August 26, 2007
The Mask of Mother TeresaReligion
Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me? The Child of your Love—and now become as the most hated one—the one—You have thrown away as unwanted—unloved. I call, I cling, I want—and there is no One to answer—no One on Whom I can cling—no, No One.—Alone … Where is my Faith—even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness—My God—how painful is this unknown pain—I have no Faith—I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart—& make me suffer untold agony.
So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them—because of the blasphemy—If there be God —please forgive me—When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven—there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul.—I am told God loves me—and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?
—[By Mother Teresa] ADDRESSED TO JESUS, AT THE SUGGESTION OF A CONFESSOR, UNDATED [Link]
Upon her death in 1997 it was revealed that Mother Teresa had asked that her private letters and confessions to her confessors (apparently she went from one to the next like a person in search of the right therapist) be burned so that they would never see the light of day. The Church, probably recognizing Teresa’s importance as the holiest woman in the world, overruled her request. They were also aware that any surviving notes or correspondence might be a useful part of the background investigation needed for her potential Sainthood (which there now is). Those letters have finally been revealed to the public in a new book titled Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light. They are so startling in their rawness that many are now wondering if anyone really knew Mother Teresa. Time Magazine has a great dissection of the revelations in the book and indicates how Teresa might now become a saint to both the faithful and those who don’t believe in God.
On Dec. 11, 1979, Mother Teresa, the “Saint of the Gutters,” went to Oslo. Dressed in her signature blue-bordered sari and shod in sandals despite below-zero temperatures, the former Agnes Bojaxhiu received that ultimate worldly accolade, the Nobel Peace Prize. In her acceptance lecture, Teresa, whose Missionaries of Charity had grown from a one-woman folly in Calcutta in 1948 into a global beacon of self-abnegating care, delivered the kind of message the world had come to expect from her. “It is not enough for us to say, ‘I love God, but I do not love my neighbor,’” she said, since in dying on the Cross, God had “[made] himself the hungry one—the naked one—the homeless one.” Jesus’ hunger, she said, is what “you and I must find” and alleviate…Yet less than three months earlier, in a letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet, that is only now being made public, she wrote with weary familiarity of a different Christ, an absent one. “Jesus has a very special love for you,” she assured Van der Peet. “[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see,—Listen and do not hear—the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak … I want you to pray for me—that I let Him have [a] free hand…” [Link]
Reading some of her confessions was deeply moving. It seems that the more success that Mother Teresa saw in her work in Calcutta, the darker and emptier her soul became, and the farther she drifted from the light of her God’s love. Far from being a “Saint of the Gutters,” she seems to use the perpetual darkness within her to drive her forward like some sort of “Queen of the Dammed.” Some theologians in the Time article use an analogy that describes her as a jilted lover who still carries a torch for a man (Christ) who she knows is never coming home to her.
How can you assume the lover’s ardor when he no longer grants you his voice, his touch, his very presence?… [Link]
As you can imagine, these letters are a gold mine for theologians, atheists, psychologists, Nihilists, Existentialists, etc.
Psychologists have long recognized that people of a certain personality type are conflicted about their high achievement and find ways to punish themselves. Gottlieb notes that Teresa’s ambitions for her ministry were tremendous. Both he and Kolodiejchuk are fascinated by her statement, “I want to love Jesus as he has never been loved before.” Remarks the priest: “That’s a kind of daring thing to say.” Yet her letters are full of inner conflict about her accomplishments. Rather than simply giving all credit to God, Gottlieb observes, she agonizes incessantly that “any taking credit for her accomplishments—if only internally—is sinful” and hence, perhaps, requires a price to be paid. A mild secular analog, he says, might be an executive who commits a horrific social gaffe at the instant of a crucial promotion. For Teresa, “an occasion for a modicum of joy initiated a significant quantity of misery,” and her subsequent successes led her to perpetuate it. [Link]
That last bit I highlighted has similarities to Hinduism, especially in the Gita where Krishna continually warns Arjun that even ill thoughts may result in bad karma. The central themes found in Teresa’s writings remind me a lot of some poetry by another “saint.” Especially her references to the dark night within her soul.
A night full of talking that hurts
my worst held-back secrets. Everything
has to do with loving and not loving.
This night will pass.
Then we have work to do.-Jelaluddin Rumi
It was when Mother Teresa finally accepted that the darkness would never leave her that she embraced it:
I can’t express in words—the gratitude I owe you for your kindness to me—for the first time in … years—I have come to love the darkness—for I believe now that it is part of a very, very small part of Jesus’ darkness & pain on earth. You have taught me to accept it [as] a ‘spiritual side of your work’ as you wrote—Today really I felt a deep joy—that Jesus can’t go anymore through the agony—but that He wants to go through it in me.
—TO NEUNER, CIRCA 1961… [Link]
Of all of the quotes included in the Time article, the following one touched me the most. Although she did not realize it, what she was actually saying mirrored the central idea found in the Bodhicharyavatara, written by 8th century Indian scholar Shantideva:
“If I ever become a Saint—I will surely be one of ‘darkness.’ I will continually be absent from Heaven—to [light] the light of those in darkness on earth,” she wrote in 1962. [Link]Theologically, this is a bit odd since most orthodox Christianity defines heaven as God’s eternal presence and doesn’t really provide for regular no-shows at the heavenly feast. [Link]
Compare this to the idea of a Bodhisattva:
Another common conception of the bodhisattva is one who delays his own entering into Nirvana in order to save all sentient beings out of his enormous compassion. He is on a mission to liberate all sentient beings, and only then will he rest in his own enlightenment. [Link]
It begs the question, was Teresa really a Mahayana Buddhist at heart? It shows you how human thought can ultimately converge on some universal themes.
But really, we shouldn’t know any of this:
Please destroy any letters or anything I have written.
—TO PICACHY, APRIL 1959… [Link]
abhi on August 26, 2007 01:45 PM in Religion · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
will you marry me!
Abhi: Thanks for publishing this story. My own take on it was the following:
I wonder what the motive was in publishing these letters which Mother Teresa wanted burnt. Also, what will they do to her impending sainthood? Perhaps now, in addition to being the "Saint of the Gutters," she has also earned the right to be the "Saint of Skeptics."
Wonderful story.
Part of me wonders why her torment is being picked apart in this rather abstract fashion. It's not hard to imagine that a young girl who leaves her family at 18 to live in an alien culture, who does not marry or have her own family, who grows into an icon held in awe, who, on top of all of this, strives constantly for one thing, union with God - it's not hard to imagine that a person like this would be exceptionally isolated - no matter how many people surrounded her. The idolization made things worse, from the sounds of things. If you look at her quotes, it is striking how often she talks of the disease of loneliness, the sense of being unwanted, unloved, and 'forgotten by everybody'. How many people loved her for herself? For her quirks? Knew her mistakes, her frailties? How many people saw into her, past the iconic status?
Abhi,
Very interesting revelations. In some strange way - it makes her more real. And, also shows how any level of evolved spiritual thought asks for questioning rather than blind faith. I also really liked the way you tied her thoughts with other ways of thinking be it Sufi or Buddhist. Indeed we seem to have more in common than we think in navigating this human experience. Very thoughtful post.....
It shows you how human thought can ultimately converge on some universal themes
yeah, i think this is true. i think all religions probably harbor particular "flavors" of belief, so that in many ways devotional catholicism has a lot more in common with bhatki than either does with a thomistic theologian or an advaita sage.
I think this 'convergence' is rooted in the way the species evolved (biologically) and has nothing to do with religion. As Richard Dawkins asserts, ethics, morals and philosophy do not come out of religion, rather the converse true: religion vaguely attempts to model itself into some kind of an authority on these issues and people often (wrongly) assume these things arise out of 'religion'.
I think this 'convergence' is rooted in the way the species evolved (biologically) and has nothing to do with religion.
see pascal's boyer's religion explained for a naturalistic exposition (he is one of dawkin's sources in the god delusion). but yes, it is probably correct to say that ethics and philosophy are prior to religion.
btw, i do think it is possible that the claims of religion make it more likely that people like mother theresa will engage in extreme altruism. the converse of that is that i think religious certitude also enables those who are evil to commit their acts with a relative clean conscience (e.g., "i am doing god's work, he'll sort it out...."). to use a mathematical analogy i think that religion (or some other ideology, communism for example) just increases the magnitude of the preexisting vector.
[deleted by admin]
That kind of faith is "wobbly" only to the uninitiated.
If you spend significant time with mystics, saints or spiritual aspirants you find that there relationship with "God" is often like that of a lover to her beloved -- love, happiness, joy, anger, pain, resentment, sadness, depression, etc all factor in. These are sign of a very deep inticacy, not of a wobbly faith.
You can choose to interpret it that way but in her own words she had a wobbly faith bordering on atheism.
Yes, but do all religions increase (or decrease) the magnitude of good & evil in a similar fashion? I don't think so.
Yes, but do all religions increase (or decrease) the magnitude of good & evil in a similar fashion? I don't think so.
depends on your definition of good and evil. and it depends on their definition of good and evil.
A sign of humility.
If you read the writings of renowned saints and spiritualists, they all claim like that. It's an emptying of the heart, a part of the process of spiritual progress, not regression.
While people will praise them, "oh you have such love for the Lord", they will think they have none.
Humility.
I'm with Razib's commentary, except I don't necessarily see Mother Teresa as an extreme altruist. Making oneself the preeminent icon of extreme alturuism may be more an egoist than an altruist act. Extreme altruists are probably those people you never heard of.
Extreme altruists are probably those people you never heard of.
i recall the case of an irish american businessmen who donated hundreds of millions anonymously? anyone else remember this? after he died some journalists dug into records and figured out that he was the donor.
anyway, re: altruism, well, it is easy to argue that nothing is altruistic if you measure in the currency of satisfaction.
Maybe, maybe not.
But Ma Theresa never wanted to become big and world famous. In fact, she fought against that, but the more you push yourself to the back out of humility, the more the universe tends to pull you forward. On the other hand, those who push themselves too aggressively forward find that the are pulled back.
There is also a big difference between getting your hands dirty and working one on one with the needy than just writing a big donation check. She dedicated all of her time and energy to helping people. She did not live comfortably.
Wow.
I admire her all the more, because even with these heavy doubts, she never gave up on her faith. As one who has given up, I am in awe of her humility, her spirituality, her strength in spite of her feelings. I'm very moved, thanks for posting this ...
I disagree. I think religion is just irrelevant to the natural instinct for altruism. (assuming you aren't referring to being good for the fear of god, as a form of altruism)
Also, that first sentence you wrote reeks of condescension. In fact, I find it surprising that one would say that on this post - because, if anything, the above post only shows that she is NOT the type of a person who does things solely for religious/godly reasons.
