Mother Theresa (not a saint)

We can not always believe what is historically correct, for this is not the same as something which is factually correct. It is always popular culture and the winners of wars who pen the history, and therefore it can not be reality which is always documented in history books. Years from now Mother Theresa will still be remembered while others are forgotten. It is with great regret that I must inform you that this lady is not more than a sham. The estimated 50 million dollars of money donated to her foundation "The Missionaries of Charity" ( The exact amount donated is not known because of the charitys refusal to make things public, unlike every single other Indian charity, hiding something?) went into over 100 religious buildings , and foundations. Shockingly, more than half of which were nun/priest homes which contributed not to the needy and poor which people believed they were donating to, but rather to spreading Catholicism while people continued to die. Meanwhile in her Home For the Dying in Calcutta there are not even proper beds, and people have to defecate in front of each other. They are not even allowed visits from friends and relatives! In short, if people had donated their money to a different cause, countless lives could have be saved. Let us put all of these injustices aside though, so why is Mother Theresa a saint? She was a good woman and all (not as good as they say, and agenda pushing, but still good) but her sainthood defies Catholic law, she had to commit two miracles to be sainted, so the Catholic church changed it to one. The miracle she conjured? Oh some lady said that she saw Mother Theresa's face on an object and it cured her cancer. The husband even openly admitted that it was a hoax and that a doctor that cured her. It was NOT some sort of miracle, but I guess that doesn't matter to anyone, nor does the fact that she wasn't dead long enough to be sainted at the time of her death.

Her perfections will go down in history, and she will become , in essence, perfect. Any flaws in her will be forgotten, that is the way of history. Gandhi was not remembered for his racism against black people, but rather for his love of fellow Indians. So to will only Mother Theresa's perfections be passed down. For Catholicism had reached a time when it needed a Saint and she was the answer.

Sources:

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
http://www.deeshaa.org/2005/08/04/abusing-children-teresa-style/
http://www.moriel.org/discernment/catholicism/why_mother_theresa_not_saint.htm
http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/20031020_en.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2165132838065157556&q=penn and teller&hl=en

 

Everything you've said was well known at the time she was nominated for sainthood. But the world and the press for the most part chose to downplay the fact that funds had been misused, and she did not lead a life of poverty during the period she had gained so much press. She may have earlier, but her later life was one of a celebrity.

Her cause celeb was a ploy to gain popularity for the church.

 

sad the church isnt that great of an organization after all then

 

To the religious this is saving someone. They believe saving the eternal soul is more important. Not my beliefs but the beliefs of those who voted for sainthood. Why would you even care who they call saints unless you are a believer?

 

because they mess with me politically so since they nose into my business then I should nose into theirs.

 

In the first place, who cares if she's made a saint? The important thing is what she did, and she obviously led an unselfish life and helped countless people.

When was the last time any of you picked up dying people out of ditches or washed the open wounds of people that had AIDS?

Nobody's perfect-Catholicism teaches that everyone is a sinner, including her, even the greatest saints were sinners. So what?

And what if she spent some of her money trying to promote Catholicism? What's wrong with that? It was her Catholic religion that taught her to do what she was doing in the first place..."when I was thirsty you gave me to drink, when I was hungry you fed me."

I know people that think she didn't try hard enough to convert people, because she seemed to be content at letting people remain Hindus or Muslims or whatever. You can't please everybody. Sainthood isn't about somebody being perfect-it's about someone trying harder than most people, and making a difference, doing something heroic. And she definitely did that. Whoever criticizes her, I can guaran-damn-tee you that they didn't do nearly as much to help the needy as she did.

 

Thank you!

 

"And what if she spent some of her money trying to promote Catholicism? What's wrong with that? It was her Catholic religion that taught her to do what she was doing in the first place..."when I was thirsty you gave me to drink, when I was hungry you fed me.""

some of her money she spent more than half promoting catholicism! She didnt even care that her own home was filled with suffering people that could be saved towards the end if only a small amount of money was spent because she had an obsession with suffering!

 

I'm not sure what all that's supposed to mean in the English language, but I'll try and translate it. A lot of the money that she spent went to 'houses of religion' which were the residences of her brothers and nuns that took care of the sick and the clinics and hospitals that they run. That's how that kind of thing is classified.

She didn't have an 'obsession with suffering' that prevented her from helping people. That is totally misunderstanding what she did. She believed that suffering unites people with Christ, who suffered for them, and that suffering has a redemptive value. If you don't share her religion, then that would be hard for you to understand. At the same she spent her life and the lives of her nuns and brothers helping to alleviate suffering.

