Subscribe to Desicritics
'Mommy Dearest' - The Controversial Legacy of Mother Teresa
C R Sridhar
‘Saints, should always be judged guilty until they are proven innocent.’
-George Orwell.
Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, also known as Mother Teresa, captured the media attention of the world for her pious service of the poor and abandoned children of Calcutta. Born in Skopje – now capital of Macedonia- on 26th of August, she was raised by her strict Albanian mother to be a staunch Roman Catholic .At the age of eighteen she joined the sisters of Loreto as a missionary and came to India in the year 1929. In the year 1950 the Vatican gave permission to Mother Teresa to start the diocesan congregation that would become the Missionaries of Charity. The mission of the charity was a noble one as it was to take care of the homeless, the destitute and the unwanted people. The order, Missionaries of Charity, had thirteen members, which grew to more than four thousand nuns running orphanages, hospices for the care terminally ill and Aids patients. In 1952 Teresa converted an abandoned Hindu temple into the Kalighat home for the dying. The order opened the Nirmala Shishu Bhavan, the Children's Home of the Immaculate Heart, as a haven for orphans and homeless youth. The charitable activities of the order established organisations in other parts of India and also worldwide, especially, in Venezuela, Asia, Africa, US and Europe.1
The Extraordinary career of Mother Teresa
The brief curriculum vitae of Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu does not do adequate justice to the extraordinary career of Mother Teresa. In public and in the media, her wizened body and her wrinkled face radiated a quiet compassion, which could only be seen on saints' faces as they calmly served the wretched of the earth. The media revelled in showing photographs of starving babies in Mother Teresa’s hands. Other photos revealed Mother Teresa in a saintly light as she hugged the dying who were vulnerable in their last moments of life. She became an icon of service to humanity and international recognition poured in first as trickle and then as flood. She won Padma Shri (India), Order of Merit, Golden Honour of the Nation (Albania), culminating in the Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to her in 1979. As an international celebrity, Teresa became a brand ambassador of the Vatican espousing the controversial policies of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to abortion, divorce and contraception.
When she died in 1997 the Holy See began a process of beatification towards declaring Mother Teresa as a saint. For canonizing Mother Teresa it was necessary to establish two miracles unless the Pope dispensed it. The first miracle- the healing of a tumour in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, following the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa's picture- was mired in controversy as the medical doctors attending on her and her husband claimed that the tumour was cured by conventional medicine.
A devil’s advocate
Christopher Hitchens, an author and journalist, who declared Mother Teresa as a pious fraud, challenged the beatification and canonization of Mother Teresa. He said ‘her intention was not to help people’ but ‘she was working to expand the number of Catholics.’ His objections were overruled by the Roman Curia who saw no obstacle to the canonization of Mother Teresa. Hitchens alleged that there was no examination of the witnesses who claimed that Monica Besra was not cured by a miracle but by prescription medicine. It was also alleged that Monica Besra had tubercular cyst not malignant tumour as claimed by her order. All these claims were perfunctorily examined without critical scrutiny raising doubts that the standards were deliberately lowered to put the canonization of Mother Teresa on a fast track.2
But the Vatican was in a quandary - if the scrutiny process was diluted and divine intervention in human affairs is too promiscuously recognized, the church exposes itself to skeptical questions that if one leper can be cured by divine help then why not other lepers? Does the Lord show preference in not eradicating infant leukemia and mass poverty? If so, is such a God biased in saving some souls but not the others? Such questions relentlessly open the floodgates of critical challenge lowering the credibility of the Faith. This unease was reflected in some cardinals who objected to the fast track canonization of Mother Teresa. However the beatification of Mother Teresa took place on 19th October 2003 and the title ‘Blessed’ was conferred on her. This placed her firmly in the ante- room of sainthood.
A spanner in the hagiography
In a cynical age such as ours, where the highest form of human endeavour are self-seeking individuals working for the maximization of personal advantage, it is not surprising that tales of personal sacrifice bring tears to the eyes. The reputation of Mother Teresa as a saviour of the poor received a turbo boost when Malcolm Muggeridge filmed Mother Teresa’s work in Calcutta titled Something Beautiful for God, which was shown on BBC. He wrote a book with the same title, which sold more than 300,000 copies sold, reprinted 20 times and translated into 13 languages. There was no looking back for the obscure Albanian Nun who catapulted to world celebrity. The hagiography industry churned out books with titles helper of the poor, protector of the sick, and friend of the friendless, which established the icon status of Mother Teresa as a living example of a saint.
It must be said to the credit of Hitchens that he initiated the critical process of challenging the status of Teresa and the hagiography industry devoted to the sanctimonious humbug of deifying Teresa. In 1994 he produced a documentary film called Hell’s Angel, which was broadcast on Channel 4. The film was vilified and the author was subjected to abuse. Undeterred, Hitchens meticulously researched the life of Mother Teresa and published a book called The Missionary Position. In this book, Hitchens rakes up controversial issues about Teresa and calls into question the credulous nonsense written about the saviour of the poor.
In bad company
In a broadside delivered against the uncritical adulation of Mother Teresa, Hitchens asks inconvenient questions- what was Mother Teresa of Calcutta doing in the presence of the hated family of Baby Doc Duvalier who was the ruthless dictator of Haiti? The event referred to by Hitchens was the visit of Mother Teresa to Haiti in 1981 to accept the Legion d'Honneur. In a magazine called L’Assaut, a propaganda organ for the Duvalier family, there are photos of Mother Teresa holding the bangled hand of Michele Duvalier (wife of Baby Doc) and gazing at her with respect and reverence. The magazine quotes Teresa as having said, ‘Madame President is someone who feels, who knows, who wishes to demonstrate her love not only with words but also with concrete and tangible actions.’ Whether the oppressed people of Haiti who were murdered, raped and pillaged by the Duvalier family for generations, echoed her sentiments is not known, as they were not quoted in the magazine. Her pious endorsement of the Duvalier family was in line with the extreme Right wing and conservative faction of the Vatican hierarchy supporting the Duvalier oligarchy.3
While it would be tempting to view Mother Teresa’s Haiti visit as a social faux pas not worthy of criticism, there is overwhelming evidence that she supported repressive dictators and regimes in Central and South America. She gave support to the Reagan administration by her participation in the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which was awarded to her inside the White House in 1985, when right wing death squads embroiled the administration in a scandal relating to the murder of four American nuns and the Archbishop of San Salvador in Central America. Her admonition of the Sandinista Revolutionary Party gave support to the contras, a vicious mercenary army actively funded by the Reagan government to bomb schools and hospitals in Nicaragua, raised serious doubts about her political neutrality.
During the suspension of civil liberties in India by Indira Gandhi in 1975, the Mother uttered no words of criticism. She purred beatifically-‘ People are happier. There are more jobs. There are no strikes.’ Her friendly relationship with Mrs Gandhi and the Congress party played an important role in silencing the criticism. ‘Mother Teresa’ says Michael Parenti, ‘is a paramount example of the kind of acceptably conservative icon propagated by an elite-dominated culture, a saint who uttered not a critical word against social injustice, and maintained cosy relations with the rich, corrupt, and powerful.’4
Money has no smell
Other controversies dogged Mother Teresa. One of the most serious scandals to affect her reputation was her financial involvement with one of the biggest frauds known in American history - Charles Keating. The savings and loan scam of Keating swindled $252 million, mainly from small and poor depositors. A staunch Catholic he gave Teresa $1,250,000 in cash and the use of a private jet. In return Mother Teresa gave a glowing character certificate and pleaded for his clemency during the trial. The Deputy District Attorney for LA, Paul Turley in a tersely worded letter addressed to Teresa asked her to return the money stolen by Keating. Mother Teresa did not return the money. No action was taken by the court for its recovery. It appears that saints are immune from coercive proceedings.5
The theology of suffering
At the heart of suffering lies a deception, which must be examined rationally to understand the theory and practice of Mother Teresa. At a 1981 press conference she was asked: "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" She replied: ‘I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.’6 Her reply made her critics accuse her of loving suffering more than the sufferers. The spectacle of suffering was beneficial for faith as only in pain one thought of the Lord. The alleviation of pain of dying patients was not an important objective.
There is a memorable anecdote about her attitude to suffering. A patient was approached by Mother Teresa who dished out theological platitudes instead of providing painkillers to the patient. ‘You are suffering like Christ on the cross,’ Mother Teresa allegedly told the patient. ‘So Jesus must be kissing you.’ The patient is said to have replied, ‘Then please tell him to stop kissing me.’7
This bizarre attitude to suffering was reflected in her hospices and orphanages. ‘In 1991, Dr. Robin Fox, then editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, visited the Home for Dying Destitute in Calcutta and described the medical care the patients received as "haphazard". He observed that sisters and volunteers, some of whom had no medical knowledge, had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors in the hospice. Dr. Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for conditions in this home, and 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.’8
Moreover, the formulary at the facility Fox visited lacked strong analgesics. Fox also wrote that needles were rinsed with warm water, which left them inadequately sterilised, and the facility did not isolate patients with infectious diseases. There have been a series of other reports documenting inattention to medical care in the order's facilities. Some former volunteers who worked for Teresa’s order have also expressed similar points of view. Mother Teresa herself referred to the facilities as "Houses of the Dying”
The orphanages where abandoned children were housed showed shocking lapses of care so strongly advertised in the media all over the world. Donal MacIntyre - a reporter and documentary-maker for Channel 5 Television who worked undercover was astonished at what he saw-
‘ 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.’9The donations, which poured from all parts of the world, were not invested in buying drugs and medical equipment for the care of the sick and dying. Instead, it was diverted to the Vatican Bank for general use. But when it came to her own treatment ‘Teresa checked into some of the costliest hospitals and recovery care units in the world for state-of-the-art treatment.’10
Conservative agenda
The Vatican under Pope Paul II used the popularity of Mother Teresa to support controversial issues on abortion, divorce, and contraception. The Roman church remained implacably hostile to abortion even if was necessary to save the life of the mother or in instances where women were raped and requested abortion. Its views on divorce and contraception were steeped in medieval values. The dogma of the Roman Catholic Church with respect to contraception is well known and has invited protests from all over the world.
Mother Teresa lobbied hard on the referendum to lift the constitutional ban divorce in Ireland in 1995. Her position was that of a hardliner opposing the removal of the ban on divorce. In her meeting with Margaret Thatcher in the year 1988 the main discussion centred on Abortion instead of the plight of the city’s homeless. In Spain she lobbied hard on behalf the clerical forces to prevent legislation liberalising abortion, divorce and birth control. At a open- air mass in Knock (Ireland) in 1992, she addressed the devout with the following words-‘Let us promise Our Lady who loves Ireland so much that we will never allow in this country a single abortion. And no contraceptives.’11
In her Nobel Peace Prize speech in 1979, Mother Teresa famously said -‘ I think that today peace is threatened by abortion, too, which is a true war, a direct killing of a child by its own mother. Today, abortion is the worst evil, and the greatest enemy of peace. Because if a mother can kill her own child, what will prevent us from killing ourselves, or one another? Nothing.’12
Sums up Susan Jacoby,‘Teresa never showed any concern, in India or elsewhere, about the root causes of poverty — including lack of education, corrupt dictatorships, inequitable distribution of wealth, bigotry against social, ethnic, or religious under classes, and contempt for women.’13
Selecting Saints
Any Institution such as the Roman Catholic Church, which has a relationship of trust with its devotees, must maintain high standards of moral probity to retain the trust and confidence of its members. Such confidence should not be diluted in the name of political expediency. In the past, the Church crushed dissent and heresy through the office of the Inquisition to retain power. In modern times, such powers do not exist. Its legitimacy lies in moral persuasion, which is exercised through the proper selection of saints who epitomise all that is best and pure about the Church.
During the 26-year papacy of Paul II, the Pope had canonised 483 individuals to sainthood. Among the less savoury individuals selected for the honour of beatification was the reactionary Msgr. José María Escrivá de Balaguer, supporter of fascist regimes in Spain and elsewhere, and founder of Opus Dei, a powerful secretive ultra-conservative movement feared by many as a sinister sect within the Catholic Church. Other selections for beatification, which raised eyebrows, were Pius IX, who reigned as pontiff from 1846 to 1878, and who referred to Jews as dogs and Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, the leading Croatian cleric who welcomed the Nazi and fascist Ustashi takeover of Croatia during World War II and openly supported the Croatian fascist regime that exterminated hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews, and Roma. 14
Mother Teresa was a mild reactionary when compared to the egregious examples of Msgr. José María Escrivá de Balaguer, Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, and Pius IX but certainly not an inspiring example for the Church. More worthy persons such as Archbishop Oscar Romero who spoke against Right wing death squads for oppressing the people of El Salvador received shabby treatment at the hands of Pope Paul II. The death squad murdered the Archbishop for speaking out his mind against tyranny and oppression. The people of El Salvador venerated him as a saint. But Pope Paul II used his authority to ban any discussion for his beatification for a period of 50 years. No protests were made by the Pope to condemn the murder. The Pope merely murmured –‘Tragic’ when asked for his comments. The ground swell of support for the martyred priest made the Pope to relent: the ban was cut down to 25 years. The Archbishop was put on a slow boat to sainthood.
The Byzantine intrigue of the Vatican in selecting its saints would make a cynic say in mock wonder, ‘The ways of the Vatican are indeed mysterious.’ And that sense of mystery only deepens when one considers the extraordinary beatification of an Albanian nun called Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu.
--------------
1 Wikipedia- Mother Teresa.
2 The fanatic, fraudulent Mother Teresa- Christopher Hitchens- Slate Magazine.
3 The Missionary Position- Christopher Hitchens- Verso- pages 3-6.
4 Mother Teresa, John Paul II, and the Fast-Track Saints- Micheal Parenti.
5 The Missionary Position, Christopher Hitchens- Verso- pages- 68-70.
6 The Missionary Position, Christopher Hitchens- Verso- page- 11.
7 Mother Teresa and her order come under criticism- By Clark Morphew / Knight-Ridder Newspapers.
8 Dr Robin Fox- Lancet 17th September 1994- extracts published in The Missionary Position, Christopher Hitchens- Verso- pages- 38-39.
9 "The squalid truth behind the legacy of Mother Teresa" - Donal MacIntyre- New Statesman- 22 August 2005.
10 "Mother Teresa, John Paul II, and the Fast-Track Saints"- Micheal Parenti
11 "The Missionary Position"- Christopher Hitchens- Verso- page- 58
12 The illusory Vs Real Mother Teresa- Dr. Michael Hakeem- free thought today- August 1996.
13 Road to Sainthood Paved with Good Publicity- Susan Jacoby- On faith.
14 Mother Teresa, John Paul II, and the Fast-Track Saints- Micheal Parenti.
smallsquirrel
June 27, 2008
03:49 PM
well, it proves she was human.
but in the end, I think she did more to help than harm. and certainly more to help than any of us can claim to, no?
Jordan Richardson
URL
June 27, 2008
05:26 PM
Nice retelling of Hitchens' book. I can think of no better target in our age of charlatans, liars, thieves, oil company barons, warlords, and others than Mother Teresa.
(Yes, I'm being sarcastic).
Man Singh
URL
June 27, 2008
05:29 PM
Vowww how great is the mother who got noble prize by selling poverty of calcutta around the globe in spite of not building even a single hospital for the poor. yes she built her `conversion centers' in 120 countries with a budget of more then that of many governmentsin the world. Look how this rich lady made money :
Charles Keating of the Lincoln S&L fame is one egregious example of Teresa's association with great gangsters?? the rich crowd. Keating gave more than a million dollars to Teresa and flew her around in his jet. During his trial for fraud, Teresa wrote Judge Ito telling him what a good guy Keating was and asked for leniency in sentencing. Teresa advised the judge to do what Jesus would do.I m not sure what Jesus would have done, but the judge gave Keating ten years for fraud.
Following the trial, Teresa received a letter from the Deputy District Attorney telling her that the money Keating had given her was
stolen from hard working people
and suggested that she return the money. I would have suggested, After all, that is what Jesus would have you do. The good nun never answered his letter (nor returned the stolen money). After all, it was for the poor??
http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=17707
By Don Boys, Ph.D
I think other then vatican and some Indian associates of imperialists nobody cared for this crooked lady.
temporal
URL
June 27, 2008
05:51 PM
sridar:
starting with george 1984 orwell
by way of chris stiff-lips hitchens
circumnavigating a dimiunitive woman
who could be pious, but never a star
(a basketball star, don't get me wrong)
landing this bundle at the holy feet
of the bavarian baba dressed in robes
who relishes appointing those who forgot
how to breathe, holy, saintly and more
hmmmmm.... the mahatama would have chuckled
;)
commonsense
June 28, 2008
12:45 AM
with the benefit of hindsight (Iraq of course!) i wonder how much credibility christopher hitchens has! wonder if he is still around or has he evaporated along with the brew he cannot do without. Of course I do realize I do not address the question of the mother, but on this issue I defer to Jordan Richardson's justifiable and judicious sarcasm # 2
sridhar
June 28, 2008
01:25 AM
Dear commonsense,
Thank you for your comments.
I agree with you- I thought Christopher Hitchens was brilliant when he wrote against the First Gulf war.He was also a good friend of Edward Said-a great intellectual who fought for Palestine Freedom.
After 9/11 Hitchens became a turncoat and lost his intellectual integrity by supporting the criminal invasion of Iraq by the Bush government.His post 9/11 writings about Islam are rabid in the extreme and deserve our contempt.
I still think Hitchens did commendable work in exposing the pious pretensions of Mother Teresa.The dangerous Religious obscurantism of the Roman Church is equally a threat to human freedom.
sridhar
June 28, 2008
01:36 AM
Dear Temporal,
Thank you for reading the article on Mother Teresa.
The quotation of George Orwell-'Saints, should always be judged guilty until they are proven innocent.'is from his essay on Mahatma.Perhaps it would be interesting to know that Orwell was no admirer of the Mahatma.
sridhar
June 28, 2008
01:58 AM
Dear smallsquirrel,
Depends on how you define 'doing good'. If the church sponsors saints on the basis of spurious miracles it does more harm than good.It promotes superstition and fatalism (prayer as a solution to all problems)
Archbishop Romero died for his flock by raising his voice against oppression. He remains a true saint by his deeds and not by selling spurious claims of miracles.
sridhar
June 28, 2008
02:17 AM
Dear Jordan,
Why should we view religious charlatans as lesser evil when compared to oil barons, warlords, cheats and liars?
Mother supported the worst regimes in the world by hobnobbing with them.The dictators were emboldened by Mother's visit and continued their repression of their people.
The link between religious charlatans and despots is not as tenuous as we think.
bd
URL
June 28, 2008
07:14 AM
did she do good? yes. Did she harm anybody? no.
AM
June 28, 2008
07:17 AM
Dear Mr.Sridhar,some of the things you have written about ring a bell.I first came across Teresa in school in 1981 .We had an entire chapter dedicated to the Saint of the Gutters extolling her virtues.I especially remember our teacher telling us she was a great person simply because she was capable of great suffering.Oh!how she picked them from the streets!Oh!how she cared for those nobody else cared for.!Oh how she fixed them up!Tacit in that lecture was the message that Hindus had somehow failed their fellow brethren and that it needed a Christian to set right the anomaly.
....God alone knows how many had to suffer before they got any better...did they get any better at all?.. she may have inadvertently bumped off because she beleived they had to suffer....as you have rightly observed..".Mother Teresa herself referred to the facilities as "Houses of the Dying”.... Dr. Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for conditions in this home, and 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.’8"
AM
June 28, 2008
07:22 AM
We'd anyday prefer liars, thieves, oil company barons, warlords to "Mother" Teresa.
Shantanu Dutta
June 28, 2008
07:25 AM
The fact that Mother Teresa hobnobbed with totalitarian dictators is well known. That she was a devout Catholic and endorsed some awkward Catholic Church teachings are also well known. In fact she was as human as any body else and had her failings. That much is clear. The Catholic church's plans to make her a saint is not to say that she was "perfect'. However let us not forget that with all her failings, she made a huge difference in the lives of the ordinary people with whom she worked- that none of us will perhaps attempt to do with any kind of motive.
Ledzius
June 28, 2008
07:32 AM
Which *Hindu* saint happens to be perfect? Sathya Sai Baba? Amirthanadamayi? It's the same story everywhere. Conversion might have been part of the agenda, but at least Mother Teresa took care of the poor and provided a better life for people who were abandoned on the roads.
Irfan
June 28, 2008
09:54 AM
She did more good than bad.
sridhar
June 28, 2008
10:11 AM
Dear Shantanu Dutta,#13
Thanks for your interesting comments.
Mother Teresa's glorification of suffering was part of the problem. As the Lancet report says that her dying homes/hospices did not have painkillers even though the Missionaries of Charity received donations from all over the world. Why should alleviation of pain not be part of care? Is it because when you don't suffer pain you do not think of the Lord?
Critics also allege that Mother Teresa sought the best medical attention available in the world for her medical problems.It is indeed strange that were no hospitals for the poor.
Many of her co-workers were disillusioned with the experience of working with her.There are detailed reports which are damaging about the quality of the care provided in such institutions.
In an interview MT famously said that in the dispute between the Church and Galileo, she said she would have sided with the church.
If secular institutions accepted money from swindlers there would be uproar in the media. But when it comes to religious institutions we remain strangely silent. Why?
On the issue of care to the poor we must not forget Baba Amte. He empowered his people without enslaving them for the cause of religion.
sridhar
June 28, 2008
10:11 AM
Dear Shantanu Dutta,#13
Thanks for your interesting comments.
Mother Teresa's glorification of suffering was part of the problem. As the Lancet report says that her dying homes/hospices did not have painkillers even though the Missionaries of Charity received donations from all over the world. Why should alleviation of pain not be part of care? Is it because when you don't suffer pain you do not think of the Lord?
Critics also allege that Mother Teresa sought the best medical attention available in the world for her medical problems.It is indeed strange that were no hospitals for the poor.
Many of her co-workers were disillusioned with the experience of working with her.There are detailed reports which are damaging about the quality of the care provided in such institutions.
In an interview MT famously said that in the dispute between the Church and Galileo, she said she would have sided with the church.
If secular institutions accepted money from swindlers there would be uproar in the media. But when it comes to religious institutions we remain strangely silent. Why?
On the issue of care to the poor we must not forget Baba Amte. He empowered his people without enslaving them for the cause of religion.
smallsquirrel
June 28, 2008
10:13 AM
I think there is just a rush to demonize simply because she is christian. I also do not like proselytizers but come on... mother theresa might not have been a saint but she did help a lot of people would would have died without her care
I can even accept that although I think the Hare Krishnas are wacked out that they have massive programs which feed desperately hungry kids who would otherwise starve.
Anamika
June 28, 2008
10:47 AM
SS: "mother theresa might not have been a saint"
But thats exactly what she is given the way the Catholic church rushed through the process. I find it hilarious that "miracles" were some how "proven" in order to establish her as a saint.
Odd how the SAME western press that adoringly followed the process (of proving bonafide miracles) takes a snooty "poor superstitous ignorant natives" stance when it comes to news reports of Ganesha drinking milk!
This is not about demonization of St. Teresa for being Catholic. It is about exposing the hypocrisy of the colonialist discourse that continues to frame how people/cultures/the world is viewed.
Sridhar - good piece.
commonsense
June 28, 2008
10:48 AM
Sridhar:
""As the Lancet report says that her dying homes/hospices did not have painkillers even though the Missionaries of Charity received donations from all over the world.
""It is indeed strange that were no hospitals for the poor.
Many of her co-workers were disillusioned with the experience of working with her.There are detailed reports which are damaging about the quality of the care provided in such institutions.""
Sridhar, it may appear as if i'm defending MT, but I am not. There are enough folks to defend or attack, glorify or denigrate her. Not surprisingly, this is usually the case, pace Orwell, when any human is either put on a pedestal or thrown in the gutter. A bipolar view of the world.
But I do think on the issue of her organization not doing enough to provide medicare for the sick and dying, as commented upon by Hitchens, the Lancet etc. misses the point. Whatever else she may have or not have been doing, she never claimed that she was in the business of providing medicare for the destitute. She was primarily in the business of providing love and care (not medicare) to folks in their last hours when they know they are on their death-bed, completely isolated with no loved ones in sight. Now one may legimately argue that this is the wrong approach when in fact if I had that sum of money I would be spending it on better medical facilities for the poor etc. as indeed many folks do. But it's a matter of priorities and how much can be accomplished. MT, if I understand it, and this is perhaps indisputable, was driven by a particular understanding of her religious beliefs (stating commonsense) about the meaning of life, suffering etc. and not bound by some Hippocratic oath. I am NOT saying she was right: but to say that she did not have the latest CAT scans and surgical devices, is to mis-read her project.
So, I am NOT defending her, much as it might appear that I am.
As for Hitchens, it's disgusting to see such a brilliant polymath, genius, with an incredible wit and way with words, go down the gutter as he has. I see his selling out as a personal blow to my sense of self that was partly built up by avidly reading pretty much everything he wrote and never missed a chance to hear him speak. What a colossal waste of sheer intelligence AND writing/speaking skills.
Bihari
June 28, 2008
10:50 AM
People are judged by the company they keep and hers wasn't all that clean.
Jesus would not have taken blood money- she did. There is no going around that fact. Which itself takes the shine of her sainthood away.
smallsquirrel, a lot of people did die because she did not use the money she made to turn her nunnery into a state of the art of facility where some could have recouped or gotten help from the best doctors or helped to re-start their lives.
Was her compassion only for the Calcutta poor and not for those who suffered under dictators and those who were defrauded?
If the Hare Krishna sect people use blood money they too should be hauled up.
No one can be redeemed based on another's misery. That is the simple truth.
Guido
June 28, 2008
11:14 AM
Mother Theresa was really a bad person. Who knew?
Ciao, Guido
temporal
URL
June 28, 2008
12:26 PM
there are two currents running in the thread
* mother teresa did something ...however little or however incompetently... and most are in agreement that she did more good than bad
and
* the establishment (bavarian baba) and the media rushing to anoint her
****
sridhar: good point re amte
cs: good observation re: 'care' and hutchins
Ledzius
June 28, 2008
12:32 PM
Many Westerners themselves (least of all the Protestants) don't take the Vatican seriously anyway. Since when is Pope = Western civilization?
commonsense
June 28, 2008
12:41 PM
banal and middle-of-the-road as it may sound, for anyone who has been cursed/blessed with the searchlight of the media, in a media-saturated world, any rush to judgment could be prefaced by "on balance...."
Temporal: "on balance", i guess Hitch, touted by the media and by himself as the ultimate "contrarian" has ultimately contradicted everything he always stood for. so, i suppose he is being true to his stance, but why the fish could it not have been the other way around: ie. start as a raving pro-establishment lunatic and then become a contrarian. He however continues to be as cocky as ever....
commonsense
June 28, 2008
12:46 PM
CS:
""but to say that she did not have the latest CAT scans and surgical devices, is to mis-read her project.""
Sorry, it should have been: ""but to say that her organization was DOGGED by the lack of CAT scans or the latest CUTTING EDGE surgical devices, is to mis-read her project.""
Since the Hitch is being discussed, might as well adopt his style of word-play...
commonsense
June 28, 2008
03:50 PM
What will people think of us after we are dead?
A planet with such swiftness running through so much emptiness.
Is the universe even the right size for the fears of our ashes?
Frank Kuppner
Man Singh
URL
June 28, 2008
04:59 PM
Ledzium # 14
The statement "
"at least Mother Teresa took care of the poor and provided a better life for people who were abandoned on the roads"
is not true in the light of that she could not eliminate the poverty of even one city of India in spite of having budget more then that of many governments in the world.
Mother Teresa's case is an evidence that mere propaganda and association with dictators and other influencial people can manage a Noble prize along with millions of dollars.
I can eliminate poverty from all the 4 Metropolitian cities of India if that much money is avaialable to me. I dun need sainthood or noble prize.
Morris
June 28, 2008
05:09 PM
I agree with CS. MT went for love and compassion more so than physical care. She wanted to show emotional support for the neglected and destuitudes. And she did that very well. Could she have done more. I think so. But she was a loyal supporter of her church. The funds raised were used in accordance with the priority of the church and in that perhaps she was guided by the vatican.
Some one suggested that she was demonized simply because she was a christian. I think it is exactly the opposite. She was allowed to get away by the media and politians because she was a christian. Those pseudo seculars are always willing to overlook the shortcomings and blow up the good deeds of the minority. Hey, that is good way to be proud about their imprtiality. If she were a Hindu there would have been a lot more critical examination a long before now both by politians and particularly by the media. And that too would have given them pride about their impartiality.
All in all she did some good but certainly does not appear to be a saint.
Chandra
June 29, 2008
04:05 AM
CRS
She has been dead since sometime. Why waste your time?
sridhar
June 29, 2008
01:09 PM
Dear Chandra,
Since we have already wasted considerable time writing about her saintly deeds, a critical study of her legacy may not be entirely a waste of time.
sridhar
June 29, 2008
01:25 PM
Dear commonsense,
I am in complete agreement with your views on Hitch. When Hitch hitched a ride with Bush&co he lost his intellectual integrity.( pun intended)
Soros Henning
July 13, 2008
10:18 AM
Commendable work Sridhar and published at a very time of the globalization process when people are talking of multiplying wealth and seeking divine intervention when valuations of shares and stocks have nose dived.Wonder Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu(herein after called AGB) would have upped the Stock Index had the paupers prayed with their normal request to the lords/saints for"Health, Wealth and Happiness".
After reading Christopher Hitchens your language describing AGB seems Satin & Velvet considering Hitchens was vitriolic and spewing volcanic larve.I was more interested how you would be going on the language as criticism of these religious frauds should be dealt with contempt.If our friends would like to know more about how Corporates and oil companies join with religion and loot the people they should read 'Religion and the rise of Capitalism' by R.H.Tawney.Reading Marx's collected works on religion will also help in understanding this phenomenon of religion as tool in explioting the people.
Between 1930's to the 1950's she spent a large part of her time in the North East of India.Perhaps one reason why the entire North Eastern India is completely converted to catholicism. this AGB must have done by completely destroying the indeginous and native worshipping.
Essentially her work revolved in converting people.As she did not establish a School (like all Christian Institutions do)perhaps she established this place not intentionally but by default.She assumed as to why not do something out of the box(current Corporate jargon)rather than the sterio types like establishing a school or college considering Lorreto's and St.Xavier had been established already.An out of the box concept will attract more funds globally.Mind you Sridhar AGB had already thought of tapping Corporates and Media Blitz etc when you,i and rest of the world did not concieve a world of Liberlisation Privatization and Globalisation under WTO.Perhaps in this context she ought to have been honoured at Davos and not at the Vatican.
Some Indian authors have written about her and one of them is one Bhatia charecter and the other great admirer of AGB was one of the former chairman of Hindustan Lever who donated a lot of money to the Miss.of.Charity.If one goes thro these books one can see the mindless appreciation like psychophants.One feels as though these books were commissioned by the Vatican.I agree with you that her popularity rose because of the Media and Press.There a lot many NGO's in India who are doing remarkable work in helping the poor and giving them some assisstance for their livelihood and allowing them to live in dignity.Infact you in India ought to be proud of the many Institutions and NGO's who are doing silent work and do not seek publicty unlike the little midget AGB.
Any Christian institution whether Catholic or Protestant will start a set up with a view of conversion and nothing beyond.Christanity is highly capitalistic and does its job ruthlessly which no corporate can do.KRA's and job descriptions are very clear.We must also know that religious dogma's are the enablers for the advancement of capitalistic development and christianity is the key catalyst amongst all the religion perhaps because it has largest followers.
Hinduism has small population of followers.Tragically the person who is turning out to be joker in international political scenario instead of being a good will ambassodor of India is Ravi Shankar of the Art of Living foundation.His comments on solving the Palestanian problems and support to the Congress party on the Nuclear issues have been outragious.Yet Ravi Shankar has not been as damaging as the little witch AGB.
Keep writing but certainly not on this platform.There are more popular magazines and web portals.
I may have digressed a little during the process f commenting but sometimes one feels like putting one's thoughts hence this has become a little long.
zulfikar
July 13, 2008
12:06 PM
* "zulfikar" has posted 3 comments
* "anand" has posted 1 comments
annamma
July 14, 2008
10:01 AM
You know why there are no doctors there? because we guys do not go and serve as MT and her ilk are willing to do. I'm asked often enough, by a guy I know, (he is actually a Hindu guy, himself, but is completely dedicated to helping the poor himself, so spends a lot of his time and money at the home) to go and help at the Delhi home for 70 kids, many of them disabled. I'm ashamed to say I've made it only a few times. God knows where they find the strength to care for the down-and-out the way they do, 24X7. So its not perfect, and sure, Mother Teresa could be pretty naive and altogether too accepting of anyone, whether terrorist or dictator, but then she never claimed to be a prophet, or leader, or even a great thinker. She was solely concerned with her agenda of building support for the poor. Lets leave the poor women alone, at least till we are willing to get our own hands dirty...
Blow the canonisation and all the rest. Who cares? that is all the nonsense added on.
Add your comment