Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mother Teresa was in Calcutta since 1937. Anyone who says she did not good works
at a high cost to her personally is a liar. The Indian government fought her, they had
no regard for their people.
What do you think she's doing, in an old picture like this?
Mother Teresa with patients at a mobile leprosy clinic near Kolkata, India, in 1960.
What you see is not always what you get. She was a fraud that used money given to help sick people to promote her religious order.
You mean to build more hospices for her order to do their work. How else can you promote a religious order, it's not like they are to go on Broadway to do a musical or something.
I'm no longer a practicing Catholic, but I seem to recall that at least one (or maybe more?) miracles had to be credited to you before you could be declared a saint. Of course, this pope does things a little differently But what justification was given for her sainthood?
I'm no longer a practicing Catholic, but I seem to recall that at least one (or maybe more?) miracles had to be credited to you before you could be declared a saint. Of course, this pope does things a little differently But what justification was given for her sainthood?
A desperate need to try to get the Catholic Church some credits against the declarations of corruption and child abuse that it is being exposed for. Similar times, for the church, were rampant when they sainted the Australian woman.
A desperate need to try to get the Catholic Church some credits against the declarations of corruption and child abuse that it is being exposed for. Similar times, for the church, were rampant when they sainted the Australian woman.
Making Theresa a saint isn't the best way to earn credibility.
I really believe the Pope himself is doing a very GOD job of restoring credibility--one step at a time--although sometimes the steps are very very small.
You gave money to the sisters of charity? Kinda hard to believe.
You can believe what you want. I gave money to the organisation because I thought they were using it to ease the suffering of people in India. Apparently, they weren't. I also gave money to the Salvation Army when I lived in the UK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144
You mean to build more hospices for her order to do their work.
They weren't doing the work that the money was being given for.
Quote:
How else can you promote a religious order,...
I doubt very much that people gave money to 'promote a religious order'. I certainly didn't. I'd wager that most people gave money because they thought, as I did, that the witch was using it to ease suffering ...rather than using it to build convents to promote her religious order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28
When you give money to a religious based program, what did you seriously EXPECT anything different?
YES I do...
Quote:
You really are special.
I know.
Chatterjee stated that the public image of Mother Teresa as a "helper of the poor" was misleading, and that only a few hundred people are served by even the largest of the homes. In 1998, among the 200 charitable assistance organisations reported to operate in Calcutta, Missionaries of Charity was not ranked among the largest charity organisations–with the Assembly of God charity notably serving a greater number of the poor at 18,000 meals daily.[9]
Chatterjee alleged that many operations of the order engage in no charitable activity at all but instead use their funds for missionary work. He stated, for example, that none of the eight facilities that the Missionaries of Charity run in Papua New Guinea have any residents in them, being purely for the purpose of converting local people to Catholicism.
She was sometimes accused by Hindus in her adopted country of trying to convert the poor to Catholicism by "stealth".[10] Christopher Hitchens described Mother Teresa's organisation as a cult that promoted suffering and did not help those in need. He said that Mother Teresa's own words on poverty proved that her intention was not to help people, quoting her words at a 1981 press conference in which she was asked: "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" She replied: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
In 1991, Robin Fox, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet visited the Home for Dying Destitutes in Calcutta (now Kolkata) and described the medical care the patients received as "haphazard".[11] He observed that sisters and volunteers, some of whom had no medical knowledge, had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors in the hospice. Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for conditions in this home, and observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment.
Fox conceded that the regimen he observed included cleanliness, the tending of wounds and sores, and kindness, but he noted that the sisters' approach to managing pain was "disturbingly lacking". The formulary at the facility Fox visited lacked strong analgesics which he felt clearly separated Mother Teresa's approach from the hospice movement. Fox also wrote that needles were rinsed with warm water, which left them inadequately sterilised, and the facility did not isolate patients with tuberculosis. There have been a series of other reports documenting inattention to medical care in the order's facilities. Similar points of view have also been expressed by some former volunteers who worked for Teresa's order. Mother Teresa herself referred to the facilities as "Houses of the Dying".
