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.
The first is just a re-post of the original link that only described, but did not deliver the abstract. The second is the abstract itself and I am trying to access it but I need a login...need to figure that out and will have a look. The remaining links are, again, articles, written to sell; not actual data. But if I can access the actual abstract then we'll be getting somewhere.
Yes, I agree with the consensus and it doesn't conflict with my own thoughts (except for the capability of building a better hospital but not doing so; I still am not seeing actual support for that - not saying it never happened, just that I still see no proof of it) - which, as I've said before, are that she did some things wrong and had her own ultra-conservative views (not really surprisingly) and that she also did a lot right - actually reaching out and touching and dealing with people nobody else would go near. People the rest of the world were, overall, ignoring entirely.
So, still don't see a conflict.
Thanks once again for the links. As you state above, the best that have been come up with are still only estimates. And I still am not seeing support for MT having actual control of the monies coming in or even personal full knowledge of what all that entailed. But at least there is something more concrete here (the abstract, if I can access it, and of course, depending upon how above-board their methods were, etc.). Still not enough, IMO, to constitute "a witch" or "a scam" organized and executed personally by MT, but enough to say that this woman had her own super-religious views...again, not surprisingly.
Don't know about the abstract. I'd spring for the $30 just out of curiosity and share it with all but I suspect it's in French which might be a problem.
Here's a french-language review by someone who actually read the paper though, and while they are no fan of MT, they judge that the paper is moral / ethical opinion, not science.
An extract from Google Translate, gender difficulties and all:
Quote:
The "suspicious dating" Mother Teresa also listed on the indictment by the researchers. Religious, it is a known fact, received for his work, donations of Reagan, Castro, Duvalier, Hoxha and some dubious businessmen. Is this good or bad? Is it better to use dirty money to do good or do without? The moral dilemma.
So while conceding this is a review of available facts it ends up expressing opinions and moral judgments. I think the opinions and moral judgments are compelling, you might not.
Here are a couple more links I ran across, the 2nd is one of the sources for the 1st and I think is a first hand account of conditions at MT's facility that can be relied on -- it describes the terrible conditions and the lack of anesthetics justified by religious ideation.
At a minimum, this is a "where there's smoke there's fire" kinda thing.
From the second link:
"But their reports have not been enough to spur public action: awareness can only go so far against the idea of the consecrated. It is only by removing the concept of inviolability that we will be able to face the objective truth of abuse and neglect."
I don't know what really motivated her nor do you but while she did what she had to do to maintain her legendary status, as cupper points out she granted herself the pain killers and sanitation that she denied those she warehoused.
I have said before that I won't paint her as a cynical manipulator and money grubber, in fact I will grant that she was a victim of a terrible belief-system that used her as much as she (wittingly or unwittingly) used those in her charge. It's a twisted funhouse hall of mirrors that glorifies human suffering as ennobling and admirable and assigns suffering to some people as their lot in life. I will grant that MT suffered in her way too ... denied the presence and comfort of her own god for most of her life as a nun, and tormented about it. But that doesn't change the 93% of the money she got did not go to the poor she was supposedly serving, and it did not change that her objective inherently was not and could not be the eradication of suffering -- simply the facilitating of suffering with a lick and a promise of mercy. It's nice for someone to hold your hand while you die in filth and squalor, but nicer still if they clean you up, give you proper treatment and palliative care, and provide you with some form of hope.
Your thoughts would be more respectable if you had a solid "follow the money" link. Until then, I'll give her the benefit of doubt.
You also are unable to explain why the tens of thousands of Hindus loved her passionately while she "cheated" them.
Was she a "saint?" Not in my book. Nobody is--and I mean nobody. Want to know if a child is abused? Try asking the child if he/she wants to be around the one who abused them. Her "children" adored her. The Hindu government official who was with her for 23 years (how long were those critics walking in her shadow?--Never) states she was genuinely concerned for the people in her adopted nation. Yet you chose as factual a bunch of reports of people who didn't reside with her or follow her through the streets.
For my money, mordant, you are the one choosing to accept as fact the same kind of story that Pat Robertson is fond of making up.
What purpose does it serve now to denigrate her? How is your life, my life, or that of anybody else better served?
My wife traces her lineage to one David Crockett of Alamo fame. The stories around him are certainly embellished--and there were times in war where he was truly a murdering bastard, but that doesn't mean the overall picture is polluted.
Like all human beings MT was flawed. But you and cupper have an expectation of her that she be a financial guru, a top administrative manager, a superb supervisor, and a licensed physician---all things you mistakenly believe should be prevalent in "sainthood" status.
I think she was a good woman who tried to help those she found. Sometimes it probably went well and sometimes not so much. She was actually living in a status of poverty herself regardless of the amount of money received in the last quarter of her life--it certainly wasn't there before that.
There are plenty of "christians" living now to point fingers at--more than a few who seek to cash in on Jesus. I'm quite happy to get on that bandwagon. But this woman lived most of her life in Calcutta for God's sake--not a lap of luxury. You might want to watch "Slumdog Millionaire" to get an idea of how the majority of people in India live. She certainly knew first hand. Mother Theresa was not a woman of unshakable faith. She was racked with doubt. Anyone trying to serve God honestly always is. But they continue trying to the best of their abilities.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by kab0906
From the second link:
"But their reports have not been enough to spur public action: awareness can only go so far against the idea of the consecrated. It is only by removing the concept of inviolability that we will be able to face the objective truth of abuse and neglect."
And I think that is the point of this thread.
Thanks, Mordant
You have nailed it.
The PR machine has virtually deified mother Teresa, to the point that if anyone dare points out that there are issues and that many questions of het ethical behavior exist, those people are castigated.
The PR machine has virtually deified mother Teresa, to the point that if anyone dare points out that there are issues and that many questions of het ethical behavior exist, those people are castigated.
You sound exactly like the Christian fundamentalists on this forum. They complain about being castigated for saying unpopular things too. They too like to paint themselves as being the brave people who "dare" to point things out. Especially the followers of the aptly-named Slick. You aren't becoming a fan of the aptly-named Slick are you cupper? Because you're sounding like one.
Right down to complaining about the Catholic Church.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 12-21-2015 at 06:55 PM..
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn
You sound exactly like the Christian fundamentalists on this forum. They complain about being castigated for saying unpopular things too. They too like to paint themselves as being the brave people who "dare" to point things out. Especially the followers of the aptly-named Slick. You aren't becoming a fan of the aptly-named Slick are you cupper? Because you're sounding like one.
Right down to complaining about the Catholic Church.
The difference is that I am pointing out facts. Not myths. You're all welcome to have your own beliefs, you're not welcome to have your own facts.
You sound exactly like the Christian fundamentalists on this forum. They complain about being castigated for saying unpopular things too. They too like to paint themselves as being the brave people who "dare" to point things out. Especially the followers of the aptly-named Slick. You aren't becoming a fan of the aptly-named Slick are you cupper? Because you're sounding like one.
Right down to complaining about the Catholic Church.
OMG...that is EXACTLY what I was going to say.
Not so well as you did...but it was what I was going to say.
It's like some sort of weird role reversal on this thread. Without actual evidence (or even having read the "evidence" one has supplied), a judgment is made. That's based on "facts"...which once again...haven't actually been supported...since nobody's actually READ (their own?? Um...) "evidence" yet...these being in French and for pay and all.
When cornered to back up one's own evidence, it is now, "We're being oppressed..."
I think we've done a spin into the Twilight Zone here on C-D R&S...
The difference is that I am pointing out facts. Not myths. You're all welcome to have your own beliefs, you're not welcome to have your own facts.
You haven't pointed out "facts." The Hindu official who traveled with her for 23 years has pointed out facts because she was with her.
What you've done, cupper, is fallen into a Eusebius type argument similar to his about God creating earth in six days. Your argument may have a touch of reality to it, but it is a long way from describing the woman as a "nun from hell." There are many Catholics who would tell you all the nuns from hell were assigned to Catholic schools.
From the constant flow of threads you start, it appears there is something going on deep inside you--almost as if you are afraid some christian will be everything they claim or that is claimed about them.
I've never swallowed overly devoted christian evangelists on TV. I'm not a great defender of the kind of christianity bought into by people wishing to practice bigotry or wave guns around in the name of Jesus. It is repulsive. At the same time, I'm willing to give a nod to those who aren't afraid to live in poverty themselves and who attempt, even in flawed manner, to do the work of Jesus with regard to the poor and disenfranchised.
I ask you the same thing I did mordant. Why do the Hindus she "exploited" according to your "reliable" source love her so much. Why was it Hindus that first honored her with recognition and awards--not western civilization. Oppressed people have a habit of standing up and telling the truth when the oppression is lifted.
Your claim is simply reminiscent of someone NOT accepting the facts rather than exposing them. And don't think for a moment I believe she was an angel from heaven. She was a flawed human who did what she felt was her very best. But then, from your many original posts, I think you simply believe that ANY christian accomplishing good in the world somehow denigrates your own lack of belief. Frankly, that is between you and God, or you and your inner self.
I'm not going to offer more on MT. She's dead now. But you are alive, but apparently not that well deep inside. That's what bothers me.
This thread has exposed more of who you are than it has about Mother Theresa, and I'm very sorry to see that coming from an otherwise sharp person.
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.
