mother teresa

[Eddiesilence]

Do you honestly consider that - as per the TV program title referenced in the original post - it could ever be reasonable to describe Mother Theresa as "evil"?

No, I don't think it's reasonable to call Teresa 'evil, because I don't think 'evil' is a useful word. It's a loaded word from a religious perspective that I don't share. I would describe Teresa as amoral, egotistical and callous.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Eddiesilence

[Guest bazzad9]

Hi eddie,

I disagree. I didn't really identify many specifics in the arguments, just "blah blah Mother Theresa was an arsehole..blah blah..abortion, condoms...blah blah...Hitchins etc"

The weakness of the material is obvious from the fact it has to reference unrelated subjects (abortion etc), poorly understood by the general public, to try and drum up some sympathy.

The author takes the circumstances (a woman trying to run a hospice, amid massive poverty, on a shoe-string budget) and cynically distorts this reality into a fantasy where the shortcomings of her enterprise were as a result of deliberate cruelty, not the very limited means she had.

The author criticises the quality of medial specialisation and care on hand, as though s/he were talking about the local NHS Trust, with a budget of billions. In reality, we are talking about a group of volunteers, some of whom had very basic medical training, others none at all. From a privileged position, its easy to scoff at their efforts, yes, but they were better than the alternative - i.e. nothing.

The author perverts MTs Christian philosophy on life and suffering into an unrecognisable caricature which actively delights in pain.

The author distorts reality further, by putting a slant on others quotes and by lying that MT never lacked money.

At no point does the author consider the realities, (especially at the start), such as the lack of funds, the fact it was just ordinary people doing their best, not PhD medical specialists. It is not a balanced analysis at all. I am sure MT herself would be the first to admit her efforts had shortcomings. They must have done - after all, poverty and illness is still with us.

Who is more likely to reduce poverty and illness, someone who is inspired by MT / appreciates what she was trying to do, or someone who unfairly criticises her?

Do you honestly consider that - as per the TV program title referenced in the original post - it could ever be reasonable to describe Mother Theresa as "evil"?

we can forget that one source if you like ,there are plenty more

and your lack of funds argument is laugable,we know she took in plenty of money ,what we cant work out exactly is what she spent it on

it wasnt homes for the dying

[Guest bazzad9]

budfan how do you respond to my 10th post ?

it is a first hand experience ?

[BudFan]

Kindness and turning the other cheek is one thing. being poor and accepting that poverty as justly deserved is quite another.

Hiya

The bold isn't what I said in my post you - you are attacking a straw man.

I didn't say that MT claimed that suffering or poverty was "deserved", I said she advocated that - rather than allow life to be consumed by helplessness, fear or resentment - people should seek to endure their circumstances, which is ulimately to overcome their negative effect on us.

The difference, in practice, is people who are elderly, ill or disabled, being allowed to get on with their lives with dignity, they should not be made to feel worthless, or that they are being nudged towards the euthanasia clinic, because they are an inconvenience to us, or because their life is not worth living.

I remember when my granddad died: for the last while he was confined to bed and all he could really do was lie there and cough. Obviously that must have been quite miserable for him, (formerly a very fit and active man, via manual work and the army), and it was difficult and painful to see him like that. When I was a kid he was a strong man, full of life and vigour, and now he was a frail shadow of the man I remembered.

But it is not these negative, sad aspects which form my last memories of him. Whenever I went into the room to see him, if he was awake he would always acknowledge me, even if he could only manage a nod or faint smile. Sometimes he could talk a little, sometimes id just talk to him. What I learned through this that, it was still him - he wasn't changed at all. Behind the mask of illness and age, it was still him. He had not been defeated or broken in spirit. He was very calm and resigned through all of this and I did have the impression of him being content and quite relaxed mentally, if not physically.

Content in that, yes, he was going to die, but he was dying as an old man in his own bed, (many of his friends died as young men in the war), surrounded by 2 younger generations of family. I think that's a good death. You cant really get any better than that, rich or poor. For us Catholics, you can have a good death, as well as a good life. (For the record, he was not a Catholic, and I do not ever recall him saying or doing anything remotely connected with (any) religion, ever).

