I think I hate Mother Teresa now...

by Preston 77 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Ross

    No, she didn't CAUSE suffering. She supported doctrines that stopped pre-existing suffering getting better.

    Someone with a bucket of water by a house on fire (with people being hurt in the house) who said they had instructions not to use water on fire, and that instructions were more important than the suffering of those in the fire, would generally be viewed as being screwed in the head.

    Put someone with a bucket of condoms in a country with massive population pressure that causes suffering.

    Why does it becomes okay in that situation for them to stand by whilst a good and effective solution is at hand to ease suffering?

    Btw, who here claimed that she (or the Pope) was God's spokesman???

    Either they or their follows see it as such, or they have stated it as such.

    Whilst I'm no supporter of the Pope, I fail to see how lack of contraception is the cause of the spread of lethal infection. I quite agree that it is a defense against it, but methinks we're mixing our fruits again...

    No, we are refusing to accept the sanitisation of religious doctrines which contribute to the spread of lethal disease, that is what we are doing.

    If vetoing blood and thus causing death amongst believers is bad, why is vetoing contraception and thus causing death?

    Just as the JW's make out it's not their fault people die ("an accident meant blood was neccesary but we couldn't accept it"), so too do supporters of other life damaging doctrines claim that it is not their fault ("there's an epidemic but we can't allow the use of condoms").

    Of course, we can all ignore the misogyny behind anti-contraceptive measures if it means we get to support people's beliefs; but what about the belief women are equal in their rights and opportunities to life?

    And I am saddened you will defend unnatural behaviour (ask any sceintist - abstaining from sex is unnatural) as a 'solution' to a problem and support those who will force unnatural behaviour ontheir followers rather than allow them to wear condoms. Seems tit over arse to me, but there you go...

    Also;

    Should everyone in the West take full cognisance of every disease category and humanitarian relief efforts that are conducted in the third world? It might be insighful, but would unlikely be practical.

    This is, well, I like you so I won't say what I think it is. One could argue that "everyone in the West" should not "full cognisance" of some obscure disease with an isolated range. BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A WORLDWIDE EPIDEMIC.

    I think people can just about manage to take into account in supplying aid what they take into account when THEY have sex. You act like Ringo (John Paul Geroge and Ringo...) would say 'Golly, you mean they have that AID's business in Africa too? We must send them condoms!

    Oh, and since when was 'what have you done?' been a defence of harmful policies or attitudes. I think speaking against harmful policies and attitudes (for example with revisonists and neo-nazis) is important even if one never raises a dime against them or marches to oppose them.

    You seem to be more seeking to deny others the right to state a well-supported opinion contrary to what is considered acceptable than about dealing with the opinion's factual foundation. Why?

    All the best even if I disagree with you quite majorly

    Gyles

    AK - Jeff

    ... could it be truly stated that those policies have had much effect at all on the Indian Continent?

    Oh, please... what about Latin America and Africa; is that enough people dying as a result of stupid religiously-backed anti-contraceptive attitudes? The fcat that India has by-and-large ignored Christianity cannot be used to defend life-harming policies of Christian religionists there.

    And comparing passive smoking to religous doctrine; yes of course, something people can move away from is exactly the same as a religious belief followed by those who fear their immortal souls if they ignore it.

    Sorry to be a bit sharp, but your examples were raher blunt.

    jgnat

    don't trample on what she did.

    What did she do then? Please give examples.

    funky

    Lovely quote, about time the hateful little prune has her massively undeserved reputation traduced. Here's the source (maybe);

    http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/20031020_en.html

    Oh, Derek, isn't it funny the expression 'I don't know all the facts' is an acceptable defence? I always thought that if someone said something wrong or untrue, then if you didn't agree with it you could rebutt the statement with FACTS. Silly me.

    Here's some of those naughty facts that mean we have to see the world as it is rather than as we'd like it to be;

    10 September 1998 STERN magazine (like a German Life Magaizine) copied from http://members.lycos.co.uk/bajuu/

    MOTHER TERESA : WHERE ARE HER MILLIONS?
    by

    Walter Wuellenweber

    The Angel of the poor died a year ago. Donations still flow in to her Missionaries of Charity like to no other cause. But the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize vowed to live in poverty. What then, happened to so much money?

    If there is a heaven, then she is surely there: Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu from Skopje in Macedonia, better known as Mother Teresa. She came to Calcutta on the 6th of Januray 1929 as an 18 year old sister of the Order of Loreto. 68 years later luminaries from all over the world assembled in Calcutta in order to honour her with a state funeral. In these 68 years she had founded the most successful order in the history of the Catholic church, received the Nobel Peace Prize and became the most famous Catholic of our time.

    Are doubts permitted, regarding this "monument"?

    In Calcutta, one meets many doubters.

    For example, Samity, a man of around 30 with no teeth, who lives in the slums. He is one of the "poorest of the poor" to whom Mother Teresa was supposed to have dedicated her life. With a plastic bag in hand, he stands in a kilometre long queue in Calcutta's Park Street. The poor wait patiently, until the helpers shovel some rice and lentils into their bags. But Samity does not get his grub from Mother Teresa's institution, but instead from the Assembly of God, an American charity, that serves 18000 meals here daily.

    "Mother Teresa?"says Samity, "We have not received anything from her here. Ask in the slums -- who has received anything from the sisters here -- you will find hardly anybody."

    Pannalal Manik also has doubts. "I don't understand why you educated people in the West have made this woman into such a goddess!" Manik was born some 56 years ago in the Rambagan slum, which at about 300 years of age, is Calcutta's oldest. What Manik has achieved, can well be called a "miracle". He has built 16 apartment buildings in the midst of the slum -- living space for 4000 people. Money for the building materials -- equivalent to DM 10000 per apartment building -- was begged for by Manik from the Ramakrishna Mission [a Indian/Hindu charity], the largest assistance-organisation in India. The slum-dwellers built the buildings themselves. It has become a model for the whole of India. But what about Mother Teresa? "I went to her place 3 times," said Manik. "She did not even listen to what I had to say. Everyone on earth knows that the sisters have a lot of money. But no one knows what they do with it!"

    In Calcutta there are about 200 charitable organisations helping the poor. Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity are not amongst the biggest helpers: that contradicts the image of the organisation. The name "Mother Teresa" was and is tied to the city of Calcutta. All over the world admirers and supporters of the Nobel Prize winner believe that it must be there that her organisation is particularly active in the fight against poverty. "All lies," says Aroup Chatterjee . The doctor who lives in London was born and brought up in Calcutta. Chatterjee who has been working for years on a book on the myth of Mother Teresa, speaks to the poor in the slums of Calcutta, or combs through the speeches of the Nobel Prize winner. "No matter where I search, I only find lies. For example the lies about schools. Mother T has often stated that she runs a school in Calcutta for more than 5000 children. 5000 children! -- that would have to be a huge school, one of the biggest in all of India. But where is this school? I have never found it, nor do I know anybody who has seen it!" says Chatterjee.

    Compared to other charitable organisations in Calcutta, the nuns with the 3 blue stripes are ahead in two respects: they are world famous, and, they have the most money. But how much exactly, has always been a closely guarded secret of the organisation. Indian law requires charitable organisations to publish their accounts. Mother Teresa's organisation ignores this prescription! It is not known if the Finance Ministry in Delhi who would be responsible for charities' accounts, have the actual figures. Upon STERN's inquiry, the Ministry informed us that this particular query was listed as "classified information".

    The organisation has 6 branches in Germany. Here too financial matters are a strict secret. "It's nobody's business how much money we have, I mean to say how little we have," says Sr Pauline, head of the German operations. Maria Tingelhoff had had handled the organisation's book-keeping on a voluntary basis until 1981. "We did see 3 million a year," she remembers. But Mother Teresa never quite trusted the worldly helpers completely. So the sisters took over the financial management themselves in 1981. "Of course I don't know how much money went in, in the years after that, but it must be many multiples of 3 million," estimates Mrs Tingelhoff. "Mother was always very pleased with the Germans."

    Perhaps the most lucrative branch of the organisation is the "Holy Ghost" House in New York's Bronx. Susan Shields served the order there for a total of nine and a half years as Sister Virgin. "We spent a large part of each day writing thank you letters and processing cheques," she says. "Every night around 25 sisters had to spend many hours preparing receipts for donations. It was a conveyor belt process: some sisters typed, others made lists of the amounts, stuffed letters into envelopes, or sorted the cheques. Values were between $5 and $100.000. Donors often dropped their envelopes filled with money at the door. Before Christmas the flow of donations was often totally out of control. The postman brought sackfuls of letters -- cheques for $50000 were no rarity." Sister Virgin remebers that one year there was about $50 million in a New York bank account. $50 million in one year! -- in a predominantly non-Catholic country. How much then, were they collecting in Europe or the world? It is estimated that worldwide they collected at least $100 million per year -- and that has been going on for many many years.

