SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: The Philosopher who wrote (12348)4/25/2001 1:47:24 PM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 82486
 
Published March 7, 1993, in The Tampa Tribune
Copyright 1993 Anastasia Stanmeyer

Helping the Helpless -- Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity

CALCUTTA, India -- Mother Teresa slips into an unadorned room and leans against the back wall as 140 nuns in white kneel before her, silent, lost in prayer.
Milky light filters through the windows, cascading softly over the sisters as if candles are being lit, slowly, one by one.

The 82-year-old holy woman, under 5 feet tall, bends over a book clutched in both hands and begins reading aloud a prayer in a low, strong voice. She pauses after each line, and the nuns, most of them Indian, repeat the words in unison during Mass at Mother House.

Mother Teresa's deeply wrinkled face looks like an intricate road map. A sari-like habit, white with blue trim, cloaks her body. Her large, bare feet are twisted and contorted, as if tied in knots. Her hands are gnarled, out of place for someone who appears so fragile.

She calls the streets of Calcutta home. They are where she began her empire, the Missionaries of Charity, an order dedicated to the poorest of the poor.

Calcutta is a city of 11.8 million people, about 5 million of whom live in slums and perhaps another quarter-million on the streets. Calcutta's population per square mile is 56,927 people; New York City's is 11,480.

Born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, Mother Teresa taught middle-class students in Calcutta for 20 years before founding the order that has 2,535 missionaries working in 72 countries.

"There are very many people all over the world ... who are in deep poverty," she says. "Each person must help.

"We must do things one at a time."

Mother Teresa, an Albanian who grew up in Yugoslavia, is a Roman Catholic nun who lives in poverty in India. She has survived two heart attacks and a bone disease that knots her spine, hands and feet.

In 1990, she resigned as head of Missionaries of Charity -- a group that operates homes for the poor in India and other countries -- because of poor health. She picked up the reins again, though, after an unsuccessful attempt to find a successor.

She believes the more a person has, the more one is occupied and the less one gives. Poverty for her is freedom, not a penance.

The 1979 Nobel Peace Prize winner says that the dying, the crippled, the lepers, the mentally ill, the unwanted, the unloved are Jesus in disguise. She considers death as something beautiful; it means going home to God.

Mother Teresa began her Missionaries of Charity to help those living and dying in the streets with nothing to eat, no where to sleep, no money and no education. The nuns have picked up more than 54,000 people from the streets of Calcutta in over 40 years, and more than 23,000 have died at the Home for the Dying in Kalighat, a Calcutta neighborhood.

Kalighat, like everywhere else in the city, is overloaded. It's as though someone built an enormous backdrop and is directing people to act out their lives in the streets. Aging cars, trucks, buses, taxis, horse-drawn surreys, bullock wagons, human-pulled rickshaws, mangy dogs, men, women, children and wandering cows clog the streets.

Calcutta wasn't always like this.

There were three villages of fishermen, weavers and priests for at least 1,000 years before the British East Indian Company established Calcutta in 1690 as a trading post.

At the height of its glory in the 19th century, Calcutta was called the second city of the British Empire, rivaling London in its riches and social refinement.

The city's decline started in 1911, when the capital of British India was moved to Delhi, just north of the present capital, New Delhi. Calcutta had to make room for more people with the 1947 partition that ended British colonial rule, making an independent India and Pakistan and creating a flow of refugees across the newly created borders.

In the wake of the Bangladesh war in 1971, another population surge overburdened the city and urban services since have been on the verge of collapse.

The city is attached like an ear to the banks of the Hooghly River. The inner ear is the "White Town," the former European city of spacious homes and broad avenues. Beyond that, encompassing the villages, lies the native section, or "Black Town," of narrow lanes, slums, bazaars, temples, mansions and warehouses.

Street scenes
Everywhere, people sleep on the ground, many with nothing to shield them from the hard concrete or dark cold. The smell of steamy, pungent trash heaped at the sides of the streets is smothering.
The homeless cook in the streets. Rice and scraps of food simmer in tin pots resting on an overturned square steel container with wood burning underneath.

People sell vegetables, and hot tea is served in leaves twisted into cones. Lining the streets are small shops where nearly everything is sold, from tourism services to T-shirts to Campa-Cola -- India's version of Coca-Cola.

Many men wear red-and-white checkered cloth wrapped around their waists and nearly reaching their ankles. Women dress in brightly colored saris.

The same scenes are repeated hundreds of times. Along the Hooghly River, people cook and sleep, and they bathe and wash clothes in the dirty waters.

On every road, young women with dirt-smeared faces and outstretched hands loosely holding naked babies beg to anyone who walks by. Some children are deliberately deformed so beggars can entice more rupees.

At one street corner, a dog and a teen-age boy sleep side-by-side. Ten yards away, a small sign next to two wood doors reads, "Mother Teresa In."

A PERSONAL TOUCH
The doors open to two- and three-story concrete buildings where Mother Teresa and other Missionaries of Charity live and hold services. The Mother House is a refuge that blocks the ugliness outside.
Inside, in the calmness, sisters are everywhere -- a sea of white against clean stone floors and walls. Nuns in the courtyard beat white clothes against a concrete ground and pour water on the garments from a tin pail.

Work halts during morning service, then resumes afterward. As the sisters continue their daily tasks, Mother Teresa slowly makes her way down a hall, coughing and pressing a white handkerchief to her mouth.

She disappears into a room, then emerges about a half-hour later to talk to visitors. With prayer book in hand, she walks toward the handful of guests.

She speaks quietly to each person, her gray-blue eyes twinkling like a child's. She firmly grasps each outstretched hand in both of hers.

One man asks her to say a prayer for his dying mother. She nods, then blesses and gives shiny pendants of the Virgin Mary to him and other visitors. She hands out slips of paper with a prayer and photograph of her.

"This is my business card," she says jokingly, doling out small cards that read, "The fruit of silence is prayer; the fruit of prayer is faith; the fruit of faith is love; the fruit of love is service; the fruit of service is peace."

Her mission is to do all she can for the poverty-stricken.

Family values, she tells another visitor, are the way to overcome problems in the world.

"The family that prays together stays together," she says.

Mother Teresa asks the visitors to help at one of the homes for the ill and the homeless and at a school for street children.

She turns to leave, and visitors press money into her hands. She acknowledges it with a faint smile and walks to the chapel again, a solitary figure crouching against the wall. She stoops over a prayer book, mouthing the words in silence as her index finger touches every line.

Selfless service
Meanwhile, nuns and volunteers prepare for another day of helping the needy.
Chris Jenkins, in her 30s, left her job as a waitress in Exeter, England, seven months before to help the sick and homeless, joining thousands of volunteers who come in any given year.

Although she plans to go back home soon, she says she'll be back.

"You receive much more than you give," she says. "A lot of people come out here to sort something through in their lives, to sort out problems, and they're unhappy at home."

As she talks, eight nuns pile into a mini-ambulance, carrying huge wicker baskets with white pieces of cloth inside.

The ambulance driver honks his horn every 30 seconds to get through the crowded streets of Calcutta. Twenty minutes later, the nuns reach their destination: Home for the Dying in Kalighat.

A funeral procession is leaving the home as they arrive. A hand-held stretcher carries a body wrapped tightly in white cloth and adorned with bright red, orange and yellow flowers.

Inside the building, a sign reads, "Let my hands heal thy broken body."

Sister Luke is in charge of the Home for the Dying and asks whoever walks through its doors to volunteer. Many do.

The place is spotless, with four rows of green cots lined up in two rectangular rooms that separate the women from the men. The upper two rows are for those who likely will recover; the lower two are for those near death. Young and old are being treated, and amidst the sickly are children, running, laughing and smiling.

Death and life mingle under the whizzing of ceiling fans.

MECCA FOR THE DYING
Mother Teresa's first contact with the destitute was when she found a woman dying in the street, eaten by rats. She took the woman to a nearby hospital, but the people there were reluctant to take her. She was so insistent that they finally treated the woman. From then on, Mother Teresa decided to find a place for the dying and take care of them.
She asked the government only for a place; the rest she would do herself. City officials allowed Mother Teresa to use a building next to the Kali temple in Kalighat where pilgrims worshiped a Hindu goddess with the power to give and destroy life.

That's where the Home for the Dying began more than 40 years ago. Relatives, friends and passers-by bring the patients, or they come on their own. Volunteers assist the nuns, priests and monks, bathing, comforting and feeding the dying.

About 20 volunteers from the United States, Germany, France, England and other countries bathe and change the clothing of 60 or so once-healthy bodies. In the men's dorm, a 23-year-old German man sits on a cot, facing a young boy.

The child grabs at keys dangled in front of him, but the man quickly pulls them out of reach. The boy laughs and his eyes dance as the two play. Later, the man gives the boy a shot.

On the lower tier, volunteers lay a man on a cot. He pulls his knees almost to his chin, his skin stretched taut over protruding bones.

The German man stops playing with the boy and helps a nun stick an intravenous needle into the dying man's thin arm. It takes them 20 minutes to find a vein. Afterward, the ill man leans over the cot and spits up mucus, a sign of tuberculosis. The German man wipes it up with tissue paper and throws it into a pail.

Volunteers carry garbage from the home to a huge, open-air dump nearby. Street people rummage through the trash, looking for food or usable items.

Many people have tuberculosis when they come to the Home for the Dying. Some also have scabies and must have their heads shaved.

In a two-hour period in the women's dormitory, three people die. Nuns wrap each in white cloth and tie thin strips of material around the waists, feet and chests. The frail bodies look like giant matches, with their dark, peaceful faces peeking out.

The bodies remain on cots until they are carried by stretcher to a small morgue where nuns prepare them for a procession and cremation.

Work never slows for new volunteers, who stand back and watch, slowly catching on. First they might scoop water from a pail into tin cups and hand them to the sick. Or they might go to the back room, where huge batches of food are cooked and clothes and sheets are washed by hand and foot.

Volunteers twist the laundry to remove the water and throw it into wicker baskets to be carried outside and hung to dry.

As the volunteers work, they chat and laugh. They say what they're doing is fulfilling. Some have been here for years. Others for months or days.

"I enjoy helping the ill and the dying," said 18-year-old Nick Walford.

Walford, of London, who took a year's break between high school and college, has been volunteering at the home for several weeks. He's wearing a blue apron and washing clothes that morning, along with Jim Pearl.

"I've always dreamed of working for the poor and coming to India and seeing Mother Teresa," says Pearl of Nevada City, Mont., who worked in construction and in restaurants in the United States.

"It's really quite joyful," said Pearl, 34, who's been at the home for eight months and plans to stay another year. "There's a different consciousness of death.

"People come here from all over, for different reasons, from all religions. Mother Teresa has inspired the whole world by her unconditional love."

People don't fear death here, he says.

"It's the most beautiful experience, holding someone's hands at least for a few minutes. For those who are dying, we give them some warmth."

s2f.com



To: The Philosopher who wrote (12348)4/25/2001 1:52:51 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Here is a critical piece:

Mother Teresa's House of Illusions
How She Harmed Her Helpers As Well As Those They 'Helped'
by Susan Shields

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

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 18, Number 1.

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

Some years after I became a Catholic, I joined Mother Teresa's congregation, the Missionaries of Charity. I was one of her sisters for nine and a half years, living in the Bronx, Rome, and San Francisco, until I became disillusioned and left in May 1989. As I reentered the world, I slowly began to unravel the tangle of lies in which I had lived. I wondered how I could have believed them for so long.

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 efforts to prevent any attachments cause continual chaos and confusion, movement and change in the congregation. Mother Teresa did not invent these beliefs - they were prevalent in religious congregations before Vatican II - but she did everything in her power (which was great) to enforce them.

Once a sister has accepted these fallacies she will do almost anything. She can allow her health to be destroyed, neglect those she vowed to serve, and switch off her feelings and independent thought. She can turn a blind eye to suffering, inform on her fellow sisters, tell lies with ease, and ignore public laws and regulations.

Women from many nations joined Mother Teresa in the expectation that they would help the poor and come closer to God themselves. When I left, there were more than 3,000 sisters in approximately 400 houses scattered throughout the world. Many of these sisters who trusted Mother Teresa to guide them have become broken people. In the face of overwhelming evidence, some of them have finally admitted that their trust has been betrayed, that God could not possibly be giving the orders they hear. It is difficult for them to decide to leave - their self-confidence has been destroyed, and they have no education beyond what they brought with them when they joined. I was one of the lucky ones who mustered enough courage to walk away.

It is in the hope that others may see the fallacy of this purported way to holiness that I tell a little of what I know. Although there are relatively few tempted to join Mother Teresa's congregation of sisters, there are many who generously have supported her work because they do not realize how her twisted premises strangle efforts to alleviate misery. Unaware that most of the donations sit unused in her bank accounts, they too are deceived into thinking they are helping the poor.

As a Missionary of Charity, I was assigned to record donations and write the thank-you letters. The money arrived at a frantic rate. The mail carrier often delivered the letters in sacks. We wrote receipts for checks of $50,000 and more on a regular basis. Sometimes a donor would call up and ask if we had received his check, expecting us to remember it readily because it was so large. How could we say that we could not recall it because we had received so many that were even larger?

When Mother spoke publicly, she never asked for money, but she did encourage people to make sacrifices for the poor, to "give until it hurts." Many people did - and they gave it to her. We received touching letters from people, sometimes apparently poor themselves, who were making sacrifices to send us a little money for the starving people in Africa, the flood victims in Bangladesh, or the poor children in India. Most of the money sat in our bank accounts.

The flood of donations was considered to be a sign of God's approval of Mother Teresa's congregation. We were told by our superiors that we received more gifts than other religious congregations because God was pleased with Mother, and because the Missionaries of Charity were the sisters who were faithful to the true spirit of religious life.

Most of the sisters had no idea how much money the congregation was amassing. After all, we were taught not to collect anything. One summer the sisters living on the outskirts of Rome were given more crates of tomatoes than they could distribute. None of their neighbors wanted them because the crop had been so prolific that year. The sisters decided to can the tomatoes rather than let them spoil, but when Mother found out what they had done she was very displeased. Storing things showed lack of trust in Divine Providence.

