7.07.2009

Mother Teresa: The Greatest Lie Ever Told?

Share

As I have found out time and again, if you are critical of Mother Teresa watch out - you will be attacked regardless of the factual information you present.

Mother Teresa is often presented as one of the shining examples of religious good. Is this true? In my opinion, not at all. In fact, Mother Teresa was one of the best examples of how a legend can be produced from good PR regardless of what the person actually did for humanity.

Calcutta

One of the most referenced accomplishments accredited to Mother Teresa was her "Home for the Dying" in Calcutta, one of many establishments which the Missionaries of Charity established to care for "the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone." While these establishments seemed like true humanitarian efforts from an outsider's point of view, the truth behind them is far more sinister. The justification for the lack of medical supplies including painkillers at these places was evidently rooted in Teresa's personal belief that the path to religious purity was through suffering.

This did not, however, stop the Mother herself from utilizing some of the most expensive and technologically up to date clinics in the west when she herself begand to experience heart trouble and other issues tied to her old age. Why is it that Mother Teresa saw something beautiful in the suffering of the poor Calcutta masses but when it came to her own suffering saw no issue with allowing herself the most comfortable care, regardless of the price? This seems to indicate a lack of true belief in what she preached - a hypocrisy which should not be ignored.

Nobel Peace Prize and Birth Control

In 1979 Mother Teresa was given the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts in Calcutta. At this time she was already well on her way to being one of the more influential and affluent religious leaders of our time - though her bankroll was not reflected in her homes for the destitute, nor would it ever be. Many people, including Christopher Hitchens, have asked one question in regard to her attaining the Peace Prize - Why? Her acceptance speech was a perfect example of the lack of regard for peace: “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.” These are not the words of a humble, loving person doing the work of a loving god. These are the words of a calculated religious leader who is pushing an agenda by any means nessecary.

Her attacks on birth control were constant and showed an utter disregard for the dangers of over-population and the suffering it caused - a suffering which she experienced first hand at her centers for the poorest of poor. In 1992 at an open air mass in Knock, Ireland, she said, “Let us promise our Lady who loves Ireland so much, that we will never allow this country a single abortion. And no contraceptives.” When asked about the over-popuation of India where a good portion of her work was seen as necessary because of a direct correlation between the poor and over-population, she said "God always provides. He provides for the flowers and the birds, for everything in the world He has created. And those little children are his life. There can never be enough.”

Even if one were to believe that Mother Teresa had nothing but what she felt was the best intentions in regard to these people, her comments show clearly a lack of understanding in regard to the modern world and the necessity for contraception as a means to control the destitute population in all areas of the world. At worse, her actions were selfish and calculated and at best, irresponsibly out of touch with reality.

Comments (11)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Blue Flubber's avatar

Blue Flubber · 822 weeks ago

Bang on the buck. Well-written piece.
I had visited the Missionary of Charities orphanage in Calcutta years back, and I give them full credit for doing things that were otherwise not being done by anyone/any organisation. Mother Teresa is responsible for the scale of operations at least.

I am an atheist, and I'm fully aware of the other angles of the life of Mother Teresa. But I believe that she did more good than bad. I saw hundreds of children, all undernourished, all orphans, some with diseases, etc etc, all who otherwise would have been shelter-less and exploited in the harsh conditions of Calcutta. For this reason, as much as I hate religion for what it has done (in this case, blinding Mother Teresa by illogical beliefs), I think in this case, I would appreciate what she did. Not because she was all pure, but because she was more good than bad.
2 replies · active 822 weeks ago
If all of the hundreds of children you saw in the Missionary of Charities orphanage were undernourished, why do you think she was doing good. Shouldn't those children have been getting proper nutrition?

Almost all of the vast sums of money she raised went to take very good care of the nuns in her order, and only a very small amount went to the work they were doing.

So the children remain undernourished while the sisters live in comfort.

Read "The Missionary Position" by Christopher Hitchens to get a look at the hidden side of the life of Mother Teresa.
They were undernourised at the time of getting into the place. But were getting food/shelter once they were there.

I saw the living quarters of the nuns, which were right next to the orphanage dorms. It wasnt exactly luxurious. Far from it.

Sure, she might have made a LOT of money in the process, for her selfish reasons - hell it's religion after all! That's what they do! But net effect- hungry homeless kids now eat under a roof. Hence, positive influence. Oprah makes money too right? I live in India and have read a hell hell lot about the nefarious activities that go at the Charity. I still feel it's a net positive. You have to be there to see it.
Maybe as someone who spent a good part of her life on the streets, she didn't have the luxury of reading at peace and understanding the fallacies of religion, and the saneness that reason and scence brings about, like say, you and I have. It was easier for someone like her to get deluded by religion.

To sum up, she was more good than bad. It is important to not make her into an "all pure" being; at the same time, I woulnt dismiss her as just another selfish religious prick.
3 replies · active 822 weeks ago
That may have been a logical excuse at first, that she didn't have the luxury of knowledge, but as I've stated, she knew exactly what she was doing when she built negligent hospices for people which were little more than dirty wire framed beds and espoused the virtues of suffering while she herself indulged in all the luxuries of western medicine. She was a hypocrite and a manipulator, and she used religion as a way to give people the bare minimum while telling them that that was the best they could get and that they should THANK god for what they were given.

I am of the position that any 'good' done under the pretext of accepting a specific religion is not good at all, but a means to manipulate people to your will. Yes, it was nice that she gave dying people a more comfortable place to die than the street. But to 'give' them a dirty bed to die in while rejoicing over their suffering as if it were a beautiful, religious thing? That is, quite frankly, unacceptable.

And to try to dismiss her as if she's was some kind of simple, loving being is also a mistake. She was very shrewd in her dealings with people. She even accepted a large sum of money from an embezzler and had the nerve to write the judge in his criminal trial asking for leniency for him in a blatant attempt to try to use her position of authority to sway the judge. This was a man who stole $252,000,000 from 17,000 people. She asked him "to do what Jesus would do." The response to her request for clemency was this: “You urge Judge Ito to look into his heart--as he sentences Charles Keating--and do what Jesus would do. I submit the same challenge to you. Ask yourself what Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being exploited by a thief to ease his conscience.” Not surprisingly, she kept the money and discontinued communication with the judge and prosecuting team.

People want to believe in heroes and they want to believe that someone is out there doing great things for people for little personal gain - and that is true that there are people out there doing that kind of work. However, I have found that most of the time if it's a famous religious leader doing 'good deeds' in the spotlight of the world, they usually are doing the bare minimum and they're doing everything for the price of conversion and proselytizing. If I help you on the street and ask nothing in return, that is a good deed. If I see you suffering on the street and say I'll help you if you pray to my god, that's not a good deed, that's a business transaction. One where I am taking advantage of your suffering to up the chances of getting what I want.
True, true, true.

And this is EXACTLY why I say she should not be glorified the way she was and is. But to those children (see my "reply" comment above), the Charity was better than the alternative (which was going hungry on the street, while being exploited by many).

I believe that while the glorification of the charity (which is trying to spread illogical and dangerous faith) itself must be fought, even the bare minimum that she gave must not be as simply dismissed.

While weighing someone/some institution/some ideology, we musn't put it all in black and white. In this case, it's a dark shade of gray. The charity done (if only for sly reasons) give the black a shade of "whiteness".
Maybe that's why I feel so passionately about calling her out - so many people accept that M. Teresa was good enough to be the dictionary definition of good and that isn't at all the case. There are enough people singing her praises without any concern in regard to the hypocrisy and selfishness of her actions that I feel it's important to be outspoken in regard to criticisms of her. I don't feel like anyone is above reproach and I think maybe because so many people view M. Teresa as such that I feel it's important to point out that though she may have wanted (and largely succeeded) to seem beyond criticism, she did a lot of things worth criticizing.
Isn't there a word for a person who enjoys seeing other people suffer? Mother Teresa called the suffering of the people she "helped" "beautiful". She also was not trying to lessen their suffering, she was trying to convert people to the catholic religion. She refused to allow the nuns in her order to get medical training to help them deal with the medical problems of those whom they were claiming to help.
Here's Penn and Teller's take on her - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzFEesUUX0s
This blog post has been featured on Angie the Anti-Theist Sunday School!

Post a new comment

Comments by