Was Mother Teresa not so saintly after all?

Aquarius34 · 04-03-2013 04:45PM

fishy fishy wrote: »

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

That is just your own twisted perception. Diana never proclaimed to be special or a saint. She was a woman who suffered greatly and all she wanted was to be let her live her life and be loved like anyone else. She paid the price of living that life, with murder.

You can love or hate her, but you cannot change the facts.

fishy fishy · 04-03-2013 04:49PM

Aquarius34 wrote: »

That is just your own twisted perception. Diana never proclaimed to be special or a saint. She was a woman who suffered greatly and all she wanted was to be let her live her life and be loved like anyone else. She paid the price of living that life, with murder.

You can love or hate her, but you cannot change the facts.

excuse me?? miaowwww

she was an expert at playing the victim (in my own "twisted" perception of course) as opposed to your "blind" perception. :rolleyes:

davet82 · 04-03-2013 05:02PM

Aquarius34 wrote: »

That is just your own twisted perception. Diana never proclaimed to be special or a saint. She was a woman who suffered greatly and all she wanted was to be let her live her life and be loved like anyone else. She paid the price of living that life, with murder.

You can love or hate her, but you cannot change the facts.

Aquarius34 · 04-03-2013 05:07PM

fishy fishy wrote: »

excuse me?? miaowwww

she was an expert at playing the victim (in my own "twisted" perception of course) as opposed to your "blind" perception. :rolleyes:

She didn't play the victim she was the victim. Believe me if she wanted to "play" the victim like you put it, she would of been taken out long before her 97 exit.

My perception isn't twisted. It's crystal clear.

Aquarius34 · 04-03-2013 05:08PM

davet82 wrote: »

I see that you're confused.

kowloon · 04-03-2013 05:13PM

I thought she died in a car crash. Plenty of people die in car crashes. Many of them driving their own car after a long day at work.

davet82 · 04-03-2013 05:13PM

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I see that you're confused.

excuse me if i'm picking you up wrong but i think its you that is confused, diana murdered?

harney · 04-03-2013 05:17PM

I love the internet ages perception of fact.

Diana woz de bomb, and anyone that dont think so iz a tool FACT!

fishy fishy · 04-03-2013 05:23PM

Aquarius34 wrote: »

She didn't play the victim she was the victim. Believe me if she wanted to "play" the victim like you put it, she would of been taken out long before her 97 exit.

My perception isn't twisted. It's crystal clear.

take it easy mary - no need to get all het up.

to me she was a sly/cunning. to you she was gods gift - lets leave it at that shall we.

fishy fishy · 04-03-2013 05:23PM

kowloon wrote: »

I thought she died in a car crash. Plenty of people die in car crashes. Many of them driving their own car after a long day at work.

aquarious knows best

The_Kew_Tour · 04-03-2013 05:24PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Like they weren't suffering already?

I stopped reading here.

What!!!???

People are near death and yet she let's people suffer because in her world that what God wants?

Get a grip.

If somebody you loved was not given proper care and attention in a hospital would you be OK with it?

I know I be fuming if it was somebody close to me.

Lapin · 04-03-2013 05:27PM

Aquarius34 wrote: »

That is just your own twisted perception. Diana never proclaimed to be special or a saint. She was a woman who suffered greatly and all she wanted was to be let her live her life and be loved like anyone else. She paid the price of living that life, with murder.

You can love or hate her, but you cannot change the facts.

You must be joking.

She was born into the aristocracy and received nothing but VIP treatment from the moment of birth to the moment of death in a car accident caused by a drink driver 36 years later.

She willingly walked up the aisle in St Pauls Cathedral and into a marriage she knew at the time to be a sham.

Years later in the infamous interview with Martin Bashir, she complained that there were 3 people in the marriage - a reference to her then husband's affair with Camilla Parker Bowles, conveniently forgetting to mention her own trysts with, a string of men from the mid 80s.

She never knew the meaning of the word 'suffer'. For all her faux empathy in hugging the homeless and introducing her sons to AIDS sufferers, not a single one of the charities she patronised received a penny from her will.

It amazes me to see how people are still taken in by her and how history is repeating itself all over again with Kate Middleton.

But we dare not criticise her - It might upset the Daily Mail readers around here.

Amirani · 04-03-2013 05:35PM

What's tragic is all the credit she gets relative to other charity workers in India. Her beliefs were ineffective and bordered on masochistic. There's a couple of catholic missionaries of note in India at the moment such as Sister Cyril who are using education to attempt to alleviate poverty. Others providing proper healthcare to people that need it. They are the ones who deserve credit.

My name is URL · 04-03-2013 05:37PM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

I stopped reading here.

What!!!???

People are near death and yet she let's people suffer because in her world that what God wants?

Get a grip.

If somebody you loved was not given proper care and attention in a hospital would you be OK with it?

I know I be fuming if it was somebody close to me.

Don't be stupid. Where did I say I'd be okay with that?

Maybe you should read my post in its entirety before flying off the handle :rolleyes:

The point was that the families of sick people wanted nothing to do with them at the time, due to the caste system, fear of illness and lack of state provided medical care.

04-03-2013 05:39PM

My name is URL wrote: »

The point was that the families of sick people wanted nothing to do with them at the time, due to the caste system

The families of people in a caste are probably in the same caste

kylith · 04-03-2013 05:43PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

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

They would have been able to die with their families. No-one in her homes for the dying was allowed visitors, or even to leave their beds. The outcomes of their lives would have been the same, but they would have died with family instead of strangers.

The Barefoot Pizza Thief wrote: »

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

Theresa's order was raking in money hand over fist, often from corrupt governments, and used just about every penny of it to build more convents to train more nuns rather than on the most basic of medical care; which is what the rest of the world thought they were spending money on. The didn't give even the most basic of antibiotics though more than enough money to build an actual hospital was donated (though they don't bother to keep any record of what money came in and what went out. Handy that).

If there is a hell, I hope that miserable auld bitch is getting gutted by the biggest pitchfork in the place.

My name is URL · 04-03-2013 05:45PM

bluewolf wrote: »

The families of people in a caste are probably in the same caste

The caste system meant that most people were not entitled to or could not access medical services. Those of a lower caste chose to ostracise family members, rather than care for them while the more well off were able to actually deal with their sick in a meaningful way.

The sick thing is that the same system is in place today. But better to rant about a dead woman and the damage she caused than to ridicule the people perpetuating such inequality I guess...

clairefontaine · 04-03-2013 05:49PM

bluewolf wrote: »

The families of people in a caste are probably in the same caste

Right, but like the Magdalene laundries here in Ireland, people of their own families, own class, didn't want them either.

And when that happens, there is always someone somewhere, ready to exploit that.

The_Kew_Tour · 04-03-2013 05:50PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Don't be stupid. Where did I say I'd be okay with that?

Maybe you should read my post in its entirety before flying off the handle :rolleyes:

The point was that the families of sick people wanted nothing to do with them at the time, due to the caste system, fear of illness and lack of state provided medical care.

No need for the roll eyes.

You said they were suffering already.

So what? It was her responsibility to make sure those people got the best chance to live. She failed. Or better put she did not try and basically let them die.

Wibbs · 04-03-2013 05:53PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

What's tragic is all the credit she gets relative to other charity workers in India. Her beliefs were ineffective and bordered on masochistic. There's a couple of catholic missionaries of note in India at the moment such as Sister Cyril who are using education to attempt to alleviate poverty. Others providing proper healthcare to people that need it. They are the ones who deserve credit.

This in a big way. Ditto for many Catholic missions in Africa today and in the past. Genuine people trying to help. Indeed the sheer amount of Irish people who went "on the missions" in times past is staggering and many of them are very highly regarded on that continent. Hell even Mugabe praised them and he hates the whitey. It's also a chapter of our history rarely talked about today, even though many of us reading this had relatives scattered across the world on said missions. It seems we through the good baby out with the kiddy fiddling bath water.

Aquarius34 · 04-03-2013 05:56PM

Wibbs wrote: »

This in a big way. Ditto for many Catholic missions in Africa today and in the past. Genuine people trying to help. Indeed the sheer amount of Irish people who went "on the missions" in times past is staggering and many of them are very highly regarded on that continent. Hell even Mugabe praised them and he hates the whitey. It's also a chapter of our history rarely talked about today, even though many of us reading this had relatives scattered across the world on said missions. It seems we through the good baby out with the kiddy fiddling bath water.

As someone who's been to Africa, I know most of the missionaries are just absolute frauds. Most people think Africa is starving and it's just not the case. What Africa needs is We and the west to get out of the continent and let nature look after things and let the people of the continent live peacefully as they are.

The vast majority of missionaries are an absolute joke.....

clairefontaine · 04-03-2013 05:57PM

Wibbs wrote: »

This in a big way. Ditto for many Catholic missions in Africa today and in the past. Genuine people trying to help. Indeed the sheer amount of Irish people who went "on the missions" in times past is staggering and many of them are very highly regarded on that continent. Hell even Mugabe praised them and he hates the whitey. It's also a chapter of our history rarely talked about today, even though many of us reading this had relatives scattered across the world on said missions. It seems we through the good baby out with the kiddy fiddling bath water.

Like Fr. Flanagan of Boys Town. He came back to Ireland and criticised them for the industrial schools and was told to feck off, that they had a system that was good and worked. Maybe you have to leave Ireland to get things done, so the missionaries somehow were able to do things that couldn't get done back in Ireland?

I don't know how Theresa got the PR she did.

It must have suited the sado masochistic elements of the Church in that it helped promote the nobility of suffering, rather than one that promoted the idea of change and not suffering any more.

Aquarius34 · 04-03-2013 05:58PM

davet82 wrote: »

excuse me if i'm picking you up wrong but i think its you that is confused, diana murdered?

Are you still confused, by what I said, are or you just pretending to be confused by what I said. Some of her close friends died in "crashes" too.

Gbear · 04-03-2013 06:03PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Like Fr. Flanagan of Boys Town. He came back to Ireland and criticised them for the industrial schools and was told to feck off, that they had a system that was good and worked. Maybe you have to leave Ireland to get things done, so the missionaries somehow were able to do things that couldn't get done back in Ireland?

I don't know how Theresa got the PR she did.

It must have suited the sado masochistic elements of the Church in that it helped promote the nobility of suffering, rather than one that promoted the idea of change and not suffering any more.

So long as people are suffering the Church has something to offer them.
It doesn't mean there's a concious cynical effort to keep people in poverty but that's the intrinsic culture of the church. It's evolved to be that way because that's the best way to ensure survival.
It's no great mystery that catholicism falls by the wayside with increases in wealth (although education obviously has an effect there too).

MT was a product of that culture, although there was the added effect of chance which meant that she rose to prominence. It's tough to fully explain why she did but contrary to what I said in a previous post, I think that that mindset is probably extant to varying degrees throughout old hyper-conservative members of the catholic church.
The money and exposure she got was what set her apart. It was little to do with having anything radical to say, either good or ill.

padd b1975 · 04-03-2013 06:22PM

Aquarius34 wrote: »

As someone who's been to Africa, I know most of the missionaries are just absolute frauds. Most people think Africa is starving and it's just not the case. What Africa needs is We and the west to get out of the continent and let nature look after things and let the people of the continent live peacefully as they are.

The vast majority of missionaries are an absolute joke.....

A few less dictators, less money spent on military and more democracy might help too.

clairefontaine · 04-03-2013 06:25PM

Gbear wrote: »

So long as people are suffering the Church has something to offer them.
It doesn't mean there's a concious cynical effort to keep people in poverty but that's the intrinsic culture of the church. It's evolved to be that way because that's the best way to ensure survival.
It's no great mystery that catholicism falls by the wayside with increases in wealth (although education obviously has an effect there too).

MT was a product of that culture, although there was the added effect of chance which meant that she rose to prominence. It's tough to fully explain why she did but contrary to what I said in a previous post, I think that that mindset is probably extant to varying degrees throughout old hyper-conservative members of the catholic church.
The money and exposure she got was what set her apart. It was little to do with having anything radical to say, either good or ill.

It is pure scam artistry is what it is.

MT ended up in a California clinic! She raised millions of unaudited dollars, and basically promoted the idea of suffering so she didn't have to spend that money alleviating the suffering of others and spent it on whatever she spent it on.

My name is URL · 04-03-2013 06:27PM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

No need for the roll eyes.

You said they were suffering already.

So what? It was her responsibility to make sure those people got the best chance to live. She failed. Or better put she did not try and basically let them die.

Why was that her responsibility? Who bestowed that particular responsibility on her? She never made any secret of the fact that she believed that poverty and suffering brought people closer to god. I don't think she ever claimed that she was out to cure people of all illnesses.

She and her order provided thousands of people with a place to die while retaining an ounce of dignity. People that would have otherwise died alone and with nothing.. no food and more than likely no real shelter.

I'm not trying to defend her fwiw.. she was blinded by her own faith and could have eased the suffering of people much more than she did. She was also greedy and out for herself as much as anyone else.. but to say that she caused people to suffer is incredibly simplistic and shifts blame away from the state and its individuals (where most of the blame should lie, imo). They allowed people to suffer far more than MT did.

fryup · 04-03-2013 06:29PM

i saw a documentary about her a few years back and it was claimed that she wouldn't help the street children unless they converted to catholicism

brummytom · 04-03-2013 06:32PM

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Most people think Africa is starving and it's just not the case.

Sorry, what?

ejmaztec · 04-03-2013 06:36PM

Aquarius34 wrote: »

As someone who's been to Africa, I know most of the missionaries are just absolute frauds. Most people think Africa is starving and it's just not the case. What Africa needs is We and the west to get out of the continent and let nature look after things and let the people of the continent live peacefully as they are.

The vast majority of missionaries are an absolute joke.....

Did you meet them all on your trip, and delve into the inner workings of the entire missionary business?

Was Mother Teresa not so saintly after all?

Comments