It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mother Theresa of Calcutta, a Saint and a Nobel Peace award Recipient !

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Purposely putting fund raising above caring for patients and providing them with adequate medical care is the exact opposite of doing the best she could. Well, that depends on perspective I suppose. She certainly did the best she could at filling bank accounts. Taking care of the destitute and ill? Not even close. She would have to put put in an effort to "do the best she could".




posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Of course that the accusations of supposed paedophilia began during the internet era, there were nothing like this in 1960s to 1980s, historical records show that beyond any reasonable doubt.

Mafia has spread their antivalues almost everywhere using the web, reaching the privacy of everybody, even monks, Who live in solitude being more vulnerable to their perverse fishing tactics.

Even adolescents are targeted by those evildoers trading infamous materials with a terrible corrupting power.

Thanks

The angel of Lightness



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Are you really saying peadophiles didn't exist before 1960?

That is the most uneducated thing I have read on here today.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

You almost convinced me with your so compelling argument, but you were never a truly Catholic, your words are full of very hypocritical statements.

It is clear that you're envious of the donations she received, that's what you can't forgive her, be frank, remove all that mask of false piety.

You don't care at all of all the suffering of the people she was the only she helped, what you want is to have her funding.

You think the readers of this thread are so naive to don't see your interest on this?

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 3/15/2016 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Paedophiles in San Fernando Valley and in las Vegas ? Of course, as in any other mafia territory around the world!

Paedophilia has been practised in Sicilia and Napoli since the times of Pompeya and Herculanus.

Your statement is not just uneducated, it is cynical.

Thanks,

The angel of Lightness
edit on 3/15/2016 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: peter vlar

You almost convinced me with your so compelling argument, but you were never a truly Catholic, your words are full of very hypocritical statements.



I was more of a Catholic from baptism until I was 17 than Mother Teresa was in her entire life, that's for sure. You have no clue who I was let alone who I am now. It's awfully hypocritical of you to sit in judgment as you seem to be doing.


It is clear that you're envious of the donations she received, that's what you can't forgive her, be frank, remove all that mask of false piety.



I wear no mask of piety, that's Mother Teresa's cross to bare, not mine. She's a wretched woman and a massive hypocrite who purposely allowed people to suffer because she foolishly believed it was wonderful to suffer like Christ. Instead she took in 10's of millions of dollars she collected, including 1.25 million from one of the perpetrators of the 80's S&L scandal(which means she accepted stolen money), and opted not to build medical facilities or properly treat people, provide contraception and basic preventative care that would have precluded these people in India suffering horribly in the long term or any type of pain management for people dying of cancer. I'm sorry but if you think that is saintly to treat others that way you're as deplorable as she is. Yeah... I see people suffering and try to help while this woman watched them suffer and told them how lucky they were and you deem yourself to be in a position to talk down to me? Disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. Envious of her donations? No. Disgusted that instead of using those funds to help the sick and destitute she kept them in their squalor to continue enticing contributions from the ignorant masses and funnel it all back to the Vatican.


You don't care at all of all the suffering of the people she was the only she helped, what you want is to have her funding.



Apparently I care more for their suffering than she does. I've never kept people in squalor to promote fundraising. Because who's going to send you donations if it looks like you're succeeding? no... the sick, starving and dying are an advertising campaign for a wretched hellhound wearing a habit. If you support this behavior, all the belief and faith in the world isn't getting you past St. Peter. I'll wave at you from the other side of the gate while they turn you away until you grasp the gravity of your ways.


You think the readers of this thread are so naive to don't see your interest on this?

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness


leave it to a die hard zealot to believe insanity while wearing their mask. The only naiveté here is yours dear angel of darkenss.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I'm aware of all that and the money was still in place when she died. Like I said, she was complicated. She didn't use that money for her own gain.

You are presuming to know more about her than you do. I know she wasn't perfect but she was nowhere near the person you are making her out to be.


edit on 3/15/2016 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll




She didn't use that money for her own gain.


You sure about that? You know her heart? You don't think she was storing up treasures in Heaven?



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: angeldoll

Purposely putting fund raising above caring for patients and providing them with adequate medical care is the exact opposite of doing the best she could. Well, that depends on perspective I suppose. She certainly did the best she could at filling bank accounts. Taking care of the destitute and ill? Not even close. She would have to put put in an effort to "do the best she could".



You are indeed slandering her. You think you know, but you don't.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: angeldoll




She didn't use that money for her own gain.


