New York, May. 26, 2005 (CNA) - Shareholders in the media giant, Viacom, will be greeted by many unhappy faces as they enter a meeting at New York’s Marriot Marquis Hotel this afternoon.
William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, an organization for religious and civil rights, is leading a charge, railing against the company, and their subsidiary, Showtime, for airing a program which they call “a full frontal assault” on the late Mother Teresa and the Catholic Church.
The program, “Holier than thou”, starring magician entertainers Penn and Teller, paints Mother Theresa and her Sisters of Charity as “cruel, exploitative, self-serving nun[s] who ripped off the poor,” according to Donohue.
“In the 12 years that I have been president of the Catholic League,” he wrote yesterday, “I have never witnessed a more vicious attack on Catholicism than what appeared this week on the Showtime program, ‘Penn and Teller.’ The episode, ‘Holier Than Thou,’ was a frontal assault on Mother Teresa and her order of nuns, Missionaries of Charity (as well as Gandhi and the Dali Lama).”
In the episode, says Donohue, “We are told that Mother Teresa intentionally let the poor suffer, providing neither beds nor bathroom facilities. ‘She had the f—king coin and pissed it away on nunneries,’ says Penn. As for the nuns who worked with Mother Teresa, they are referred to as ‘f—king c—ts.’”
Now, this sort of thing I've almost come to expect. There's a lot of people who don't like the Catholic Church.
But to call Mother Teresa such names on national TV? Have they gone mad?
<Edited thread title -- blanked out inside thread is ok thus far, but subject is unavoidable to people uninterested in the topic. --PJ>
<Sorry about that, Pop and everyone. It was late and my judgment was probably not in top shape.)
[ May 31, 2005, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Eaquae Legit ]
Posted by Sartorius (Member # 7696) on :
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No. They just boosted their ratings. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, namecalling isn't very nice, to be sure; but the substance of their charges is pretty accurate.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
These charges aren't new by any means. Since she operated in a very poor section of Calcutta, very few people got a good sense of what she actually did.
It's clear that she truly lived her vow of poverty, and worked hard under difficult conditions. But there was a very bizzarre twist to her stated mission. She helped people die by giving them food and a bed to lie in, but no medical care even when there condition could have been cured with simple antibiotics or made comfortable with painkillers.
I haven't seen the Penn and Teller show, but I assume they mention the "Jesus is kissing you" quote.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
There were a lot of people around in India who didn't think she deserved the saintly reputation she had.
I did some work for a human rights organisation in New Dehli in 1999 - and while they certainly weren't calling Mother Teresa a ****, most of the workers didn't think she was a saint by any means.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
Imogen,
What did they call her during the timespan you did some work?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Huh. I have never heard anything bad about her before now. If she didn't give people medical care, I wonder what her motivation for that was.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Why is Penn and Teller doing a show about Mother Teresa?
Even if all their charges are true, using the F-C phrase is derogatory towards all women. I will not watch that show.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I remember reading about her many years ago and it was explained that she started out, as a young nun, in an attempt to ease the suffering of the dying, and to give them dignity. I assume she was mostly working with the Untouchable class.
That was where her work started, rather than saving them, healing them, giving them money, etc. At least in the earlier years. I haven't read much about her since then but I can certainly see how people can get a bad impression. Again, I haven't read anything as an adult to really understand what exactly she was doing or hoping to accomplish once she had more support.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It reminds me of the guy in the Worthing Chronicles who had powers that could help others and whenever he *didn't* help someone or didn't help to their satisfaction, he was hated, scorned, attacked.
Mother Theresa dedicated her time and strength towards helping others. I figure at worst she didn't help them in the way *they* thought they should be helped. How is that worthy of scorn when she did so much more than most of us?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Because she did not in fact help, but hindered.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I agree with Bev.
Posted by Sartorius (Member # 7696) on :
How?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
By denying access to contraceptives and antibiotics that were perfectly available.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I never really knew this. How depressing.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Oh, so just like that, Syn, you believe she was a bad person? She could not remain a nun and give out contraceptives, that is a no brainer. As for the rest of it, nobody here has proven she did anything wrong.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That is not exactly what I meant....
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
If nobody can agree on a definition of "good", it's safe to assume that not everyone would agree that Mother Theresa is (or was) a Saint.
-Trevor
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: By denying access to contraceptives and antibiotics that were perfectly available.
By denying do you mean she actively prevented people from getting them from other sources or that she failed to provide it through her own charities?
If the latter, I'm perfectly fine with that. People who donate money to her know she is Catholic and therefore her aid would have to follow the teachings of the Church. If she refuse to use that money for contraceptives I'm perfectly fine with that.
Bev, good comparison with Worthing. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Actually, I believe Mother Teresa was referred to as Mother F****** Teresa and the nuns that worked with her were the f*ing C*s.
Just for clarification. Maybe we should get the facts before jumping to the conclusions?
I also hear they weren't just ripping on her, but also on Gandhi and the Dali Lama. Why do people have such a persecution complex?
And, it was a repeat.
Sheesh. Why don't we get up in arms about something important? Anyone want to research Mother Teresa and give us a report?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
*shrug* I figured that if the Missionaries of CHarity were effing C then so was Mother Teresa, being one of said missionaries. Sorry for the confusion.
