[NGTM-1R]

Well if circumstantial evidence is enough I can point to several charities in Calcutta that did manage to provide medical staff at the same time as MT was running her charity (at least towards the end of the time she was alive). If she couldn't do it, it must be because she wanted to open lots of convents instead of improving facilities at the ones that already existed.

You yourself pointed out we don't know her budgets, now you're trying to conclude motivations based on arguments that might be related to problems with cashflow.

It's also quite arguable that her efforts were focused on being where other people were not/could not offer services, which necessitates a sacrifice of quality just to get there. Once other people had moved in, offering better help, then it was time to move on.

So the question becomes "Did she actually do more good that way?" Is it better to open lots of convents that can't help very much or fewer ones that can help a lot?

If you're going to reduce it to a standpoint like that, then it's pretty clear; a lot of basic care is going to save more lives then a little advanced care.

Secondly, just because you know something doesn't automatically make it common knowledge. She was known as Mother Teresa of Calcutta. I suspect a great many people thought that the majority of their money was going to Calcutta. Especially as it was pictures of Calcutta that featured very heavily in any donation drives her organisation made.

It also doesn't make it uncommon knowledge. I was there for the newspaper articles and the TV news and documentaries and the donation drives in Catholic churches. I remember what was said for them. It was never unclear.

Similarly I suspect that a lot of her donations came from non-Christians who believed the bulk of their money was going to the poor.

Your suspicions are not proof. Do you have evidence?

Which again brings us back to the issue that the charity doesn't publish financial records so there is no way to check how much is actually being spent on the infrastructure directly related to helping the poor and how much is being spent on maintaining the organisation as a religious entity.

Or that those goals are not mutually exclusive.

[TESLA]

NGTM-1R makes sense  I like him! 

[karajorma]

You yourself pointed out we don't know her budgets, now you're trying to conclude motivations based on arguments that might be related to problems with cashflow.

As I pointed out your argument was made based on circumstantial evidence. I was simply pointing out that circumstantial evidence can just as easily point in the other direction.

Remember I posted that after asking you if you had any proof that Mother Teresa couldn't have done things differently.

It's also quite arguable that her efforts were focused on being where other people were not/could not offer services, which necessitates a sacrifice of quality just to get there. Once other people had moved in, offering better help, then it was time to move on.

Okay, I'm going to request clarification on this point cause I can read it several ways. Exactly what are you arguing here?

If you're going to reduce it to a standpoint like that, then it's pretty clear; a lot of basic care is going to save more lives then a little advanced care.

As I pointed out earlier the basic care was very, very basic and was provided by almost completely untrained individuals. It is quite possible that the spread of communicable diseases wiped out any actual benefits of the care that was given. Bear in mind that there are medical journals who have been heavily critical of the way care was given in those places.

So no, it isn't as simple as you want to claim it is. I've pointed out the possibility that MT's Home for the Dying did more harm than good. I haven't said it did, I've raised the possibility. If you want to prove me wrong feel free to point out mortality figures or some actual evidence of that fact. Otherwise you're simply making assertions you can't actually prove and expecting me to take them at face value.

It also doesn't make it uncommon knowledge. I was there for the newspaper articles and the TV news and documentaries and the donation drives in Catholic churches. I remember what was said for them. It was never unclear.

Again, you're trying to claim something without any evidence. I've at least used words like suspicion and probably. You're flat out claiming that you know that everyone who ever donated to MT knew about where the money would end up.

How much money do you think was raised by people simply jangling a bucket on a street corner and saying "Give to MT's charity"? Are you seriously claiming that everyone giving money that way knew where the money would go? How much was given in similar ways that didn't involve a long presentation before hand explaining where the money would be spent?

Your suspicions are not proof. Do you have evidence?

Do you? You're flat out claiming you are right. The onus is on you to prove that. Especially when you're doing something as odd as claiming that you're certain no Indian Muslims or Hindus gave money to MT thinking that it would get spent in their country.

Or that those goals are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe not but that is the problem with not releasing financial records, there is no accountability. We have no idea if MT's charities spent more money on things like prayer candles and rosary beads for her 514 convents than they spent on the poor in Calcutta.

