snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 17 March 2010, 07:00 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
If someone donates a check, and specifically says "use this for the children's ward at X hospital in Calcutta," or "use this to buy food for people living on the street," and a representative of the order sends a thank you note stating that the money will be used for that, but instead, most of is is banked indefinitely, while the rest goes to the Vatican, to print pamphlets for the people who hand them out when they try to convince you to become Catholic, how the heck is that "doing good"?
I will say with a fair amount of certainty that the Vatican does more with the money than printing out conversion pamphlets. I think perhaps they even spend some of that money on charitable causes.

Quote:
That sounds like fraud, or even theft, to me. If the order has no intention of using the money has requested, then the order should inform the donor, and give the donor the opportunity to rescind the offer, in my opinion. At the very least, the order should send a generic thank you, and not promise that the money is being used according to the donor's wishes.
It's a gift to be used by the recipient in any way they see fit. Remember 9/11 and the Red Cross?
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 17 March 2010, 07:07 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Jay View Post
IMO, not doing enough good is not the same as not doing good. She could have definetly done a lot more, but her net contribution to the world has been a positive one
This is generally true, but we are talking about a special case.

She was doing next to nothing, and had the capability of doing exponentially more, and was receiving financial donations from people for the specific purpose of doing more.

Then, she was not doing less than she could, because rather than volunteer 2 hours at the soup kitchen, she wanted to volunteer one hour, then go home and play Nintendo for one hour. She gave people dying of cancer, TB and AIDS aspirin for their pain, or nothing at all, and told them it was good to suffer, because Jesus liked it, when she could have given them morphine.

She wouldn't let HIV- women married to HIV+ men have condoms, and being a medical center (although I use the term loosely) she was the natural distribution center for such things, but she refused to stock them. In her opinion, it was better for the couple to have unprotected sex, even if the woman caught HIV, and both parents died of AIDS, leaving behind an HIV+ baby who also died very soon, since the mother was denied AZT during pregnancy, and the baby was denied it after birth.

All that was just ducky, as far as M. Teresa was concerned, because they suffered, so they would get to go to heaven and be with Jesus.

BTW: Catholics on the board-- does the church really go in for suffering like this? I know there are individuals who do, and probably would justify some other way if they were not Catholic, but is this really a doctrine of the church at large?
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 17 March 2010, 07:12 PM
RichardM RichardM is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 3,955
Default

This thread seems to be changing from complaints about Mother Teresa being on a US stamp to being complaints about the Roman Catholic Church. I am sure there are many on the far "Christian right" that will help in this complaining.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 17 March 2010, 07:12 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
It's a gift to be used by the recipient in any way they see fit.
Is it? If the donor specifies a certain venue for the money, and the recipient acknowledges that it will be used specifically for that, is it ethical for the recipient to use it for just anything?

A charitable donation to an organization isn't quite the same thing as a gift, like a birthday gift, or a wedding gift. When my father's life insurance came through, my mother gave me a couple thousand dollars specifically to pay off my car. It was a gift, but it was for something specific, and she would have been within her rights to get mad if I used it to throw a huge party instead.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 17 March 2010, 07:17 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
Is it? If the donor specifies a certain venue for the money, and the recipient acknowledges that it will be used specifically for that, is it ethical for the recipient to use it for just anything?
I cannot concede that the recipient acknowledged it was going to be used for the purpose the donor intended. However, to speculate, sure it's unethical. But it isn't fraud, like you claimed earlier.

But you harbor some grudge because you think she could have done more. You do this without really knowing how much she did. So it is beginning to seem like baseless speculation.

Quote:
A charitable donation to an organization isn't quite the same thing as a gift, like a birthday gift, or a wedding gift. When my father's life insurance came through, my mother gave me a couple thousand dollars specifically to pay off my car. It was a gift, but it was for something specific, and she would have been within her rights to get mad if I used it to throw a huge party instead.
Again, see 9/11 and the Red Cross. Do you think that if what you're postulating is true that the Red Cross would not have been sanctioned in some way?
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 17 March 2010, 07:27 PM
Jenn's Avatar
Jenn Jenn is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: Alberta
Posts: 19,476
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
It's a gift to be used by the recipient in any way they see fit.
Well, no. Not always. In many countries, charitable organizations are held accountable for where and how money is spent. To run afoul may see repercussions anywhere from merely paying the money back, to loss of charitable status and business license, to criminal charges for fraud.

Doctors Without Borders, for example, really likes it when people give their donation under the more general categories of "Greatest need" or "Emergency relief" because it allows them more freedom with that money. They are legally prohibited from using donated money for something other than what was specified by the donor. If the donation specifies Congo, that money is only allowed to be spent on their work in that region, even if they are currently in dire need of funds in Haiti.

Whether Missionaries of Charity has ever been bound by any such laws or regulations depends on the jurisdiction of each facility.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 17 March 2010, 07:32 PM
Jenn's Avatar
Jenn Jenn is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: Alberta
Posts: 19,476
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
Remember 9/11 and the Red Cross?
I remember there were investigations due to issues with Red Cross chapters taking money given for 9/11 victims and erroneously coding it as being given for local use.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 17 March 2010, 07:42 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Yes, that was part of it, Jenn. There was also the setting aside of money donated to the Liberty Fund to be used for later needs. And also this.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 17 March 2010, 08:14 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

OK, I have no proof this really happened, but is it possible that just the existence of M. Teresa's "hospitals" in Calcutta, or other places, may have led people with funds and a generous bend, to say, "Hey, let's not build a hospital in Calcutta, there's already one," without looking to see what sort of care was provided, and using the money for something else?

Now, probably the "something else" was a good cause as well, but isn't it possible that the presence of M. Teresa's services prevented people from getting real medical care?
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 17 March 2010, 10:33 PM
Broken Sword Broken Sword is offline
 
Join Date: 23 November 2005
Location: South Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
This is generally true, but we are talking about a special case.

She was doing next to nothing, and had the capability of doing exponentially more, and was receiving financial donations from people for the specific purpose of doing more.

Then, she was not doing less than she could, because rather than volunteer 2 hours at the soup kitchen, she wanted to volunteer one hour, then go home and play Nintendo for one hour. She gave people dying of cancer, TB and AIDS aspirin for their pain, or nothing at all, and told them it was good to suffer, because Jesus liked it, when she could have given them morphine.
I asked a couple pages ago, and you're under no obligation to provide it, but I would like to see the cites for this.



Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
BTW: Catholics on the board-- does the church really go in for suffering like this? I know there are individuals who do, and probably would justify some other way if they were not Catholic, but is this really a doctrine of the church at large?
I'm not Catholic, but my mom and several of my friends are, and I'm not familiar with anything like this. Aren't there plenty of Catholic hospitals?
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 18 March 2010, 12:38 AM
Steve Eisenberg Steve Eisenberg is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2001
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 11,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
In an AIDS hospice in San Francisco, men were often admitted before they were very sick, but were given no medication, like AZT, and no pain medicine when they really were dying. They were not allowed to have visitors.
During the period from AZT being approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and Mother Teresa's death (1987 - 1997), there were many investigative journalists in US newspapers that would have jumped on this -- if true. The same is true for ordinary newspaper journalists in San Francisco. But there were no such stories. To confirm, try this link, which brings back the lead sentences of all the 1986-2000 news stories, in the Google News Archive, using the search terms "Mother Teresa", "San Francisco", and AIDS:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch...0&as_scoring=a

Could they have just missed it? I don't see how. The successful wrongful death suits would have been impossible to ignore.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 18 March 2010, 02:15 AM
Broken Sword Broken Sword is offline
 
Join Date: 23 November 2005
Location: South Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
OK, I have no proof this really happened, but is it possible that just the existence of M. Teresa's "hospitals" in Calcutta, or other places, may have led people with funds and a generous bend, to say, "Hey, let's not build a hospital in Calcutta, there's already one," without looking to see what sort of care was provided, and using the money for something else?

Now, probably the "something else" was a good cause as well, but isn't it possible that the presence of M. Teresa's services prevented people from getting real medical care?

No, that seems absurd. Some of her opponents have attacked her for supposedly making Calcutta look a lot worse than it really is, and you're suggesting that people assumed based on her mere presence that Calcutta was so well off that they didn't need anything else? And on top of that, that these would be people who already knew enough about Calcutta that they were ready to build a hospital there, if only Mother Teresa wasn't there?


Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
I'm not convinced she alleviated any suffereing, except maybe that of lower caste women who became Catholics and joined her order. Their lives probably improved significantly over what they would have been.
I missed this part. No one suffering? So everything I've heard from the people who worked there was just BS?

Oh, and many of the people who work at her homes aren't Catholic at all, so they must either be in on the scam or just doing it for the money, because they certainly aren't in it to make everyone else Catholics.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 18 March 2010, 04:32 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,015
Default

I need to remember to read the whole thread before I open my gob
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 18 March 2010, 04:53 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eisenberg View Post
During the period from AZT being approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and Mother Teresa's death (1987 - 1997), there were many investigative journalists in US newspapers that would have jumped on this -- if true.
Even if it is true, it is also important to note that if someone with AIDS is in hospice, the time is well passed for AZT to be useful. Antiretroviral therapies are used to to stave off opportunisitic infections. ARVs can also have many many side effects and when given to someone whose immune system is so compromised as to already have whatever opportunisitic infection they have in order to be in AIDS status instead of HIV+ is probably not particularly good medicine.
Quote:

Could they have just missed it? I don't see how. The successful wrongful death suits would have been impossible to ignore.
People with AIDS die. AZT does not change that.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 18 March 2013, 10:15 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,626
Read This! Was Mother Teresa actually sort of a jerk?

It's highly likely that one day, the Catholic Church will officially recognize Mother Teresa as a saint, a position she's held in the popular imagination for years. A new study in the religious studies journal Religieuses, however, says that the late Mother Teresa's reputation is mostly hype — a result of a church declining in popularity trying to boost its image.

http://theweek.com/article/index/240...sort-of-a-jerk
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Creationist classroom protest TB Tabby Fauxtography 27 20 February 2009 04:06 AM
How the other half protest Em Fauxtography 21 12 October 2008 10:44 PM
"Tramp stamp" = anal sex snopes NFBSK 44 13 April 2008 05:00 PM
Christians urged to “Stamp out” Royal Mail Christmas hoax snopes Religion 0 12 December 2007 03:46 PM
Twin Towers stamp snopes Fauxtography 14 30 June 2007 04:49 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.