    While the income is utter secret, the expenditures are equally mysterious. The order is hardly able to spend large amounts. The establishments supported by the nuns are so tiny (inconspicuous) that even the locals have difficulty tracing them. Often "Mother Teresa's Home" means just a living accomodation for the sisters, with no charitable funstion. Conspicuous or useful assistance cannot be provided there. The order often receives huge donations in kind, in addition to the monetary munificence. Boxes of medicines land at Indian airports. Donated foograins and powdered milk arrive in containers at Calcutta port. Clothing donations from Europe and the US arrive in unimaginable quantities. On Calcutta's pavement stalls, traders can be seen sellin used western labels for 25 rupees (DM1) apiece. Numerous traders call out, "Shirts from Mother, trousers from Mother."

    Unlike with other charities, the Missionaries of Charity spend very little on their own management, since the organisation is run at practically no cost. The approximately 4000 sisters in 150 countries form the most treasured workforce of all global multi-million dollar operations. Having taken vows of poverty and obedience, they work for no pay, supported by 300,000 good citizen helpers.

    By their own admission, Mother Teresa's organisation has about 500 locations worldwide. But for purchase or rent of property, the sisters do not need to touch their bank accounts. "Mother always said, we don't spend for that," remembers Sunita Kumar, one the richest women in Calcutta and supposedly Mother T's closest associate outside the order. "If Mother needed a house, she went straight to the owner, whether it was the State or a private person, and worked on him for so long that she eventually got it free."

    Her method was also successful in Germany.In March the "Bethlehem House" was dedicated in Hamburg, a shelter for homeless women. Four sisters work there. The archtecturally conspicuous building cost DM2.5 million. The fortunes of the order have not spent a penny toward the amount. The money was collected by a Christian association in Hamburg. With Mother T as figure head it was naturally short work to collect the millions.

    Mother Teresa saw it as as her God given right never to have to pay anyone for anything. Once she bought food for her nuns in London for GB£500. When she was told she'd have to pay at the till, the diminutive seemingly harmless nun showed her Balkan temper and shouted, "This is for the work of God!" She raged so loud and so long that eventually a businessman waiting in the queue paid up on her behalf.

    England is one of the few countries where the sisters allow the authorities at least a quick glance at their accounts. Here the order took in DM5.3 million in 1991. And expenses (including charitable expenses)? -- around DM360,000 or less than 7%. Whatever happened to the rest of the money? Sister Teresina, the head for England, defensively states, "Sorry we can't tell you that." Every year, according to the returns filed with the British authorities, a portion of the fortune is sent to accounts of the order in other countries. How much to which countries is not declared. One of the recipients is however, always Rome. The fortune of this famous charitable organistaion is controlled from Rome, -- from an account at the Vatican bank. And what happens with monies at the Vatican Bank is so secret that even God is not allowed to know about it. One thing is sure however -- Mother's outlets in poor countries do not benefit from largesse of the rich countries. The official biographer of Mother Teresa, Kathryn Spink, writes, "As soon as the sisters became established in a certain country, Mother normally withdrew all financial support." Branches in very needy countries therefore only receive start-up assistance. Most of the money remains in the Vatican Bank.

    STERN asked the Missionaries of Charity numerous times for information about location of the donations, both in writing as well in person during a visit to Mother Teresa's house in Calcutta. The order has never answered.

    "You should visit the House in New York, then you'll understand what happens to donations," sayssays Eva Kolodziej. The Polish lady was a Missionary of Charity for 5 years. "In the cellar of the homeless shelter there are valuable books, jewellery and gold. What happens to them? -- The sisters receive them with smiles, and keep them. Most of these lie around uselessly forever."

    The millions that are donated to the order have a similar fate. Susan Shields (formerly Sr Virgin) says, "The money was not misused, but the largest part of it wasn't used at all. When there was a famine in Ethiopia, many cheques arrived marked 'for the hungry in Ethiopia'. Once I asked the sister who was in charge of accounts if I should add up all those very many cheques and send the total to Ethiopia. The sister answered, 'No, we don't send money to Africa.' But I continued to make receipts to the donors, 'For Ethiopia'."

    By the accounts of former sisters, the finances are a one way street. "We were always told, the fact that we receive more than other orders, shows that God loves Mother Teresa more. ," says Susan Shields. Donations and hefty bank balances are a measure of God's love. Taking is holier than giving.

