[nige1]

Quoted from "Do you have an LA" in "Simple Rulings":

Vampyr, on 2015-January-04, 22:48, said:

You [Trinidad] seem to be suggesting that Mother Teresa was a good person. I thought that that rumour has been debunked by now.
LOL I think that this is the first off-topic post in this thread.

I know little about Mother Teresa but Vampyr's view worries me. Comments?

[gwnn]

Being good or bad is a question of one's basic intention I guess and by that standard it's a bit strange to assume she was a bad person. But she was definitely over-hyped. Many people died because of her non-hospitals (people went there to die when they could have been saved by proper hospitals). Taking money from dictators and drug dealers is also shady business. Preaching against condoms is wicked as well.

[billw55]

gwnn, on 2015-January-05, 13:24, said:

Being good or bad is a question of one's basic intention I guess and by that standard it's a bit strange to assume she was a bad person. But she was definitely over-hyped. Many people died because of her non-hospitals (people went there to die when they could have been saved by proper hospitals). Taking money from dictators and drug dealers is also shady business. Preaching against condoms is wicked as well.

None of this is especially convincing to me.

Were these people who died in her homes defrauded in some way? Would they have otherwise had access to life saving care? At what expense? Did they want such care? Or did they simply wish to die in peace?

Taking money from evildoers is debatable. If the money is used for good, why does the source of the money matter? Would refusing the money stop the alleged criminal activity that generated it? Is it better to use the money for charity, rather than leaving it in the criminal system where it may well cause further harm?

Preaching against condoms? I don't agree, but I cannot call it wicked. This was a tenet of her faith, shared by many millions or people that I would consider good.

I vote good, pending something more persuasive.

[Vampyr]

Also, not only did she not heal the sick, but she kept children (often handicapped children) tied to beds in filthy orphanages with no stimulation. None of her vast fund of donation money went to helping to lift the poor out of poverty; in fact there are questions now as to what the money was in fact used for.

Mother Teresa was a fetishist, enjoying watching the suffering of others because it reminded her of Christ's suffering, and she found it beautiful.

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2015-January-05, 13:41, said:

Also, not only did she not heal the sick, but she kept children (often handicapped children) tied to beds in filthy orphanages with no stimulation. None of her vast fund of donation money went to helping to lift the poor out of poverty; in fact there are questions now as to what the money was in fact used for.

Mother Teresa was a fetishist, enjoying watching the suffering of others because it reminded her of Christ's suffering, and she found it beautiful.

OK, these things are a different matter, if true.

I have read that at least some of the donations to her order simply went into the Vatican bank. Whether this was a betrayal of trust depends on the donor's understanding of the intent of the gift. One can also argue that such use of the money does help the poor, through a different channel.

[Vampyr]

Nigel, I think you will get more poll responses if you make the poll private.

[mikeh]

What do you mean by 'good person'?

My understanding, mostly gleaned from a documentary I watched on television shortly after her death, was that she was seriously misguided.

The documentary showed some of the facilities in which her people 'cared' for the homeless and the sick. It featured interviews with former volunteers, admittedly disillusioned ones. It also featured interviews with admirers, so it didn't come across as a hatchet job.

What it conveyed was that she had no interest in providing medical care. A person died or didn't die and that was god's choice. Her mission wasn't to relieve suffering in this world but, rather, to help the poor, dying people recognize jesus and hence be saved in the next world. She ministered to the sick, rather than cared for them.

She was a fanatic. That served her well, in terms of enabling her to persist in her mission in the early years, when she had little, if any, backing from the Catholic establishment, and it played a major role in her later ability to generate funding.

However, her fanaticism caused her to allow thousands to die deaths that could have easily been postponed through the provision of basic medical care.

The saddest part of the documentary, as I recall it, was towards the end when they suggested that in the last years of her life, she began to have doubts about her mission.

I don't think there was ever any question that she lived the good life while extolling the virtues of poverty, unlike many American evangelical preachers, or many in the Catholic hierarchy, but the fact that she was a true believer doesn't make her a 'good person'. Indeed, given what she believed, and what I don't believe, to me she was a monster. A human monster, but one who allowed her absolute faith in her particular brand of religion to control not only her life (which was her choice and I would never argue against it) but also to permit countless people to die when she had it in her power to save them.

That is my own take, since I strongly believe that religious fanaticism, of all faiths, is a pernicious influence in human affairs. I recognize that this is far from a mainstream view in NA, and in many other parts of the world, and thus I recognize that many might well see the Teresa's of the world as 'more good than bad'.

Had she applied her zeal to an issue such as women's right to education, or eliminating the worst aspects of the caste system, or fighting racism, even if in the name of a religion I reject, she would be one of those I most admire in life. By choosing to 'save' imaginary souls for a fictitious afterlife rather than making sick people healthier, she helped to perpetuate an inequitable social system and caused suffering rather than alleviating it, and that makes her a misguided bad person with some admirable qualities.