Like I said, when was the last time you washed a leper's body or drug a dying person off the street so you could give them a dignified place to die and a decent burial? I think I know the answer.

 

I agree Lanze.

Mother Theresa's money was largely spent on promoting the spread of catholicism. It wasn't a small side goal, her 'charity' was about religion not about help.

I didn't go through you're articles, but she also accepted money from 'Papa Doc' Duvalier in Haiti, and after accepting the money from the tortuous fucks, instead of giving it back to the Hatians whos money were stolen, used it to spread catholicism.

Her houses for the poor didn't provide anywhere near the quality they could have with the immense amount of money they received.

Mother T did some good, but she was far from a saint.

 

"She didn't have an 'obsession with suffering' that prevented her from helping people. That is totally misunderstanding what she did. She believed that suffering unites people with Christ, who suffered for them, and that suffering has a redemptive value. If you don't share her religion, then that would be hard for you to understand. At the same she spent her life and the lives of her nuns and brothers helping to alleviate suffering." Oh so that explains why she didnt invest alot of money into medicine because she wanted people to be united with Christ, okay. Still seems rather evil to me.

"Like I said, when was the last time you washed a leper's body or drug a dying person off the street so you could give them a dignified prlace to die and a decent burial? I think I know the answer." I never claimed to be a good person, and I don't think that gives you any more basis of an argument. There are countless people who do stuff like that and arn't recognized for their achievements because they are humble, while mother theresa was humble at first she became corrupt when attention was called to her .[/QUOTE]

 

Oh ok, as long as you are not biased.

Again, not my views, but if you had the same beliefs as her you would consider the eternal soul more important has well.

I agree. Was she perfect? No. Did she do a hell of a lot more then any of us? Yes, so I am not holding a grude.

Ah, according to the people who decide such things she was. If it is not your belief system, I don't see why you care anyway.

Maybe we should just not call any attention to people doing good. Put a stop to this corruption once and for all.

 

Maybe or maybe we should call attention to people doing good who will not become corrupt from the attention and then be falsely called a saint.

"Maybe we should just not call any attention to people doing good. Put a stop to this corruption once and for all."

 

Or maybe we should just let the Catholic Church decide who they deem to be saints and we as individuals can look up to those people or not.

 

I heard she was quite promiscuous in her younger years....

 

Wow, that was hard, and it only took 14 posts for someone to finally say it! Nice, man.

Yeah, for those of you who want to focus on all those selfish acts of corruption you speak of, why don't we try looking at the good in people? It seems no matter what a person does in their life, it's the bad that gets expounded on. Why? Good, or bad, they're dead! Why trash the dead? They can't do anything to defend themselves now. Hitler was evil as fuck, but who runs around now going, 'omigod, Hitler was so overrated in his time...'
Imperfect as she was, Mother Theresa was no Hitler. She did wonderful things, whether you want to recognize them or not. She may not be what the ideal is for a saint, but she's the closest thing we have to a miracle worker in this day and age.

 

Mother Teresa may be a saint to you, but she was used by the Catholic church at a time when they were losing converts. I don't want my grandchildren to look up to her as an example, especially if they look into the workings of her organization. I want them to be the best individuals they can be.

No one ever compared her to Hitler. It seems now a days if you want to discount an argument you bring up Hitler. When did he come into the equation?

 

Most individuals who do the most good for the world want no recognition, and never receive it. They are the true saints.

 

Whoa, who said I loved her? I'm not Catholic, I'm a Baptist. We could care less about the saints.
I understand the bad things she did, but my point with Hitler, as he's obviously the easiest example and since I didn't know I was being graded on this, the one I chose, is that it could have been much worse. She did a lot more than a lot of people. Yes, she could have done much, much more, but she didn't. Make peace with it. She's dead.
Worried about your grandkids? Tell your kids. Bring them up with the same analytical mind that you have and they should be able to figure these things out on their own. It'll be passed on from generation to generation: "Mother Theresa was a fraud! Don't buy into her corruption!"

I still say good deeds should be more noteworthy than bad, but to each his own.

 

This is what all groups do. They try to hold up examples that show the good their organizations do, thus trying to gain more membership. Its nothing new and it doesn't mean that her actions in life should be judged on whether the Catholics believe it is a good thing to have more Catholics in the world.