The Thelemic Mass - Daughters of the Sangraal
-
@gurugeorge said
"Hitchens condemns Teresa for having used contributions to open convents in 150 countries rather than establishing a teaching hospital, the latter being what he implies donors expected her to do with their gifts."
How would he know what donors expected? That doesn't make sense anyway. Here is a poor woman who opens a convent and ministers to the poor. People give her money and she opens more convents to minister to the poor. I expect she didn't take all that money and open 150 convents overnight. Obviously she established a pattern of behavior over time that donors would come to know and recognize as something they would support.
Hitchen's idiot accusations sound like a bunch of crap.
Just because her True Will did not match up with Hitchen's fantasy of a teaching hospital does not justify going around blowing negative crap about her. Why doesn't Hitchen shut his yammer and get busy on the hospital himself?
Why would anyone take these lame accusations seriously? I guess anti-Catholic bigots would eat this stuff up but it looks like the powers that be in choosing Thelemic Saints have the ability to see past the smears and give credit where credit is due.
@gurugeorge said
"(Btw, are you at all familiar with a text called The Book of the Law?)"
Yes.
-
@gurugeorge said
"If Hitchens' accusations are true (and you'd think people who place a person as a Saint in the Thelemic Canon would want to make such an investigation before plonking her in there), then this should be sufficient to disqualify her."
First, I'm not sure he's to be taken seriously. (It seems not.) Second, I don't know that I have the whole story, and even more unsure that I should second guess her decisions on that particular matter.
Also - I thought I mentioned it before, but perhaps not - her addition to this list preceeded any of these allegations by many years. (In case you're still trying to figure out how it ever could have happened in the first place.)
Your recommendation that she be suspended from the list pending a thorough investigation is noted and rejected. That might have carried weight prior to adding her, but not now. To repeat, the standard I will follow is to make no change until such time as there may be a clear determination that the basis for her inclusion is invalid.
If I were to exclude people based on undersirable behaviors, quite a lot of those names - including names Crowley added - wouldn't be on there. One name is listed because he was the one of history's best recorders of authentic gnostic information, despite the fact that he did this in order to fortify his legal accusations against them. There are more than a few personal scandles in the list.
And, of course, there's that Aleister Crowley fellow who, just maybe, did some financially shady things once or twice in his life and, just possibly, has some nasty articles written about him in newspapers and magazines of his time (and since!). Possibly even some of his students had bad things to say about him. Oh, and the rumors are probably true that he took money he received and applied it to his own religious organization. The toxic reports about him are so enormous, he probably doesn't qualify either.
I'm rarely impressed by smears of people who attempt enormous things, especially if they happen to succeed in them.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Your recommendation that she be suspended from the list pending a thorough investigation is noted and rejected. That might have carried weight prior to adding her, but not now. To repeat, the standard I will follow is to make no change until such time as there may be a clear determination that the basis for her inclusion is invalid."
And will such a determination make itself, as if by magic? Although a natural contrarian and often bombastic, Hitchens was and is a serious journalist, and a pretty deep thinker, by no means a lightweight who makes accusations for the sake of it. His claims bear looking into, especially in such a serious matter as canonization.
The temple does indeed look beautiful and dignified. It would be a shame to smear it with what might turn out to be, in effect (once the fat lady has sung, as it were), a bit of qliphotic excrement. But of course, it's your ball and your game.
-
You see, the more I read about Hitchens, the more he seems a bit of qliphotic excrement. His career is based on calculated polarization and bombastic attacks. I don't buy this guy. He strikes me as unbalanced and probably a loose cannon. I can't ignore his approval of the destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church, describing it as "an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition." What is interesting is his flops and flips. He was for Che Guevara, and now he distance himself from him. He hopes for a modern American civil war so that he can participate in it... "(it) would be a great pleasure to take part." The best way to describe him is as "social gadfly" or someone that thrives on making waves and just upsetting people.
Take into consideration his life-long hostility towards any religion and the idea of bringing down Mother Teresa, would had probably been at the time almost irresistible. Of course, selling a hell of a lot of books and much publicity was also tempting.Besides this guy, is there anybody else with a better reputation that has spoken against Mother Teresa?
-
Well, I think there are few people who would be willing to risk their reputation criticizing a person who's name has long been a household word for proverbial saintliness.
For some of the charges, it's not about whether they are true, it's about what conclusion we derive from them. For example, the claim that she wasn't interested in improving the lot of the poor. Hitch, being a strict materialist, is referring only to the material lot of the poor. And MT wasn't interested in creating revolutionary change in the material condition of the poor. Her claimed interest was in aiding the poor spiritually. If she actually accomplished this on a large scale, then she was incredible. If she didn't accomplish this, but was sincere, then she was misguided. And if she was insincere in her motives, then she was doing a great wrong.
For Hitchens, since there is no spirituality, she was at least misguided or insincere. Then he finds the records that she had deep-seated doubt for a long time, and that strikes him as insincere.
To me, it doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to realize that the Catholic church's stance on birth control does a lot to inhibit the material progress of entire societies in the developing world. So supporting the stance of the Catholic church in this area is no longer about accepting poverty as it exists, but about creating much more poverty in the world. If she toed the company line on birth control so that she could continue to do her work, then in my opinion she made a grave mistake. But it's hard to imagine that she did so many decades of work for opportunistic reasons (she was unknown for 19 years before the documentary about her was made).
-
Only because I have been extremely poor (so poor that many a night I went to sleep with nothing in my stomach and wore clothes until they fell apart) in my childhood do I feel privileged to sound like a monster. Screw those who feel the need to help the poor no matter what reason. "Each man must carve his own path through the jungle..." Most individuals who devote their lives to another are running away from themselves. My charity is myself and I do what I see fit with the donations. I hate the pity parade around panhandlers, tibetan monks that believe that their enlightenment puts them above chopping wood and carrying water, and "oppressed" people to afraid to stand up to the government that enslaves them.
I was raised Roman Catholic, went to catholic school with every last penny the church could milk from my family and endured years of physical and psychological abuse because of it. Screw Catholicism and all Religion for that matter it is an opiate for slaves. Let us live and die without such comforts.
Suffering is a condition of life and I have seen many that have suffered greatly do more with their lives than those who have not. Why then should we "help" any in "need?" It is like unto giving dope to an addict, let them drown if they desire or swim. I do not agree with anything MT did if she did indeed teach the poor to accept their lot and not rise above it. The very notion of such sentiment fills me with disgust.
If you fall I will lend you hand getting up but I will not carry you on my back.
-
Thank you AvshalomBinyamin.
You make very interesting points."For Hitchens, since there is no spirituality, she was at least misguided or insincere. Then he finds the records that she had deep-seated doubt for a long time, and that strikes him as insincere. "
Yeah, I remember the article many years ago. I think there were her diaries made public by her spiritual guide? They spoke of this "darkness" and "void."
Yes.In my opinion this is the crux of the matter. Was she going through a "dark night of the soul" or was she just disconnected from god... it would be interesting to know.
(edit) I just found the article... www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html
It's really fascinating. -
@TheSilent1 said
"I was raised Roman Catholic, went to catholic school with every last penny the church could milk from my family and endured years of physical and psychological abuse because of it. Screw Catholicism and all Religion for that matter it is an opiate for slaves. Let us live and die without such comforts. "
I hear you. I was raised roman catholic too and you know what? I'm grateful... because of this, I found Thelema. I had to be so annoyed, angry and disillusioned with it that forced me to look for something real. No the empty shell it is now.
But I wouldn't condone as swiftly all exoteric religion. They have a place and a purpose. The difference is if they stream from corrupted and dated principles or not. -
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"And MT wasn't interested in creating revolutionary change in the material condition of the poor. Her claimed interest was in aiding the poor spiritually."
This BTW is the centuries-old cultural paradigm of India. Without labelling her a Rosicrucian, I nonetheless would take issue with criticizing her from following one of the primary Rosicrucian standards, viz., to adopt the manner of dress (i.e., the local standards) in the course of one's travels.
(BTW2: I liked your level-handed analysis, Av'.)
-
@Metzareph said
"But I wouldn't condone as swiftly all exoteric religion. They have a place and a purpose. The difference is if they stream from corrupted and dated principles or not."
I wouldn't condemn all exoteric religion either. Once they've reformed themselves along Thelemic lines, there's nothing wrong with any of the old religions (of course I don't mean they should worship pictures of AC or even have read any of his books! - I mean "in spirit"). The revival of Gnosticism, the "softening" of the stances of the various Christian churches, their acceptance of the validity of other religious approaches - all these are good things. But they *must *reform themselves . However, the Roman Catholic church remains pretty intransigent (indeed, they now have a former "Grand Inquisitioner" as Pope), and for this reason (one would think) ought still to be viewed with a great deal of suspicion by Thelemites.
Restricting people from using birth control methods is evil (Restriction). Inculcation of "Catholic guilt", in general, in all its forms (particularly sexual, obviously), is evil (Restriction).
MT making her help conditional on acceptance of the very dogma that creates these evils, or filtering money given by donors on the basis that it was for the poor, through to her favoured exoteric religious institutions (themselves conducive to the corruption of the spirituality of female seekers), and on top of that, herself not standing in right relation of confidence in what she was doing - these, if true, are very serious charges, or one would think ought to be taken seriously, from a Thelemic point of view. The rejoinder "oh but at least she helped some people, what have you ever done?" and the like, just isn't good enough. Why? Because if these accusations are true, then she was basically doing more harm than good - in perpetuating the very memes that keep people down, that help *sustain *poverty, in the first place.
There's a bit of a smell of "Please like us! Look - we have the same altruistic standards as you, the masses!" about her inclusion, even were she basically decent. But with the suspicions about her on top of that (which aren't just from Hitchens, IIRC, though it's a long time since I read anything about it), well ...
Anyway, I've said my piece on this.
-
@gurugeorge said
"There's a bit of a smell of "Please like us!"
THAT! is practically the National Anthem of LiberlLeftWingLoserVille!!
Hey Guru... maybe that smell is your upper lip....
What NERVE you pseudo-Thelemists have...
going around pretending you know what other people should be doing -- and even WHY they should be doing it!?
What a bunch of thelemic phonies.
Am I the only one who can see this display of arrogant self righteousness for what it is?!?
@gurugeorge said
"(indeed, they now have a former "Grand Inquisitioner" as Pope), and for this reason (one would think) ought still to be viewed with a great deal of suspicion by Thelemites."
Of course the hopelessly ignorant masses have been completely duped by the Proprietors of Anti-Catholic Bigotry Inc. and they can't look at history in any sort of objective manner and readily see that the Roman Catholic Inquisition was a huge evolutionary leap in medieval jurisprudence that afforded the commoner with some level of protection against an abusive nobility. So many of these ignorant dupes don't know the difference between the Roman Inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition.
...
I could go on and on...
but enough for now.
I think those of you with half a clue get the idea.
-
"MT making her help conditional on acceptance of the very dogma that creates these evils, or filtering money given by donors on the basis that it was for the poor, through to her favoured exoteric religious institutions (themselves conducive to the corruption of the spirituality of female seekers)"
Gurugeorge I guess this is where we don't agree. You have to see that she was a catholic nun. She was following a tradition the way she was supposed to do, following her church and doing with the money what she though was best for her order and to offer service. Why this makes you upset? BTW, the remark of corrupting the spirituality of female seekers is your opinion and the female seekers may think otherwise...
"There's a bit of a smell of "Please like us! Look - we have the same altruistic standards as you, the masses!" about her inclusion, even were she basically decent. But with the suspicions about her on top of that (which aren't just from Hitchens, IIRC, though it's a long time since I read anything about it), well ... "
You mean TOT is saying "please like us"?