Responses to criticisms of Mother Teresa

[atheistgirl]

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.

Along with many volunteers who expressed serious concerns about the way things were run, the facilities - for example having to reuse needles when there was absolutely no excuse for not purchasing enough as there was plenty of money to do so - and the treatment people received.

Which is why I advised the OP to acknowledge there were failings with her, and her methodology, but to focus on what she was really about, the great good she has achieved, and explain what beatification and sainthood means in the Catholic Church, as many seem to think it means the Church is saying the person, and everything they did, was perfect, which, manifestly, it isn’t. Rather it’s about how they attempted to live out their life of faith.

I think he’ll have better success and more productive discussions with his friends taking that approach, rather than being perceived to be defensive at every criticism of a woman many in the Church hold very dear to their hearts, but who had, really, just as many failings as any other human being.

Sarah x

 

[Spider42]

Along with many volunteers who expressed serious concerns about the way things were run, the facilities - for example having to reuse needles when there was absolutely no excuse for not purchasing enough as there was plenty of money to do so - and the treatment people received.

Uh, no. There were only two critical witnesses at the hearing. Several of the people quoted and used in the special and books have stated that they were offered free travel but declined to appear and speak against her at the actual hearing.

I’m not sure that the second half of your quote above makes sense to me. A major criticism of the ministry finances was lack of transparency. If there was a lack of transparency, we would have no idea if there was ‘plenty of money’ or not.

That said, I just re-read the Fox article and there was no allegation of needle re-use. Sanitation and cleanliness was one area that Fox found no fault.

I don’t have time to re-read Hitchens book right now but my recollection is that his claims of sanitation problems were all highly anecdotal. I do recall that one claim was dropped by Chatterjee after it was discovered that the volunteer had been asked to leave because of some supposed highly inappropriate behavior.

Again, I’m not at all suggesting that some criticisms aren’t just. But I am saying that some, like the Penn and Teller segment, are just idiotic and too much is highly anecdotal and poorly supported. Honest examination and constructive criticism is one thing, calumny is another.

FWIW, my response to the OP would be nearly identical to yours, and essentially what Rev. James Martin, and editor at the Jesuit magazine America point out in his last article on the matter.

 

[atheistgirl]

Uh, no. There were only two critical witnesses at the hearing.

I wasn’t being clear. I didn’t mean volunteers went to the hearing. I was referring to volunteers who spoke out about their experiences at different times and places.

I think Mother Teresa did indeed do wonderful work, and her sisters continue to do so. And I also agree with you calumny and detraction are very ugly.

But I also don’t think criticizing someone, or an organization, where it’s justified is wrong either, and if these criticisms lead to better practice and more accountability, so much the better.

It does seem that some people think certain other people are utterly above reproach, and become quite hysterical when any criticism is made, and that’s quite dangerous in my view.

Sarah x

 

[mercytruth]

One of the top three most inspiring books that I have ever read!:
It is available at some libraries. English translation, 2011.

**Mother Teresa of Calcutta—A Personal Portrait: 50 Inspiring Stories Never Told Before **by Fr. Leo Maasburg.

God’s peace

micah

 

[manualman]

But I also don’t think criticizing someone, or an organization, where it’s justified is wrong either, and if these criticisms lead to better practice and more accountability, so much the better.

It does seem that some people think certain other people are utterly above reproach, and become quite hysterical when any criticism is made, and that’s quite dangerous in my view.

Hitchens and the person cited by the OP aren’t offering constructive criticism intended to encourage and improve the effectiveness of MT’s ministry. They are assaulting her integrity and virtue using a ‘bait and swithc’ tactic whereby mistakes are equated with malfeasance. That’s dirty pool and is classic Hitchens.

 

[kelner]

Hitchens and the person cited by the OP aren’t offering constructive criticism intended to encourage and improve the effectiveness of MT’s ministry.

Nobody on their right mind would question the dedication and selfless sanctity of these sisters. (In fact, Hitchens himself did not). The problem is something else. In a nutshell: the order is not interested in solving the underlying problems.

Let me give you an example. Some time ago, I heard an MC sister speak in my church. She spoke of the following situation: somewhere in India, there is a colony of lepers (i.e. social outcasts), whom the sisters help. These people live in mud huts, and every monsoon season the rain will cause these huts to collapse. They are left homeless and have to rebuild… until next year. Of course, since they end up living outside for that part of the year, their health will deteriorate… And the sisters end up having to treat them.

The sister who was speaking did not perceive this issue as a solvable problem! That shocked me. The things would be simple to improve, by bulding these people simple wooden sheds, or even giving them wood, nails and hammers to do it by themselves.

I’ve heard different missionaries speaking at different churches I frequented, and when asking for donations they were always really precise and explicit on what they are doing – i.e. we’re fixing the roof in the church, building a school, building a hospital or buying a car so we can get to people deep in the jungle. But the MC sisters completely lack this problem-solving mentality.

