Oh Aaaaammyyyyy!

[Fweethawt]

Amy Marie, if I remember correctly, you mentioned Mutha Teresa in one of your posts as if she were someone that any good person would want to model themselves after. At the time of your mention of it, I was aware that MT (read, empty) wasn't at all the picture of saintly godliness that everyone points her out to being, but I completely forgot where I had heard otherwise until now.

 

Enjoy!

 

 

Defending Mother Teresa

The Happy Heretic

Judith Hayes

MARCH 1998

 

They say that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. But when it comes to writing anything controversial, your success can probably be judged by the caliber of your critics. So I'm flattered.

 

On January 17, 1998, Clark Morphew, syndicated columnist for Knight-Ridder, took aim at the winter issue of Free Inquiry because of two articles it contained that were highly critical of the late Mother Teresa. One was written by Susan Shields, a former Missionaries of Charity sister who worked with Teresa. Shields revealed that part of her job was to help keep track of the millions of dollars donated to Teresa's "charity" work. Unfortunately, most of that money sat unused in various bank accounts while the sisters had to beg for food from local merchants. If the locals couldn't help out, the soup kitchens did without. This is "charity?"

 

The other article was written by me. I compared the late Carl Sagan's genuine, almost immeasurable contributions to humanity with Teresa's contributions. Hers consisted of little more than telling people that suffering was good for them, and prattling on inanely about how God will provide, as starving children dropped like flies all around her. I also pointed to the brazen hypocrisy of Teresa's denying her "patients" the most rudimentary care, including simple comforts and pain killers, while she herself checked into posh hospitals to have a pacemaker implanted and blood vessels cleared. Her own health and comfort were apparently quite important to her.

 

Morphew was obviously upset with the articles, but his defense of Teresa was surprisingly halfhearted and ambivalent. In his opening paragraph Morphew predicts that criticism of Teresa will continue until "some serious reform comes about." But if Teresa's generously financed clinics were running smoothly, honestly and compassionately, why would any reform be needed at all? Likewise, after describing Shields' knowledgeable charges about the idle millions of dollars that helped no one, Morphew suggested that since Sister Nirmala has taken the reigns, "grand changes could happen." Again, why should they, unless something was wrong to begin with?

 

Seeming to want it both ways, Morphew presents Teresa as "one of the most obvious candidates for sainthood," but then concedes that among Tersa's beliefs were the ideas that suffering is good and that despite staggering overpopulation, birth control is always wrong. He also noted that wiping out poverty and illiteracy was not Teresa's focus. If all of that is true, it places Teresa somewhere between sadistic and stupid. (Which, interestingly, is where "saint" appears in the dictionary.) I have never heard of a compassionate person who thought that human suffering was ever a good thing, and I think compassion would be the bare minimum to expect in anyone being considered for "sainthood."

 

Morphew also pointed out that Teresa "never pretended to be a doctor who could wipe out or even soften the pain of death." This I challenge fervently. So too would the Columbia University Press Encyclopedia (1995) in which they say about Teresa: "In 1948 she left the convent and founded the Missionaries of Charity, which now operates schools, hospitals, orphanages, and food centers in more than 25 countries." How would Morphew define "hospital?" There is no ambiguity whatsoever about the activities Teresa presented to the world as hers. The problem is that what she said she was doing was not what she was doing.

 

If Teresa was offering spiritual comfort only, and not trying to "soften the pain of death," (and why on earth not?!) there should have been no drugs dispensed and no drug paraphernalia of any kind on hand at her "clinics." But there were. Her employees and volunteers used and reused un-sterilized syringes to administer ineffective drugs and mild antibiotics to terminally ill people, who suffered the resulting agonies. This is called practicing medicine, and why such malpractice was allowed to go on so long, with no legal challenges, highlights the power, and abuse of power, that is vouchsafed to organized religions. Especially the big ones with a lot of money.