You sure about that? You know her heart? You don't think she was storing up treasures in Heaven?



I would never say she was perfect. She was strange, eccentric. If she wanted a new shelter for example, she would begging for the money from the wealthy, or try to get a building donated, even though she had enough money in the bank to build one. Money mostly donated by Americans.

Am I sure she didn't use the money for her own gain? Yes. I am.

As for knowing her heart, isn't it you who presumes to know that?
edit on 3/15/2016 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

It's not slander if its true.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll




Am I sure she didn't use the money for her own gain?


If she believed that she was storing up treasures in Heaven, as Christianity teaches, then she was indeed doing it for her own gain.


Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:


The fact that she let money sit in the bank, "laying up treasures upon earth", instead of using it for the very purposes that the money was donated, is dishonest and hypocritical, to say the least, fraudulent and despicable to say a little bit more.

I don't have to know her heart, her action spoke for it.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

You lack understanding of her psychology, her logic, her religion, as well as her actions.

If there are 3,000 points to know about her, you know one. And you are repeating them and exaggerating them.


edit on 3/15/2016 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

She went about things in unusual ways, I agree. Perhaps you don't believe in 'unselfish acts" as there is often something personal to be gained, even if only self-satisfaction. If that is what you wish to focus on, and that is your own psychology, then so be it.

I admit she was eccentric, very unusual, and very psychologically complicated. She did not approach problems solving in a way that is typical.

But she did many wonderful things, and if you choose to focus only on her eccentricities and human erring, then that reflects more on you than it does her, imo..

/done



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: peter vlar

You lack understanding of her psychology,


Incorrect assumption on your part. I fully understand that she was very misguided by the level of devotion she felt for Christ and honestly thought that allowing the people in her care to suffer was akin to being blessed by Christ himself.


her logic,


There was no logic employed. How is it logical to barely feed the destitute? How is it logical to allow people dying of cancer to suffer while supplying them with aspirin for pain management and unsanitary facilities when she had access to 10's of millions of dollars? That's not logic, it's inhumane.



her religion


Let's see here... baptized Catholic? check Altar boy? Check. Went to Mass 6 days per week? Check. Started studying for seminary at 16? Check. Learned concepts like due diligence and the difference between subjective and objective evidence and realized it was all a mechanism of control begun by the Romans? Check


as well as her actions.


Her actions were deplorable and reprehensible. The fact that people will defend her actions and advocate for Sainthood is insane. Anyone who supports what she did to the people of Calcutta is on equal footing with her.


If there are 3,000 points to know about her, you know one.


I know much more than you seem to think.


And you are repeating them and exaggerating them.


The sad part is that not only did I not exaggerate, I understated the horrors she put the people of Calcutta through. If she's a saint so is Ted Bundy



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll




I admit she was eccentric, very unusual, and very psychologically complicated. She did not approach problems solving in a way that is typical.


So are psychopathic serial killers. She was a person who derived joy from watching people suffer. But, when it came to her own physical suffering, she was taken care of with 1st class medicine at 1st class facilities by 1st class physicians.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: The angel of light

Christopher Hitchens would disagree



Well, Christopher Hitchens has been dead for a while now too.

Perhaps he could be acknowledged by some socialist organization or atheistic think tank for his many self-sacrificing contributions towards humanity?

... oh, wait a minute ...


What self sacrificing contributions did Mother Theresa make? She was nothing more than a money funnel for the Vatican. Instead of actually caring for and treating the sick whose care she was charged with, she used them as her own personal piggy bank to funnel donations.Despite routinely receiving millions of dollars in donations, Teresa deliberately kept her clinics barren and austere, lacking all but the most rudimentary and haphazard care. No tests were performed to determine the patients’ ailments. No modern medical equipment was available. Even people dying of cancer, suffering terrible agony, were given no painkillers other than aspirin. Needles were rinsed and reused, without proper sterilization. No one was ever sent to the hospital, even people in clear need of emergency surgery or other treatment.

it is important to note that these conditions were not the unavoidable result of triage. Teresa’s organization routinely received multimillion-dollar donations which were squirreled away in bank accounts, while volunteers were told to beg donors for more money and plead extreme poverty and desperate need. The money she received could easily have built half a dozen fully equipped modern hospitals and clinics, but was never used for that purpose. No, this negligent and rudimentary care was deliberate – about which, see the next point. However, despite her praise for poverty, Teresa hypocritically sought out the most advanced care possible in the Western world when she herself was in need of it.

