Responses to criticisms of Mother Teresa

[CatholicTrekkie]

Hello everyone,

Sorry if this doesn’t go here. Please move it if it doesn’t. I was talking with an outspoken anti-religious atheist and he questioned me about Mother Teresa of Calcutta. He specifically asked about many of the criticisms of her as leveled by a former missionary of charity and Christopher Hitchens. One thing they brought up was mother teresa’s supposed misshandling of funds (I’m sure you’ve heard of them and if not I can provide them when I get to a proper computer.)

How do I answer such charges brought against such a saintly woman? My main counter arguments were that the original claims were unsubstantiated because of bias or some other reason. Is this the roght way to go? Or were the acusations true beyond a doubt and I own up to them but argue mother teresa was a holy woman nonetheless? I want to defend mother teresa’s honor, even if just by planting seeds with this person (i realized after talking to them previously that they are very dismissive of any arguments i bring to the defense of the faith) Any help is appreciated. Thank you.

 

[Auntie_A]

I don’t know about the funds. I doubt she bought a yacht or a cadillac or went to spas in Switzerland.

But I do know that the thought of Mother Teresa brings up such turbulence in the media and with my atheist acquaintances. Why does she make them feel so uneasy? A nun who helps the poor and sick and dying? How annoying and controversial is that? “Ooooooooooh, she gets me so mad. She sits there praying, feeding, and loving the poor! That makes me so mad!!!” What really is behind their protests?

I have sadly watched the nuns get ridiculed in San Francisco, yet the Sisters who belong to Mother Teresa’s order quietly, humbly, and lovingly do their work with AIDS patients.

In the book “The Rite”, a true story by the way, I remember a section where the exorcist states that the demon gets very weakened by Mother Teresa, as well as Padre Pio, and, of course, Jesus and Our Lady.

 

[InJesusItrust]

16“To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:

17“‘We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not mourn.’

18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.”’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”

When a holy person shames the unholy by their righteousness, the unholy look for flaws in the holy–to justify themselves and say that holiness is impossible, and therefore God, if He is just, will ignore their offenses. If holiness is possible they will have no choice but to accept that they are sinners and change their lives.

Touch their hearts with the truth, not their minds. This argument isn’t about just Mother Theresa but something deeper. Mother Theresa and any saint is a threat to unbelief because through their holiness they contradict the world. If they are aware of why they are motivated to refute the holiness of saints, they can become aware of the hardness of their hearts.

 

[rfournier103]

Criticisms? Really? I have never heard of such a thing. IF there were misappropriations, they would have to be the result of bad book keeping or some other accident. After all, she DID have a lot on her plate.

As to the OP’s friend, I would ask what has he ever done for the benefit of his fellow man? Perhaps he should take a look at his own life before he criticises someone like Mother Teresa.

 

[Graubo3]

I was talking with an outspoken anti-religious atheist and he questioned me about Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

You may have better luck reasoning with a drunk or an insane person. Is it really worth your bother?

How do I answer such charges brought against such a saintly woman?

If you feel the need to argue, the burden of proof is on those that make the charges. The Advocatus Diaboli of the Church against the Blessed’s cause possibly has made claims and arguments similar to your ‘outspoken anti-religious atheist’ friend.

 

[bitznbitez]

Pray for him.

Ask him how many dying people he has tended today ?

 

[ChurchSoldier]

“You presumably bring this up because you believe if she did this it was wrong. Tell me, where does the concept of right / wrong come from?”

Which of course leads to the C.S. Lewis apologetic on where we received right / wrong (from God).

 

[manualman]

Hitchens & Co despised Mother Theresa for two reasons:

1. They fundamentally misunderstood her purpose and mission.
2. They are angry at God.

Angry atheists are sometimes willing to cede credit to religious people, but only on their own terms. Many of these guys perceived the media credit given to MT’s order and falsely concluded that the accolades given to her were specifically because they provided top notch health care for the poor. This is incorrect. MT’s mission was NOT to provide health care for the poor, but to love God and specifically to love Christ in the poor, sick and dying. This manifested itself most obviously in their care for the sick and dying, but is a crucial distinction that Hitchens et al refused to see.