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.

We begged for food and supplies from local merchants as though we had no resources. On one of the rare occasions when we ran out of donated bread, we went begging at the local store. When our request was turned down, our superior decreed that the soup kitchen could do without bread for the day.

It was not only merchants who were offered a chance to be generous. Airlines were requested to fly sisters and air cargo free of charge. Hospitals and doctors were expected to absorb the costs of medical treatment for the sisters or to draw on funds designated for the religious. Workmen were encouraged to labor without payment or at reduced rates. We relied heavily on volunteers who worked long hours in our soup kitchens, shelters, and day camps.

A hard-working farmer devoted many of his waking hours to collecting and delivering food for our soup kitchens and shelters. "If I didn't come, what would you eat?" he asked.

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.

For years I had to write thousands of letters to donors, telling them that their entire gift would be used to bring God's loving compassion to the poorest of the poor. I was able to keep my complaining conscience in check because we had been taught that the Holy Spirit was guiding Mother. To doubt her was a sign that we were lacking in trust and, even worse, guilty of the sin of pride. I shelved my objections and hoped that one day I would understand why Mother wanted to gather so much money, when she herself had taught us that even storing tomato sauce showed lack of trust in Divine Providence.

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

For nearly a decade, Susan Shields was a Missionaries of Charity sister. She played a key role in Mother Teresa's organization until she resigned.

secularhumanism.org



To: The Philosopher who wrote (12348)4/25/2001 2:01:20 PM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 82486
 
Here is a favorable review of Hitchen's book:

Freethought Today, August 1996

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

The Illusory Vs. The Real Mother Teresa
By Michael Hakeem, Ph.D.
Review of The Missionary Position
by Christopher Hitchens

The origin of Mother Teresa's worldwide fame has been traced to an interview of her by Malcolm Muggeridge, televised on BBC, followed by a BBC filming in Calcutta of her and her work, "Something Beautiful for God," which Muggeridge initiated, and his enormously successful book by the same title (more than 300,000 copies sold, reprinted 20 times and translated into 13 languages). Before being catapulted overnight into world renown, she was an obscure nun whose name was not known to the general public and whom Muggeridge had never even heard of. This is the same Malcolm Muggeridge who often talks like a mystic and has for long nourished an intense love affair with Jesus. His book shows he was enraptured by its subject.
One incident, related by Hitchens, that occurred during the filming is sufficient to dismiss Muggeridge as a competent and credible observer of Mother Teresa. During the filming, a topnotch photographer sought to take pictures of the interior of a building Mother Teresa calls "The House of the Dying." It was very dark and the photographer expressed doubts about the outcome. He then remembered that he had brought along a new Kodak film that he had never used before and decided to try it out. On returning to England, he and Muggeridge attended a previewing of the film. The photographer was amazed at the clarity of the pictures. He was on the verge of giving three cheers for Kodak when Muggeridge interrupted: "It's divine light! It's Mother Teresa. You'll find that it's divine light, old boy." Muggeridge goes on to explain that the photographic success was a reflection of the presence of "supernatural luminosity." His biographer reports that Muggeridge was "absolutely convinced that this was a miracle and that the light was supernatural. . . . The incident had a great effect on him and for a time he spoke about it endlessly." Soon, the newspapers were calling the photographer to ask about the miracle they were told he witnessed in India. Nothing more was needed to solidify Mother Teresa's awesome status than to have her connected to a supernatural event.

Why should freethinkers read Hitchens' book? Surely Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity are not unique. The global map is studded with charitable missions, some of them, like Mother Teresa's, serving the most wretched on the the face of the earth. But no other head of one has been accorded such significance and become the object of such fabulous adoration as she has.

Hitchens writes: "Ever since Something Beautiful for God the critic of Mother Teresa in small things, as well as great ones, has had to operate against an enormous weight of received opinion, a weight made no easier to shift by the fact that it is made up quite literally of illusion." That is the nub of the issue. Freethinkers should be specialists in demolishing received opinion that has created reputations built on illusion and ignorance of the facts -- and not only that of Jesus. Hitchens, who has to be counted a freethinker, is such a specialist, and his book can serve as a model of how to go about the job of demolition. It is a powerfully written and tightly reasoned attack on the illusions that have made of Mother Teresa an impregnable icon.

The esteem with which Mother Teresa is held can hardly be exaggerated. She has been feted by numerous heads of state including Presidents Reagan and Clinton. She is reported to have received honorary degrees from universities. She was invited to address the United Nations, an occasion attended by an audience unprecedented in size. It has become de rigueur for celebrities who find themselves in that region to pay a visit to Mother Teresa in Calcutta.