 

But if, as Morphew asserts, Mother Teresa never intended to offer medical care to the ill, feed the poor, or educate the illiterate, but rather planned only to offer spiritual solace to dying people, then at the very least she was a fraud. Those millions of dollars were donated by caring people to offer medical care to the ill, feed the poor, and educate the illiterate-not to sit in bank accounts earning interest for the Roman Catholic Church, which has been a multi-billion dollar enterprise for decades now. And there are laws about raising charitable contributions for one thing and then using the money for another-as Teresa did. Apparently her goal was to hoard the money, like Midas and his gold. To what end, though, is anybody's guess.

 

There is a disquieting possibility, however, that presents itself in hindsight. She collected her millions "in the name of God." (And then promptly hid them away like a squirrel readying for winter.) She also converted souls "in the name of God," many just before they expired. I wonder, did she keep a rough tally of those souls? What I'm getting at is I wonder if in her simplistic view of things, anything she did for God would earn her big-time Brownie Points in the afterlife. For her, perhaps, this world had no meaning whatsoever, and was just some sort of challenging religious maze, designed by God to determine who gets the best bits of Paradise. If so, it might explain, since nothing else can, how she could be so callous as to sit on her millions while children, in her own part of India, were dying of starvation. This defies rational explanation, and I challenge anyone, from Morphew to the Pope himself, to explain it.

 

I am also very surprised that no one came forward sooner to talk about Teresa's questionable practices-but then that's what everyone said about priests raping little boys, isn't it? The Roman Catholic Church's power is unbelievably intimidating.

 

Whatever the motives of the woman from Calcutta, I have seen enough human suffering in loved ones to recoil in horror at the thought of terminal, tormented people being told that their suffering is a good thing. Suffering is never a good thing-except to sadists. Especially today, when we have the capability to alleviate so much pain, the mental image of those unfortunates who ended up in a Teresa "clinic" makes me cringe with nausea.

 

I know I am whistling in the wind to ask this, but--- When, oh when, will we stop inflicting pain on each other in the name of some God?!

 

© 1998 Judith Hayes

[Amanda]

 

Defending Mother Teresa

The Happy Heretic

Judith Hayes

MARCH 1998

 

They say that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. But when it comes to writing anything controversial, your success can probably be judged by the caliber of your critics. So I'm flattered.

 

On January 17, 1998, Clark Morphew, syndicated columnist for Knight-Ridder, took aim at the winter issue of Free Inquiry because of two articles it contained that were highly critical of the late Mother Teresa. One was written by Susan Shields, a former Missionaries of Charity sister who worked with Teresa. Shields revealed that part of her job was to help keep track of the millions of dollars donated to Teresa's "charity" work. Unfortunately, most of that money sat unused in various bank accounts while the sisters had to beg for food from local merchants. If the locals couldn't help out, the soup kitchens did without. This is "charity?" (© 1998 Judith Hayes)

 

Fwee, Fwee, Fwee.... there's always two sides to every story... and now we've heard the other side. Thanks! However, when someone writes something focused on only one side of the story... they certainly lean towards a bias to their particular opinions of life. This seems to be done by both sides.

 

I knew a MD that worked with Mother Tereasa for one year after he got out of medical school. He had a different opinion, did not talk much about it, however, what he did say was all positive. He met her in India, where he is from, and saw this old woman giving out blankets to the people living on the streets, on a freezing night. He didn't know it was Mother Tereasa, had a short conversation with her, and went on his way. He came back after medical school, and had an opportunity to meet her again, only this time found out who she was. He asked why she didn't tell him it was her the last time they met, and she said, why didn't you tell me who you were the last time we met? Mother Tereasa DID remember him though! This Atheist/Agnostic doctor ended up working with Mother Tereasa for a year because he was so impressed with her humble attitude and sincere effort to do something for these distressed people whom society had chosen to throw away. The doctor provided medical care, and I know this doctor would never do anything fraudulent, nor unethical!

