• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

RSS Chief questions Mother Theresa's intention

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BRAHMACHARI

Guest
...Money and food only. They never knew what dignity was. Fighting for dignity is at a different level..

during imperial rule, when the so-called-untouchable visited a church just out of interest to know what is happening inside, there were white-skinned ushers who welcomed him/her with a smile, offered him a seat next to them and he/she sat touching, rubbing their skin. at the end of the service, they shook hands with him/her and politely requested him/her to visit again. he/she wondered if he/she was dreaming. when he/she would dare not touch his/her fellow national, a white-skinned foreigner and one who governs his/her country welcomes his/her rubbing skins with them. he/she thought to himself/herself, 'when i am accepted in this group, when i can dare touch them, shake hands with them, why should i suffer in a group who does not consider me a human being and treats me worse than an animal? let me better join this group'. he found more than dignity. the rest is history. the result is this thread.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
V

vgane

0
Needs no explanation.

B-2rgmLUAAEJfGM.jpg

We need more such Hospitals by Hindus...How come no one in the English media has ever thought to publicize the good work! ....Sad state of affairs that are ripe for a Hindu awakening and transformation!
 
Yesterday a 11 year old girl from St Ann's school in hyderabad was humiliated for wearing kumkum, made to stand as punishment in front of the principal's room, her mother was called from home, transfer certificate given, and was even told that she will remember her punishment all her life. Though her mother said it was the girl's birthday and she went to the temple first. Media silent?
 
during imperial rule, when the so-called-untouchable visited a church just out of interest to know what is happening inside, there were white-skinned ushers who welcomed him/her with a smile, offered him a seat next to them and he/she sat touching, rubbing their skin. at the end of the service, they shook hands with him/her and politely requested him/her to visit again. he/she wondered if he/she was dreaming. when he/she would dare not touch his/her fellow national, a white-skinned foreigner and one who governs his/her country welcomes his/her rubbing skins with them. he/she thought to himself/herself, 'when i am accepted in this group, when i can dare touch them, shake hands with them, why should i suffer in a group who does not consider me a human being and treats me worse than an animal? let me better join this group'. he found more than dignity. the rest is history. the result is this thread.

I am reticent in this subject. But as you are writing one side of it, I am tempted to just give the other side of it too without adding comments:

1. We had clubs in India which declared boldly at the very entrance in English: Indians and dogs are not allowed. This India was not different. It was the same India where the dramatic welcome and kissing that you have explained took place and this fact speaks volumes.

2. I was travelling by the London Tube and this happened in just 1972. I was addressed by the most foul language by a white Englishman when I got down in a hurry when my stop reached brushing past him. That speaks volumes again about the white skin's friendliness, hospitality and great qualities.

3. When i need foot soldiers to die for me to establish my kingdom, i will not only touch them to impress them, I will wash their feet and offer them the Thalappakatti Dindugal Biryani after kissing them to express my friendliness. The kingdom is more important to me because at another level it gives me control over these poor souls whom I take for a ride.

LOL.
 
by what authority does mohan question the intention of Mother Teresa?

He has applied for post facto approval to the Queen of England and the approval may reach anytime so that our brahmacharis and grihastas can be satisfied.

Now that she is no longer alive, would the saffron outfits continue her work? would they accept this challenge and prove that they can do greater works than her, instead of complaining, murmuring, grumbling and crying over spilt milk?
i bet they would not accept this challenge.

