How Come People Bash Blessed Mother Theresa Of Calcutta?

[Gabriela]

Christopher Hitchens comes to mind, but I've heard other people say nasty things about her, too. Why? I don't know much about her or her order, and I'm thinking there are misperceptions I don't understand because I don't know what truths are getting distorted.

 

So, what do people say about her, and what is the truth?

[Nihil Obstat]

Depends who you are talking about. There is a legitimate discussion to be had on whether or not she fell victim to the kind of 'syncretic' mindset. I do not think she did, but it should be recognized that it is not a frivolous debate.

In terms of people like Hitchens, probably it is just because they hate Catholics. Not really anything interesting there. I do not really pay a lot of attention.

[GeorgiiMichael]

The argument that Hitchens uses focuses on Bl. Mother Theresa, but he's really arguing that religious people who do nice things are selfish because nice things get them to heaven. Where atheists on the other hand do nice things because they're nice things with no chance of reward.

 

I find it to be an argument created just to bait those of faith as opposed to a legitimate argument.

[4588686]

She fetishized poverty rather than attempted to really end poverty.  Which is arguable.  She also had some icky associations with some authoritarian governments and leaders.  Also arguable. 

 

I think that the critics are right in trying to break the taboo against criticizing MT because I do think she should be criticized on some accounts.  But overall she seems like a woman who tried to do the right thing in a flawed way.  Which is the best any of us can really do.  

[Nihil Obstat]

She fetishized poverty rather than attempted to really end poverty.  Which is arguable. 

You raise a good point. It has gotten me thinking. I do not think she ever really said that she intended to end poverty, but rather that her focus was more to bring a certain basic level of human dignity to those who experienced it.

I think it is telling that she herself essentially lived in those very same conditions. Certainly nobody can coherently accuse her of hypocrisy.

[4588686]

You raise a good point. It has gotten me thinking. I do not think she ever really said that she intended to end poverty, but rather that her focus was more to bring a certain basic level of human dignity to those who experienced it.

I think it is telling that she herself essentially lived in those very same conditions. Certainly nobody can coherently accuse her of hypocrisy.

 

I agree.  I don't think that the problem is really anything that Mother Theresa did, aside from perhaps her associations with the authoritarian Albanian and Hatian governments, which seem pretty mild, but rather with the media glorification of Mother Theresa without pointing out the shortcomings in her approach outside of her unique context.  And I think the rhetoric of Hitchens is ridiculous.  Like often happened with his writings from the 90's on he took an arguable point that went against the tide but then exploded it beyond all reasonableness.   

[Nihil Obstat]

I agree.  I don't think that the problem is really anything that Mother Theresa did, aside from perhaps her associations with the authoritarian Albanian and Hatian governments, which seem pretty mild, but rather with the media glorification of Mother Theresa without pointing out the shortcomings in her approach outside of her unique context.  And I think the rhetoric of Hitchens is ridiculous.  Like often happened with his writings from the 90's on he took an arguable point that went against the tide but then exploded it beyond all reasonableness.   

 

There are enough good people who have unfortunately associated themselves with authoritarian politicians that it is a fault I am somewhat inclined to overlook. :sweat:

All in all, I think the media in general would be much less inclined to praise Mother Teresa if they actually took some time to process what she stood for. Her message coordinates only partially with ideas that are popular right now.

[jumpfrog]

I have heard that her centers do not offer treatment, even when someone's life could be saved by basic antibiotics. Since their congregation is technically 'for the dying' they apparently don't really employ many fully qualified medical staff. That bothers some people.

The thing I have heard that bugs me the most is some dishonesty in how MT presented her work. An indian writer from Calcutta told of his disgust when MT and her sisters showed up at the site of the Bhopal disaster, where they were seen by media...the sisters were not there to offer any assistance other than prayer, but you can imagine how this could have boosted their profile and garnered donations to their congregation, donations that people might have imagined going to help those affected by the disaster. MT has also said misleading things about how funds are used...for example, describing how many hundreds of people they feed everyday, when in fact most of the people are in fact the sisters themselves. This seems misleading.

Also, I am confused about their charism. They are supposed to be serving the poorest, but I have seen them working in parishes in korea, doing just regular religious ed stuff. The also have a swank house in Toronto too, but i am not sure of their mission there. In any case, it must be very diferent from the founding charism. I get the feeling they send sisters out here and there partly to maintain visibility now that the famous founder is gone...a way to keep donations rolling in?

I don't know...they make me uncomfortable, anyway.

[Papist]

Many people criticize what they do not understand.

[CatherineM]

How is offering prayers not helping? Her ministry wasn't to end poverty. That's impossible. Even Jesus knew that. She understood her job was souls first. Liberation Theology people lose sight of that.

[Era Might]

Once you enter history, your life becomes a topic of conversation and analysis. There's a time and place for hagiography.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Era Might

[ImageTrinity]

I have heard that her centers do not offer treatment, even when someone's life could be saved by basic antibiotics. Since their congregation is technically 'for the dying' they apparently don't really employ many fully qualified medical staff. That bothers some people.

 

Only partially true (I worked at the home for the dying in Kolkata). They offer whatever medical treatment they can. Residents are given antiobiotics, vitamins, etc. with their meals. However, the Sisters rely exclusively on donations and volunteers. If they have antibiotics to give, it's because they were donated. If they are able to offer professional medical help, it's because a doctor volunteered. The Sisters learn as much as they can when the do have a doctor on staff, so they can continue the care once the doctor leaves.

What I didn't know until I arrived is that the vast majority of residents in the home for the dying (at least in India) are only dying because they are starving. Roughly 3/4 of the patients leave in good health after weeks/months of good food.

[Basilisa Marie]

Many argue that her cause for canonization was wrongfully expedited.  The whole reason for a five year waiting process after a person's death is so that "feelings" about a person can die down so the Church can view a person's cause more objectively.  JPII waived the waiting period and the "devil's advocate" during the process.  Same thing basically happened with JPII's cause.  But I'm not a fan of expediting anyone's cause, because if we're just going to expedite all the people we like, why not abolish waiting periods all together?

 

There are many arguable criticisms of Mother Teresa.  Other than her treatment of the idea of poverty, I've heard that she encouraged her sisters to baptize the dying without any regard for the person's religious beliefs.  She's just become this huge public figure, where she's the example of "good" while Hitler is the example of "evil."  But that doesn't change the fact that Mother Teresa was human, even if she is a saint, she's still flawed. 

[Debra Little]

She fetishized poverty rather than attempted to really end poverty.  Which is arguable.  She also had some icky associations with some authoritarian governments and leaders.  Also arguable. 

 

I think that the critics are right in trying to break the taboo against criticizing MT because I do think she should be criticized on some accounts.  But overall she seems like a woman who tried to do the right thing in a flawed way.  Which is the best any of us can really do.  

 

Mother Teresa was outstanding in every way!

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

I have heard that her centers do not offer treatment, even when someone's life could be saved by basic antibiotics. Since their congregation is technically 'for the dying' they apparently don't really employ many fully qualified medical staff. That bothers some people.

.

I have worked in a very minor level with Srs from her order in Ethiopia, they did offer treatment there and several sisters had medical training...and I didn't quote the part of the comment, but the sisters serve to poorest of the poor in relation to the society they are in, as a note sisters of he order are in the United States and from a world perspective our poor are not that poor overall.