And while the Mother Teresa was what caught my eye (being the headline) I'm equally baffled about such abuse heaped on Gandhi and the Dalai Lama.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Absurdist humor?
-Trevor
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, possibly I overstated the case a little, at least from your viewpoint. I believe she refused to give aid to people who used contraception, though how she would find out I'm sure I don't know. And certainly she preached against it to those who received her 'help', this is standard Catholic practice, after all; I count this as actively hindering people from obtaining them.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I've seen that show (Penn and Teller's Bull!) and it's in very poor taste. They go out of there way to slander religion of any kind in any way (including shooting a Bible a week after the Quaran scandal).
Hobbes Posted by century of hypocrisy (Member # 8139) on :
What I find the saddest is that there are people on here that believe that whatever Penn and teller tell them is true. When did they become newscasters?? I ask myself: is North America so bored that we need to strip one of the most charitable people on the planet of all her dignity for a laugh? Are there that many ignorant people out there that form an opinion without once looking in a history book? Then again history books are a bit skewed...but PEN and TELLER is who you're getting your info from??? "I heard this...I heard that..I was a relief worker and worked nowhere near her-nor did I meet her...but heck, I heard she was a b*tch"...so it must be true if some nameless (or someone who won or simply got nominated for an academy award) says it is. Take south park, they bash everyone, but I'm not offended by that cuz they don't even take themselves seriously-but it's the people who DO take themselves seriously that you kinda gotta watch out for. and yes, I take myself seriously... (haha)
**just as a side note-no, haven't seen the show...no don't intend on seeing the show-cuz they don't deserve the time...so before y'all go saying this that and the other thing...ask yourselves above all else-why did they do the show? For ratings- not to enlighten your mind by any means.
And the Worthing connection-priceless.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Trying to convince somebody not to do X is not hindering them from doing X.
Posted by century of hypocrisy (Member # 8139) on :
Portabello-couldn't agree with you more...
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Colonel Singh’s analysis of the evidence leads him to conclude that Gandhi’s ideology was in fact rooted in racial animosity, first against blacks in South Africa and later against whites in India. The author also finds evidence of multiple cover-ups designed to hide Gandhi’s real history, including even collusion to cover up the murder of an American.
You can watch the clip here. You just have to find the 'Holier Than Thou' episode.
quote:Bonus factoids: apparently, the Dalai Lama presided over a rather exploitive caste system prior to his flight from Tibet, a system that employed torture as a means of administrative punishment. Of course, the subsequent rule of the Chinese was much worse. The CIA also funneled over a million dollars to the Dalai Lama in order to fund anti-Chinese resistance forces, which isn't something that I would condemn, yet sits interestingly at odds with his one-size-fits-all pacifism.
Kayla: Well-meaning (I guess) but I said HISTORY BOOKS-not editorials on opinions on history....
oh...and if you know anything about communist china Kayla-don't read their history books. Just a word to the wise.
Posted by century of hypocrisy (Member # 8139) on :
btw: $5 goes to the person who can give me Colonel Singh's first name.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
You know, I doubt there's ever been anyone that's ever lived that you couldn't make look like a monster if you knew enough about them.
I remember the first time I ever talked to someone who was old enough to remember when Martin Luther King, Jr. was alive. I'd always been taught from elementary school on up what a noble, brave, courageous and selfless individual he was, and how much better the world was for his having lived in it. The first time I ever heard someone who lived through the '60s tell me his story from a different point of view, I was incredibly disillusioned. Was it really possible that he was a racist hatemonger? Why would everyone tell me all these nice things about him, and how was I to deal with the fact that they weren't true?
After a great deal of thought, I finally decided that people are complex creatures, and no one's life can be summed up in as neat a good/evil package as we're often led to believe. Nevertheless, we need heroes. If we don't have stories of near-perfect people, what pattern are we to follow in order to improve our own lives? If you have a child who wants to be a great basketball player, you give him the poster of Michael Jordan making the flying slam dunk, not the one of him missing a free-throw or letting a point slip past him. And if you want your child to be a kind, selfless, moral person, you tell them about Mother Teresa giving her life in the service of others, Martin Luther King, Jr. fighting for equality and understanding, and Gandhi giving up everything he possessed in the quest for a peaceful solution to problems that had been traditionally solved with violence. Whether or not you can debate these facts historically, and when you're talking about flesh-and-blood humans, you always can, there's no denying the unnecessary harm you'll be doing by removing moral models from the lives of people who are trying to be moral themselves. We've got an enexhaustable supply of people whose mistakes we can learn from, and precious few whose stories we can emulate. We need all we can get.
On a related note, I like Penn & Teller. I own most of their magic books, both seasons of Bulls**t on DVD, and I've been a fan of them for decades now. They're funny people, great magicians, and very intelligent. And on a personal note, they're libertarian atheists. I'm nowhere near as extreme as they are, but as a moderately libertarian-ish agnostic, it's nice to see someone famous who I can politically sort of identify with.
However, as much as I like them, I do think they can go overboard sometimes, and this is a perfect example. I don't have a really strong belief in things like The Bible, evolution, or many other religious principles, so I find it amusing to see them explore those subjects from their point of view. However, while I don't see myself as especially religious, I do admire certain people who are. I don't believe that just because I don't find religion useful in my life presently, that this means that anyone who does is automatically an evil moron. I actually admire people who live their lives according to a code of ethics as strict as some religions dictate, provided that they don't do this in a way that negatively influences the lives of non-believers. This is where I differ from Penn & Teller. They belong to the secular humanist religion and have a seething hatred for people whose religion differs from theirs, and that hatred is as caustic as any fanatical Muslim, Christian or Jew.
Although I continute to admire certain of their characteristics, shows like this one (from what I've read about it here) perfectly illustrate where I diverge from them. Although I have great respect for Mother Teresa, I'm fine with differing opinions on her life. But opinions stated in a way that shows such a complete lack of respect, not only for anything good she may ever have tried to do, but for anyone who tries to make their lives better as a result of her example, are completely uncalled for.
But that's just my opinion.
[ May 31, 2005, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Now THAT is the depressing thing... First of all, Penn and Teller being rude towards Mother Teresa. There's no reason for that. Second of all, is there any system or any group of people that is "pure" when it comes to compassion and helping people? Plus there is nothing beautiful about being poor.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
There is no system that is completely pure because there is no human that is completely pure.
edit: I meant pure, not poor
[ May 30, 2005, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Portabello ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Portabello: Trying to convince somebody not to do X is not hindering them from doing X.
When you are basically the only source of medical information, not to mention moral authority, it is. But whether or not we can agree on this definition, she was trying to convince people to take a path that was demonstrably harmful to them, for religious reasons.
Posted by Zemra (Member # 5706) on :
What? That is uncalled for. I think that Mother Teresa and the sister in Missionaries of Charity have done a tremedous work with helping others. When I lived in Albania my window overlooked the house that the Cathlic church had rented and the sisters from Missionaries of Charity were residing there. The building had 5 bedrooms and all of the 5 bedrooms were filled with people that were homeless or that needed help. They were from different religions since most of the Albanians are Muslim you find a lot of muslim being washed and fed by the sisters. They were respected and loved from the community. Nobody ever heard a bad word about the sisters. We appreciated what they did and they tried to encourage the community to also help with the needy as much as possible. I think they are saints and the least that we can do is to show our appreciation for their work instead of using these derogatory remarks.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
If trying to convince somebody to do X is hindering them from doing X, then you are actively hindering me from worshipping as I wish.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Also, if she was the only source of medical information or moral authority, it's not her fault.
She's no more to blame for not helping them in the proper KoM fashion than the other hundreds of millions of people who also could have done it.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Thanks Kayla.
Alluvion, they usually called her Mother Teresa.
She was *fundamentally* against abortion, even in the extreme cases where most people are willing to concede it may be necessary - rape, incest, very young girls etc etc.
She also supported Indira Ghandi - very touchy issue in India. Indira Ghandi is viewed by some as one of the worse things that happened to India, and Mother Theresa's public support of her and her government's actions (including a toted idea of forced sterilisation of the poor) angered many people.
Bev, I agree with you by the way.
She did spend her time helping the poor. She also had some very extremist views that were potentially harmful and had some political alliances which were very unpopular. Doesn't mean she was bad, but perhaps she wasn't all good either.
Hmmm, yes. Let he/she who spends all his/her time helping the poor cast the first stone.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:Doesn't mean she was bad, but perhaps she wasn't all good either.
Actually, it doesn't mean that either. It means that she disagreed with you on what is harmful and what is helpful.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Yes, I disagree that forced sterilisation of the poor is a good idea.
Seriously Porter, what's with that comment?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
You said "She also had some very extremist views that were potentially harmful" with nothing but your own personal opinion to back it up -- no examples, no arguments as to why they were bad.
From that, all that anybody could conclude is that you have different political views from her.
edit: As far as I could tell, you were talking about not providing birth control.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
She really wasn't, and the thought if her becomming a "Saint" has always been troubling to me.
Not that she didn't do good work, but a lot of people do that kind of work, and are never considered for sainthood.
Nor should they be, IMO.
I don't have a problem with her not providing birth control, although it is one of teh main issues I have with the RC church, which is why I am no longer RC...
I do have a problem with the leevl of "medical care" she provided, because it was not really medical care as we know it. . .and she was capable of having far more modern care provided, but denied it more than once.
As someone said, these issues are nothing new....
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Kwea -- if you are no longer Catholic, what do you care who they call a saint and who they don't?
For me, it matters about as much as who the queen knights and who she doesn't.
IOW, not at all.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:I do have a problem with the leevl of "medical care" she provided, because it was not really medical care as we know it. . .and she was capable of having far more modern care provided, but denied it more than once.
I really don't see why people get upset at her for not providing medical care, when there were hundreds of millions of people on earth that also were not providing that care.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Ok, I do belive that counselling against abortion for a 14 year old rape victim (as Mother Theresa famously did, saying it would be murder) is potentially harmful.
9 months of being pregnant as a result of a rape at the age 14? - I'm willing to say pyschological harm would probably result.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I'm willing to say that psychological harm will be the result if she has the abortion or not.
I believe that counseling a rape victim to get an abortion is potentially harmful.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
"Bad" and "Good" are inherently value judgments, and will come down to personal opinion.
Some things most people agree are "good" but these are social values that can change. Slavery was not always considered "bad", for example.
