Responses to criticisms of Mother Teresa

[atheistgirl]

Well you’ll be very pleased to know that the Catholic Church has a long and proud history of providing education, especially for women and the poor. Catholic educational institutions around the world number around 135,000 elementary and secondary schools and 1,800 colleges and universities. In India alone there are over 14, 000 institutions.

Yes, education is very important. I’m glad we can agree on something (though no doubt disagree on some of the specifics of that education).

It’s one of the things I’ve always admired about the Catholic Church since investigating it. It’s involvement in education.

Especially education for the poor and women.

The Christian Brothers and the Ursulines come to mind here but there are many others.

Many of the poor and particularly girls would not have had even the most basic education back in time were it not for these religious men and women.

Sarah x

 

[Bradski]

Yes, education is very important. I’m glad we can agree on something (though no doubt disagree on some of the specifics of that education).

Indeed. Catholic Schools in Australia are considered to be very good indeed. In fact, both my kids went to Catholic Schools.

 

[underacloud]

Indeed. Catholic Schools in Australia are considered to be very good indeed. In fact, both my kids went to Catholic Schools.

We’re in Australia too…and ironically we opted for the public option for our eldest (only one is school so far) over the local Catholic school.

Oh well, that seems like a nice place for me to leave this discussion. I’ll leave the other issues for another thread and another time…they’re more complex problems than I’m going to solve anyway.

All the best.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Do you have any thoughts on how the problem can be solved? .

Preach the gospel to the ends of the earth.

Almost all problems are due to moral corruption. Hinduism does not teach the upper class to love the lower caste–it leads to a disgusting fatalism.

The gospel should also be preached in the west so they stop listening to billionaires complaining about lack of resources for everyone else. If they horde the wealth and create an artificial scarcity it is obvious that greed is an issue.

 

[kelner]

This sounds strange to me. India is indeed a poor country but it also has wealth for many. If the Gov’t or private individuals cannot provide proper housing for the poor of India why would anyone expect a poor group of nuns to? A lot of the other criticism seems to amount to this: MT did not provide first world health care including palliative care. It’s escapes me why no-one notices that she ministered to people who would have had no health care.

Hitchens pointed out the following paradox: the order would get millions in donations each year, enough to build a decent hospital in Calcutta and staff it with qualilfied people. Yet, despite that, the poor were still housed in the same decrepid place, still served by nuns without medical training. And things were still like that in 2011.

It’s a trivial observation that a trained person with decent equipment will be more effective than an untrained person without equipment. Investment, in both people and hardware, pays off. However, MT’s order shuns investment and continues to throw unqualified nuns at the problem.

This approach stems from MT’s personal theology. She believed that suffering brings one closer to God, hence, the mision is not to alleviate suffering, but minister to those suffering. Hence the famous lack of painkillers, for example. Further, the sisters are expected to live like the poor, which contradicts any substantial investment.

So, what happens with all that donation money? Nothing. Literally. Millions sit idly in bank accounts. Not because there is any fraud involved, but because the culture within the order makes the sisters unable to use them. The sisters don’t use it to feed themselves, because they ask for food donations, and eat whatever is donated. They don’t build palaces for themselves, because they have to live like the poor. They don’t use this money to build state-of-art hospitals for the poor, because that is outside their mission. They keep the cash in the bank and have no idea what to do with it.

 

[kelner]

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.

Many critics in fact agree with you. They have observed that the real purpose of the order is proselytizing the poor. Nothing wrong with it of course, but the order is often (mis)represented as tasked primarily with HELPING the poor. It is this very thing which draws a lot of criticism!

 

[Bradski]

Preach the gospel to the ends of the earth.

Perhaps what you need is a country which suffers from overpopulation and all the consequential problems but which is solidly Catholic. You could then use it as an example to the rest of the world of a complete nation accepting the gospel and following the teachings of the Church in regard to contraception.

Except that…

Legislators in the Philippines have defied the powerful Roman Catholic Church to vote in favour of state-funded contraception. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives backed a bill that has been debated for 13 years.

Supporters say it is a vital human rights measure in the impoverished country with one of the highest mortality rates in the region. bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20752851

Maybe you could use America as an example? But then nearly all Catholic women of child bearing age have used contraception at some point.

So it seems that classing contraception as a mortal sin sounds good in theory and everyone pays lip service to it, but when almost anyone is faced with the actual consequences of following the rules, they realise that there are practical considerations that trump anything that the Vatican may say on the matter.

In other words, it doesn’t really matter whether you preach the gospel or not. People live in the real world with real world problems. When you have poverty and high mortality rates driven by overpopulation and consequential overcrowding and limited social services, one of the obvious solutions is to limit population growth. And as has been seen in the Philippines, people will not just ignore the Vatican on this matter, but will actively demand that it’s rulings are ignored.

In this regard, as it relates to the OP, Mother Theresa was part of the solution, she was part of the problem.

 

[porthos11]

Pray for him.

Ask him how many dying people he has tended today ?

+1

 

[atheistgirl]

So, what happens with all that donation money? Nothing. Literally. Millions sit idly in bank accounts. Not because there is any fraud involved, but because the culture within the order makes the sisters unable to use them. The sisters don’t use it to feed themselves, because they ask for food donations, and eat whatever is donated. They don’t build palaces for themselves, because they have to live like the poor. They don’t use this money to build state-of-art hospitals for the poor, because that is outside their mission. They keep the cash in the bank and have no idea what to do with it.

That really is shocking.

Sarah x

 

[mercytruth]

Hitchens pointed out the following paradox: the order would get millions in donations each year, enough to build a decent hospital in Calcutta and staff it with qualilfied people. Yet, despite that, the poor were still housed in the same decrepid place, still served by nuns without medical training. And things were still like that in 2011.

It’s a trivial observation that a trained person with decent equipment will be more effective than an untrained person without equipment. Investment, in both people and hardware, pays off. However, MT’s order shuns investment and continues to throw unqualified nuns at the problem.

This approach stems from MT’s personal theology. She believed that suffering brings one closer to God, hence, the mision is not to alleviate suffering, but minister to those suffering. Hence the famous lack of painkillers, for example. Further, the sisters are expected to live like the poor, which contradicts any substantial investment.

So, what happens with all that donation money? Nothing. Literally. Millions sit idly in bank accounts. Not because there is any fraud involved, but because the culture within the order makes the sisters unable to use them. The sisters don’t use it to feed themselves, because they ask for food donations, and eat whatever is donated. They don’t build palaces for themselves, because they have to live like the poor. They don’t use this money to build state-of-art hospitals for the poor, because that is outside their mission. They keep the cash in the bank and have no idea what to do with it.

You know, I was very affected by the book that I had mentioned in an earlier post. If these things are true according to the sources that you have given, then there is a problem.

I see the principle problem as one where self-denial for the sake of Jesus Christ becomes blind to the needs of those who are not disciples of Jesus Christ.

There seems to be an extreme spirituality of detachment within Mother Teresa which denied the very humanity of one’s self. Some degree of detachment was necessary if she saw her mission as one to ‘the poorest of the poor’.

Ironically, her mission was one that made her a magnet for generosity. This generosity overwhelmed her mission and was paradoxically her nemesis. It seems to me, that this wealth that has accumulated in the Vatican Bank needs to ministered to the poorest of the poor and will take the wisdom of Solomon to know how to administer it.

This whole thing seems to me to be a psychological, spiritual, human needs, and monetary puzzle.

May God’s will be done

micah

 

[lynnvinc]

Others disagree. And the following is just a tiny sample of a monstrous amount of information on the problems of overpopulation and the obvious solution. Well, obvious to some us, at least.

HALTING the world’s rocketing population growth is the key to solving global warming – a solution that has been ignored or overlooked by leading climate change advocates. “Global warming is a direct result of human activity,” Professor Short told The Weekend Australian. “The more people there are, the worse the global warming threat gets.”

And how many children did Mother Teresa have (give birth to)?

Yes, people are causing problems and harming and killing others, including future generations, by such means as anthropogenic climate change. Actually people have been harming and killing people ever since Cain, except now our techology makes it possible to really wipe out life on earth. And the more people who have evil intentions (or just refuse to stop their harm), the more harms and unnecessary deaths (killings) there will be.

Can we instead try and find some solutions to such serious problems, such as global warming, that do not entail killing people or having abortions, instead of burying our head in the sand and just allowing such problems to wipe out life on earth? My husband and I have lowered our GHG emissions by over 60% cost-effectively (saving us many $1000s without lowering our living standards) over the past 23 years, and still have more to do. And we didn’t have to kill anyone.

It’s sort of like we are arguing over the deck chair arrangements on the Titantic – perhaps purposely trying to avoid addressing serious problems due to various ??? motives – when we should be striving in a calm and charitable way to steer the ship clear of that ice berg that will sink most, if not all of us. Of course there are those, like in the movie, who would push others aside to die in order to save their own lives, and I imagine some would like other people to have abortions so their own children can get more and survive. Eventually it may get to be a killer musical chairs of ever-diminishing life-sustaining resources (like food and potable water).

Here is what I say to those who favor abortion as a way to mitigate climate change – “Who are we saving the earth for, if not the children? It makes no sense at all to kill children in order to save the world for the children, plus it is evil to do so.”

Armed with righteousness, I hope and pray that you all strive to mitigate climate change thru the “Little Way of Environmental Healing” – doing whatever you can big or small that’s feasible to become more energy and resource efficient and conservative and go on alt energy when available and affordable. As Mother Teresa said, it doesn’t matter how much or how little you do, as long as you do it out of love, because your love makes it infinite.

Like taking a reusable bag when shopping, done out of love for our fellow men, women and the children of the world on into the future. It may lead to taking a hanky to wipe hands in public restrooms, or hypermiling, or, well, even a 75% reduction of one’s greenhouse gas emissions (and concomitant harmful pollution) without having to sacrifice one iota of living standard, comfort, or productivity. Which the energy experts claim is completely doable with today’s off-the-shelf technology.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

I see valid criticism as a contribution.

Sarah x

The problem with this contribution is that treating human beings like pumps misses a fundamental difference between what a human being is and what a pump is.

This might help: patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2013/01/useful-lust.html

Could it be that the charism of Mother Teresa was in demonstrating that a recognition of the infinite personal value in every individual human being, even among the poorest of the poor, far surpasses any reparative “treatment” that might be administered by others who do not have this eternal insight to share?

For an individual, otherwise despairing and lost, to know they are eternally valued, in spite of and beyond all appearances to the contrary, by the eternal Creator of the cosmos, is a much greater gift than a “patch up” and goodbye that might be received from medical practitioners offering the same mechanical precision exhibited by pump technicians.

The fact that the pump example has been touted here as a parallel argument is an indicator that this distinction is not understood nor appreciated by some.

We all know we are going to die and the circumstances under which that will occur may be very unfavorable for some of us. Certainly, it would be a great gift if one person helped another to forestall that reality, but an even greater gift would come from another who could truly place that angst-filled reality into eternal perspective, give true meaning to it and enable the personal strength to face whatever current temporal conditions conjure up with aplomb, courage and dignity.

One of the comments to the linked article above posted this insight: ”…that’s what the modern view… …really leads us to, to judge the world on a superior terrace standing above other men and looking down at them doing what is evil and wrong…”

Why is it necessary for us to find the tainted quality in whatever is looked at, be it the life of another person or the circumstances in our own lives? It is as if we fear or avoid the simple and heartfelt appreciation of the good around us because it might be the door through which unconditional love enters into our own beings. Far easier to remain jaded and, therefore, undeterred from indulging and sanctioning our own mediocrity.

 

[choose_to_love]

@daddygirl post #47: I do not think you were reading the letters correctly, if you read them. She did not lose her faith. She suffered from a loss of consolations, i.e., she didn’t feel rewarded, etc. Remember, she stated, IIRC, that she heard God’s voice in the beginning of her ministry.

I submit that continuing to act in accord with one’s beliefs in the face of no consolation is precisely living by faith.

 

[Auntie_A]

The problem with this contribution is that treating human beings like pumps misses a fundamental difference between what a human being is and what a pump is.

Thank you for saying what has passed through my mind while reading this post. I stand with the idea of measuring Mother Teresa and the poor of Calcutta as humans, not pumps or pump repairpersons. Some “parallels”, while clever, actually distort the topic and complicate it with displaced and disproportionate values.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Thank you for saying what has passed through my mind while reading this post. I stand with the idea of measuring Mother Teresa and the poor of Calcutta as humans, not pumps or pump repairpersons. Some “parallels”, while clever, actually distort the topic and complicate it with displaced and disproportionate values.

 

[lynnvinc]

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.

There’s also the Marxist argument – that when people like Mother Teresa do good for a tiny tiny fraction of the poor in a society, others then feel they can ignore their social responsibility to take care of the rest.

This is a valid complaint – not against MT, but against us. And the response to that should be that inspired by MT we strive to do at least something to help the less fortunate in our midst.

And the Marxists would also fault us who give at Christmas, but don’t help throughout the year, and that is a valid complaint, and we should respond by helping throughout the year.

And, of course, the Marxists themselves don’t do much for the poor, thinking that by promoting a new economic order of more equally distributing wealth among the people (which will never come into being, esp in the U.S.), they are off the hook.

But our response should be not to criticize them the way they criticize us, but to look at our own short-comings and strive to overcome them

 

[atheistgirl]

The problem with this contribution is that treating human beings like pumps misses a fundamental difference between what a human being is and what a pump is.

I agree.

That’s why if somebody needed to go to the hospital, I’d take them.

That’s why I wouldn’t leave people on makeshift beds that they spent almost 24/7 on.

That’s why if people needed medication injected, I’d make darn sure they had clean needles.

That’s why I’d pay for expert medical help and pain management and make sure I had at my disposal the medication they needed.

I’d treat them as people, as individuals.

'Specially if I had hundreds of millions of $ in the bank!

Sarah x

 

[Peter_Plato]

I agree.

That’s why if somebody needed to go to the hospital, I’d take them.

That’s why I wouldn’t leave people on makeshift beds that they spent almost 24/7 on.

That’s why if people needed medication injected, I’d make darn sure they had clean needles.

That’s why I’d pay for expert medical help and pain management and make sure I had at my disposal the medication they needed.

I’d treat them as people, as individuals.

'Specially if I had hundreds of millions of $ in the bank!

Sarah x

No one is arguing about what you would or wouldn’t do. My fundamental point is that we are in no position to criticize via “arm chair” opinions the life, decisions and contributions of Mother Teresa to the world. What we have are relatively flimsy shreds of evidence casting some doubt on some of her judgements weighed against her impact on millions of individuals that were inspired or assisted by her and her followers. Those accomplishments should be enough to deter us from casting aspersions based on a few feeble points.

The fact that only a few tidbits of negative evidence are being presented by detractors rather than weighed against a mountain of positive effects does speak to the credibility and fair mindedness of the “negative” position.

Ultimately, God will be the judge of her work as he will be of all of ours. I certainly have no desire to risk a comparison of my life with hers before anyone’s gaze, let alone the inscrutable light of God. I am certain my “accomplishments” will be insignificant in comparison. You may be willing to take that risk, but I suspect that is because you believe there is no God and, therefore, no one to ultimately take you up on it.

One last point, did you walk in her shoes every minute of her life to justify your “judgement” of her competency and caring? It is very easy to judge from afar the works of others, especially when they are unable to defend themselves or when comparisons are based upon somewhat inconsequential criteria.

You also need to be aware that when Mother Teresa began to suffer health issues, she assembled a conclave of sisters from her order to choose her successor. She was the only dissenting vote against the unanimous will of the others to retain her leadership. That kind of loyalty is very difficult to foster. You would have to explain why a large number of competent sisters who had dedicated their lives to the service of others would have been fooled by Mother Teresa into believing that she was their best choice to lead their vocations when she herself adamantly did not want the job to do so and, by your estimation, she was likely incompetent to do so. The fact that her works spread into over forty countries and has over a million lay and religious individuals attempting to emulate what she stood for belies a charge of incompetence, or worse, that Mr. Hitchens (and yourself) seem to favor.

It is much easier to criticize than to create. Christopher Hitchens made a career of the former, but that was only possible because we live in a cynical time. Please provide an actual accomplishment of his not related to critique in some form or other. The list of Mother Teresa’s accomplishments is endless and would take months to assemble. That comparison should be enough to give pause.

In my view, this is another example of the prophetic understanding of Jesus.

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.” (John 15:8) which is certainly true in the case of Mr. Hitchens concerning both Jesus and Mother Teresa.

 

[atheistgirl]

No one is arguing about what you would or wouldn’t do.

…

Please provide an actual accomplishment of his not related to critique in some form or other.

Why? What he did or didn’t do is irrelevant, as much as whatever I do and don’t do is irrelevant.

I’m not arguing what he did or didn’t do compared in any way to Mother Teresa. In fact, I don’t think I mentioned him at all.

I have no idea of his accomplishments while he was on this earth, and I’m not particularly interested.

That comparison should be enough to give pause.

One can do a lot of good, and a lot of harm, at the same time. They’re not mutually exclusive.

In my view, this is another example of the prophetic understanding of Jesus.

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.” (John 15:8) which is certainly true in the case of Mr. Hitchens concerning both Jesus and Mother Teresa.

I’m not interested in Mr. Hitchens.

What we have are relatively flimsy shreds of evidence casting some doubt on some of her judgements weighed against her impact on millions of individuals that were inspired or assisted by her and her followers. Those accomplishments should be enough to deter us from casting aspersions based on a few feeble points.

I guess we all see things differently. The account of Lundon, who I have no reason to think is neither credible nor prone to exaggeration, is a lot more than casting aspersions.

Failing to provide the medical care needed for a simple infection and to allow suffering and death to follow, on the basis ‘‘if you do it for one they’d all expect the same treatment’’ is not a feeble aspersion to me.

And it’s certainly not treating people as individual human beings with dignity and respect.

The fact that only a few tidbits of negative evidence are being presented by detractors rather than weighed against a mountain of positive effects does speak to the credibility and fair mindedness of the “negative” position.

Again, I disagree.

One last point, did you walk in her shoes every minute of her life to justify your “judgement” of her competency and caring?

Why would I need to?

Have you walked in the shoes of everyone you’ve ever criticized?

Is highlighting concerns only valid now if you’ve walked in the person’s shoes ‘‘every minute of [their] life to justify’’ the concerns?

If that were the case, nobody could ever criticize the conduct of anybody, ever again.

This is really what fascinates me when it comes to talking about Mother Teresa.

The incredible double standard applied.

You also need to be aware that when Mother Teresa began to suffer health issues, she assembled a conclave of sisters from her order to choose her successor. She was the only dissenting vote against the unanimous will of the others to retain her leadership. That kind of loyalty is very difficult to foster. You would have to explain why a large number of competent sisters who had dedicated their lives to the service of others would have been fooled by Mother Teresa into believing that she was their best choice to lead their vocations when she herself adamantly did not want the job to do so and, by your estimation, she was likely incompetent to do so.

This doesn’t surprise me in the least, given the status she had acquired.

However, yes, I do, personally, think it is an issue that when she developed health issues, she attended the best hospitals and clinics and received the best medical care possible, while at the same time her sisters and volunteers were making good on reusing needles over and over again and washing them in cold water.

She was absolutely entitled to the best care available.

Her human dignity, worth and respect demanded it.

So too, in my opinion, were those she took the on the responsibility to look after.

When there’s millions sitting in the bank, there’s no need, in my opinion, for needles to be reused!

It is much easier to criticize than to create. Christopher Hitchens made a career of the former, but that was only possible because we live in a cynical time. Please provide an actual accomplishment of his not related to critique in some form or other.

I have no idea and I’m not interested so why would I or should I be able to provide a list of his accomplishments. I’m not discussing him.

But this does, once again, highlight nicely for me, what happens when any criticism of Mother Teresa is raised.

Anyhow, I think I’m done with this conversation now as I can see it becoming very repetitive.

I’ve raised the issues I think are interesting for me in relation to looking at someone like Mother Teresa, and I’m fascinated with how any criticism is so heavily downplayed in favor of highlighting the publicly known works.

This fails to address some essential questions that I think deserve an answer, because at the end of those questions, are or were real suffering people.

Just my opinion of course and nothing else.

Hundreds of millions of faithful will of course, disagree.

I think this conversation as gone as far as it’s likely to go now for me as I have no wish to cause offense to anyone who holds Mother Teresa in an untouchable position of veneration.

Sarah x

 

[fred_conty]

Mother Teresa received the Nobel Peace Prize. In front of the whole assembly, she prayed a prayer to Mary and nobody said thing or objected. Governments all over the world wanted her and her sisters to come to their country to take care of their poor. She asked them for nothing but their poor.

Some governments even offered to help her get started, but she refused. Some private agencies and the wealthy also made the same offer, but she refused. This may sound illogical since she could have used the money to help the poor even more.

It was her idea, the idea of her order of sisters, to depend on the providence of God and upon the people’s kindness of charity to fulfill their physical needs. Her idea was to stimulate the kindness of others toward the poor, and to help them open up their hearts to them. To extend love to the poorest of the poor and those noone else wanted, the rejects of society.

It didn’t matter who they were, or what religion, or no religion, she picked them literally out of the gutter and held them with her own two arms with love for them. To treat each person with love and respect irregardless of who they might be.

With this kind of background, I would give her the benefit of the doubt about the needles. It just seems to me with the kind of person she is and has shown herself to be, there must be more to this story then is known or being told. So far I haven’t heard anyone who really has spoken with her or her order to give us their side. And there is always two sides to any story and I would reserve judgment until both sides are known.

I would also say the same thing with the money. Maybe the money is red taped in some way that isn’t apparent. She wouldn’t spend the money on her own work or order since she is reliant on divine providence for this. And I don’t know why they have an obligation to tell us what future plans they may have for this account. We can see for our own eyes how they are living among the poor and are poor themselves.

The church has many orders or organizations of men and women who have dedicated themselves to either a spiritual or corporal works of mercy. We have some who work with the people in church communities, hospitals, nursing facilities, colleges and universities, farming, housing, providers of food, peace mediators, social work, places of incarceration, community builders, emergency agencies, counsolers, orphanages, and so on.

Mother Teresa’s order provides hands on love and care to the poor and those who have no hope.
Their particular order does not deal with mechanical, housing, social justice, farming, financial work and so on. Other orders provide these things.

This may not be easy to understand, but they are doing this out of love for God and neighbor.
The order must stay within its own intentions for which it was set up. If other things are needed, then other agencies or orders must be called in to do this specialized work.

The order is established to bring the MEMBERS of the order to a greater closeness to God. They seek to do this by administering love and help to others within the context of the work that the order was set up to do.

Just some thoughts.