The challenge has already been accepted and more work has been done that too silently without tom-toming by RSS and its organizations all over the country. The work they did during the morvi tragedy in gujarat and Bhopal tragedy are there for every one to see. and for lepers please see the post #49.

we have more than enough wealth in our country to eradicate poverty, to ensure every man gets his roti, kapda and a small roof at least if not a makaan. do we have the heart to share our excesses? while we are a great land with varied heritage, we wax eloquent about our native religion, culture, etc it is shameful and disgraceful that we were mute spectators to the hardships and sufferings of our fellow-country-men while some foreigner forsook her comfort to serve our poor. worse still we cry foul and waste time, energy debating on their intentions, exposing our mean and feeble mind.
POT CALLING STAINLESS STEEL BLACK.
if only every 'have' in our country help the 'have-nots' neighbour, we would be the most prosperous nation. after all, prosperity is not in how much money we have nor how many weapons we have. if every one in this country is happy, has more than the minimum need for life, enjoys good health, sound mind etc, that is prosperity.
let the saffron outfits quit criticizing but continue the good work of the nun. they will see proselytes returning without any 'ghar vaapsi'.

Please recall the 55 factor and the riddle will be solved. Every USD gets multiplied by 55 the moment it lands in India. If asked I may contribute a 1000 INR whereas a once in a blue moon visitor to the church in US may have a troubling conscience and in a moment of repentance offer a 1000 USD to the church. That thousand rupees from me here hardly buys just 200 bananas whereas that thousand USDs when they land here in the hands of a gospel preacher or a Bible group gets a house for a poor in a remote village even after several cuts in the hands of middlemen. That is the power of 55 factor. We are up against a stone wall. LOL.
 
Last edited:
The point to be understood here is:

1)from the Christian point of view...converting and proselytizing is considered to be part and parcel of their religion just like how some Hindus view keeping away some caste from the temples as part and parcel of Hinduism.

Renukaji,

With due respect, I dont think this is the current situation in Hinduism. It certainly was true in the past. I have just heard a couple of instances where other religions and castes were kept out. But I dont think it can be legally done these days. I have never experienced it myself though I know in a prior post you mentioned one of your experiences. Tirupati, perhaps the holiest Hindu temple of South India, does not ask people's caste as they stand in long lines. Neither do the Mumbai Siddhi Vinayak temple or Kolkata Kali temple or Kashi Vishwanath temple.

In the US in our Hindu temples Sikhs and even whites (presumably Christians) come and go as they please. We all have to question and resist if anybody is exploiting caste divisions. It is not part of Hinduism (in the current age).
 

prasad1

Active member
Renukaji,

With due respect, I dont think this is the current situation in Hinduism. It certainly was true in the past. I have just heard a couple of instances where other religions and castes were kept out. But I dont think it can be legally done these days. I have never experienced it myself though I know in a prior post you mentioned one of your experiences. Tirupati, perhaps the holiest Hindu temple of South India, does not ask people's caste as they stand in long lines. Neither do the Mumbai Siddhi Vinayak temple or Kolkata Kali temple or Kashi Vishwanath temple.

In the US in our Hindu temples Sikhs and even whites (presumably Christians) come and go as they please. We all have to question and resist if anybody is exploiting caste divisions. It is not part of Hinduism (in the current age).

You are right.
But the practice of asking Gotra in south Indian Temple is still prevalent, Of course the priest mumbles what ever the devotee says or makes up one. In the north Indian temples they never ask for it.
 
OP
OP
V

vgane

0
You are right.
But the practice of asking Gotra in south Indian Temple is still prevalent, Of course the priest mumbles what ever the devotee says or makes up one. In the north Indian temples they never ask for it.

No Sir..Where I go, it is only if you show yourself as a Brahmin they may ask...But not otherwise..It is up to you to say what you want to the Priest..Many just tell the star only..Here in Delhi they tell the caste name not Gothra name...For example one person said his Gothra is Bansal..So awareness is low
 

CHANDRU1849

Active member
While most of the readers voiced against the statement of RSS' Chief in the 'Letter to the Editor' column of The Hindu, one letter written by Mr M P Muralidharan from Bengaluru, which was published on Feb 26, 2015 and reproduced below, gave a different perspective:

QUOTE

To quote Christopher Hitchens, "Mother Teresa was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty." In his critique of her, he went on to say that instead of helping the poor, she found their wretchedness a useful plank to fuel the expansion of Roman Catholic beliefs. A former member of the order even says that baptism of the dying was performed without their consent.