In 2013, in a comprehensive review[12] covering 96% of the literature on Mother Teresa, a group of Université de Montréal academics reinforced the foregoing criticism, detailing, among other issues, the missionary's practice of "caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it, … her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce". Questioning the Vatican's motivations for ignoring the mass of criticism, the study concluded that Mother Teresa's "hallowed image—which does not stand up to analysis of the facts—was constructed, and that her beatification was orchestrated by an effective media relations campaign" engineered by the Catholic convert and anti-abortion BBC journalist Malcolm Muggeridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic..._Mother_Teresa Even when it came to her work with the children she is so well known for ‘supporting’, her aid was so dangerously lacking it bordered on negligent. Her Christianity harboured an obsession with suffering and death that influenced her care more than her desire to help ever would. She saw the struggle of those in poverty as admirable, she envied it, she thought it brought them closer to God. She likened their suffering to Christ on the cross and, in the worst years, she encouraged and condoned it; even within her ‘hospitals’ and ‘orphanages’. This abuse was especially rife in India, where she had risen to fame. Qualified doctors who visited her institutions were appalled at their conditions. Medical care was administered by volunteers with no medical training, hygiene was substandard, needles were reused until they became blunt, pain management was non-existent and staff were not able to make distinctions between those who were dying, and those who had curable illnesses.
In the 1950s, Mother Teresa helped found a ‘home for the dying’, where “people who lived like animals” could come to “die like angels”. She told those in pain that they were being “kissed by Jesus”, yet on her own deathbed was happy to accept the very best medical care on offer to her. One reporter who went undercover in one of her Kolkata homes described the conditions as “squalid” with nothing on the walls but pictures of their “mother” and attendants that laughed at children who had soiled themselves after being tied to beds all day. There was no dignity in the supposed care of these white-robed nuns.
To this day, money continues to be an issue with the ‘Missionaries of Charity’ that Mother Teresa established in 1950. They refused to publish their accounts in India, where it is required by law. When asked to do the same in Germany, they responded that it was “none of their business”. A former sister put the annual figures of the organisation’s income at around $50 million in New York alone, but there is little evidence of any expenditures. Locally, services largely rely on donations and the appalling state of care in Mother Teresa’s time makes it clear that very little money makes it back to those they are helping, and new missions set up across the world are expected to become self-sufficient. Her charity received money from known-fraudsters, and when they were convicted in a criminal court, she tried to use her large personal influence to change the outcome of the trial. Sources suggest that the majority of money she received was sent straight to the Vatican bank; an institution few will believe in more dire need of assistance than India’s most vulnerable citizens. https://missionariesofcharity.wordpr...she-was/...and more...Mother Teresa Was No Saint | Huffington Post
According to those who’ve volunteered there, Mother Teresa’s missions are squalid cesspits run along violent, authoritarian lines. There are reports of unruly children being tied to beds and beaten, of outdated equipment not being replaced, and of needles being reused in countries with high HIV infection rates (such as Haiti) until they were so blunt they caused pain. All of this wrapped up in a culture of unquestioning obedience, secrecy, and control that is said to resemble a cult. http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/27/...-mother-teresa
You can believe what you want. I gave money to the organisation because I thought they were using it to ease the suffering of people in India. Apparently, they weren't. I also gave money to the Salvation Army when I lived in the UK.
They weren't doing the work that the money was being given for.
I doubt very much that people gave money to 'promote a religious order'. I certainly didn't. I'd wager that most people gave money because they thought, as I did, that the witch was using it to ease suffering ...rather than using it to build convents to promote her religious order.
YES I do...
I know. Chatterjee stated that the public image of Mother Teresa as a "helper of the poor" was misleading, and that only a few hundred people are served by even the largest of the homes. In 1998, among the 200 charitable assistance organisations reported to operate in Calcutta, Missionaries of Charity was not ranked among the largest charity organisations–with the Assembly of God charity notably serving a greater number of the poor at 18,000 meals daily.[9] Chatterjee alleged that many operations of the order engage in no charitable activity at all but instead use their funds for missionary work. He stated, for example, that none of the eight facilities that the Missionaries of Charity run in Papua New Guinea have any residents in them, being purely for the purpose of converting local people to Catholicism. She was sometimes accused by Hindus in her adopted country of trying to convert the poor to Catholicism by "stealth".[10] Christopher Hitchens described Mother Teresa's organisation as a cult that promoted suffering and did not help those in need. He said that Mother Teresa's own words on poverty proved that her intention was not to help people, quoting her words at a 1981 press conference in which she was asked: "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" She replied: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
In 1991, Robin Fox, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet visited the Home for Dying Destitutes in Calcutta (now Kolkata) and described the medical care the patients received as "haphazard".[11] He observed that sisters and volunteers, some of whom had no medical knowledge, had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors in the hospice. Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for conditions in this home, and observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment. Fox conceded that the regimen he observed included cleanliness, the tending of wounds and sores, and kindness, but he noted that the sisters' approach to managing pain was "disturbingly lacking". The formulary at the facility Fox visited lacked strong analgesics which he felt clearly separated Mother Teresa's approach from the hospice movement. Fox also wrote that needles were rinsed with warm water, which left them inadequately sterilised, and the facility did not isolate patients with tuberculosis. There have been a series of other reports documenting inattention to medical care in the order's facilities. Similar points of view have also been expressed by some former volunteers who worked for Teresa's order. Mother Teresa herself referred to the facilities as "Houses of the Dying".
In 2013, in a comprehensive review[12] covering 96% of the literature on Mother Teresa, a group of Université de Montréal academics reinforced the foregoing criticism, detailing, among other issues, the missionary's practice of "caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it, … her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce". Questioning the Vatican's motivations for ignoring the mass of criticism, the study concluded that Mother Teresa's "hallowed image—which does not stand up to analysis of the facts—was constructed, and that her beatification was orchestrated by an effective media relations campaign" engineered by the Catholic convert and anti-abortion BBC journalist Malcolm Muggeridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic..._Mother_Teresa Even when it came to her work with the children she is so well known for ‘supporting’, her aid was so dangerously lacking it bordered on negligent. Her Christianity harboured an obsession with suffering and death that influenced her care more than her desire to help ever would. She saw the struggle of those in poverty as admirable, she envied it, she thought it brought them closer to God. She likened their suffering to Christ on the cross and, in the worst years, she encouraged and condoned it; even within her ‘hospitals’ and ‘orphanages’. This abuse was especially rife in India, where she had risen to fame. Qualified doctors who visited her institutions were appalled at their conditions. Medical care was administered by volunteers with no medical training, hygiene was substandard, needles were reused until they became blunt, pain management was non-existent and staff were not able to make distinctions between those who were dying, and those who had curable illnesses. In the 1950s, Mother Teresa helped found a ‘home for the dying’, where “people who lived like animals” could come to “die like angels”. She told those in pain that they were being “kissed by Jesus”, yet on her own deathbed was happy to accept the very best medical care on offer to her. One reporter who went undercover in one of her Kolkata homes described the conditions as “squalid” with nothing on the walls but pictures of their “mother” and attendants that laughed at children who had soiled themselves after being tied to beds all day. There was no dignity in the supposed care of these white-robed nuns.
To this day, money continues to be an issue with the ‘Missionaries of Charity’ that Mother Teresa established in 1950. They refused to publish their accounts in India, where it is required by law. When asked to do the same in Germany, they responded that it was “none of their business”. A former sister put the annual figures of the organisation’s income at around $50 million in New York alone, but there is little evidence of any expenditures. Locally, services largely rely on donations and the appalling state of care in Mother Teresa’s time makes it clear that very little money makes it back to those they are helping, and new missions set up across the world are expected to become self-sufficient. Her charity received money from known-fraudsters, and when they were convicted in a criminal court, she tried to use her large personal influence to change the outcome of the trial. Sources suggest that the majority of money she received was sent straight to the Vatican bank; an institution few will believe in more dire need of assistance than India’s most vulnerable citizens. https://missionariesofcharity.wordpr...she-was/...and more...Mother Teresa Was No Saint | Huffington Post According to those who’ve volunteered there, Mother Teresa’s missions are squalid cesspits run along violent, authoritarian lines. There are reports of unruly children being tied to beds and beaten, of outdated equipment not being replaced, and of needles being reused in countries with high HIV infection rates (such as Haiti) until they were so blunt they caused pain. All of this wrapped up in a culture of unquestioning obedience, secrecy, and control that is said to resemble a cult. http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/27/...-mother-teresa https://mukto-mona.com/Articles/moth...a/sanal_ed.htm https://mic.com/articles/28746/mothe...aud#.iJZFcaucZ The fanatic, fraudulent Mother Teresa.
::Sigh::So much angst and vitriol fueling such passioned denigration of a dead Nun!! Every popular "hero" in human society has been lionized, embellished, and ultimately had clay feet. The reality of their existence has little to do with the effect of their popular persona as role models in human society. She is dead and cannot reap any of the things you think are so heinous. Why work so hard to destroy the persona, Rafe?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
But what justification was given for her sainthood?
