The case against Mother Theresa

Why are you speaking for your wife? Because she knows something about Hospice she could weigh in? You should speak only for yourself. You are starting to sound cuckolded.

I am a trained professional and speaking only for myself I can say that what we have for pain management in the US compared to third world countries is vastly different. In the US pain management is overseen by the DEA and every drug has to be accounted for and administered by a nurse and ordered by doctor. In a third world country only the rich could afford these drugs which was not the focus of Mother Teresa or her mission.

Your point is Mother Teresa had money to pay for pain relief but didn’t pay doctors and nurses to administer it? Mother Teresa was a nun not a nurse and she took in people that were dying and too poor to go to the hospital. She would send people in need of pain care to to the hospital if they wanted to go.

You say:

“Since others have shown that she did and that she admitted that the suffering was good, I’ve got enough information to form a conclusion. Since you’re still claiming that you don’t, you’ve proven that not only atheists can have agendas”.

So are you saying that Mother Teresa has an agenda other then love and service to the dying? That she wanted to see them suffer in the name of religion?

Please cite.

Wasn’t it obvious? I didn’t speak for her, btw. I let her type a few sentences of her own.

WTF are you talking about? It seems like my wife cheats on me because she was in the next room while I was reading a thread on the SD and asked her for her professional opinion?

What is your profession?

So what? She was running what she claimed were hospices. She could have given pain meds. Instead, she thought suffering was better.

That’s the point. It should be the focus of a mission of anyone running hospices. Her focus instead was to allow them to suffer because it was good for their soul and be more concerned with their conversion.

Why don’t you read my post again in context to who I was replying to and why and maybe it will become clear to you what I was saying.

Are you kidding? Re-read this thread again if you need evidence.

Leave the personal comments out of this. They’re not allowed in this forum.

:confused: Cuckolded?!?? :confused:

I second that. Actually, I’m guessing that Perciful meant to say something like “henpecked” (i.e., trying to imply that you’re just meekly repeating what your wife says), and confused the two terms:

hen -> henpecked -> bird metaphor for marital situation -> cuckoo -> cuckold

Aw c’mon Mod, at least let Perciful explain what s/he was trying to say! Now how’m I supposed to get any sleep?

Perciful can always come back to explain what he was trying to say. Even if he’s clueless to the definitions of the words he chooses to use, it was a personal attack with no merit.

Perciful is a she, and I concur with the guess that she thought “cuckolded” meant something like nagged or henpecked (pssst…Perciful…“cuckolded,” means having a wife that cheats on you).

Really, I always thought it was a henpecked man. Thanks Diogenes for correcting me on that.

Ok, Back to this topic,

Well, I’m impressed.

I’m not touching that with a ten foot pole.

She was not running a hospice but a home for the dying. She can’t administer drugs because she is not qualified. I disagree that Mother Teresa dedicated her life to making people suffer. It would not be allowed for a nun to hurt the people she is trying to help.

What conversion? She took in any race, creed or color. She respected the religions of the people she cared for.

Ok so you said:

She had a modest amount of money to house and feed the nuns and the dying. She also ran an orphanage. Taking an oath of poverty means just that. The money in her order was not hers to spend but to take care of the Sisters Of Charity and the people in their care.

Again, I don’t see why pain relief was such a big issue. She did relieve a lot of these peoples pain by bringing them in off the sidewalks and washing them and feeding them and showing them some love before they died. She refered some people to hospitals that had families to pay for treatment. She was not set up as a hospital. Calcutta has hospitals.

So not only atheists can have agendas? I think her agenda was a very humanitarian one. If she wanted for these destitute dying men and women to suffer she would have left them on the street and stayed in her convent and prayed. She didn’t.

She had millions of dollars. If she wasn’t qualified, she could have hired someone who was. Millions of dollars. That isn’t “modest” by any stretch. Millions of damned dollars.

We’re talking about the famous Mother Teresa. Which one are you talking about?

Found written on the wall in Mother Teresa’s home for children in Calcutta:
People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.

If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies. Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you. Be honest and sincere anyway.

What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight. Create anyway.

If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous. Be happy anyway.

The good you do today, will often be forgotten. Do good anyway.

Give the best you have, and it will never be enough. Give your best anyway.
In the final analysis, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.

Mother Teresa

Perciful, I don’t think anybody here is seriously arguing that Mother Teresa didn’t sincerely believe she was doing good for others, or didn’t embrace Christian doctrines about universal love and compassion. You don’t have to persuade anybody that she was very vocal about the importance of compassion and charity and very dedicated to spreading her ideas about them. We already know it.