    The sufferers are the ones for whom the donations were originally intended. The nuns run a soup kitchen in New York's Bronx. Or, to put in straight, they have it run for them, since volunteer helpers organise everything, including food. The sisters might distribute it. Once, Shields remembers, the helpers made an organisational mistake, so they could not deliver bread with their meals. The sisters asked their superior if they could buy the bread. "Out of the question -- we are a poor organisation." came the reply. "In the end, the poor did not get their bread," says Shields. Shields has experienced countless such incidents. One girl from communion class did not appear for her first communion because her mothet could not buy her a white communion dress. So she had to wait another year; but as that particular Sunday approached, she had the same problem again. Shields (Sr Virgin) asked the superior if the order could buy the girl a white dress. Again, she was turned down -- gruffly. The girl never had her first communion.

    Because of the tightfistedness of the rich order, the "poorest of the poor" -- orphans in India -- suffer the most. The nuns run a home in Delhi, in which the orphans wait to be adopted by, in many cases, by foreigners. As usual, the costs of running the home are borne not by the order, but by the future adoptive parents. In Germany the organisation called Pro Infante has the monopoly of mediation role for these children. The head, Carla Wiedeking, a personal friend of Mother Teresa's, wrote a letter to Donors, Supporters and Friends which ran:

    "On my September vist I had to witness 2 or 3 children lying in the same cot, in totally overcrowded rooms with not a square inch of playing space. The behavioural problems arising as a result cannot be overlooked." Mrs Wiedeking appeals to the generosity of supporters in view of her powerlessness in the face of the children's great needs. Powerlessness?! In an organisation with a billion-fortune, which has 3 times as much money available to it as UNICEF is able to spend in all of India? The Missionaries of Charity has have the means to buy cots and build orphanages, -- with playgrounds. And they have enoungh money not only for a handful orphans in Delhi but for many thousand orphans who struggle for survival in the streets of Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta.

    Saving, in Mother Teresa's philosophy, was a central value in itself. All very well, but as her poor organisation quickly grew into a rich one, what did she do with her pictures, jewels, inherited houses, cheques or suitcases full of money? If she wished to she could now cater to people not by obsessively indulging in saving, but instead through well thought-out spending. But the Nobel Prize winner did not want an efficient organisation that helped people efficiently. Full of pride, she called the Missionaries of Charity the "most disorganised organisation in the world". Computers, typewriters, photocopiers are not allowed. Even when they are donated, they are not allowed to be installed. For book-keeping the sisters use school notebooks, in which they write in cramped pencilled figures. Until they are full. Then everything is erased and the notebook used again. All in order to save.

    For a sustainable charitable system, it would have been sensible to train the nuns to become nurses, teachers or managers. But a Missionary of Charity nun is never trained for anything further.

    Fueklled by her desire for un-professionalism, Mother Teresa decisions from year to year became even more bizarre. Once, says Susan Shields, the order bought am empty building from the City of New York in order to look after AIDS patients. Purchase price: 1 dollar. But since handicapped people would also be using the house, NY City management insisted on the installation of a lift (elevator). The offer of the lift was declined: to Mother they were a sign of wealth. Finally the nuns gave the building back to the City of New York.

    While the Missionaries of Charity have already witheld help from the starving in Ethiopia or the orphans in India -- despite having received donations in their names -- there are others who are being actively harmed by the organisation's ideology of disorganisation. In 1994, Robin Fox, editor of the prestigious medical journal Lancet, in a commentary on the catastrophic conditions prevailing in Mother Teresa's homes, shocked the professional world by saying that any systematic operation was foreign to the running of the homes in India: TB patients were not isolated, and syringes were washed in lukewarm water before being used again. Even patients in unbearable pain were refused strong painkillers, not because the order did not have them, but on principle. "The most beautiful gift for a person is that he can participate in the suffering of Christ," said Mother Teresa. Once she had tried to comfort a screaming sufferer, "You are suffering, that means Jesus is kissing you." The sufferer screamed back, furious, "Then tell your Jesus to stop kissing me."

    The English doctor Jack Preger once worked in the home for the dying. He says, "If one wants to give love, understanding and care, one uses sterile needles. This is probably the richest order in the world. Many of the dying there do not have to be dying in a strictly medical sense." The British newspaper Guardian described the hospice as an "organised form of neglectful assistance".

    It seems that the medical care of the orphans is hardly any better. In 1991 the head of Pro Infante in Germany sent a newsletter to adoptive parents:"Please check the validity of the vaccinations of your children. We assume that in some case they have been vaccinated with expired vaccines, or with vaccines that had been rendered useless by improper strotage conditions." All this points to one thing, something that Mother Teresa reiterated very frequently in her speeches and addresses -- that she far more concerened with life after death than the mortal life.

    Mother Teresa's business was : Money for a good conscience. The donors benefitted the most from this. The poor hardly. Whosoever believed that Mother Teresa wanted to cahnge the world, eliminate suffering or fight poverty, simply wanted to believe it for their own sakes. Such people did not listen to her. To be poor, to suffer was a goal, almost an ambition or an achievement for her and she imposed this goal upon those under her wings; her actual ordained goal was the hereafter.

    With growing fame, the founder of the order became somewhat conscious of the misconceptioons on which the Mother Teresa phenomenon was based. She wrote a few words and hung them outside Mother House:

    "Tell them we are not here for work, we are here for Jesus. We are religious above all else. We are not social workers, not teachers, not doctors. We are nuns."

    One question then remains: For what, in that case, do nuns need so much money?

  • under74
    under74

    "Well, you can be pretty goddamn sure that her context was far different than that of a westerner saying "I didn't grow up with much and it's not that I consider it a virtue but I do think that I learned much from it."

    How the hell do you know this? Humans think so differently? And please don't give me a run down on Western this and Eastern that...


    "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm suggesting that humans not take on another bullshit myth!"

    I don't think anyone so far has said to take anything said of MT at face value and deify her. What I am saying is that it's pretty damn easy to look at someone after they're dead and demonize them. She was a person who made mistakes like everyone else on the face of the earth. so should that lessen anything she did that was good?


    By the way, why are you so offended?

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Why am I so offended? Because comparing your growing up "without much" in a western country to the suffering of people in third world countries, is offensive to any reasonable mind.

  • under74
    under74

    I wasn't comparing it to the struggles of a 3rd worlder, I was trying to put her words on struggling in poverty into some kind of context.

  • frenchbabyface
    frenchbabyface

    the thing is that is all about APPEAREANCE and missunformation ... (AGAIN)
    So some do good and you'll never know about it (why not ... not really the purpose, unless it can awake some vocation)

    She did bad ... I feel sorry for her (all this for THIS ... things get known one day) maybe she didn't even realised how they used her (they know how to use people like that ...) it's sad

    Eddited to add : But I don't care her reputation (after all) but how much people have been screewed and left behind ...

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff

    FD-

    She once said: "The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering." To me that is a sickening and perverse idea of beauty

    Well, if she said that - and I don't know the context, I would have to on first blush agree with the assessment that it is perverse. But I wonder how, if this was indeed her overriding philosophical viewpoint, how did she gain such a popularity. I would rather think that the context here is missing something - albeit far be from me to identify it on the little info I have - just my opinion.

    Jeff

  • BrendaCloutier
    BrendaCloutier

    This is why I don't list her amoung my "Great People of Peace of the 20th Century". She was not a woman of true peace.

    My list includes

    Ghandi
    ML King JR
    Pricess Di
    Jimmy Carter - post-presidency
    Mandela
    FDR - even though he wanted to get involed in the European war before war was declared on the US by Germany, he did great things for the US post-depression.

    There are others, I can't think of them at the moment.

    Happy Holidays

    Brenda

  • JamesThomas
    JamesThomas

    "reading JT's comments, you'd almost get the idea that all human endeavor is meaningless. "

    SixofNine,

    Your observation is a good one and mostly correct.

    Most "endeavors" to help, erupt from a state of self-ignorance and are fueled by extremely narrow and limited religious or political beliefs and ideals. Often times those trying to correct the wrongs and make things right have not the wisdom to help one person (themselves) let alone the wherewithal to guide the masses (a perfect example being the W.B.T.S.). Little wonder the world is continually teetering on the brink of self-destruction. So I would agree that much "human endeavor" is not only "meaningless", but also harmful. Perhaps that is why my posts so boringly refer to the same thing over and over: that the first step to alleviating suffering is to discover our true relationship with the world via clear realization of our actual and real Identity void of what we believe ourselves to be. Then, when this first and most important piece is in place, can we go out and offer significant and meaningful help and healing to the world. Each and every one has the wisdom within, it just needs to be clearly seen and realized.

    First things first -- is all.



  • frenchbabyface
    frenchbabyface

    JT : Often times those trying to correct the wrongs and make things right have not the wisdom to help one person (themselves) let alone the wherewithal to guide the masses that's the thing ... the mass could lead itself

    We don't need good leaders cause right : You never know what they become from a day to an other.
    We need good ideas and to put controls at the right places (no fake onces, or worst those who are made to fool us).

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Princess Diana? Poor thing, having her life ruined by the Windsors. Wouldn't rate her with Mandela, Ghandi, King et.al.

    And as to how the personality cult built up around Theresa, apparently Malcolm Muggerridge is to blame. See link at top of quote in my last post above.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit