| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"webgiant" |
| Date: |
22 Sep 2003 05:56:56 PM |
| Object: |
Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
===================================================
http://are.berkeley.edu/~atanu/Writing/teresa.html
===================================================
Walter Wuellenweber
Mother Teresa: Where are her millions?
===================================================
[ This is an English translation of an article from
the German magazine STERN which is conservative
and enjoys a high circulation in Europe. It
appeared in September 1998. ]
===================================================
The Angel of the poor died a year ago. Donations
still flow in to her Missionaries of Charity like
to no other cause. But the winner of the Nobel
Peace Prize vowed to live in poverty. What then,
happened to so much money?
If there is a heaven, then she is surely there:
Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu from Skopje in Macedonia,
better known as Mother Teresa. She came to
Calcutta on the 6th of January 1929 as an 18 year
old sister of the Order of Loreto. 68 years later
luminaries from all over the world assembled in
Calcutta in order to honour her with a state
funeral. In these 68 years she had founded the
most successful order in the history of the
Catholic church, received the Nobel Peace Prize
and became the most famous Catholic of our time.
Are doubts permitted, regarding this "monument"?
In Calcutta, one meets many doubters.
For example, Samity, a man of around 30 with no
teeth, who lives in the slums. He is one of the
"poorest of the poor" to whom Mother Teresa was
supposed to have dedicated her life. With a
plastic bag in hand, he stands in a kilometre
long queue in Calcutta's Park Street. The poor
wait patiently, until the helpers shovel some
rice and lentils into their bags. But Samity
does not get his grub from Mother Teresa's
institution, but instead from the Assembly of
God, an American charity, that serves 18000
meals here daily.
"Mother Teresa?"says Samity, "We have not
received anything from her here. Ask in the
slums -- who has received anything from the
sisters here -- you will find hardly anybody."
Pannalal Manik also has doubts. "I don't
understand why you educated people in the West
have made this woman into such a goddess!"
Manik was born some 56 years ago in the
Rambagan slum, which at about 300 years of age,
is Calcutta's oldest. What Manik has achieved,
can well be called a "miracle". He has built
16 apartment buildings in the midst of the
slum -- living space for 4000 people. Money
for the building materials -- equivalent to
DM 10000 per apartment building -- was begged
for by Manik from the Ramakrishna Mission
[a Indian/Hindu charity], the largest
assistance-organization in India. The
slum-dwellers built the buildings themselves.
It has become a model for the whole of India.
But what about Mother Teresa? "I went to her
place 3 times," said Manik. "She did not even
listen to what I had to say. Everyone on earth
knows that the sisters have a lot of money. But
no one knows what they do with it!"
In Calcutta there are about 200 charitable
organizations helping the poor. Mother
Teresa's Missionaries of Charity are not
amongst the biggest helpers: that contradicts
the image of the organization. The name
"Mother Teresa" was and is tied to the city of
Calcutta. All over the world admirers and
supporters of the Nobel Prize winner believe
that it must be there that her organization is
particularly active in the fight against poverty.
"All lies," says Aroup Chatterjee . The doctor
who lives in London was born and brought up in
Calcutta. Chatterjee who has been working for
years on a book on the myth of Mother Teresa,
speaks to the poor in the slums of Calcutta, or
combs through the speeches of the Nobel Prize
winner. "No matter where I search, I only find
lies. For example the lies about schools. Mother
Theresa has often stated that she runs a school
in Calcutta for more than 5000 children. 5000
children! -- that would have to be a huge school,
one of the biggest in all of India. But where is
this school? I have never found it, nor do I know
anybody who has seen it!" says Chatterjee.
Compared to other charitable organizations in
Calcutta, the nuns with the 3 blue stripes are
ahead in two respects: they are world famous, and,
they have the most money. But how much exactly,
has always been a closely guarded secret of the
organization. Indian law requires charitable
organizations to publish their accounts. Mother
Teresa's organization ignores this prescription!
It is not known if the Finance Ministry in Delhi
who would be responsible for charities' accounts,
have the actual figures. Upon STERN's inquiry,
the Ministry informed us that this particular
query was listed as "classified information".
The organization has 6 branches in Germany. Here
too financial matters are a strict secret. "It's
nobody's business how much money we have, I mean
to say how little we have," says Sr Pauline, head
of the German operations. Maria Tingelhoff had
had handled the organization's book-keeping on a
voluntary basis until 1981. "We did see 3 million
[DM, 1998; $1,500,000] a year," she remembers.
But Mother Teresa never quite trusted the worldly
helpers completely. So the sisters took over the
financial management themselves in 1981. "Of
course I don't know how much money went in, in the
years after that, but it must be many multiples of
3 million," estimates Mrs Tingelhoff. "Mother was
always very pleased with the Germans."
Perhaps the most lucrative branch of the
organization is the "Holy Ghost" House in New
York's Bronx. Susan Shields served the order
there for a total of nine and a half years as
Sister Virgin. "We spent a large part of each
day writing thank you letters and processing
cheques," she says. "Every night around 25
sisters had to spend many hours preparing
receipts for donations. It was a conveyor belt
process: some sisters typed, others made lists
of the amounts, stuffed letters into envelopes,
or sorted the cheques. Values were between $5
and $100.000. Donors often dropped their
envelopes filled with money at the door. Before
Christmas the flow of donations was often totally
out of control. The postman brought sackfuls of
letters -- cheques for $50000 were no rarity."
Sister Virgin remembers that one year there was
about $50 million in a New York bank account.
$50 million in one year! -- in a predominantly
non-Catholic country. How much then, were they
collecting in Europe or the world? It is estimated
that worldwide they collected at least $100 million
per year -- and that has been going on for many many
years.
While the income is utter secret, the expenditures
are equally mysterious. The order is hardly able
to spend large amounts. The establishments
supported by the nuns are so tiny (inconspicuous)
that even the locals have difficulty tracing them.
Often "Mother Teresa's Home" means just a living
accommodation for the sisters, with no charitable
function. Conspicuous or useful assistance cannot
be provided there. The order often receives huge
donations in kind, in addition to the monetary
munificence. Boxes of medicines land at Indian
airports. Donated food grains and powdered milk
arrive in containers at Calcutta port. Clothing
donations from Europe and the US arrive in
unimaginable quantities. On Calcutta's pavement
stalls, traders can be seen selling used western
labels for 25 rupees (DM1) [$0.50] apiece.
Numerous traders call out, "Shirts from Mother,
trousers from Mother."
Unlike with other charities, the Missionaries of
Charity spend very little on their own management,
since the organization is run at practically no
cost. The approximately 4000 sisters in 150
countries form the most treasured workforce of all
global multi-million dollar operations. Having
taken vows of poverty and obedience, they work for
no pay, supported by 300,000 good citizen helpers.
By their own admission, Mother Teresa's organization
has about 500 locations worldwide. But for purchase
or rent of property, the sisters do not need to touch
their bank accounts. "Mother always said, we don't
spend for that," remembers Sunita Kumar, one the
richest women in Calcutta and supposedly Mother
Theresa's closest associate outside the order.
"If Mother needed a house, she went straight to the
owner, whether it was the State or a private person,
and worked on him for so long that she eventually
got it free."
Her method was also successful in Germany. In March
the "Bethlehem House" was dedicated in Hamburg, a
shelter for homeless women. Four sisters work there.
The architecturally conspicuous building cost DM2.5
million. The fortunes of the order have not spent a
penny toward the amount. The money was collected by
a Christian association in Hamburg. With Mother
Theresa as figure head it was naturally short work
to collect the millions.
Mother Teresa saw it as as her God given right never
to have to pay anyone for anything. Once she bought
food for her nuns in London for GB£500 [$1,100].
When she was told she'd have to pay at the till, the
diminutive seemingly harmless nun showed her Balkan
temper and shouted, "This is for the work of God!"
She raged so loud and so long that eventually a
businessman waiting in the queue paid up on her
behalf.