If you believe that jesus was the son of god, and died for our sins, and that heaven awaits those who die having accepted him into their lives, then Teresa will quite properly seem to you to have been one of the finest humans ever to live. I can't prove you wrong and we've been down that path too many times in the WC for me to even suggest opening that can of worms. I mention it only because how one sees the role of Xianity must colour and maybe dominate how one sees Teresa.

[gwnn]

billw55, on 2015-January-05, 13:38, said:

None of this is especially convincing to me.

Were these people who died in her homes defrauded in some way? Would they have otherwise had access to life saving care? At what expense? Did they want such care? Or did they simply wish to die in peace?

Taking money from evildoers is debatable. If the money is used for good, why does the source of the money matter? Would refusing the money stop the alleged criminal activity that generated it? Is it better to use the money for charity, rather than leaving it in the criminal system where it may well cause further harm?

Preaching against condoms? I don't agree, but I cannot call it wicked. This was a tenet of her faith, shared by many millions or people that I would consider good.

I vote good, pending something more persuasive.

Well it was just a short post so I was not striving for maximum documentary evidence, or convincing you (I actually obviously had similar doubts when I first heard of these things, especially a few years ago when I was still a Christian).

about not providing medical care: She took large sums of money and chose not to give proper medical care to people because she felt that suffering will bring them closer to Christ, cleansing them. There were also people with non-terminal diseases who died due to insufficient medical care or diseases they caught because they were lying next to dozens of other people suffering from who knows what.

Taking money from dictators and drug lords is shady like I said, not unquestionably bad, but accepting the money has the bad effect of making the aforementioned people feel less bad about themselves and effectively using the money of oppressed people in one country in her own (instead of somehow trying to return it - maybe she did but there is no source that I know of that would attest to this).

Preaching against condoms is wicked and I don't care whether or not it is a tenet of her faith and how many hundreds of millions agree with her, it causes immense suffering worldwide for no benefit whatsoever, spreads AIDS, subjugates women, etc etc. It is a nasty doctrine that people should fight to get rid of until there is a relatively open-minded pope.

This is a good video on her, although of course it's not exactly two-sided:
https://www.youtube....h?v=65JxnUW7Wk4
But most of the stuff I hear from Mother Teresa advocates is much less convincing than critics.

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2015-January-05, 14:07, said:

I have read that at least some of the donations to her order simply went into the Vatican bank. Whether this was a betrayal of trust depends on the donor's understanding of the intent of the gift. One can also argue that such use of the money does help the poor, through a different channel.

One can argue that, yes...

[Winstonm]

As is the case with all fanatics IMO, she had a screw loose and she mended that damage with religious fervor. That makes her human, neither good nor bad.

[Vampyr]

Winstonm, on 2015-January-05, 18:13, said:

As is the case with all fanatics IMO, she had a screw loose and she mended that damage with religious fervor. That makes her human, neither good nor bad.

Except for the fact that many other people were affected. This is what is so wrong.

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2015-January-05, 17:36, said:

One can argue that, yes...

Certainly the Catholic church has had many failings over the years. This much, cannot be argued.

This does not negate the good that is also done. Several months ago, I did some work at a Catholic church in my town. While I was there, they set out a spread of food for the homeless. I gather they do this twice a week, year round.

It is the nature of our media that bad things get much more publicity than good things. This is unfortunate. From my own experience, I suspect that for every molesting priest, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of good Catholics out doing good things. The good things don't just make the news.

From what I read above, it does sound like Teresa of Calcutta was involved in some actions that I consider wrong. That is unfortunate, but will not cause me to change my judgement of those Catholics that I saw feed the homeless. (No, I do not think you said such a thing, or mikeh either. Just making my own statement.)

[Trinidad]

Just a question: Did all these people who suffered so badly under Mother Theresa have a better alternative available? Did they want to go somewhere else? Were they staying there against their will?

In addition, it is a very American view to translate the right to life to the duty to live it and a denial of the right to die. If these people wanted to die in the care of Mother Theresa, no matter how misguided I might think that would be, who am I to deny them that possibility?

In the USA the right to die was advocated about 20 years ago by Dr. Kevorkian, who was an extremist, fanatic, a Moron on a Mission, whose biggest satisfaction came from finding loop holes in Michigan laws and literally getting away with something that legally was not murder but to anybody with half a brain was torture.

But if we ignore Kevorkian and his followers (mainly lawyers ) then we can only say that the right to life strongly implies the right to not use that right and to opt for death in the care of the person of your choice, for the reason of your choice. And if one wants to die to go to heaven, in the care of Mother Theresa to be closer to Christ, I may shake my head, but it is not my call.

