English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Wikipedia article (Too bad if you don't like it)
Susan Shields is another former member of Mother Teresa's order who is now critical of her, especially regarding the following of monastic tradition and vows of poverty and obedience to the Catholic church. Shields also questions whether being poor is the best way to help other poor, and if redemptive suffering is really conducive in helping them. Having been in Mother Teresa's order for ten years, she states that large transactions of cash occurred; most were deposited in the Vatican Bank. Shields claims she has no knowledge how this money was used, but believes Mother Teresa did a disservice to the poor and unsuspecting nuns in the order

2006-06-27 04:04:05 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

In 1991, Dr. Robin Fox, then editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, visited the Home for Dying Destitute in Calcutta and described the medical care the patients received as "haphazard". He observed that sisters and volunteers, some of whom had no medical knowledge, had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors in the hospice. Dr. Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for conditions in this home, and observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients; people who could otherwise survive their ordeals would be at a heightened risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment.

2006-06-27 04:04:34 · update #1

Providing an opposing viewpoint was William Dohohue, president of the Catholic League. Donohue admitted that "[Mother] Teresa wanted people to live in impoverished conditions so she could identify with the poor whom she was serving". This drew a derisive comment from Penn Jillette: "They had to suffer, so that [she] could be enlightened? What a saint; she must've been so enlightened she glowed in the dark!"

2006-06-27 04:05:22 · update #2

Hitchens further alleged that Mother Teresa lied to donors about what their contributions were to be used for. Donors, he says, were told that the money went to aid and the construction of healthcare facilities in India and elsewhere. Evidence points to it instead being spent largely on missionary work and that Mother Teresa was actually the controller of some of the funds. No hospitals were ever built. In 1994, Hitchens published an article in The Nation entitled "The Ghoul of Calcutta". [1]

2006-06-27 04:06:22 · update #3

It's nice to see that some of you don't even bother reading the material. You just automatically say "You should be more like her." Ridiculous. All public figures are open for criticism I don't care how 'nice' you think they are.

2006-06-27 04:12:09 · update #4

11 answers

Mother Theresa most unselfish woman in history.

2006-06-28 05:44:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I've read and studied a lot about Mother Teresa. I understand that there are a lot of controversial issues with her but I believe her heart was in the right place. True, some of the sisters didn't have the proper training to treat others but as said in one of your sources, doctors were not available. She did what she could with what she had and she did what no one else wanted to do. She may not have been giving them perfect care but it was better than the non-existent care they were receiving from the public who turned their back on them. There may be controversy but none the less, Mother Teresa was a good woman who truly cared about people and God.

2006-06-27 05:09:50 · answer #2 · answered by Candice H 4 · 2 0

I agree including your relative that you income salvation by being born back, or shall I say, believing contained in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior, yet i do not agree including your relative conserving that a Catholic won't be able to pass to heaven, or maybe that a Catholic isn't born back. i'm certain that there are distinct churches that the persons going to them declare to be born back and or no longer. so a options as a persons' salvation, there is not any way that all of us comprehend for certain if somebody else is kept or no longer. the in straight forward words insurance that we've is not any matter if we are kept or no longer.

2016-11-29 19:54:18 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Romans 3:23

2006-06-27 04:17:21 · answer #4 · answered by xx_muggles_xx 6 · 0 1

Now we are into "Mother Theresa" bashing. Just about what I'd expect. Your comments are not deserving of an honest answer since your intent is very clear.

2006-06-27 04:08:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Well never know anyone's reasons for doing anything. It's a waste of time to try. Jesus died on the Cross because he knew that he would get a greater reward.

2006-06-27 04:14:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Would you change place and be Mother Theresa. I don't think so. When you're ready to do more than she did and contribute more than she did, then you can criticize, otherwise it simply sounds like you're trying to be controversial. Find another subject, we can see right through you.

2006-06-27 04:08:50 · answer #7 · answered by Ya-sai 7 · 0 2

I dont think peoples can earn holiness, nor can a church government impart it on them.

Holiness is judged by God. And by him alone.

2006-06-27 04:07:30 · answer #8 · answered by amosunknown 7 · 1 0

I think the people ahead of me spoke volumes.

2006-06-27 04:10:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

she was just a good lady

2006-06-27 05:25:51 · answer #10 · answered by Piffle 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers