SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/25/2007 11:13:23 AM)
|
SugarMyChurro: I am done here. I have addressed every single thing mentioned by you in other posts on this thread. Her Catholic belief system (and how it affected her POV, perhaps). I don't consider it relevant in any way - but I already addressed it, in any case. MaybeI am just less bent on seeing the world via a cynical lens. You continue to state negative opinion without any actual real proof. Your article in your latest post(cited as "evidence" of her wrong-doing) simply does not negate an entire life of 62 years, living in complete poverty, spent in aid to the poor and dying - starting 600 missions, and hundreds of hospices, and not making anyone convert to Catholicism to qualify for help. Perhaps you think citing one or two examples is anywhere near proof things like this were systemic throughout her missions (one POV is hardly proof it's systemic in all of her missions. The fact she is one human, and couldn't possibly oversee what went on in every single one, all the time has already been mentioned by caitlyn). Do you think that a bunch of nuns desperate to help the poor and dying, and living in poverty were concerned about being political banners and being all PC? Do you think that they truly knew or could have predicted that some might later turn out to be criminals when they mailed in their donations? Or that she wasn't meeting another county's particular political "agenda"? And for all you know - those donations were anonymous at the time they were made? Did you see them? Were you there? See what I mean about hopw speculation can be made to look like real journalism? Where's the PROOF wrong-doing actually occurred? If you look throught he smoke and mirrors - there really isn't any. I suggest you learn how to be slightly more discrriminating in the conclusions to which you leap - espcially when smearing someone's good name - eanred via years of back-breaking work, and living in complete poverty. Btw, she didn't locate in India because it was or wasn't PC at the time. She located there (and later in 600 other missions, and over 200 hospices around the world as well -which you'd know if you'd bothered yourself to read the OP's original accompanying article on her life and work) because that's where she was "called" and that's where she perceived the greatest need at the beginning. but she had 600 other issions and over 200 hospices in othe locations. But - worker # XXXXX, the author of your citation (btw, it's questitonable to rely on someone who won't even give their own name as the author of an article - if they need to remain anonymous - how reliable can they relly be as a source?) In any case, their POV, is just that - one POV - and from just one mission, at one point in time. I believe caitlyn already made this point. It amounts to sensationalistic journalism - but I am certain you won't believe me. Since you obviously don't get it, I will make it again: This is one report, and an anonymous one at that, it doesn't consitute proof anything reported was systemic or even enduring, and it is from a political website. It certainly doesn't negate the scrutiny required over time, to receive a Nobel Peace prize, much less an entire life's work under the conditions hers was lived. Perhaps you believe that smearing someone's good name, or having particular political goals, make this reference count. It doesn't. The Socialist party, or a "news" article cited from their website that, btw - could well have been a partial quote - or taken completely out of context. Yes, being poor is seen as blessed in one of the Beatitudes - "Blessed are the poor, for they are childen of God, and shall inherit the Earth." It's screwing with context. If you cannot see this, and don't understand why a Catholic nun might ever say this - than you are truly a dim bulb. If you insist on making it an issue twice - don't bother - I've already been over it once in another post. This article citation of yours still doesn't equal an entire Nobel committee's scrutiny, or negate her good intent, or accomplishments. I've covered that, as well. So did the OP's orignal article citation in the opening post on this thread (which you obviously did not bother to read).Sorry to disappoint you. - Susan
|
|
|
|