She is often turned to for advice on the solution to poverty and other social problems. She has traveled round the earth many times and is everywhere received with great enthusiasm and reverence. She has received a very large number of prizes, awards, and honors, among them the Nobel Peace Prize. She is regarded as a towering presence and as a thinker of singular profundity. A large number of books have been published about her, all, before Hitchens', extremely laudatory. There are quite a number of books that collect Mother Teresa's utterances (she herself has written very little). These are presented as precious and inimitable gems of wisdom.

It takes a certain mentality to uncritically swallow wholly unexamined the image of Mother Teresa projected in the received opinion. That mentality is known to Hitchens and he refers to it a number of times:

"Once the decision is taken to do without awe and reverence, if only for a moment, the Mother Teresa phenomenon assumes the proportions of the ordinary and even the political." He refers to "Mother Teresa, one of the few untouchables in the mental universe of the mediocre and the credulous."
"What follows here is an argument not with a deceiver but with the deceived. If Mother Teresa is the adored object of many credulous and uncritical observers, then the blame is not hers, or hers alone. In the gradual manufacture of an illusion, the conjuror is only the instrument of the audience."

Who but a freethinker could burst the enormous bubble of goodwill and ennoblement that surrounds this wizened octogenarian nun whose supposed single, solitary concern is to self-sacrificingly set about doing good works -- not, incidentally, for the sake of her conscience or for the sake of those she ministers to -- but for the sake of God and in obedience to his command? Hitchens' book destroys the illusion and gives abundant evidence that the real Mother Teresa bears little resemblance to it. He summarizes the real Mother Teresa as "a religious fundamentalist, a political operative, a primitive sermonizer and an accomplice of worldly secular powers."
Practically all her utterances (Hitchens' book gives abundant examples) are religious inanities, vacuous assertions, and ignorant observations. One can only be appalled by the lack of intellectual sophistication of her admirers who hold her in such high esteem and who seize upon her every asinine comment as a sign of her astuteness and philosophical depth. And this includes heads of state and the Nobel Prize committee members.

Hitchens points out, "When Mother Teresa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, few people had the poor taste to ask what she had ever done, or even claimed to do, for the cause of peace." In fact, he could have pointed out that, to the extent that those scholars who claim that overpopulation is one of the factors that can lead to war are correct, her opposition to any effective limitation on the growth of population implicates her in war rather than peace. In her lengthy address at the Nobel ceremonies, which took on the cast of a religious sermon, about the only time she mentioned war and peace was in the following: "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." Even after this, the Nobel Committee, apparently no more informed about the issue of war and peace than she, did not rescind her award.

Strewn throughout Hitchens' book are many examples of the worthlessness of her advice and deliberations on the issues of the day: AIDS is a just retribution for improper sexual misconduct. The problems facing Calcutta are due to the fact that it is too distant from Jesus. "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." After the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal exploded and toxic chemicals killed 2500 people and permanently impaired the health of many thousands, Mother Teresa went there post haste. Investigation later revealed a pattern of negligence by the corporation and showed that previous warnings about lack of safety at the plant had been ignored by it. Throngs of angry relatives of victims greeted her at the airport and asked her advice and counsel. She gave it. She intoned her usual homily for solving complex problems: "Forgive, forgive, forgive." A group of residents in one of the worst slums in the nation's capital confronted her on her visit there and told her that they needed housing, jobs, and services -- not charity. They asked her what she was going to do about it. She advised, "First we must learn to love one another."

Some will say it is churlish and petty to criticize Mother Teresa when she does such great and heroic medical and charitable work for the destitute and sick -- for the "poorest of the poor," as she puts it. But how much is known about what she is doing or whether she is doing good or harm, or more of one than the other? Where are the scientific researches done by outside, objective scholars to show whether her Missionaries of Charity does even what it could or should be doing given the great resources that pour into it. Who would dare even suggest an investigation and evaluation?

The little that is known about what goes on at the Missionaries of Charity is not encouraging. Hitchens dug up an article that appeared in the noted British medical journal, The Lancet (September, 1994). The article is by a physician who visited and inspected the Calcutta facility. He was quite disturbed by what he saw. He observed misdiagnoses and administration of inappropriate medications. He was particularly appalled that no strong analgesics were used to control intractable pain.

How bad things are in Mother Teresa's care of the sick, and how primitive her thinking is in other respects as well, can be seen in the observations Hitchens received from a host of former employees and volunteers in the Missionaries of Charity. After a critical film of his on the order was televised, he received communications from them. He used only those who were willing to have their names used and who answered certain inquiries that assured authenticity. The picture presented by this evidence reveals the sharp contrast between the received opinion about her work and the reality, and it relates some of the harm she does. It is not necessary to cite here all the reported negligence and malpractices, which range from repeatedly using the same injection needles without sterilizing them to a refusal to send to the hospital those in clear need of surgery.

Why does not Mother Teresa do better? She cannot because she is a passionately religious individual. The figure that dominates her thoughts and her talk is God. He is central to every breath she takes and every word that passes her lips. As was pointed out above, she repeatedly says that what she does is in the name of God. It is for God's sake that she helps the poor, sick, and dying. She claims that she never asks for donations. Money comes to her, she explains, through the providence of God. God sends money her way because she is doing what he wants her to do. If God did not want her to care for people, she says, he would not send the money. In short, contrary to the prevailing perception, she is not necessarily a warm and loving person motivated by an overwhelming compassion. She is just dutifully submitting to God's bidding. By her own admission, if he did not have money sent to her, she would do nothing to try to get donations so she could help. God would not want it, and she is bound by God's will.

The physician who wrote the critical article in The Lancet is an astute observer. After condemning the fact that there was no rational search for diagnosis and treatment in the Calcutta facility, he explains: "Such systematic approaches are alien to the ethos of the home. Mother Teresa prefers providence to planning: her rules are designed to prevent any drift toward materialism." Hitchens expounds on the same theme: "The point is not the honest relief of suffering but the promulgation of a cult based on death and suffering and subjection."

Mother Teresa is thoroughly saturated with a primitive fundamentalist religious worldview that sees pain, hardship, and suffering as ennobling experiences and a beautiful expression of affiliation with Jesus Christ and his ordeal on the cross. Hitchens reports that in a filmed interview Mother Teresa herself tells of a patient suffering unbearable pain from terminal cancer: "With a smile, Mother Teresa told the camera what she told the patient: 'You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you.'" Apparently unaware that the response of the sufferer was a put-down, she freely related it: "Then please tell him to stop kissing me."

It should go without saying that a book review is always a mere skeleton, nothing more than a foretaste, of the book itself. There is much more in Hitchens' work, including some rather shocking details about her activities, not touched upon here. He shows her political wiliness, all but missed by her admirers who picture her as innocent of such matters; her stealthy baptism of dying nonChristians; her acceptance of money from unsavory characters and crooks; her activities as emissary of the pope; her partiality to -- or at least her lack of repulsion of -- dictators, even so horrible a character as Hoxha of Albania; her willingness to sacrifice the needs of the poor for the requirements of dogma; her enforcing of austerity in the midst of abundance; her dictatorial rule; her work being at bottom a fundamentalist religious campaign; and much more. And finally one can't resist mentioning her opposition to canning tomatoes for preserving for future use because there is absolutely no need to do so since God will provide.

Freethinkers owe Hitchens a debt of gratitude for providing a brilliant example of the repudiation of received opinion and its replacement with an exercise in critical inquiry that results in the smashing of illusion and unmasking its beneficiary, in this instance Mother Teresa, and exposing her to the piercing light of reality, especially when the beneficiary has been protected from exposure by ensconcement behind the massive stronghold of religion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hakeem is Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He and his wife Helen are members of the Foundation's Executive Council and are frequent volunteers.

ffrf.org



To: The Philosopher who wrote (12348)4/25/2001 2:15:56 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
If you get a chance, can you copy out the message for those of us who choose not to register on the Times website? I would be interested in reading it.

I got the hint the first time. Do you mind sharing why, if you're so interested, you don't just read it on the Times site? Unless your reason has something to do with a need to suffer, in which case I don't want to know. <g>

Karen

<snip>Of the students surveyed in the study, 10.6 percent reported that they had been bullied "sometimes" or "weekly," 13 percent that they had bullied others and 6.3 percent that they had been both the perpetrator and the target of bullying.

Bullying was more frequent among junior high students than among high school students, the researchers found, and male students were more likely to report involvement on either side of the bullying equation than were girls. And both the bullies and the bullied reported difficulties in psychological and social adjustment, though their problems took different forms.<snip>

<snip>There is at least some evidence suggesting that bullying in the classroom can lead to a higher risk of crime in adulthood. Dr. Nansel cited work by Dr. Dan Olweus at the University of Bergen in Norway finding that children who bullied other students were four times more likely than their peers to be convicted of crimes by the age of 24. Thirty-five percent to 40 percent of the former bullies had three or more criminal convictions by their mid-20's, Dr. Olweus and his colleagues found.

Studies in Norway and other countries have also indicated that both bullies and their victims are likely to have more psychological problems than students who remain uninvolved.

Dr. Nansel and her colleagues also found that students who bullied others reported more difficulties than their classmates.

Both the bullies and the bullied engaged in more fighting at school or elsewhere than their peers.

But while the bullies were more likely to smoke, use alcohol and receive poor grades, the students who were targets reported more loneliness and trouble making friends.

The most troubled group appeared to be the students who said they had both bullied others and been bullied, the researchers found. Like the bullied, they were lonely and had trouble making friends. But like the bullies, they also did poorly in school and were likely to report smoking cigarettes and using alcohol.

"Youth who bully others and are bullied may represent an especially high-risk group," Dr. Nansel and her colleagues wrote.

Belittling insults about looks or speech were a common form of bullying cited by the subjects. Girls were more likely to bullied with rumors or sexual remarks. For boys, slapping, hitting or pushing were more frequent. Racial or religious insults were the least likely to be reported by the subjects in the study.
<snip>



To: The Philosopher who wrote (12348)4/25/2001 2:22:30 PM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 82486
 
Some thoughts from Mother Teresa's official biography, in India Today:

Once, on being asked whether the work had not been over-extended, Mother Teresa laughed, "If there are poor on the moon, we shall go there too."

Born an Albanian, Mother Teresa came to Calcutta at the age of 18, and in the course of her life's mission of caring for the poorest of the poor, straddled the Indian century. In the process she was revered almost everywhere. Two years after her death, the formal process of canonisation has begun, but in the eyes of much of the world, she was anointed as the Saint of the Gutters in her lifetime. Neither the highest honours that a conscience-ridden world could bestow, nor the barbs flung at her by a small but noisy band of detractors, could distract her from her chosen path. In spite of her early tribulations and, much later in life, her many near brushes with serious illness and death, she lived to complete much of her agenda.

The major milestones in Mother Teresa's life are well-documented. After almost two decades in Calcutta's Loreto Convent, where she taught geography and catechism, Mother Teresa was permitted to step into the world that lay beyond the security of convent walls to begin her mission which she said was an answer to a "call" that she received on a train journey to Darjeeling. She started with three saris and a five-rupee note. We know where she ended up.

She persuaded Calcutta that leprosy was not contagious and got the leprosy-afflicted to build a self-supporting colony at Titagarh that she named after Mahatma Gandhi. She took in the dying and cradled them. One of her happiest memories was of the man who said as he lay dying in her lap, "All my life I have lived like an animal on the streets and now I am dying like an angel." Her prize children, often without limbs or with terminal diseases, were whom she would rescue from dustbins. One of her greatest concerns was for the unborn. In her Nobel Prize speech she called abortionists "murderers", incurring from feminists the title of "religious imperialist".

From a single school which she started in a Calcutta slum in 1948, the Order grew into a multinational that continued to be run from a small office in Calcutta. In the year before her death, her Order ran 755 homes in 125 countries. During that year the Missionaries of Charity fed half a million hungry mouths in five continents, treated a quarter of million sick, taught over 20,000 slum children and ran homes for the mentally destitute, the leprosy-afflicted, aids patients, the crippled and alcoholics and drug abusers. They ran day creches, night shelters, soup kitchens and tb sanatoriums.

When I once suggested that the Order might crumble after she passed away, Mother replied simply, "I have done for God, and to God and with God, and it is God's work. He is perfectly capable of finding someone when I am gone, somebody who is even smaller." I said to her that she was the most powerful woman in the world. She laughed, thought somewhat ruefully and said, "Where? If I were, I would bring peace to the world." I knew that everywhere she went, monarchs and statesmen received her with rare humility, and because she went in the name of the poor, seldom denied her anything. I asked her why she did not use her considerable powers to bring about peace by lessening war. "War is the fruit of politics, so I don't involve myself, that's all. If I get stuck in politics, I will stop loving," she replied.

Horrified by the blood-letting of World War I, the responses of Europe's idealogues made this century one of rampant ideologies and consequently one of the most lethal in all of human history. In a world riven by schisms and one that had grown sceptical of master plans and utopian schemes, this small woman who never let ideology concern her, stood out as a beacon of humanity and compassion. She believed in taking one small step at a time but had the administrative capability of performing many tasks simultaneously. Because she saw her God in everyone, she was able to bring out the best in their responses, big or small, which itself wrought a human chain that went around the world and made the work of the Missionaries of Charity possible.

As her biographer I confronted her with the hurtful criticism made by her detractors that she took money from dubious characters. Her reply was concise. She said she neither asked for donations nor took any salary, government grants or Church assistance, but that every one had a right to give in charity, and that she was no one to judge for only God had that right. On the criticism that she could have used her not inconsiderable resources to put up a first-class hospital in Calcutta, she replied that if she tied down her sisters to hospital work, who would care for those who fell by the wayside? On the charge that she converted the poor to her religion, she laughed, "I do convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu, a better Catholic, a better Muslim or Jain or Buddhist. I would like to help you to find God. When you have found Him, you will know what He wants from you."

She never met Mahatma Gandhi but like him she chose to identify with the poorest of the poor, for in response to her special vow, this was her constituency. Like Gandhi who wore his dhoti as a loincloth, she wore a sari similar to those of Calcutta's municipal sweeper women, so that she could identify with the poorest of the poor. Later the saris worn by everyone in the Missionaries of Charity would be woven by leper's hands.

She often made a distinction between being confused as a social worker, which while she never disparaged, she said she was not; and being religious. She was capable of doing what she could because she did it to and for Him. The mass she attended every day of her life was what sustained her. In the Eucharist she saw Christ in the appearance of bread. In the slums she saw Him in the distressing disguise of the poor and in their broken bodies. There was no difference between the Christ on her crucifix and the Christ that lay dying on the street; they were both one.

Without ever deviating from her staunch Catholicism, her great strength lay in adapting herself to her country of adoption -- India. Although she saw her God in every one whom she met, she never made any distinction between religions or those who practiced none.

One of her contemporaries at the Loreto Convent, Sister Marie-Therese Breen, spoke to me of their early days: "There was nothing extraordinary about her. She was a simple nun. Very gentle, full of fun. We never thought that this is where she would end up." With faith, compassion and good work, an ordinary girl became the 20th century's most extraordinary woman.

Navin Chawla, an Indian Administrative Service officer, is author of Mother Teresa, a biography.

india-today.com



To: The Philosopher who wrote (12348)4/25/2001 2:27:30 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
A columnist reacts to the criticism:

Saturday, January 17, 1998

Mother Teresa and her order come under criticism

By Clark Morphew / Knight-Ridder Newspapers

Mother Teresa may be on her way to sainthood, but the criticism of her order, the Missionaries of Charity, has just begun and likely will continue until some serious reform comes about.

It is ironic that one of the most obvious candidates for sainthood in the latter half of the 20th century is now being vilified as one who did little to ease the suffering of the poor who came to her and who expected the 3,000 sisters in her order to suffer needlessly to make God happy.

Those allegations and more are leveled against the late Mother Teresa in the winter issue of Free Inquiry, a publication of the Council of Secular Humanism (P.O. Box 664, Amherst, N.Y. 14226-0664). Writing in the latest edition of the magazine, a former Missionary of Charity sister, Susan Shields, recalled her days as a key official in the order.

Shields says she left the order in 1989 when she became disillusioned with a life that, she says, consisted of absolute obedience and a complete avoidance of all human attachments, even with those being served.

To Mother Teresa, suffering in this life was the pathway to God's grace, according to Shields. The more a person suffers, according to Mother's theology, the more God is pleased and will bestow grace upon the world.

Shields then charges that primitive methods were used to treat the poor and dying who came to the Houses of Charity for some kind of deliverance from their suffering. This occurred, Shields says, in spite of the millions of dollars sitting in banks all over the world.

That charge has been made by other writers, but Shields is in a better position to know because she handled donations, wrote receipts and thank-you notes and participated in begging merchants for everyday supplies, even though the order appeared to have ample money to pay a fair market price.

Of course, now that Sister Nirmala has assumed leadership of the order, grand changes could happen. If the criticism of the order is true, there could be gentle pressure to improve the ministry.

It is true that Mother Teresa had three beliefs that focused her thinking. First, that suffering is good. Second, that abortion is always wrong. Third, that despite the overpopulation of the world, birth control must never be used.

Mother Teresa had other key beliefs, too: in complete obedience, in a generous God and in a devotion to Catholicism that seldom has been equaled. But those first three became a tunnel through which she viewed the world.

In another article in Free Inquiry, written by Judith Hayes, a free-lance writer, Mother Teresa's theology of suffering is reported to have produced a memorable anecdote. Hayes says Mother Teresa once approached a dying cancer patient not with pain killers but with a theological platitude.

"You are suffering like Christ on the cross," Mother Teresa allegedly told the patient. "So Jesus must be kissing you."

Hayes says the patient replied, "Then please tell him to stop kissing me."

Also bothering many of Mother Teresa's critics is her lack of attention to easing the burden of poverty and misery in India, even though she had incredible influence in the church and in political circles around the world. Some say she also had money to feed many more starving people than she did in her soup kitchens.

Various sources say that more than 400 million people are living in brutal poverty in India, and that 73 million children there are malnourished. The factor that probably does more than any other to sustain that poverty is the illiteracy rate, which involves 350 million Indians.

Mother Teresa's critics say she did little to attack those social problems, even though she had the means and the support.

But in an attempt at fairness, I need to note that wiping out poverty and illiteracy was not Mother Teresa's focus. She set out as a young woman to form an order than would bring a touch of humanity and the theology of the Catholic Church to the poor of the world. She never pretended to be a doctor who could wipe out or even soften the pain of death.

She and her little army of sisters were there to bring spiritual comfort to the suffering, a concept that apparently escapes her critics.

reporternews.com