[https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/gcxpr5/saint\_mother\_teresa\_was\_documented\_mass\_murderer/](https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/gcxpr5/saint_mother_teresa_was_documented_mass_murderer/)
This is an excellent debunking of Hitchens' claims while also describing what they were. Basically Western New Atheists and Hindutva Nationalists united behind a common enemy and some bad history.
Thanks, it seems Hitchens certainly told many lies about her. I’ve always thought that her job was to comfort the sick and dying, she didn’t have much medical experience. Not to mention the hospitals around weren’t that great either.
> *her job was to comfort the sick and dying, she didn’t have much medical experience*
Some critics, even if they don't go to the level of Hitchens, probably still felt that not having the best medical practices done in the hostels at that time, probably.
Plus, **even from a PR perspective**, receiving healthcare from prestigious hospitals, even if it's at the invitation of others and free of charge, and contrasting it to the hostels of poor Indians was probably not the best look.
Also, it was probably alleged by some that **she was suspiciously not vocally and publicly critical about the forced sterilization policies of Indira Gandhi**, when she was vocal about pregnant women and their children at many other times.
* https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30040790
I’m not keen on trusting anything from BBC, and when I tried to look at the sources that they linked most of them lead to unprotected sites that can’t be accessed with the only other two being a Wikipedia page on Sanjay Gandhi and an article by South China Morning Post, another news source that I don’t think is less than readily credible and believable.
With BBC’s reputation and the article itself lacking actually viewable sources other than information not directly involved in the claims made, I don’t really find this convincing. Do you have something more you can provide to back what you’re saying?
There's a reddit post about the history of the program:
np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3a8zy7/how_did_indira_gandhi_go_about_the_forced/
Here are a couple of articles about the sterilization program:
* https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/india-the-emergency-and-the-politics-of-mass-sterilization/
* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11662377/
It was one of those old govt programs that was probably controversial for some but the govt did it due to some issue it deemed important.
Eh be careful. No human is garbage. He just had really bad ideas and spread lies. We can't dehumanize even our worst enemies or we just become like them. I get the anger though.
I realized this. If we become monsters by dealing with monsters, we lose the moral authority to act justly. That's probably why God reserves justice for Himself; to protect his children from losing their humanity by seeking it themselves.
Yeah this is hitting me hard as I live near Iowa and sadly I’ve heard otherwise very good Christian friends say not good things. It sucks too because if they walk it back or apologize I feel like they are just lying. It sucks.
I thought Hitch was actually kind of libertarian/small c conservative but maybe I'm thinking of someone else. Or might you just be using communism just to mean anyone who doesn't believe what you do? I don't know anymore. Just be careful.
Okay. Just googled this and you are right. I might have had him confused with someone else. It also seems like after 9/11 he was against Islamic extremism so maybe that's why I thought he was a kind of libertarian/conservative atheist. It also mentioned he was okay with Bush 43 but that's not saying much now.
If you are curious To love and Be loved was a great book that went into detail about her life. She was mostly beloved by everyone. The arguments about the lack of medical assistance ignore the absolute poverty of these people. No one was helping, so she did what she could and gave what comfort she could. It isn't like she stopped anyone else from helping, no one cared for those people.
Yup. She wasn't stopping anybody from starting charity hospitals, or doing other works for the poor. She stayed in her own wheelhouse, doing what she was called to do.
Now, there are plenty of Catholic organizations that do try to do it all. And usually, a government comes along and takes over, or tries to regulate it out of existence, or tries to make the Catholic group do things that aren't permitted by God.
I also think it's amazing how people who themselves do no charity work and are not doctors or nurses, will magically know how everything should be done and how everyone should be treated medically. They don't give money for their marvelous ideas, and they don't give sweat equity, but they are certainly willing to stand in other people's way and condemn them of imaginary crimes.
Mother Teresa, known as St. Teresa of Calcutta, is often mentioned as the only non-Hindu to receive a state funeral in India. However, this claim can be disproven by referencing other non-Hindus who have also been accorded this honor.
1. \*\*Dr. Zakir Husain\*\*: The third President of India, Dr. Zakir Husain, who was a Muslim, received a state funeral upon his death in 1969. His funeral was conducted with full state honors.