England is one of the few countries where the sisters
allow the authorities at least a quick glance at their
accounts. Here the order took in DM5.3 million
[$2,600,000] in 1991. And expenses (including
charitable expenses)? -- around DM360,000 [$180,000]
or less than 7%. Whatever happened to the rest of
the money? Sister Teresina, the head for England,
defensively states, "Sorry we can't tell you that."
Every year, according to the returns filed with the
British authorities, a portion of the fortune is sent to
accounts of the order in other countries. How much to
which countries is not declared. One of the recipients
is however, always Rome. The fortune of this famous
charitable organization is controlled from Rome, -- from
an account at the Vatican bank. And what happens with
monies at the Vatican Bank is so secret that even God
is not allowed to know about it. One thing is sure
however - - Mother's outlets in poor countries do not
benefit from largesses of the rich countries. The
official biographer of Mother Teresa, Kathryn Spink,
writes, "As soon as the sisters became established in a
certain country, Mother normally withdrew all financial
support." Branches in very needy countries therefore
only receive start-up assistance. Most of the money
remains in the Vatican Bank.
STERN asked the Missionaries of Charity numerous times
for information about location of the donations, both
in writing as well in person during a visit to Mother
Teresa's house in Calcutta. The order has never
answered.
"You should visit the House in New York, then you'll
understand what happens to donations," says Eva
Kolodziej. The Polish lady was a Missionary of
Charity for 5 years. "In the cellar of the homeless
shelter there are valuable books, jewellery and gold.
What happens to them? -- The sisters receive them with
smiles, and keep them. Most of these lie around
uselessly forever."
The millions that are donated to the order have a
similar fate. Susan Shields (formerly Sr Virgin)
says, "The money was not misused, but the largest
part of it wasn't used at all. When there was a
famine in Ethiopia, many cheques arrived marked
'for the hungry in Ethiopia'. Once I asked the
sister who was in charge of accounts if I should
add up all those very many cheques and send the
total to Ethiopia. The sister answered, 'No, we
don't send money to Africa.' But I continued to
make receipts to the donors, 'For Ethiopia'."
By the accounts of former sisters, the finances are
a one way street. "We were always told, the fact
that we receive more than other orders, shows that
God loves Mother Teresa more. ," says Susan Shields.
Donations and hefty bank balances are a measure of
God's love. Taking is holier than giving.
The sufferers are the ones for whom the donations
were originally intended. The nuns run a soup
kitchen in New York's Bronx. Or, to put in straight,
they have it run for them, since volunteer helpers
organize everything, including food. The sisters
might distribute it. Once, Shields remembers, the
helpers made an organizational mistake, so they
could not deliver bread with their meals. The
sisters asked their superior if they could buy the
bread. "Out of the question -- we are a poor
organization." came the reply. "In the end, the
poor did not get their bread," says Shields.
Shields has experienced countless such incidents.
One girl from communion class did not appear for her
first communion because her mother could not buy her
a white communion dress. So she had to wait another
year; but as that particular Sunday approached, she
had the same problem again. Shields (Sr Virgin)
asked the superior if the order could buy the girl a
white dress. Again, she was turned down -- gruffly.
The girl never had her first communion.
Because of the tightfistedness of the rich order,
the "poorest of the poor" -- orphans in India -- suffer
the most. The nuns run a home in Delhi, in which the
orphans wait to be adopted by, in many cases, by
foreigners. As usual, the costs of running the home
are borne not by the order, but by the future adoptive
parents. In Germany the organization called Pro
Infante has the monopoly of mediation role for these
children. The head, Carla Wiedeking, a personal friend
of Mother Teresa's, wrote a letter to Donors, Supporters
and Friends which ran:
"On my September visit I had to witness 2 or 3
children lying in the same cot, in totally
overcrowded rooms with not a square inch of
playing space. The behavioural problems
arising as a result cannot be overlooked."
Mrs Wiedeking appeals to the generosity of
supporters in view of her powerlessness in the
face of the children's great needs. Powerlessness?!
In an organization with a billion- fortune, which
has 3 times as much money available to it as UNICEF
is able to spend in all of India? The Missionaries
of Charity has have the means to buy cots and build
orphanages, -- with playgrounds. And they have enough
money not only for a handful orphans in Delhi but for
many thousand orphans who struggle for survival in
the streets of Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta.
Saving, in Mother Teresa's philosophy, was a central
value in itself. All very well, but as her poor
organization quickly grew into a rich one, what did
she do with her pictures, jewels, inherited houses,
cheques or suitcases full of money? If she wished
to she could now cater to people not by obsessively
indulging in saving, but instead through well
thought-out spending. But the Nobel Prize winner
did not want an efficient organization that helped
people efficiently. Full of pride, she called the
Missionaries of Charity the "most disorganized
organization in the world". Computers, typewriters,
photocopiers are not allowed. Even when they are
donated, they are not allowed to be installed. For
book-keeping the sisters use school notebooks, in
which they write in cramped penciled figures. Until
they are full. Then everything is erased and the
notebook used again. All in order to save.
For a sustainable charitable system, it would have
been sensible to train the nuns to become nurses,
teachers or managers. But a Missionary of Charity
nun is never trained for anything further.
Fueled by her desire for un-professionalism, Mother
Teresa decisions from year to year became even more
bizarre. Once, says Susan Shields, the order bought
an empty building from the City of New York in order
to look after AIDS patients. Purchase price:
$1 dollar. But since handicapped people would also
be using the house, NY City management insisted on
the installation of a lift (elevator). The offer of
the lift was declined: to Mother they were a sign of
wealth. Finally the nuns gave the building back to
the City of New York.
While the Missionaries of Charity have already
withheld help from the starving in Ethiopia or the
orphans in India -- despite having received donations
in their names -- there are others who are being
actively harmed by the organization's ideology of
disorganization. In 1994, Robin Fox, editor of the
prestigious medical journal Lancet, in a commentary
on the catastrophic conditions prevailing in Mother
Teresa's homes, shocked the professional world by
saying that any systematic operation was foreign to
the running of the homes in India: TB patients were
not isolated, and syringes were washed in lukewarm
water before being used again. Even patients in
unbearable pain were refused strong painkillers, not
because the order did not have them, but on principle.
"The most beautiful gift for a person is that he can
participate in the suffering of Christ," said Mother
Teresa. Once she had tried to comfort a screaming
sufferer, "You are suffering, that means Jesus is
kissing you." The sufferer screamed back, furious,
"Then tell your Jesus to stop kissing me."
The English doctor Jack Preger once worked in the
home for the dying. He says, "If one wants to give
love, understanding and care, one uses sterile
needles. This is probably the richest order in the
world. Many of the dying there do not have to be
dying in a strictly medical sense." The British
newspaper Guardian described the hospice as an "
organized form of neglectful assistance".
It seems that the medical care of the orphans is
hardly any better. In 1991 the head of Pro Infante
in Germany sent a newsletter to adoptive parents:
"Please check the validity of the vaccinations
of your children. We assume that in some case
they have been vaccinated with expired vaccines,
or with vaccines that had been rendered useless
by improper storage conditions."
All this points to one thing, something that
Mother Teresa reiterated very frequently in her
speeches and addresses -- that she far more
concerned with life after death than the mortal
life.
Mother Teresa's business was : Money for a good
conscience. The donors benefited the most from
this. The poor hardly. Whosoever believed that
Mother Teresa wanted to change the world,
eliminate suffering or fight poverty, simply
wanted to believe it for their own sakes. Such
people did not listen to her. To be poor, to
suffer was a goal, almost an ambition or an
achievement for her and she imposed this goal
upon those under her wings; her actual ordained
goal was the hereafter.
With growing fame, the founder of the order
became somewhat conscious of the misconceptions
on which the Mother Teresa phenomenon was based.
She wrote a few words and hung them outside
Mother House:
"Tell them we are not here for work,
we are here for Jesus.
We are religious above all else.
We are not social workers,
not teachers,
not doctors.