 

I've also heard that Mother Tereasa came from a wealthy past, and that she gave all her money away to become a nun... probably giving all her assets to the church. *sigh* If there is a great hoarding of funds, it is probably attributed to the Catholic church, and NOT Mother Tereasa. That seems to make more sense to me. Look at all these super poor countries where the people are practically living on the streets, while the Catholic church is a monstrosity of beauty, wealth, and power still pursuing donations... even from the very poor! I've heard that the Catholic church is one of, if not the most wealthiest institution in the world. Proportionate to their donated base, probably give back the least. They probably consider establishing more of their wealth in a town, by building their cathedrals, probably a show of their power base and place to collect more donations, as a token of their donations back to the community. Sad! Heck, I've heard that the main reason they made it so that their priests and nuns can't marry is because they didn't want to have to be financially responsible for supporting their offspring too! Who knows the "Truth"?

 

So, in fairness... I'm curious to know how much of this article is portrayed through someone's bias, and how much negative responsibility should really be attributed to the Catholic church, and how much is really part of the human nature of Mother Tereasa's personal issues with which she may have been dealing? Mother Tereasa may have had a wonderful sincere heart to help others, yet been another victim capitalized on by the church too...

[Taphophilia]

She also mentioned orphanges. She has obviously never talked to anyone who has been in one or read about them. They are nothing but "child pounds" which warehouse and institutionalize children. The systematic and horrific abuse of children that is swept under the carpet is well documented by survivors of Christian orphanages.

[Fweethawt]

So, in fairness... I'm curious to know how much of this article is portrayed through someone's bias,

Take off the glasses and read it again.

 

Wondering about the nature of the particular bias in this article is akin to open denial of the fact that people/children were refused medical help in order to sustain the twisted christian notion that suffering is a good thing.

 

In this particular case, the fluffy "Oh, there's two sides to every story and you're just hearing the one. " is complete bullshit. Especially when you know who gained and why and who lost and why.

 

What next? Hitler was an atheist?

[Amanda]

In this particular case, the fluffy "Oh, there's two sides to every story and you're just hearing the one. " is complete bullshit. Especially when you know who gained and why and who lost and why.

 

What next? Hitler was an atheist?

Ok Fwee, who gained, and why? Who lost and why? IDK, if it's not the Catholic church who gained at the expense of the poor.

 

Why do you think she was so well respected by so many? Even Princess Diana went to see her. Why was she chosen to stand out above all the other nuns? Why weren't there any negative TV specials addressing a callous approach to her work, instead of to the contrary? Why did my friend say only positive things about her after working with her a year?

 

I'm willing to be open about it. I just don't think that she could have been all that bad and still have such great respect worldwide. Yes, Hiltler was a Catholic too... and people report horrendous things about him, so why are they holding back on Mother Tereasa?

[Lycorth]

Wondering about the nature of the particular bias in this article is akin to open denial of the fact that people/children were refused medical help in order to sustain the twisted christian notion that suffering is a good thing.

 

Fwee makes a very good point, here.

 

I always used to think Mother Theresa was a good person for working with the poor. But in the end, it was all about pushing the Xian deathcult, and if all energies were concentrated on helping the poor on a financial, political, and medical level, the impact she could've had would've been so much greater. But, nooo, it all has to be about Jeezus Ass-Fucking Christ™ and his Divine Ultimatum.

 

Granted, Catholics are more likely to lay off the holy-rolling than Protestants when it comes to missionary work, I've noticed (an ancient gripe of the Protestants), but still, they waste energy whenever they bring up Jeezus™. And you can be sure a good deal of it happens, Catholic or not. I don't mind Xians wanting to do something useful with their lives, but they'd accomplish so much more if they just left the Babbles and Rosaries at home and focues on solely helping the poor. Jeezus™ has to be the excuse all the time, and the sad thing is, without Jeezus™ as the excuse, they wouldn't even have done anything charitable in the first place.

 

Personally, I feel compelled to give Mother Theresa the benefit of the doubt, at least for now, and just opine that she was sincerely convinced she was doing the best that she could, but in the end, the Xian cult and its need to spread hampered any real good she could've done.

 

After all the decades she spent with the poor, look at them. They're still poor. Evidently, her efforts were for nothing. That alone speaks for itself. Nothing worse than people who insist on using things that can be clearly seen to be utterly useless.

[Ouroboros]

I think Penn and Teller had Mother Theresa in one of their Bullshit! shows.

[Fweethawt]

Ok Fwee, who gained, and why? Who lost and why?

[Dhampir]

Who the hell didn't think Mother Teresa was a great philanthropist? Not even an angry atheist would decry her work if there weren't good reason to, which fact your 'so what if she made some mistakes' line shows the blinders you are wearing. I mean, its one thing for me, who will probably never do more than give blood every now and again, perhaps work a soup kitchen, throw a few bucks at a charity. It's an entirely different thing to subvert MILLIONS of dollars in charitable donations given in good faith to aid the people that this woman wanted to help. If you pledge to assist people, on that large a scale, and have the means to more effectively do it, then it is nothing less than criminal to not do so.

 

How can you justify that by saying 'so she made a few mistakes'?

[Lycorth]

So what if she made a few mistakes. You only wish that you have done half the good she did for others.

 

No, actually, I don't wish I were. If I did wish I were, I'd go out and do it. But there are organizations that have been around much longer than Mother Theresa and still exist today, and don't push religion whilst they try to help the down and out. As I said, she probably meant well, but her Xianity also poisoned the real good she could've done - and no, telling dying people that suffering is a good thing isn't nearly the best she could've done.

[JeffXL]

You hate CHRISTians that much? For some of you even she is on your X list.

 

No, we hate lies. Christians love lying. See the difference?

 

Are you so consumed by Christian hate you can't distinguish this?

[Knightley]

now now fwee you know that's not nice

 

 

 

So what if she made a few mistakes. You only wish that you have done half the good she did for others.

 

No, actually, I don't wish I were. If I did wish I were, I'd go out and do it. But there are organizations that have been around much longer than Mother Theresa and still exist today, and don't push religion whilst they try to help the down and out. As I said, she probably meant well, but her Xianity also poisoned the real good she could've done - and no, telling dying people that suffering is a good thing isn't nearly the best she could've done.

 

 

 

Right on wolfie, I mean Varky.

 

 

 

I agree if I wanted to help the world then I would go out there and do it, but I just care about my selfish desires. Everyone is selfish. What else is new?

[Asuryan]

Aw heck!

 

I just completed a post about (among other things) Mother Teresa in the other amy's Thread!

 

Oh well, I guess it'll just stay there.

 

Sometimes, I've thought about giving her the benefit of the doubt. Assuming that she was a goodwilled person, really convinced of the holiness of what she was doing. However... there's a major point that prevents me from doing so.

Receiving millions of dollars in donations. Not building even a SINGLE hospital. Building mostly facilities for missionary work (converting, converting, converting, so who cares if they die and suffer? Suffering is good!). Building big houses to put the poor in, without painkillers, without even heating, without BEDS... while she goes to europe, to have her blood vessels cleaned or something like that. The best clinics. The best equipment. This is what she wanted for her.

 

And she was so quick (even during TV interviews!) to say to people that they "should've been happy they were suffering, because it is good to suffer since jesus suffered too, and when you suffer, it is jesus kissing you in the forehead" or something like that.

Of course... Suffering is good... Suffering makes jesus happy... as long as it isn't YOUR own suffering, eh, MT?

I would laugh but I just find it disgusting.

 

About the "there are two sides to ever story", hmm... does this mean that, if I say that the earth is a sphere, and someone else says that the earth is flat, then since it cannot be that just one of the two is right, then the earth is a sphere cut in half along the diameter?

Sometimes the "truth in the middle" statement just doesn't hold water.

[Fweethawt]

About the "there are two sides to ever story", hmm... does this mean that, if I say that the earth is a sphere, and someone else says that the earth is flat, then since it cannot be that just one of the two is right, then the earth is a sphere cut in half along the diameter?

 

Sometimes the "truth in the middle" statement just doesn't hold water.

BING-freakin'-O!!

 

Ya ever notice how that "truth in the middle" always comes from people who want to give bullshit equal time?

 

 

You only wish that you have done half the good she did for others.

Actually, if the opportunity presented itself, I would gladly do twice as much as she did -- if not more.

 

The only difference is, is that I won't manipulate people with fairy tales in order to get them to give me the funds to do it.

[GreenXero]

Actually, if I remember correctly, there have been a few people who checked into MT's claims of helping people and many of the things she claimed were false. She said she helped feed thousands of people a day at her soup kitchen and when someone actually went to see, there were only about 50-80 people who were fed per day. Also, even though there were many disasters near where she lived, she didn't help with many of them. She was busy traveling to England and the US for months at a time.

 

Even if you don't want to take someone else’s word for it, look at pictures of the dumps she built and ran for "helping" people. Where did all the money go that she received? Millions of dollars were given to her and most of the places she ran were ill equipped. Also look at the pictures of the size of these places compared to how many people she claimed to help. You can't fit even a fraction of the people she claims in to help in them and you can't make enough food for that many people in such a small kitchen.

 

Here is a good place to start:

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

[Ouroboros]

Here's a thought. There are similarities between Silas in DaVinci Code and Mother Theresa.

 

Both believed in suffering and pain as means to reach/experience God and holiness etc.. Or to cleans ones soul from sins and bad thoughts.

 

And they acted upon this, to further their own cause that they believed in so much, and sometimes the results weren't that good.

[Asuryan]

Here's a thought. There are similarities between Silas in DaVinci Code and Mother Theresa.

 

Both believed in suffering and pain as means to reach/experience God and holiness etc.. Or to cleans ones soul from sins and bad thoughts.

 

 

 

I never read the DaVinci Code. However... I just hate the christian philosophy of pain worshipping, and concentrating on suffering. Suffering as something noble, Suffering as something that will earn you a place in heaven almost as if it were some kind of special fastpass ticket.

 

Suffering per se is not glorious or holy, but of course if we're taught that Jesus is THE role model, then since his pain is supposed to be holy and wonderful, then all pain is holy and wonderful. And this kind of mentality spreads out - battered wives, battered children, abused people, and so on. "Yes I'm suffering, but god is with me and he suffered even more for me, so I can and should endure my burden of pain, and I'll feel nearer to Him this way...."... yeah. Bullshit. This kind of behaviour prevents people from trying to change their life in a way that would allow them to STOP the suffering altogether, abandoning their abusive families or priests or boyfriends and so on.

 

 

 

Enduring pain in order to actually, concretely help someone else is entirely another thing, and I think it's a beautiful altruistic thing to do. Just in case some christian tried to pervert the meaning of my words

[Amanda]

Sometimes, I've thought about giving her the benefit of the doubt. Assuming that she was a goodwilled person, really convinced of the holiness of what she was doing. However... there's a major point that prevents me from doing so.

Receiving millions of dollars in donations. Not building even a SINGLE hospital. Building mostly facilities for missionary work (converting, converting, converting, so who cares if they die and suffer? Suffering is good!). Building big houses to put the poor in, without painkillers, without even heating, without BEDS... while she goes to europe, to have her blood vessels cleaned or something like that. The best clinics. The best equipment. This is what she wanted for her.

Asuryan, I would like to ask you something... since I'm really not all that familiar with the Catholic syndicate.

 

Is the money given to Mother Tereasa, or the Catholic church?

 

Does Mother Tereasa have the ultimate responsiblity of these donated funds, or does the Catholic church?

 

Is the idea that suffering is good propagated only by Mother Tereasa, or is it a teaching of the Catholic church?

 

Couldn't it be possible that Mother Tereasa is just another victim of brain washing, and even those all the way to the top might be victims of brainwashing, selected to perpetuate the brainwashing? It seems that as much of their life they've placed on these foundations, confined to these teachings... they may not even have had the opportunity to seriously consider any other reality.

 

I certainly may be wrong... please enlighten me.

[white_raven23]

Couldn't it be possible that Mother Tereasa is just another victim of brain washing, and even those all the way to the top might be victims of brainwashing, selected to perpetuate the brainwashing? It seems that as much of their life they've placed on these foundations, confined to these teachings... they may not even have had the opportunity to seriously consider any other reality.

 

I certainly may be wrong... please enlighten me.

