Let me add this question, please, because I think it will clarify our positions on the principles involved.
It's a hypothetical.
If, if, Mother Teresa or any other public, funds-collecting, individual of influence did these things, espoused and lobbied for these values, IF, would you agree that that person was not "doing good"?
This is an "if" question. Not one about what Mother Teresa's goals and practices were. It's about what you would think of anyone at all whose goals and practices and values were reflected in this description:
~opposed giving pain killers to those dying in agony
~never built a single modern, clean hospital with the unaudited millions she collected for such purposes but only ran some primitive, ill-equipped so-called clinics
~with the funds collected for the poor, founded over 500 nunneries in 150 countries
~didn't bother with sterilization in her "hospitals," feeling needles washed with cold water were good enough for the poor
~yet got top of the line, state of the art, medical care for herself, when she was ill
~relied on contributions of food for the hungry patients in her clinics instead of breaking into her bank accounts to buy it
~opposed divorce in all cases except... Princess Diana's, of which she expressed her approval
~sucked up to the the Duvalier family
~laid a wreath at the tomb of Enver Hoxa
~accepted large sums of (stolen) money from the crook Charles Keating and sent a letter in support of him to the judge in his case, and simply didn't reply when the asst DA asked her in writing to return the stolen money to those from whom it had been stolen
~expressly believed that God liked people to suffer as much as possible, the more the better
~and, consistently with her attitude toward human suffering, opposed birth control in all cases in a nation in which an estimated 400 million people live in brutal poverty, and there are an estimated 73 million undernourished children |