Because of this fundamental misunderstanding, Hitchens was enraged when he found out that many of the sisters cared for the sick without any medical training. He was incensed that the sisters would spend hours daily in communal prayer even if it meant that needy people were left unattended. He finds it scandalous that MT would build her sisters lavishly endowed chapels while dying people under their care lacked the latest pain relievers. Hitchens was innately incapable of understanding the fact that putting their faith and devotion FIRST was what allows these sisters to devote their lives to service in the first place. He compared MT to hagiographical accounts of how saints are supposed to be and found her wanting. In other words, instead of comparing her to himself and me and you, he compared her to movie saints and was unimpressed.

If you swallow his presumption that MT’s congregation should be compared to NGO’s, some of his criticisms have merit. An NGO aid group must operate facilities to certain medical standards, must not spend money on religious services and buildings, must answer to its sponsors and demonstrate how the pledged money was used. MT didn’t work that way. If people gave her order money, she accepted it and thanked them, then waited for God to show her where it needed to be spent. She didn’t care if the giver was a saint or the devil and never for a moment allowed givers to feel they were buying heaven. She had no knowledge of or use for sophisticated accounting methods. She simply trusted God that there would be enough money to pay for what God wanted her to do. And there was! (which, of course, makes Hitchens even madder…)

 

[atheistgirl]

I’ve read many of the criticisms of MT and I do find them disturbing.

I don’t think Hitchens was ‘‘angered’’ by her, I think he just wanted to expose concerns he had, which, to me, do sound valid: lack of financial accountability and refusal to allow books to be audited, ignoring medical advice and failing to alleviate suffering of some which could so easily have been done, people being led to believe they were contributing to the direct alleviation of the suffering poor when in fact the money was being used to build houses and chapels for the nuns, refusing to return money donated to her by a corrupt businessman when it was should to have been embezzled, and more.

Regardless of the undoubted wonderful work she and her order have done, I think these are legitimate issues to bring up.

Sarah x

 

[Spider42]

I’ve read many of the criticisms of MT and I do find them disturbing.
…
Regardless of the undoubted wonderful work she and her order have done, I think these are legitimate issues to bring up.

Forgive my ignorance, I’m new here. Do you, by any chance, personally believe in what we refer to as the ‘Golden Rule’?

One of the thing that has struck me over the years is how poorly Blessed Teresa’s detractors would fair under the same scrutiny. For example, no remotely credible detractor has argued that Teresa finances involved personal gain or a lavish lifestyle. Hitchen’s primary financial accusation is that she spent money building convents for essentially homeless nuns that some donors allegedly thought was for a teaching hospital. Hitchens and others have also pointed to Teresa’s willingness to take funds from “unsavory” donors.

But Hitchens, like all the serious Teresa detractors I can find, created his criticism specifically in formats intended for personal financial gain. He berates Teresa for not doing even more for the poor while he, himself, rejected the very concept of charitable philanthropy in his last interview. Similarly, Hitchens was in at least one law suit regarding his alleged misdirection of retainer funds and I have no recollection of his returning royalties when one of his publishers became embroiled in a legal scandal.

This is not to say that we should fixate on moral comparisons of the two, or that it would be suitable for me to judge Hitchens moral state. But there seems to be some idea that, just because Teresa was referred to as a living saint by the people she ministered to and is now venerated by the Roman Catholic Church that she is somehow required to be devoid of the human weaknesses and problems that we all faced. But saints are just like us, all too fallibly human, but they manage to do great works and set a special example IN SPITE of being every bit as human as the rest of us.

We could go through the criticisms individually and discuss them, but in broad terms, I look first at legacy. Mr. Hitchens played cheerleader for a war even, by his own admission, at the expense of truth that cost many tens of thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and created millions of refugees (disproportionately Christian BTW). He also openly endorsed torture of fellow human beings. We have no idea of his inner life or spiritual grace, but he did drink and smoke his way to an early grave while regularly living beyond his own means.

Blessed Teresa spent a lifetime ministering, in the Catholic tradition, some of the absolute poorest and most destitute people on the planet. She was/is beloved by the community she ministered to, even though she was their theological ‘enemy’. For her life’s work she was recognized with the Nobel Peace Prize and is now venerated by the Roman Catholic Church.

For those who would now criticize her, my advise is to at least try taking a few steps in her shoes first. Don’t go to Calcutta, just go to the poorest area in one’s city or state and try to meet the basic standards of feeding the poor, clothing the poor, and comforting the sick she strived to achieve. Once someone has tried to mimic her life’s work on even a tiny scale, then they can lecture me about standards for ‘suitable donors’, etc.

No disrespect intended. It was nice to hear your thoughts.

 

[atheistgirl]

Don’t go to Calcutta, just go to the poorest area in one’s city or state and try to meet the basic standards of feeding the poor, clothing the poor, and comforting the sick she strived to achieve.

I do this, not on my own I must stress, but with a group of very sincere and wonderful people, on a weekly basis. In addition we fund other initiatives we can’t be directly involved in for various reasons.

Once someone has tried to mimic her life’s work on even a tiny scale, then they can lecture me about standards for ‘suitable donors’, etc.

I wasn’t lecturing anyone. I stated I have concerns about her and some of her practices.

Qualified medical personnel have expressed serious concerns about the quality of care offered and the conduct of the sisters and volunteers, and were rebuffed with ‘we’re not a medical order’’.

Highlighting Hitchens faults is irrelevant to the topic but his concerns were legitimate and he was right to voice them.

Sarah x

 

[TimeEntrance]

Hello everyone,

Sorry if this doesn’t go here. Please move it if it doesn’t. I was talking with an outspoken anti-religious atheist and he questioned me about Mother Teresa of Calcutta. He specifically asked about many of the criticisms of her as leveled by a former missionary of charity and Christopher Hitchens. One thing they brought up was mother teresa’s supposed misshandling of funds (I’m sure you’ve heard of them and if not I can provide them when I get to a proper computer.)

How do I answer such charges brought against such a saintly woman? My main counter arguments were that the original claims were unsubstantiated because of bias or some other reason. Is this the roght way to go? Or were the acusations true beyond a doubt and I own up to them but argue mother teresa was a holy woman nonetheless? I want to defend mother teresa’s honor, even if just by planting seeds with this person (i realized after talking to them previously that they are very dismissive of any arguments i bring to the defense of the faith) Any help is appreciated. Thank you.

I credit a small miracle in my life (well… to me it was a miracle) to Mother Teresa.

Hitchen could have spent more time trying to slim that big tummy rather than criticize Mother Teresa.

I’ll tell you how to answer those atheists. Stop thinking you’re Christ or the Holy Ghost and are going to convert them. Leave that to God the author of grace. Just answer them in a way sure to really irritate them. That in part means answering with confidence and answering in the kind of arrogant faith in Jesus that Jesus loves. Leave the bowing Chinese stuff to the old Hollywood movies. Ask them when they’re going to stop stuffing their faces with cheeseburgers and go over to India and sleep with the deformed, unwanted, and smelly among the Indians they so “care” about.

You won’t win any friends but I bet you this… they’ll leave you alone about Mother Teresa.

I can take an atheist talking bad about me over my history of sins–I’ve done my dirt–but I take it less well when they jack on the truly few good in the world like Mother Teresa. With all these gold digging women running around here in the world they can’t pick a better target to jack on? This is where I have to really control myself from bringing out the profanity and name calling.

Look… I’m persuaded to believe Mother Teresa was fully human and not perfect like Jesus. So, I’m persuaded from hearing certain things about her that she was not perfect and had her human weaknesses and shortcomings. But I’m persuaded her intentions were often well or at least intended on doing the right thing. And those homeless and abandoned were going to sleep where? So, accommodations could have been made more comfortable and Mother and her nuns probably weren’t medical professions. But I don’t see too many medical professionals living those 5 star cardboard box “hotels” the India homeless sometimes sleep in.

