Was Mother Teresa not so saintly after all?

catallus

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

It's not a opinion. It's what families we met over in Calcutta told us.

I have no reason to doubt them.

Well that's fair enough, but I don't have a reason to trust them.

omega666

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

People are missing the point. When people went to her organisation to look for help they thought they would be saved. They were not.

If you have to bring loved one to hospital as they could die and Doctor says "sorry my belief is that they should die as this is what God wants" then I wonder what certain people reaction would be then.

It's no fun and games when its **** on your doorstep.

You do realise the people they helped were sick and dying lepers, homeless
children, handicapped people etc. People shunned by society, thier own family, left with nobody to die alone.

This isnt like the family dropped them down with a new set of PJ's
and a bunch of grapes and telling the nurses to take care of Johnny there.

omega666

Seachmall wrote: »

Without reading the study we can't find out why they're publishing, but typically journals don't publish without something new being added to the discussion.


Although I've never heard of the Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses journal, but it's published by Sage which is a fairly respected publisher.

Well you would think if there's something big and new in the study then all the papers reporting the story would have mentioned something about it.

Seachmall

omega666 wrote: »

Well you would think if there's something big and new in the study then all the papers reporting the story would have mentioned something about it.

All the papers have is what was given to them (probably the abstract).

We won't know what's in it until it's published.

The_Kew_Tour

omega666 wrote: »

You do realise the people they helped were sick and dying lepers, homeless
children, handicapped people etc. People shunned by society, thier own family, left with nobody to die alone.

This isnt like the family dropped them down with a new set of PJ's
and a bunch of grapes and telling the nurses to take care of Johnny there.

Oh so they were able to spend there last days in the hands of Nuns happy to see them die and onto another world in their belief.

catallus

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Oh so they were able to spend there last days in the hands of Nuns happy to see them die and onto another world in their belief.

Maybe that's all the hope they had.

Life is cruel.

Seachmall

catallus wrote: »

Maybe that's all the hope they had.

Life is cruel.

It's less cruel with painkillers.

The_Kew_Tour

catallus wrote: »

Maybe that's all the hope they had.

Life is cruel.

I agree it can be.

But everyone has a right for the best possible chance to live too especially if the medical care is right at people's disposal.

omega666

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Oh so they were able to spend there last days in the hands of Nuns happy to see them die and onto another world in their belief.

Primary health care is not what Mother Teresa’s order was founded to do. They were setup to provide solace to the very many poor patients who would otherwise die alone.

Furious_George

Sometimes a thread comes along that just.......You all make me sick, or maybe its the bourbon. Either way ive had enough of the bickering, internet tough guys, sarcastic baxtards, high horse riding idiots, militany athiests and just general bottom dwelling scum suckers that reside on boards. Im outa here. Account closed.....and dont worry i wont let the door hit me on the way out. Btw I have been Furious.

catallus

Seachmall wrote: »

It's less cruel with painkillers.

This is what gets to me; the willingness to believe anything derogatory against someone who did so much good. And to regurgitate it without knowing the facts or context of the circumstances. One cannot believe crap on the net, without backup.

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

I agree it can be.

But everyone has a right for the best possible chance to live too especially if the medical care is right at people's disposal.

And a lot of people here call her evil because she didn't euthanise hopeless cases. And yet some say she was evil because she didn't abort pregnancies.

It's a bad, ill-formed and ill-informed argument; granted it's what I'm reading into the thread but all I'm seeing is unrestrained hatred against a charitable woman and what worries me is what will this hatred be aimed against next.

PopePalpatine

Numerous posters here have cited the example of the 15-year-old who went to one of Mother Teresa's "homes for the dying" with a mere kidney complaint that would have been easily cured. Instead, he was left to languish for days before succumbing to his illness.

Let's remember what this woman said:

The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering.

Asking someone to see the beauty in their own pain doesn't seem to provide much solace, methinks.

mcmoustache

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

People are missing the point. When people went to her organisation to look for help they thought they would be saved. They were not.

Oh, but at least their souls were saved.

And isn't that the most important thing?


Sorry, it's hard to take this thread seriously anymore.

catallus

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Numerous posters here have cited the example of the 15-year-old who went to one of Mother Teresa's "homes for the dying" with a mere kidney complaint that would have been easily cured. Instead, he was left to languish for days before succumbing to his illness.

Let's remember what this woman said:

Asking someone to see the beauty in their own pain doesn't seem to provide much solace, methinks.

PopePalatine; why didn't she go to a hospital?

