Dismantling Sainthood: Mother Teresa in Theory & Practice
Background:
Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa was declared a “saint” on 4th September 2016. Thousands of people gathered in St. Peter’s Square to commemorate this once-in-a-lifetime moment.
As I sat and watched the special coverage on India Today, I could not help but think of my school days in a Convent. Mother Teresa’s “greatness” was indoctrinated in my mind through countless inspirational sermons during morning assembly or her heart-soothing quotes from the “Moral Science” textbook.
None had anything critical to say about her. She was flawless and perfect — A saint indeed who had left this mortal world for the heavenly abode. And this image of “compassionate & caring Mother Teresa” still captivates the minds of most Indians.
But, most don’t know much about her other than that she “helped the poor” of Calcutta and ran a “Charity Home.” But, what transpired at the facility? What happened to the poor that Teresa so “diligently” wanted to serve? None asked. You have two options — either eulogise someone or demonize them. There is no scope for a middle ground, also called the “grey area.”
Critical thinking & questioning someone’s deed who has been raised to the status of a “demi-god” would have been blasphemous or sin, even by the Indian standards.
And the absence of academic scrutiny or public examination of such public personalities has provided a haven for myths & legends to breed. The story of Mother Teresa is no different.
Reality Check:
Mother Teresa established “Missionaries of Charity” in 1950. Within 2 years, she founded the “House of the Dying” in Kalighat, Kolkata. The purpose was to take dying people off the streets and accommodate them in this facility.
When Dr Fox from the world-renowned medical journal, The Lancet, visited Mother Teresa’s Charity home in 1994, he was taken aback by the grim and deplorable conditions of the facility.
Medical negligence was rampant at the facility. Painkillers were seldom administered to the patients suffering in pain.
Dr Fox writes,
On a short visit, I could not judge the power of their spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn that the formulary includes no stong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Teresa’s approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer.
There was no provision for medical diagnosis.
Fox writes,
Investigations, I was told, are seldom permissible. How about simple algorithms that might help the sisters and volunteers distinguish the curable from the incurable? Again no. Such systematic approaches are alien to the ethos of the home.
And Mr Fox isn’t the only witness to harrowing tales of medical negligence in Mother Teresa’s “House of the Dying.”
Mary Loudon narrates her experience in the 1994 documentary titled, “Hell’s Angel” by Christopher Hitchens.
Loudon who served as a volunteer in the “House of the Dying” was stunned to know that the nuns reused the needles injected to patients without even sterilizing it. They would simply wash the needles in cold water, a practice looked down upon in the medical world as it can lead to infections.
They didn’t have enough drips. The needles they used and re-used over and over and over and you would see some of the nuns rinsing needles under the cold water tap.
And I asked one of them why she was doing it and she said:
‘Well to clean it.’
And I said, ‘Yes, but why are you not sterilizing it; why are you not boiling water and sterilizing your needles?’
She said: ‘There’s no point. There’s no time.’
Loudon also narrates the unfortunate story of one 15-year-old boy who was denied antibiotics after he had developed minor kidney complications. As a result, the condition of the boy worsened. Loudon asked an American doctor who was looking after the boy to take him to a hospital.
She said,
They don’t do it.
They won’t do it.
If they do it for one, they do it for everybody.’
In an unpublished Manuscript titled “Mother’s House”, Sushan Shields who worked in the order of Mother Teresa aka “Missionaries of Charity” for 9 and a half years narrated a shocking testimony.
In the homes for the dying, Mother taught the sisters how to secretly baptize those who were dying. Sisters were to ask each person in danger of death if he wanted a ‘ticket to heaven’.
An affirmative reply was to mean consent to baptism. The sister was then to pretend she was just cooling the person’s forehead with a wet cloth, while in fact she was baptizing him, saying quietly the necessary words.
Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known tat Moter Teresa’s sisters were baptzing Hindus and Moslems.
Extracts of her unpublished manuscript were produced in the book “The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory & Practice” by Christopher Hitchens in 1995.
As clear from the above-mentioned eye-witness accounts, Mother Teresa’s “House for the Dying” had not only shoddy, unhygienic conditions but was also the “House of Mass Conversions to Christianity.”
And perhaps this theme of “conversion” may give you some idea as to why poor patients (many of whom were suffering from terminal cancer) undergoing intense pain were denied painkillers.
Because Teresa was a firm believer in “suffering in people as a means of reaching God”- the idea that stems out of Roman Catholic beliefs. She towed the traditional Christian line on subjects of reproduction (anti-contraception, anti-abortion). It should now come as no surprise to you why her efforts drew praise and appreciation from the highest ranks of Vatican.
But, as interesting as it may sound,
Teresa always checked in to best hospitals when she was not well — 1996 in city’s Woodlands Clinic and Birla Heart Institute; earlier in Gemelli Hospital in Rome and Scripps Clinic in California.
[Source: Mother Teresa — The Untold Story] by Aroup Chatterjee
Understanding Motives:
At this point, you may be wondering,
If the condition of her Charity home is so deplorable, why on Earth public personalities and politicians around the world looked up to her?
First, she was a good “host” and a great “event manager.”
When Hillary Clinton visited India in March 1995, Mother Teresa put up a good show for her.
