What was so special about Mother Theresa?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Apr 17, 2005
13,465
3
81
i'm a hindu and i think she was great. some of these wack ass hindus complain about how she exploited the poverty to convert people...but who the fvck stopped the hindus from helping their own people? Some lady comes in and has to take care of the poor, well then you better shut the fvck up. I was just talking about this very same topic with some older more conservatives indians
 

dfi

Golden Member
Apr 20, 2001
1,213
0
0
Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
She is world renowned and special because she wasn't a Hollywood philanthropist who mailed a check and made sure her publicist told ET about it.

Sure, a lot of people donate generously to charity and adopt babies all over - but this woman was something special.

Devoting your life to help other is very noble. Very impressive. But I have to question, which does more good - your lifetime of devotion, or a $10 million dollar donation? After all, if you dedicate your life to others, that's still only 1 person's help. If you're obscenely wealthy, you could hire 100 people to help others the rest of their lives.
 

Aharami

Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
21,294
148
106
Originally posted by: Andyb23

Many Indian people I know would disagree with you completely.

please explain...

I don't know what to make of it, but these are people in industry and IT who give much more to charity than any religious organization.

its one thing to cut a check. its totally another thing to devote one's whole life to helping others. how many of these people you speak of who give to charity would continue doing so if it meant they couldnt afford to buy that big screen TV, or drive the latest bimmer after giving to charity. Mother Theresa wasnt rich. She didnt keep any of the money for herself. Everything that came in, went to helping others
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,755
63
91
She's actually a somewhat controversial figure. I don't really trust Hitchens that much, but others have confirmed problems:

Wikipedia
Controversy and critics

Critics of Mother Teresa have argued that her organization provided substandard care, and were primarily interested in converting the dying to Catholicism. At the same time, Teresa received large sums in donations, the amount or destination of which has not been revealed. These donations are alleged to have been transferred to Catholic missionary programs elsewhere, rather than being spent on improving the standard of healthcare. Furthermore, Teresa's relationships with some donors and political figures has been a source of controversy. The Catholic Church has dismissed most of these criticisms.
[edit]Destination of donations
Christopher Hitchens, a British journalist now living in Washington, D.C., described Mother Teresa's organization as a cult which promoted suffering and did not help those in need. Hitchens wrote that Mother Teresa's own words on poverty proved that "her intention was not to help people." He quoted Mother Teresa's words at a 1981 press conference in which she was asked: "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" She replied: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
Hitchens further alleged that Mother Teresa lied to donors about what their contributions were to be used for. Donors were told that the money went to aid and the construction of healthcare facilities in India and elsewhere. Evidence points to it instead being spent largely on missionary work and that Mother Teresa was actually the controller of some of the funds. No hospitals were ever built. In 1994, Hitchens published an article in The Nation entitled "The Ghoul of Calcutta".
Dr. Aroup Chatterjee, the author of "Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict" (2003), asserted that the public image of Mother Teresa as a helper of the poor, the sick, and the dying was misleading and overstated; the number of people who are served by even the largest of the homes is not nearly as large as westerners are led to believe. [1]
Hitchens, with British journalist Tariq Ali, co-produced a television documentary for the UK's Channel 4 called Hell's Angel, which was based on Aroup Chatterjee's work. Although he has never disputed the documentary's conclusions, Chatterjee criticized what he called the "sensationalist" approach of the film[2]. The next year Hitchens published The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, which contained much of the same content, though with more references. Hitchens was the only witness called by the Vatican to give evidence against Mother Teresa's beatification and canonization process, as the Vatican had abolished the traditional "Devil's Advocate" role that filled a similar purpose.[5]
[edit]Criticism of care provided
In 1991, Dr. Robin Fox, then editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, visited the Home for Dying Destitute in Calcutta and described the medical care the patients received as "haphazard". He observed that sisters and volunteers, some of whom had no medical knowledge, had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors in the hospice. Dr. Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for conditions in this home, and observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients; people who could otherwise survive their ordeals would be at a heightened risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment.
Fox conceded that the regimen he observed included cleanliness, the tending of wounds and sores, and kindness, but he noted that the sisters' approach to managing pain was "disturbingly lacking". The formulary at the facility Fox visited lacked strong analgesics which he felt clearly separated Mother Teresa's approach from the hospice movement. Fox also wrote that needles were rinsed with warm water, which left them inadequately sterilized, and the facility did not isolate patients with tuberculosis.
Aroup Chatterjee alleged that many operations of the order engage in absolutely no charitable activity at all, but instead use their funds for missionary work. He stated, that none of the eight facilities that the Missionaries of Charity run in Papua New Guinea have residents living there; their sole use is converting people to Catholicism. In an open letter to Mother Teresa Chatterjee asked for clarification. In the letter, he quotes her as having given numbers of 57,000 helped at a single facility, 250,000 helped at another, thousands helped daily at another. He cast doubt upon these numbers. [3]
Chatterjee contends that families of the residents of its homes were not allowed to visit their loved ones and that, among India's charitable organizations, Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity is the only one which refuses to release a public financial account.


There have been a series of other reports documenting inattention to medical care in the order's facilities. Similar points of view have also been expressed by some former volunteers who worked for Teresa's order.


Attitude toward political leaders
Mother Teresa made some public statements regarding political leaders that have produced controversy. After Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's suspension of civil liberties in 1975, Mother Teresa said: "People are happier. There are more jobs. There are no strikes." These approving comments were seen as a result of the friendship between Teresa and the Congress Party. These comments were criticized even in Catholic media. (Chatterjee, p. 276). In 1981, she made a trip to Haiti to accept an honor from Jean-Claude Duvalier, who was notorious as a repressive kleptocrat, and praised the Duvalier family as friends of Haiti's poor. In 1989, she travelled to Albania and laid a wreath at the grave of Enver Hoxha, the nation's hard-line Stalinist leader throughout the Cold War era, who had outlawed religion and sometimes brutally repressed religious expressions, including those of the Catholic Church.

Another example of Teresa apparently abandoning her convictions where the famous and powerful were involved concerns the subject of divorce. Hitchens wrote that in spite of her hostility to the practice, she nevertheless told the Ladies Home Journal that, with respect to the marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, "It is a good thing that it is over. Nobody was happy anyhow." The question of whether or not she personally felt that divorce for all should be allowed among Catholics was not raised, but rather was left for the Pope, in his role as Holy Father of the Catholic Church, to discern.[6]
The Tamil Nadu Government headed by the Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran established a women's university in Kodaikanal named after Mother Teresa.


[edit]Baptisms of the dying
Mother Teresa has garnered criticism for her encouragement of sacramental baptisms being performed on the dying (a majority of which were Hindus and Muslims), thus converting them to the Catholic faith. These were done without regard to the individuals' religion. In a speech at the Scripps Clinic in San Diego, California in January, 1992, she said, "Something very beautiful... not one has died without receiving the special ticket for St. Peter, as we call it. We call baptism 'a ticket for St. Peter.' We ask the person, do you want a blessing by which your sins will be forgiven and you receive God? They have never refused. So 29,000 have died in that one house [in Kalighat] from the time we began in 1952."

The Catholic Church's response to criticism
In the process of examining Teresa's suitability for beatification and canonization, the Roman Curia (the Vatican) pored over a great deal of documentation of published and unpublished criticisms against her life and work. Vatican officials say Hitchens' allegations have been investigated by the agency charged with such matters, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, and they found no obstacle to Mother Teresa's canonization. [7] Due to the attacks she has received, some Catholic writers have called her a sign of contradiction. [4]

Seems pretty shady. It sounds like she was much more interested in "saving" people from hell than from death or pain.
 

Aharami

Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
21,294
148
106
Originally posted by: Andyb23
Originally posted by: CadetLee
To save the souls of the destitute because you believe it is what is right in your heart is right in my opinion.
Are you saying she spent so many years doing what she did without believing in her heart it was right?

I do not know her own views and what she thought in her heart dude.

No person could know what another truly believes without befriending them.

But I think religious fervor is many times a wrong motive to help others. I think human empathy is a much more righteous ideal, thats just my opinion though.

I think that's the ONLY good thing about religion - trying to help others.
 

Andyb23

Senior member
Oct 27, 2006
501
0
0
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
i'm a hindu and i think she was great. some of these wack ass hindus complain about how she exploited the poverty to convert people...but who the fvck stopped the hindus from helping their own people? Some lady comes in and has to take care of the poor, well then you better shut the fvck up. I was just talking about this very same topic with some older more conservatives indians

Well from what I know of history, India was in a very chaotic time during partition. Many people died, the old nation was torn apart etc. etc.

Many people who had much now had little and those who had little had even less.

That has always been easy pickings for religious zealots. Time Immemorial. It is also disrespectful of you to say that Hindus did not help their own people. Many did but India is quite a big country geographically much like Europe with a wide variety of religions and ethnic groups. Mother Theresa may have helped the purely destitute and disabled but at that time I gather even the wealthy populace of India was still looking for direction and stability. When the wealthy look for stability and guidance you had better believe the poor are easy pickings much like the Church was in Medieval Europe.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,755
63
91
Originally posted by: Aharami
Originally posted by: Andyb23

Many Indian people I know would disagree with you completely.

please explain...

I don't know what to make of it, but these are people in industry and IT who give much more to charity than any religious organization.

its one thing to cut a check. its totally another thing to devote one's whole life to helping others. how many of these people you speak of who give to charity would continue doing so if it meant they couldnt afford to buy that big screen TV, or drive the latest bimmer after giving to charity. Mother Theresa wasnt rich. She didnt keep any of the money for herself. Everything that came in, went to helping others

If by helping others you mean helping others escape hell fire by converting them to Catholicism, even against their wishes.
 

Gilligansdingy

Golden Member
Jun 2, 2005
1,264
0
76
See if you just let the poor and starving die off... they wont be around to produce more starving and poor poeple to drain society.

So, She basically caused more poverty then she ever helped.
 

CTweak

Senior member
Jun 6, 2000
451
0
0
Originally posted by: adairusmc
Watch the Penn & Teller Bullshit episode about her and Ghandi. You will learn all you need to know about that crook.


She is probably the single most successful emotional con-job of the 20th century.

Ditto. She may have 'done good' w/ charity, but her devotion to suffering as a way to 'god' is reprehensible to me personaly. I think she was a sham and a propoganda for the church. All you have to do is see the living conditions she provided in her 'waiting to die' facilities.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,755
63
91
Originally posted by: Gilligansdingy
See if you just let the poor and starving die off... they wont be around to produce more starving and poor poeple to drain society.

So, She basically caused more poverty then she ever helped.

Your logic fails because she didn't really save people. Her facilities lumped the 100% gonna die people in with the 25%-75% gonna die people, putting the less likely people at much greater risk of dying of infections. So she ended up killing off the weak, thereby improving the communities!
 

Andyb23

Senior member
Oct 27, 2006
501
0
0
I think that my major argument with this is that, globally there are countless religions.

I do not think you can be relevant in the modern world preaching one religion and 'helping' people under that guise.

If help is needed it should be done from a purely humanistic respect.

I respect you as a human and I respect your rights as a human. Food will be given, not because I want you to follow Christianity, Judaism or Islam but because I care about you as a fellow inhabitant of this planet. From there we can move on and I give praise to all those who give up more prestigious careers to help those in need from whatever part of the globe they are on.