She felt that it was far more important to convert the sick and dying than it was to actually treat them with medicine. That's some really Saintly behavior right? One of my personal favorite anecdotes of Mother Teresa is when talking to a main dying an agonizing death from cancer, she told him how lucky he was because he was getting to suffer like Christ did on the cross so Jesus must be kissing him. The man's reply was to tell Jesus to stop kissing him. She referred to AIDS as “just retribution for improper sexual conduct”. She ignored the correlation between overpopulation and poverty with her anti-contraceptive stance. I could go on for hours. She genuinely believed that these people were brought closer to God through their suffering. If that's the god worshipped by all followers of Christ, I'll take my chances with a flying spaghetti monster or Chtulu.

She was nothing but a front man who played the role of Piety to an ignorant audience to fill bank accounts for the Vatican but wasn't willing to suffer like her patients when it came time for her to be ill. I'm glad I walked away from the Catholic Church if they beatify and bestow arbitrary Sainthood on people like this.


Modern, well funded, pallative care was not an option for Mother Teresa's nuns. There were options for those that could afford it. The thing is, that you can have every machine that goes "bing" and still die alone and scared (especially if you have a dementia).

The thing that Mother Teresa and her nuns gave was a human connection, a sense that someone cared and wanted to be with the dying, in a situation that everyone else normally shunned.

It was neither a medical nor a technological solution. To judge it on those grounds, misses the point. Even those who had issue with the treatment of the dying have said that they were well fed, clean and wounds were dressed properly (this is important because mobility is usually an issue).

Most of the dying had come there by preference.

True, mistakes were made but the nuns are not diagnosticians.

However, morphine is not allowed to be administered outside of hospitals and the use of aspirin to relieve mild pain in those suffering terminal cancer is also standard practice worldwide, as approved by the World Health Organization.

Also, the Missionaries of Charity take vows of poverty, their premises and facilities reflect that. Since large sums have allegedly been received as donations, and the Missionaries of Charity don't seem to show it, it has either been hoarded or, more likely, used to fund other Roman Catholic Church bodies. It may be a misappropriation of blame to assume that Mother Teresa is culpable.

While there has been less well advertised, less well funded and more effective Christian aid, it doesn't negate the fact that she was doing something for the disadvantaged that you, I and Hitchens have not. To denigrate her is to perpetrate another injustice.

edit on 15/3/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

The point dear Peter that makes so difficult to you to understand that path of charity that Mother Teresa follow is due to the so extended heretic idea that has unfortunately spread in America by religious leaders of sects that use to claim to be followers of the so called Reform predicating a false salvation in which good works are not valuable for get any merit in the eyes of God.

When you don't accept the value of good works all what Mother Teresa has done looks of course as no sense, even eccentric, because in a society that is morally ill with the obsession to get all the time, when somebody suddenly ask to give looks crazy.

It is not that she was wrong, is that we have advanced in life so long thinking in sinful way, since it is not by cumulating but by sharing that we find us in others, we get the real ticket to the eternal life. Faith without fruits is nothing really, is just noise in the distance, no value at all for God, but also among the three essential virtues of Christian life: Hope, faith and love, it is clearly the last one that must prevail.

The Scriptures are extremely clear in that aspect:


St. Matthew 25, 33and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. 34"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;…


Of course in a society where the people falsely believe that the only good use of money to get blessing from God is give 10% of your income to the Churches, and waste the rest in you, there is no space for the blessing of good works for people that is completely strange to you.

The sole idea is extremely dangerous since if all the people pay forward instead of backward there would not be more finances of the so many churches that are really good business designed to exploit the faith of the people.

That is the great teaching of Mother Teresa, to pay forward any favor you have received, she never requested nothing to the so many people she helped but her example moved millions to do so too.


Matthew 25:40Matthew 25:40
"The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'


Of course it is indeed dangerous to be doing charity in the way mother Teresa did along her entire religious life, since if a lot of people follow her example soon there would not be more poors in this world and without extreme misery of course many churches will cease even to exist, since they exploit them very well.


St 25 Matthew, 36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' 37"Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?…


Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness

edit on 3/15/2016 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

Modern, well funded, pallative care was not an option for Mother Teresa's nuns. There were options for those that could afford it. The thing is, that you can have every machine that goes "bing" and still die alone and scared (especially if you have a dementia).


