The Case Against Mother Teresa

[deleted213967]

I doubt that she deserves to be cast as the bad guy. She may have been an overzealous agent of the Catholic creed, in which case we should mostly blame the RCC, not her.

Her obsession with birth control was well in line with Catholic (and generally Christian) tenets. Indeed she would have forestalled suffering to a greater degree by promoting the use of condoms, or at least by not reviling condoms.

The problem with well-intentioned religion-based charities, irrespective of their efficiency, is that they come with strings attached, some subtle, some not subtle at all.

Although I am impressed with the low-overhead and alleged experience of, say, The Salvation Army, I prefer to help no-strings-attached organizations like Doctors Without Borders or Northwest Harvest.

 

[Calboner]

I have far more respect for people who 'get off their arses' and make a difference in the world rather than publicity seeking journalists always with an eye on in their next ego-trip article, and DO nothing.The woman was awarded the Nobel Prize don't forget!!...

I base my opinions on knowledge and clearly not the 'Talking Heads' nonsense that you CLEARLY have gleaned from someone elses interpretation of the facts.Frankly,if you have as I suspect been reading the gospels according to 'St Hitchen' then might I recommend his 'take' on the late Princess of Wales,it's all much in the same vein and written exclusively for gullible Americans and no doubt you will 'swallow it whole!!!' Hey ho!

It's not just Christopher Hitchens and Penn and Teller, Superbot; it's also The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, as well as former Missionaries of Charity, such as Susan Shields, who report the things that Phil_Ayesho and others have been reporting here. Here are some excerpts from Shields's piece:

Three of Mother Teresa's teachings that are fundamental to her religious congregation are all the more dangerous because they are believed so sincerely by her sisters. Most basic is the belief that as long as a sister obeys she is doing God's will. Another is the belief that the sisters have leverage over God by choosing to suffer. Their suffering makes God very happy. He then dispenses more graces to humanity. The third is the belief that any attachment to human beings, even the poor being served, supposedly interferes with love of God and must be vigilantly avoided or immediately uprooted. [. . .]

The donations rolled in and were deposited in the bank, but they had no effect on our ascetic lives and very little effect on the lives of the poor we were trying to help. We lived a simple life, bare of all superfluities. We had three sets of clothes, which we mended until the material was too rotten to patch anymore. We washed our own clothes by hand. The never-ending piles of sheets and towels from our night shelter for the homeless we washed by hand, too. Our bathing was accomplished with only one bucket of water. Dental and medical checkups were seen as an unnecessary luxury.

Mother was very concerned that we preserve our spirit of poverty. Spending money would destroy that poverty. She seemed obsessed with using only the simplest of means for our work. Was this in the best interests of the people we were trying to help, or were we in fact using them as a tool to advance our own "sanctity?" In Haiti, to keep the spirit of poverty, the sisters reused needles until they became blunt. Seeing the pain caused by the blunt needles, some of the volunteers offered to procure more needles, but the sisters refused. [. . .]

Our Constitution forbade us to beg for more than we needed, but, when it came to begging, the millions of dollars accumulating in the bank were treated as if they did not exist.

Here a couple of excerpts from the Wikipedia article:

Her philosophy and implementation have faced some criticism. David Scott wrote that Mother Teresa limited herself to keeping people alive rather than tackling poverty itself.[33] She has also been criticized for her view on suffering: according to an article in the Alberta Report, she felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus.[34] The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press, notably The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, which reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an approach to illness and suffering that precluded the use of many elements of modern medical care, such as systematic diagnosis.[35] Dr. Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet, described the medical care as "haphazard", as volunteers without medical knowledge had to take decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors. He observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment.[36] [. . .]

Colette Livermore, a former Missionary of Charity, describes her reasons for leaving the order in her book Hope Endures: Leaving Mother Teresa, Losing Faith, and Searching for Meaning. Livermore found what she called Mother Theresa's "theology of suffering" to be flawed, despite being a good and courageous person. Though Mother Theresa instructed her followers on the importance of spreading the Gospel through actions rather than theological lessons, Livermore could not reconcile this with some of the practices of the organization. Examples she gives includes unnecessarily refusing to help the needy when they approached the nuns at the wrong time according to the prescribed schedule, discouraging nuns from seeking medical training to deal with the illnesses they encountered (with the justification that God empowers the weak and ignorant), and imposition of "unjust" punishments, such as being transferred away from friends. Livermore says that the Missionaries of Charity "infantilized" its nuns by prohibiting the reading of secular books and newspapers, and emphasizing obedience over independent thinking and problem-solving.

The poor quality of the care that Mother Teresa's missions offered to the sick and dying were not due to lack of funds but to perverted principles which dictated that money not be spent on such care and that those giving care not receive medical training.