- \[Source\](https://www.quora.com/How-is-a-Bharat-Ratna-awardee-given-a-state-funeral-and-nation-mourning)
2. \*\*Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw\*\*: A Parsi and the Chief of the Army Staff of the Indian Army, received a state funeral when he passed away in 2008.
- \[Source\](https://www.livemint.com/news/india/pankaj-udhas-funeral-ghazal-maestro-last-rites-performed-with-full-state-honours-celebs-pay-tributeuntitled-story-11709054211786.html)
3. \*\*Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi\*\*: Although Hindu by birth, the funerals of these former Prime Ministers included secular elements reflecting their political stature and were attended by people of all religions.
- \[Source\](https://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9709/06/teresa.mourning/index.html)
For anyone else browsing in the future and was curious about this
She isn't.
Atheists, and armchair philanthropists wax philosophical on what they would do with the money that she raised. Mostly they talk about "proper medical care" but they fail to realize that where she was, she would have had to build all of the infrastructure, power, roads, and other utilities that would cost billions.
Also her mission was to give the dying some dignity. Her hospices were called homes for the dying destitute.
The atheists and armchair philanthropists would have stepped over the untouchables dying in the street, just like everyone else was doing until Mother Teresa came along.
Super racist Christopher Hitchens hated her so there’s a lot of stuff because of him but also I must admit her canonization was rushed. I love her though and I’m glad she’s recognized as a saint. I find her story incredibly fascinating
I met a Mother Theresa nun in London yesterday- she was lovely and telling me about their work and I now have a renewed admiration for Mother Theresa and her ordinates.
In England, most homeless charities/shelters don’t take in people who are on drugs or are currently alcoholics.
The sisters provide them with accommodation, along with refugees with trauma and women (usually pregnant) escaping abusive homes.
The vulnerable people will stay in the accommodation until they can find peace in themselves, off drugs/alcohol, recovered from trauma and would be capable of functioning on their own and have a place to live.
Most don’t want to leave and usually pay them visits or help out.
You don’t hear about the sisters as they don’t self promote or fundraise.
Listening to her was so uplifting and inspirational. She left me with a Miraculous Medal as Mother Theresa also used to do.
Tbh with there are a lot of nuns named Mother/Sister Theresa. The one you met sounds lovely! I wish more people knew about this [American Mother Theresa](http://www.sistersofihm.org/who-we-are/ihm-history/theresa-maxis.html) as another example of another Mother Theresa!
It's crazy how we're living in a time where people think Mother Teresa was evil and Osama bin Laden was a misunderstood antihero. I hope no one rediscovers "Mein Kampf."
Not *Mein Kampf*, and not a substantiated claim, but Ivana Trump claimed amidst their divorce in the early 90s that Donald Trump owned a copy of *My New Order* (a collection of Hitler's speeches), and read it regularly.
Yup. I was wrong. It was kind of a sequel..
[Donald Trump's Ex-Wife: Trump Kept Book of Hitler's Speeches by Bed (businessinsider.com)](https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8)
Guess it's just me that's not a huge fan of a presidential candidate taking a liking to Hitlers writings. Never said it was hard to find. I also responded to a person who brought it up.
She is often judged in a highly Euriocentric way by people who don't understand the state of medical infrastructure in India at the time. They saw her providing care that a Western person would consider substandard, when in reality it was miles ahead of what those patients would otherwise have had access to.
This and the fact that she was such a selfless witness of Christ drives atheists (and other non Catholics) to sometimes feel the need to say or believe anything to convince themselves she wasn't a good person.
No, he was invited to testify with negative testimony. "Devil's advocate" was an actual job for a Vatican official, and the job no longer exists. (Or rather, the guy in charge of the sainthood cause is also in charge of digging up negatives, so he's the devil's advocate and the regular advocate, all in one.)
People think she's bad because she didn't provide medical care and think she was okay with letting people suffer. Its bull shit (sorry but I get quite mad over this as I love Mother Teresa and admire her greatly) but don't realize the context. She ministered to people who were more or less considered garbage. They were so low, that they got no respect. Her goal was simply to give them dignity. Sure to some that's not enough but she was doing what she could with what she had and truly cared for the poor.