How was it not an option? They had the funds available yet chose not to use them. Specifically because Mother Teresa, though I suppose that Blessed Teresa would be more accurate as she was beatified 13 years who by John Paul 2, specifically felt and implicitly stated that their suffering was beautiful and brought them closer to Christ. She had the ability to treat people properly and opted not to.


The thing that Mother Teresa and her nuns gave was a human connection, a sense that someone cared and wanted to be with the dying, in a situation that everyone else normally shunned.


It's not as if those in her care had any other options. Again, she had the power, ability and finances to make positive change but because of her extremely conservative, even by Catholic standards, point of view, she really thought that she was tasked by God to do this. And then add in the fact that members of her order were told to ask all those who were near death if they "wanted a ticket to heaven" and if they indicated yes, these people were baptized without explicit consent in a lot of instances. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure thst the people who came to her were grateful for whatever they could get because while not by much, it was still better than the squalor they lived in. And yes, I agree that having some sort if human connection provided them a modicum of comfort. The trade off was never in their favor though.


It was neither a medical nor a technological solution. To judge it on those grounds, misses the point. Even those who had issue with the treatment of the dying have said that they were well fed, clean and wounds were dressed properly (this is important because mobility is usually an issue).


She had the economic capability to affect real change. She chose not to because she thought god wanted these people to suffer and in her own words, their suffering was beautiful and brought them closer to Christ. She could have done so much more and chose not to.




Most of the dying had come there by preference.


Because they had no other options.


True, mistakes were made but the nuns are not diagnosticians.


Yet they had the funds for an appropriate staff that could have done so.


However, morphine is not allowed to be administered outside of hospitals and the use of aspirin to relieve mild pain in those suffering terminal cancer is also standard practice worldwide, as approved by the World Health Organization.


I'm not going to say that's BS but if you could provide a source for thst claim I would greatly appreciate it. My wife was a Hospice case manager and as an RN she was able to dispense all sorts of medication to her patients with a valid prescription. Everything from anti anxiety medications to narcotic pain pills and liquid morphine and then some.


Also, the Missionaries of Charity take vows of poverty, their premises and facilities reflect that. Since large sums have allegedly been received as donations, and the Missionaries of Charity don't seem to show it, it has either been hoarded or, more likely, used to fund other Roman Catholic Church bodies. It may be a misappropriation of blame to assume that Mother Teresa is culpable.


The vows apply only to the order and it's members. They are well within their rights to fund and build clinics or hospitals, hire physicians etc... This is done all the time within my diocese. The Sisters of St. Joseph who ran the school I went to have built clinics and donated medical equipment for as long as I can remember and they do so without the benefit of worldwide recognition and multimillion dollar donations. I disagree that it's a misappropriation of blame. If she is using the squalor of Calcutta and the plight of people in her care to get people to donate to her cause, thinking they are helping these people and she passes the buck, literally, on to the Vatican she is then a party to malfeasance.


While there has been less well advertised, less well funded and more effective Christian aid, it doesn't negate the fact that she was doing something for the disadvantaged that you, I and Hitchens have not.


How do you know what I have done for the disadvantaged? I have volunteered countless hours over the course of my life until the last 7 or 8 years when I was no longer able to due to physical limitations.


To denigrate her is to perpetrate another injustice.


Not as big of an injustice as it is to white wash the truth and build someone up to be a legend based on lies and misrepresentations. She accepted money from people responsible for the S&L crisis, the devourment of a 450 million dollar hedge fund in Brittain and worst of all, "Baby Doc" Duvalier and supported Indira Ghandi's suspension of civil liberties. She may have done Some good but it doesn't outweigh everything else she was party too. India is one of the most overpopulated, squalid and impoverished nations on Earth with massive economic disparity. The links to overpopulation and poverty are well known yet she was very vocal about contraception. That alone would have saved countless lives. Her ruminating on AIDS and HIV are an abhoration against what the church is supposed to be about.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: chr0naut

Modern, well funded, pallative care was not an option for Mother Teresa's nuns. There were options for those that could afford it. The thing is, that you can have every machine that goes "bing" and still die alone and scared (especially if you have a dementia).


How was it not an option? They had the funds available yet chose not to use them. Specifically because Mother Teresa, though I suppose that Blessed Teresa would be more accurate as she was beatified 13 years who by John Paul 2, specifically felt and implicitly stated that their suffering was beautiful and brought them closer to Christ. She had the ability to treat people properly and opted not to.


The thing that Mother Teresa and her nuns gave was a human connection, a sense that someone cared and wanted to be with the dying, in a situation that everyone else normally shunned.


It's not as if those in her care had any other options. Again, she had the power, ability and finances to make positive change but because of her extremely conservative, even by Catholic standards, point of view, she really thought that she was tasked by God to do this. And then add in the fact that members of her order were told to ask all those who were near death if they "wanted a ticket to heaven" and if they indicated yes, these people were baptized without explicit consent in a lot of instances. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure thst the people who came to her were grateful for whatever they could get because while not by much, it was still better than the squalor they lived in. And yes, I agree that having some sort if human connection provided them a modicum of comfort. The trade off was never in their favor though.


It was neither a medical nor a technological solution. To judge it on those grounds, misses the point. Even those who had issue with the treatment of the dying have said that they were well fed, clean and wounds were dressed properly (this is important because mobility is usually an issue).


She had the economic capability to affect real change. She chose not to because she thought god wanted these people to suffer and in her own words, their suffering was beautiful and brought them closer to Christ. She could have done so much more and chose not to.




Most of the dying had come there by preference.


Because they had no other options.


True, mistakes were made but the nuns are not diagnosticians.


Yet they had the funds for an appropriate staff that could have done so.


However, morphine is not allowed to be administered outside of hospitals and the use of aspirin to relieve mild pain in those suffering terminal cancer is also standard practice worldwide, as approved by the World Health Organization.


I'm not going to say that's BS but if you could provide a source for thst claim I would greatly appreciate it. My wife was a Hospice case manager and as an RN she was able to dispense all sorts of medication to her patients with a valid prescription. Everything from anti anxiety medications to narcotic pain pills and liquid morphine and then some.


Also, the Missionaries of Charity take vows of poverty, their premises and facilities reflect that. Since large sums have allegedly been received as donations, and the Missionaries of Charity don't seem to show it, it has either been hoarded or, more likely, used to fund other Roman Catholic Church bodies. It may be a misappropriation of blame to assume that Mother Teresa is culpable.


The vows apply only to the order and it's members. They are well within their rights to fund and build clinics or hospitals, hire physicians etc... This is done all the time within my diocese. The Sisters of St. Joseph who ran the school I went to have built clinics and donated medical equipment for as long as I can remember and they do so without the benefit of worldwide recognition and multimillion dollar donations. I disagree that it's a misappropriation of blame. If she is using the squalor of Calcutta and the plight of people in her care to get people to donate to her cause, thinking they are helping these people and she passes the buck, literally, on to the Vatican she is then a party to malfeasance.


While there has been less well advertised, less well funded and more effective Christian aid, it doesn't negate the fact that she was doing something for the disadvantaged that you, I and Hitchens have not.


How do you know what I have done for the disadvantaged? I have volunteered countless hours over the course of my life until the last 7 or 8 years when I was no longer able to due to physical limitations.


To denigrate her is to perpetrate another injustice.


Not as big of an injustice as it is to white wash the truth and build someone up to be a legend based on lies and misrepresentations. She accepted money from people responsible for the S&L crisis, the devourment of a 450 million dollar hedge fund in Brittain and worst of all, "Baby Doc" Duvalier and supported Indira Ghandi's suspension of civil liberties. She may have done Some good but it doesn't outweigh everything else she was party too. India is one of the most overpopulated, squalid and impoverished nations on Earth with massive economic disparity. The links to overpopulation and poverty are well known yet she was very vocal about contraception. That alone would have saved countless lives. Her ruminating on AIDS and HIV are an abhoration against what the church is supposed to be about.


Though it was a slow ramp up to operations, Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity was established by 1950. It wasn't until 1962-3 that significant recognition and charitable donations began. So, for more than 10 years, she was trying to help with very little income.

I also have volunteered time for charitable organizations, most recently for Drug Awareness & Recovery Movement (DrugARM). My daughter also is a manager of the local charitable Salvation Army Family Store. I apologize that I made assumptions about your humanitarian contributions, it is just that Mother Teresa's are quite exceptional.

In regard to access to morphine in India, please read this blog: Palliative Care in India - Dr Hannah Fox.

I am not Catholic, and do not hold to all of Mother Teresa's views but I can see what she was attempting and her dedication to doing so. She appears to be an obstinate, anachronistic and opinionated person with unrealistically high standards for people. None the less, she actually had the gumption to do something in a world full of talkers.


edit on 15/3/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join