 

[B_Nick8]

I get a bit irrational whenever Mother Teresa or the Pope or the evangelical christians start thinking that Jesus trumps science and the medical community and common sense.

Me, too. I think she probably "meant well" as what she understood that to be. But this is a woman who thought abortion was the greatest threat to World Peace. Talk about misguided.

I have no patience for fanatics, no matter how well-intentioned.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

Calboner, that is a superb post.

Props to you.

 

[Calboner]

Let's see....
A Catholic Nun Geography teacher goes to an Indian City - (India 80% Hindu believers) - and sees people left to die lying in the gutters.

She tries to give those people a chance to die with a semblance of dignity. This becomes her "mission".

AND twathead Phil Ayesho recons that she thought:
...."EVERYONE should suffer.
That makes her fucking sick and twisted. No matter how noble her religious inspiration."

Nice one you Fucking idiot.

People who react with this sort of bilious indignation must be unacquainted with the declared views of Mother Teresa. Here are some quotations from her, taken from a page that lauds her teachings. They show plainly that she believed that missionary work is trivial unless the missionaries themselves suffer; that the suffering of the innocent is beneficial to the world; and that suffering is a gift from God:

"Without our suffering, our work would be just social work - it would not be the work of Jesus Christ, not part of the redemption."

"All that suffering—where would the world be without it? Innocent suffering is the same as the suffering of Jesus. He suffered for us and all the innocent suffering is joined to his in the redemption. It is co-redemption. That is helping to save the world from worse things."

"I was talking to our lepers and telling them that leprosy is a gift from God, that God can trust them so much that he gives them this terrible suffering."

"Like all gifts, it depends on how we receive it. And that is why we need a pure heart to see the hand of God, to feel the hand of God, to recognize the gift of God in our suffering. He allows us to share in his suffering and to make up for the sins of the world."

Mother Teresa did not work to alleviate suffering but to inculcate the acceptance of suffering.

 

[Calboner]

Some reportage on what goes on in Mother Teresa's missions: Donal MacIntyre, "The squalid truth behind the legacy of Mother Teresa" (New Statesman, 22 August 2005). An excerpt:

I worked undercover for a week in Mother Teresa's flagship home for disabled boys and girls to record Mother Teresa's Legacy, a special report for Five News broadcast earlier this month. I winced at the rough handling by some of the full-time staff and Missionary sisters. I saw children with their mouths gagged open to be given medicine, their hands flaying in distress, visible testimony to the pain they were in. Tiny babies were bound with cloths at feeding time. Rough hands wrenched heads into position for feeding. Some of the children retched and coughed as rushed staff crammed food into their mouths. Boys and girls were abandoned on open toilets for up to 20 minutes at a time. Slumped, untended, some dribbling, some sleeping, they were a pathetic sight. Their treatment was an affront to their dignity, and dangerously unhygienic.

Volunteers (from Italy, Sweden, the United States and the UK) did their best to cradle and wash the children who had soiled themselves. But there were no nappies, and only cold water. Soap and disinfectant were in short supply. Workers washed down beds with dirty water and dirty cloths. Food was prepared on the floor in the corridor. A senior member of staff mixed medicine with her hands. Some did their best to give love and affection - at least some of the time. But, for the most part, the care the children received was inept, unprofessional and, in some cases, rough and dangerous. "They seem to be warehousing people rather than caring for them," commented the former operations director of Mencap Martin Gallagher, after viewing our undercover footage.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Penn & Teller beat Hitchens to it.

Doesn't the article point out that Penn is friends with Hitchens and that Hitchens was on it first? Or am I missing something?

 

[2322]

Doesn't the article point out that Penn is friends with Hitchens and that Hitchens was on it first? Or am I missing something?

I just looked and I think you're right. Hitchens' criticism goes back to 2003 while P&T's Bullshit show on her dates later.

 

[Calboner]

I just looked and I think you're right. Hitchens' criticism goes back to 2003 while P&T's Bullshit show on her dates later.

Hitchens published his book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice in 1995.

 

[D_Amyntas Lillydong]

the more i suffer the more i sin. the more i sin the more i suffer. i guess i like to suffer.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

I can't get over how the Vatican today, in modern times, is still in the business of verifying "miracles" needed for sainthood.

This whole institution of "sainthood" is a scam and a relic of pre-Enlightenment thinking.

Mother Teresa died in 1997. Why we still traffic in the myth of sainthood in the 21st century is beyond me, but, at any rate, two miracles are required. One for beatification (this is recognition by the Catholic Church that the dead person ascended to heaven and that the dead person can "intercede" on behalf of individuals who pray in his or her name) and a second "miracle" is required to proceed to canonization.