But see, that's just it in my view. She DID give up on her faith. She then used the darkness left behind in the absence of that faith to drive her forward.
Great post, Abhi.
You know I find it entirely fascinating how some commenters on this thread are doing EXACTLY what the church hoped they would do when this bombshell dropped (I'm not judging those commenters though). You have to ask yourself, why would the church not do everything in its power to keep hidden the fact that Teresa stopped believing in God for a large portion of her life? Parts of the Time article comments on some likely outcomes. The reason is simple and to me seems grounded in human psychology. When shown proof positive that Teresa lost her faith, others here admire her for keeping her faith. What they are really doing is holding on to their own by projecting on to her something that wasn't there.
"Theresa Ma Fan" you keep alluding to "mystics" but can you name a few in particular? Most either believe in God but live ascetic lives, or else don't believe in God but rather a Universal Soul type thing. Rumi, who I quoted, is the archetypal mystic but believed completely in God. Here is a woman that is monotheistic but has given up on her God. You are convoluting several different types of devotion I think.
Great post, Abhi. I just read the article on Friday and thought Anna will post something on this story.
I agree with DQ's analysis. Mother Theresa always sort of elaborated on loneliness. I think she used absence of faith and presence of loneliness to drive herself forward.
But Abhi, she speaks to an absent Christ, not a non-existent one. She suffers from her abandonment by, not the death of, God.
Ivan in the Brothers Karamazov really gives up his faith. He's unable to reconcile his faithlessness with his personal virtues, and furthermore, becomes entirely doubtful of his own fundamental goodness. He tries to save his brother, but has no faith in even that action. He has a total breakdown, which makes sense.
Good point DQ but reading through all the quotes, to me it seemed she fluctuated between absent and non-existent and, were in not for the dozens of confessors that kept pulling her back, would have settled on non-existent.
That is just plain euphemism/politeness/humility. I don't think one should go out of their way and play with words just to give explanations like that...
Really? I thought it was a very good statement in that it clearly contrasts the two views people will have of these letters.
besides, what exactly is the point of god if he 'abandons' someone like mother teresa, while 'existing' in the background all the while :P
No, I referred to Mother Teresa, not DQ (regarding the politeness, euphemism, humility, etc.)
I can see how you came to that conclusion and fair enough, this is all very open to interpretation and reinterpretation. It's easy to see how both sides are going to read it up however they want to.
Oddly enough, I have no faith (and technically should be batting for the atheist side, except that I find both Hitchen's and Dawkin's arrogant and wilfully antagonistic atheism as equally abhorrent as some religious "leaders") and yet my reading is that she still did, go figure ...
The point is that what your wrote above is EXACTLY what was supposed to have happened to Christ on the cross when he was crucified. God "abandoned" him and existed only in the background. By going through the same thing Teresa could keep her faith even while she suffered because she would be following Christ's example. However, if God is non-existent then that is another story altogether. She suffers for no reason then.
oh well, I guess there is some logic there, afterall :)
look, as an atheist a lot of the god-talk is pretty unintelligible and incoherent from the get-go. but, it moves people nonetheless, that's concrete and real. the psychology of other human beings is not the same psychology as your own, and that's something that seems to be coming out in the comments. i'm agnostic on whether this woman "believed in god" because those words aren't that easy to unpack across world views....
Also, that first sentence you wrote reeks of condescension. In fact, I find it surprising that one would say that on this post - because, if anything, the above post only shows that she is NOT the type of a person who does things solely for religious/godly reasons.
hey, i'm not a psychic like you who can read her thoughts. mother theresa is just a human animal to me, and i analyze her through the lens of the typical human animal. i don't condescend because i'm an animal too. also, you're putting words into my mouth, but i'll leave it be (hope i don't sound too condscending).
Theresa Ma Fan, I agree with you. It's a sign of humility all mystics have expressed, including St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi, Thomas Kempis, Mirabai, the gopi's of Vrindavan (though they probably didn't write about it), Kabir, and Swami Vivekananda, though he was not what's normally considered a mystic. Jean de Caussade also wrote much about the struggle, or test, of faith that all true spiritual aspirants are put to, for God wants to know your love for him is real. All of the above have expressed a relationship of Love with God.
Abhi, I don't think God abandoned Christ. Christ chose to follow God's will. He surrendered to God's will. That is a sign of his faith in God.
People will have to read the book to get a even a glimmer at what Ma Theresa was going through, and the real sublte stuff of her heart/mind/soul/psyche could probably not be given words at all, and just stayed inside her.
All of the aspirants mentioned by hello above also expressed similar sentiments, and I have read similar in almost every "spiritual" treatise I have ever read.
God or the Universal Spirit, or whatever, allows a glimpse, a feeling of itself and then withdraws it. This hide and seek game can go on for years and years.
I'm a bit uncomfortable with all of this. To me the wishes of the dead are so sacred, it's disturbing that they would be overruled, even by the Catholic church; that they did so makes my chest hurt and upsets me the most, out of everything I am about to express. If I may state a general point, I am also sorrowful that some will seize upon this revelation of humility which was never meant to be published, and use it for their own purposes.
I would hope that people can continue to tread respectfully, because for some of us, Christianity is the central focus of our life...it's bizarre to hear those who are not Christian dissecting things like Christ's crucifixion. I would never claim to grok what Krishna was telling Arjun. But we are all different. And my lamenting that the greatest modern manifestation of Christianity in India is now going to be undermined won't do any good.
Perhaps I am a little sensitive, because I go out of my way to respect other religions, when it seems like the same respect is often not extended to mine in this space (a recent comment on the Aviyal thread about Christianity upset me so much, I wrote an as-yet-unpublished post about it). I'm just sincerely sad that this discourse is occurring, because I think it's the last thing she'd want to be known for. She deserves a legacy of service, not sensationalism.
Thanks so much for writing on this story- although there is a sense of guilt in knowing that these words weren't meant to be read, I respect Mother Teresa on a completely different level now. I think this confirms more than ever that she is truly a woman of the people as she indirectly pledges her allegiance to those in need before God himself. Just to be up front, I am not Christian so I am not speaking from my personal experience with faith, but rather from Mother Teresa's perceived one.
It is clear she was a tortured being, but I think the point here is she struggled with several specific themes that she knew could not be resolved within her own faith (from her standpoint). In the face of her missionary work and through the all the suffering she had seen, she truly searched within every aspect of her Catholic faith and couldn't find a way to reconcile the pain. The conflict within her is clearly a reflection of not knowing how to provide spiritual guidance to those who desire answers most, when she could not truthfully understand why God has allowed for such a degree of suffering to continue. Of course, outwardly, she continued to operate under the Catholic beliefs she spent her existence centered around. However, I think her struggles came from a feeling that she could not let the masses down when so much was expected of her and when she wanted to continue to do so much good for them.
The first thought that crossed my mind when reading the original article was exactly what Abhi touched on- there are marked signs that she has delved into Hindu and Buddhist philosophies. Her writings express so much of the logic, guilt, self-doubt, acceptance and quest for true humility that overrun those religions, yet what makes her writings all the more reflective of them is her ability to admit questioning God's presence in a truly philosophical manner. And yet, she found no solace in any attempts to reconcile her thoughts, which many other Catholic and Christian leaders did eventually find.
I can't help but wonder how she might have reacted if she were still alive when these confessions leaked. Would she have admitted her doubts and perhaps even been so radical as to abandon her faith to the world? I realize they are bold questions to be asking, but I truly do feel for her and respect her more than ever for not blindly finding a way to reason with herself when she clearly was not sure of her relationship with God.
Which is why I put "abandoned" in quotes.
I subscribe to TIME, too. There are some things which actually affect or upset me so much, I can't post about them. I try, struggle and give up. While my faith is something that I sometimes discuss here, I don't reveal more than what I am comfortable with, especially wrt something so personal.
Besides, I didn't really think my reaction to this would be what this community wanted as a starting point for a very provocative discussion, nor did I want to deny someone else in the bunker the chance to post about it, when I'm given the freedom to post about Sikhism, Islam and everything else. Christian posts don't have to be blogged by Christian bloggers. :) I think Abhi's write-up is far more in line with the "She wasn't all that we thought"-epiphany which the world is taken by and in some unfortunate cases, gloating over.
But Anna, one of the most powerful points I got out of the article is how little this all has to do with Christianity. As you point out however, it might ultimately be used that way. This was more about the relationship between one woman and her ideas of God (or the lack thereof), ideas that share a striking resemblance to the central beliefs of other faiths. Comparative religion and discussing (or "dissecting") the finer points of religions are a great way to understand what connects and divides us all because everyone can bring some understanding to the table.
Quite the opposite in truth. NOW I can actually relate to her.
Oh, I think we can ALL relate to her more now. I'm not saying you were gloating or anything of the kind...you wouldn't believe what my inbox looks like. :) Everyone has something to say about this, and unlike your careful and considerate post, not everyone is as thoughtful.
But the people who think like that are the same ones who are not well read in mystic or spiritual auto-biographical literature, and have probably not had any exposure to hardcore, uber focused aspirants on a mystical/meditative path. Anyone who has had that exposure would be able to relate to Ma Theresa's words and would think, "ah, she is just what we thought".
Just when I thought Hitchens would have only one best seller, he gets lucky. I am sure we will see Hitchens go at it in the days to come.
From the original article,
On Dec. 11, 1979, Mother Teresa, the “Saint of the Gutters,†went to Oslo
I am sure kolkata is happy to hear that.
Dear Anna,
Did you consider for a moment that some of us actually think that she was perhaps MORE than what "all that we thought" in light of this revelation? (please see my comment #2) And why is this a slap against Christianity rather than looking askance at unquestioning faith of any stripe?
As Abhi pointed out in #23, this story is going to be interpreted by all according to their own predilections. I do however believe that more than the triumphalism on the part of skeptics, who saw her humanity above her divinity in the first place, it is the believers who are going to be see Mother Teresa's struggles as a truly momentous event. Many will see her pain about being "abandoned" by god as an equivalent of being "abandoned" by Mother Teresa. But none of what we or she believed, undermines what she did on behalf of the truly "abandoned."
Ruchira, I am not attacking anyone who has commented here. I have considered nothing. Please don't assume that I am doing anything other than responding sincerely, about my own reactions and observations.
If I feel like it's bit of a slap, I just do. As I stated earlier, when it comes to my faith, I don't feel like I owe anyone a public post about the thoughts which are closest to my heart. And I'll repeat myself, in case anyone didn't pick it up the first time-- what upsets me most is that her wishes were overruled. I think that is inexcusable.
Take my word for it, there are few people on SM that have had more "exposure to hardcore, uber focused aspirants on a mystical/meditative path" than me. ;)
my bad. read a little to fast I suppose.=)
Whatever one thinks of Mother Teresa, it's clear that a halo was built up around her by various parties that wanted to milk her saintly stature. Successive West Bengal/GOI administrations, for one - while actually doing nothing to help the same communities whose suffering was supposed to be at the centre of it all. And then the church of course, with all this beatification nonsense.
Attacking atheists about gloating over the revelations is the easy way out. Devout Christians were suprisingly silent when they were being taken for a ride by the church with all the talk of 'fast tracking'. In any case, saints seem to have it either way - either they are unflinching in their belief (MT before these letters were published) or, they are wracked by self-doubt and darkness and pull through nevertheless. Believers are on slippery ground when they attack the likes of Hitchens, liberals and Dawkins on this episode, or for that matter for anything that challenges basic assumptions.
I'm bowing out of this thread now. I don't want to offend anyone and I certainly don't want to have to explain or defend my devout Christian self. I'm not even Catholic, but I know I'm going to be affected by what might be said.
Abhi, thanks for a great post-- the comparisons with eastern scripture had me thinking all day. Ruchira, so did your point about questioning why we need religion as a vehicle to do good.
I agree with Abhi. These revelations make MT more complex, more human, and at the same time greater. She's not a spiritual barbie doll anymore. I don't know how any sensible being can hold her misery against her.
With respect to the 'abandonment' of Christ - is not the very power of Christ the fact that he has great faith and yet feels 'abandoned'? Is that not what it means for God to become man? I'm not a Christian, yet I've read few more powerful passages than Kierkegaard's analysis of Christ's repeated 'Do you love me, Peter?' The same craving for love and fear of betrayal/abandonment is evinced in these letters. It's the frailty, the doubt, the insecurity of a Christ which make him human as well as God - no?
A N N A,
I completely agree that the wishes of the dead should be respected, and its sad that the Church chose to ignore hers. Aside from that, though, why do you think she will be undermined for having doubts in her faith? Unquestioning doubt is what makes a person dogmatic -- having the courage to face your doubts and live an examined life makes your choices stronger. I think the fact that she didn't have an unshaking belief in a preordained plan for how she should serve the world (as dictated by the Church as an institution, I'm not saying that all Christians believe in a Calvinist type of "fate" or something), and the fact that she still chose to live in such a way and spend her whole life battling inequality and poverty shows the depth of her character, and her commitment to the people she served.
Also, it seems to me that recognizing that she also needed support at times, felt lonely, had doubts, etc. helps us to remember that she was human, which makes her acheivements seem so much more meaningful. She had to overcome a lot to do what she did, it wasn't that she magically a better person or something. If more people identify with her rather than idolize her, they might understand that all of us can choose to work for the causes she embodied (or at least a fraction of it).
The letters are beautifully written. She seems to have had a writerly bent. They're a gift.
Wow! I had no idea. (of course)
As I read of her doubt, and internal religious/spiritual turmoils, I just find it so amazing that she insisted on helping others to the degree she did. Lay folks can get completely messed up in real life when facing internal conflicts of this magnitude, but I am in awe of her ability to carry on, and it strikes me that she truly was saintly in acting to relieve others' pain regardless of her own.
Keep it civil, please.
Maybe I am off my rocker speaking as a non-Christian, but I don't think MT's feelings of "abandonment" or doubts regarding her faith detract from the work she did. They just humanize her. It's hard to imagine anyone who could work day in and day out in areas with truly severe poverty who comes through without questioning faith or the existence of a higher being. Oh, but speaking more broadly, I've said this before, and I'll repeat myself. I believe that most religions, faith traditions, and religious people are very similar. I think the larger question is not so much "is she Buddhist at heart?" but rather the broader question that Abhi framed: Are they themes of universality that bring us all together? In the context of service specifically, I would say absolutely.
This post is fascinating; thanks Abhi. [also, how much am I loving the Rumi? A lot.]
As an atheist now, find this quite close to my experience when i began questioning His existence.
The darkness & void still exists but i simply don't care for something to be there. Yet curiously i owe
it to my religion that led me to this path - that culture of seeking the ultimate truth which is the mainstay
of Vedas. The mother remains an extraordinary human being whatever her thoughts about faith.
The dark feelings of abandonment are a standard trope in mystical and metaphysical literature (in autobiography and in art), especially by figures who became saints or whose work has been championed by the Catholic and other Christian churches. The list is long, going all the way back to St. Augustine. Thumb through the pages of St. John of the Cross (he coined the phrase "dark night of the soul"), Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, John Donne (Anglican priest in addition to metaphysical poet), Thomas Merton, Flannery O'Connor, Walker Percy. In fact, such ideas are part and parcel of modern Catholicism. In her expression of spiritual anxiety, she is pretty normal, even if it seems odd that a nun and "saint of the gutter" would express such things.
It is interesting to see that a majority of Christians and non-christians alike (on this blog and other fora) seem to think this takes nothing away from Mother Teresa's stature. While that is a hearty development, it is also important to remember that to a lot of people she was a living deity and she did associate herself with certain religious causes that Hitchens alludes to, which did not exactly come across as enlightened. Given that she was herself tormented on the question of belief, the conviction with which she took up those causes is surprising.
I will not speculate on why she wanted the letters to be destroyed, but why deny the masses the same scope for doubt and torment and self-discovery?
After hearing about Mother Teresa's letters, I can only suppose that the people who determined to override her wishes to publish them believed (hoped?) that the overwhelming depths of despair in her writing would somehow be comforting to those who likewise dwell in despair.
