Was Mother Teresa not so saintly after all?

Sandwlch wrote: »

From 1994:

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

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.

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 wrote: »

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

In what way?

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.

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.

seamus wrote: »

In what way?

in that I believe that she did more good than harm

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

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

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