I’m not a social worker or medical professional either and I’ve let cats crash on my apartment floor while I slept in my bed. The person not in the apartment that wants to complain? Then you let the person come sleep at your house. That’s how I feel about that.

Armchair quarterbacking over how to help and treat the Indian poor of India and don’t have one boot in the mud, ain’t fired one shot in the battle, but got the biggest mouth on earth.

This reminds me of this Teddy Roosevelt quote: theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

In boxing terms… Mother Teresa climbed in the square ring. At least she climbed in it and at least she fought. She came out her corner for every round until the final bell called her home.

 

[TimeEntrance]

You may have better luck reasoning with a drunk or an insane person. Is it really worth your bother?

Oh man this was awesome. Finally a person of like mind.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Hitchens & Co despised Mother Theresa for two reasons:

1. They fundamentally misunderstood her purpose and mission.
2. They are angry at God.

Angry atheists are sometimes willing to cede credit to religious people, but only on their own terms. Many of these guys perceived the media credit given to MT’s order and falsely concluded that the accolades given to her were specifically because they provided top notch health care for the poor. This is incorrect. MT’s mission was NOT to provide health care for the poor, but to love God and specifically to love Christ in the poor, sick and dying. This manifested itself most obviously in their care for the sick and dying, but is a crucial distinction that Hitchens et al refused to see.

Very true, Manual.

 

[TimeEntrance]

This is not to say that we should fixate on moral comparisons of the two, or that it would be suitable for me to judge Hitchens moral state.

No, please do. Okay, let me do it. I’m not Mother Teresa and I would have been inclined to wop Hitchen right on the jaw and on to the seat of his pants. He was to me something of a bully in this case.

For those who would now criticize her, my advise is to at least try taking a few steps in her shoes first. Don’t go to Calcutta, just go to the poorest area in one’s city or state and try to meet the basic standards of feeding the poor, clothing the poor, and comforting the sick she strived to achieve.

No, they need to go to India, dress like them, and live among the poor. Mother Teresa’s story was not just one of helping others. Weird everyone recalls white colonization of the world or the U.S. and Europe’s neo-colonial efforts in Latin America and Africa but it flies over many peoples head that Mother Teresa a white woman gave up men (dating/marriage) and the comforts of life, and the rewards of secular life, to go live among a bunch of dark skinned, unattractive people I wouldn’t particularly want to be living with. Not if I have better options. And some of them if deformed or stinking my repulse me. And I’m part of the American poor. A poor that is usually materially rich* by the standards of East Indian poverty.

*children in crack homes and meth homes excepted.

 

[underacloud]

There’s an old Catholic saying about this sort of thing: haters gonna hate.

Or maybe it’s not Catholic? But you get the point.

 

[atheistgirl]

There’s an old Catholic saying about this sort of thing: haters gonna hate.

Or maybe it’s not Catholic? But you get the point.

It’s not ‘‘hating’’ to bring up questions and legitimate concerns.

I think the best approach for the OP is to not defend that which is indefensible, but rather to focus on helping those he’s talking to better understand what she and her order were about, while admitting it’s possible mistakes were made, because nobody is perfect, including Mother Teresa.

And remind them in the Catholic Church the conferring of Beatification or Sainthood on someone is not a confirmation that person was perfect (because no human being is) rather it’s about the fact they lived their life in an exemplary manner and in accordance with their faith - something even Mother Teresa’s greatest critics could not deny.

Sarah x

 

[underacloud]

It’s not ‘‘hating’’ to bring up questions and legitimate concerns.

It can be. The OP referred to the questions coming from “an outspoken anti-religious atheist”. Sometimes these sorts of questions (or allegations) are brought as a way to discredit, rather than out of legitimate concerns. They deserve a reply, but often at some point the discussion hits a brick wall.

I think the best approach for the OP is to not defend that which is indefensible, but rather to focus on helping those he’s talking to better understand what she and her order were about, while admitting it’s possible mistakes were made, because nobody is perfect, including Mother Teresa.

And remind them in the Catholic Church the conferring of Beatification or Sainthood on someone is not a confirmation that person was perfect (because no human being is) rather it’s about the fact they lived their life in an exemplary manner and in accordance with their faith - something even Mother Teresa’s greatest critics could not deny.

Yes, this is a very reasonable reply. But for many (including Hitchens I would say), this reply falls on deaf ears and we are left accepting that some people are simply looking to discredit others for motives that may be beyond accountability and concern. So…haters gonna hate.

 

[fred_conty]

A reworked version of “The Paradoxical Commandments” written by Dr. Kent M. Keith is written on the wall in Mother Teresa’s home for children in Calcutta.
This version is credited to Mother Teresa, and would be her own response to this post.

People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.

If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies. Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you. Be honest and sincere anyway.

What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight. Create anyway.

If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous. Be happy anyway.

The good you do today, will often be forgotten. Do good anyway.

Give the best you have, and it will never be enough. Give your best anyway.

In the final analysis, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.

 

[Spider42]

Qualified medical personnel have expressed serious concerns about the quality of care offered and the conduct of the sisters and volunteers, and were rebuffed with ‘we’re not a medical order’’.

The rebuff is correct, they are a Catholic order.

I believe you are talking about Dr. Robin Fox, from the Lancet, who visited in '91. In brief his criticisms were:

• Many of the volunteers had little or no medical knowledge
• There was a shortage of doctors
• The staff made little or no distinction between curable and incurable patients
• The facility did not stock strong analgesics for pain

Fox did note that the facility was “remarkably clean”, that basic services were provided to “regular standards”, and that there was “breathtaking compassion and kindness”.

It’s Calcutta, with a finite budget and overwhelming need. How, precisely, would the first two not be expected?

The third, which seemed to upset Fox greatly, is because of a combination of the first two, and Catholic ideology. Our call is to care and comfort the sick. The idea that we should divert resources away from some because of the probability of death is not care in the Catholic tradition, though the CHA, etc. has some pretty sophisticated guidelines here. The problem with those guidelines is that they require very knowledgable staff and plenty of doctors to apply.

The lack of strong analgesics is unclear. A doctor writing a response to Fox’s article pointed to costs and capacity. Expensive drugs that require sophisticated monitoring equipment lest they be fatal (to be fair, Fox pointed to the Hospice movement as an example of analgesic use). Several volunteers responded that there was a concern about the training required to correctly and safely administer strong pain killers. One claim has emerged that Teresa thought pain was a gift from God and that strong narcotics robbed dignity in death. However, I’ve never found a source for that claim. Based on her own notes and diaries, the pain and suffering she witnessed gave Teresa nightmares and anxiety problems for decades.

Highlighting Hitchens faults is irrelevant to the topic but his concerns were legitimate and he was right to voice them.

Well, Hitchens admission that he sometimes told really big lies in his work would seem relevant. As would his profit motive. I think it is also of note that he was seemingly an Islamaphobe. In addition to a book, he participated in making a TV special. Both the special and his book relied, in large part, on Aroup Chatterjee’s work - but Hitchens used claims that Chatterjee himself dropped from his own book on Teresa after he found them to be non-credible.

Again, I have no problem accepting that Blessed Teresa of Calcutta was human with human failings or that her ministry had/has problems and can be fairly criticized. But it does strike me that there were exactly two witnesses who criticized Teresa at her beautification hearing - Aroup Chatterjee and Christopher Hitchens, two people, both with personal agendas and books to sell.

Please note, the invitation to walk in her shoes was generic, not directed at you personally. Compassion means, literally, “suffer with”. Many of the criticisms leveled at Teresa strike me as clueless, both about Catholic belief and the realities of operating a non profit in the poorest parts of the world.