We are nuns."
One question then remains: For what, in that
case, do nuns need so much money?
===================================================
.
|
|
| User: "Chain Breaker" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
22 Sep 2003 10:54:22 PM |
|
|
One question then remains: For what, in that
case, do nuns need so much money?
===================================================
I don't know but I know she believed this:
"If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives.
Be kind anyway."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Take Clayton Only As Directed" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
23 Sep 2003 02:50:23 AM |
|
|
"Chain Breaker" <nothingnobler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:51251a1c.0309221954.45a351a1@posting.google.com...
One question then remains: For what, in that
case, do nuns need so much money?
===================================================
I don't know but I know she believed this:
"If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives.
Be kind anyway."
And of course you have to be cruel to be kind. Like the way she liked to
encourage the people to stay poor, because she has some deranged mind fart
that being poor was noble... and the way she encouraged them to keep having
more children to make them even poorer and more desperate... and the way her
nuns would sometimes cruelly assault and torture the people they were
supposed to be supporting. Just like all religions, her first priority
wasn't helping people per se, but to expand the numbers of faithful and
promote her religion and her own personal fame and glory... which the church
has long known you achieve by showing compassion to those willing to convert
and throwing a few crumbs to the starving, all the while lining the coffers
of the trillionaire Vatican with the majority of the money. The truth of
the hollow facade is there for everyone to see...but as usual, the faithful
close their eyes, cover their ears and scream, "LA LA LA LA...CAN'T HEAR
YOU... GOD JESUS BIBLE...LA LA LA!!!"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
25 Sep 2003 05:25:44 PM |
|
|
(Chain Breaker) wrote in message news:<51251a1c.0309221954.45a351a1@posting.google.com>...
One question then remains: For what, in that
case, do nuns need so much money?
===================================================
I don't know but I know she believed this:
"If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives.
Be kind anyway."
Chain, liberals seethe with hatred for any religious organization
engaged in charitable activities, especially when they're not
accountable to the secular authorities. You see, the money is not
passing through their hands first, wherein three cents on the dollar
is returned to those for whom it was intended.
In other words, they can't make it into just another arm of the taxing
mechanism. A secular liberal's (is there any other kind?) idea of
charity is to take your money at the end of a government gun and
return it to charity-worthy folks who are likely to vote for them. Any
money in circulation they can't steal a portion of pisses them off big
time. This is what they hate about ANY church activities, but the
Catholics really get to them!
The day Mother Teresa died I told a few friends that within two years
the long knives would come out. And I predicted this very reason,
which is to say, a bogus and fraudulent "concern" about the worth of
her ongoing estate. In any case, if there's any stealing going on,
better it's the Catholic church than the Indian government which
wouldn't clean up Calcutta or the Ganges River if they were given
three trillion dollars tomorrow.
Cordially, Marie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
26 Sep 2003 07:32:56 PM |
|
|
"Marie A." <LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1dc521ed.0309251425.48babdc6@posting.google.com...
nothingnobler@hotmail.com (Chain Breaker) wrote in message
news:<51251a1c.0309221954.45a351a1@posting.google.com>...
One question then remains: For what, in that
case, do nuns need so much money?
===================================================
I don't know but I know she believed this:
"If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives.
Be kind anyway."
Chain, liberals seethe with hatred for any religious organization
engaged in charitable activities, especially when they're not
accountable to the secular authorities. You see, the money is not
passing through their hands first, wherein three cents on the dollar
is returned to those for whom it was intended.
In other words, they can't make it into just another arm of the taxing
mechanism. A secular liberal's (is there any other kind?) idea of
charity is to take your money at the end of a government gun and
return it to charity-worthy folks who are likely to vote for them. Any
money in circulation they can't steal a portion of pisses them off big
time. This is what they hate about ANY church activities, but the
Catholics really get to them!
The day Mother Teresa died I told a few friends that within two years
the long knives would come out. And I predicted this very reason,
which is to say, a bogus and fraudulent "concern" about the worth of
her ongoing estate. In any case, if there's any stealing going on,
better it's the Catholic church than the Indian government which
wouldn't clean up Calcutta or the Ganges River if they were given
three trillion dollars tomorrow.
Instead give it to the catholic church, who wouldn't clean up calcutta or
the ganges river even though they WERE giving "three trillion dollars", eh?
It's the ones like you that really make me sick. The money was given to
Mother T and the gang to HELP the poor and suffering. Yeah, they helped them
all right. They helped them be even MORE "poor and suffering."
--
Mike atheism: a non-prophet organization...
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
-------------------------------
The multi-named one posting under rooster/bob white/sceptic and various
other names (identifiable by the header line reading "NNTP-Posting-Host:
12.231.81.82") might as well ignore this post. He is a lying, illogical
troll who has been kill-file'd and any posts of his will not be seen or
replied to.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
26 Sep 2003 01:28:36 PM |
|
|
(Marie A.) wrote in
news:1dc521ed.0309251425.48babdc6@posting.google.com:
Chain, liberals seethe with hatred for any religious
organization engaged in charitable activities
really? i'd be intersted in seeing some documentation of this
remarkable comment, assuming it isn't just another one of your,
ahem, fantasies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "webgiant" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
23 Sep 2003 09:46:16 PM |
|
|
On 22 Sep 2003 20:54:22 -0700,
Chain Breaker <nothingnobler@hotmail.com> wrote:
webgiant wrote:
===================================================
http://are.berkeley.edu/~atanu/Writing/teresa.html
===================================================
Walter Wuellenweber
Mother Teresa: Where are her millions?
===================================================
[ This is an English translation of an article from
the German magazine STERN which is conservative
and enjoys a high circulation in Europe. It
appeared in September 1998. ]
===================================================
One question then remains: For what, in that
case, do nuns need so much money?
=============================================
I don't know but I know she believed this:
"If you are kind, people may accuse you
of selfish, ulterior motives.
Be kind anyway."
Pity Mother Theresa *didn't take her own advice*.
She was a good Catholic.
She was certainly not *kind*.
From the article you *conveniently snipped*:
~ While the Missionaries of Charity have
~ already withheld help from the starving
- in Ethiopia or the orphans in India --
~ despite having received donations in
~ their names -- there are others who are
~ being actively harmed by the organization's
~ ideology of disorganization. In 1994, Robin
~ Fox, editor of the prestigious medical journal
~ Lancet, in a commentary on the catastrophic
~ conditions prevailing in Mother Teresa's homes,
~ shocked the professional world by saying that
~ any systematic operation was foreign to the
~ running of the homes in India: TB patients
~ were not isolated, and syringes were washed in
~ lukewarm water before being used again. Even
~ patients in unbearable pain were refused strong
~ painkillers, not because the order did not have
~ them, but on principle.
~ "The most beautiful gift for a person is that
~ he can participate in the suffering of Christ,"
~ said Mother Teresa.
~ Once she had tried to comfort a screaming
~ sufferer, "You are suffering, that means
~ Jesus is kissing you." The sufferer
~ screamed back, furious, "Then tell your
~ Jesus to stop kissing me."
~
~ The English doctor Jack Preger once worked
~ in the home for the dying. He says,
~ "If one wants to give love, understanding
~ and care, one uses sterile needles. This
~ is probably the richest order in the world.
~ Many of the dying there do not have to be
~ dying in a strictly medical sense." The
~ British newspaper Guardian described the
~ hospice as an "organized form of neglectful
~ assistance".
~ It seems that the medical care of the orphans
~ is hardly any better. In 1991 the head of
~ Pro Infante in Germany sent a newsletter to
~ adoptive parents:
~ "Please check the validity of the vaccinations
~ of your children. We assume that in some case
~ they have been vaccinated with expired vaccines,
~ or with vaccines that had been rendered useless
~ by improper storage conditions."
~ All this points to one thing, something that
~ Mother Teresa reiterated very frequently in her
~ speeches and addresses -- that she far more
~ concerned with life after death than the mortal
~ life.
