She was declared a saint

Yeah. And humanism. She saw them as humans. Not how the Big Pharma sees people. They just sees them as wallets to shoot drugs into.

>rooms full of people left to die on mats. No medicine, no pain relief, no care of any sort beyond a gruel for sustenance.
Not being facetious or anything, but can I get a citation on that?

>implying suffering isn't a gift from God

It's get even better:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa#Baptisms_of_the_dying

>Baptisms of the dying

>Mother Teresa encouraged members of her order to secretly baptise dying patients, without regard to the individual's religion. Susan Shields, a former member of the Missionaries of Charity, writes that "Sisters were to ask each person in danger of death if he wanted a 'ticket to heaven'. An affirmative reply was to mean consent to baptism. The sister was then to pretend that she was just cooling the patient’s head with a wet cloth, while in fact she was baptising him, saying quietly the necessary words. Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa’s sisters were baptising Hindus and Muslims."[3]

>Critics such as Murray Kempton have argued that patients were not provided sufficient information to make an informed decision about whether they wanted to be baptised and the theological significance of a Christian baptism.[4] Simon Leys, defending the practice in a letter to the New York Review of Books, wrote: "Either you believe in the supernatural effect of this gesture – and then you should dearly wish for it. Or you do not believe in it, and the gesture is as innocent and well-meaningly innocuous as chasing a fly away with a wave of the hand."[5]

>Or you do not believe in it, and the gesture is as innocent and well-meaningly innocuous as chasing a fly away with a wave of the hand.

>innocent and well-meaningly innocuous

With the same logic, I can grope children, because they don't understand the sexual element of my groping.

>muh pain relief
Yeah how dare the nun not go around doping everyone up to the gills with morphine she didn't have the qualifications to dole out!

>morally equating baptism with child molestation

Just sad.

>
With the same logic, I can grope children, because they don't understand the sexual element of my groping.

great analogue, you are a fucking genius omfg!

SHE COULD'VE HIRED SOMEONE TO DO IT! SHE GOT PLENTY OF INDULGENCES FROM WESTERNERS WHO FELT GUILTY FOR NOT CARING ABOUT THE POOR IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES.

Also:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa#Questionable_relationships

>dictators, muderers and frauds

>catholic church

not even surprised

real christianity is those cults that strive in middle of all that islam hellholes, not those fat bourgeoisie church catholics

Or steal all the money from a retarded, because they don't appreciate the value of money.

Still, a church that canonizes a person like this is ebola. Ebola all the way.

>tfw no arab christian qt 3,14 pie gf

Yes, it was questionable to staff her hospices with medically untrained nuns wasn't it?

And are you seriously belitting pain relief? If a person is dying of cancer it's absolutely necessary that they get some damn morphine, or at least something stronger than aspirin, which was the only pain reliever MT distributed.

As a Catholic looking at her from a theological perspective, she was pretty shitty.

Her entire logic was
>Jesus suffered
>When we suffer, we are like Jesus
>Therefore it is my holy duty to ensure people suffer as much as possible to make them as much like Jesus as possible

Her theology was bad (for one thing Jesus helped the suffering) and her sainthood is pure post-Vatican II political posturing.

>Not being facetious or anything, but can I get a citation on that?

Here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa#Motivation_of_charitable_activities

>He said that Mother Teresa's own words on poverty proved that her intention was not to help people, quoting her words at a 1981 press conference in which she was asked: "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" She replied: "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."

Don't expect the catholic to give you a clear answer. Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu got modern medical care when she needed it.

>Jesus helped the suffering
You short-sell him. ;-) Jesus fucking cured them with heavenly magic, maan! If we can emulate Jesus with our science and technology, then healing the ill is making God's work. Not follow some shriveled slum tourist.

I just watched a really good documentary about her

title is "The letters" its on netflix

it's newish but looks like very few people actually saw it
good film though

if it's in netflix it's probably sjw-y as fuck

Yeah, painkillers are for FAGS!

it was kind of a chick flick
lots of deep emotional inter personal story

all in all still not bad if you're looking for that type of intimate personal portrait

It's bedtime, eurocuck.

>implying your baby maker latina is a christian

That logic is still brain cancer regardless of your opinions on this situation. You should seek help suiting your faith or worldview then

Churchfags on Veeky Forums will argue that she was running a hospice instead of a hospital marketed at the lowest of the low (untouchable caste) and giving them a place to die away from the streets, so this fully justifies her mistreatment of the patients as they had no one and just administered palliative care. Which is quite ironic, as palliative care, while not intended to extend the life a person any more than the necessary to prevent said patient from suffering and she did just that by flat out refusing to administer proper care (no medical training provided to the nuns in her order other than the basics, shady administration which benefited from the permissiveness of the Indian government, no medication available to alleviate the suffering of the patients as durrhurr suffering makes them closer to Jesus, forced conversions, abuse of patients and their relatives and the list goes on)

Who let the proddy out?

But Catholic priests actually do this.

>unbiased

There's nothing wrong with biased sources as long as you're capable of taking the bias into consideration.

Here's an article about Mother Teresa by the patron saint of godless edgelords:

slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html

...

Yes, they are. But she made little effort to keep people comfortable, only giving a bare pallet to die on and not administering any pain killers. According to some who worked with her, many people taken to her hospice needed truly only very basic care to recover, but were not provided any and were simply allowed to die.

Many nuns are qualified medical personnel (the two killed in Mississippi recently were both nurse practitioners). Theresa simply had no regard for healing and viewed suffering as becoming closer to God (except for herself - she traveled to Europe for high quality care as she grew infirm in her old age).

So because some nuns are qualified that means those who aren't shouldn't offer care for the sick?
Nice logic.

This hate for what Mother Theresa is the definition of first world problems. Oh all she did was give them a place to sleep and food and water? Wow compared to dying uncared for out in the streets of India that's horrible. It's like you don't want them to get eaten by packs of wild dogs or something!

>b-but she could have done more once she got more money
So the work she was doing before was worth attracting international donations but then magically stopped being praiseworthy because she didn't transform her operation into something she wasn't qualified to do?
>b-but she could have hired people that were qualified!
How exactly is she is she more qualified to hire nurses and over see the level of medical care idiot fedora fags are asking for in this thread?
I mean you all realize that's a whole field in itself right? They don't just let anybody off the street over see medical facilities.

Mother Theresa helped the poor of India in the manner she was qualified do so, and as usual the edgy contrarians of the world have done their best to cynically drag it down into the mud and turn it into something to be morally condemned.

>people died without luxury waaah!

Bunch of slack-jawed utilitarian faggots ITT.

It's another of Bergoglio's buddy Christ PR schemes.

Much of the skepticism is intentionally antagonistic to the point of being outright disgusting.

So do step parents & uncles.

Are you some kind of convertit? Because they are all about muh intellectuaiticity tradition in muh church, yet mostly comes out as some kind of poseurs. Or was you born into it and cannot even explain the three most basic and important tenets of your belief?

Either way, you can do wrong against someone without that someone knowing it's bad for them.

And yeah, she may have treated the undesirables a bit better than the indians would have. But not enough good.

And the nuns being ignorant about what is good medical care? Ha-ha-ha! For Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, nothing but the most modern medical care was good enough! In for a penny, in for a pound.

Anyway, I'm kinda happy that she has been canonized. Another bad saint image to deface.

>using the term bourgeoisie
>>>/cuckmunism/
Who let the papist out of his cuckshed?

>
she existed
she did stuff
she was beatified when the church was being rapped in the 90s for pedophilia.

sorry user
>tfw no sheboon nigger GF with manface and a propensity for eating chicken an watermelons.

>Either you believe in the supernatural effect of this gesture – and then you should dearly wish for it. Or you do not believe in it, and the gesture is as innocent and well-meaningly innocuous as chasing a fly away with a wave of the hand

Or I believe that it would be an abomination in my God's eyes and condem me to my religions equivalent of Hell...

She actively wanted others to suffer because in her twisted logic, it brought them closer to jesus. She thought suffering was some sort of blessing to bring us closer to him.

And she didn't allow relatives to visit the dying in her hospices. Just an all around insane woman.

This is popular false accusation based on a misconstrued understanding of the Catholic belief of Redemptive Suffering and trying to explain why they weren't given pain killers. It's conjecture. In reality, her imagined masochism was just people unaware of proper church teaching and taking it the wrong way and her lack of modern palliative care comes from the fact that modern palliative care was simply not available in India until after Teresa's death.
>relatives

Can't comment on this, don't know a thing of it.

Which one of you posted this over on Veeky Forums?

I don't know for sure, but her viewpoint sure doesn't mesh well with mine at all.

I really wish people would read this.

What are the sources for this? A forced baptism or one done through trickery would not be valid, and I think a nun would know this so what's the motivation?

>I really wish people would read my self-fellating catholic apologism

I bet you would. Well I'll save everyone else the trouble and let you know that it's exactly what I've described. I mean holy shit.

>because the Church is a sign of contradiction: Innocent and Despised

Innocent? Fuck me.

Then you must have a shitty god Pajeet.

>It's a westerners who usually laugh at 3rd world suffering act offended when someone dedicated their life to caring about 3rd world poor

None of you fags would even spend a minute in the slums of India.

>who usually laugh at 3rd world suffering
Source? This is literally the opposite of what is happening.

Out of curiosity, do you live in a 3rd world country? Is this what they tell you that westerners do? Spend their days laughing at the 3rd world?

Nothing to see here. Please move along.
youtu.be/65JxnUW7Wk4

This stuff is garbage. Why don't you look at what actual historians have to say about it

>This stuff is garbage
>Posts a random blog
good one!

It's not just a random blog. Its from one of the few places on the internet that's actually worth a shit.

reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hn2eh/askhistorians_consensus_on_mother_theresa

>reddit
I actually laughed out loud.
You made my day, user.

>How exactly is she is she more qualified to hire nurses and over see the level of medical care idiot fedora fags are asking for in this thread?
>I mean you all realize that's a whole field in itself right? They don't just let anybody off the street over see medical facilities.
Well... While I do agree it's stupid to blame her for people dying IN A HOSPICE, if there was some question as to people who were by no means so sick as to die, moving in, she shoulda asked the Church to send her a nurse to do a once-over before admitting people. (God knows there's enough doctors and nurses working for the Church.)

Not that it makes her a bad person, just either foolish or negligent. (Or as we say on Veeky Forums, Neutral Good/Stupid Good.)

>Walk into CATHOLIC hospice
>Get baptised on death bed
BIG FUCKING SURPRISE

...It's not as if it were a government owned and operated hospice in some nation with a separation of church and sate rule.

>I can grope children, because they don't understand the sexual element of my groping.
I-I don't even...

Why? It's just a forum.

I tried reading Hitchens book about St. Teresa but there must have been a problem with my e-reader because it didn't display a single note or citation.

>In the promotion flyer accompanying the book, the publisher delights in saying that Hitchens outlines Mother Teresa’s relationship with “Paul Keating, the man now serving a ten-year sentence for his central role in the United States Savings and Loan scandal.” Wrong, the man’s name is Charles Keating, but what difference does that make to a publisher unconcerned with verifying the sources of its authors?

>Keating gave Mother Teresa one and a quarter million dollars. It does not matter to Hitchens that all of the money was spent before anyone ever knew of his shenanigans. What matters is that Mother Teresa gave to the poor a lot of money taken from a rich guy who later went to jail. But her biggest crime, according to Hitchens, was writing a letter to Judge Lance Ito (yeah, the same one) “seeking clemency for Mr. Keating.”

>It would be rather audacious of Mother Teresa if she were to intervene in a trial “seeking clemency” for the accused, unless, of course, she had evidence that the accused was innocent. But she did nothing of the kind: what she wrote to Judge Ito was a reference letter, not a missive “seeking clemency.”

>“I do not know anything about Mr. Charles Keating’s work,” Mother Teresa said, “or his business or the matters you are dealing with.” She then explains her letter by saying “Mr. Keating has done much to help the poor, which is why I am writing to you on his behalf.”

>Now why this character reference, written of someone who was presumed innocent at the time, should be grounds for condemnation is truly remarkable. It reveals more about Hitchens than his subject that he brands her letter an appeal for “clemency.” It was nothing of the sort, but this matters little to someone filled with rage.

I always thought atheists were against this idea of a blind faith but they seem to give it to Hitchens without reservation.

>Here’s another example of how Hitchens proceeds. He begins one chapter quoting Mother Teresa on why her congregation has taken a special vow to work for the poor. “This vow,” she exclaimed, “means that we cannot work for the rich; neither can we accept money for the work we do. Ours has to be a free service, and to the poor.” A few pages later, after citing numerous cash awards that her order has received, Hitchens writes “if she is claiming that the order does not solicit money from the rich and powerful, or accept it from them, this is easily shown to be false.”

>Hitchens isn’t being sloppy here, just dishonest. He knows full well that there is a world of difference between soliciting money from the rich and working for them. Furthermore, he knows full well that Mother Teresa never even implied that she wouldn’t accept money from the rich. And precisely whom should she–or anyone else–accept money from, if not the rich? Would it make Hitchens feel better if the middle class were tapped and the rich got off scot free? Would it make any sense to take from the poor and then give it back to them? Who’s left?

>Hitchens also hates Mother Teresa’s itinerary, charging that there is a political motive to her travels. For example, in 1984 she went to comfort the suffering in Bhopal after a Union Carbide chemical explosion. While there, she asked that forgiveness be given to those responsible for the plant (the Indian government was mostly to blame, though Hitchens, the inveterate anti-capitalist, cannot admit to this). So what does Hitchens make of this?

>He takes great umbrage at her right to ask for forgiveness, questioning who “authorized” her to dispense with such virtues in the first place. For Hitchens, her refusal to answer this question (never mind that she was never asked in the first place) is proof positive that her trip “read like a hasty exercise in damage control.” Damage control for whom? Union Carbide? Does Hitchens even have a picture of Mother Teresa and a Union Carbide official to show?

So what's the reasoning behind not allowing medicine to be utilized?

Does this remind anyone of the story where Jesus and His disciples are picking grains on the Sabbath? And the religious leaders told them they were sinning when they were just hungry?

What's so bad about giving people medicine?

The alternative would have been lying on the side of the road between garbage and dirt while being eaten alive by rats

yes it is just a forum, but it was introduced as
>one of the few places on the internet that's actually worth a shit

>painless death is somehow more dignified
>suffering is inherently bad

>So what's the reasoning behind not allowing medicine to be utilized?

Nobody stopped medicine from being used, the problem was that there wasn't enough of it, and that the "untouchables" in many cases couldn't get access to it even if they weren't terminally ill. The purposes of her order was to build hospices, not provide treatment. That doesn't mean they didn't treat what they could it just means that wasn't their purpose. It was a place that people could go to so they didn't have to die alone in the streets.

You should refer to #5 here Redemptive suffering doesn't mean causing suffering. That's a ridiculous but common misunderstanding from secularists and it isn't helped by Hitchens making unsubstantiated claims.

AskHistorians is one of the few places in the internet that's worth a shit.

Nothing at all to anyone not engaged in defending M.T. Honestly, if she were doing the same thing a century or two ago, there wouldn't be a controversy, but she was equipped with the cash and resources to do better and for whatever reason (her philosophy, incompetence, etc), neglected doing so.

Not worth getting worked up over the affair to me. She could've done more, but couldn't/wouldn't and the people she helped wouldn't have gotten "help" otherwise.

Pathological hatred of r*ddit will persist for a while. Fast/populous board cross posters wont get the message that there are good things to be found there quickly.

>unbiased
>sources

It's called journalism. Do you complaint about your news not being properly documented as sell?

I get irritated when journalists make things up, yes.

I see

Moral of the story: Should do my own research instead of taking brief looks at some quick accusations. Thanks man.

Yeah, exactly, not like anyone else was doing anything. For all knew she did her best.

But yeah, its always easier to point out the flaws in hindsight. With that said, they could learn from this and opt to bring in some advisors I guess.

She is without a doubt a saint in the religion of cuckianity and in the cucktholic church.

She showed that women can also be infertile cuckolds.

She allowed people to just lay in a house and die in horrible agony instead of treating them, because she, like all monotheists don't believe death is the end.

You see the same attitude among Jihadi suicide bombers.

>get cured
>go back to being a helplessly poor minority in a country of the helplessly poor
She should've just had her nuns give the "patients" a blow job and a bullet to the back of the head

>Atheist arguing about canonization

Why are you arguing over a catholic matter, this does not concern you

Because she didn't kidnap people off the streets; those who believed they were dying went there. If you think you're dying, you most likely are

>And yeah, she may have treated the undesirables a bit better than the indians would have. But not enough good.
Says the guy who has literally done nothing for them.