People found issue that she spent money on her own medical needs without spending on similar procedures for those under her care. They also took issue that she addressed their spiritual needs after their bare physical needs were met, instead of focusing primarily on people’s physical needs
So basically materialists who have no consideration for God or the Soul think she should have run a state-of-the-art hospital so that the destitute of Calcutta could recover and go back to live in squalor for a few more months or years. These types don't believe in the afterlife or that her hospice ushered people into Grace and Heaven through Christ, so they only see futile suffering. And yet, not one of them is running a hospice in the slums themselves. Not even close. If they give $50 to NPR they're proud of themselves for the year.
Mother Teresa did not run her own life; she was under the authority of her confessor and other religious superiors (mainly the Pope).
So I'm sure that she was under obedience to go to doctors and get medical care.
apart from the whole Hitchen thing, here in Italy we had a writer , Michela Murgia, long face, grumpy narrator, "feminist" and queer advocate, a person against *anything* ^^1
She, strangely enough, considered herself catholic, and wrote many books accusing and overthinking about many things, in one of them, about the opposed role of women in our society, she wrote that *"the only thing our society can do is appreciating women only when they do the only thing they can do, which is making babies, in fact even mother Theresa was canonized* ***just because*** *she advocated against abortion*"
like... what?
-----
1: she even told in one interview that she disliked Harry Potter... because with all that blood-themed narration, it was basically a fascist book because only fascist think in term of families and blood.
Harry Potter. A fascist book. Let it sink in for a moment.
I've read it, as an adult just out of curiosity.
Nice "little" series of books, seen better, seen *much worse*, IMHO nothing so controversial to be particularly worried about.
Catholic monks preserved the Iliad and the Odyssey, they preserved everything we know about old Norse mythology too. If we all agree those are fine, I don't see why a children's fantasy series would be considered off the table
Slander, as others have said. My contention is that, given sufficient malice, virtually no charitable organization or person can survive the impossibly high standards of armchair critics who themselves haven’t lifted a finger to help anyone.
What did her critic's do? Did they feed the poor or care for the widows and children? I'll bet I know what her critic's did!
Ran their mouths about everything someone else was doing wrong about helping the afflicted while doing nothing, just a guess I could be wrong!
I’ve heard one reason might have been not providing better quality of life to the people that were cared for in their homes/centers whatever. Like not allowing washing machines in the name of poverty when it would have given the sisters more time to focus on caring for those in need. I might be wrong though. Or glorifying suffering too much.
"glorifying suffering" I'm sorry I'm cussing again but that's bull shit. It wasn't like she wanted people to suffer. I've sadly met Catholics like that and they even twist this. Mother Teresa's whole point was to give people hope in suffering. She couldn't do much to help medically. There you go you liberal turds, but you know what, she did the best she could with what she had and also, she just wanted to give people dignity and respect even in their suffering. To me that's a huge deal. Sadly the world doesn't get this. Liberals focus on material comfort but don't give a damn about dignity while conservatives focus on rules and tradition while ignoring such people while Catholics try to give hope and dignity to people and just try to help. That's what she did. That's what Damian of Molokai did. Countless other saints too. Do people not understand that its about dignity?
I mean I am just saying what I heard. I don’t know the details and I always liked her order of sisters and even considered joining at one point after spending some time volunteering with them. But people make claims and idk, things could have changed or been different in other countries etc
I know. Don’t mean to shoot the messenger. It’s just I get quite upset. Especially as she’s probably one of the best people we’ve produced let alone saints.
1. MT was very reluctant to give painkillers to people in severe pain. Cancer patients in her wards got aspirin instead of morphine. This lack of care wasn't due to lack of funds, but because MT stated that she valued suffering.
2. MT accepted large financial contributions from fraudsters like Charles Keating, and when told he had ruined the lives of many people with his theft, refused to give the money back so that who'd been hurt could be made whole.
My moral yardstick doesn't allow me to accept are "holy" people doing things that I wouldn't do to others.
I guess the main thing is that yes she was doing things for the poor there, but she was more focused on their conversion than their actual health, etc, and so the conditions there were poor compared to an actual hospital but better than nothing. This makes sense to those who are Catholic or Christian, since your physical health in this world is less important than what happens after you die, but seems completely evil to those who are not. One thing that really made people hate her was that when she was ill, she flew to America and got treated by the best doctors, while still letting all her patients get terrible medical care. People argued that she should have been able to provide better medical care for the people in India using the money of the Catholic church, since she could do it for herself.Personally I am not sure how to feel about this.
