• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Mother Terisa gets there at last

Because a soup kitchen and a refugee shelter do not provide medical care.

Okay, but that's irrelevant to my point. Her "houses of the dying" (Teresa's own name for her treatment centers) were not soup kitchens or refugee shelters. They were medical facilities which claimed to treat impoverished patients.

It is a matter of unarguable public record that in approaching the end of her life, Teresa herself received better care than her patients did in their own final days. Teresa thereby contradicted her own stated philosophy of glorifying God through suffering. You can continue to ignore this, obfuscate it, distract your interlocutors with red herrings, but it remains a fact.
 
Rome is in Italy.

Tijuana is in Mexico.

Well spotted. So we both agree that she went to hospital on more than one occasion (although I have provided evidence that she went to hospital on more occasions than you are admitting) and, as you have insisted that the places she ran were not hospitals, we evidently both agree that there she received better care than those in the places she ran.

This means that it is not an "unsupported point" that she allowed herself better care than she gave to those that came to her. Unless you want to change your mind about anything you've thus far said. If so, please be specific, and explain why you're changing your earlier statements.
 
...which the article you cited said she was taking to alleviate her chest pain. Because that's one of the uses of nitroglycerin pills - to treat symptoms of angina, such as chest pain.

https://www.scribd.com/document/151794414/Mother-Theresa-s-care-for-the-dying

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/world/asia/mother-teresa-critic.html

You kidding right? A First Worlder asking why they can't use algorithims, and a Marxist foot soldier?

“I never even saw any nuns in those slums that I worked in,” he said. “I think it’s an imperialist venture of the Catholic Church against an Eastern population, an Eastern city, which has really driven horses and carriages through our prestige and our honor.
sounds legit.

But primary health care is not what Mother Teresa’s order was founded to do. There are hundreds of Catholic medical orders which generously fill that need (the Medical Missionaries of Mary, who operate overseas, and the Daughters of Charity, who have for decades run numerous hospitals in this country, to name but two). Rather, the charism of the Missionaries of Charity (with whom I have worked)is, quite specifically, to provide solace to the very many poor patients who would otherwise die alone.

Yes, it would be wonderful if everyone living in the developing world had access to modern medical care. And though religious orders and other dedicated caregivers, religious and lay, have struggled for decades to do so, this is not yet the case. But surely this is not Mother Teresa’s fault.

Despite the selfless efforts of caregivers, then, the terrible fact remains that many poor persons still die in wretched conditions, neglected and alone. This situation, of course, is exceedingly difficult for the West to accept, as it demonstrates not only our own human limitations but also our unwillingness to help the poor more fully.

And so regarding the “poorest of the poor,” those who today die neglected, there would seem to be two choices. First, to cluck one’s tongue that such a group of people should even exist. Second, to act:to provide comfort and solace to these individuals as they face death. Mr. Kempton chooses the former. Mother Teresa, for all of her faults, chooses the latter.

James Martin, S.J.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1996/09/19/in-defense-of-mother-teresa/
 
This means that it is not an "unsupported point" that she allowed herself better care than she gave to those that came to her. Unless you want to change your mind about anything you've thus far said. If so, please be specific, and explain why you're changing your earlier statements.

face palm.

Soup kitchens and refugee shelters serve different needs and provide different care to people than do hospitals.

(I seriously cannot believe I had to type something so bleedingly simple and obvious).
 
This does not address the contention that she received better care at the Scripps facility than any of her patients received at the facilities where they were treated.

That she received better, costlier care than her patients received is an example of hypocrisy. Why was her care better than theirs?

Better in kind, and in degree...
 
Because a soup kitchen and a refugee shelter do not provide medical care.

Somewhat clumsy red herring.

is it your contention that what she did to "alleviate (suffering)" was to provide soup and a cot? How does that go along with your apparent contention that the poor (whose suffering she found so beautiful) were treated according to anodyne protocols?
 
face palm.

Soup kitchens and refugee shelters serve different needs and provide different care to people than do hospitals.

(I seriously cannot believe I had to type something so bleedingly simple and obvious).

Is it your contention that she ran "soup kitchens" and "refugee shelters" at which the poor were told to lift up their beautiful suffering?

Are all of her missions "soup kitchens" and "refugee shelters"?

What anodyne protocols to "relieve (suffering)" were in place?
 
Okay, but that's irrelevant to my point. Her "houses of the dying" (Teresa's own name for her treatment centers) were not soup kitchens or refugee shelters. They were medical facilities which claimed to treat impoverished patients.

It is a matter of unarguable public record that in approaching the end of her life, Teresa herself received better care than her patients did in their own final days. Teresa thereby contradicted her own stated philosophy of glorifying God through suffering. You can continue to ignore this, obfuscate it, distract your interlocutors with red herrings, but it remains a fact.

Ahhh, the inevitable moving of the goalposts!

"They were medical facilities which claimed to treat hospices for impoverished patients."

The word you were looking for was "hospice."

And at the end of her life, she was cared for in much the same way in her Mother House in India.

Look it up.
 
Ahhh, the inevitable moving of the goalposts!

"They were medical facilities which claimed to treat hospices for impoverished patients."

The word you were looking for was "hospice."

And at the end of her life, she was cared for in much the same way in her Mother House in India.

Look it up.

Speaking of "moving the goalposts"...

Was the care she afforded herself, in her suffering, at Scripps, different from (in kind and in degree) or the same as the care she provided to the poor to "alleviate (suffering)"?

Was she, herself, simply encouraged to "offer up" her "beautiful suffering"?

Perhaps you will deign to respond without evasion or obfuscation (and the absence of smileys).
 
Perhaps you will deign to respond without evasion or obfuscation (and the absence of smileys).

Guided by the lights and bound by the pale of his religion, as he is, there is no hope of anything but.

What we shoulder here, on this steep incline, is hard to justify sometimes. Does it touch anyone?
 
You kidding right? A First Worlder asking why they can't use algorithims, and a Marxist foot soldier?

Well, it would be easy to prove those claims wrong - find a first-hand account from someone of those places using strong analgesics. 2 ad hominems are not a counter-argument.


Then we both agree that she allowed herself better medical treatment than she provided for those who came to her. I wonder then why you have spent so much effort in an attempt to deny this.
 
Soup kitchens and refugee shelters serve different needs and provide different care to people than do hospitals.

I am talking about neither soup kitchens, nor refugee shelters, and you know I'm not. Or are you claiming that those are the only things that Mother Teresa ran?
 
Does it touch anyone?

I find it interesting to watch the mental gymnastics necessary to cast multiple sources reporting on the same event providing the same quote from a noted public figure as plagiarism.
 
Last edited:
"They were medical facilities which claimed to treat hospices for impoverished patients."

The word you were looking for was "hospice."

No, that's not true. Hospices provide palliative care for the dying. Mother Teresa's places had a 40% mortality rate. Of course, it seems that had her patients received better care that mortality rate would have been much lower, but the fact that it was higher than it should have been had they been run with a view towards making people better doesn't mean that they were hospices.
 
Well, it would be easy to prove those claims wrong - find a first-hand account from someone of those places using strong analgesics. 2 ad hominems are not a counter-argument.

anecdotes are not data, particularly coming from the biased

Then we both agree that she allowed herself better medical treatment than she provided for those who came to her. I wonder then why you have spent so much effort in an attempt to deny this.

False.
 
I find it interesting to watch the mental gymnastics necessary to cast multiple sources reporting on the same event providing the same quote from a noted public figure as plagiarism.

That's not the interesting part. The interesting part is that that accusation has allowed him/her to avoid engaging with the fact that Mother Teresa actually said what she said. Or, indeed, any of the corroborating evidence about her opinion of suffering.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom