Word.
By that argument, the statement “we know there weren’t sufficient funds because the Order didn’t file financial reports showing that there WERE sufficient funds” also applies. Your argument from ignorance does not trump the other side’s argument from ignorance.
A digression her supporters latch onto as eagerly as her detractors, if this thread is anything to go by.
Apologies, I thought this thread was in the pit.
Except that the burden of proof always rests with the proponent of any claim. I didn’t start a thread saying, “Mother Teresa is unambiguously deserving of our veneration!”
Nonetheless, the argument remains unproven, not disproven. And the lack of transparency in the charity’s accounts serves to ensure that it continues to be so.
Well, up to a point. I don’t think anyone would dispute that over several years Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity raised a hell of a lot of money. She was an international celebrity who could both rub shoulders with the rich and influential on one hand and plug straight in to a worldwide grassroots organisation on the other. You can attest that it took one visit to one KoC chapter to raise north of $100K - and in 1992 dollars at that. If you extrapolate out from that visit to every other community organisation she visited on that tour plus every high-value donor she was introduced to, and then think about how many tours of wealthy Western countries she undertook in her time then I think even a conservative estimate will bring you to a fairly hefty sum. Throw in regular appeals at the parish church level across the world and the ongoing fundraising activities of the Missionaries of Charity in the West and it’s clear that even if we don’t have a precise figure we’re talking tens or hundreds of millions a year. Right?
Secondly, any organisation dealing with anything more than pocket change should be in a position to know how much money it’s got and broadly where it’s being spent. If the MoC *don’t *know, then any claims they make about how well they’ve been spending the money are so much hogwash. If they do know, then they have the opportunity to open their books and rub their detractors’ faces in the facts - and have had this opportunity since these allegations first surfaced 20 years ago. They’ve decided it’s not in their interests to do this. For people deciding how best to donate their money, it’s legitimate to draw inferences from that.
Her positions on abortion divorce and birth control are beside the point; likewise the fact that people bring them up.
The fact that a woman whose life was apparently dedicated to ending suffering was content not merely to accept money from vicious dictators about to at best keep quiet but the suffering they caused and at worst allow them to benefit from the halo of her good reputation is, I think, relevant. Clearly, it was more important to her to bank the money than to take a stand against the Duvaliers. Is this because she judged she could do more good with the money than by speaking out against mistreatment? Because she cared less about the suffering of those beyond her ministrations? Because raising money was the end, not the means? I believe they are fair questions.
Don’t apologize for being right. We’ve all seen pictures and videos of her slinking around in that sari.
That was a singular event, the first-ever award of its type, and it was the Supreme Convention, not a local or even state KofC group, but the annual international meeting of the delegates to the Supreme Council.
So while I don’t agree one can meaningfully extrapolate from that, I certainly concede she was able to raise large sums of money.
But the amount is virtually meaningless without understanding who much it was spread out. $100,000 earmarked to treat one person is certainly sufficient to ensure that person has an autoclave. $100,000 divided amongst all the Missionaries’ supported activities is probably close to meaningless.
In 1992 dollars? Highly doubtful.
Today? Tens, but I doubt hundreds.
Of course. Indeed, it’s legitimate to draw inferences from the positions they take on abortion and contraception. Someone uncomfortable with those positions can certainly make a valid choice to direct their dollars elsewhere.
No, I contend that they motivate much of the ire directed against her.
Sure. She almost certainly believed in choosing her battles. Her critics seize on this the same way people here allege that pro-lifers are lying because the pro-life cause seems willing to accept exceptions for rape and incest, and those allegations are unmoved by the response that it’s a choice of battle.
But are they legitimate questions? Absolutely.
Ah, I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying.
Indeed. I believe I’ve seen that in Mother Teresa’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, she claimed that her Calcutta hospice treated 36,000 people a year. Others have claimed fewer than this - perhaps 5,000. Taking her at her word, and assuming that her main institution treated 2/3rds of the total number of the MoC’s patients, then even a worldwide income of $20 million would allow for $370 dollars per head. That seems - and I welcome correction here - like it should be vastly more than what was available to local institutions. Allowing for economies of scale (an autoclave can for example sterilise equipment for more than one patient), bulk purchasing, and purchasing power in rupees, I am left with the feeling that there was the potential to buy more autoclaves and local anaesthetic than reported.
Note that this does not even take into account donations in kind (e.g. buildings), which Mother Teresa was apparently exceptionally good at obtaining.
Today, lacking a charismatic international superstar fundraiser, I strongly expect that MoC revenues have fallen since Mother Teresa’s death. So if it’s tens today, I don’t doubt it was at least tens when she was at her fundraising peak.
Those are not the same sort of inferences. To be blunt, it’s fair to suspect from the total lack of transparency in the face of accusations of financial malpractice that there is something to hide.
Of course they do. But that motivation may be what enables people to see the truth other more favourably inclined observers flinch from.
What’s the basis for that assumption?
They have soup kitchens all over the world. They have twenty homes just in Calcutta for women, orphans, lepers, as well as for the sick and the dying.
There is no reason that I can see to assume that one house, even their main one, was alone responsible for 2/3rds of their Indian patients, much less their world-wide ones.
Or that their order is over sixty years old, grounded in a philosophy not known for its nimble response to change, and a part of a 2,000 year old organization also not at the forefront of speedy change. This invites the inference that their lack of financial transparency is a consequence of “We’ve always done it this way.”
Now, a lack of detailed accounting almost certainly means there are numerous inefficiencies and waste left undiscovered. But the motive is not to conceal wrongdoing, but to simply continue how they have always done things.
Of course they do. But that motivation may be what enables people to see the truth other more favourably inclined observers flinch from.
[/QUOTE]
I contend that no amount of accounting would suffice. The numbers would be suspect.
No % of money used for care would be enough even if it is more that whatever “gold standard” it should be. Any money used for religion would be waste or fraud.
I’ll repeat that those complaining are not those donating or receiveing the help, mostly, but those who would never donate and have also no idea of the job they do.
Since apparently nobody else has said it:
I donate to these guys. They are utilitarians who endeavor to squeeze the maximum marginal benefit from the last dollar donated:
Blog: http://blog.givewell.org/
The organizations they support though are about 500 million light years away from religious organizations though. They probably deserve their own thread, though I wouldn’t know how to begin to craft the OP.
Generally speaking AP style articles only provide superficial understanding. There’s also quite a bit that is murky about Vatican finances, judging from Economist articles I’ve read in the distant past.
-
Because it’s awesome. Though it would be only fair to extend the same courtesy to KAOS and SPECTRE.
-
I know, we really do need to redraw international boundaries. Chile for example, is wholly unnecessary. The South American map would look better if you simply merged most of Chile with Argentina. Also, Bolivia shouldn’t be landlocked. Boundaries in the Himalayas should be consolidated. The Western Sahara should be donated to the Ayn Rand Foundation. Why can’t we just do all that?
I also suspect that cleaning up the barnyard isn’t a small task either mechanically or institutionally.
There’s no basis for the allegation that critics of MoC never support 3rd world development.
That said, I agree that the treatments of the issue have ranged from middling depth at best to tendentious.
Indeed – one of the other complaints about her is that she dared to proselytize while providing care. The nerve.
Yeah; to hell with following little things like laws and dealing with reality, right?
Neither of those two entities is a sovereign state. The Roman Catholic Church is, as you should be able to tell by the nifty title, a church; it happens to be a world-wide one, at that. The Holy See is, again as the nifty title suggests, a see, which happens to be the episcopate of Rome.
If you mean Vatican City State, the actual sovereign state which is ruled by the Pope Benedict XVI, then you are completely mistaken. It is, in fact, recognized as a sovereign state. Want to know why? Here you go:
[ul][li]It has a defined territory.[/li][li]It has a permanent population.[/li][li]It has the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states, and has, in fact, entered into such relations.[/ul][/li]
None of that has any bearing on its status as a sovereign state. You simply do not know what you’re talking about. But, hey, it’s not like that’s stopped you on this site before.
Hey I’m an idealist, I also support Bernie Sanders, but I recognise that he has zero chance of winning the nomination now unless Clinton dies or is indicted (maybe not even then). This is the pit, as far as I’m aware we’re allowed to make statements here of what we wish would happen to foul people and organisations that deserve it.
Will the RCC / Holy See / Vatican lose its sovereign status? Almost certainly not in the next 100 years. Should it happen? Fuck yes, the entire bunch of pedophile protecting cowards and the evil sadistic zombie dwarf they’re going to saint should all be taken down a few notches and made to live by the same standards of transparency as any other multinational organisation.
So you believe your wish for a pony makes you feel better? Even when it’s immediately rebutted by, “You realize you are never actually getting that pony, right?”
And all you can do is double down with, “Yes. But I really REALLY want it.”
Ok, Skippy.
No pony for you. But enjoy your futile wishing.
I dunno, I think it’s pretty human to build castles in the air.
You were turned down for seminary school or something, weren’t you?
And on a website devoted to fighting ignorance, what do you have to say about the architectural soundness of such castles?