The Washington Post reporter writes,
Meanwhile, back at Mother Teresa’s Delhi orphanage, babies who normally wear nothing but thin cotton diapers that do little but promote rashes and exacerbate the reek of urine had been outfitted for the morning in American Pampers and newly stitched floral pinafores.
Second, the politicians needed Mother Teresa more than she needed them. Her presence would lend credibility to their alleged “humanitarian efforts”.
Third, the rich West feels content and happy to know that someone is out there helping the poor in some “third world country.” As such, they donated generously and never enquired about how the funds were utilized.
This absence of financial accountability gave Mother Teresa, a free hand. In her admission, her congregation spread to 105 countries, excluding India.
She would often boast about it without realising that in future, this very point will rationalists to point out the duplicity in her claims.
Sushan Shield’s unpublished manuscript also had an important extract,
Our bank account was already the size of a great fortune and increased with every postal service delivery. Around $50 million had collected in
one checking account in the Bronx. . .. Those of us who worked in the office regularly understood that we were not to speak about our work. The donations rolled in and were deposited in the bank, but they had no effect on our ascetic lives or on the lives of the poor we were trying to help.
[Book Source: The Missionary Position]
Let me put things into perspective. Remember the testimony of Dr Fox? He visited the facility in 1994, almost 4 decades after its foundation. Mother Teresa had enmassed enormous wealth collected in the form of donations and prize money of innumerable awards, the most significant one being the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. How was the cash prize utilized? None knows.
Why was the Calcutta facility in such dilapidated condition? It should not be difficult to answer. There was never a genuine or deliberate attempt to “uplift the poor” or “care for them.”
As Hitchens harshly puts it in his book,
Page 41:
Bear in mind that Mother Teresa’s global income is more than enough to outfit several first-class clinics in Bengal.
The decision not to do so, and indeed to run instead a haphaard and cranky instittion which would expose itself to litgaton and protest were it run by any branch of the medical profession, is a deliberate one.
The point is not the honest relief of suffering but the promulgation of a cult based on death and suffering and subjection.
Page 50:
Helpless infants, abandoned derelicts, lepers and the terminally ill are the raw material for demonstrations of compassion.
Contradictions:
At this point, it becomes crystal-clear as to why the “poorest of the poor” in Calcutta was made the subject of international endearment. It should also become apparent as to why the image of Calcutta, a city of vibrant culture, was intentionally maligned.
This exercise of image building began with a 1969 documentary and a book with the same name “Something Beautiful for God” published in 1971.
In an interview with the author Malcolm Muggeridge,
Mother Teresa remarked,
We have to do God’s will in everyhing.
We also take a special vow which other congregations don’t take; that of giving wholehearted free service to the poor.
This vow means that we cannot work for the rich;
neiter can we accept any money for the work we do.
Ours has to be a free service, and to the poor.
Such a heart-wrenching thought of Mother Teresa reminds me of an old proverb — “Actions speak louder than words.”
As a matter of fact, Mother Teresa was unhesitant in accepting money from the rich which included crooked billionaires and fraudulent businessmen.
A cult follower by the name of John-Roger had once handed Mother Teresa a cheque of $10,000.
He had once claimed to have a “spiritual consciousness” above Jesus Christ himself. [Book Source: The Missionary Position, Page — 7]
It would be a sin to accept money from such a person for a devout Christian such as Mother Teresa. But, guess what? She had no issue in accepting his donation. Of course, it was to “help the poor.”
A scammer by the name of Charles Keating who had made his fortune by frauding others was well acquainted with Mother Teresa. He had donated her $1.25 million and provided his jet for her use.
On being convicted by the Court, Mother Teresa wrote a letter to the judge, asking for clemency. The then Deputy DistrictAttorney for LA, Paul W Turley, wrote back to her, narrating about Keating’s fraudulent practices and asking her to return the money that she was donated. And guess what? The money was never returned.
I submit that Jesus would promptly and unhesitatingly return the stolen property to its rightful owners. You should do the same. You have been
given money by Mr Keating that he has been convicted of stealing by fraud. Do not permit him the ‘indulgence’ he desires. Do not keep the money.
Return it to those who worked for it and earned it! If you contact me I will put you in direct contact with the rightful owners of the property now in your
possession.
[Short Excerpt of the letter — Published in the Missionary Position Page (68–70)]
Be it her support to Indira Gandhi during the infamous Internal Emergency or her support to Ronald Reagan, Mother Teresa was always on the right side of the power.
Conclusion:
It has been close to 3 years since she had been granted the status of “St. Teresa” by the Vatican. And many questions are still left unanswered. There is enough evidence now to suggest that Mother’s Teresa crusade to spread “The Word” was indeed successful. But, how much did the poor of the Calcutta benefit from her noble endeavours? I think we have the answer now.
This purpose of this article is to point the obvious contradictions in Mother Teresa’s words and actions that sadly do not find a place in the public discourse.
Christopher Hitchens died of cancer in 2011, leaving us with a treatise and a lesson for life — never stop seeking the truth, irrespective of how politically incorrect it may be.
His work became the crucial foundation for critical thinkers and rationalists in dismantling sainthood of someone whose integrity would otherwise have gone unchallenged.
Regards,