Often, for vanity's sake or self-suppression in the name of holiness, we Christians fail to communicate personal expressions of humanity, instead choosing to present an image of relentless, triumphant faith. Some people do this merely to tow the line while others feel that expressing struggles lessens the cause of Christ. I imagine Mother Teresa's theological beliefs placed her in the latter group.
That belief--aside from the fact that she spent her life in an minimalist atmosphere of poverty, suffering, injustice, sickness and death--is enough to send any believer into deep depression and subsequent questioning of faith. At the same time, as I believe previous commenters have alluded to, the struggle does not determine the conclusion. Faith is a decision of the will. Mother Teresa's actions showed the bent of her will.
(Furthermore, would you really write a letter addressed to a person you don't believe exists? I mean, really?)
While what you say is true, Preston, the vast majority of these revered Catholic Saints and Christian theologians eventually "embraced" God or were able to reconcile their struggles with the 'darkness' to seek a stronger bond with God. St. John of the Cross believed that to take on a saintly life and to embark on a life of higher spiritual attainment was to accept the existence of Satan and 'demons' who will test their faith more than any common person. It is the very nature of metaphysical thought for them, that with good comes evil. The anguish such Saints suffered for expressing their religious struggles were only part of an often self-proclaimed journey to strengthen their faith in God. I don't want to say they were more optimistic, but to St. John, for example, he sought to assert a basis upon which to categorize such levels of scrutiny in order to determine which tests were from God versus Satan versus the self. To look at it from a rather detached/more critical point of view, such religious scholars were either ultimately unwavering in their faith and were able to see through their anguish or they were too fearful to truly express the depths of their contemplation (as of course the times were much less forgiving of expression of self-doubt).
I wouldn't consider Mother Teresa to be amongst that cateogry in terms of those you mentioned because, to the extent of the excerpts given, she had a much darker battle with her beliefs and through her writing expressed them with much more freedom. It's not so much that she is the Saint of the People that makes it surprising- for me, at least. It is more the timeline and the degree to which she struggles with herself and with God that makes such an impact. At times it seems as though she has come to a lasting understanding of Jesus' suffering, but then makes conflicting statements.
My point here is not to scrutinize her words to shreds, but to appreciate that which we know for a fact. Despite her pains she provided hope for millions of people and selflessly devoted herself to the cause of the masses and ultimately knew that to be her salvation. Whatever else we try to gather from her writings is purely speculation on our parts as she was far too emotionally, psychologically, and physically involved for words to even articulate.
thank you, abhi, for posting that. i'd never really considered Mother Teresa seriously before, mostly because she's become such a 2D byword in popular culture. but reading those passages makes me want to get that book and to immerse myself in all the other texts you referenced.
though one thought, as i play devil's advocate: my understanding is that the Church authorised the publication of this book? to what extent then can that this book has been pruned? i mean, i would feel less concerned about issues of authenticity if it was an independent publication. am i the only one who feels this way?
and now i have belatedly read everyone's comments and i feel like my question is out of place here.
Re #23
the one example at the top of my head of a mystic who lost faith and began to deeply doubt himself is al-ghazali. he writes about this in great detail in his "deliverance from error."
Of course, I am with you on the fact that the 'god talk' doesn't deserve much respect (exception for the FSM :P) but my contention was just that a 'good person' would still be a good person even without any of his/her religious beliefs. In that sense, I meant religion is irrelevant to altruism and hence the magnification effect you spoke of, is not really present for things like 'altruism' at least, in my opinion.
I AM talking about an average person... do a thought experiment yourself: take an imaginary religious person X of high moral values and create a situation where X loses his/her faith abruplty. How likley do you think it is that X loses his moral values just as easily as he lost his faith?
She was known to be a very pious woman. Although, in my openion there should be no doubts in religion. She strongly held on to her faith and did not let it go, which was a great thing on its own.
"While that is a hearty development, it is also important to remember that to a lot of people she was a living deity and she did associate herself with certain religious causes that Hitchens alludes to, which did not exactly come across as enlightened. Given that she was herself tormented on the question of belief, the conviction with which she took up those causes is surprising."
I'm with Nanda. It's strange if she had religious doubts, but not moral doubts about some of the causes Hitchens mentioned in his critical books about her (no intention here to cause offense to ANNA or any other christian).
People have been critical in this space about Gandhi too, so I don't think it's picking on christians to have some critical views expressed about Mother Teresa.
Abhi: Great post. To quote from Rumi's translation by Coleman Barks:
It may be that the clarity Rumi calls "reason" is a brilliant lawfullness that ecologists and astronomers examine as the coherence in any system, and that the mystic and the scientist both attend the same layered intelligence: the grand and precise artistry of existence. Mother Teresa - whether she is declared Saint or not - was a great human being. It took Lord Krishna to straighten out Arjun's dilemma. I remember an old movie song by Mohhamad Rafi from film "Amar" that went something like this:
Aaana hey to Aa raah mein - Kuchh der nahi hey
Bhagwan ke ghar der hey - Andher nahi hey !
Kahne ki Zoorurat nahi - Aaana hi bahut hey
Eis der pe tera shish zukaana hi bahut hey !
Mother Teresa was not only honest but rather bold to express her true feelings. To thy own self be true !!
Human "animals" someone said? So that's it? You're sure of that? Four billion years or more of earth and that is the sum of its fruits? I see there are quite a few atheists on this board. No problem for me, but I do think I have to take up for religion a bit. It's not atheists that undermine religion. It's the so-called religious hypocrites.
But the irreligious have done as much or more in the way of evil. Religion has produced--or rather inspired--great music, art, literature. If this inspiration was a mere chimera, it was one of great power for good as well as evil. We say smugly that ethics precede religion, but how many of us have deeply studied societies during their pre-religion days? Who's been there?
How ethical were the Communists? The Nazis? Pol Pot? Sadaam? Mao? Stalin? All these groups were led by an ideology which rejected any idea of an individual being held accountable for his/her deeds. They answered only to themselves, using religion where it was necessary to fool people, otherwise laughing at it, and destroying it.
Religion has been an expression of the people who have breathed it in. It took a different form in India than in England, in China than among American Indians. But everywhere the idea of a spiritual force bigger than ourselves was the source of inspiration.
What culture has communism produced? Pol Pot? Stalin? Hitler? Sadaam? Bush? The last name may surprise you, but those who use religion in name and whose behavior is so cognitively dissonant--this includes most of today's leaders who not outright atheists--does far more harm to religion than any open enemy.
As far as I know, no other species has the spiritual angst to which human flesh is heir, but perhaps I underestimate chimps and cows (and I'm an animal lover btw).
As far as MT's doubts, no real surprise. Perhaps the adulation bestowed upon her encouraged egoism, but she was one who actually did work--hard, grueling work--for others. The adulation came much later and was in no way guaranteed. At any point during the 40s, 50s, 60s, she could have dropped dead, unknown and unmourned except by those she helped. It's fashionable to concentrate on the bad things religion has done--contrary to popular opinion, the media is not controlled by religious people, quite the contrary. The missionaries gained converts more often because they did things for potential converts that their own "people" would not do for them. In their early, glory days, religions have uplifted people--some Arabs were burying their daughters before Mohammed. Islamic people raised a high degree of civilization before petrification set in. But as time goes on, religion does not move with the times. Humans are not static and neither can religion be the same forever.
You could reduce the missionaries to egoists pushing their agenda, but then there's that crux of the grueling, often dangerous work. If you haven't done it yourself, don't snark.
The execrable Hitchens swills his booze and collects money for being the snarky adolescent so many of us secretly or not so secretly envy being--it's that sense of being 16 again and rebelling against all that is held holy. Sometimes this is appropriate and good, if what is holy is not. More often it is simply gratuitous. What might his legacy someday be? That he secretly had doubts about his atheism? Who will care? Who will he have helped? other than giving us a few chortles over his "outrageousness?"
Mother Theresa at least DID something positive during her tenure on this sphere of matter. Did a lot of something positive. If there is a heaven, it is not singing in the clouds (except for the occasional concert maybe), but moving on developmentally, into another dimension. Kudos to her, whatever her doubts.
"Religion has produced--or rather inspired--great music, art, literature..."
Thats because Religious institutions had the dough to feed the artists, or are you sayin' religious music and art is superior to secular art?
"But the irreligious have done as much or more in the way of evil..."
They were evil not becuase they were irreligious but because they were evil in nature, they may have been irreligious because they were evil but not all irreligiousity bares out of evilness.
What about George Bush calling "Axis of Evil", flaunting "American Mission" and "Crusades", that "God wanted me here", and under his leadership backed up by the evagelicals has brought religious bloodbath in "secular" Iraq.
MT in my eyes is great for her work, and even greater, now that I find out, for questioning her motivation, the trait that is more akin to humans than the animals.
Abhi, thanks for the post.
One thing about a journal is that it doesn't typically give a balanced portrait of a person - often it's a safe place to let off steam. It's not a memoir or a biography. So these papers might be giving disproportionate emphasis to this aspect of her psychological landscape.
I am incredibly uncomfortable, and daresay offended that the Catholic church overruled Mother Theresa's desire to keep her correspondences private. As someone who keeps journal entries of my most private thoughts, I would be absolutely horrified to know that in my death, my private thoughts--of the most intimate and controversial kind (that we all have) were published and spread throughout the world.
I actually can't get past this huge breach of loyalty. So much so that I wouldn't patronize this book or Time magazine.
The guarantee that the struggles Mother Theresa speaks of is something every single religious leader must go through--if not in print than in their minds.
This expectation to be "perfect" in the eyes of God must be torture to live with. My heart goes out to Mother Theresa, and I hope her soul continues to rest in peace even with the knowledge that her wishes were completely abandoned. =(I miswrote something above, the following line:
Should have read:
If all religious people had the same amount of doubt and willingness to question their religion, they would be better people and the world would be a better place.
As an atheist, I don't want a world full of atheists, just a world with less bigots.
Abhi, fantastic post.
SM Intern--looks like a troll alert to me.
especially with the spelling--I'm bad but this is unacceptable.
I'm joining in late, but nice post, Abhi. I too find these "doubts" of MT's increase my respect.
Another analog to what MT discusses in her letters: Sita abandoned by Rama. Especially in lines like this:
I'm intrigued and relieved that MT hasn't been attacked for comparing her struggle with Christ's, and identifying with Christ as a way to move forward. Is it because she's a certified saint, and therefore granted such license, or because Christians actually approve of relating to Jesus? I'm no saint, and I'm regularly attacked for relating (in my small flawed way) to Sita. Once I was also lambasted in an SM thread for drawing comparisons between Sita's story and Christ's (I'm not a Christian either, but living in the US I'm fairly steeped in Christian mythology, like everyone else here). I've also been attacked for reading relgious stories "universally" (when did "universal" become an epithet?) but MT's letters remind me that if anything is universal, it is loneliness and pain. Even atheists have that.