Because they wouldn't admit her that's why.

So yes, there is beauty in pain when there is no hope, and there is nobility in the human being in living beyond tolerance.

Maybe you'd be happier if they shot her, like a horse.

PopePalpatine

catallus wrote: »

PopePalatine; why didn't she go to a hospital?

Because they wouldn't admit her that's why.

[...]

Maybe you'd be happier if they shot her, like a horse.

First of all - any sources to back up your first statement?

Secondly, I'd be happier if they cured the disease she was suffering from. This teenager was suffering from a cureable disease, and they died anyway.

catallus

PopePalpatine wrote: »

First of all - any sources to back up your first statement?

Secondly, I'd be happier if they cured the disease she was suffering from. This teenager was suffering from a cureable disease, and they died anyway.

Go get your own sources, you have a computer. Just google "caste hospital india" knock yourself out.

Secondly? Do you have any idea of the environment the charity work was being done in? If they had access to cures, they cured.

The naivety of some posters in this thread is worrying.

Seachmall

catallus wrote: »

Maybe you'd be happier if they shot her, like a horse.

I think his point is exactly the opposite: that she should have provided the appropriate levels of care at her disposal.

Instead she apparently chose to leave them suffer in the hopes it would bring them closer to God.

That's delusional and not the actions of someone I'd describe as caring.

If they had access to cures, they cured.

That idea is exactly what is being discussed. Reports, new and old, suggest it's untrue.

omega666

catallus wrote: »

Go get your own sources, you have a computer. Just google "caste hospital india" knock yourself out.

Secondly? Do you have any idea of the environment the charity work was being done in? If they had access to cures, they cured.

The naivety of some posters in this thread is worrying.

Your wasting your time arguing and this is going round in circles.
At the end of the day MT will stay as one of the greatest humanitarians
in history.

catallus

The care at her disposal was limited; society and the law forbade the regular doctors and hospitals from treating those patients.

Many of the people who used her charity were abandoned children, mostly girls.

I know charity is a dirty word for a lot of people but it is a virtue. A lot of people were given a longer life and more hope through the good deeds this woman oversaw.

But, hey, some journalist says her accounts were wrong.

So fúck the bitch.

Muslims next.

PopePalpatine

I'll leave you all with this review of Hitchens' "The Missionary Position" before I head off to bed.

Before discussing Hitchens' book and Mother Teresa I would just briefly mention that I have spent most of my own life working in hospices, hospitals, and nursing homes, and often for no money. I say this not because I think it makes me any better than the next guy, but only because I want to pre-empt at the outset one criticism that has appeared in many other reviews: "When you spend one day working with these poor people, then maybe you can criticize Mother Teresa." Such concerns are beside the point. The issue should not be the reviewer; it is Mother Teresa and her work.

I've read the many negative reviews of Hitchens' book, and virtually all the reviewers suffer from at least one of two flaws:

1. They focus on limited, insignificant parts of the book, overlooking the most devastating material. This suggests they either have not read that material or do not care about it.

2. They attack Hitchens the man instead of what he says and the evidence he presents. This "shooting the messenger" is known as arguing "ad hominem" and accomplishes nothing beyond gratifying the reviewer's pique. (This includes an astoundingly ignorant review by William Donohue of the Catholic League, who spends so much of it attacking Hitchens' character that one wonders whether he paid any attention to what Hitchens actually wrote.)

So in taking a closer look at what Hitchens did write, let us not be deterred by the fear of attacking an icon. Let us rather be motivated by what Mother Teresa herself claimed was her dearest concern, the compassionate care of those who are poor, those who are disabled, those who are sick or dying or in great pain.

If these are our concerns, then the evidence Hitchens presents is damning. Much of it comes from people who worked for Mother Teresa and can be independently verified. Personal attacks on Hitchens or his religious views cannot in any way negate this evidence.

One key witness is Susan Shields, who wrote about her experience in Free Inquiry Magazine (Vol. 18 no. 1, Winter 1997/1998). Shields was a sister in the Missionaries of Charity. She lived with them in the Bronx, Rome, and San Francisco. According to Shields, the philosophy that guided the Missionary Sisters both considered suffering a virtue and strongly discouraged attachments of any kind to the people served. The inevitable result of this combination was an indifference to human suffering. If suffering is good, and if feeling emotional responses toward the patients is bad, then any uncomfortable emotions that may arise from witnessing their suffering must be quickly switched off. This makes true compassion difficult if not impossible.

