Mother Teresa and Her Critics

[tinytherese]

I just found this article and in response to accusations against the saint. Talk about irrational hatred and haters gonna hate.

 

"...I requested interviews with the researchers, and finally obtained one with Dr. Chenard. Her answers to my series of questions were both astonishing and revealing: She confirmed for me that her academic team did not speak to a single patient, medical analyst, associate, or worker of Mother Teresa’s before writing their paper against her; nor did they examine how all her finances were spent; nor did they speak with anyone at the Vatican involved with her sainthood cause, or consult the Vatican’s medical board which certified the miracle attributed to Blessed Teresa.The researchers had not even traveled to Calcutta, whereas even Hitchens, misguided as he was, at least did that. 

As it turned out, this 'research paper' was nothing but a 'review of literature,' a repacking of what  others had already written, with the academics putting their own negative spin on it. In other words, an indictment based upon no original research, and the author most frequently cited? Christopher Hitchens. Yet these 'findings' made international headlines, and were repeated by many without objection."

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/04/mother-teresa-and-her-critics

Common sense is in short supply now, isn't it?

[dominicansoul]

She was the real deal, a genuine Christian who did more than talk the talk...so of course, satan's minions will do all they can to discredit her...

[Luigi]

My rather loose translation/paraphrase of the end of the Beatitudes: 

Blessed are you when folks shall revile you and shall persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you for my sake. REjoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is her reward in heaven. 

 

Say "Amen," somebody.  

[dominicansoul]

AAAAMen!

[vee]

amen

[Gabriela]

FYI: A literature review is a perfectly standard way of doing academic research. Many authors write them and draw new conclusions from them. The media is at fault here for its misrepresentation of what the research was.

I'm not defending anybody who's bashing Mother Theresa. I'm just saying that the researchers don't deserve to be bashed for not flying to Calcutta or making a bunch of phone calls. That's not how many academics work.

[Seven77]

Anybody know of well-researched, well-reasoned refutations of these kinds of attacks on Bl. Mother Teresa? I've been looking for some material for a project i'm thinking about... 

[Sponsa-Christi]

FYI: A literature review is a perfectly standard way of doing academic research. Many authors write them and draw new conclusions from them. The media is at fault here for its misrepresentation of what the research was.

I don't mean to derail the thread, but I'm genuinely curious...how does this kind of literature review work? As in, how could you draw new conclusions about a subject without using any original source material? (I'm definitely not trying to start a debate, just honestly asking a question.)

[NadaTeTurbe]

I mentionned this article to my (socialist and atheist) mother and she looked at me with big eyes and said "How can you even think about criticizing Mother Teresa ?" 

[Gabriela]

I don't mean to derail the thread, but I'm genuinely curious...how does this kind of literature review work? As in, how could you draw new conclusions about a subject without using any original source material? (I'm definitely not trying to start a debate, just honestly asking a question.)

Studies are so focused on establishing one single, narrow finding (or two, or three) that they often miss the forest for the trees. Someone who approaches the larger body of research with the specific intent of evaluating the forest can see a lot that more-focused researchers missed. This is a really common thing to do when a field stagnates or runs out of ideas about what to research next, or when there's so much being researched that someone needs to pull it all together and give a clear overview of what's been found and what would be most helpful to do next. It's also helpful when a field has conflicting findings: Looking very closely at how the conflicting studies were designed can explain why there's a conflict, and then methods can be improved and studies conducted to decide which side is right once and for all.

That being said, I don't see why anyone would want to do a review of literature on Mother Theresa. Maybe someone in an English or Religious Studies department? I have no idea. It's not my area, and I can't see the point in it. I read the full First Things article and, while I fault the guy for griping about the literature review (a clear journalistic bias), I still agree with him that the original article was croutons because of its own obvious bias (i.e., Mother Theresa-h8ing).

[tinytherese]

Hmm, well I've never heard of a literature review unless it's someone reviewing a single book, article, or other form of media. 

It's too bad that the sources of the literature written about her weren't closely evaluated before publishing. That may have taken too much time to do and they were under a deadline.

I'm just thinking back to writing papers in college and our sources had to be approved of by the professor and we'd be given notes on our first drafts. "Explain this to me. You make an assertion about something without backing it up with anything." Then again, maybe people figured that those writing knew how to do scholarly research since they were presumably professionals.  

[Luigi]

FYI: A literature review is a perfectly standard way of doing academic research. Many authors write them and draw new conclusions from them. The media is at fault here for its misrepresentation of what the research was.

I'm not defending anybody who's bashing Mother Theresa. I'm just saying that the researchers don't deserve to be bashed for not flying to Calcutta or making a bunch of phone calls. That's not how many academics work.

I know that what you're saying is true, but I don't think a literature review is always productive. A synthesis of BS results in more BS.  

[Gabriela]

I know that what you're saying is true, but I don't think a literature review is always productive. A synthesis of BS results in more BS.  

while I fault the guy for griping about the literature review (a clear journalistic bias), I still agree with him that the original article was croutons because of its own obvious bias (i.e., Mother Theresa-h8ing).

Yeah. GIGO. It isn't always productive. But it is very often productive. Clearly not in this case, though.

[beatitude]

Hmm, well I've never heard of a literature review unless it's someone reviewing a single book, article, or other form of media. 

A literature review is standard academic practice and is usually a precusor to original research of your own. For example, almost every PhD student has to write a literature review of their field before they embark on their own project, in order to provide the context for their project, identify any gaps in the knowledge, and avoid repeating work that's already been done. Literature reviews are also used to synthesise information on topics where huge amounts of research have already been done, so that people can read one article and identify the key studies and themes without having to go to every single thing that's ever been written on the topic. An academic lit review will identify the strengths and limitations of existing research, but it doesn't describe each study and comment in detail the way a film review would do.

I am puzzled by the use of the lit review in this case, as a.) it doesn't seem as though these researchers plan to make their own original study on Mother Teresa, and b.) there hasn't been such an enormous amount of academic research on her to justify a review that summarises and evaluates it all. It sounds as though their lit review is basically a repeat of what Hitchens wrote, which I would hesitate to even call a lit review.