Let's let wikipedia descibe the first "miracle":

--------------------

Following Mother Teresa's death in 1997, the Holy See began the process of beatification, the third step towards possible canonization. This process requires the documentation of a miracle performed from the intercession of Mother Teresa. In 2002, the Vatican recognized as a miracle the healing of a tumor in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, following the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa's picture. Monica Besra said that a beam of light emanated from the picture, curing the cancerous tumor. Critics including some of Besra's medical staff and, initially, Besra's husband insisted that conventional medical treatment eradicated the tumor. Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, who told the New York Times he had treated Besra, said that the cyst was not cancer at all, but a cyst caused by tuberculosis. He insisted, "It was not a miracle…. She took medicines for nine months to one year."

An opposing perspective of the claim is that Monica's medical records contain sonograms, prescriptions, and physicians' notes that could conceivably prove whether the cure was a miracle or not. Monica has claimed Sister Betta of the Missionaries of Charity is holding them. The publication has received a "no comments" statement from Sister Betta. The officials at the Balurghat Hospital where Monica was seeking medical treatment are claiming that they are being pressured by the Catholic order to declare the cure as a miracle.

--------------------

So, we have an Indian woman, Monica Besra, who claims that after Mother Teresa's death a locket with Mother Teresa's picture in it was pressed against her abdominal tumor. The members of the Missionaries of Charity prayed for Mother Teresa to intercede, and Monica woke up to find the tumor gone.

"The cyst was not cancer at all, but a cyst caused by tuberculosis"... and Monica had been under doctor supervision and receiving treatment and medications "for nine months to one year."

This last from an Indian website:

According to the Vatican, Monica Besra’s ovarian tumor was cured by the powers of Teresa’s picture, placed on her abdomen. But the medical records prove that it was sheer conventional medical treatment that rescued her life. “In the 21st century how can you talk about miracle healing?” says West Bengal health minister Suyrya Kanta Nishra. The miracle documentation claims that several doctors have certified that the healing was “scientifically inexplicable”, but not a single of these anonymous witnesses could so far be traced.

 

[cock23]

From reading the first post (and a few others) it seems to me that this thread is full of extreme revisionist views on MT, and quite poor ones at that. The first post, although perhaps correct in some aspects, looks at things from only one point of view and doesn't bother to look at all the good things MT did and how she made such a positive difference. To me, looking at things from one extreme view point like that without really looking at the other view(s) makes something not worth reading or considering. And the replies to this thread do much the same. People, you can't form such strong negative viewpoints and paint such a bad picture of MT without looking at all sides of the argument first, especially by not looking at all the good she did.

And by the way willtom, I don't really see why she's a bad person if she spoke out against abortion and called it murder. I have the same viewpoint, does that make me really bad as well? And by the way, did you know that about 1.3 million abortions occur in the USA every year? (That's over a quarter of all pregnancies in the US!). Don't you think that's a bit um....excessive?

 

[798686]

Elton John was going to record a special version of 'Candle in the Wind' for her, called 'Sandals in the Bin' but it was inappropriate.

Actually, I think she was great. Not bothered about sainthood and stuff, as I think when people die they're just dead (for now anyway, lol). She did good deeds tho, and tried her best. Not sure about her stance on abortion - wasn't it just in keeping with her religion, and time?

 

[superbot]

I can't get over how the Vatican today, in modern times, is still in the business of verifying "miracles" needed for sainthood.

This whole institution of "sainthood" is a scam and a relic of pre-Enlightenment thinking.

Mother Teresa died in 1997. Why we still traffic in the myth of sainthood in the 21st century is beyond me, but, at any rate, two miracles are required. One for beatification (this is recognition by the Catholic Church that the dead person ascended to heaven and that the dead person can "intercede" on behalf of individuals who pray in his or her name) and a second "miracle" is required to proceed to canonization.


Let's let wikipedia descibe the first "miracle":

--------------------

Following Mother Teresa's death in 1997, the Holy See began the process of beatification, the third step towards possible canonization. This process requires the documentation of a miracle performed from the intercession of Mother Teresa. In 2002, the Vatican recognized as a miracle the healing of a tumor in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, following the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa's picture. Monica Besra said that a beam of light emanated from the picture, curing the cancerous tumor. Critics including some of Besra's medical staff and, initially, Besra's husband insisted that conventional medical treatment eradicated the tumor. Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, who told the New York Times he had treated Besra, said that the cyst was not cancer at all, but a cyst caused by tuberculosis. He insisted, "It was not a miracle…. She took medicines for nine months to one year."

An opposing perspective of the claim is that Monica's medical records contain sonograms, prescriptions, and physicians' notes that could conceivably prove whether the cure was a miracle or not. Monica has claimed Sister Betta of the Missionaries of Charity is holding them. The publication has received a "no comments" statement from Sister Betta. The officials at the Balurghat Hospital where Monica was seeking medical treatment are claiming that they are being pressured by the Catholic order to declare the cure as a miracle.

--------------------

So, we have an Indian woman, Monica Besra, who claims that after Mother Teresa's death a locket with Mother Teresa's picture in it was pressed against her abdominal tumor. The members of the Missionaries of Charity prayed for Mother Teresa to intercede, and Monica woke up to find the tumor gone.

"The cyst was not cancer at all, but a cyst caused by tuberculosis"... and Monica had been under doctor supervision and receiving treatment and medications "for nine months to one year."

This last from an Indian website:

According to the Vatican, Monica Besra’s ovarian tumor was cured by the powers of Teresa’s picture, placed on her abdomen. But the medical records prove that it was sheer conventional medical treatment that rescued her life. “In the 21st century how can you talk about miracle healing?” says West Bengal health minister Suyrya Kanta Nishra. The miracle documentation claims that several doctors have certified that the healing was “scientifically inexplicable”, but not a single of these anonymous witnesses could so far be traced.

Faith is described as "...A supernatural gift from God,ordained by Jesus Christ"... You obviously aint got it,big deal,then stop whinging about it and let those that do get on with it...Change the bloody record!!

 

[Astrate]

The most salient feature of MT is that she was a conservative catholic to the extreme. Once you understand the mindset of an extreme conservative suddenly the whole MT thing becomes clear.

Behaviour towards others is driven by instinctive morals, modified by learnt morals.

Statistical fact: conservatives have instinctive morals driven equally by 1) compassion for others as well as 2) sense of duty: the urge to stick to rules and traditions, the need to recognise and support in-group (family, tribe, nation), and recognition of authority and hierachy. Liberals are driven more by 1) than 2) (which makes them egalitarian and socialist)

Extreme conservatives have a sense of duty that is stronger than their sense of compassion.

MT's good deeds were driven by her urge to work for the church and abide by the rules of her religion. She applied a strict regime of rules to those she cared for and had utter respect for hierachy and authority. She therefore had no difficulty in recognising a tyrant like Papa Doc Duvalier as in-group (Catholic) and having deference for his place as leader. She had no interest in breaking down the hierachy in society and belived the poor should know their place. She felt it was her God given duty, in keeping with Catholic doctrine, to look after her fellow man and care for the disadvantaged. Part of her doctrine was the notion that it was that suffering for Jesus was a good thing, which outweighed her compassion. She therefore felt it was right to deny the sick she cared for any pain killers.

Once more Hitchings has missed the point

 

[Gillette]

It might explain why she did things as she did but it doesn't excuse it. There are a number of people who did appalling things while believing what they did was right.

 

[BIGBULL29]

What sacrifices are you all making to help alleviate people's suffering. I don't know one person in the modern world who is one-zillionth as saintly as Mother Theresa (maybe some Buddhist or Catholic nun or monk somewhere I don't about).

To be a saint in the Catholic and Orthodox Church, you have to suffer and make sacrifices in the the name of God. Life isn't about "me", "me" and "me." Buddhism has the exact teaching.

To me, she is a saint and I will pray to her to the day I die (She's probably ashamed me of saying this on a porn site).

I suppose you all watch "Into Great Silence" and see what true happiness is.

I never knew anyone who had true and utter happiness. Those who brag about being happy are often the most unhappy. It's all a facade.

The thread makes me puke, and I won't be posting on it again. You attack a humanitarian like MT, and praise billionnaires like Oprah Winfrey, who simply runs her mouth with a billion dollars and writes checks out to help people (tax write-off). Some great sacrifices she's making (I'm not saying Oprah is an awful person, but...)

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

Mother Teresa preached that suffering was a "gift from God".

Her goal was never to alleviate suffering.

Mother Teresa's goal was to get the sick and poor and dying ready for heaven. She was in the business of saving souls. She said this.

Hitchens says Mother Teresa simply accepted the idea of the poor. She did not wish to help them improve their lot or change their lives. She's not bothered with that agenda. She had no interest in tackling the real problems of poverty. Mother Teresa simply wanted to rescue their souls before they went on to eternal life.

Terminally ill patients died under her staff's unprofessional, unhygienic care (sometimes in great pain); no dignity, cramped quarters, no hot water; patients that would have lived longer, more comfortable lives had they sought treatment in a hospital.

 

[Astrate]

It might explain why she did things as she did but it doesn't excuse it. There are a number of people who did appalling things while believing what they did was right.

Too right.

The problem with Mother Teresa is fundamentalism. The church could have dictated a more compassionate stance but it was far more interested in exploiting the snowballing media hype started by Malcolm Muggeridge to promote itself using her as an icon, and that is really what is behind her beatification.

But she did found world-wide institutions that now provide compassionate care. That would not have happened if she had not been a media-driven hyped-up icon which she rode adeptly. Give her credit.