Originally posted by mikelom
Now it seems I have opened a can of worms?
You mention hypocrisy in the ladie's words, and amassed wealth... such as the churches do, don't they?
Mother Teresa didn't laud in the poverty of India, and I believe if she hadn't been a parting will of such a place it wouldn't be developing financially as it is now. She did give hope and faith.... didn't sh ue as they may.
Am I now being told she was a bad representative of Godliness?
Well The problem with Mother Theresa was that she did not set up her charity to assist the poor in India. She set up a religious order of nuns in which the poor were seen as helpful to the spiritual development of her nuns. Indeed she though poverty was a good thing, pain and suffering were good things. She provided very basic and impoverished standards of care for her destitute victims but - and this is what is so bizarre - she was given more than enough funds to have provided them with the best modern teaching hospitals and services and that was what the money was intended to achieve - how could it have failed?
There is very little information available as to what became of that money, although she did set up convents around the World, with handsome chapels and fine ornaments and golden chalices. In her words, it was all for the glory of God. Including pain, suffering and poverty - also for His glory. The best guess is that what did not fund her religious order was passed on to the Vatican or expended on her political campaigns in support of fundamentalist causes, notably opposing abortion and birth control, all with an eye to Vatican interests.
Yet she herself benefitted from the very best, privately funded health care when she needed it and she mingled with some of the most wealthy - and some of the most corrupt - people on the planet. She was a huge celebrity and a lot of powerful people found it useful to be seen mixing with her. She was also a magnet for money - and it was not spent on the destitute of Calcutta.
Now such allegations are at the least worthy of serious investigation and public accounting. There has never been a published account of her wealth and its sources or applications. It is astonishing that the Indian Government has not made this a public issue - except that India is not noted for the accountability of its governments. India too has a despicable attitude to its own poor - by all means less so than the British did in their day. One allegation from the Sikhs for example is that the domination of the Brahmin sector of its Hindu population accounts for a lot of this. In any case, there is a corrupt aspect to Indian politics which is not improved by the weight of Hindu nationalism.
The best defense of Mother Theresa is that she was never dishonest - people just did not listen to what she said when she said - it is all for God's work. She never said it is all to provide care for the poor and destitute. Maybe so. Religious fanatics move in mysterious ways but this one had Vatican approval and is now on the road to a premature sanctification.
If this is not so then where is the refutation?