Amreekan,
as hitchens has detailed in the past--these regimes all tended to replace the official state religion, or traditionally dominant religion, with another more amenable to their needs. I don't see any point being made here.
I think the problem that atheists have with god-men (and god-women), is that they're generally portrayed as people above and beyond all criticism. There is a valid critique that has probably yet to be made, with regards to the efficiency of her operation. All aid organizations can be judged by how many cents actually make it to the needy parties out of every dollar donated and how effective the volunteers are (by rates of disease, etc among the treated parties).
there is a vast difference between those who go purely to help with some tangible project (i.e. clean water, solid housing, education) and those who plant churches, seed bibles and then leave. It is when the tangible work and proselytizing are concurrent, that the debate becomes truly interesting.
I wish to see an analytical lens trained on MT and her charitable work, as it would serve to contextualize this discussion in actual empirical categories of efficacy, transparency, etc. It would be foolish to wonder whether she would have been more effective as a secular humanitarian--the only thing I can think of is the contraception issue. i don't think it would take too much field work to prove that her target areas would've benefited from anti Catholic-dogma organizational policy on education about birth control, etc.
you may not want it, but thats what it eventually will be... religion is a legacy of the medieval times... when humans were absolutely clueless about things... It probably took a lot to have the conviction to be an atheist 500 years ago. Now, there are so many of them. Its obviously a natural transition of the human society from its dark ages, and 500 years into the future, I genuinely feel that a non-atheist will be considered a crackpot by the mainstream population. I know the views expressed here might sound radical, but I think its the truth.
As for the post by amreekan, all your arguments are the standard religion ppl arguments whose flaws have been clearly explained over and over by a number of people (dawkins, mainly)
ThePope @ 75. Speak for yourself.
I thought that the Catholic Church, especially, held sacred the communication between the congregant and spiritual adviser. Thats what I find most shocking about having these letters published -isn't it equivalent to a priest revealing what was said at confession? Any catholics out there - please clarify for me .
I always admired Mother Theresa and have had an opportunity to see the work of the Sisters of Charity closely via one of her orphanages in India. Regardless of whether it was faith or doubt that propelled her forward, the kind of impact that she had was amazing. She cared for those whom no one cared about.I always admired her but seeing this more human side of her ironically makes me think of her as more of a saint, not less.
anna,
a sensible proposition, which you wouldn't be hard pressed to defend. However, as in our celeb-obssessed culture where courts have established that the price of fame and exposure is constant harassment by the paparazzi, it does figure that the title of 'saint' would be accompanied by the same kind of rabid, morbid curiosity about items which most of us would want kept private. MT is just a victim of how we treat all people accorded the same exposure. The Dalai Lama, among others, has been a target of this kind of sensationalism (although those critiques are grounded in substantial evidence, and have significance for his constant message of "peace.")
SkepMod, well said.
I'm an atheist who grew up Presbyterian. I agree that this makes her easier to relate to; it's the religious folks who never, ever have any doubts at all who scare me. Seems like really deeply thinking through your beliefs, whatever they are, will always bring up doubts and questions. I came up with enough of them as a teenager to abandon my religious beliefs; MT struggled through them instead. She was human.
Nina,
Just wanted to say thanks for posting that adorable video of little white kids acting out the story of Rama! They got soooo into it.
does anyone else have a problem with claims of "miracles". does that set off any alarm bells?
well, the decline in required conviction required to be an atheist probably has more to do with the rise of civil liberties and good governance more than the rise of our unerstanding of the world around us. take away a few of those liberties, and it will take the same kind of conviction to be an atheist again. science wou;ld still advance, but you wouldnt want to talk about not believing in xyz holy book too loudly.
"explained over and over by a number of people (dawkins, mainly)"
and apparently we "religious" people have to explain over and over again that dawkins' "explanations" are themselves pretty warmed over, and do not convince everybody. But then, atheistic arrogance is equalled only by that of the fundamentalist religionist
But then, atheistic arrogance is equalled only by that of the fundamentalist religionist...
But then, atheistic
arrogancearrogance backed by truth is equalled only by that of the fundamentalist religionist backed by faith.i never got why peoples arbitrary beliefs need to be held up as equal to well thought out scientific theories backed up by empirical evidence. like intelligent designe guys saying that their "beliefs" shold carry as much weight as darwins theory of evolution. I dont think it should. one is backed up by evidence. the other is a belief. peoples beliefs arent based on anything, really.
no one is arguing against anyones right to beileve whatever nonsense they want. but, the problem occours when one trys to act like their beliefs are logically founded.
What if my experience is different? What, for example, if the power of prayer has worked for me ? Will you write this off and deny me the choice to believe in what I want to believe because it does not fit your frame of reference( which requires a detailed scientific explanation for everything) ? Is that not intolerance?
I do not proselytize my faith, I do not expect you to follow it. But to dismiss as arbitrary others' beliefs smacks of intoleranc and arrogance.
I understand now why Anna said earlier that this thread makes her uncomfortable and why she chose to leave it.
i will not deny you the right to believe in whatever insane ideas you want....its not my place.
"Thats because Religious institutions had the dough to feed the artists, or are you sayin' religious music and art is s