Rik

[hrothgar]

Trinidad, on 2015-January-06, 08:30, said:

In addition, it is a very American view to translate the right to life to the duty to live it and a denial of the right to die. If these people wanted to die in the care of Mother Theresa, no matter how misguided I might think that would be, who am I to deny them that possibility?

Even if I accepted this line of argument (which I don't)what about those people who donated money to a fraud, believing that their funds would be used to provide medical services to the poor?

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2015-January-06, 08:30, said:

Just a question: Did all these people who suffered so badly under Mother Theresa have a better alternative available? Did they want to go somewhere else? Were they staying there against their will?

They probably had little choice. They were in poor villages, probably with no nearby hospitals.

Many people thought that Mother Theresa was some kind of Florence Nightingale, going into these villages and providing help that they couldn't get. When they donated to her cause, they presumably thought it would be used to improve this situation.

So the donors were defrauded. And MT had the capacity to help the villagers with the money she received from them, but chose not to.

Whether what she did was "evil" is certainly a matter of opinion. But she's on the road to sainthood. Shouldn't someone in that position be above reproach?

[cherdano]

Trinidad, on 2015-January-06, 08:30, said:

Just a question: Did all these people who suffered so badly under Mother Theresa have a better alternative available? Did they want to go somewhere else? Were they staying there against their will?

In addition, it is a very American view to translate the right to life to the duty to live it and a denial of the right to die. If these people wanted to die in the care of Mother Theresa, no matter how misguided I might think that would be, who am I to deny them that possibility?

In the USA the right to die was advocated about 20 years ago by Dr. Kevorkian, who was an extremist, fanatic, a Moron on a Mission, whose biggest satisfaction came from finding loop holes in Michigan laws and literally getting away with something that legally was not murder but to anybody with half a brain was torture.

But if we ignore Kevorkian and his followers (mainly lawyers ) then we can only say that the right to life strongly implies the right to not use that right and to opt for death in the care of the person of your choice, for the reason of your choice. And if one wants to die to go to heaven, in the care of Mother Theresa to be closer to Christ, I may shake my head, but it is not my call.

Rik

Do you really think the patients in her missions made an informed choice to forego medical care that could have saved their lives?

I admit I didn't know how severe some of the criticism of Mother Teresa was until I started googling a bit upon reading this thread. There is Christopher Hitchens, whose criticism is intellectually sharp (as always, coming from him); there is the criticism about the lack of financial transparency (as in the 2013 study).

Such high-level criticism can be off the mark if it doesn't match the reality on the ground. But what sways me is the anecdote that her famous missions in India had long stopped attracting volunteers from India. They are in a better position to judge whether volunteering for her mission will do actual good than foreigners coming across half the world to "help" there.

[barmar]

cherdano, on 2015-January-06, 11:21, said:

I admit I didn't know how severe some of the criticism of Mother Teresa was until I started googling a bit upon reading this thread. There is Christopher Hitchens, whose criticism is intellectually sharp (as always, coming from him); there is the criticism about the lack of financial transparency (as in the 2013 study).

While I'm a Hitchens fan, we need to be clear that he's biased against religion. So anything he says will be colored in this light.

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2015-January-06, 08:22, said:

Certainly the Catholic church has had many failings over the years. This much, cannot be argued.

This does not negate the good that is also done. Several months ago, I did some work at a Catholic church in my town. While I was there, they set out a spread of food for the homeless. I gather they do this twice a week, year round.

This is really good, but is not the indirect result of money going to the Vatican Bank. Leaving aside that the latter is a corrupt and opaque financial organisation, I am pretty sure that local Catholic Churches (via their diocese) give money to the Vatican, not vice versa.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2015-January-06, 11:16, said:

They probably had little choice. They were in poor villages, probably with no nearby hospitals.

Many people thought that Mother Theresa was some kind of Florence Nightingale, going into these villages and providing help that they couldn't get. When they donated to her cause, they presumably thought it would be used to improve this situation.

So the donors were defrauded. And MT had the capacity to help the villagers with the money she received from them, but chose not to.

Whether what she did was "evil" is certainly a matter of opinion. But she's on the road to sainthood. Shouldn't someone in that position be above reproach?

What difference does it make if an organization proclaims someone a saint or that someone else has infallible knowledge of occult supernatural will? Either idea is a duping of a trusting group of people. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven, "Reproach's got nutthin' to do with it".

[cherdano]

barmar, on 2015-January-06, 11:46, said:

While I'm a Hitchens fan, we need to be clear that he's biased against religion. So anything he says will be colored in this light.

So what? The force of his arguments against Mother Teresa is (IMO) much stronger than of those again religion in general.