nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Was Mother Teresa not so saintly after all?

davet82

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia-pacific/dubious-care-of-the-sick-questionable-politics-and-suspicious-financial-dealings-researchers-claim-mother-teresa-was-not-so-saintly-after-all-29107530.html

Researchers are calling into question the saintly image of Mother Teresa after carrying out research into her life.

Born Agnes Gonxha in Albania, she founded the Missionaries of Charity and spent much of her life in Calcutta, caring for the sick and poor.

But a number of critics have questioned how much of the image is justified.

These included 'her rather dubious way of caring for the sick, 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.'

At the time of her death, Mother Teresa had opened 517 missions welcoming the poor and sick in more than 100 countries.
But these missions have been described as 'homes for the dying' by doctors visiting several of these establishments in Calcutta.

Doctors observed a significant lack of hygiene, even unfit conditions, as well as a shortage of actual care, inadequate food, and no painkillers.

But the authors say the problem is not a lack of money, as the foundation created by Mother Teresa has raised hundred of millions of pounds.

Quite surprised at this if it turns out to be true (another scandel the catholic church could do without) , I do not believe in saints but I always believed she was a good person and would be really disappointed if these allegations are true...

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Gbear

Sandwlch wrote: »

From 1994:

From the guy in the read dress about 90 seconds in - Hand Waving level: Irish Catholic Clergyman

The_Kew_Tour

My name is URL wrote: »

She still done far more to help people than most world leaders were doing at the time. I doubt many of the children she evacuated from an under siege Beirut would say today that they would have been better off without her help.

Help people??

By letting them suffer?

Duggy747

Her idea was the more people suffered the closer they were to man himself, thus many were refused simple medication for their often curable ailments which left them to die slow and painfully.

jaja321

Gbear wrote: »

That's in keeping with standard Catholic doctrine though. What would you expect her to have believed? That's a reason to beat the Catholic church (that's done occasionally on AH, isn't it?:p) rather than MT per se.

Her obsession with suffering was the truly sick part and what set her apart as one of the more odious individuals of the recent past.

Not wishing to beat anyone with anything. Just making a point. If you're going to work on issues around poverty then surely you have to open your eyes to the root causes of poverty. Trocaire manage to do it and they are a catholic organisation - and they do it by working with partners.

Knasher

She was a horrible person who believed that poverty and suffering were ways of showing love for her god, something she openly attested to. The people she "helped" were allowed to suffer and die, often needlessly, in order to fulfill this view. The people under her care were given a hopelessly substandard level of care, and forbidden to be seen by family or friends, meanwhile she was raising millions using their suffering, which she used to set up churches and convents in her name.

There are tons of articles out there by people who volunteered for her at various levels and left disgusted by what they saw. From former nuns who were collected millions, yet still being able to see how little was actually being spent on the sick. Or accounts of them turning down some charity, such as donations of needles, when the ones they were reusing were blunt enough to be causing pain to the people they were used on. It is also well documented how, in line with her catholic ethos, she was completely apposed to any type of contraception being given to the women of calcutta, even though anyone one could tell you of the obvious correlation between high birth rates and poverty.

The only thing good about her, was her obvious skill at promoting herself.

crockholm

And hitchens contribution to helping the poor? Buying whisky from kilmarnock and keeping poor caledonians in work.

There's no way she is a saint,people aren't like that, but jeez the hatchet jobs some people do, should India kick out the nuns? would that be ok?
A flawed person,who has been more of a positive than a negative

seamus

crockholm wrote: »

A flawed person,who has been more of a positive than a negative

In what way?

ejmaztec

I don't know much about her, but would the people in her "care" have faired any better without her organisation?

My name is URL

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Help people??

By letting them suffer?

Like they weren't suffering already? In the case of people stricken with leprosy; before Mother Teresa set up missionaries in certain areas; those people were basically driven out of and ostracised by their communities, abandoned by their governments and left to quite literally rot alone.

I'm not saying that how she and her mission went about things was the best possible way of improving people's lives but I think it's a stretch to say that she was in fact evil. She done more to help (at least what she saw as helping) people than most others were doing at the time.. that's a sad fact.

krudler

ejmaztec wrote: »

I don't know much about her, but would the people in her "care" have faired any better without her organisation?

Yes? her views on women's rights and abortion were archaic, she denied painkillers to people as their suffering was divine etc. She truly believed that living a pain filled life was the way to god, and that poverty was a blessing, horrible person.

Gbear

jaja321 wrote: »

Not wishing to beat anyone with anything. Just making a point. If you're going to work on issues around poverty then surely you have to open your eyes to the root causes of poverty. Trocaire manage to do it and they are a catholic organisation - and they do it by working with partners.

Definitely - but logic isn't a factor in these cases. I was just pointing out that current doctrine is anti-family planning so it's not at odds with that.

While the reveling in suffering isn't totally at odds with Catholicism either - suffering bringing you closer to god is a pretty well established part of Catholicism - it's still less common and isn't a stated policy to the same degree. That took a degree of crazy initiative on her part, I think - dialing back thinking hundreds of years.

The Barefoot Pizza Thief

Hitchens was a cunt of the highest order and his little docu on Mother Theresa is one of the greatest pieces of evidence of that.

He says:

"Mother Theresa's cult of death and suffering depends for it's effect on the most vulnerable and helpless: abandoned babies say, or the terminally ill, who supply the occasions for charity and the raw material for demonstrations of compassion."

It's ironic that atheists who seem to hate the notion of religion and spirituality, speak of Hitchens as if he himself were a saint.

As for the woman in the docu speaking about the boy with the kidney disorder who said: "Just put him in a cab and force the hospital to treat him" and was told that they wouldn't, how the hell is that Mother Theresa's fault exactly? What an idiot. It was well known that in Calcutta hospitals did not treat the poor, hence the need for what Mother Theresa was attempting, all be it, ineffectively. It wasn't until 2010 that a hospital opened there for the poor in fact:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100405/jsp/calcutta/story_12301586.jsp

Nody

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm not saying that how she and her mission went about things was the best possible way of improving people's lives but I think it's a stretch to say that she was in fact evil. She done more to help (at least what she saw as helping) people than most others were doing at the time.. that's a sad fact.

So did Hitler but you'd be hard stretched to not call him evil for it (yes I went there).

She INTENTIONALLY left people in pain and let them die in squalid conditions from basic curable diseases. Most of the people would have been better to have stayed at home simply because they would have been around people who loved them and had fewer chances to catch other diseases from the people around and they might have gotten lucky with another NGO in the area. This is of course not even counting on the millions swindled that could have gone to real care instead of more right wing hard line propaganda and media selling of "her fight for the poor".

1777

If by saintly you mean old, they yes. Otherwise she was a horrible munter.

crockholm

seamus wrote: »

In what way?

in that I believe that she did more good than harm

Wibbs

The Barefoot Pizza Thief wrote: »

He says:
"Mother Theresa's cult of death and suffering depends for it's effect on the most vulnerable and helpless: abandoned babies say, or the terminally ill, who supply the occasions for charity and the raw material for demonstrations of compassion."

And were is he wrong in that? Can you walk us through your reasoning. While hyperbole on his part I can't see where he is far wrong.

It's ironic that atheists who seem to hate the notion of religion and spirituality, speak of Hitchens as if he were a saint.

Actually while I found some of his rhetoric spot on and oft entertaining, I also found him a bit stuck in the "teenage rebel I'm an atheist you know" mode. All too common among some evangelical Atheists.

As for the woman in the docu speaking about the boy with the kidney disorder who said: "Just put him in a cab and force the hospital to treat him" and was told that they wouldn't, how the hell is that Mother Theresa's fault exactly? What an idiot. It was well known that in Calcutta hospitals did not treat the poor, hence the need for what Mother Theresa was attempting, all be it, ineffectively. It wasn't until 2010 that a hospital opened there for the poor in fact:

Her issue was that they wouldn't even try. They wouldn't even try to bring in medical help beyond the odd aspirin. The whole "vale of tears/suffering is good" vibe of the more flagellating end of Christianity, particularly Catholicism. I knew a woman, a neighbour of mine, real crawthumper, who went to Calcutta in the 80's to volunteer and she came back a changed woman. Quite distraught actually as what she had thought was a perfect example of her faith was doing precisely what the woman in the video reported.

Do I think MT was "evil". Nope, that's too banal and lazy an answer and nowhere near the complexity of such a person. Do I think she fervently believed in what she was doing? yes. Do I think she was compassionate? certainly. However I do think she was incredibly wrong headed in how her compassion was applied. Blinded by a particularly hardline Catholicism(added to by some of what she learned here in Ireland as a young nun).

Gbear

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually while I found some of his rhetoric spot on and oft entertaining, I also found him a bit stuck in the "teenage rebel I'm an atheist you know" mode. All too common among some evangelical Atheists.

Hitchens was like that about everything to be fair.

Edit: I think teenagers tend to find themselves in possession of knowledge they didn't have before but don't have the culturally endowed tendency to keep it to themselves. It's not self evident that people should be tactful in all situations.

A bit of teenage insensitivity is sometimes called for.

Aquarius34

Lapin wrote: »

Mother Teresa was a complete fraud just like Princess Diana.

Its a fitting coincidence that they both died in the same week.

Don't be taken in by either of them.

How was Diana a fraud? I am interested to hear it.

My name is URL

Nody wrote: »

So did Hitler but you'd be hard stretched to not call him evil for it (yes I went there).

She INTENTIONALLY left people in pain and let them die in squalid conditions from basic curable diseases. Most of the people would have been better to have stayed at home simply because they would have been around people who loved them and had fewer chances to catch other diseases from the people around and they might have gotten lucky with another NGO in the area. This is of course not even counting on the millions swindled that could have gone to real care instead of more right wing hard line propaganda and media selling of "her fight for the poor".

Might have got lucky with another NGO in the area?

I think you're looking at an historic situation through overly rose tinted glasses tbh. There were virtually no other NGOs or charities operating in the areas where she set up missionaries... that's why she chose to set up there.

And as for 'people would have been better to have stayed at home'.. that wasn't exactly an option for many people. The inherent fear of illness and the lack of any state care for poorer people meant that the sick were expelled by their families and communities much of the time. If I was in such a position, and had the choice between dieing hungry and alone or with *somewhat more* dignity in a missionary hospital; I know which option I'd have gone with.

It's easy to use hindsight and cast aspersions, but looking at it objectively; she provided many people with a least worst way to live out their final days. Of course she could have done more, but she was doing more than most were willing to do at the time.

Nailz

Aquarius34 wrote: »

How was Diana a fraud? I am interested to hear it.

Moar Hitchens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFnri-lVQU

Knasher

My name is URL wrote: »

She done more to help (at least what she saw as helping) people than most others were doing at the time.. that's a sad fact.

What she saw as helping, was to trick people into being baptized catholic, regardless of what their original religion was. Allegedly none of her "houses of the dying" (a pretty apt name) in Papua New Guinea had any doctors of any kind.

Ghost Buster

irish-stew wrote: »

Monday + Slow News Day + No Pope Stories = Daily Fail trying to cause a Catholic Church Shocker.

Was Mother Teresa The Catholic Church?
Well I never!!

Gbear

My name is URL wrote: »

It's easy to use hindsight and cast aspersions, but looking at it objectively; she provided many people with a least worst way to live out their final days. Of course she could have done more, but she was doing more than most were willing to do at the time.

If that was all she was doing there wouldn't be a problem. If the entirety of her existence was about giving people some modicum of comfort if there was nothing left for them she'd have done pretty well.

But that isn't the whole story. She actively promoted misery and people died from easily curable diseases (even in India) in her care. It wasn't just terminal cancer. The example is given in Hitchen's documentary about a 15 year old boy with a fairly minor kidney infection and instead of sending him to hospital they just seemed to shrug their shoulders and leave him to die needlessly.

She took huge amounts of money off people and did **** all with it. Again, that's not necessarily her fault - she seemed pretty open about her backward beliefs and it was her depiction in the media as a saint that was the biggest problem there.
Nevertheless - the money she spent setting up convents to spread bull**** would've been far better spent on building actual places of healing.

She wasn't evil. She wasn't a scumbag. She was just another example of dangerously crazy religious person diverting resources from places where they could've done more good.
There is no merit in spreading religion. Every penny spent on that instead of circulating vaccines or getting basic medical care is just a waste.

Aquarius34

Nailz wrote: »

Moar Hitchens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFnri-lVQU

I honestly couldn't watch 20 minutes of that. This Hitchen guys is like listening to ice thawing.

clairefontaine

Gbear wrote: »

Hitchens was like that about everything to be fair.

Edit: I think teenagers tend to find themselves in possession of knowledge they didn't have before but don't have the culturally endowed tendency to keep it to themselves. It's not self evident that people should be tactful in all situations.

A bit of teenage insensitivity is sometimes called for.

Hitchens, like Paglia is an enfant terrible, and we need those! Hitchens regularly has tackled sacred cows, unafraid of violating the usually demanded respect of the religious. He publically tackled a revered Rabbi about circumcision too. No one else would have the guts to do this.

Atheist or not, whatever your beliefs are, there are too many religious people getting away with all sorts of garbage because they have a doctrine that backs them up and taboos left right and center that silences others criticism of them. Looks like Mother Teresa was one of them.

Wompa1

smash wrote: »

I head she tried a bit of DVDA with some priests while in college!

When you get to the age that she was when she died, you gotta do DVDA or no one will hire you....

fishy fishy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

How was Diana a fraud? I am interested to hear it.

that one had the slyest eyes I ever saw on any human being.

Henlars67

She wasn't helping people. She got off on their suffering.

It was all for self gratification.

Twisted evil bitch

daveyeh

Aquarius34 wrote: »

How was Diana a fraud? I am interested to hear it.

She spread the rumour that she had "doe eyes".

admiralofthefleet

she's another scum high ranking catholic rotting in hell, just like Karol Wojtyła