UNQUOT

The above statement gives a different picture.
 
during imperial rule, when the so-called-untouchable visited a church just out of interest to know what is happening inside, there were white-skinned ushers who welcomed him/her with a smile, offered him a seat next to them and he/she sat touching, rubbing their skin. at the end of the service, they shook hands with him/her and politely requested him/her to visit again. he/she wondered if he/she was dreaming. when he/she would dare not touch his/her fellow national, a white-skinned foreigner and one who governs his/her country welcomes his/her rubbing skins with them. he/she thought to himself/herself, 'when i am accepted in this group, when i can dare touch them, shake hands with them, why should i suffer in a group who does not consider me a human being and treats me worse than an animal? let me better join this group'. he found more than dignity. the rest is history. the result is this thread.

Can you give any proof or evidence for all of these fairy tale narrations?

You think we should believe this happened when they put "Dogs & Indians not allowed" board in Clubs and Restaurants?
 
OP
OP
V

vgane

0
Can you give any proof or evidence for all of these fairy tale narrations?

You think we should believe this happened when they put "Dogs & Indians not allowed" board in Clubs and Restaurants?

The agent of "His/Her Majesty" is banned now..Now we know who was spewing venom ?
 

Naina_Marbus

Active member
While most of the readers voiced against the statement of RSS' Chief in the 'Letter to the Editor' column of The Hindu, one letter written by Mr M P Muralidharan from Bengaluru, which was published on Feb 26, 2015 and reproduced below, gave a different perspective:

QUOTE

To quote Christopher Hitchens, "Mother Teresa was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty." In his critique of her, he went on to say that instead of helping the poor, she found their wretchedness a useful plank to fuel the expansion of Roman Catholic beliefs. A former member of the order even says that baptism of the dying was performed without their consent.

UNQUOT

The above statement gives a different picture.

Yet another perspective and a different picture can be found here:
Check this out
Posted on Nov 19, 2010 8:08:37 AM PST by
Sheila H. Mclaren :

Wow. I feel a bit shaken. I worked for M Teresa in a compound just outside Calcutta (when it was still called Calcutta), opposite what was then Dum Dum airport.

The compound housed about 300 ill and abandoned children, most of whom had been found on the streets or left at the gates of the compound. About 30 mentally disabled children were in a house away from the rest, and I this was where I worked on a daily basis. The heat was stifling; none of the ceiling fans were in working condition. There were no mosquito nets for the children, many of whom had malaria in repeating cycles.

I paid special attention to a ten year-old girl with a terribly high fever, and searched the compound for a fan and/or ice to cool her. Eventually I found one refrigerator of 9 cubic feet with a tiny try of ice, and a small electric fan, both in the "parlour" for visitors. The fan did not work, and by the time I'd carried the ice through the heat back to Minu, the child, it had melted. I began asking questions, about medications, cooling facilities, mosquito nets.

The Sisters explained carefully to me that they had taken a vow of poverty, and that therefore they did not use any of these "luxuries; that mine was the "western" way which did not apply in their Order. The children were there to die, and they would be loved until their deaths. I was bewildered but still determined to respect their ways, as well as being determined to give the kids the best care I could.

The next thing I found was that mentally disabled children are untouchable: no physician would visit them. One Doctor did visit. He was a British psychiatrist practising in the city who came to our building on a fortnightly basis, handing out various tranquillizers and what I imagined to be stabilizing medications. (I was not a nurse then.) The Sisters did not give the medicines to the children, and laughed at me when I took it upon myself to do so. They were not being unkind, not at all; they were simply amused at my western ways, at my thinking I could and should keep these children alive.

Following all this, I made other discoveries in the course of my work: Injection needles, as mentioned in the above review, were used again and again. Even more horrifying was what happened with vials of distilled water for the mixing of meds: a band-aid was placed over the broken vial containing half its original quantity of water. I questioned this and received the usual answer: Our Vow of Poverty.

I said tremulously that used distilled water stored in a dusty cupboard would cause septicaemia when injected. They listened cheerfully, and equally cheerfully quoted the Vow of Poverty. A number of children died of septicaemia. Further discoveries were crates of medicines from The Netherlands, from Israel, from numerous other countries, stored against one wall of the room in which we three volunteers ate our meals. An Anglo-Indian medical student (also a volunteer) showed them to me and explained her anger: these medications were not used, not ever.

All this seemed very bad to me, and I could not come to terms with it. But I was also aware that there has to be room in the world for "otherness." There had to be a good reason, I thought, for the ways of these Missionaries of Charity. I don't believe I ever found that good reason. BUT, on the other hand, I did not even once witness any unkindness from any of the Sisters towards the children, and so I cannot agree with what others have written about "roughness," and restraining children, and unkindness.

What I did, however, witness, day in and day out, was Sisters working unbelievably hard in staggering heat, always cheerful, always kind, often joking and teasing. And I also witnessed how their kindness filtered down to the little children, who were kinder to one another than I have ever seen western children be to their peers. I saw no fights, no squabbles. Only solicitude, amazing little kindnesses towards each other, and found surprising friendship from them towards me, the white, western stranger with odd ways.

The times that M Teresa visited the compound, she helped, working as hard and more quietly than anyone else; she talked with me as though I was the only person in the world; I adored her. She arrived one day just as one of my charges fell, cutting open her chin on the concrete floor. Mother was a lesson in calmness, efficiency and love; I will never forget how her sari became stained with blood and she did not even glance at it. On a number of occasions I had to visit the Mother House in the city. Early one morning I watched M Teresa making the Stations of the Cross in the Chapel, totally absorbed, completely unaware of me. If anyone was the genuine article, she was it. What you saw, you got. Or at least I did. I witnessed her showing deep charity towards people who were totally useless as volunteers and had to be sent home. I did not ever hear her utter an unkind word: the closest she came to it in my presence was laughing quietly at a group of postulants who were, she said, "unduly solemn."

True, she asked of me things that I found myself unable to do, and when I refused she argued stringently that I was wrong and why I was wrong. Perhaps if I had become a Sister in the Order she would have forced me to do the things I objected to - but I will never know this. I thought I should just add my bit here because I feel it to be important - it is first-hand information.

Yes, the medical care was terrible, and the idea of people being allowed to die "with love" and without medication is one I cannot subscribe to, particularly when so much finance and medication were readily available. But unkindness, impatience, restraining, forcing - no, I'm sorry, but not once did I see anything even remotely like this from any of those tireless, lively, loving, smiling Sisters. I did ask M Teresa why the children should simply be allowed to die. Her reply was that here they would have love while they died. If they returned to the city, being without family they would definitely die there, in terrible circumstances, and without love. Should Mother Teresa be canonized? Now I will be unkind: I believe this is irrelevant. I think "canonization" is a load of rubbish, an excuse for the Vatican to give a party and be in the public eye, and the world can do without it.


Sheila McLaren.
 
Last edited:

Naina_Marbus

Active member
Carlos Laflauta
….Let us … be motivated by what Mother Teresa herself claimed was her dearest concern, the compassionate care of those who are poor, those who are disabled, those who are sick or dying or in great pain.

If these are our concerns, then the evidence ….. is damning. Much of it comes from people who worked for Mother Teresa and can be independently verified.


One key witness is Susan Shields, who wrote about her experience in Free Inquiry Magazine (Vol. 18 no. 1, Winter 1997/1998). Shields was a sister in the Missionaries of Charity. She lived with them in the Bronx, Rome, and San Francisco. According to Shields, the philosophy that guided the Missionary Sisters both considered suffering a virtue and strongly discouraged attachments of any kind to the people served. The inevitable result of this combination was an indifference to human suffering. If suffering is good, and if feeling emotional responses toward the patients is bad, then any uncomfortable emotions that may arise from witnessing their suffering must be quickly switched off. This makes true compassion difficult if not impossible.

The Missionary Sisters were not bad people. Most of them meant well. They tried their best to be obedient, and did not know that the great bulk of donations their order received remained hidden unused in Mother's bank accounts. Shields knows this because one of her assigned tasks was recording those donations. "We wrote receipts for checks of $50,000 and more on a regular basis," she reports.

Since poverty was also considered a virtue, little of that money could be spent either on the order or on the patients. As Shields tells us: "Mother was very concerned that we preserve our spirit of poverty. Spending money would destroy that poverty. She seemed obsessed with using only the simplest of means for our work. Was this in the best interests of the people we were trying to help, or were we in fact using them as a tool to advance our own `sanctity?' In Haiti, to keep the spirit of poverty, the sisters reused needles until they became blunt. Seeing the pain caused by the blunt needles, some of the volunteers offered to procure more needles, but the sisters refused."

Another eyewitness…. is Dr. Robin Fox, who in 1994 was editor of The Lancet and who reported his findings in that journal in an article entitled "Mother Theresa's Care for the Dying" (September 17, 1994). While noting that the residents of the home were at least well fed, Fox nevertheless observes that their medical care was inadequate. He calls it "haphazard," refusing to permit normal diagnostic procedures like blood films because such practices "tend toward materialism." He concludes: "I was disturbed to learn that the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Theresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer."

…..this state of affairs at the Home for the Dying cannot be excused by any plea of poverty. Mother Teresa had at her disposal "immense quantities of money and material." The home was as it was because it reflected Mother Teresa's philosophy of suffering and the poor.

Dr. Fox's account is supplemented by the observations of Mary Loudon, a volunteer at the Home of the Dying …..


In Loudon's words,

"This is two rooms with fifty to sixty men in one, fifty to sixty women in another. They're dying. They're not being given a great deal of medical care. They're not being given painkillers really beyond aspirin and maybe if you're lucky some Brufen [ibuprofen] or something, for the sort of pain that goes with terminal cancer and the things they were dying of."

I have years of experience working in hospice. Cancer pain can be unimaginable, and considerable intravenous morphine infusions are often scarcely enough to contain it. But if you have cancer in Mother Teresa's home, you'll get aspirin for your pain or maybe Advil if you're lucky.

Loudon goes on to observe that needles were reused continually and not sterilized but only rinsed at the cold water tap - another false show of poverty at the expense of the residents' well being.

Mother Teresa apparently considered pain sacred - as long as it happens to somebody else, and as long as that person is poor…. in a filmed interview … Mother Teresa says with a smile what she told a patient suffering unbearable pain from terminal cancer: "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." The patient's response: "Then please tell him to stop kissing me."

It is supremely arrogant to tell someone in agony to be grateful for the blessing of pain while availing oneself of the best and most expensive hospitals in the West during one's own illnesses, as Mother Teresa did. Did Mother Teresa not wish to be kissed by Jesus too?

How can one possibly excuse the willful denial of pain medication to people who are terminally ill, regardless of the theology behind it? How does one call somebody who does this a saint? Those who try to.. (evade this question).. are ethically irresponsible.


Now why on earth would anyone withhold pain medication from people in intense pain, especially if one had millions to pay for such medication? Who can really discern another person's motives? One can only observe the obvious: there is no credit for helping the poor if they are not poor, the suffering if they are not suffering, and the disabled if they are independent. Mother Teresa made a great show of helping only the poor. In an interview with Malcolm Muggeridge she stated: "We cannot work for the rich; neither can we accept any money for the work we do. Ours has to be a free service, and to the poor" . Another quote from Mother: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people"


Mother's theology glorifies suffering. Suffering is good. It is the kiss of Christ. The suffering of the poor helps the world. So one can be a saint only by helping the suffering poor. There is no saintliness in helping the non-suffering non-poor. So collect millions in the name of the suffering poor; just don't spend it on relieving their pain or restoring their dignity.