You don't even give a shit about them, you're just a fat edgy atheist who's rebelling against mommy and daddy

No one is trying to make Big Pharma into saints. The argument is if she was a cunt or not

These past two threads have made me realize that most atheists are either illiterate or just plain dishonest

Quite a conclusion to draw from a thread on Veeky Forums you fucking dolt.

>fugg he found us out

She ran hospitals (If an institution with a 40% mortality rate is actually classifiable as a hospital) like prisons, particularly cruel and unhygienic prisons at that. Children in her care were tied to their beds to prevent them misbehaving. She let the terminally ill (and even those with illnesses that would have been curable if her 'hospitals' were run better) die without pain relief because suffering bought them closer to Jesus
Most of the money donated to her causes was filtered back into the (already exceedingly rich) Catholic Church, or used to expand her 'charities' to new regions, rather than actually helping those in her care, many of whom were starving and lacking basic medical care... Basically she didn't love the poor and hungry, she loved poverty and hunger, she saw suffering as a grace and despite being lauded as a humanitarian given the fame and donations she had at her disposal did relatively little practical good.
She befriended and defended a genocidal dictator, Jean-Claude 'Baby Doc' Duvalier, and accepted donations from him of money extorted from the very poor she was supposedly helping as well as drug dealing and body part trafficking.

She accepted and refused to return profits of criminal activity. Including one and a quarter million US dollars in cash and use of a private jet from convicted racketeer and fraudster Charles Keating who stole over $3 Billion from US taxpayers in the 80's and 90's... Upon his conviction not only did Mother Teresa and The Catholic Church refuse to return the money they had received from him, Mother Teresa actually tried to use her influence to have him let off or at least sentenced leniently.

She publicly defended known pedophiles from within the clergy, including trying to use her influence to have leniency shown in sentencing of convicted child rapist Donald McGuire and campaigning to have him reinstated to the priesthood and allowing him to continue his work... even though this work would inevitably bring him into regular contact with children.

Because so much of the money she raised went to the church not the poor she hated waste in her hospitals, insisting staff reused needles until they were too blunt to continue using... even in known HIV high risk areas.
She directed a mere 7% of the monies her charities raised directly those she was supposedly helping... With much of the rest ending up in secret bank accounts and as yet still unaccounted for.

She routinely baptised those dying under her care regardless of their own wishes or religious beliefs.
She opposed both abortion and contraception, even in cases of incest, abuse and rape.
She praised and supported Ireland's anti-divorce laws... even in cases where spousal abuse was apparent, forcing countless women to live out lives of slavery and torture.

Basically pretty much everything about her was evil, but the churches PR machine didn't have a hard job spinning a kindly looking old women stood amongst some of the poorest people in the world to look lie a saint, and once that side of the story was cemented in the press it became all most people saw of her.

Possible sources:
nouvelles.umontreal.ca/udem-news/news/20130301-mother-teresa-anything-but-a-saint.html
Les côtés ténébreux de Mère Teresa
washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/25/why-to-many-critics-mother-teresa-is-still-no-saint/
Christopher Hitchens - Mother Teresa: Hell's Angel
outlookindia.com/magazine/story/i-dont-think-she-deserved-the-nobel/284270
outlookindia.com/magazine/story/on-the-same-page/284274
newamericamedia.org/2013/03/city-of-doubts-kolkatas-uneasy-love-for-mother-teresa.php
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa
salon.com/2016/01/03/the_wests_big_lie_about_mother_teresa_her_glorification_of_suffering_instead_of_relieving_it_has_had_little_impact_on_her_glowing_reputation/
forbes.com/2010/08/10/forbes-india-mother-teresa-charity-critical-public-review.html

>She ran hospitals

Right off the bat you couldn't be any more wrong. She ran hospices. Those are literally just places for people to die.

Hospices then. Still makes everything she did inexcusable, hospices are supposed to be a place to die in peace and comfort.

>just a fat edgy atheist who's rebelling against mommy and daddy

You guys fucking love this fedora meme. It's your bread and butter.

Yeah it's getting to be embarrassing. They're STILL citing Hitchens.

>mommy mommy the religious people are bullying me again

Well they were provided shelter, protection and slight pain relief; she could have done more sure; but she did was no one else was doing at the time