Mother Teresa an evil person?

  • Thread starter Thread starter unitive_mystic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If Mother Teresa is an evil person, then Bubba Gump is president of North Korea.
 
I’ve heard some things about her mismanaging money and so forth, but I she was also human and a sinner. Saints are sinners too. I trust that the Vatican did a thorough job investigating her before canonizing her a Saint. If she was an evil person and became a Saint, that would be an even bigger problem.
 
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
I don’t think it’s as simple as that. It’s a lot of Monday morning quarterback behavior. We hear no doubt true stories of people dying in pain or being baptized and dying when they could of been saved. We are rightfully enraged.

However, we fail to realize that she was doing better than her best for these people. In America ER’s cannot refuse treatment and most people will buy Tylenol for someone who stands outside of a store and begs for it. Calcutta is not like this. There is no pharmacy full of pain meds. There are no antibiotics by the dozens to treat strep throat. There are no free flu shots.

The issue is that people blame Mother Theresa for these ills when in reality they should be looking at themselves. She simply brought the utter poverty into the light. She was not to blame. Nor is she to blame for the truly tragic choices she had to make.
Click to expand...
Would also add, the care of the poor were the responsibility of the people in India, not Mother Theresa. She was a teacher, not a nurse.

At least, a teacher who taught children paid to be educated (prestigious parents.) At least she heard the “cry of the poor” outside the windows of where she taught. And did something about it. Not perfect by any means. But nonetheless, did take care of educating the poor. Those who didn’t get the prestigious education of the children in India, whom she was teaching.

A Nun, a teacher stepped outside of her comfort zone. She heard the “cries of the poor.” And did as any suitable person would: take care of the least on the streets of Calcutta.

The people of India, especially the Caste system, decided to lend those people to die, and in poverty. This Nun, this teacher chose to do the contrary. She was a guidance and a lesson to the people of India, on Christ. His Love, His Mercy, and His Justice.

She risked her life, wherefore she would had been killed by mobs, and possibly assassins. We seem to forget that she contended with the powers of the world. I believe, just as the Prophet Daniel had, Saint Mother Theresa of Calcutta not only had her Guardian Angel busy, but as well as Saint Michael.

All that aside, no saint is perfect. Even the holiest of saints (apart from Mary. There’s an exception to the rule. And She is.) But, her nephew, Saint John the Baptist even said he was unworthy to untie the sandals of Christ. Thus, no saint is perfect. So, did Mother Theresa have her flaws? Of course. She is human, made in God’s image, and after His likeness. What a wonderful woman. What a wonderful Saint 🙂

Not one saint on earth (except for Mary), is without flaw. Not one has never done any evil. Did Mother Theresa make mistakes? I imagine so. Did she do sinful things in her life? Of course. But, she did in her imperfect way, try her best to evangelize and live as Christ instituted as we read through the Gospels. But most importantly, as it is described in the Sacred Mind of the Church, through Catchesis. What a lovely saint. Again, a Nun; a teacher.
 
For those who don’t believe she is a Saint, as the Church declared, is there no middle ground? Why does she have to be an evil person rather than a saint? Could she not have been a good person, perhaps better than most, and also have had some flaws?
 
BoomerangToo said:
Indian law does not allow anyone to use opiates without being admitted to a hospital. Mother Teresa did not run hospitals, she ran hospices for the dying.
Click to expand...
I agree that India has very strict laws regarding opioid pain killers (something they have slowly been trying to correct), but there are non-opioid pain medication options. They did have doctors visit these houses and certainly had the means to afford such medications.
Then why didn’t he go to the hospital? Could it be that the hospital wouldn’t admit him without payment up front? That’s how it usually works in poor countries.
Click to expand...
All I can do is quote Mary Loudon, a writer and former volunteer who relayed the story:
The first day I was there when I’d finished working in the women’s ward, I went and waited on the edge of the men’s ward for my boyfriend, who was looking after a boy of 15 who was dying. And an American doctor told me that she had been trying to treat this boy, and he had a relatively simply kidney complaint that had simply gotten worse and worse and worse because he hadn’t gotten any antibiotics, and he actually needed an operation. I don’t recall what the problem was. She did tell me. And she was so angry but also very resigned, which so many people become in that situation. She said, “Well, they won’t take him to hospital.” And I said, “Why? All you have to do is get a cab, take him to the nearest hospital, demand that he has treatment, get him an operation.” She said, "They don’t do it. They won’t do it. If they do it for one they do it for everybody. And I thought, but this kid’s 15.
Click to expand...
 
She did not “endorse” dictators. She did take their money, though. If she didn’t take it, they would just blow it on luxury cars and jewelry, etc. May as well put it to good use.
Click to expand...
By touting the good things these dictators have done she most certainly was endorsing them. Not only that, by linking her reputation to theirs via gushing praise she legitimized these leaders who had killed scores of their own people.

It is not right to bear false witness for money, even if that money is going to something that one thinks is useful.
The patients were asked if they wanted to be baptized. Almost all of them said “yes”. Nobody was deceived, and you absolutely cannot compare it to the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead. That’s just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I quote Susan Shields, a former member of the Missions of Charity:
In the homes for the dying, Mother taught the sisters how to secretly baptize those who were dying. Sisters were to ask each person in danger of death if he wanted a “ticket to heaven.” An affirmative reply was to mean consent to baptism. The sister was then to pretend that she was just cooling the patient’s head with a wet cloth, while in fact she was baptizing him, saying quietly the necessary words. Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa’s sisters were baptizing Hindus and Moslems.
Click to expand...
According to this article after receiver heart surgery she made a speech to the staff talking about how she “cheated Heaven” by asking the dying patients if they wanted a blessing (not using the word baptism) then baptizing them.

It’s interesting to note that one of the few Catholic authors that I saw tackling this issue didn’t claim that these practices weren’t done. Instead James Martin and Simon Mays in this article simply tried to downplay and said there’s no harm if you don’t believe in the idea of Christian baptism.

Again, Catholics and others have strongly denounced when the LDS were baptizing the dead without their consent, and these practices are quite similar.

You are saying specifically that these patients were asked to be baptized, despite Teresa boasting about cheating Heaven and despite a recounting from someone who was actually there and was given instructions to do these baptisms in secret. Do you have citations to counter the citations that I have referenced?
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
By touting the good things these dictators have done she most certainly was endorsing them. Not only that, by linking her reputation to theirs via gushing praise she legitimized these leaders who had killed scores of their own people.

It is not right to bear false witness for money, even if that money is going to something that one thinks is useful.
Click to expand...
This is slander, pure and simple, all because of this faulty premise that saying something good about someone is endorsing them. That is ridiculous. How often have we heard that Hitler improved the road system, or that Mussolini made the trains run on time. One does not “link their reputation” by recognizing facts. One most certainly does not “bear false witness” by seeing the good in even the worst of people.

“And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.”

The rest of your post is from a feminist journalist and erotica author; a Hindu blog that starts with, “The Dark Secrets of Mother Theresa - All saints are manufactured by religious organizations,” and an argument from silence from a priest that is making another point, so duh, didn’t address some issues.

Has no one learned yet to consider source material? Has the Russia attack through the media, Huffpo,and Brietbart taught us nothing?
 
Last edited:
unitive_mystic said:
So there is alot of controversy on Mother Teresa being an evil person. It’s like there is a bunch of people that think Mother Teresa is a very Holy person then there are people that think she is a terrible person.
Click to expand...
No, there isn’t “a lot of controversy” about Mother Teresa.
There are a few people with anti-Catholic bias or who are looking for attention, who try to discredit her because she was such a revered public figure.
The fact that some people post negative things about her on the Internet doesn’t amount to “a lot of controversy”.
She is a canonized saint, which means she was human and imperfect but still made it to Heaven, and the vast majority of the evidence shows she was a good person who did a lot of things to help others.
That’s the end of it as far as I am concerned.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
She did not “endorse” dictators. She did take their money, though. If she didn’t take it, they would just blow it on luxury cars and jewelry, etc. May as well put it to good use.
Click to expand...
By touting the good things these dictators have done she most certainly was endorsing them. Not only that, by linking her reputation to theirs via gushing praise she legitimized these leaders who had killed scores of their own people.

It is not right to bear false witness for money, even if that money is going to something that one thinks is useful.
The patients were asked if they wanted to be baptized. Almost all of them said “yes”. Nobody was deceived, and you absolutely cannot compare it to the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead. That’s just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I quote Susan Shields, a former member of the Missions of Charity:
Click to expand...
Do you consider this a reliable source, or a tool of defamation? I think she is a tool of defamation. Just my opinion of course. It seems Mother Teresa’s primary sin against atheism is highlighted below. It takes her long enough to get there.
After analysis of a vast amount of papers about the woman born Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu in Macedonia in August 1910, Serge Larivée and Genevieve Chenard came to the conclusion that Blessed Teresa of Calcutta was ‘anything but a saint’, with ‘her rather dubious way of caring for the sick, her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce.’
Click to expand...
AHA! How dare she oppose the objectification of women, the breakup of families, and the murder of helpless children in the millions.
Overly dogmatic.
OVERLY DOGMATIC!
SINNER!
She is a blasphemer against the religion of atheism!!
 
Last edited:
unitive_mystic said:
So there is alot of controversy on Mother Teresa being an evil person. It’s like there is a bunch of people that think Mother Teresa is a very Holy person then there are people that think she is a terrible person.

The points these people have are very interesting. Here are a few.

She reused syringes and needles under the pretext of saving funds while millions of dollars from donations were being used to propagate Christianity.

The house of the dying she set up didn’t even offer palliative care to the terminally ill and were forced to die in extreme pain.

She would baptize people before they died instead of trying to keep them alive

When she got sick she went to western hospitals which made her look like a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Yeah… and if they had to spend one day in her shoes they probably crumpled to the ground like a little baby.
 
People are always going to lie and defame…it’s the way of man. Mother Teresa is not perfect. But much of what is said about a person often is a bunch of …well, it’s untrue. It’s so easy to make up stories about people. I’m not going to dignify every unsubstantiated allegation about some person with a response.

Look at all what was said about Jesus.
 
Yes, and neither Jesus nor Mother Theresa need to offer any sort of justification or defense for themselves.

If Catholic-bashers want to hate on Mother Theresa and find reasons to pick at her, it says more about themselves than it does about her.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
And an American doctor told me that she had been trying to treat this boy, and he had a relatively simply kidney complaint that had simply gotten worse and worse and worse because he hadn’t gotten any antibiotics, and he actually needed an operation. I don’t recall what the problem was. She did tell me. And she was so angry but also very resigned, which so many people become in that situation. She said, “Well, they won’t take him to hospital.” And I said, “Why? All you have to do is get a cab, take him to the nearest hospital, demand that he has treatment, get him an operation.”
Click to expand...
Why was this boy at a hospice for the dying and not at a hospital? It’s probably because he had no money and the hospital wouldn’t treat him. “All you have to do is get him to a hospital and demand an operation” she said. Oh really? That’s all? Who will pay for it? There is a reason the boy is at the hospice and not at a hospital. I think the volunteers don’t realize that they are dealing with India, not the United States or Europe.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
n the homes for the dying, Mother taught the sisters how to secretly baptize those who were dying. Sisters were to ask each person in danger of death if he wanted a “ticket to heaven.” An affirmative reply was to mean consent to baptism. The sister was then to pretend that she was just cooling the patient’s head with a wet cloth, while in fact she was baptizing him, saying quietly the necessary words. Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa’s sisters were baptizing Hindus and Moslems.
Click to expand...
None of those people were baptized against their will or by subterfuge. They were asked, and they agreed to it. Of course the nuns had to be secretive about it. Christians who baptize Muslims and Hindus tend to get killed.
 
Whatever faults Mother Teresa may have had, she has been declared a Saint by the Church. That should count for something. Even more, to me, is the undisputed fact that she tended to the poorest of the poor and the dying in Calcutta, India, and made this her life’s mission. Who among us has done even nearly the equivalent for those who could not possibly repay us? So what if she had some flaws? Even the Saints had their human failings. I recall that some also attempted to link Pope John Paul II to the Nazis since he worked in a munitions factory that supplied weapons to the Nazis during WW II, or something to that effect. What nonsense! Mother Teresa is not with us to defend her actions, so some of us feel free to take potshots at her life’s work. Better to refrain from judging the living or the dead.
 
Last edited:
Mike_from_NJ said:
She said, “Well, they won’t take him to hospital.” And I said, “Why? All you have to do is get a cab, take him to the nearest hospital, demand that he has treatment, get him an operation.” She said, "They don’t do it. They won’t do it. If they do it for one they do it for everybody. And I thought, but this kid’s 15.
Click to expand...
And the hospital won’t take him unless paid, and Mother Teresa couldn’t afford to pay for everyone who could benefit from hospital care. Doing that for one patient might have deprived many others of what little she could do for them.
Also he didn’t just need pain relief: he needed surgery. Could Mother Teresa afford to pay for surgery for all who needed it?
This is one more case of Mother Teresa being blamed for not doing the impossible.
 
I didn’t know Mother, but I have been and spent time at her Home for the Dying in Kolkata. Everything your staff person said is true. I’ll go further and say her nuns are pretty close to being saints as well, for the work they do. If and when I am dying, I hope to have the type of care given by the MOC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top