (I hesitate to call it extreme unction or last rites as I'm not sure if that is what it was, or if even one of another faith is able to receive this rite)
As Father Barham was praying over him the man literally died in the arms of the sister. With what father Barham described as a most beautiful and peaceful smile on his face.
The sister went on to tell Father Barham that as she was administering to the man and saw that he was very near death she looked up from his bedside and immediately had spotted Father Barham at the door. She then went on to tell Father: "Father in the many years of operating this hospice did you know that there has never been a person die without a priest at his bedside! When I saw this man was near death I knew a priest would be coming, I looked up and there you were."

Now I tell these stories not to create a warm and fuzzy for everyone but to present something to Brother Ed's point. There is absolutely no compromise of the faith that would or could be tolerated. So this post will avoid any appearance of doing so. But what I will add is something that in discussion perhaps can be addressed as well. That is: Where does unconditional love, and respect of an individual's human dignity end, and where does the compromising of the faith begin? If we are called to be examples of Christ, in Love for others; does the love for the person mean love for the eternal portion (soul)preeminently?

I think we could all agree that the soul is of the greatest import, more so than the physical body. But we can't seperate the body from the soul as that is what makes us human. The body is also the temple of the Holy Spirit and God obviously attaches some worth to it or we would not have a resurrection of the body. My point being it would be difficult to seperate care for the eternal soul from the care for the physical person.

The greatest service would obviously be the care for the soul and the physical person. But with those of another faith, where does the line to minister ones "True faith" in an oral or written testimony become preeminent to acting out ones True Faith by the Christian example. Faith, Hope and Love of these: Love is the greatest. How do we show this love? If our love is shown in an exclusive manner of emphasizing a doctrinal or dogmatic approach to the faith, does this not compromise the message itself? And again where does the line begin and end.

It certainly would not include praying with pagans, or appearing to accept the false concept of the various views of the non-Christian gods.

What role does the concept of "Sufficient Grace" play. Would it be too far off base to rely on the grace of God to speak to someone of a different faith by ones kind actions and embodiment of the Christian faith. I personally feel that that is closer to what Mother Teresa was more in line with. IMHO. She didn't judge a person by their not understanding the True Faith. She relied on God to speak of His Love, the Christian love of neighbor etc. Through the vessel of her person and the instrument of her ministry. A "Let me show your Christian Love God in action, and rely on your sufficient grace for the eternal well being of the individual." Whether this is real love I guess could be debated. But the question I think would still come down to when should the compassion and Love of Christ in a physical action give way to the preeminent concern for the individual's acceptance of the true faith. I also don't want to suggest it is an either/or scenario as it certainly is a both/and scenario. One could argue that the Christian is charged with "going and making disciples of all nations" and that "faith comes through hearing". Only to be countered with Faith appears secondary to love (faith, hope and love....)and that above all else Jesus commands us to "love one another"....

In conclusion, I would have to agree Ed, that it appears the comments went too far. This isn't ecumencal as much as it is relativism or perhaps worse! A compromising of the Faith. I hope we can make a healthy sense of it all.
God Bless.

 

Mother Teresa probably knew about as much systematic theology as the fallen, Jimmy Bakker admitted that he did not know. This makes no excuses for either of them. If they did not know truth then they should not have tried to vocalize it. Perhaps the white robed lady had picked up some of our American way of thinking. 'I'm all right; you're all right.'

 

This reminds me of a story about a man in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. I don't know if its true or not, and I may fudge some of the details, because this is from memory from a while ago, but the point should remain the same.

He was an American in the prison, and he was put in a cell with a Japanese man. The Japanese man had apparently been seen as a traitor, and so they treated him much much worse than the American, includin brutal beatings and denying him food. Every night after they had beaten him, the American took him in his arms and fed him his own food, going without because he knew the Japanese man needed it more than himself.

This went on for some time until shortly before the Japanese man's death. Now, the Japanese man knew that the American was a Christian, and shortly before he died, he told the American, "I have never known this Jesus, but if he is anything like you, I can't wait to meet him."

Blessed Teresa was a Christian, and she lived her faith through her life. People who came in contact with her knew that she was a Christian. Those people who died in her arms knew the love of Christ because she brought Jesus to others.

When Jesus ate with sinners, do you think He sat around quizzing them on their beliefs, making sure they understood the concept of the Trinity, or command allegiance? Even if He told them to believe, He first LOVED THEM. He gave them reason to believe by giving them the peace of Christ that surpasses all human understanding.

Blessed Teresa cared for people who were on the virge of death, and she shared that love of Christ with them, the compassion, the peace, the genteleness of Christ. People find Jesus in that love. I dare say that words could not express that love, and I believe that many came to believe in Jesus because of His love that He worked through her.

 

Your wording makes you sound as if you do not believe that John Paul is a valid pope, much less the Roman Rite a valid rite.

Either way, a saint is simply a person that is in the presence of God. A canonized saint is simply a person for whom we are allowed to know this about them, and yes, that means they lived holy lives. That does not mean they were without sin, and that does not mean that every word from their mouth will be holy, unfortunately. We all make mistakes. I dare ask if you have read the life of St. Augustine, oe read of the mentatlity of St. Jerome, who I have heard is not a guy you'd want to take home to dinner.

Brother, you are defacing her entire life based on one quotation, of which you never heard come from her mouth. In the work, they simply refer to it as the "oft-quoted statement." You don't know what she meant, and I doubt few do, since they have no idea why she said it, the surrounding context, or even if it has been misquoted. You are jumping to a huge conclusion based on this author's piece about her.

Further, I have no doubt that she preached the Gospel. But how exactly do you preach the Gospel to a man who is dying in your arms? I don't think he's going to be the most responsive to theology. In fact, theology is the understanding of faith; faith in Christ is much simpler. That faith can be expressed simply as "Jesus loves you." Untli you show she never spoke such things to those she cared for, you are making pure assumptions.

You have no proof that those who died in her presence died as pagans.

Already talked about this. I'm betting you don't even know the source of it.

Again, you use a few spurious quotations to say she never preached the Gospel to them.

Of course you have that right. I'm not stopping you. However, the Church's canonization of saints is an infallible process. If she is declared a saint, you must accept that, and that would also mean you are wrong.

Amen.

 

Brother Ed,

It is simple, really. We are all differnet people, all given various resources to the same opportunity of accepting Christ.

Tell me, is there not a drastic difference in the level of understanding, time spent studying, and hearing the Gospel that you have had...unlike the thief on the cross? One of the Gospels tells us that the two thieves were even mocking Christ, and yet before dying (as we read also in the Gospels), one of them asked to be with Chist in Paradise, and Christ grants it to him. He didn't have your religious upbringing. He didn't study God's Word. He never suffered for His faith. In the last few minutes before death, he saw Jesus for who he was, and he was saved.

You expect some grand conversion, when sometimes, that grand conversion is short and simple.

So, explain the thief on the cross...because that's how I see Blessed Teresa's method of winning souls to Christ. When all other hope is gone, the hope of Christ is there, shining through her as they came to her to die.

Please, also address how you will react when Blessed Teresa becomes Saint Teresa, an infallible declaration by the Church.

 

Oh, if I could be just a little bit like Mother Teresa, what a happy camper I would be.

 

Rereading the article...you provide three quotations:

One is an "oft-quoted statement" that has no source.

One is a quotation that he does not even attribute to her in his text (a la, "She said...") and does not source it.

The one that is sourced is from a book written after her death in which someone reports what they claim they overheard her whispering.

Is this concrete evidence?

 

"From my studies, the only thing she did was make sure people had clean sheets to die in. "

Wow!
In saying something like this I sincerely question whether you really do know what the Gospel entails Curtis.

Matthew 10:42
"And whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward".

Blessings

 

Well, if that is the Gospel message, then we should beatify the founders and operators of the Shriner's Burn Hospital and all the other hospitals in the world. We should take that to include all the hospices too! For they all provide clean sheets for people to die on. And they all provide a cup of colc water for "little ones" to drink.

The truth of Sister Theresa, is that I have not seen her own personal testimony that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah.

Furthermore, Doesn't her example belie the doctrine of "TOTAL DEPRAVITY"?

 

Yelsew,

You people just don't get it do you.
Works are as filthy rags you say Sheeesh. Where did I say that that post comprised the whole Gospel? Dichotomous fools you are!

 

I see that folks are trying to pin horns and a tail on mother Theresa.

That's nice , now I can securely in the knowledge that abusing freedom of speech is not a dying artform .

Good night everybody .

 

Ed,
I purposefully avoided saying that the Father Barham performed the sacrament of extreme unction or last rites for the man, eventhough THAT is what I recall. I avoided stating this because I don't know if one who is not a professing Catholic could be given this sacrament. And I did not want to make a false statement as to what was provided by the priest.
So, my question to you as one who probably knows the answer to that question is: What if the sacrement was provided? What effect would that have had on the man's eternal destiny. And what of the comment from the nun who said that noone who had died in the hospice had ever died without a priest. What if all who had died in this hospice had received the sacrement. Yes it seems far-fetched but so does many other things that God provides for.

God bless