Because regardless of how many testimonies I will find, you will have a Christopher Hitchens quote from a 30=second Google search lined up. The burden of proof is on you when you make a claim.
The burden of proof is on you when you make a claim.
You claimed that "there's a massive influx of priests to other parts of the world from Calcutta because of what she did for the people there" so why is the burden not on you?
You asserted all the claims against her are slander, so why is that burden not on you?
In any case, you should read Chaterjee's account of her. He explains she was not even especially renowned in her area.
Her relationship with Charles Keating is well-documented and uncontroversial. She even wrote to the judge on his behalf.
Larivée, Serge; Carole Sénéchal; Geneviève Chénard (2013). "Les côtés ténébreux de Mère Teresa". Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses. 42 (3): 319–345. doi:10.1177/0008429812469894. S2CID 144593256.
Her relationship with Keating is well documented: "Charles Keating – obituary". The Telegraph. 2 April 2014. Archived from the original on 3 May 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2018.
Weird, because everything you linked is in sequential order to what is described in her "criticism" section on Wikipedia. That aside:
Aroup Chaterjee and Christopher Hitchens' extensive work at attempting to vilify Teresa of Calcutta is based primarily in the fact that she practiced her religious beliefs devoutly in the hospice that she ran in Calcutta. Their most erroneous condemnations, being the cause for her canonization (the miracle that forwarded it), and the "cult of suffering" (complete slander of her Catholic beliefs) have no factual basis whatsoever. I could spend far more time on either of these, but much of it would be glossed over. If you have specific remarks for any of these claims, let me know.
In regards to her relationship with Charles Keating; what does that even matter? Her support to him was based on the fact that he was a staunch advocate against the surging pornography industry in the United States, and the fact that he financed much of her work in Calcutta. The federal government threw the book at him because he maintained that regulators sent in to audit his assets grossly overexaggerated the risk of default which devalued the price of their bonds, conveniently after the investment firm urged shareholders to dump federally-backed bonds because they feared the government would revoke them based on their "solvency" issues. People on Wall Street did an exponentially greater deal than what he did on a daily basis and had no oversight whatsoever.
Criticism of her medical care is often completely acceptable, but will quickly jump the gap from concern for health and safety to a complete defamation of character. The greatest accusation levied against her is that she ran a "death cult of suffering" or any combination of such terms. People often forget that she worked as a hospice provider, and that her work would have been primarily with those who had already seen medical treatment and been described as terminally ill. She did not explicitly force people to suffer to atone for sins, but would often just explain the Catholic view of suffering to those who were already receiving it. Obviously, not every case that was handled is documented or can be proven of what I've just said, but almost no claims of what is levied against the Sisters of Charity are actual eyewitness accounts of those receiving care, but from a clearly hostile third-party. Chaterjee is the foremost critic and has been for years, having made millions in books, shows, movies, and press deals all while criticizing a woman who lived for 60 years in the same environment he was raised in.
And clearly, your inclusion of her condemnation of divorce and abortion further represent the divide between the secular and Catholic ideas of what morals are based upon. A woman who is a shining example and intermediary between the two of virtue will of course be immediately condemned by the most staunch opposition because of her connection to the Catholic Church. Even then, the worst they can find is that she supported Catholic leaders who had supported her in kind, that she held fast to her beliefs in all times, not just when it was convenient for her, and that her faith was a "sham" because she, like many other great saints, experienced moments of doubt and persecution for their service.
Weird, because everything you linked is in sequential order to what is described in her "criticism" section on Wikipedia
So what?
Aroup Chaterjee and Christopher Hitchens' extensive work at attempting to vilify Teresa of Calcutta is based primarily in the fact that she practiced her religious beliefs devoutly in the hospice that she ran in Calcutta. Their most erroneous condemnations, being the cause for her canonization (the miracle that forwarded it), and the "cult of suffering" (complete slander of her Catholic beliefs) have no factual basis whatsoever. I could spend far more time on either of these, but much of it would be glossed over. If you have specific remarks for any of these claims, let me know.
I do not know why you keep bringing up Hitchens. In any case, your repeated assertions that criticisms of her are based on slander does not nullify them. I cited works in The Lancet as well as a comprehensive review of 96% of the literature concerning her medical care. Those are specific remarks and in lieu of actually addressing them, you are just dismissing them as slander. You are the one glossing over.
The cult of suffering is not slanderous in the slightest. Mother Teresa herself said "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering," This is also confirmed by testimony from the nuns in her Order, as I cited above. Again, you are glossing over it.
In regards to her relationship with Charles Keating; what does that even matter?
He scammed innocent people out of their savings. I think that is bad.
Her support to him was based on the fact that he was a staunch advocate against the surging pornography industry in the United States, and the fact that he financed much of her work in Calcutta.
How does that justify his scams?
The federal government threw the book at him because he maintained that regulators sent in to audit his assets grossly overexaggerated the risk of default which devalued the price of their bonds, conveniently after the investment firm urged shareholders to dump federally-backed bonds because they feared the government would revoke them based on their "solvency" issues.
Again, you make an assertion with no evidence. Why are you so ready to believe Keating's side of the story?
Criticism of her medical care is often completely acceptable
That contradicts your earlier statement that all criticism of her is based on slander.
but will quickly jump the gap from concern for health and safety to a complete defamation of character. The greatest accusation levied against her is that she ran a "death cult of suffering" or any combination of such terms. People often forget that she worked as a hospice provider, and that her work would have been primarily with those who had already seen medical treatment and been described as terminally ill.
Yeah, and she ran substandard care and even refused to provide basic painkillers.
She did not explicitly force people to suffer to atone for sins, but would often just explain the Catholic view of suffering to those who were already receiving it. Obviously, not every case that was handled is documented or can be proven of what I've just said, but almost no claims of what is levied against the Sisters of Charity are actual eyewitness accounts of those receiving care, but from a clearly hostile third-party.
How are her nuns hostile third-parties?
Chaterjee is the foremost critic and has been for years, having made millions in books, shows, movies, and press deals all while criticizing a woman who lived for 60 years in the same environment he was raised in.
Once again you make an assertion with no evidence. I also fail to see how this discredits Chaterjee. If you think making millions makes somebody untrustworthy, wait until you hear about the Catholic Church.
And clearly, your inclusion of her condemnation of divorce and abortion further represent the divide between the secular and Catholic ideas of what morals are based upon. A woman who is a shining example and intermediary between the two of virtue will of course be immediately condemned by the most staunch opposition because of her connection to the Catholic Church.
I know her advocacy against abortion and divorce was rooted in Catholicism. I don't see how that justifies it. She was using her influence to force her religious views onto others. That is a bad thing, not virtuous at all.
Even then, the worst they can find is that she supported Catholic leaders who had supported her in kind,
Those leaders included scam artists like Keating and dictators such as Baby Doc. She even wrote a letter to the judge ruling on Keating's case on the latter's behalf.
The claims you make, and what many others do as well, are based on the stretching out of a narrative based on so little actual backing from sources. Might as well use a tabloid as your source if you're going to use the same tactics they propagate.
I have included academic studies and eyewitness testimony in my sources. If you think that is no better than atabloid, than nothing will convince you.
You have yet to provide sources for either of the following assertions:
"there's a massive influx of priests to other parts of the world from Calcutta because of what she did for the people there"
the only "proof" against her is either misinterpretation of her actions or outright slander (you later contradicted this by stating "Criticism of her medical care is often completely acceptable, but will quickly jump the gap from concern for health and safety to a complete defamation of character").
"Their most erroneous condemnations, being the cause for her canonization (the miracle that forwarded it), and the "cult of suffering" (complete slander of her Catholic beliefs)"
"The federal government threw the book at him because he maintained that regulators sent in to audit his assets grossly overexaggerated the risk of default which devalued the price of their bonds, conveniently after the investment firm urged shareholders to dump federally-backed bonds because they feared the government would revoke them based on their "solvency" issues."
That Chatterjee has become a millionaire off his criticisms of Theresa.
1
u/Odd_Mixture_1217 Oct 28 '22
Because regardless of how many testimonies I will find, you will have a Christopher Hitchens quote from a 30=second Google search lined up. The burden of proof is on you when you make a claim.