So yes, my own personal opinion is that some of Mother Teresa's actions were - well, not good. I think bad might be slightly too strong.
Yours may be different - because you have different personal values and opinions. Hence, a value judgment.
I'm not quite sure of your point in
quote: Actually, it doesn't mean that either. It means that she disagreed with you on what is harmful and what is helpful.
You could say that about any statement calling any activity good or bad. So what?
***
My post wasn't really intended to be a "this-is-what-I-think" but rather explaining why the people I worked with in New Dehli thought the way they did.
In my opinion, there was justification for their views. But as it's my opinion anyone is welcome to agree or disagree with it.
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
"F***ing C**t"?
I guess there are still some cuss words I don't know, 'cause I can't figure out what that c-word is.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
You don't want to. It's a nasty nasty word - my personal most hated.
Refers to female anatomy.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Eruve: *pat pat*
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
quote:Refers to female anatomy.
Then it must be a term I haven't heard. *is curious now*
Posted by AC (Member # 7909) on :
put a "u" and and "n" in for the *
it is roughly the equivalent of "the "n" word", but used against women
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eruve Nandiriel:
quote:Refers to female anatomy.
Then it must be a term I haven't heard. *is curious now*
OK, when I have kids I want YOU to babysit them. Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
I didn't hear the term until a year ago. And even then it wasn't used as a deragatory word, but in the title of book someone reccomended to me.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Penn & Teller have a show called "Bulls**t!" On it, they devote each week to debunking something. In the past it's been the purity of bottled water, the effectiveness of alternative medicines, whether or not recycling actually helps the environment, etc. They are sworn enemies of anything that smells like a scam, in the tradition of Uri Gellar and Harry Houdini. I love their show.
I haven't seen any of this season -- don't have Showtime -- but I have the last two on DVD. And the onloy one they've done that's made me uncomfortable is "The Bible: Fact or Fiction." They ripped on Christianity, in such a way that I felt awkward watchng it, and I am in no way a Christian. Had they focused on laws being based solely on dogma, or harm committed under the guise of religion, I'd have had no problem with it, but they seemed intent on disproving the religion itself once and for all.
I have not seen the show referenced here. From what I heard about it, they sought to knock revered religious leaders off their pedestals and show them to be flawed humans. I am willing to bet that there was a mention, possibly more, of the good that each leader did along with the rest. But I'll also bet that they went too far in their own evangelical zeal.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Portabello, because a lot of people are still going on about how she did everythig she could, when in reality she didn't, not even close.
Her foundation raised MILLIONS of dollars a year, but none of that money went to adequate medical care. I think that is something that every person who donated money to her should know and carw about...and that includes me.
I stopped being RC BECAUSE of things like that, that was my point. If she was the ideal RC, someone closest to God, then I have a problem with that.
I think she did an enourmous amount of good as well, but seeing her portrayed as a saint doesn't sit well with me for a number of reasons, that's all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This sort of language choice and name-calling demonstrates them to be fanatics, on this type of issue, I think. Or at least to have fanatical tendancies.
It's bad when religious people do it, it's bad when anyone does it.
And you have a very curious definition of 'hinder', King of Men. It's technically dictionary-accurate, but somehow I expect you wouldn't be so bothered if someone was trying to 'hinder' a religious person from leaving their church. But people who go to church are brainwashed cows, responsible for most of the bad in the world, I forgot. Hypocrite.
She's allowed to attempt to persuade people to do what she thinks is right, for whatever reason, and she has no moral obligation whatsoever to give her resources, time, and effort to people in a way that conflicts with her most basically held beliefs.
I don't know much about Mother Teresa at all, really, but I think anyone willing to condemn her for not chucking her conscience at the door when she started doing charity work says a lot more about themselves than about her. I also think it's quite possible that she had some unsavory relationships, too. Just because she didn't decide to hook her brain into your own brand of self-righteousness, KoM, does not make her an effing c.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Chris: Well said. I like their show, and one of the reasons is that, although you have to take what they say with a grain of salt, most of the episodes at least pretend to give you practical information. You watch the show and you'll know better than to waste your money going to psychics, trying to cure your arthritis with magnets, have your house rearranged by fung shuei artists, or donate your money to PETA. That, I think, is why an episode like this seems so incongruous. What do I get in my life from de-bunking the myths of Ghandi and Mother Teresa? This episode, from what I see here, seems to be motivated purely by spite and a percieved sense of superiority. They've had a couple episodes in the past that had a taste of that type of thinking, but this episode seems to have no other motivation or reason for existance.
I'll have to hold judgment until I can see the show for myself, but I'd have thought P&T were above that.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote: because a lot of people are still going on about how she did everythig she could, when in reality she didn't, not even close.
Did she ever claim that herself? Why don't you go after the people that claimed that, instead of someone who spent her life in what you consider a less effective type of service?
quote:Her foundation raised MILLIONS of dollars a year, but none of that money went to adequate medical care. I think that is something that every person who donated money to her should know and carw about...and that includes me.
The American Cancer Institute also raises millions each year, and they don't get derided for not giving adequate mecial care to people in India.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Legit, I was wondering if you might consider changing the title? Even with the letters blanked out, every time I read the title my mind fills in the blanks and it feels icky. Very, very icky.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I keep thinking about the Bible story about Mary and Martha. It isn't a perfect comparison, of course. But I keep thinking that maybe she was acting more like Mary and the detractors want her to have acted more like Martha.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I vote for a name change too Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Theca -- that's an interesting comparison worthy of some more thought.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Actually, the title makes me think about "The Truth" by Terry Pratchet, you know, with the guy who says -----ing every two words. Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Edit: doh, forgot about the second page.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Thanks Legit! Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Actually, if they were raising money from India, based on the care they claimed to be giving there, then your point would be more relevent, Porter.
I DID blame the people who were claiming that, which is one of many reasons I left the RC church.
I still balme them, which is why I object to them calling her a saint. To the best of my knowledge, she never called herself one... Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Kwea, Mother Theresa is not officially a saint. She may be in the process, but she is not a saint. Therefore any people calling Mother Theresa a saint are not official speakers for the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not clear how that can play a role in you leaving the Church.
(yes, edited)
[ May 31, 2005, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Theca ]
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Well, they certainly might be members of the RCC, but they certainly aren't speaking for the RCC.
Posted by dropofTapioca (Member # 7867) on :
The contents of the following have more or less been brought up, but I just wanted to add my two cents:
Don't we want to judge Mother Teresa on her motivations? That is, the state of a person's morality really depends on whether they think their actions are good or bad.
Example: Telling a 14-year-old rape victim to not have an abortion is debatable. But Mother Teresa believed that the girl should have the baby. So when giving that particular advice, Mother Teresa was doing what she(Mother Teresa) believed to be her duty. And more to the point, what she believed was right.
That's why M. Teresa's actions should be considered moral. Whether that was the right advice or not is irrelevant in judging her 'morality'.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Wait a minute. All I have to do to be considered moral is to do what I believe is right?
Awesome.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If only that were easy.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: I really don't see why people get upset at her for not providing medical care, when there were hundreds of millions of people on earth that also were not providing that care.
The difference is that she had people in her care, had the ability to provide that care, and refused to allow that care, even when nuns in her own order requested to be allowed to give it.
Several nuns that were in her order have come out saying that they asked to be allowed to receive medical training, sometimes at their own expense, and Teresa refused to allow them to get it. In some cases they left the order and got the training elsewhere.
Despite the millions of dollars she raised, her organization always operated on a shoestring budget. She refused to use the money she raised to provide food for the nuns that worked for her, instead requiring them to beg on the street, arguably because it made them more sympathetic to the cause they were working for. But then, where did that money go? When the sisters asked for money for supplies (especially medical supplies) she insisted that the money she had raised didn't belong to them; it was "God's money."
Many of the people she allowed to die could have been treated cheaply with simple antibiotics, but they died not because she failed to treat them, but because she refused to treat them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As you said, if people didn't agree with Mother Teresa and what she was trying to accomplish, they were free to leave and do it elsewhere.
It just seems like getting mad at AA for not doing enough to cure cancer.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: It just seems like getting mad at AA for not doing enough to cure cancer.
No, it's more like getting mad at St. Jude's for raising money to help children with cancer but not actually helping children with cancer.
And I can't believe that anyone who thinks AIDS is a just punishment and sterilization for the poor is a good thing is a potential nominee for sainthood. It's just amazing.
Maybe it's just me.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
quote:It just seems like getting mad at AA for not doing enough to cure cancer.
I think it seems more like getting mad at AA for not doing enough to cure alcoholism.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Which is still a ridiculous thing to do.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't agree with the scornful attitude it seems they used, and as I haven't seen it I can't comment on the content of the episode.
I am, however, against the canonization of public figures when it ignores anything negative about their lives or accomplishments. Not because I wish to tear these people down, but because I think that placing them too high on a pedestal makes it that much tougher for others to emulate them. Look, here are the founding fathers. Look, they bickered and fought and argued just as much as our politicians do today. And yet look at what they built, despite that.
I am much more impressed when people with human frailties accomplish great things than when a paragon of virtue and wisdom does so.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I think this world needs more paragons of virtue and wisdom, and it is often stories of inspiring people that helps us become paragons of virtue and wisdom.
I can't imagine why anyone would purposely seek to soil the image of someone who the world sees as good for spiteful humor. Why on earth should we concern ourselves with digging up dirt on those who inspire and continue to bring good into the world through their legacies? How on earth is that not harmful to humanity?
It's not just a joke. It's degrading. It's insulting the freedom of thought of another human being just because they happened to disagree with you.
What have we learned from the postmodern era? Has highlighting the marginal really brought us any solace? Has rubbing our noses in the excrement of human society inspired any of us to be better? Things do not improve when all you do is publicize the failures and the"dark side" of social efforts. Things improve when people can believe in good and are encouraged by past successes rather than past failures.
Shame on us all for fostering a culture where this kind of "entertainment" is even taken seriously. The fact that we can debate the merits of something that is fundamentally rotten says something about the arena of thoughts that we are willing to entertain. I had hoped that with all that humankind has been through, we could be better than that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Freedom to disagree is also the freedom to point out flaws of those perceived as saintly. If people can go free of criticism merely because they are seen as good, how shall we have debate?