~ Mother Teresa's business was : Money for a
~ good conscience. The donors benefited the
~ most from this. The poor hardly. Whosoever
~ believed that Mother Teresa wanted to change
~ the world, eliminate suffering or fight
~ poverty, simply wanted to believe it for
~ their own sakes. Such people did not listen
~ to her. To be poor, to suffer was a goal,
~ almost an ambition or an achievement for her
~ and she imposed this goal upon those under
~ her wings; her actual ordained goal was the
~ hereafter.
Kind she was not, and being kind was not among
her priorities.
And if you'd read the last part of the article,
you'd have seen this in Mother Theresa's
own words:
~ She wrote a few words and hung them
~ outside Mother House:
~ "Tell them we are not here for work,
~ we are here for Jesus.
~
~ We are religious above all else.
~
~ We are not social workers,
~ not teachers,
~ not doctors.
~
~ We are nuns."
Even Mother Theresa agreed that she was
not there to be kind. Unless, of course,
you consider allowing people to endure
unbearable pain, when you possess the
means and the resources to *end the pain*,
is "a kindness".
Mother Theresa, of course, *did* consider
that to be "a kindness".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chain Breaker" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
24 Sep 2003 02:43:32 AM |
|
|
From the article you *conveniently snipped*
I snip whatever I feel like snipping. If anyone is interested in
reading the article they just need to click on the one above mine. Not
difficult, is it?
If it makes you feel better peddling hatred you are free to do so. I
am not a Catholic, not even a Christian, so it's no skin off my nose.
I was of the opinion that she was a pretty decent human being. You
don't think so, that's OK. But you can't disagree that she pre-empted
attitudes like yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AuntieLib" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
24 Sep 2003 02:40:44 PM |
|
|
Chain Breaker wrote:
From the article you *conveniently snipped*
I snip whatever I feel like snipping. If anyone is interested in
reading the article they just need to click on the one above mine. Not
difficult, is it?
How rude. (And, yeah, it can be very difficult, depending on which
newsreader one uses.)
If it makes you feel better peddling hatred you are free to do so. I
am not a Catholic, not even a Christian, so it's no skin off my nose.
I was of the opinion that she was a pretty decent human being.
He merely pointed out that your "opinion" (and many millions just like
yours) was wrong. Dangerously, woefully, pathetically wrong.
You don't think so, that's OK. But you can't disagree that she pre-empted
attitudes like yours.
It is a sad commentary on the delusions of the religious (whether you
are among them or not) that they believe what they want to believe, or
what they are told to believe and facts have little to do with it.
Mother Theresa's reputation desperately needs a makeover. She is on
her way to sainthood within the Catholic church. She is constantly
held up as the epitome of "goodness" and "charity" when, in reality,
she "helped" no one but herself and her bosses' bank balance. She
received millions of dollars from good-hearted people who thought they
were helping flood victims, children, the ill and the poor and she
sent most every penny of it to Rome. She is directly responsible for
a whole lot of the misery that exists in Calcutta with her denial of
medical care and family planning options to the women she publicly
supported.
Hers is a hypocrisy beyond measure and no opportunity to point this
out should be missed. (She denied pain medication to those in her
hospitals because she thought suffering was good for their souls and
yet got for herself the best medical care the United States had to
offer.)
All of this is documented fact and yet people who believe in her
saintliness refuse to hear any of it, preferring the myth to the
reality. (Her financial dealings are a matter of public record in
London and the United States and in India but, big surprise, Indian
officials trying to protect the image won't allow those records to be
viewed even though their doing so is against the law.)
Pointing out the truth behind the legend that is Mother Theresa is not
"peddling hatred" but an attempt to balance the scales. The simple
answer to the question "Where Are Her Millions?" is - she didn't use
it to build schools or hospitals or to help victims of flood or
famine, she transferred it to the Vatican Bank. That is something
that can't be stated often enough.
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion
is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."
Mark Twain
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob SD" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
24 Sep 2003 03:49:15 PM |
|
|
(AuntieLib) wrote in
news:cbadfc8f.0309241140.c03a447@posting.google.com:
Chain Breaker wrote:
From the article you *conveniently snipped*
I snip whatever I feel like snipping. If anyone is interested in
reading the article they just need to click on the one above mine.
Not difficult, is it?
How rude. (And, yeah, it can be very difficult, depending on which
newsreader one uses.)
If it makes you feel better peddling hatred you are free to do so. I
am not a Catholic, not even a Christian, so it's no skin off my nose.
I was of the opinion that she was a pretty decent human being.
He merely pointed out that your "opinion" (and many millions just like
yours) was wrong. Dangerously, woefully, pathetically wrong.
You don't think so, that's OK. But you can't disagree that she
pre-empted attitudes like yours.
It is a sad commentary on the delusions of the religious (whether you
are among them or not) that they believe what they want to believe, or
what they are told to believe and facts have little to do with it.
Mother Theresa's reputation desperately needs a makeover. She is on
her way to sainthood within the Catholic church. She is constantly
held up as the epitome of "goodness" and "charity" when, in reality,
she "helped" no one but herself and her bosses' bank balance. She
received millions of dollars from good-hearted people who thought they
were helping flood victims, children, the ill and the poor and she
sent most every penny of it to Rome. She is directly responsible for
a whole lot of the misery that exists in Calcutta with her denial of
medical care and family planning options to the women she publicly
supported.
Hers is a hypocrisy beyond measure and no opportunity to point this
out should be missed. (She denied pain medication to those in her
hospitals because she thought suffering was good for their souls and
yet got for herself the best medical care the United States had to
offer.)
All of this is documented fact and yet people who believe in her
saintliness refuse to hear any of it, preferring the myth to the
reality. (Her financial dealings are a matter of public record in
London and the United States and in India but, big surprise, Indian
officials trying to protect the image won't allow those records to be
viewed even though their doing so is against the law.)
Pointing out the truth behind the legend that is Mother Theresa is not
"peddling hatred" but an attempt to balance the scales. The simple
answer to the question "Where Are Her Millions?" is - she didn't use
it to build schools or hospitals or to help victims of flood or
famine, she transferred it to the Vatican Bank. That is something
that can't be stated often enough.
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion
is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."
Mark Twain
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Good post. Thanks for helping set the record straight. Of course the
delusional "believers" will continue to ignore the truth but what the
heck. :o)
.
|
|
|
| User: "galia" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
24 Sep 2003 09:09:07 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <SD> wrote in message news:Xns94008C98F650FSD@153.80.109.11...
wallenbrock@msn.com (AuntieLib) wrote in
news:cbadfc8f.0309241140.c03a447@posting.google.com:
Chain Breaker wrote:
From the article you *conveniently snipped*
I snip whatever I feel like snipping. If anyone is interested in
reading the article they just need to click on the one above mine.
Not difficult, is it?
How rude. (And, yeah, it can be very difficult, depending on which
newsreader one uses.)
If it makes you feel better peddling hatred you are free to do so. I
am not a Catholic, not even a Christian, so it's no skin off my nose.
I was of the opinion that she was a pretty decent human being.
He merely pointed out that your "opinion" (and many millions just like
yours) was wrong. Dangerously, woefully, pathetically wrong.
You don't think so, that's OK. But you can't disagree that she
pre-empted attitudes like yours.
It is a sad commentary on the delusions of the religious (whether you
are among them or not) that they believe what they want to believe, or
what they are told to believe and facts have little to do with it.
Mother Theresa's reputation desperately needs a makeover. She is on
her way to sainthood within the Catholic church. She is constantly
held up as the epitome of "goodness" and "charity" when, in reality,
she "helped" no one but herself and her bosses' bank balance. She
received millions of dollars from good-hearted people who thought they
were helping flood victims, children, the ill and the poor and she
sent most every penny of it to Rome. She is directly responsible for
a whole lot of the misery that exists in Calcutta with her denial of
medical care and family planning options to the women she publicly
supported.
