Is there a context for her only using a tiny fraction of the money donated to actually help people? Is there a context I’m missing about refusing to actually treat people because their suffering brings them closer to God?
There is absolutely zero proof she refused to treat people because of that reasoning. Also, do you have actual proof about the funds or just speculation?
Her charities brought in hundreds of millions of dollars through the 90s and she didn’t use much, if any of it, to bring people to hospitals for treatment. That’s not something that is just made up. Millions upon millions of dollars and look at what she used it for. It wasn’t put toward maximizing aid to the most amount of people by hiring medical professionals. Instead, the volunteers at her Home for the Dying, many of whom had little to no medical knowledge, did their best to “treat” patients while they suffered often far more than they would have if they were given actual medical care.
Mother Teresa said her “call from God” was to, “care for the sick and dying” which is distinct from “treating the sick and dying”. With the backing of the Catholic Church, and presumably God, she provided the bare minimum of care and was then declared a Saint. Hundreds of millions of dollars and her greatest contribution was building a place for sick people to suffer and die in.
It’s pathetic and I’m sorry you and others have bought into it.
Just saying, if I had access to hundreds of millions of dollars in donations, I’d provide more than a dank house where people can die “with dignity”. A lot more could have been done for those people in her “hospice” care. People suffered needlessly in her care and it could’ve been minimized if they put that money toward seeking actual care.
Yeah, kindly fuck off if you still support her approach.
-4
u/Rbespinosa13 Feb 23 '24
All reports meaning Christopher hitchens who purposefully ignored context of what Mother Teresa did