The topic under debate here is whether Mother Teresa’s personal ideas of Christian charity, because of their heavy emphasis on humility, self-abasement and the sanctity of suffering rather than on maximizing material assistance to the charity recipients, seriously undermined her potential effectiveness as a force for good in the world.

Yes, I know that she’s viewed by many people as inspirational and that her popular image as a selfless saint is widely revered and held up as a role model. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether the efficacy of her practical charitable efforts was significantly diminished by her insistence on the importance of austerity and suffering even when they served no practical purpose. No amount of sentimental glurge about her appreciation of pop-culture religious precepts will answer that question.

(And by the way, the particular item of glurge that you just posted as attributed to Mother Teresa is claimed by Kent M. Keith as the “Paradoxical Commandments” of his own composition.)

This deserves comment. Ad hominem arguments are never strong ones, but they merit consideration: it doesn’t seem plausible that the Nobel Committee simply had its head up its posterior.

I think they made a good choice - in 1979, when the award was made. Grant a Nobel prize and both attention and copious funding will follow. How did Mother Teresa manage that windfall?

Bill Gates (and Warren Buffet) deserve credit not only for giving away billions of dollars, but also for working hard to measure the effectiveness of their donations. Quality and innovation is often more important that quantity. I’m afraid that Mother Teresa falls short in this regard. She didn’t appear to follow the low cost- high volume hospice model, as she only established some 300 sanctuaries. And their care seems to have reflected some of her idiosyncratic theology. Don’t get me wrong: I think she was a woman of high accomplishment. And lots of Catholic Saints have done far less. But is she the Babe Ruth or Michael Jordan of sainthood, as the media seems to suggest? I think not.

What was MT’s legacy? Rosemary Dew, former FBI agent and certified hospice nurse wrote In Mother Teresa’s House: A Hospice Nurse In The Slums Of Calcutta, a book covering her 2004 visit. It’s a sympathetic portrait. But it seems that MT’s notions of the nobility of suffering continue to this day, which I find unfortunate:

Then again, the author also noted that “…love, compassion and human touch do ease suffering.”

The Catholic Church runs many fine hospitals. The Missionaries of Charity might benefit from an outside review conducted by a team familiar with pain management and third world medical care.

So they had the personnel, expertise and money to administer Valium and chose not to administer pain meds. Thanks very much for the cite.

I agree, and I deplore the negative hyperbole about Mother Teresa even more than the positive exaggerations. There really seems no reason to think that she personally was consciously a crook or a fraud or a hypocrite in any way, or that she wasn’t dedicated to what she perceived as her divine mission of helping the poor from the vantage point of one of the poor.

She seems to have seen herself and her Sisters almost as a mendicant order of religious beggars, voluntarily devoting themselves to lives of material impoverishment and endurance. Mendicant religious orders helped the involuntarily impoverished as best they could with self-sacrificing service and by begging on their behalf, but with very limited material resources of their own.

But this “mendicant mindset”, as it were, seems to have rendered Mother Teresa incapable of coping with the fact that she did have vast resources available. She was very good at enlisting charitable support for the scanty material needs that she and her Sisters couldn’t do without; what she wasn’t good at was actually using the resources at her disposal for efficient administration of charitable services. It is dismaying to read accounts of the institutional inertia which afflicted the Missionaries of Charity when confronted with money:

Now, I can respect the desire of Mother Teresa and her Sisters to be nuns, and to make their vision of a mendicant-style life of hardship, humility and devotion their first priority. But if it’s a question of giving my money to help the poor, I want the money to go to organizations for whom efficient administration of effective services is the first priority.

It is heartbreaking to think of how much generous zeal and, in many cases, personal sacrifice went into so many of those donations to Mother Teresa’s institutions that were never spent to serve poor people at all.

It is an impossible effort to change the minds of the opposition. Like trying to get a Republican to vote for something the Democrats want.

Skeptics will always be skeptics, just change the words near death experiences to Mother Teresa on the quote below.

[[REMOVED BLOG LINK]]

lekatt, you’ve been told I don’t know how many times that you cannot use this forum to promote your blog. I removed a link from your last post. This is a formal warning not to do it again.

Admittedly, not all the fault lies with Mother Teresa herself. For all that she was the head of her order, she was still a nun and likely took her vows seriously. If the Pope or College of Cardinals had ever ordered her to use the money for its intended purpose, she would likely have complied (after much grumbling and sulking, if her portrayal in biogs is accurate). So some blame attaches to her higher-ups, for using her as a cash cow.