The Missionary Sisters were not bad people. Most of them meant well. They tried their best to be obedient, and did not know that the great bulk of donations their order received remained hidden unused in Mother's bank accounts. Shields knows this because one of her assigned tasks was recording those donations. "We wrote receipts for checks of $50,000 and more on a regular basis," she reports.

Since poverty was also considered a virtue, little of that money could be spent either on the order or on the patients. As Shields tells us: "Mother was very concerned that we preserve our spirit of poverty. Spending money would destroy that poverty. She seemed obsessed with using only the simplest of means for our work. Was this in the best interests of the people we were trying to help, or were we in fact using them as a tool to advance our own `sanctity?' In Haiti, to keep the spirit of poverty, the sisters reused needles until they became blunt. Seeing the pain caused by the blunt needles, some of the volunteers offered to procure more needles, but the sisters refused."

Hitchens quotes parts of Shields' unpublished manuscript, but her article in Free Inquiry may easily be found online and is worth reading in full.

Another eyewitness Hitchens quotes is Dr. Robin Fox, who in 1994 was editor of The Lancet and who reported his findings in that journal in an article entitled "Mother Theresa's Care for the Dying" (September 17, 1994). While noting that the residents of the home were at least well fed, Fox nevertheless observes that their medical care was inadequate. He calls it "haphazard," refusing to permit normal diagnostic procedures like blood films because such practices "tend toward materialism." He concludes:

"I was disturbed to learn that the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Theresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer."

Hitchens points out that this state of affairs at the Home for the Dying cannot be excused by any plea of poverty. Mother Teresa had at her disposal "immense quantities of money and material." The home was as it was because it reflected Mother Teresa's philosophy of suffering and the poor.

Dr. Fox's account is supplemented by the observations of Mary Loudon, a volunteer at the Home of the Dying whose testimony Hitchens obtained. In Loudon's words,

"This is two rooms with fifty to sixty men in one, fifty to sixty women in another. They're dying. They're not being given a great deal of medical care. They're not being given painkillers really beyond aspirin and maybe if you're lucky some Brufen [ibuprofen] or something, for the sort of pain that goes with terminal cancer and the things they were dying of."

I have years of experience working in hospice. Cancer pain can be unimaginable, and considerable intravenous morphine infusions are often scarcely enough to contain it. But if you have cancer in Mother Teresa's home, you'll get aspirin for your pain or maybe Advil if you're lucky.

Loudon goes on to observe that needles were reused continually and not sterilized but only rinsed at the cold water tap - another false show of poverty at the expense of the residents' well being.

Mother Teresa apparently considered pain sacred - as long as it happens to somebody else, and as long as that person is poor. Hitchens mentions (p. 41) a filmed interview in which Mother Teresa says with a smile what she told a patient suffering unbearable pain from terminal cancer: "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." The patient's response: "Then please tell him to stop kissing me."

It is supremely arrogant to tell someone in agony to be grateful for the blessing of pain while availing oneself of the best and most expensive hospitals in the West during one's own illnesses, as Mother Teresa did. Did Mother Teresa not wish to be kissed by Jesus too?

Another witness Hitchens quotes is author and journalist Elgy Gillespie, who spent time at Mother Teresa's San Francisco hostel for people with AIDS. She reports that the ones who were not too sick to care were extremely depressed because they were not permitted to watch TV or have friends come over, even when they were dying. She mentions one patient in particular who was able to escape the hostel for a while, because a caring friend of Gillespie's offered to take him in. When his illness worsened and this friend could no longer care for him, he begged her not to send him back to the hostel. He was afraid that at the hostel he would be denied necessary medication, including morphine for his pain.

How can one possibly excuse the willful denial of pain medication to people who are terminally ill, regardless of the theology behind it? How does one call somebody who does this a saint? Those who try to discredit Hitchens' book by attacking Hitchens personally are ethically irresponsible. They would also have to attack and discredit Susan Shields, Dr. Robin Fox, Mary Loudon, and Elgy Gillespie. So far to my knowledge, no one has.

Now why on earth would anyone withhold pain medication from people in intense pain, especially if one had millions to pay for such medication? Who can really discern another person's motives? One can only observe the obvious: there is no credit for helping the poor if they are not poor, the suffering if they are not suffering, and the disabled if they are independent. Mother Teresa made a great show of helping only the poor. In an interview with Malcolm Muggeridge she stated: "We cannot work for the rich; neither can we accept any money for the work we do. Ours has to be a free service, and to the poor" (p. 60). Another quote from Mother: "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" (p.11).

There you have it. Mother's theology glorifies suffering. Suffering is good. It is the kiss of Christ. The suffering of the poor helps the world. So one can be a saint only by helping the suffering poor. There is no saintliness in helping the non-suffering non-poor. So collect millions in the name of the suffering poor; just don't spend it on relieving their pain or restoring their dignity.

Nothing illustrates this attitude better than a bizarre incident that took place in New York in 1990. The city gave two buildings it had seized for back taxes to the Missionary Sisters for one dollar apiece. The sisters planned to convert them into a homeless shelter. But there was a wrinkle. The city required that the residence be accessible to people with disabilities, and so asked that the sisters install an elevator. Mother Teresa adamantly refused. She even rejected the city's offer to pay for the elevator (never mind that she could easily have afforded to pay for it herself). So the nuns abandoned the project.

What's so bad about an elevator? The nuns wanted the residents to experience the charity of people who would care for them in their poverty. "The sisters said that if anyone couldn't walk up the stairs, they'd carry them, just like they do in Calcutta," said Anne Emerman, director of the Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities, who opposed the nuns' request for a waiver from the city's handicapped access law.

Emerman was vilified in some quarters for her opposition to the great saint, but to the disabled community she was a hero. "We have different ideas here of personal dignity" she said. "Some people might not want to be carried."

Indeed, some disabled people might actually prefer to be independent and to have their independence respected. But promoting independence just doesn't have quite the same flash as service to the poor.

(Hitchens mentions this incident in a quote from Susan Shields on pp. 45-46, but full details can be found in these two articles: Associated Press, "Mother Teresa Group Gives Up NY Shelter Plan over Elevators" [Boston Globe, September 18, 1990], and Sam Roberts, "Fight City Hall? Nope, Not Even Mother Teresa" [New York Times, September 17, 1990].)

Now what if New York City had not offered to pay for an elevator? Could the Missionaries of Charity plead poverty as an excuse not to build it? Well they could, but it would hardly be credible. Mother Teresa ranked with the best in her ability to manipulate people's guilt to elicit funding. By all accounts she could be very persistent. In an article entitled "Mother Teresa: Where Are Her Millions?" which appeared in German's Stern magazine (September 10, 1998), Walter Wuellenweber notes several examples:

"For purchase or rent of property, the sisters do not need to touch their bank accounts. `Mother always said, we don't spend for that,' remembers Sunita Kumar, one the richest women in Calcutta and supposedly Mother T's closest associate outside the order. `If Mother needed a house, she went straight to the owner, whether it was the State or a private person, and worked on him for so long that she eventually got it free.'...

"Mother Teresa saw it as her God given right never to have to pay anyone for anything. Once she bought food for her nuns in London for GB £500. When she was told she'd have to pay at the till, the diminutive seemingly harmless nun showed her Balkan temper and shouted, `This is for the work of God!' She raged so loud and so long that eventually a businessman waiting in the queue paid up on her behalf."

So the question remains: If Mother Teresa was so good at raising funds and did in fact raise millions, why is there no money for clean needles in hospices? Where does the money go? As one man said after asking Mother for help in building housing for 4,000 of Calcutta's homeless and failing even to receive a response, "I don't understand why you educated people in the West have made this woman into such a goddess! I went to her place three times. She did not even listen to what I had to say. Everyone on earth knows that the sisters have a lot of money. But no one knows what they do with it!"

It seems no one can answer that question completely. But Wuellenweber continues:

"The fortune of this famous charitable organisation is controlled from Rome, - from an account at the Vatican bank. And what happens with monies at the Vatican Bank is so secret that even God is not allowed to know about it. One thing is sure however - Mother's outlets in poor countries do not benefit from largesse of the rich countries. The official biographer of Mother Teresa, Kathryn Spink, writes, `As soon as the sisters became established in a certain country, Mother normally withdrew all financial support.' Branches in very needy countries therefore only receive start-up assistance. Most of the money remains in the Vatican Bank."

Wherever the money did end up, most of it never went to the poor Mother Teresa was supposed to be serving. In her Free Inquiry article Susan Shields states: "The donations rolled in and were deposited in the bank, but they had no effect on our ascetic lives and very little effect on the lives of the poor we were trying to help." Reporter Donal MacIntyre, writing in the New Statesman (London; August 22, 2005), describes conditions in Mother Teresa's orphanage that were not only squalid but sometimes even cruel:

"I worked undercover for a week in Mother Teresa's flagship home for disabled boys and girls to record Mother Teresa's Legacy, a special report for Five News broadcast earlier this month. I winced at the rough handling by some of the full-time staff and Missionary sisters. I saw children with their mouths gagged open to be given medicine, their hands flaying in distress, visible testimony to the pain they were in. Tiny babies were bound with cloths at feeding time. Rough hands wrenched heads into position for feeding. Some of the children retched and coughed as rushed staff crammed food into their mouths. Boys and girls were abandoned on open toilets for up to 20 minutes at a time. Slumped, untended, some dribbling, some sleeping, they were a pathetic sight. Their treatment was an affront to their dignity, and dangerously unhygienic.