I got a little better understand why it is when I read the memoirs of an MC ex-nun: amazon.com/An-Unquenchable-Thirst-Memoir-ebook/dp/B004J4WKIS/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1 What jumps out at you while reading that book is that the order eschews education, specialization and initiative. Sisters are rotated between different jobs (e.g. kitchen - school - hospital) without any consideration for their talents or qualifications, and shuffled between countries whether or not they know the local language. One example given in the book is this: the protagonist, while on assignment in Italy, sets up a school for disadvantaged, unschooled Gispy children. She’s having success with it – kids come in willingly. After several months, the mother superior reassigns the protagonist to the kitchen duty and assigns a sister who does not speak Italian or likes children to the school. In a few days, kids stop showing up, and mother superior quickly closes a failed operation.

 

[manualman]

kelner, I wasn’t there and neither were you. But what I hear in your posts sounds suspiciously to me like what I mentioned further above. Many critics fundamentally fail to recognize the purpose of MT’s ministry and that of her sisters. Lord knows that most of the orders of nuns in America had this precise problem: they lost track of the fact that their PRIMARY call was to know of love Christ, to live together in prayer and to pour out the love of Christ via their ministry.

It’s VERY easy to allow a ministry to consume the other, most basic things. I’m not remotely surprised to hear that it sometimes happens that a superior would perceive that a sister had started to invert her priorities and would decide to pull that sister back into the convent until she could get things straight again, even at the cost of the external ministry effectiveness. This is a totally different way of thinking than our society is used to (which is probably why we are both richer than even before and more miserable).

Nor am I suprised to hear that the MCs “failed” to get into the construction education business in order to resolve problems they encounter. Again, that’s not their charism, it’s not what they are there for. They are there to BE there for the people, to live among them and be the experience of God’s love: hold hands of the dying, feed the malnourished, shelter those exposed. They purposely focus on the most immediate needs by which they can love Christ in the needy. Critics also want them to do more, but probably because their consciences are bothering them for not doing more themselves…

 

[atheistgirl]

They purposely focus on the most immediate needs by which they can love Christ in the needy.

I do kinda understand that, and yet, I don’t.

I have nothing but admiration and awe for the sisters who go out to the very place these shunned lepers are, and attend to their needs. I believe they really are doing exactly what Christ would do in that situation. Ministering directly to the needy without judgment, without prejudice, and with nothing but Love and Compassion in their hearts.

The bit I don’t get, is why just keep doing it over and over and over again, when an investment of a few thousand $, and they have the money, could ensure a permanent lodging for these lepers and prevent a recurrence of the annual health problems they have to deal with due to the exposure to the elements.

Surely, addressing the accommodation problem would be part of any ministering to their needs?

I really struggle to understand that part.

Sarah x

 

[manualman]

It’s a matter of needing to draw a line somewhere on what your charism and mission is and what it isn’t. There has been as much harm as there has been help over the centuries of westerners bringing in their “we’ll show you poor ignorant fools how to do it” to relief efforts. It alienates, even if they ARE right that it is a better way. I’ve seen it first hand. I won’t argue that a saint could never make a mistake and draw that line in the wrong spot, but I also won’t argue that a saint should never draw one.

And once you cross the line and say “Well, there’s some funding available, let’s expand our outreach” it’s a pandora’s box. There will ALWAYS be another need that is just a small stretch to achieve. We get that from our capitalistic mindset that says that we must “grow or die” in all things (not just business). But it isn’t always true. Sometimes overgrowing makes you die.

 

[atheistgirl]

We get that from our capitalistic mindset that says that we must “grow or die” in all things (not just business). But it isn’t always true. Sometimes overgrowing makes you die.

You make an important distinction, that I’m all too aware of.

Growing doesn’t make you die, in business, family, life or love.

Overgrowing can cause seriously health problems!

I think that’s what I don’t understand.

I can think of it this way.

There’s a problem with one of my pieces of manufacturing equipment. Let’s keep it simple - a pump is leaking oil.

I can pay a guy to keep topping up the oil - forever and ever.

Or I can fix the leaking pump or replace it with a new one, so the guy doesn’t have to keep topping the pump up with oil every day forever and ever.

Now, what makes more sense and which one is the best use of company money?

If I were to argue by not fixing the pump, I’m keeping a guy in a job, I think my board would have me taken away for a mental health evaluation!!!

It’s a waste of money, time, personnel and resources.

It would be much better on every level to fix that pump, and use the guys talents more productively.

If the sisters used $000 or whatever to erect a permanent shelter, they could still attend to the lepers needs, they could still minister to them, but the repetitive time lost annually in dealing with health issues that could be completely avoided by erecting appropriate shelter, could be freed up so the sisters could use that time on others who need them.

And more importantly, the lepers health issues have been addressed - they are in fact being better cared for.

Sarah x

 

[Bradski]

So Terry temporarily tops up your leaking pump. Then he discovers that your neighbour’s is leaking, so he tends to that as well. Soon he is tending to all the leaky pumps in the whole neighbourhood and people say to each other: My, he’s such a saint. Selflessly giving his time to help others.

Pretty soon, Terry has collected money and has organised dozens of helpers top up leaky pumps all over the country.

Then a little kid says: ‘Hey, why doesn’t he just fix the pumps so they wouldn’t need to keep topping them up?’

But the people say: ‘Fix them? Fix them? But what would Terry do then? He’s such a saint…’.

And Terry draws the little boy to him, whispering: ‘And don’t you know? Leaking brings us closer to God’.

 

[underacloud]

No doubt Terry would be open to less criticism if he did not attend to leaking taps to begin with.

Should he instead:

• do nothing to help his neighbours
• watch those who do help them
• and then criticise the manner in which they help?

 

[atheistgirl]

No doubt Terry would be open to less criticism if he did not attend to leaking taps to begin with.

Should he instead:

• do nothing to help his neighbours
• watch those who do help them
• and then criticise the manner in which they help?

If people are donating money to Terry to deal with leaking pumps, isn’t it reasonable for Terry and his merry band of helpers to ask what is the best way of dealing with these leaks and the best way to use the resources donated to us?

And isn’t it reasonable for him to say, we’ll fix one leak a month, permanently, and carry on dealing with the other leaks as they arise, with the eventual aim of eradicating all the leaks?

I think it’s a waste of resources, doing the same thing over and over again, knowing there’s impending health issues you have to deal with, because of the mud huts being destroyed, as they are every year.

I think it’s reasonable to expect anyone collecting funds to deal with this problem, to have, as part of the solution, a permanent fix on the accommodation issue, precisely so that resources are not wasted, precious and limited resources that could be used elsewhere.

I think that’s at the heart of some of the criticism, and I don’t really understand how, regardless of their charism, this solution couldn’t be built in to any approach to care they’re delivering.

Sarah x

 

[Bradski]

No doubt Terry would be open to less criticism if he did not attend to leaking taps to begin with.

Should he instead:

• do nothing to help his neighbours
• watch those who do help them
• and then criticise the manner in which they help?

Maybe someone should explain the concept of preventative maintenance. The pumps were leaking in the first place because no-one was looking after them.

Incidentally, it was discovered that Terry actually had a problem with his own pump. People thought that it would be looked after just like everyone else’s, but he took it away and got it repaired. Other people who had oil dripping everywhere wondered about that.

 

[atheistgirl]

Other people who had oil dripping everywhere wondered about that.

Oh, I saw what you just did

Sarah x

 

[underacloud]

It’s reasonable for Terry to do so, yes.

It’s reasonable for anyone donating to Terry to want to know how Terry is dealing with the problem. And to expect him to use the money well.

But it’s not reasonable for those who are doing nothing to help to criticise Terry.

Those who sit back and say “why aren’t those nuns building mud huts?” but do nothing themselves have no right to criticise. But if someone comes along and says “I’d like to help and I have building skills and can plan a cost effective way to compliment your care for the poor by building mud huts for them”…well, that person may have a right to criticise if the nuns turn them down.

 

[underacloud]

Maybe someone should explain the concept of preventative maintenance.

Or better yet, contribute to such maintenance…rather than criticise Terry for not tending to it.

The pumps were leaking in the first place because no-one was looking after them.

And this is Terry’s fault? Of course not. So stop hounding Terry and start asking about why the pumps were like this to begin with.

Incidentally, it was discovered that Terry actually had a problem with his own pump. People thought that it would be looked after just like everyone else’s, but he took it away and got it repaired. Other people who had oil dripping everywhere wondered about that.

“People thought”? Which people?

Perhaps Terry does not have the time or resources to properly repair all pumps, so does his best to help others as he can. If he does not repair his own pump properly, he will spend so much time tending to his leaky pump that he cannot help others with their’s. If he has adequate resources and the proper skills, perhaps he can have them all properly prepared. But again, those who aren’t helping but merely criticising ought to but out.

 

[Bradski]

Or better yet, contribute to such maintenance…rather than criticise Terry for not tending to it.

You shouldn’t assume that people don’t contribute.

And this is Terry’s fault? Of course not. So stop hounding Terry and start asking about why the pumps were like this to begin with.

They are like this because they make too many of them. So many in fact that the owners haven’t got the time or the money to look after them properly. Maybe if we could think of a way to reduce the numbers, it would help. But Terry doesn’t think that’s a problem. He likes the idea of making as many pumps as possible.

And there’s a male and female connection on all pumps that quite often gets contaminated. It can lead to the pump breaking down completely. It can be solved by putting a protective membrane on the male connection, but Terry doesn’t think that’s right either. Go figure.

Perhaps Terry does not have the time or resources to properly repair all pumps, so does his best to help others as he can.

Terry has raised quite a lot of money. Money is not a problem. The problem is that people are so impressed with his tireless work ethic and good will, that they ignore the underlying problems. Make less pumps (and fit that membrane on all the existing ones). Educate people to look after them better. And fix the leak when it happens using proper tools designed to suit rather than sticking a band-aid on it.

 

[underacloud]

Ah yes, you’ve seamlessly moved from one criticism to another…overpopulation.

And again we come to understand the true agenda of those who want to criticise people like Mother Teresa.

 

[atheistgirl]

Or better yet, contribute to such maintenance…rather than criticise Terry for not tending to it.

I see valid criticism as a contribution.

Sarah x