Moreover, comrade Theresa has become an icon Catholics use for bashing people over the head when the Inquisition is mentioned. "Sure, we burned people alive; but we also had Mother Theresa!" Hence the obvious tactic of pointing out that she wasn't, in fact, very nice.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And you have a very curious definition of 'hinder', King of Men. It's technically dictionary-accurate, but somehow I expect you wouldn't be so bothered if someone was trying to 'hinder' a religious person from leaving their church. But people who go to church are brainwashed cows, responsible for most of the bad in the world, I forgot. Hypocrite.
Denying someone access to medicines causes direct, measurable harm. Denying someone access to a <fill-in-faith> church will actually be good for their souls - ask any <different faith>.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
quote:Which is still a ridiculous thing to do.
Which was pretty much my point.
quote:Denying someone access to medicines causes direct, measurable harm.
I hate to be the one saying this, but so can granting access. Think antibiotics, antidepressants, or even (by some viewpoints, even half my own) ADHD medications. That said I do believe in Mother Teresa's case the harm done is much more clear-cut.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Denying someone access to medicines causes direct, measurable harm. Denying someone access to a <fill-in-faith> church will actually be good for their souls - ask any <different faith>.
What if this is specifically not a part of their mission? Also, they are not denying access. They are refusing to pay for it themselves. Quite different, or how much access are you denying the impoverished and ill in your area, KoM?
Once again you demonstrate your own brand of religious thinking.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: I think this world needs more paragons of virtue and wisdom, and it is often stories of inspiring people that helps us become paragons of virtue and wisdom.
This is true, but at the same time, we still should be honest about people's flaws. Perhaps it makes them more, wellrounded. I know I tend to have a thing about characters that are complex and flawed as well as being good.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:I can't imagine why anyone would purposely seek to soil the image of someone who the world sees as good for spiteful humor. Why on earth should we concern ourselves with digging up dirt on those who inspire and continue to bring good into the world through their legacies? How on earth is that not harmful to humanity?
By letting people see that, yes, you are flawed and imperfect, but so were these people, and look what they accomplished despite it. No, your mistakes and your weaknesses do not mean you are doomed to be less than they, for you can overcome them just as these people did.
Glorifying historical personages into nigh-fictional heroes is a disservice to people living here and now. I have gotten awfully sick of hearing about how divided this country is, how partisan the parties are, and how we need to get back to the way politics used to be. That's because all we have to compare our current leaders to is the bleached and spotless gods in our civics textbooks. Of course we look down on our leaders, they can't match the giants that once walked the earth.
Truth is, there were never giants. There were men and women, and to make them out as paragons does them a disservice by diminishing what they had to overcome, and it does us a disservice by making their accomplishments seem impossible.
I'm not interested in dirtying anyone or hauling out long-dead secrets. But I see no reason to deify humans, either.
(Again, I have not seen the episode in question, I'm speaking generally.)
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
hmmm...
"I can't imagine why anyone would purposely seek to soil the image of someone who the world sees as good for spiteful humor. Why on earth should we concern ourselves with digging up dirt on those who inspire and continue to bring good into the world through their legacies? How on earth is that not harmful to humanity?"
well, our society has a VERY STRONG habit as a whole, as a community of consumers, to build up an d tear down the egos of individuals.
common practice.
some might call it demystification (sp?), which is generally regarded as a "good" thing.
"What have we learned from the postmodern era? Has highlighting the marginal really brought us any solace? Has rubbing our noses in the excrement of human society inspired any of us to be better? Things do not improve when all you do is publicize the failures and the"dark side" of social efforts. Things improve when people can believe in good and are encouraged by past successes rather than past failures."
I think the pomo aspect was a little under-explored, but on the whole, I'm in happy agreement with this statement.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: I can't imagine why anyone would purposely seek to soil the image of someone who the world sees as good for spiteful humor. Why on earth should we concern ourselves with digging up dirt on those who inspire and continue to bring good into the world through their legacies? How on earth is that not harmful to humanity?
What I can't understand is just what Teresa did that was good. What did she do? She supposedly ministered to the sick. But she didn't treat their sickness. So exactly what did she do?
Somebody answer this please.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Glenn, if you don't know, I think no one can explain it to you.
Synesthesia said there's nothing beautiful about being poor... which is a markedly aristocratic statement. Mother Teresa saw the poor as beautiful and helped them as she knew how. She went to war directly against the social order and custom of one of the largest and most prosperous nations on earth, just to show the poor that, to Someone, they *were* beautiful.
Mother Teresa's mission was about the hearts of the poor, not as much their health.
<tom hanks> and that's all I have to say about that... </forrest gump>
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm not saying the poor are not beautiful... But, poverty in itself is an ugly, horrible thing. It's heartbreaking... But, at least she tried to help, which is why she doesn't deserve to be called names.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Glen -- A major focus of Mother Theresa’s work was with people who were dying, particularly those who were homeless, and helping them to “die with dignity.” A comparison to the hospice movement in this country would not be inappropriate.
The hospice movement has also been criticized for not providing (and sometimes not allowing) aggressive treatment. Hospice provides excellent care for people who are dying, but makes no effort to delay/prevent death. The controversy comes when there are patients who aren’t necessarily dying, or might not if given different care.
The issue is heightened, in the case of Mother Theresa, by the fact that often there was no other option available. Nobody was providing medical services to the people she worked with, and the services she was providing may not have been the most appropriate services for everyone who came to her, but they were the only services available.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dana,
I'm pretty familiar with the Hospice movement. My mother worked in hospice for quite a while after my father died of cancer.
Hospice in the U.S. coordinates with doctors to make the process of dying as painless and peaceful as possible. A major point of hospice is to put control of decision making in the hands of the patient, so for example, the patient can decide that they don't want to fight the disease anymore, and hospice helps advocate for the patient to prevent doctors from continuing to encourage aggressive treatment. In the meantime, the patient's symptoms (especially pain) are treated in order to make the process as comfortable as possible. In any case, the decision lies with the patient.
The "Jesus is kissing you" quote comes from a situation where a man in Teresa's care was in terrible pain and was screaming for pain medicine. Teresa told him that the pain was "Jesus kissing you," and the man responded "then make him stop." Pain medication was available, and the man knew it, but Teresa refused it to him. This type of situation was apparently fairly common.
I disagree that Teresa was limited by the fact that there was no other option available. Teresa raised literally millions of dollars a year, but refused to use them in her mission. Where that money went can't be documented, but it's assumed that it went to the vatican for other purposes.
I don't disagree that she truly intended to do good things. But I still have not heard an example of what she actually did that I can call good. I think she was a woman with a twisted perspective who basically held the hands of dying hindus and told them that Jesus loved them. I can understand how some people can find that comforting, but it holds no water for me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
She provided beds and food, as well as holding hands.
I remembered that you were familiar with hospice, which is why I used it as a comparison. I'm not saying that what she was providing was hospice care as we have it, but I do think there is a parallel.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
I would find Mother Theresa less hypocritical if she had recieved the exact same medical treatment as she offered the people under her care. But, as it happens, she used money given to her for the care of the poor to buy herself the best medical treatment money could buy. She said that money given to her was money given to help the poor, but never mentioned that it not to give food and medicine to the poor. People repeatedly offered to give medical supplies to Mother Theresa at discounted prices or to simply give them to her, but she always turned them down because she didn't believe in giving medicine to the poor. She believed that what was beautiful in poverty was the impoverished person's suffering, which brought them closer to Christ. Relieving a person's suffering or healing them was not a desireable goal from her perspective because it made them more christ-like.
However, she relieved her own suffering promptly no matter how many times she said she envied the poor their suffering.
This is hypocrasy. It is also cruelty.
I don't see anything saintly or beautiful in it. I don't find this belief or behavior praiseworthy.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I can shed a little light on penn & teller's swearing and name-calling. I haven't seen this particular episode of BS, and don't have any evidence about Mother Theresa's activities.
On the first episode of BS they explain why they use horrible swearwords to describe people on the show. The gist of it is, if they called someone a "fraud" or a "liar" they could be sued for slander unless they can legally prove the person lied or defrauded something. If they call someone an a__hole or a b___h, that's their opinion and they can't be sued for slander. Or something like that, it was a while ago that I saw it and I'm not a lawyer. This probably has less need when the person in question is deceased, but it's the standard policy for the show. And yes, swearing more adds controversy and ratings.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: The gist of it is, if they called someone a "fraud" or a "liar" they could be sued for slander unless they can legally prove the person lied or defrauded something.
Perhaps... just perhaps... there are reasons for this?
Personally, I think "hypocrisy" is a bunch of people sitting comfortably in their homes chatting on the internet in judgement of someone who dedicated her entire life to helping a class of people that an entire nation refused to *touch* lest it poison their body and soul. Have you forgotten what the caste system was like? Have you forgotten that these people were lying in the street, dying alone, before then-Sister Teresa came and began offering them food, shelter, and companionship? How many outcasts have *you* rescued from the "Black Hole of Calcutta", KoM? How many people have you found on the street, dying alone and abandoned and offered to hold their hand for the end, Glenn?
I have been a fan of Penn and Teller, but how many Lepers have they embraced?
As you measure it to others, so it shall be measured unto you.
Could she have done more? sure... could you?
She gave herself medical care and didn't give it to them? Don't you give yourself medical care? Do you give it to them?
Would you handle things differently if you were in charge? Then shut up and do it. She was nobody, with no resources, when she went up against the socio-political and religious structure of the third largest nation on earth. Since you know so much about how it should have been done, why don't you do it yourselves? Just leave your life behind, pack up and move to the poorest spot you can find and start helping. I mean it's easy, right?
And we're talking about allegations that didn't even surface until a year after her death as if they are given facts.
Can you people not hear yourselves?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I can, and so can god, I am sure.
I donated a LOT of money to her when I was younger, and ran fundraisers for her through the church I was raised in.
I was also a medic who donated his services to the Red Cross, free of charge, on more than one occasion.
I am a Mason, and the Masons raise hundreds of millions of dollars every single year, completely free of government monies and charity, to provide medical services to children worldwide, COMPLETELY FREE OF CHARGE. As a matter of fact they are one of the largest private charities in the world.
So don't stand there and tell me I have no right to question what happened over there. You don't know me, and you have no idea what I have or have no done for others within my own lifetime.
I didn't say she was a bad person . . but if she was a saint, then I am glad I am not. I would not turn down free medical services that would help people under my own care because I thought their suffering brought them closer to god.
quote:And we're talking about allegations that didn't even surface until a year after her death as if they are given facts.
Bullsh*t. I heard about these things 10 years ago.She even admitted some of them in interviews.
quote:She was nobody, with no resources, when she went up against the socio-political and religious structure of the third largest nation on earth.
If you want I can make a link to pages listing how many millions she raised each year, and then we can discuss your definition of "no resources" .
I don't agree that she did NO good, but I think her stance on a lot of things were just plain wrong, and I think that those stances must be considered when evaluating the quality of care she gave these people.
I personally know doctors who offered their help to her organization who were told not to come, as they would not be allowed to care for the poor within their doors. That isn't charity, it is disgusting. I worked with people in the US Army who went over there and worked for other organizations, because those organizations were willing (and desperate for) to allow them to help.
Kwea
[ June 02, 2005, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Kwea,
I don't think (perhaps I am wrong here) that I took issue with anything you said. You freely admitted she did a lot of good, and insisted that she could have done more. I don't have a beef with that.
As you say, you never said she was a bad person. There are those on this thread who insist that she *is* a bad person because she didn't do more, that Penn and Teller are only guilty of poor manners in their "expose", and it is to those people that my comments were addressed.
Sorry, if I caught you in the shotgun blast.
edit: about resources, she did not have those millions when she started her crusade. For hearing about it ten years ago... I'll retract my statement-- it was based on the link Kayla put up which identified it's content as coming from an article posted a year after her death.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am sorry if I over reacted as well, I see you points, and even agree with a lot of them.
I understand her mission, as she saw it, was to provide comfort to the dying. My problem is more with the way the church presented it to the parishoners, in order to raise more money. I felt like they had lied to us about what was going on over there . . or at least mislead us about it.
I also think that there are a lot of cultural issues over there that we probably have little or no understand of here in the USA, and that makes it hard for us to understand why these people needed this type of help to die. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would turn down freely offered medical supplies and care if they really cared about their "patients".
I know others here came on strong as well, but I had heard a lot of those points before, usually yelled at me when I began questioning things I had heard, so I probably reacted too strong to your post because of that, rather than your actual points.
Sorry about that.
I know she started off with nothing, which is why I said she DID do a lot of good. She spent her whole life trying to help others, as she saw fit.
I like Penn and Teller, a lot, but this was a bit too far, even for shock humor. Not that they don't have the right to say what they want, or that they didn't raise good points, but still...
Also, she didn't spend any money on herself on medical care, the Vatican ordered her to accept care that they paid for, and as a nun she was bound to obey their order. It wasn't her choice, IIRC.
Kwea
[ June 02, 2005, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Also, she didn't spend any money on herself on medical care, the Vatican ordered her to accept care that they paid for, and as a nun she was bound to obey their order. It wasn't her choice, IIRC.
That sounds a lot more reasonable and also vaguely familiar (might it have been news at the time?)
Thanks for accepting my apology Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: How many people have you found on the street, dying alone and abandoned and offered to hold their hand for the end, Glenn?
Well, there was the drug addict, the prostitute, the young couple hitchhiking to California to find a job, the woman being abused by her (boyfriend, husband? I never found out) in the alleyway.
I also gave up my good paying technical career because I felt I could do more good by being a teacher.
Should I go on? Do you want my righteous resume? People asked me for help and I gave it to them.
As for the "allegations" coming out after her death, that's already been covered. The charges are well documented, but people would rather make her a saint than hear about who she really was.
There are literally thousands of people who subject themselves to poverty in order to help people that need it. My cousin served as an "accompanier" in Guatemala, to prevent retaliation against witnesses to a massacre. Jimmy Carter helped wipe out the Guinea worm in Africa, and Bill Clinton is spearheading Tsunami relief and sleeping on the floor of the airplane. My sister in law is currently working in Africa trying to prevent the spread of aids while promoting good nutritional practice and breastfeeding.
All these people are judged against the "Mother Teresa standard."
And still I ask the question: What did she actually accomplish?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What did she actually accomplish?
This question has been answered repeatedly. Giving comfort to the dying, especially when society has spat upon them for all their lives, is that nothing, Glenn?
I think it's something, certainly something. The more I learn about Mother Teresa, the more I begin to think that perhaps her vision of God's will was warped somewhat, if some of the allegations made about her here are true. It appears as though she certainly could've accomplished more. I begin to think that can fairly be said of her, and truthfully if you think about it, it can be said of anyone.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Can she live up to the cult of celebrity surrounding her – no. Should she have to? I don’t think so. I’m with Kwea that the biggest “wrong” was committed by misrepresenting her work to potential donors. And I think that has more to do with our tendency to build pedestals than with anything she actively sought.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Rakeesh, good on ya' for saying short and sweet what I said long and bitter.
Good on you Glenn, for those acts of mercy you list, and better on you for the ones you didn't. My point is, that she made a life's work, day in day out, out of doing things like that in an evironment that was hostile to her actions for decades. That she could have done more is certainly demonstrable, but you make it sound as if she couldn't have done less.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"That she could have done more is certainly demonstrable, but you make it sound as if she couldn't have done less."
Fair enough.
If you'll notice, my input in this discussion has never been to support Penn and Teller. Regardless of their "legalese" argument for using foul language I don't think it's justified. But calling her a saint is equally inappropriate.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)