"Volunteers (from Italy, Sweden, the United States and the UK) did their best to cradle and wash the children who had soiled themselves. But there were no nappies, and only cold water. Soap and disinfectant were in short supply. Workers washed down beds with dirty water and dirty cloths. Food was prepared on the floor in the corridor. A senior member of staff mixed medicine with her hands. Some did their best to give love and affection - at least some of the time. But, for the most part, the care the children received was inept, unprofessional and, in some cases, rough and dangerous. `They seem to be warehousing people rather than caring for them,' commented the former operations director of Mencap Martin Gallagher, after viewing our undercover footage."

This is the best care that millions of charity dollars could afford? No money even for soap and diapers?

Mother Teresa's entire attitude towards money seems rather odd. Apparently it is virtuous to give, as long as the giving is to the Catholic Church (and never even reaches the poor) and regardless of how the funds given were obtained. Charles Keating, a sort of Bernie Madoff of the 80's, donated 1.25 million dollars to Mother Teresa in return for the respectability of being associated with her. When Keating was tried in 1992 Mother Teresa wrote to the court asking clemency for him. Hitchens reproduces her letter to the judge on p. 67. It it she says that Keating "has always been kind and generous to God's poor" and asks the judge "to do what Jesus would do."

One of the prosecutors wrote back to Mother Teresa explaining (just in case she did not know) that among those whom Keating defrauded may also be counted some of "the least of these" whom Mother claims to serve, including "a poor carpenter who did not speak English and had his life savings stolen by Mr. Keating's fraud" (p. 69). He continued: "No church, no charity, no organization should allow itself to be used as salve for the conscience of the criminal." He urged Mother Teresa to do the right thing: "Ask yourself what Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being exploited by a thief to ease his conscience? I submit that Jesus would promptly and unhesitatingly return the stolen property to its rightful owners. You should do the same. You have been given money by Mr. Keating that he has been convicted of stealing by fraud. Do not permit him the `indulgence' he desires. Do not keep the money. Return it to those who worked for it and earned it! If you contact me I will put you in direct contact with the rightful owners of the property now in your possession."

Mother Teresa never replied.

So what can we make of all this? It is a shame that whatever good Mother Teresa may have done has been tainted by her exploitation of the very same people she made a show of helping. Perhaps we need to choose our saints a little more carefully.

It is easy to find superficial fault with Hitchens' book. Its title, "The Missionary Position," is juvenile. Its citations are sloppy. And Hitchens is no expert in the Bible or theology, so sometimes he gets things wrong, as when he says (p. 29) that Jesus broke the box of costly ointment on his own feet. But Hitchens' antipathy towards religion in no way mitigates the testimony he presents from several eyewitnesses. The cynical use of the poor to promote either oneself or one's church only gives ammunition to those who already find religion loathsome.

"So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward" (Matthew 6:2).

I will end this lengthy review with a question: Should Mother Teresa be canonized?

That is for the Catholic Church to decide.

Seachmall

catallus wrote: »

But, hey, some journalist says her accounts were wrong.

You dismiss journalists and researchers who contradict your opinion but presumably your opinion is based on the writings of journalists too.

That doesn't sound objective.

catallus

Seachmall wrote: »

You dismiss journalists and researchers who contradict your opinion but presumably your opinion is based on the writings of journalists too.

That doesn't sound objective.

I never claimed to be objective; I think the amount of hate on this thread is worrying. I do my best to never believe what I read; but when you have to read so much you have to take a side; and an awful lot of this thread is reminding me of what Orwell called the "two minutes of hate".

So many people are deciding that this woman was a fraud and a charlatan.

From what I know of the woman I can't agree. Some people are so willing to come out with such hateful statements about her, it's just offensive, when you can so easily see the good she did for the down-trodden of India.

My own opinion is that some people look on such selfless charity and they cannot bear to look at it because they know they will never be able to allow themselves such charity; so they say it is evil, and they cast stones at the person who makes them feel such confusing shame.

And in this day and age, virtue must beg pardon from vice.

So we indulge our two minutes of hate. And after that, we go about our business with a clean conscience.

Seachmall

catallus wrote: »

I never claimed to be objective

If you're not claiming to be objective then why try to convince others that these reports, which are claiming to be objective and are based on first hand accounts, are wrong?

From what I know of the woman I can't agree.

It seems odd to believe in an objective truth whilst acknowledging it is not based on objectivity.

catallus

Seachmall wrote: »

If you're not claiming to be objective then why try to convince others that these reports, which are claiming to be objective and are based on first hand accounts, are wrong?

It seems odd to believe in an objective truth whilst acknowledging it is not based on objectivity.

I wish I could be as sure of the concept of objectivity as you claim to be.

Try some perspective; the world is a big place; it's bigger than your schoolboy interpretations of what charity and humanity should be.

Some people don't have access to doctors or work or water or tv or freedom.

Just because some people say stuff doesn't make it true.

That's what makes all this "truth" business so difficult.

Seachmall

catallus wrote: »

I wish I could be as sure of the concept of objectivity as you claim to be.

Try some perspective; the world is a big place; it's bigger than your schoolboy interpretations of what charity and humanity should be.

Some people don't have access to doctors or work or water or tv or freedom.

Just because some people say stuff doesn't make it true.

That's what makes all this "truth" business so difficult.

As someone who's volunteered in Africa and has first hand accounts of horrendous lifestyles and conditions I don't appreciate your condescending remarks.

catallus

Seachmall wrote: »

As someone who's volunteered in Africa and has first hand accounts of horrendous lifestyles and conditions I don't appreciate your condescending remarks.

Aw, did I hurt your feelings?

You see, your post is the last refuge of someone who has no argument.

Coming out with this nonsense, "I've been there".

You learned nothing about the suffering of the poor over there, obviously. It's the literal definition of the keyboard warrior.

Seachmall

catallus wrote: »

Aw, did I hurt your feelings?

You see, your post is the last refuge of someone who has no argument.

Actually all my arguments have been perfectly reasonable, yours however rapidly got weathered down to "IT'S MY OPINION, I NEVER SAID IT WAS OBJECTIVE!!1!1" and then proceeded to attack my character.

Solid reasoning there, champ.

Coming out with this nonsense, "I've been there".

You called my view of charity "schoolboy interpretations" while yours are of the armchair philosopher kind.

You learned nothing about the suffering of the poor over there, obviously. It's the literal definition of the keyboard warrior.

U mad?

I think u mad.

catallus

You think I'm so mad you edit my posts before you quote them.

And then you call me champ.

And you still can't bear to use the words charity and humanity.

Probably a bit of growing to be done there. It comes to us all.

Time will tell.

Seachmall

catallus wrote: »

You think I'm so mad you edit my posts before you quote them.

Out of curiosity, where did I do that?

And then you call me champ.

You are the champ.

catallus

Seachmall wrote: »

Out of curiosity, where did I do that?

You are the champ.

Post 323 was my post, you edited it and quoted it in post 324.

Seachmall wrote: »

Actually all my arguments have been perfectly reasonable, yours however rapidly got weathered down to "IT'S MY OPINION, I NEVER SAID IT WAS OBJECTIVE!!1!1" and then proceeded to attack my character.

Solid reasoning there, champ.

You called my view of charity "schoolboy interpretations" while yours are of the armchair philosopher kind.

U mad?

I think u mad.

I'm ignoring the other nonsense you're saying in your post here, but I never attacked your character.

Seachmall

catallus wrote: »

Post 323 was my post, you edited it and quoted it in post 324.

I edited out the points I wasn't addressing. The point you made, and it's context, remained intact in my quoting of it.

I'm ignoring the other nonsense you're saying in your post here, but I never attacked your character.

There first two lines weren't addressing any point I made, they were condescending and sarcastic remarks directed towards me personally.

catallus

For future reference, to maintain the context of the post for others, what you should do is quote the full post and bold the points you are addressing.

And if you are so sensitive as to detect condescension in a perfectly reasonable post then that's your problem, don't accuse me of getting personal. There was no sarcasm involved.

Seachmall

catallus wrote: »

For future reference, to maintain the context of the post for others, what you should do is quote the full post and bold the points you are addressing.

For future reference, that's not how it's normally done.

And if you are so sensitive as to detect condescension in a perfectly reasonable post then that's your problem, don't accuse me of getting personal. There was no sarcasm involved.

I'm super sensitive, I use it to fight crime.

catallus

Well, it's how I say it should be done!

I fight crime too! You can be my nemesis! it'll be fun!

Seachmall

catallus wrote: »

Well, it's how I say it should be done!

It fills the pages with dead text, if people want to read the whole quote they can click the button to jump to the quote.

I fight crime too! You can be my nemesis! it'll be fun!

I've far too many nemeses already. However I'll keep your application on record and if any vacancies come up I'll put you on a trial run.

catallus

That's ok Seachmall, I have a vacancy for a sidekick! You fit the bill. You start monday, bring a cape and a spoon.

See ya then!

joseph brand

catallus wrote: »

Well, it's how I say it should be done!

I fight crime too! You can be my nemesis! it'll be fun!

catallus wrote: »

From what I know of the woman I can't agree.

Please enlighten as to what you know.

catallus wrote: »

That's ok Seachmall, I have a vacancy for a sidekick! You fit the bill. You start monday, bring a cape and a spoon.

See ya then!

I hope your folks have parental control on that pc you're using.

joseph brand

Mother Teresa was an atheist.

In a new book that compiles letters she wrote to friends, superiors and confessors, her doubts are obvious.

Shortly after beginning work in Calcutta's slums, the spirit left Mother Teresa.

"Where is my faith?" she wrote. "Even deep down… there is nothing but emptiness and darkness... If there be God — please forgive me."

Eight years later, she was still looking to reclaim her lost faith.

"Such deep longing for God… Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal," she said.

As her fame increased, her faith refused to return. Her smile, she said, was a mask.

"What do I labor for?" she asked in one letter. "If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true."

Used by the Vatican to increase the number of 'believers' and turn a tidy profit.

seamus

catallus wrote: »

when you can so easily see the good she did for the down-trodden of India.

Then show us.

Figures, facts. How many hospitals did she open? How many patients were cured? What was the average spend on end-of-life care for a terminally ill patient? How much money was spent per annum improving the standard of care in her institutions?

What was the average nurse/patient interaction time in a hospital? How many patients per room, on average?

Simply opening homes and cramming sick people into them is not inherently "good".

catallus

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/presentation-speech.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionaries_of_Charity

The whole point of the work of the organisation she founded was to help those who had no other options.

India wasn't notable for helping the refugees, prostitutes, the mentally ill, sick children, abandoned children, lepers, people with AIDS, the aged, and convalescent. The people who came to the missionaries were abandoned by society.

I'll say it again; those people who are taking such delighted glee in the thoughtless castigation of a woman who dedicated her life to helping the helpless should take a look at themselves and their motives for their spiteful hatred.

Maybe some people like to believe that such abject and hopeless poverty doesn't exist. Maybe they can't conceive that there was and is a culture which abandoned unwanted children en-masse, leaving them to fend for themselves on the streets with no protection. Maybe they can't face the fact that doctors and hospitals refused to treat lepers or the mentally-ill or lower castes or the terminally ill poor.

The organisation she founded is currently active in 133 countries, and the mission is to help the poorest of the poor, the hopelessly ill, and those abandoned by society.

But hating people is easy; it takes hardly any effort to ignore the good that people do and to deride them for their perceived faults.
And it's all the easier to do it behind a keyboard. It's sickening to claim that she "relished" suffering when all she did was all she could do.

clairefontaine

catallus wrote: »

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/presentation-speech.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionaries_of_Charity

The whole point of the work of the organisation she founded was to help those who had no other options.

India wasn't notable for helping the refugees, prostitutes, the mentally ill, sick children, abandoned children, lepers, people with AIDS, the aged, and convalescent. The people who came to the missionaries were abandoned by society.

I'll say it again; those people who are taking such delighted glee in the thoughtless castigation of a woman who dedicated her life to helping the helpless should take a look at themselves and their motives for their spiteful hatred.

Maybe some people like to believe that such abject and hopeless poverty doesn't exist. Maybe they can't conceive that there was and is a culture which abandoned unwanted children en-masse, leaving them to fend for themselves on the streets with no protection. Maybe they can't face the fact that doctors and hospitals refused to treat lepers or the mentally-ill or lower castes or the terminally ill poor.

The organisation she founded is currently active in 133 countries, and the mission is to help the poorest of the poor, the hopelessly ill, and those abandoned by society.

But hating people is easy; it takes hardly any effort to ignore the good that people do and to deride them for their perceived faults.
And it's all the easier to do it behind a keyboard. It's sickening to claim that she "relished" suffering when all she did was all she could do.

You will note she did not die in one of those places herself.