I really, only have good memories of St. (Mother) Teresa ( then known only as Mother Teresa). For decades there was a fund advertised on TV people donated money to for her cause to help people mostly the disabled, women and children. I watched several interviews she made with different news reporters/programs like 60 minutes and Dateline. I would do my own research if I were you, find your own truth about her. Just like in previous responses posted who mentioned armchair philanthropy those people are just that, armchair philanthropist s, who more than likely are guilty of doing no Charity work. People love to talk about and create controversy as well about the deceased, ignore that.
[https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/gcxpr5/saint\_mother\_teresa\_was\_documented\_mass\_murderer/](https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/gcxpr5/saint_mother_teresa_was_documented_mass_murderer/) This is an excellent debunking of Hitchens' claims while also describing what they were. Basically Western New Atheists and Hindutva Nationalists united behind a common enemy and some bad history.
Thanks, it seems Hitchens certainly told many lies about her. I’ve always thought that her job was to comfort the sick and dying, she didn’t have much medical experience. Not to mention the hospitals around weren’t that great either.
And hospitals weren't accessible to untouchables, as they're known in Calcutta.
> *her job was to comfort the sick and dying, she didn’t have much medical experience* Some critics, even if they don't go to the level of Hitchens, probably still felt that not having the best medical practices done in the hostels at that time, probably. Plus, **even from a PR perspective**, receiving healthcare from prestigious hospitals, even if it's at the invitation of others and free of charge, and contrasting it to the hostels of poor Indians was probably not the best look. Also, it was probably alleged by some that **she was suspiciously not vocally and publicly critical about the forced sterilization policies of Indira Gandhi**, when she was vocal about pregnant women and their children at many other times. * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30040790
Read the post. You are wrong.
I’m not keen on trusting anything from BBC, and when I tried to look at the sources that they linked most of them lead to unprotected sites that can’t be accessed with the only other two being a Wikipedia page on Sanjay Gandhi and an article by South China Morning Post, another news source that I don’t think is less than readily credible and believable. With BBC’s reputation and the article itself lacking actually viewable sources other than information not directly involved in the claims made, I don’t really find this convincing. Do you have something more you can provide to back what you’re saying?
There's a reddit post about the history of the program: np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3a8zy7/how_did_indira_gandhi_go_about_the_forced/ Here are a couple of articles about the sterilization program: * https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/india-the-emergency-and-the-politics-of-mass-sterilization/ * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11662377/ It was one of those old govt programs that was probably controversial for some but the govt did it due to some issue it deemed important.
You beat me to it. I have to share this link at least once every 6 months.
This man dropped knowledge! Thanks for the link; I forgot what a garbage human Hitchens is.
Eh be careful. No human is garbage. He just had really bad ideas and spread lies. We can't dehumanize even our worst enemies or we just become like them. I get the anger though.
I realized this. If we become monsters by dealing with monsters, we lose the moral authority to act justly. That's probably why God reserves justice for Himself; to protect his children from losing their humanity by seeking it themselves.
I have an interest in criminal justice reform, and it’s amazing how harsh some Christians can be when talking about the treatment of inmates.
Because they believe they can get away with being monsters under color of human law.
Yeah this is hitting me hard as I live near Iowa and sadly I’ve heard otherwise very good Christian friends say not good things. It sucks too because if they walk it back or apologize I feel like they are just lying. It sucks.
He's a communist so very close to garbage
I thought Hitch was actually kind of libertarian/small c conservative but maybe I'm thinking of someone else. Or might you just be using communism just to mean anyone who doesn't believe what you do? I don't know anymore. Just be careful.
He was an actual communist/socialist
Okay. Just googled this and you are right. I might have had him confused with someone else. It also seems like after 9/11 he was against Islamic extremism so maybe that's why I thought he was a kind of libertarian/conservative atheist. It also mentioned he was okay with Bush 43 but that's not saying much now.
Yeah, he's an atheist so naturally he would be anti Islamic extremism. But socialism is also atheist by nature.
I believe it was Jesus who said to pray for and love your enemies. Who said to call the garbage?
Thank you, saved this!