He was never bitter or resentful towards the end, he was never calling out for death, or feeling sorry for himself. If he had, Id have been left with a very different and much less happy memory. Throughout his ordeal, it was always just him as normal, despite the circumstances. He was reconciled with the fact that this was to be the end, not angry about it or scared of it. And I would say that undoubtedly his demeanour helped mine (and others), because his contentedness also represented a great consolation for the bereaved. And because of this, we got to enjoy a few more moments of time together - a boy and his grandfather - even if only through just being in one anothers company.

Our quality of life is often much more down to our mind-set than to our actual circumstances. And our mind-set is always within our control, our circumstances are not (especially not in the 3rd world countries where MT worked).

Cheers!

[Guest bazzad9]

The difference, in practice, is people who are elderly, ill or disabled, being allowed to get on with their lives with dignity, they should not be made to feel worthless, or that they are being nudged towards the euthanasia clinic, because they are an inconvenience to us, or because their life is not worth living.

this exactly what happened in the homes for the dying

and since no treatment or care was offered it was a euthanasia clinic ,only it wasnt over in minutes ,you had to suffer

Edited July 29, 2013 by bazzad9

[BudFan]

since my rebuttals are going to be sourced its only fair you do the same

so if we get that out the way first

What rebuttals? I have not asserted anything of my own.

I have only pointed out the truth behind the criticisms, which shows them up for what they are.

Go and read of the 124 major civic awards she received, globally, for her work. And not because she was touting for them, but because people recognised the good in what she was doing. All 124 of them say you are wrong.

You will always - of course - find some scope to criticise her, because she didn't manage to completely eradicate world poverty and cure every disease known to man.

But because we can "do it all" alone, does that mean we should not even try?

Yes, with little funds and little training, often they could only do little - and the medical criticisms of her facilities only reflect the reality of their circumstances. They do not reflect cruelty or neglect.

And in any case, do you not see that little is better than nothing? If not, you cant see the wood for the trees.

Here is brief info on her legacy selected from wiki (and properly referenced therein):

Mother Teresa founded the Missionaries of Charity, a Roman Catholic religious congregation, which in 2012 consisted of over 4,500 sisters and is active in 133 countries. They run hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis; soup kitchens; children's and family counseling programmes; orphanages; and schools. Members of the order must adhere to the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, and the fourth vow, to give "Wholehearted and Free service to the poorest of the poor".

As with the Sisters, the Fathers live a very simple lifestyle without television, radios or items of convenience. They neither smoke nor drink alcohol and beg for their food. They make a visit to their families every five years but do not take annual holidays.

Missionaries care for those who include refugees, ex-prostitutes, the mentally ill, sick children, abandoned children, lepers, people with AIDS, the aged, and convalescent. They have schools run by volunteers to educate street children, they run soup kitchens, as many other services as per the communities' needs. They have 19 homes in Kolkata (Calcutta) alone which include homes for women, for orphaned children, and for the dying; an AIDS hospice, a school for street children, and a leper colony. These services are provided, without charge, to people regardless of their religion or social caste.

(notice - theres those "homes for the dying" again, which had the critics duped earlier! )

So this is the reality of what Mother Theresa started, and - in your eyes - its a bad thing?

You honestly think she was a bad woman who did more harm than good in the world?

What would you think the people they look after in the slums of Kolkata would say?

[Guest bazzad9]

You honestly think she was a bad woman who did more harm than good in the world?

What would you think the people they look after in the slums of Kolkata would say?

yes

and read "the final verdict" i will even provide a free online copy http://www.meteorbooks.com/chap1.html

its written by someone who lived there ,she is not that famous or respected there it seems

tony blair won awards ,think that point is made

"something better than nothing" that depends on the something really and if it is actually something and not nothing disguised as something

ok so what are your excuses opinions on her friendships with dictators ?

and you need to stop with the lack of funds excuse it simply doesnt wash ,plenty came in

still no comment on post 10 then ,the eyewitness with first hand experience ?

all this time and you have offered nothing but blinkered excuses

[BudFan]

No, I don't think it's reasonable to call Teresa 'evil, because I don't think 'evil' is a useful word. It's a loaded word from a religious perspective that I don't share. I would describe Teresa as amoral, egotistical and callous.

You are not correct to suggest most people (including me) regard the word evil as a religiously loaded term.

I would describe Teresa as amoral, egotistical and callous.

Then what an exceptionally cynical, bleak and grim outlook you must have on life Eddie.

Here is what her life work has blossomed into, so far:

Mother Teresa founded the Missionaries of Charity, a Roman Catholic religious congregation, which in 2012 consisted of over 4,500 sisters and is active in 133 countries. They run hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis; soup kitchens; children's and family counseling programmes; orphanages; and schools. Members of the order must adhere to the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, and the fourth vow, to give "Wholehearted and Free service to the poorest of the poor".

As with the Sisters, the Fathers live a very simple lifestyle without television, radios or items of convenience. They neither smoke nor drink alcohol and beg for their food. They make a visit to their families every five years but do not take annual holidays.

Missionaries care for those who include refugees, ex-prostitutes, the mentally ill, sick children, abandoned children, lepers, people with AIDS, the aged, and convalescent. They have schools run by volunteers to educate street children, they run soup kitchens, as many other services as per the communities' needs. They have 19 homes in Kolkata (Calcutta) alone which include homes for women, for orphaned children, and for the dying; an AIDS hospice, a school for street children, and a leper colony. These services are provided, without charge, to people regardless of their religion or social caste.

If this is "amoral, egotistical and callous" then what exactly would impress you?

Which is more "callous" in your eyes? The soup kitchens or the school for street kids?

[Guest bazzad9]

"Controversy

The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised as a poor establishment in the medical press, notably The Lancet and the British Medical Journal (BMJ). They reported the re-use of hypodermic needles^{[citation needed]}, poor living conditions, cold baths for all patients, and an approach to illness and suffering that ignores such elements of modern medical care as systematic diagnosis.^[5] Dr. Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet, described the medical care as "haphazard", as volunteers without medical knowledge made decisions about patient care because of the lack of doctors. He observed that the Congregation did not seem to distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment.^[6] The spending of the donations has also been criticised. The author and journalist Christopher Hitchens and the German magazine Stern have alleged that Mother Teresa did not focus the money on alleviating poverty or improving the conditions of her hospices, but on opening new convents and increasing missionary work.^[7] "

this is from the same wiki link your description is quoted from budfan

all you needed to do was scroll down a bit

[Eddiesilence]

Then what an exceptionally cynical, bleak and grim outlook you must have on life Eddie.

I despise the abuse and exploitation of the sick and dying, and I deplore Teresa's insistence that suffering is the route to salvation. Per certain Catholic doctrines, suffering is holy, it brings one closer to God, so she is not the only guilty one.

Teresa was morbidly, and perhaps luridly obsessed with death and the dying. She exploited the suffering of others to demonstrate her piety, pretending that her cruelty was 'care'. Teresa maximised her spiritual capital by encouraging the suffering and agony of death. To that end she rejected palliative drugs for her patients, who frequently died in dreadful pain and torment to serve Teresa's religious mission. That is an exceptionally cynical, bleak and grim outlook. It's also cruel.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Eddiesilence

[Guest bazzad9]

would pointing out the holocaust or the inquisitions be a bleak and grim outlook or would it be simply accepting the facts ?

what about if we talk about the thousands killed in natural disasters recently ? would that be a bleak and grim outlook or simply the facts ?

do you beleive in her miracles budfan ?

[catfish]

lets not forget the 6 million est in south america and the west indies from 1492 onwards .

the destruction of the gnostic , and british (celtic for the dummies) church .

we could go on and on and on .

[willowisp]

BudFan is it so hard for you to accept criticisms of "one of your own"? Why can you not admit "yeah, she was no saint"? Are all catholics awesome? If the pope says that willowisp is a beautiful kind man, do you take that as gospel?

[BULLET]

Ignorant, sick religitard dwarf