Mother Teresa; witch, not saint. Her scam perpetuated by Catholic church (grace, lukewarm)
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.
I have done this and that is why I have a different "point-of-view of MT".
That's who we are engaging with on this thread. They are saying anything contrary to the pleasant fantasy image of MT that is held in the popular imagination represents some form of hatred or a desire to destroy actual good.
This has been my experience with apologists.
I am very careful about who I give my money to so thank you to those who recommended doctors without boarders.
....p.s. I take anti-Mother Teresa articles with a grain of salt. When she started her work in Calcutta no one was doing anything to help people who were dying horrid deaths alone and on the streets in India. Her efforts were revolutionary. There are now sisters from the order she established working all over world. Mother Teresa-bashing is easy. Taking care of the sick and the dying....not so much.
Leaving aside the saint or sham debate, Mother Teresa's work in Calcutta was actually a very small part of what was being done at the time for the city's poor. The Assembly of God (Christian) and the Rama Krishna foundation (Hindu) efforts were taking care of thousands of Calcutta's poor, so her efforts in Calcutta were neither new nor exclusive, nor when she began was she able to work on the scale that they were.
This is not to say that if ninety of a hundred needy people are being taken care of that the person who takes care of another eight is to be dismissed.
Leaving aside the saint or sham debate, Mother Teresa's work in Calcutta was actually a very small part of what was being done at the time for the city's poor. The Assembly of God (Christian) and the Rama Krishna foundation (Hindu) efforts were taking care of thousands of Calcutta's poor, so her efforts in Calcutta were neither new nor exclusive, nor when she began was she able to work on the scale that they were.
This is not to say that if ninety of a hundred needy people are being taken care of that the person who takes care of another eight is to be dismissed.
That's a good point, there are alternatives and even in non-profits, competition is a generally good thing.
Thanks Gldnrule. Your post will show to my pal Tzaph (who I admire and respect greatly) how his well - meaning but misguided defence of mother Thersa's memory (or the one that people want to have of her, and never mind the facts) becomes an attack on anyone putting the contrary view. Which gives people in your camp the excuse to leap out and stir in a bit of polemic poison to the personal jabbing.
Many have swallowed the lie that Mother Theresa was saintly. She was anything but; instead she was a callous witch who cavorted with devils like the dictator Duvalier. She prothlisized that those dying must suffer, and did nothing to ease that suffering.
Shame on the Catholic church for elevating her as a "saint".
Below, an ACADEMIC paper on the horrible scam she perpetuated on the world.
So, the question remains, why were unsterilized needles used, when there were millions raised that could have purchased them?
You do not know this happened and you cannot know the circumstances that provoked the accusations or the motivations of the accuser. You are employing the very lack of critical thinking that you excoriate the fundamentalists for using as their evidence for their beliefs. Very disappointing and disheartening to see.
And to you. And I don't deserve praise since as Faramir said 'I have done nothing other than that which I desired to do'. Or similar. And the important thing is not to whitewash or blacken Mother Theresa, but to get the facts that will enable us to make valid judgements.
I have already taken on board the good intentions and possible good results. I note that the article and photos was by a noted photographer who was not an investigative journalist and she photographed spotless and airy rooms and loving care. Nobody doubts they scrubbed everything daily and cared for their handful of patients per room.
The criticisms are those that do not show up in photos. It is par for the course that the sites I read tended to be either adoring and not a word of criticism, or hostile with a lot. The legacy lives on and the problems have probably been quietly corrected and it's all good, give or take catholic dogmatic thinking in hospitals. That doesn't alter the origins any more than the evils of the V2 programme are wiped out vt Von Braun's good intentions or the wonderful legacy of space exploration, space junk and possibly being able to divert an asteroid collision.
Taking money from dictators. The GBS play about the salvation army taking money from arms dealers. Is it justified? At least she wanted the money to do good.
Bad attitudes on condoms and contraception? That's what she was taught. It is a pity though, that while she was doubting her faith (lucky they didn't destroy her letters as she wanted) she didn't doubt her dogma and see that condoms and contraception would do more good than all the needles they ever rinsed under the cold tap.
And that's the question in my mind. It seems that she was awash with dosh and it got misused.
I have to read more, but it seems that doctors who visited were appalled by the malpractice. Ok, so she wasn't a financial wizard or a medical expert, but with all that dosh, couldn't she have hired some advisors? Didn't anyone suggest that she should?
There are rumbles about so few patients with so much room to spare and rumbles about 'why not leave her in peace?' As I say, it is the vatican stunt of canonization that is digging her up, and really it is this cynical publicity ploy that is the target.
If they can have their whitewash job exposed and either have to back down or go ahead anyway with red -faced determination amongst global jeers and howls of derision, then Mother Theresa will have some good in my book.
P.s "the biggest April fool joke probably ever seen on CD-- " I enjoyed that, even though a lot of people sussed me (Shirina bought it totally) and I blew the punch line. I should have used the FSM by Michelangelo rather than that painting I did - and put in a 'Happy April 1st" But I couldn't bring myself to call anybody a fool. And in fact the bigger joke was on me when half my posts got deleted for imitating Don rifleman's posting -style! It was done for him, you know. He always said he wanted to pretend to be deconverting as an April 1st spoof.
When she decided to go to India, MT first spent two years learning the history of the Loreto nuns. She then spent two years in India as a novice before taking her vows. For nine years after she was the principal at St. Mary's. a convent school.
MT had to petition Rome to leave the convent to start a school in another part of India. The RCC was reluctant to let a single woman go out on her own, but after two years they finally agreed. That was when she got a few weeks of "medical training" by the Medical Mission Sisters of Patna. That was in 1948. With no further training, it seems that some of the great "problems" that physicians found may have been the advancement of medicine beyond what her meager training may have been--from other nuns, no less.
For those who wish a brief biographical history of Mother Theresa--including mention of criticisms of her work--the link below is from about education, a website devoted to education--psychology, geology, mathematics, insects, French, German and Japanese languages, grammar and composition, Women's history, sociology, etc. etc. They have no vested interest in painting a particular picture of MT. The criticism is on page two of their site. It reads in part:
Quote:
With international recognition also came critique. Some people complained that the houses for the sick and dying were not sanitary, that those treating the sick were not properly trained in medicine, that Mother Teresa was more interested in helping the dying go to God than in potentially helping cure them. Others claimed that she helped people just so she could convert them to Christianity.
The strange thing is, there is absolute proof that she did not try to convert them to Christianity. She openly spoke of "many roads" to God without ever suggesting the RCC was the best route. She felt Hinduism was equally a road to God. It gained her many christian enemies:
Quote:
If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are. ... What God is in your mind you must accept.
As an example of the vitriol aimed at her by others claiming to be christian, look at this quote coming just a few months before her death:
Quote:
Many praise her for her good works and use her as an example of a model Christian [this is not good because she was not saved]. You will see from the following quotes that Mother Theresa believes that Jesus is a piece of bread and that the Catholic "Mary" is leading her to Jesus [this is not good]. Mother Theresa is NOT SAVED and Jesus said that when the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. She is on her way to hell, taking others with her and I hope she is converted before it is too. late.
http://jesus-is-lord.com/mothther.htm
The site spends a lot of time stating MT is a liar. With this kind of diatribe from "christians" it makes me suspect even of honest criticism of her. Protestant right wing religionists had her in their sights, and may well have played up many of those criticisms.
MT, herself, recognized how little her work was really accomplishing in the midst of huge poverty:
Quote:
“We know only too well that what we are doing is nothing more than a drop in the ocean. But if the drop were not there, the ocean would be missing something.â€
And her medical clinics did not always receive daily scrubbing down. In some cases it was monthly due to a lack of cleaning supplies and training of those volunteers that turned over all too frequently.
I have discovered that some of the criticism aimed at Mother Theresa are actually aimed at some of her institutions TODAY. She's been dead for 18 years!! Here is a 2014 article from New Internationalist Magazine by someone who did go to India and worked in one of her houses. I can't provide a quote from it, so people who want will have to click on the site:Mother Teresa's troubled legacy -- New Internationalist
It's hard for me to understand how this criticism could be leveled at the founder. In seventeen years much may have changed. But it is true that the sisters tried to be sanitary using rudimentary appliances and procedures because they feel it is their duty to live in poverty themselves.
So, the question remains, why were unsterilized needles used, when there were millions raised that could have purchased them?
Why don't you tell us?
I mean surely you read the paper YOU keep referencing as evidence. Correct? If you didn't, and are using what you think it might have said based on two cherry-picked paragraphs and a lot of Cliffs Notes summarizing by some author looking to make a few bucks for his publication, that would just be, well...ridiculous. So...what was the context in which this happened? Where did the money that was supposed to go toward sterile needles go instead? What was the follow-up to MT flippantly and happily stabbing sick people with dirty needles, once she was questioned and gave her already-flippant answer? Because surely there was a follow-up question to such an absolutely shocking comment?
Please let us know what the context was, where the money went and other supporting information as we really can't tell you...we pretty much thought, with all your knowledge of the subject (and with you doing the accusing and therefore having the burden of proof), you'd tell us.
Really, the question that remains isn't the quote above. The question that remains is, where's your proof of your statements? Once we have that, this discussion will be a lot clearer and we can move forward with it. Thanks in advance for your help.
I believe you have to leave the church because of it basic principals and values in order to see a different point-of-view of MT.
I don't, because otherwise I'd think it would work the opposite way as well - and I, who have never been part of a church, see this as: MT thought she was doing what was best, and was not a sadist (or "a witch," LOL, still laughing about that one). So, being apparently enlightened as I am not tethered to a church, I should be taking a very cupper stance, right?
Now...I do disagree with certain things she did/believed in. For example, I'm pro-choice and always will be. That doesn't mean I can't see where MT's heart appeared to be coming from...for a scam, it sure would have been one loooooooooong (decades long), brutal (living among the poorest of the poor and the sickest of the sick), overall thankless job...I just can't see what was "in it for her" and still haven't really seen much theorizing as to why she would have perpetuated a "scam" personally (rather than naively just allowing the church to do over and do as they wished with these large sums of money). Now if we had candid photos of MT and Elton John on a lear jet sipping champagne and comparing their new Mackey outfits that would be one thing. I did see a reference that she built more missions with much of the money - well duh, that's a Christian ideal, spreading the word et. al. I mean...no shyte. I mean I don't agree with the whole "keep spreading the word" thing myself (another thing I disagree with the RCC on, and other denominations on) but that doesn't mean I believe pure evil went into such a decision, I mean give me a break. Show me some proof of evil motives and then we may have a conversation going there...
Getting back to the point...I know many, many, many people who, though they don't believe MT was perfect (who believes that? I doubt anyone does), do think she's an example of someone who truly did give her entire life to one goal and that goal was, ultimately, humanitarian - and by far these are not only Catholics. They're not even all Christians. However, at the same time I notice they don't have to have left their churches in order to believe MT was fallible and screwed up at times. Who isn't fallible and who doesn't screw up?
... for a scam, it sure would have been one loooooooooong (decades long), brutal (living among the poorest of the poor and the sickest of the sick), overall thankless job...I just can't see what was "in it for her" and still haven't really seen much theorizing as to why she would have perpetuated a "scam" personally (rather than naively just allowing the church to do over and do as they wished with these large sums of money).
I don't think anyone argues that MT did not live consistently with her misguided belief that suffering is a calling and a virtue. That meant BOTH living in abject poverty conditions like the people ministered to, AND denying them "mere" physical comforts or rescue attempts in favor of emotional support. I'm sure that at first it was a moot point: money and respect for what they were doing were both scarce. Later, it seems to have become a point of doctrine and a matter of outright resistance -- both because of the "suffering is ennobling" trope and because of a fear that becoming mainstream and accepting mainstream methods would undermine their spirituality (in my view she was actually right about this, but wrong in judging it a bad thing).
What should have happened in an effective and truly compassionate ministry was that both the sisters and their charges would be gradually raised out of poverty and want instead of worshipping it as a state of virtue. It could have been a testimony to the triumph of the human spirit over poverty and disease. Instead it was a testimony to the doctrine that the human spirit benefits from poverty and disease. What MT was giving to poor sick people wasn't the meeting of needs, the providing of means, or the conveyance of health; it was simply dignifying the suffering ITSELF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
Who isn't fallible and who doesn't screw up?
Who indeed? It isn't so much that everyone screws up, as that much of society is willing to overlook close to 100% of some folk's screw ups.
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.
Correct? If you didn't, and are using what you think it might have said based on two cherry-picked paragraphs and a lot of Cliffs Notes summarizing by some author looking to make a few bucks for his publication, that would just be, well...ridiculous. So...what was the context in which this happened? Where did the money that was supposed to go toward sterile needles go instead? What was the follow-up to MT flippantly and happily stabbing sick people with dirty needles, once she was questioned and gave her already-flippant answer? Because surely there was a follow-up question to such an absolutely shocking comment?
I should be taking a very cupper stance, right? 