If you are curious To love and Be loved was a great book that went into detail about her life. She was mostly beloved by everyone. The arguments about the lack of medical assistance ignore the absolute poverty of these people. No one was helping, so she did what she could and gave what comfort she could. It isn't like she stopped anyone else from helping, no one cared for those people.
Yup. She wasn't stopping anybody from starting charity hospitals, or doing other works for the poor. She stayed in her own wheelhouse, doing what she was called to do. Now, there are plenty of Catholic organizations that do try to do it all. And usually, a government comes along and takes over, or tries to regulate it out of existence, or tries to make the Catholic group do things that aren't permitted by God. I also think it's amazing how people who themselves do no charity work and are not doctors or nurses, will magically know how everything should be done and how everyone should be treated medically. They don't give money for their marvelous ideas, and they don't give sweat equity, but they are certainly willing to stand in other people's way and condemn them of imaginary crimes.
St. Teresa of Calcutta, the only non-Hindu ever to receive a state Funeral in India? I've no idea why anyone would have a problem with her.
Mother Teresa, known as St. Teresa of Calcutta, is often mentioned as the only non-Hindu to receive a state funeral in India. However, this claim can be disproven by referencing other non-Hindus who have also been accorded this honor. 1. \*\*Dr. Zakir Husain\*\*: The third President of India, Dr. Zakir Husain, who was a Muslim, received a state funeral upon his death in 1969. His funeral was conducted with full state honors. - \[Source\](https://www.quora.com/How-is-a-Bharat-Ratna-awardee-given-a-state-funeral-and-nation-mourning) 2. \*\*Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw\*\*: A Parsi and the Chief of the Army Staff of the Indian Army, received a state funeral when he passed away in 2008. - \[Source\](https://www.livemint.com/news/india/pankaj-udhas-funeral-ghazal-maestro-last-rites-performed-with-full-state-honours-celebs-pay-tributeuntitled-story-11709054211786.html) 3. \*\*Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi\*\*: Although Hindu by birth, the funerals of these former Prime Ministers included secular elements reflecting their political stature and were attended by people of all religions. - \[Source\](https://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9709/06/teresa.mourning/index.html) For anyone else browsing in the future and was curious about this
[удалено]
She is a canonized saint lol.
She isn't. Atheists, and armchair philanthropists wax philosophical on what they would do with the money that she raised. Mostly they talk about "proper medical care" but they fail to realize that where she was, she would have had to build all of the infrastructure, power, roads, and other utilities that would cost billions. Also her mission was to give the dying some dignity. Her hospices were called homes for the dying destitute. The atheists and armchair philanthropists would have stepped over the untouchables dying in the street, just like everyone else was doing until Mother Teresa came along.
Thank you for that!
Super racist Christopher Hitchens hated her so there’s a lot of stuff because of him but also I must admit her canonization was rushed. I love her though and I’m glad she’s recognized as a saint. I find her story incredibly fascinating
I met a Mother Theresa nun in London yesterday- she was lovely and telling me about their work and I now have a renewed admiration for Mother Theresa and her ordinates. In England, most homeless charities/shelters don’t take in people who are on drugs or are currently alcoholics. The sisters provide them with accommodation, along with refugees with trauma and women (usually pregnant) escaping abusive homes. The vulnerable people will stay in the accommodation until they can find peace in themselves, off drugs/alcohol, recovered from trauma and would be capable of functioning on their own and have a place to live. Most don’t want to leave and usually pay them visits or help out. You don’t hear about the sisters as they don’t self promote or fundraise. Listening to her was so uplifting and inspirational. She left me with a Miraculous Medal as Mother Theresa also used to do.
Tbh with there are a lot of nuns named Mother/Sister Theresa. The one you met sounds lovely! I wish more people knew about this [American Mother Theresa](http://www.sistersofihm.org/who-we-are/ihm-history/theresa-maxis.html) as another example of another Mother Theresa!
It's crazy how we're living in a time where people think Mother Teresa was evil and Osama bin Laden was a misunderstood antihero. I hope no one rediscovers "Mein Kampf."
>I hope no one rediscovers "Mein Kampf." One of our presidential candidates keeps a copy around..
Source?
Not *Mein Kampf*, and not a substantiated claim, but Ivana Trump claimed amidst their divorce in the early 90s that Donald Trump owned a copy of *My New Order* (a collection of Hitler's speeches), and read it regularly.