Hers is a hypocrisy beyond measure and no opportunity to point this
out should be missed. (She denied pain medication to those in her
hospitals because she thought suffering was good for their souls and
yet got for herself the best medical care the United States had to
offer.)
All of this is documented fact and yet people who believe in her
saintliness refuse to hear any of it, preferring the myth to the
reality. (Her financial dealings are a matter of public record in
London and the United States and in India but, big surprise, Indian
officials trying to protect the image won't allow those records to be
viewed even though their doing so is against the law.)
Pointing out the truth behind the legend that is Mother Theresa is not
"peddling hatred" but an attempt to balance the scales. The simple
answer to the question "Where Are Her Millions?" is - she didn't use
it to build schools or hospitals or to help victims of flood or
famine, she transferred it to the Vatican Bank. That is something
that can't be stated often enough.
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion
is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."
Mark Twain
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Good post. Thanks for helping set the record straight. Of course the
delusional "believers" will continue to ignore the truth but what the
heck. :o)
Aren't you a delusional believer too?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
24 Sep 2003 09:47:39 PM |
|
|
"galia" <galia@netrover.com> wrote in
news:v7scb.74687$PD3.4786060@nnrp1.uunet.ca:
"Bob" <SD> wrote in message news:Xns94008C98F650FSD@153.80.109.11...
wallenbrock@msn.com (AuntieLib) wrote in
news:cbadfc8f.0309241140.c03a447@posting.google.com:
Chain Breaker wrote:
From the article you *conveniently snipped*
I snip whatever I feel like snipping. If anyone is interested in
reading the article they just need to click on the one above mine.
Not difficult, is it?
How rude. (And, yeah, it can be very difficult, depending on which
newsreader one uses.)
If it makes you feel better peddling hatred you are free to do so. I
am not a Catholic, not even a Christian, so it's no skin off my nose.
I was of the opinion that she was a pretty decent human being.
He merely pointed out that your "opinion" (and many millions just like
yours) was wrong. Dangerously, woefully, pathetically wrong.
You don't think so, that's OK. But you can't disagree that she
pre-empted attitudes like yours.
It is a sad commentary on the delusions of the religious (whether you
are among them or not) that they believe what they want to believe, or
what they are told to believe and facts have little to do with it.
Mother Theresa's reputation desperately needs a makeover. She is on
her way to sainthood within the Catholic church. She is constantly
held up as the epitome of "goodness" and "charity" when, in reality,
she "helped" no one but herself and her bosses' bank balance. She
received millions of dollars from good-hearted people who thought they
were helping flood victims, children, the ill and the poor and she
sent most every penny of it to Rome. She is directly responsible for
a whole lot of the misery that exists in Calcutta with her denial of
medical care and family planning options to the women she publicly
supported.
Hers is a hypocrisy beyond measure and no opportunity to point this
out should be missed. (She denied pain medication to those in her
hospitals because she thought suffering was good for their souls and
yet got for herself the best medical care the United States had to
offer.)
All of this is documented fact and yet people who believe in her
saintliness refuse to hear any of it, preferring the myth to the
reality. (Her financial dealings are a matter of public record in
London and the United States and in India but, big surprise, Indian
officials trying to protect the image won't allow those records to be
viewed even though their doing so is against the law.)
Pointing out the truth behind the legend that is Mother Theresa is not
"peddling hatred" but an attempt to balance the scales. The simple
answer to the question "Where Are Her Millions?" is - she didn't use
it to build schools or hospitals or to help victims of flood or
famine, she transferred it to the Vatican Bank. That is something
that can't be stated often enough.
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion
is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."
Mark Twain
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Good post. Thanks for helping set the record straight. Of course the
delusional "believers" will continue to ignore the truth but what the
heck. :o)
Aren't you a delusional believer too?
Yes, I suppose I am in some ways but not in religious matters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chain Breaker" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
24 Sep 2003 11:26:44 PM |
|
|
Dear Auntie Lib,
Upon reflection, my comments on snipping may have seemed a little
rude. Please accept my apologies. My personal position is somewhere
right of atheism and left of agnosticism, so I admit to having been a
little taken back by the vitriol evoked by my insignificant little
response to this posting.
My opinion of Mother Theresa I guess is the same as millions of others
who have never been interested enough to learn more than what the
press and media told us, therefore, I am not in a position to argue
for or against the merits of this woman or her work.
Pointing out the truth behind the legend that is Mother Theresa is not
"peddling hatred" but an attempt to balance the scales. The simple
answer to the question "Where Are Her Millions?" is - she didn't use
it to build schools or hospitals or to help victims of flood or
famine, she transferred it to the Vatican Bank. That is something
that can't be stated often enough.
If that is what you and the other posters here believe, then, yes you
have every right to post it. But just let me leave you on this note:
If the motivation behind this Mother Theresa expose is as righteous,
and not fanned by hatred, as you would have me believe, then I am
justified in having every expectation to expect to read similar
exposes should those who espouse the non-religious cause (of which I
am one) happen to plunder the public coffers. Or, on the other hand,
if one who espouses the religious cause does a genuinely wonderful
work for humanity, I would expect to hear their praises sung in the
interests of "balancing the scales", as you say.
(CB)
===============================================================================
Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AuntieLib" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
25 Sep 2003 01:22:24 PM |
|
|
Chain Breaker wrote:
Dear Auntie Lib,
Upon reflection, my comments on snipping may have seemed a little
rude.
Only a very little, though. My "how rude" comment was meant to be
humerous but I refuse to use emoticons (believing that the word should
convey the meaning) and so might've come across as more offended than
I was.
Please accept my apologies. My personal position is somewhere
right of atheism and left of agnosticism, so I admit to having been a
little taken back by the vitriol evoked by my insignificant little
response to this posting.
I didn't think my post was particularly vitriolic. As I said, I like
to try to set the record straight wherever possible. If Mother
Theresa were just any old nun - or her Sisters of Charity any old
charity - it wouldn't matter. But her beatification is on a fast
track with the Catholic Church; so much so that they are taking
shortcuts with the usual process and ignoring a tidal wave of
documented but contradictory fact. I find that appalling. It points
out the pope's interest in public relations over the truth.
My opinion of Mother Theresa I guess is the same as millions of others
who have never been interested enough to learn more than what the
press and media told us, therefore, I am not in a position to argue
for or against the merits of this woman or her work.
Fair enough.
Pointing out the truth behind the legend that is Mother Theresa is not
"peddling hatred" but an attempt to balance the scales. The simple
answer to the question "Where Are Her Millions?" is - she didn't use
it to build schools or hospitals or to help victims of flood or
famine, she transferred it to the Vatican Bank. That is something
that can't be stated often enough.
If that is what you and the other posters here believe, then, yes you
have every right to post it.
It is not a "belief," it is verifiable fact. As I said, her financial
records are open (theoretically) to public scrutiny. The nuns who
have left her order have talked. Several authors of books on Mother
Theresa have videotape of her (or her sisters) refusing to help the
dying in the streets unless they can get there on their own. Her own
speeches testify to her tendency to what I call "lie" and what her
public relations people call "embelish a good story" about the numbers
of schools she has built or the numbers of people she fed every day.
But just let me leave you on this note:
If the motivation behind this Mother Theresa expose is as righteous,
and not fanned by hatred, as you would have me believe,
I don't "hate" Mother Theresa. She's dead, what would be the point?
What I dislike (hate is too strong a word) is the willful ignorance of
the people (and I wouldn't presume to count you among them) who would
hold her up as the standard upon whom goodness and charity should be
modeled. It's sickening.
then I am justified in having every expectation to expect to read similar
exposes should those who espouse the non-religious cause (of which I
am one) happen to plunder the public coffers.
This statement has me confused. Are you saying you hope those who
*aren't* religious - but steal from the public - are exposed as well?
If they get as much publicity as Mother Theresa did, I'm absolutely
with you. Taking advantage is taking advantage, whether done in the
name of religion or not.
Or, on the other hand, if one who espouses the religious cause does a
genuinely wonderful work for humanity, I would expect to hear their
praises sung in the interests of "balancing the scales", as you say.
Absolutely. Point him or her out to me and I'll sing the "Halleluja
Chorus" in their honor. However, it might just be my cynicism rearing
its ugly head but I have yet to see any large-scale charitable
endeavor (either religious or secular) that didn't *first* take care
of itself in a lavish manner and *then* distribute what was left.
Now, that's large-scale, as Mother Theresa's was, I'm talking about.
Charity on the small, personal level goes on all the time in cities
and neighborhoods all over the world. You just don't hear about them
because the people doing the good works don't want or need to be
acknowledged in any way. I am naturally suspicious of charity which
seeks to aggrandize some figurehead (as Mother Theresa did) in the
name of goodness and humble service which isn't really humble at all.
I suspect ulterior motives and I'm usually right.
But, like I said, I can be rather cynical so that might color my
impressions.
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion
is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."
Mark Twain
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chain Breaker" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
25 Sep 2003 06:48:47 PM |
|
|
(AuntieLib) wrote in message news:<cbadfc8f.0309251022.56740523@posting.google.com>...
Chain Breaker wrote:
Dear Auntie Lib,
Upon reflection, my comments on snipping may have seemed a little
rude.
Only a very little, though. My "how rude" comment was meant to be
humerous but I refuse to use emoticons (believing that the word should
convey the meaning) and so might've come across as more offended than
I was.
Please accept my apologies. My personal position is somewhere
right of atheism and left of agnosticism, so I admit to having been a
little taken back by the vitriol evoked by my insignificant little
response to this posting.
I didn't think my post was particularly vitriolic. As I said, I like
to try to set the record straight wherever possible. If Mother
Theresa were just any old nun - or her Sisters of Charity any old
charity - it wouldn't matter. But her beatification is on a fast
track with the Catholic Church; so much so that they are taking
shortcuts with the usual process and ignoring a tidal wave of
documented but contradictory fact. I find that appalling. It points
out the pope's interest in public relations over the truth.
My opinion of Mother Theresa I guess is the same as millions of others
who have never been interested enough to learn more than what the
press and media told us, therefore, I am not in a position to argue
for or against the merits of this woman or her work.
Fair enough.
Pointing out the truth behind the legend that is Mother Theresa is not
"peddling hatred" but an attempt to balance the scales. The simple
answer to the question "Where Are Her Millions?" is - she didn't use
it to build schools or hospitals or to help victims of flood or
famine, she transferred it to the Vatican Bank. That is something
that can't be stated often enough.
If that is what you and the other posters here believe, then, yes you
have every right to post it.
It is not a "belief," it is verifiable fact. As I said, her financial
records are open (theoretically) to public scrutiny. The nuns who
have left her order have talked. Several authors of books on Mother
Theresa have videotape of her (or her sisters) refusing to help the
dying in the streets unless they can get there on their own. Her own
speeches testify to her tendency to what I call "lie" and what her
public relations people call "embelish a good story" about the numbers
of schools she has built or the numbers of people she fed every day.
But just let me leave you on this note:
If the motivation behind this Mother Theresa expose is as righteous,
and not fanned by hatred, as you would have me believe,
I don't "hate" Mother Theresa. She's dead, what would be the point?
What I dislike (hate is too strong a word) is the willful ignorance of
the people (and I wouldn't presume to count you among them) who would
hold her up as the standard upon whom goodness and charity should be
modeled. It's sickening.
then I am justified in having every expectation to expect to read similar
exposes should those who espouse the non-religious cause (of which I
am one) happen to plunder the public coffers.
This statement has me confused. Are you saying you hope those who
*aren't* religious - but steal from the public - are exposed as well?
If they get as much publicity as Mother Theresa did, I'm absolutely
with you. Taking advantage is taking advantage, whether done in the
name of religion or not.
Or, on the other hand, if one who espouses the religious cause does a
genuinely wonderful work for humanity, I would expect to hear their
praises sung in the interests of "balancing the scales", as you say.
Absolutely. Point him or her out to me and I'll sing the "Halleluja
Chorus" in their honor. However, it might just be my cynicism rearing
its ugly head but I have yet to see any large-scale charitable
endeavor (either religious or secular) that didn't *first* take care
of itself in a lavish manner and *then* distribute what was left.
Now, that's large-scale, as Mother Theresa's was, I'm talking about.
Charity on the small, personal level goes on all the time in cities
and neighborhoods all over the world. You just don't hear about them
because the people doing the good works don't want or need to be
acknowledged in any way. I am naturally suspicious of charity which
seeks to aggrandize some figurehead (as Mother Theresa did) in the
name of goodness and humble service which isn't really humble at all.
I suspect ulterior motives and I'm usually right.
But, like I said, I can be rather cynical so that might color my
impressions.
elizabeth
Yes, you understood me correctly - everyone who rips off the poor
should be exposed. I dislike it when people have "pet" targets, that's
what I was trying to say. (Not that you do). And yes, give praise
where it is due.
We now have a much better understanding of one another. Nice talking
to you elizabeth. (CB)
.
|
|
|
| User: "AuntieLib" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
26 Sep 2003 03:48:32 PM |
|
|
Chain Breaker wrote:
<snip>
Yes, you understood me correctly - everyone who rips off the poor
should be exposed. I dislike it when people have "pet" targets, that's
what I was trying to say. (Not that you do). And yes, give praise
where it is due.
We now have a much better understanding of one another. Nice talking
to you elizabeth. (CB)
You're welcome. And ditto.
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion
is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."
Mark Twain
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
01 Oct 2003 02:12:42 AM |
|
|
Teresa
Who knows?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shuggy" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
25 Sep 2003 07:24:04 PM |
|
|
It seems clear to me that Mother Theresa "Enterprises" was a cash cow
for the Catholic church. Where else would the money go? The article
points out that some of the money went to the Catholic church, so why
not all of it?
The Catholic church has been corrupt over the ages. Historically, it
murdered hundreds of thousands of human beings . The child-molesting
priests of today are just a minor incident compared to the horrors the
Catholic church has performed in history.
If the Catholic church can murder hundreds of thousands of people and
molest hundreds of young boys, using donations for other than what
they are intended is child's play for that corrupt religious
organization.
So what did the Catholic church do with the money? -- That's the real
question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
26 Sep 2003 11:28:10 AM |
|
|
(Shuggy) wrote in message news:<cb98d700.0309251624.66a61f3@posting.google.com>...
It seems clear to me that Mother Theresa "Enterprises" was a cash cow
for the Catholic church. Where else would the money go? The article
points out that some of the money went to the Catholic church, so why
not all of it?
The Catholic church has been corrupt over the ages. Historically, it
murdered hundreds of thousands of human beings . The child-molesting
priests of today are just a minor incident compared to the horrors the
Catholic church has performed in history.
If the Catholic church can murder hundreds of thousands of people and
molest hundreds of young boys, using donations for other than what
they are intended is child's play for that corrupt religious
organization.
So what did the Catholic church do with the money? -- That's the real
question.
No, the real question is what makes you think it's any of your
god-damned business. If you Bolsheviks could find a way to grab every
dime the Catholic church has (and God knows how you're working on it),
you'd ***** it away in ten seconds with payoffs to the teacher's
unions, the DNC, the Black Caucus and new ships to bring in the rest
of the Third World. When that ran out, you'd sell off their priceless
art works, melt down the gold and silver, and hold a giant three-month
Gay Mardi Gras.
As for the Catholic church murdering anyone, your crowd has over 40
million, and counting, infants on its conscience in this country
alone, and over 100 million killed last century in two wars brought
about by socialistic thinking.
And I would also remind you that it was homosexual men in the Catholic
church who "molested" those boys. About the only time you leftist
frauds register concern about "pedophilia," let alone any other kind
of perverse sex, is when homosexual priests go after young boys.
Pedophiles, my *****! They are all flaming homosexuals who went where
the action was - the seminaries. Except for this, the sky's the limit
with your crowd. Cordially, Marie
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
26 Sep 2003 11:39:05 AM |
|
|
"Marie A." <LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1dc521ed.0309260828.15932759@posting.google.com...
jilwil@prodigy.net (Shuggy) wrote in message
news:<cb98d700.0309251624.66a61f3@posting.google.com>...
It seems clear to me that Mother Theresa "Enterprises" was a cash cow
for the Catholic church. Where else would the money go? The article
points out that some of the money went to the Catholic church, so why
not all of it?
The Catholic church has been corrupt over the ages. Historically, it
murdered hundreds of thousands of human beings . The child-molesting
priests of today are just a minor incident compared to the horrors the
Catholic church has performed in history.
If the Catholic church can murder hundreds of thousands of people and
molest hundreds of young boys, using donations for other than what
they are intended is child's play for that corrupt religious
organization.
So what did the Catholic church do with the money? -- That's the real
question.
No, the real question is what makes you think it's any of your
god-damned business. If you Bolsheviks could find a way to grab every
dime the Catholic church has (and God knows how you're working on it),
you'd ***** it away in ten seconds with payoffs to the teacher's
unions, the DNC, the Black Caucus and new ships to bring in the rest
of the Third World. When that ran out, you'd sell off their priceless
art works, melt down the gold and silver, and hold a giant three-month
Gay Mardi Gras.
As for the Catholic church murdering anyone, your crowd has over 40
million, and counting, infants on its conscience in this country
alone, and over 100 million killed last century in two wars brought
about by socialistic thinking.
And I would also remind you that it was homosexual men in the Catholic
church who "molested" those boys. About the only time you leftist
frauds register concern about "pedophilia," let alone any other kind
of perverse sex, is when homosexual priests go after young boys.
Pedophiles, my *****! They are all flaming homosexuals who went where
the action was - the seminaries. Except for this, the sky's the limit
with your crowd. Cordially, Marie
Marie, you need to set up your own NG, where you can do this all the time
and not be challenged. Call it alt.insanity.marie.
I have the distinct feeling though that you are not really crazy, and the
psychotic views you express are not your own. I have seen trolls do this
before, as an attention grabbing device.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
26 Sep 2003 11:44:54 AM |
|
|
Marie said:
And I would also remind you that it was homosexual men in the Catholic
church who "molested" those boys.
Are you suggesting that no heterosexual priests ever molested?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
27 Sep 2003 05:32:24 PM |
|
|
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1030926114421.30801E-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...
Marie said:
And I would also remind you that it was homosexual men in the Catholic
church who "molested" those boys.
Are you suggesting that no heterosexual priests ever molested?
Carol, the overwhelming majority of youngsters molested by these
homosexual priests were boys. You can count on your hand the girls
molested by these priests recently in the news. That does not fit the
pattern of pedophiles. When we make judgements about things, we don't
take the rare exception to the pattern and generalize from that. We
look at the overall pattern. If one proceeded on the assumption that
we could never make a judgement about anything owing to exceptions
here and there, then we'd never drive our car again or swim in the
ocean. We put things through our "sifter." The remaining chaff at the
bottom of the sifter doesn't affect what's goes into the mixing bowl.
Cordially, Marie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
28 Sep 2003 02:11:33 PM |
|
|
(Marie A.) wrote in message news:<1dc521ed.0309271432.738ef040@posting.google.com>...
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1030926114421.30801E-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...
Marie said:
And I would also remind you that it was homosexual men in the Catholic
church who "molested" those boys.
Are you suggesting that no heterosexual priests ever molested?
Carol, the overwhelming majority of youngsters molested by these
homosexual priests were boys. You can count on your hand the girls
molested by these priests recently in the news. That does not fit the
pattern of pedophiles. When we make judgements about things, we don't
take the rare exception to the pattern and generalize from that. We
look at the overall pattern. If one proceeded on the assumption that
we could never make a judgement about anything owing to exceptions
here and there, then we'd never drive our car again or swim in the
ocean. We put things through our "sifter." The remaining chaff at the
bottom of the sifter doesn't affect what's goes into the mixing bowl.
Cordially, Marie
You're correct here, Marie. The Catholic Church, for some reason,
attracts a disproportionate number of gay pedophiles. The religious
authority child molesters who prefer little girls tend to be
Portestant, especially fundamentalist, and most especially fringe
cults that have not quite "caught on" with the mainstream. Folks like
David Koresh, or that Morman heretic who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart. Of
course, none of these people could be characterized as "liberal".
I'm surprised you think that liberals are somehow automatically
licentious and secular (although I am :). Jimmy Carter seems to be
quite a decent fellow despite his being a Southern Baptist.
--- Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "webgiant" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions? |
27 Sep 2003 09:32:54 PM |
|
|
On 27 Sep 2003 15:32:24 -0700,
Marie A. <LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com> wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
Marie said:
And I would also remind you that it
was homosexual men in the Catholic
church who "molested" those boys.
Are you suggesting that no heterosexual
priests ever molested?
Carol, the overwhelming majority of youngsters
molested by these homosexual priests were boys.
Are you suggesting that only homosexuals
molest boys?
Heterosexuals can and do molest boys.
Heck, heterosexuals can and do molest *men*.
You're forgetting that child molestors molest
children, not necessarily the gender they prefer
in *adults*.
As studies of all-male prison populations bear
out, when you suppress sexuality, the chances
of sexual deviancy from one's own sexual
orientation increase.
Suppress a heterosexual man's sexuality and
then drop him into an all-male population, and
he has a higher chance of developing homosexual
*behaviors* while remaining *heterosexual* in
his sexual orientation.
Now, the Catholic Priesthood. Everyone takes a
*vow of celibacy*. In essence, they are forced
into a situation where their sexuality has been
artificially suppressed.
Fortunately, 90% of the Catholic priesthood
deals with the issue of celibacy in socially-
acceptable ways. Most manage to remain celibate.
A number of those who do not remain celibate
engage in masturbation, or have private sexual
affairs with consenting adults or prostitutes
(in Catholicism, masturbation is still a
violation of a vow of celibacy).
But there is the remaining 10% or so of the
priesthood, perhaps even less than that (if you
believe Ann Coulter, which I generally dont,
only 0.12% of the some 45,000 priests in the
Catholic Church), in whom their repressed
sexuality takes an anti-social form, and they
use their positions of power over the children
in their care to express their repressed
sexuality.
They remain heterosexual, but they express their
sexuality in the only population they feel they
can have sex with in secret. They develop
deviant sexual behaviors, deviant not only in the
sense that child molestation is deviant, but also
in the sense that it deviates from their primary
heterosexual orientation.
Unfortunately for boys (but fortunately for girls),
the Catholic Church has, until very recently,
denied girls the ability to serve as Altar Servers
during the Catholic Mass. This meant that the
population of children over which the priest felt
he had control enough to keep secret his violations
of his vow of celibacy, was predominantly male and
frequently male-only.
So like the heterosexual man in prison, the
priest expressed his sexuality in a manner
deviant from his heterosexual norms, because
the priest felt that the only population
available for him to express sexuality
secretly, was the population of young boys
performing Altar Service. Thus within the
context of the Catholic Church, a young boy's
child molestor was more likely to be a man
than a woman, in inverse ratio to the most
likely predator of young boys in the general
population, or older women.
Conversely, girls were less likely to be
molested *in general* than they were in the
general population, because the Catholic
Church did not provide as many opportunities
for girls to be alone with the priesthood.
Thanks to an attitude of "women are
second-class Catholics", though, sexual abuse
of girls was less likely to be exposed, even
through accusations by the girl herself, so
the percentage of girls abused by the Catholic
priests who chose to abuse children remained
high (instead of the girls being abused by
Catholic priests in the same percentage as
boys being abused in the general population,
or 10%-20%).
Interestingly enough, most homosexual men report
having one or more sexual encounters with *women*
during their high school and early college years.
Like the heterosexual man dropped into the all-male
prison, or the priest taking a vow of celibacy,
the homosexual man is stuck in a society with
plenty of artificial suppressants of the homosexual
man's sexuality. Like the heterosexual man in
prison only having other men to satisfy his sexual
urges, the homosexual man in regular society may
only have women to satisfy his sexual urges. Thus
the heterosexual man satisfies his sexual urges
through deviant behavior with other men, and the
homosexual man satisfies his sexual urges through
deviant behavior with women: both are deviant in
that they deviate from their own personal sexual
orientations, without making any kind of actual
change into homosexuality or heterosexuality.
You can count on your hand the girls molested
by these priests recently in the news. That
does not fit the pattern of pedophiles.
Pedophiles molest *children*. While frequently
any given pedophile only molests a particular
gender, that does not mean that "the pattern of
pedophiles" indicates a primarily male gender
on the children who are molested.
"Children are most often sexually victimized
by someone they know...the perpetrator is a
parent, step-parent, family member, family
friend, or other acquaintance. People known
to the victim were offenders in 93% of sexual
assaults of juveniles reported to the police
from 1991 to 1996. A person known to the
victim was the perpetrator in 97% of cases
where the victim was under age six, 95% of
cases where the victim was age 6 to 11 and
in_ 90% of cases where the victim was age 12
to 17." (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
"Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported
to Law Enforcement, " 2000)
Heterosexuals are the dominant sexual
orientation in pedophilia, regardless of
whether the pedophiles or victims are male
or female. By the "pattern of pedophiles",
heterosexuals, not homosexuals, are more
likely to be pedophiles.
And an interesting point I read on one webpage
was that:
===============================================
http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex8.htm
===============================================
"It is worth noting that if the age of consent
for homosexual activity were lowered to the
age of 16, as it is in many jurisdictions,
then most of the criminal acts by abusive
priests would disappear. Most charges by
the police against abusive priests would
disappear."
===============================================
It would appear that the vast majority of cases
of a priest allegedly "molesting" a male child
are in fact the result of the priest violating
local "age of consent" laws, and that the
person having sex with the priest is in many
cases *consenting to sex*, but is prevented from
*legally consenting* thanks to the local "age of
consent" laws.
After all, a situation in which one has unwilling
sex does not suddenly turn into a non-crime just
because you are of the age of consent. Unwilling
sex is still rape even if you could have legally
consented to the sex.
Incidentally, people who sexually abuse children
between the ages of 13-17 are called "hebephiles",
not pedophiles, making even the *majority* of the
Catholic priests who molest children
*not pedophiles*.
Also, it is worth pointing out that one can be a
pedophile or hebephile and not be a child molestor.
The vast majority of pedophiles and hebephiles
do not act on their inclinations and do not molest
children. It becomes more of a gray area when
these individuals partake in child pornography
(which frequently requires child molestation
to create the child pornography), but the vast
majority do not themselves molest children.
When we make judgements about things, we
don't take the rare exception to the pattern
and generalize from that. We look at the
overall pattern.
Take your own advice then. Girls being molested
make the news only when their parents push the
story into the news. Most parents of girls who
are molested fall into the male-dominated
mentality of the Catholic Church: women and girls
are second-class Catholics and not to be entirely
trusted. The problem of girl molestation by the
Catholic Priesthood is a much bigger problem than
you seem to think, and you're basing your
assumptions about molestation patterns within the
Catholic Priesthood on the few girls who've
managed to break the Catholic coverup of girl
child molestation by Catholic priests.
From a statistic found in the cited source below,
which I have not read but instead found through
another source online at:
http://www.rentapriest.com/new_information_on_mandatory_cel.htm,
10%-20% of children who are victims of child
molestation are male, making 80% to 90% of
the victims of child molestation GIRLS.
================================================
Finkelhor, David. 1994. Current Information on
the Scope and Nature of Child Sexual Abuse.
Vol. 4. The Future of Children. Sexual Abuse of
Children. 2:31-53.
================================================
The "pattern of the pedophile" indicates a
greater likelihood that the victim will be
*female*, not male. The most common form of
child molestation is of men molesting girls.
Incidentally, according to the National
Opinion Research Center's 1994 digest, the
second most common form of child molestation
is of an older woman molesting a boy. Only
when you get to the third category do you see
men molesting boys.
Clearly, heterosexuals account for the vast
majority of all cases of child molestation,
girls are more likely to be molested than
boys, and boys are more likely to be molested
by a WOMAN than by a man.
From the website listed, the percentage of
genders of children molested by the Catholic
priests (who have been caught) is 63.6% male,
36.4% female. Since this deviates sharply
from the national pattern of pedophiles, it
indicates some factor is influencing the
choice of victim. The *most likely factor*
is that Catholic Churches did not, until
recently, allow girls to be Altar Servers.
The fact that 36.4% of the priests' victims
were GIRLS indicates the problem is far worse
than your unsupported assumption of "only a
few girls" being molested by those Catholic
priests who have molested children.
While there are no definitive figures on the
total number of abused child victims of
priest child molestation, the noted Catholic
writer Andrew Greeley stated in a Jesuit
magazine that:
======================================================
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/fear/08.php
======================================================
"...in a Jesuit magazine Greeley declared that the
number of pedophile priests is far more than just a
"few". There he estimated that 2,000 to 4,000 Roman
Catholic clergy-between 4 and 8 percent of the
total-had abused more than 100,000 young people."
"These shocking statistics, dutifully publicized in
the press, were unreliable to say the least. Greeley
extrapolated the number of pedophile priests based
on rough estimates from the Catholic Archdiocese of
Chicago, which based them on their own internal study,
which may or may not have been accurate, and in any
event, might not have generalized to clergy nationwide."
"As for the figure of 100,000 victims, Greeley came
up with this estimate on the basis of studies of
child molesters outside the priesthood that suggest
that active pedophiles victimize dozens if not
hundreds of children each. Yet these studies are
themselves controversial because they rely on
self-reports from men who were apprehended by the
police-men who might molest more children than other
pedophiles or exaggerate their exploits.
Greeley's critics suggest he exaggerated the number
of pedophiles and victims by something like a factor
of ten.
======================================================
To arrive at a fairly reasonable figure of victims
of Catholic priest child molestation, lets start
with a reasonable figure of 1,100 molesting priests.
There may have been more, there may have been less,
but one author did identify 1,100 priests who did
definitively abuse children.
Citation:
=================================================
http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex8.htm
=================================================
Sylvia M. Demarest, a lawyer from Texas has been
tracking accusations against priests since the
the mid-1990s. By 1996, she had identified 1,100
priests who had been accused of molesting
children. She predicts that when she updates the
list, the total will exceed 1,500 names. ... It
is important to realize that these are accused
priests; the allegations have not been evaluated
in a trial. Also, there is no way to judge what
proportion of abusive priests are on her list. It
may include 40% or fewer; she may have found 90%
or more.
=================================================
Now, the next figure is the number of victims
per child molestor. There are several opinions
on the number of victims per abuser.
=================================================
http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex8.htm
=================================================
How many young people are molested by the average
abusive priest?
Again, nobody knows for certain.
Priests have freer access to many children than
does the average male. His position of authority
and trust can facilitate abuse. Thus the number
of abused young people per abusive priest may
well be larger than for the average molester.
William Reid has written that "careful studies
have indicated...that child molesters commit an
average of sixty offenses for every incident that
comes to public attention." [7]
But Thomas Fox estimates that the "average
pedophile priest abuses 285 victims." [8]
=================================================
[7] William H. Reid, The Psychiatric Times,
1988-APR-24. Quoted in: A. W. Richard Sipe,
"Sex, Priests and Power: Anatomy of a Crisis,"
Brunner/Mazel, (1995).
[8] Thomas C. Fox, "Sex and power issues expand
clergy-lay rift," National Catholic Reporter,
19 | | | | | | |