I'm not saying MT did but there is suspicion. That suspicion was raised over 10 years ago and yet we still have no data on which to base a conclusion. Under those circumstances I'm left having to declare that I certainly wouldn't feel certain that if I donated money to MT's charities that it would end up where I wish it would. Doubts like that shouldn't be swept under the rug simply because people like the think highly of MT.

Isn't the original question more like: would it have been better if she never existed?

I tend to disagree with that comment. Whatever else she did MT was the inspiration for a lot of charities and may have indirectly done a lot of good. My issue is whether that should be her only legacy rather than the charity that currently bears her name and is still operating. Undoubtedly MT did some questionable things in her life. I'm not about to vilify her for that, she's not a saint!.....

oh wait.

But regardless of what she did in her life her charity is still operating. I'm all for charities, but we must always be careful when giving to charity to make sure that the money is actually spent on what people giving the money away believe it is being spent on. If people believe that the money is going to poor in Calcutta then it is on the charity to make certain that they don't mislead people if they are spending the majority of the money elsewhere.

[castor]

Yep, this is sensible talk and easy to agree with, unlike that Slate artice. It was intended to make a lot of noise, and it succeeded, but I don't personally like that kind of journalism even when it works.

[General Battuta]

Hrm. After reviewing the evidence I must say that Mother Theresa is significantly less impressive than I'd believed. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'fraud', but I certainly wouldn't have supported her work.

I'm not sure morality is a vector sum. You don't need to add up the good and the bad and get a single outcome. She could have done things right and also done a lot of things wrong.

[karajorma]

Exactly. The same Penn & Teller episode also pointed out that Ghandi was shockingly racist towards black people. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a great guy who did a hell of a lot for his country.

Humans are flawed. We all make mistakes. But if you put someone on a pedestal and claim they are perfect you only make it easier for them and others to keep making that same mistake.

[Mongoose]

Humans are flawed. We all make mistakes. But if you put someone on a pedestal and claim they are perfect you only make it easier for them and others to keep making that same mistake.

The fun thing is, though, no one in the Church claims that saints were perfect people.  Hell, many of the saints themselves wrote at length about their many flaws.  Peter, revered by the Catholic Church as the first Pope, flat-out denied that he knew Christ on the night before his crucifixion.  Paul actively worked to persecute the Church and execute early Christians before his conversion.  Augustine, one of the greatest theological minds of the early Church, essentially lived like a frat-boy for most of his early life.  And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Saints aren't extraordinary people meant to be hoisted on a pedestal above the rest of us.  They're ordinary human beings who did extraordinary things in their lives.  Was Mother Teresa flawed?  Undoubtedly, just as you and I are.  But she cared deeply about the desperately poor around her, a group that almost no one else in the world would give the time of day before she began her work.  She lived among them and worked with them, giving them that most basic and fundamental dignity of recognition as fellow human beings.  Could she have done more than she did, or implemented what she did better?  Probably.  But at least in my mind, what she did accomplish more than qualifies her for sainthood.

[karajorma]

I'm not referring to her sainthood actually. I'm actually on about the troubling notion people tend to have that MT couldn't possibly have spent the money she was given poorly simply because she was a great person.

This thread has been one long example of people denying that possibility. And that's obviously nothing to do with sainthood cause at least a couple of the people doing it have been atheists.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, I'm about as concerned with her sainthood as with her standings in the South Dakota state bowling league - it's important enough to some people to serve as a behavioral modifier, but it's still basically important only to ingroup members. The "Mother Teresa" rep exists independent of whether or not she's a saint.

Her actual humanitarian record is what I'm interested in examining.

[Inquisitor]

Yeah, I'm about as concerned with her sainthood as with her standings in the South Dakota state bowling league

Quoted for emphasis

[General Battuta]

Well, to clarify, I'm certainly interested in what she did, the actions she took.

The sainthood is just a post-hoc medal that they give her for it, and kind of arbitrary.

In case that wasn't clear.