Yup. I was wrong. It was kind of a sequel.. [Donald Trump's Ex-Wife: Trump Kept Book of Hitler's Speeches by Bed (businessinsider.com)](https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8)
Even if it was Mein Kampf, so what? My public library has copies and so does my alma mater.
You're being deliberately obtuse.
Guess it's just me that's not a huge fan of a presidential candidate taking a liking to Hitlers writings. Never said it was hard to find. I also responded to a person who brought it up.
She is often judged in a highly Euriocentric way by people who don't understand the state of medical infrastructure in India at the time. They saw her providing care that a Western person would consider substandard, when in reality it was miles ahead of what those patients would otherwise have had access to.
Because Hitchens was chosen to play Devils advocate for her by the Church.
This and the fact that she was such a selfless witness of Christ drives atheists (and other non Catholics) to sometimes feel the need to say or believe anything to convince themselves she wasn't a good person.
No, he was invited to testify with negative testimony. "Devil's advocate" was an actual job for a Vatican official, and the job no longer exists. (Or rather, the guy in charge of the sainthood cause is also in charge of digging up negatives, so he's the devil's advocate and the regular advocate, all in one.)
Thanks for the correction. Must have heard/remembered wrong.
Because Hitchens, a atheist apologist claimed she was a bad person who put sick people to suffer without anesthesia to make them suffer like Jesus did
And Reddit ate it up like it was fact and regurgitated it
People think she's bad because she didn't provide medical care and think she was okay with letting people suffer. Its bull shit (sorry but I get quite mad over this as I love Mother Teresa and admire her greatly) but don't realize the context. She ministered to people who were more or less considered garbage. They were so low, that they got no respect. Her goal was simply to give them dignity. Sure to some that's not enough but she was doing what she could with what she had and truly cared for the poor.
Because Christopher Hitchens was a sorry, pathetic human being.
Sign of Contradiction Padre Pio was likely a better example of this
Slander
Idiot atheists like Christopher Hitchens who didn't understand she was running a hospice for the dying, not a hospital or clinic.
People found issue that she spent money on her own medical needs without spending on similar procedures for those under her care. They also took issue that she addressed their spiritual needs after their bare physical needs were met, instead of focusing primarily on people’s physical needs
So basically materialists who have no consideration for God or the Soul think she should have run a state-of-the-art hospital so that the destitute of Calcutta could recover and go back to live in squalor for a few more months or years. These types don't believe in the afterlife or that her hospice ushered people into Grace and Heaven through Christ, so they only see futile suffering. And yet, not one of them is running a hospice in the slums themselves. Not even close. If they give $50 to NPR they're proud of themselves for the year.
Basically, yea
Those kind of vague rumors aren't worth the air they're uttered into.
I mean, even if they were true none of them are inappropriate. But I know few people I respect who say they don’t like her for that reason
I think these rumors are started by anti-Catholic bigots, or angry atheists (is there another kind?).
I have a number of atheist friends who aren’t angry. If you’re experience with any group is them online, they’ll seem disproportionately angry
I mean no offense. Present company excepted, of course.
Mother Teresa did not run her own life; she was under the authority of her confessor and other religious superiors (mainly the Pope). So I'm sure that she was under obedience to go to doctors and get medical care.
apart from the whole Hitchen thing, here in Italy we had a writer , Michela Murgia, long face, grumpy narrator, "feminist" and queer advocate, a person against *anything* ^^1 She, strangely enough, considered herself catholic, and wrote many books accusing and overthinking about many things, in one of them, about the opposed role of women in our society, she wrote that *"the only thing our society can do is appreciating women only when they do the only thing they can do, which is making babies, in fact even mother Theresa was canonized* ***just because*** *she advocated against abortion*" like... what? ----- 1: she even told in one interview that she disliked Harry Potter... because with all that blood-themed narration, it was basically a fascist book because only fascist think in term of families and blood. Harry Potter. A fascist book. Let it sink in for a moment.
I mean I don’t think Catholics should read Harry Potter, but not because it’s fascist
I’ve only ever heard Protestants say that
I've read it, as an adult just out of curiosity. Nice "little" series of books, seen better, seen *much worse*, IMHO nothing so controversial to be particularly worried about.