She went to a California Clinic.

fishy fishy

otto_26 wrote: »

Mother Theresa has been honored all over the world for her great work from different countries... Do you know something all these countries don't about the work she did for the poor people of these individual countries?? besides a paragraph from a magazine? :rolleyes:

that means nothing - its a pr job. Happens all the time.

catallus

clairefontaine wrote: »

You will note she did not die in one of those places herself.

She went to a California Clinic.

Most sources I can see are citing Calcutta as being the place she died.

My name is URL

clairefontaine wrote: »

You will note she did not die in one of those places herself.

She went to a California Clinic.

That's just not true at all =/

She died in Calcutta, at the Missionaries of Charity headquarters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/5/newsid_2499000/2499693.stm

clairefontaine

My name is URL wrote: »

That's just not true at all =/

She died in Calcutta, at the Missionaries of Charity headquarters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/5/newsid_2499000/2499693.stm

She sought treatment in a California Clinic. I've also come across reports she flew to Switzerland for her own treatment. Yes, she died in Calcutta.

osarusan

catallus wrote: »

The whole point of the work of the organisation she founded was to help those who had no other options.

But it is increasingly clear that she didn't actually help those who had no other options. Or, her definition of 'help' is hugely at odds with any rational definition of help for the sick.

She knowingly let them die in pain, some with curable conditions, despite having the resrources to cure them or alleviate their pain, because she felt their pain and suffering brought them closer to God.

Does that qualify as helping them, in your opinion?

catallus

osarusan wrote: »

But it is increasingly clear that she didn't actually help those who had no other options. Or, her definition of 'help' is hugely at odds with any rational definition of help for the sick.

She knowingly let them die in pain, some with curable conditions, despite having the resrources to cure them or alleviate their pain, because she felt their pain and suffering brought them closer to God.

Does that qualify as helping them, in your opinion?

If this nonsense is repeated often enough it won't magically become the truth.

The work she and her missionaries carried out was the comforting of the abandoned when they were being actively ignored by those who could and should have treated them as human beings.

By twisting her words about suffering bringing them closer to god is distasteful at best.

And passing baleful judgment on the good deeds done when we have not got the slightest inkling of the suffering witnessed and alleviated by those missionaries is a sad indicator of the mindset of a lot of the people who have commented on this thread.

I suppose if it makes people more comfortable to kick against a person who dedicated their life to even trying to help out, then there isn't an awful lot more to be said.

Knasher

catallus wrote: »

The work she and her missionaries carried out was the comforting of the abandoned when they were being actively ignored by those who could and should have treated them as human beings.

She could and should have treated them as human beings. The allegations she didn't either come from people who visited her facilities, or actually worked in them. The allegations that she had the means to help come from people who collected money as part of her order.

catallus wrote: »

I suppose if it makes people more comfortable to kick against a person who dedicated their life to even trying to help out, then there isn't an awful lot more to be said.

I am very much of the opinion that nothing and nobody should be exempt from criticism. The view that something should be exempt is behind the worst abuses of that trust. It is what facilitated the abuse by the catholic church, it's what facilitates the abuse in theocratic states and communist states today. If the record stands behind her, then she is immune to criticism, she doesn't need to be exempt. Her charity could simply release the records of how much money they received in donations and how they spent it. There is a huge difference between a charity that does as much as it can because it lacks the means to do more, and a charity that chooses not to do more because it believes in the nobility of suffering. By any view of the allegations, her charity was the latter, simply a caricature of charity, which included working with those in need but forgoes the desire to do so for the betterment of the lives of the people she claimed to be helping.

However I suspect the reason people believe she should be exempt from criticism, is because they don't want to accept that she mightn't be immune.

otto_26

Seachmall wrote: »

On the basis that it is a study being published by, presumably, unbiased researchers and is being reported on by a wide variety of unbiased and respected newspapers and websites.


Now, we have not read the study and even if we had we're not exactly in a position to critically and intelligently analyse it so scepticism is fine and even recommended however scepticism is not what you're showing.


Your statement that you don't believe the claims to be credible despite not having read the study is not maintaing objectivity. It's an absolute refusal to accept new information that contradicts your preconceptions.


If that's not the case then I ask again:

On what basis?




And I'm not claiming it's true, I'm asking why you seem to reject the possibility without even reading the study.

Your talking about an individual study... I've read plenty others what's your point?

otto_26

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

not saying much for you then:D

I leave you alone now seems like you're seething.

Not at all find it all rather funny!

poor you..

better luck next time..