You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 12:28:54 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Mother Theresa  (Read 977 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lilias

Re: Mother Theresa
« Reply #25 on: September 07, 2016, 05:23:06 PM »
Perhaps a better question to ask is whether or not the people who she cared for benefited from the service she provided. You could argue that the medical attention was sub par, but was it better than nothing at all? My understanding is that the people she treated were generally those who people wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. ( that's about 3 meters for our friends in the UK )

The vast majority of the people who ended their days in her hospices were either entirely homeless or slum dwellers. People may recoil in horror at stories of not having painkillers, but that's first-world thought; to them, having a real bed and being clean, dry and warm in their last days was untold luxury. (Behind the Beautiful Forevers is a fascinating read if you are interested in Indian slum life; opposite side of the country from Mother Teresa, same issues.)

Offline Tamhansen

Re: Mother Theresa
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2016, 11:17:13 AM »
The vast majority of the people who ended their days in her hospices were either entirely homeless or slum dwellers. People may recoil in horror at stories of not having painkillers, but that's first-world thought; to them, having a real bed and being clean, dry and warm in their last days was untold luxury. (Behind the Beautiful Forevers is a fascinating read if you are interested in Indian slum life; opposite side of the country from Mother Teresa, same issues.)

So what you're saying is, that because they had it marginally better than before, Mother Theresa's work was good? She refused to give people pain relief. Not because there was none, but because she wanted, no needed them, to suffer.

To take a bit of a tangent on an analogy. Imagine I find an abandoned puppy in the woods. The little creature is malnourished and sick from living out in the wet forest. I take the creature home, and lock it in a doghouse with a bowl of water and a tiny bit of kibble, but don't attend to its medical problem, not because I can't afford to, but simply because I feel dogs should feel pain and suffering.

Am I then a saint, or simply an animal abuser?

Mother Theresa had the means to help ease these people's suffering. But instead she decided to only elongate this suffering by giving them just enough care that they would die less quickly.
Yet when she got sick herself, there was no talk of pain and suffering being what god wanted. She was flown to a private medical facility in the States. Given the best care, and all the care to ease her suffering. Paid for, might I add, by money that was supposed to be used for the sick people of India.

She was like that one kid that is only really happy when torturing animals.

Mother Theresa is given sainthood for being a sadist and a hypocrite, and people wonder why so many are leaving the Catholic church.

Personally, I do not believe in the whole pervert old man on a cloud thing, but if I did, I'd know that even he would make this woman suffer for her actions.

Perhaps a better question to ask is whether or not the people who she cared for benefited from the service she provided. You could argue that the medical attention was sub par, but was it better than nothing at all? My understanding is that the people she treated were generally those who people wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. ( that's about 3 meters for our friends in the UK )

Feet are a relatively common unit of measurement in the UK.

As for your actual question. Was her medical attention better than none at all? Many people came to her sick and in pain, and often with no real chance of getting better without medication. On the street they might have survived weeks or months, and died in agony. Mother Theresa's care meant clean beds, warm food, but no actual treatment of the ailment. And her insistence that suffering was part of God's plan, meant that these people, as I said above, were denied pain relief medication, despite it actually being available to her to distribute. Whether that care was better than dying on the street is a good question indeed.

The mentality that Mother Theresa had though, fits right in with other high ranking people in the Catholic church. Remember pope Ratzinger, who in 2009 claimed that contraception, like condoms Led to the spread of Aids, or Syracuse Bishop Robert Cunningham who said that child abuse victims were culpable, and even called them acomplices while under oath. (Yes, he later backtracked, but never took back his words or apologised for saying them. He only apologised for his words causing harm. Quite a distinction)

Now I don't mean to imply that every Catholic, or even every clergyman is evil. But the fact that this kind of behaviour is not only allowed to take place, but is practised by ranking members of the organisation, in some cases even leading to canonisation. (Where cannonisation is so much more appropriate) is a huge cause for concern.

And if you think the new pope is so wonderful, think of how he Held a tirade on unbridled capitalism While being the head of a multibillion dollar organisation that made most of its money by practises that by their own admission included swindle, blackmail and extortion.

Sorry for going off on a tangent, but in conclusion. The canonisation of Mother Theresa is a disgrace, but it is par for the course for the Catholic church.

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Mother Theresa
« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2016, 12:41:08 PM »
Unless and until you walk a mile in the shoes of the missionary and research all there is available instead of articles written with a bias against a subject you really have no way to justify an opinion of your own.

You are, of course, entitled to any opinion you wish to hold, however, opinions based on fact rather than the opinions of others get respect.

Offline Tamhansen

Re: Mother Theresa
« Reply #28 on: October 28, 2016, 12:52:01 PM »
You are of course correct. However the sources I base myself on are quite clear, and not all written with bias against her. I'll admit some of my commentary is sharp, but when I'm back in the office, and not suffering from paywalls to medical journals, I will provide my sources.

As for walking in other people's shoes. If she believed in her methods, then why did she use her charity's funds to seek help in the US instead of relying on her own methods she believed in so strongly?
I know you cannot answer that as nor can anyone truly, but it does present a rather interesting question. Why were anaelgetics not allowed for the poor people of Calcutta, but when it was her that was in pain, god was suddenly for it?

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Mother Theresa
« Reply #29 on: October 28, 2016, 01:27:47 PM »
I won't try to convince you because you have already made up your mind.  I'll simply pray for you as she would have.


Online RedRose

Re: Mother Theresa
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2016, 07:13:05 AM »
In France it seems to me that people either see her as "great but not unblemished", or as that person who traded painkillers/meds for conversion.
I spent some time in India (the first days locked up in the hotel and refusing to face the reality of life there - and it wasn't quite my first "non Western" trip). I will agree that just being clean and fed and in a bed is something MANY people do not have. You have swarms of street children begging around. You have the pilgrims who sold everything for their journey and sleep on the street too. There is no politically correct including with the very educated ones who speak perfect English and French and work corporate jobs. I was often at a loss for words and I don't come from a PC country nor from PC circles inside that non-PC country. It is a thing to get fitted for custom clothes and they proudly show you their workers that include kids that sometimes work overnight.  It is a thing for bosses to show you a worker with bloodied hands and brag about how hard he works. In a way the countryside is better, when they have food - but apart from the fact that most of them speak English I'd say not much has changed there in last centuries (?).
So, yeah.

Mostly Mother T isn't really a big topic (anymore?) in France.

Offline Lilias

Re: Mother Theresa
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2016, 07:28:44 AM »
So what you're saying is, that because they had it marginally better than before, Mother Theresa's work was good? She refused to give people pain relief. Not because there was none, but because she wanted, no needed them, to suffer.

To take a bit of a tangent on an analogy. Imagine I find an abandoned puppy in the woods. The little creature is malnourished and sick from living out in the wet forest. I take the creature home, and lock it in a doghouse with a bowl of water and a tiny bit of kibble, but don't attend to its medical problem, not because I can't afford to, but simply because I feel dogs should feel pain and suffering.

Am I then a saint, or simply an animal abuser?

Mother Theresa had the means to help ease these people's suffering. But instead she decided to only elongate this suffering by giving them just enough care that they would die less quickly.
Yet when she got sick herself, there was no talk of pain and suffering being what god wanted. She was flown to a private medical facility in the States. Given the best care, and all the care to ease her suffering. Paid for, might I add, by money that was supposed to be used for the sick people of India.

She was like that one kid that is only really happy when torturing animals.

Mother Theresa is given sainthood for being a sadist and a hypocrite, and people wonder why so many are leaving the Catholic church.

Personally, I do not believe in the whole pervert old man on a cloud thing, but if I did, I'd know that even he would make this woman suffer for her actions.

I have no dog in this fight; she's not a saint in my tradition. She did according to her lights, like everyone else. Perhaps she made things only a little better for the people she dealt with, while she had the power to make things a lot better, but that's still more than most of us are willing to do. If that's not enough for you, then don't honour her. Simple.

Also, I find it extremely interesting that you take exception to her being a saint - a strictly spiritual accolade that you don't even believe in - but not to her being a Nobel Prize laureate, which brought along some very material perks.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Mother Theresa
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2016, 08:56:08 AM »
Wow, that is a whole lot of anger over an old woman.  Also your analogy is a bit flawed.  Mother Theresa did not have one puppy to bring for medical treatment.  She had many more to treat and tend to which is down played with that example.  Were someone to find twelve puppies left out and sick, then people would not judge them so harshly for not having the ability or resources to have them completely tended.  Hell that person would be applauded for even bringing them home, providing them a warm bed with food and drinkable water so that they might at least die in some comfort.  Seems to me many people are judging her from a first world perspective when she barely had the ability to provide Third World comforts.

Offline Tamhansen

Re: Mother Theresa
« Reply #33 on: October 31, 2016, 02:20:09 AM »
Yes pumpkin, except she did have the means. She had the means to give them ease from their suffering. She publicly claimed however that she would not ease this suffering as it was part of god's plan.

Yet when she was the one in pain, she used money, that was meant not for her but for her charges, to get top notch medical care and pain relief in a private US hospital.

Lilias, I do take exception to that, but the discussion was about her canonisation.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Mother Theresa
« Reply #34 on: October 31, 2016, 06:00:56 AM »
What source do you have that she had the means to distribute pain medication in enough quantities to take care of the pain and suffering of all those in her care?