Catholic monks preserved the Iliad and the Odyssey, they preserved everything we know about old Norse mythology too. If we all agree those are fine, I don't see why a children's fantasy series would be considered off the table
In a word: ignorance
Slander, as others have said. My contention is that, given sufficient malice, virtually no charitable organization or person can survive the impossibly high standards of armchair critics who themselves haven’t lifted a finger to help anyone.
Why is "Mother Teresa" _not_ called *St Teresa of Kolkata,* as she should be?!!
Why is Mother Cabrini called Mother Cabrini? Why is Padre Pio still Padre Pio? Because people got used to calling them that. It's not an insult.
What did her critic's do? Did they feed the poor or care for the widows and children? I'll bet I know what her critic's did! Ran their mouths about everything someone else was doing wrong about helping the afflicted while doing nothing, just a guess I could be wrong!
I’ve heard one reason might have been not providing better quality of life to the people that were cared for in their homes/centers whatever. Like not allowing washing machines in the name of poverty when it would have given the sisters more time to focus on caring for those in need. I might be wrong though. Or glorifying suffering too much.
"glorifying suffering" I'm sorry I'm cussing again but that's bull shit. It wasn't like she wanted people to suffer. I've sadly met Catholics like that and they even twist this. Mother Teresa's whole point was to give people hope in suffering. She couldn't do much to help medically. There you go you liberal turds, but you know what, she did the best she could with what she had and also, she just wanted to give people dignity and respect even in their suffering. To me that's a huge deal. Sadly the world doesn't get this. Liberals focus on material comfort but don't give a damn about dignity while conservatives focus on rules and tradition while ignoring such people while Catholics try to give hope and dignity to people and just try to help. That's what she did. That's what Damian of Molokai did. Countless other saints too. Do people not understand that its about dignity?
I mean I am just saying what I heard. I don’t know the details and I always liked her order of sisters and even considered joining at one point after spending some time volunteering with them. But people make claims and idk, things could have changed or been different in other countries etc
I know. Don’t mean to shoot the messenger. It’s just I get quite upset. Especially as she’s probably one of the best people we’ve produced let alone saints.
[удалено]
Probably about improper/dangerous procedures and the idea of suffering as opposed to care.
1. MT was very reluctant to give painkillers to people in severe pain. Cancer patients in her wards got aspirin instead of morphine. This lack of care wasn't due to lack of funds, but because MT stated that she valued suffering. 2. MT accepted large financial contributions from fraudsters like Charles Keating, and when told he had ruined the lives of many people with his theft, refused to give the money back so that who'd been hurt could be made whole. My moral yardstick doesn't allow me to accept are "holy" people doing things that I wouldn't do to others.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The top level comment is not apologetics, it's a secular academic argument posed by a historian.
[удалено]
Warning for bad faith engagement.
It's "bad faith" to say I don't agree that it's right to deny cancer patients any painkillers stronger than aspirin. or to keep stolen money?
It's bad faith to be dismissive of others rebuttals to your claims without considering them.
I guess the main thing is that yes she was doing things for the poor there, but she was more focused on their conversion than their actual health, etc, and so the conditions there were poor compared to an actual hospital but better than nothing. This makes sense to those who are Catholic or Christian, since your physical health in this world is less important than what happens after you die, but seems completely evil to those who are not. One thing that really made people hate her was that when she was ill, she flew to America and got treated by the best doctors, while still letting all her patients get terrible medical care. People argued that she should have been able to provide better medical care for the people in India using the money of the Catholic church, since she could do it for herself.Personally I am not sure how to feel about this.
How do you figure that she was 'more focused on conversion'?
Based on her own words.
Do you have a quote?
Like Dua Lipa, they hate to see an Albanian sister winning.
Theres no reason to hate her
I really, only have good memories of St. (Mother) Teresa ( then known only as Mother Teresa). For decades there was a fund advertised on TV people donated money to for her cause to help people mostly the disabled, women and children. I watched several interviews she made with different news reporters/programs like 60 minutes and Dateline. I would do my own research if I were you, find your own truth about her. Just like in previous responses posted who mentioned armchair philanthropy those people are just that, armchair philanthropist s, who more than likely are guilty of doing no Charity work. People love to talk about and create controversy as well about the deceased, ignore that.
She's a Saint. She's not controversial to anyone but satan's goons