Who is richer PayPal the bank or the Vatican?

Did you know: Mother Teresa raised money that was used to help hide pedophile priests, the majority of it actually. The 50 million she raised went to the bank of the Vatican. The Vatican used the money to hide preists and settle lawsuits.

• Answer:

  1) Do you have some sources for your statement? There have been some critics about the activity of Mother Teresa. I could understand that some of the money collected by the organization of Mother Teresa went to the bank of the Vatican, for various reasons. If the extra money was used to hide "pedophile priests", this would have rather been a decision of the Vatican, then. As far as I know, there is also some disinformation putting "pedophile priests" together with "homosexual priests". 2) "Christopher Hitchens was the only witness called by the Vatican to give evidence against Mother Teresa's beatification and canonization process, as the Vatican had abolished the traditional "devil's advocate" role, which fulfilled a similar purpose. Hitchens has argued that "her intention was not to help people", and he alleged that she lied to donors about the use of their contributions. “It was by talking to her that I discovered, and she assured me, that she wasn't working to alleviate poverty,” says Hitchens. “She was working to expand the number of Catholics. She said, ‘I'm not a social worker. I don't do it for this reason. I do it for Christ. I do it for the church.’" " "Due to the attacks she has received, some Catholic writers have called her a sign of contradiction." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Miracle_and_beatification 3) "During the deliberations over the Second Vatican Council, under the stewardship of Pope John XXIII, MT was to the fore in opposing all suggestions of reform. What was needed, she maintained, was more work and more faith, not doctrinal revision. Her position was ultra-reactionary and fundamentalist even in orthodox Catholic terms. Believers are indeed enjoined to abhor and eschew abortion, but they are not required to affirm that abortion is "the greatest destroyer of peace," as MT fantastically asserted to a dumbfounded audience when receiving the Nobel Peace Prize*. Believers are likewise enjoined to abhor and eschew divorce, but they are not required to insist that a ban on divorce and remarriage be a part of the state constitution, as MT demanded in a referendum in Ireland (which her side narrowly lost) in 1996. Later in that same year, she told Ladies Home Journal that she was pleased by the divorce of her friend Princess Diana, because the marriage had so obviously been an unhappy one … This returns us to the medieval corruption of the church, which sold indulgences to the rich while preaching hellfire and continence to the poor. MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?" Source and further information: http://slate.msn.com/id/2090083/ 4) "Nonetheless, A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States has generated a fog of figures, which cannot obscure the extent of this massive failure of institutional religion. It is indeed a crisis. Though this is a step forward, it is not the solution by any means, but a half-hearted admission that there is a problem. Here are a few of the highlights. US clerics accused of abuse from 1950-2002: 4,392. About 4% of the 109,694 serving during those 52 years. Individuals making accusations: 10,667. Victims' ages: 5.8% under 7; 16% ages 8-10; 50.9% ages 11-14; 27.3% ages 15-17. Victims' gender: 81% male, 19% female Duration of abuse: Among victims, 38.4% said all incidents occurred within one year; 21.8% said one to two years; 28%, two to four years; 11.8% longer. Victims per priest: 55.7% with one victim; 26.9% with two or three; 13.9% with four to nine; 3.5% with 10 or more (these 149 priests caused 27% of allegations). Abuse locations: 40.9% at priest's residence; 16.3% in church; 42.8% elsewhere. Known cost to dioceses and religious orders: $572,507,094 (does not include the $85 million Boston settlement and other expenses after research was concluded). (Hartford Courant, 2/27/04) It should be noted that 30% of all accusations were not investigated as they were deemed unsubstantiated or because the accused priest is dead." Source and further information: http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/stats.html