 

Ah....but therin lies the rub. Most perpetrators of less subtle violence, like spousal abuse, rape, torture, and serial murder......MOST of those people were once "victims" too. Abused and neglected by parents and often given a warped or stunted sexual identity as a result.

 

They WERE once victims too (as many criminal researchers mistakenly like to flag wave).

 

The problem is this, once a victim begins victimizing in turn, they themselves are no longer a victim, but a perpetrator. A person who has been a victim has a choice, overcome abuse and be something better than you started, or perpetuate the cycle.

 

And the same holds true for the more subtle immorality. Just how ignorant do you suppose Mother Theresa was? And even if she started out that way, is it permissable for the leader of a charity organization to remain naiive? Of course not!

[Kuroikaze]

I actually went on a mission trip to calcutta when I was in college, and worked in the mother teresa homes for about two weeks while I was there. Most of the help is voluteer. I did everything from washing clothes by hand to carring dead bodies.....Yes I carried a dead body on two occasions.

 

The conditions were deplorable in many ways, I was always told by many people that it was because there just wasn't enough money to make things better and all they could do was give them a comfortable death, and after reading this article it just makes me angry, if mother Teresa really had millions of dollars she was sitting on then she IS a bitch, because those homes were horible even by the standards of most other places in Calcutta.

 

I also met sister Nirmala once, didn't get to talk to her much, but she was nice person....some of the other nuns though could be horibly mean, one in particular who ran the home for the dying which was next to Kali temple.

[Amanda]

Ah....but therin lies the rub. Most perpetrators of less subtle violence, like spousal abuse, rape, torture, and serial murder......MOST of those people were once "victims" too. Abused and neglected by parents and often given a warped or stunted sexual identity as a result.

 

They WERE once victims too (as many criminal researchers mistakenly like to flag wave).

 

The problem is this, once a victim begins victimizing in turn, they themselves are no longer a victim, but a perpetrator. A person who has been a victim has a choice, overcome abuse and be something better than you started, or perpetuate the cycle.

 

And the same holds true for the more subtle immorality. Just how ignorant do you suppose Mother Theresa was? And even if she started out that way, is it permissable for the leader of a charity organization to remain naiive? Of course not!

White Raven... that's certainly true. I'm curious to know if... what Mother Tereasa had to offer these people was better than what they were offered any place else? Would they have been better off if she wasn't even there? IDK. And, was Mother Tereasa in control of the donated money, or was it doled out to her via the Catholic church? IDK. She might have been following orders. However... because the church/Mother Tereasa was negligent with the funds in their authority or the care given, of course they should be held accountable and responsible.... as that is probably the only way positive change is to come about.

[Asimov]

Now I heard everything! Even Mother T's to blame although she helped thousands of sick and dying people that nobody else wanted. So what if she made a few mistakes. You only wish that you have done half the good she did for others.

 

You hate CHRISTians that much? For some of you even she is on your X list.

 

Mother Theresa's a bitch. That must be a good thing then.

 

Wow, if you would even take the fucking time to read what Fwee posted....ugh....

[Amethyst]

Now I heard everything! Even Mother T's to blame although she helped thousands of sick and dying people that nobody else wanted. So what if she made a few mistakes. You only wish that you have done half the good she did for others.

 

You hate CHRISTians that much? For some of you even she is on your X list.

 

Mother Theresa's a bitch. That must be a good thing then.

 

Wow, if you would even take the fucking time to read what Fwee posted....ugh....

 

A Christian taking time to read anything other than the Bible? We can't have that, why, they might actually question the cult.

 

Heck, most of them don't even read their Bibles from cover to cover.

[kevin]

I personally don't buy into the "Mother Theresa was a Nazi" theory.

Where's the proof that she hoarded away all those millions? I'm sure sums of money were donated to her cause, but you only have to look at her and see how she lived to realize she lived a simple life. They never had the balls to accuse her whilst she was alive, so I say leave her alone now and let her RIP.

 

Kevin:

[Fweethawt]

You didn't read it either, Kevin.

 

If what she lived was a "simple life", then why did she have herself taken to the best hospitals for the best medical treatment while allowing so much less to be done in the "mission field"?