Nothing illustrates this attitude better than a bizarre incident that took place in New York in 1990. The city gave two buildings it had seized for back taxes to the Missionary Sisters for one dollar apiece. The sisters planned to convert them into a homeless shelter. But there was a wrinkle. The city required that the residence be accessible to people with disabilities, and so asked that the sisters install an elevator. Mother Teresa adamantly refused. She even rejected the city's offer to pay for the elevator (never mind that she could easily have afforded to pay for it herself). So the nuns abandoned the project.

What's so bad about an elevator? The nuns wanted the residents to experience the charity of people who would care for them in their poverty. "The sisters said that if anyone couldn't walk up the stairs, they'd carry them, just like they do in Calcutta," said Anne Emerman, director of the Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities, who opposed the nuns' request for a waiver from the city's handicapped access law. Emerman was vilified in some quarters for her opposition to the great saint, but to the disabled community she was a hero. "We have different ideas here of personal dignity" she said. "Some people might not want to be carried."

-continued

 

Naina_Marbus

Active member
[FONT=&quot]Now what if New York City had not offered to pay for an elevator? Could the Missionaries of Charity plead poverty as an excuse not to build it? Well they could, but it would hardly be credible. Mother Teresa ranked with the best in her ability to manipulate people's guilt to elicit funding. By all accounts she could be very persistent. In an article entitled "Mother Teresa: Where Are Her Millions?" which appeared in German's Stern magazine (September 10, 1998), Walter Wuellenweber notes several examples:

"For purchase or rent of property, the sisters do not need to touch their bank accounts. `Mother always said, we don't spend for that,' remembers Sunita Kumar, one the richest women in Calcutta and supposedly Mother T's closest associate outside the order. `If Mother needed a house, she went straight to the owner, whether it was the State or a private person, and worked on him for so long that she eventually got it free.'...

"Mother Teresa saw it as her God given right never to have to pay anyone for anything. Once she bought food for her nuns in London for GB £500. When she was told she'd have to pay at the till, the diminutive seemingly harmless nun showed her Balkan temper and shouted, `This is for the work of God!' She raged so loud and so long that eventually a businessman waiting in the queue paid up on her behalf."

So the question remains: If Mother Teresa was so good at raising funds and did in fact raise millions, why is there no money for clean needles in hospices? Where does the money go? As one man said after asking Mother for help in building housing for 4,000 of Calcutta's homeless and failing even to receive a response, "I don't understand why you educated people in the West have made this woman into such a goddess! I went to her place three times. She did not even listen to what I had to say. Everyone on earth knows that the sisters have a lot of money. But no one knows what they do with it!"

It seems no one can answer that question completely. But Wuellenweber continues:

"The fortune of this famous charitable organisation is controlled from Rome, - from an account at the Vatican bank. And what happens with monies at the Vatican Bank is so secret that even God is not allowed to know about it. One thing is sure however - Mother's outlets in poor countries do not benefit from largesse of the rich countries. The official biographer of Mother Teresa, Kathryn Spink, writes, `As soon as the sisters became established in a certain country, Mother normally withdrew all financial support.' Branches in very needy countries therefore only receive start-up assistance. Most of the money remains in the Vatican Bank."

Wherever the money did end up, most of it never went to the poor whom Mother Teresa was supposed to be serving. In her Free Inquiry article Susan Shields states: "The donations rolled in and were deposited in the bank, but they had no effect on our ascetic lives and very little effect on the lives of the poor we were trying to help." Reporter Donal MacIntyre, writing in the New Statesman (London; August 22, 2005), describes conditions in Mother Teresa's orphanage that were not only squalid but sometimes even cruel:

"I worked undercover for a week in Mother Teresa's flagship home for disabled boys and girls to record Mother Teresa's Legacy, a special report for Five News broadcast earlier this month. I winced at the rough handling by some of the full-time staff and Missionary sisters. I saw children with their mouths gagged open to be given medicine, their hands flaying in distress, visible testimony to the pain they were in. Tiny babies were bound with cloths at feeding time. Rough hands wrenched heads into position for feeding. Some of the children retched and coughed as rushed staff crammed food into their mouths. Boys and girls were abandoned on open toilets for up to 20 minutes at a time. Slumped, untended, some dribbling, some sleeping, they were a pathetic sight. Their treatment was an affront to their dignity, and dangerously unhygienic.

"Volunteers (from Italy, Sweden, the United States and the UK) did their best to cradle and wash the children who had soiled themselves. But there were no nappies, and only cold water. Soap and disinfectant were in short supply. Workers washed down beds with dirty water and dirty cloths. Food was prepared on the floor in the corridor. A senior member of staff mixed medicine with her hands. Some did their best to give love and affection - at least some of the time. But, for the most part, the care the children received was inept, unprofessional and, in some cases, rough and dangerous. `They seem to be warehousing people rather than caring for them,' commented the former operations director of Mencap Martin Gallagher, after viewing our undercover footage."

This is the best care that millions of charity dollars could afford? No money even for soap and diapers?

Mother Teresa's entire attitude towards money seems rather odd. Apparently it is virtuous to give, as long as the giving is to the Catholic Church (and never even reaches the poor) and regardless of how the funds given were obtained. Charles Keating, a sort of Bernie Madoff of the 80's, donated 1.25 million dollars to Mother Teresa in return for the respectability of being associated with her. When Keating was tried in 1992 Mother Teresa wrote to the court asking clemency for him. ..in her letter to the judge,….she says that Keating "has always been kind and generous to God's poor" and asks the judge "to do what Jesus would do."

One of the prosecutors wrote back to Mother Teresa explaining (just in case she did not know) that among those whom Keating defrauded may also be counted some of "the least of these" whom Mother claims to serve, including "a poor carpenter who did not speak English and had his life savings stolen by Mr. Keating's fraud" . He continued: "No church, no charity, no organization should allow itself to be used as salve for the conscience of the criminal." He urged Mother Teresa to do the right thing: "Ask yourself what Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being exploited by a thief to ease his conscience? I submit that Jesus would promptly and unhesitatingly return the stolen property to its rightful owners. You should do the same. You have been given money by Mr. Keating that he has been convicted of stealing by fraud. Do not permit him the `indulgence' he desires. Do not keep the money. Return it to those who worked for it and earned it! If you contact me I will put you in direct contact with the rightful owners of the property now in your possession."

Mother Teresa never replied.

So what can we make of all this? It is a shame that whatever good Mother Teresa may have done has been tainted by her exploitation of the very same people she made a show of helping. Perhaps we need to choose our saints a little more carefully.

The cynical use of the poor to promote either oneself or one's church only gives ammunition to those who already find religion loathsome.

"So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward" (Matthew 6:2).
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
 
w.r.t. posts 62, 63 & 64.

I find myself appalled at the indifference of the working of the ways of the torchbearers of the cross. When I step aside for a moment from the rush of emotions the articles provoke, I am compelled to think that what the lady, or rather the establishment of the cross, achieved in India, was to show that they shared in the suffering of the poor and the destitute, for through their helplessness and pitiable state, the torchbearers relived the crucification of JC, and strangely, found peace in the helpless agony of the other that, within the confines of their minds, was the greatest boon to those miserable creatures who soon would reach their father in heaven.

If there ever was a father worth his salt, he would have bled.
 

CHANDRU1849

Active member
It is high time the Central Govt. in coordination with State Govts. to create homes for the poor in each and every district in all States. Only thru this, we can eliminate exploitation, to a certain extent, in the name of Religion or Service etc.
 
The govts, both state and centre were fully aware of what was the condition of the inmates in the charity wards of MT. They let it happen because it was convenient for all except the hapless poor. MT benefited by exposure and huge collection for christian causes, and seculars were happy to beat the majority whenever possible. But what is bizarre was the attitude of the all powerful communist govt of west bengal, which allowed the image of calcutta to be tarnished and its ugly face shown all over the world, when a little effort from them would have resulted in a better life for calcutta's poor and the sick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks