Amos

That is very nice and I would never critize you for your generosity.

hinduwoman

Hi DMB, I am curious. which programme is it and where does it operate?
thanks.

hinduwoman

Kama you go on saying that the sisters gave spiritual comfort. Well that is not the grounds they asked us for money. They told us the money was needed to feed and heal the sick --- not that it would pay the mortgage on some church or set up new convents.
If people had known that the money would be spent on cooing to the needy, then how many would have donated?
And if spiritual comfort is all that is needed, then why appeal for money?

As for MT not spending the money, well many misers are content simply with knowing they have the money. they never intend to spend it.

Kama

When Mother Theresa died, the Congregation had 3,604 members with vows, along with 411 novices and 260 aspirants. The congregation operates in 119 countries (both developed and developing) and has 560 "tabernacles," as they call their houses.
Money no use heh.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: Kama ]</p>

Arrowman

Kama You're just not getting the point, are you? Let me try again.

The point is that the MT and the Sisters garnered enormous amounts of donations, from Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and various awards (Nobel Peace Prize ) based on the expectation that that money was being used to provide direct, material assistance to those in need. The maintenance of the various "tabernacles" including the living expenses of the nuns, would fall under this category if such assistance was being provided. It was not.

The fact that [some of] the money might be used to support the "tabernacles" is not sufficient to rebut the claim that MT's "work for the needy" was an illusion.

No, this is not a concept that "escapes her critics". It is the realisation that this is all they are doing, that has given rise to the criticism in the first place.

I think that is a reasonable assumption - for most, if not all. Certainly every person that I have spoken to on this subject, has been amazed at the allegations. Whether they accept them as true or not, they have never before heard them. These people represent the great mass of the world's population (particularly in the West) who have simply accepted the "party line" on MT over the years.

And this, to me, is one of the main points here - not only did MT and the Catholic Church act unconscionably in this, but many other prominent people and organisations including for example Bob Geldof and the Nobel Prize Committee, have been going along with the myth. The capacity for people to overlook a gross misappropriation of charitable resources because the person in question is some sort of religious sacred cow, is appalling.

No doubt there is much to be "debunked" in the world of Catholic (and other Christian) charity. You yourself cited examples from the Knights of Columbus - e.g. funding a Catholic ethical think-tank is a worthwhile expenditure of charitable funds? But the subject here is Mother Teresa.

You don't seem to have a problem with the notion that not all Catholic charities are, shall we say, fully effective - you offer examples yourself. Why do you defend MT so strongly?

All of the above (the real basis for the criticism of MT) is entirely apparent from the other posts in this thread. You are sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nyah nyah nyah" because the facts don't suit you.
1. MT and the Sisters are not providing any practical assistance to the needy.
2. They have gathered large donations, and much public recognition and acclaim, based on an incorrect impression of what they are doing.
3. MT, the Sisters, and the Catholic Church have willingly allowed this to continue.
4. The rest of the world (and this probably includes many lay Catholics) have been deceived.
5. MT's critics are not anti-religion, anti-Catholic curmudgeons. They just see that the emperor has not clothes (or syringes, or food, or medication).

Get it, now?

Gemma Therese

Mother Teresa's main "charism", if you will, was to see that the poor died with dignity. For many of the people in her homes, it was the difference between dying on the sidewalk or dying in a clean bed.

Gemma Therese

Linda

Yes, she did help a lot of people die, didn't she?
Especially since she withheld real material help from them. I suppose by 'dignity' you believe that some old hag hanging over you, mumbling incantations to the clouds while she refuses to give you as much pain medication as you need for relief is something good?

Thor Q. Mada

Gemma,

Dying is dying. In clean sheets or on the street. It remains going nowhere. If it can be done in dignity, so be it, but if it can be postponed in a decent way, and not done because there is no money, then it is criminal.

Proxima Centauri

Before I got to this thread I thought Mother Teresa was basically well motivated but misguided about birth control. I was unsure whether on balance she did more good or more harm. Now I think she was a typical sexually frustrated, unbalanced Roman Catholic Nun.
Roman Catholic Priests, Monk and Nuns are required to be totally celibate. Even wanking is considered sinful/mortal sin (I'm not sure of the details as to what type of sin the RC's consider it). Now rational Sec Webbers know we evolved under pressure of natural selection as explained by Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins and other eminent scientists. The urge to indulge in reproductive behaviour is very powerful. That's how we pass on our genes. If we try and deny our sexuality the sex drive is likely to come out in destructive ways. In the Holy Roman Catholic Church sexual frustration often leads to sadism and/or masochism.
There is far too much physical punishment in many schools, orphanages etc run by Roman Catholic Priests, Monk and Nuns. For details <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=000272" target="_blank">try</a> this link to another discussion thread in the Internet Infidels Forum. Some contributers had reasonable experiences. Many seem to have been traumatized.

In Mother Teresa's case I suspect sexual frustration, sadism and masochism lead to something particularly nasty. I suspect she got some of her kicks out of watching the hopeless suffering of dying people. Perhaps she got sadistic pleasure out of watching dying people suffer. Perhaps she got masochistic pleasure out of watching dying people and feeling their pain. Quite likely it was a bit of both.

What sort of a Christian would deny dying people medicines? A kind, caring Christian? A twisted, misguided Christian?


[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: B.Shack ]</p>

DMB

It is a programme started by an Indian humanist, a woman doctor, who about 40 years ago sold her house to go and live in the slums and provide for the needs of slum-dwelling women and their children, both hindu and muslim.