Sanal Edamaruku on Mother Theresa

[indigoyogi]

Well, I saw this guy Sanal Edamaruku's name on rubbishing the claim of the Jain Swami living without food for several years. It so happens, that this guy is the president of Rationalist International and I tried to read up on him.

Look what I found. He gives a completely different perspective of Mother Theresa hitherto unknown. Since he is not a Hindutva guy by any stretch of imagination, I would like members to give their opinion on this article.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm

Snippets from the article:
Mother Teresa has given a bad name to Calcutta, painting the beautiful, interesting, lively and culturally rich Indian metropolis in the colors of dirt, misery, hopelessness and death. Styled into the big gutter, it became the famous backdrop for her very special charitable work. Her order is only one among more than 200 charitable organizations, which try to help the slum-dwellers of Calcutta to build a better future. It is locally not very visible or active. But tall claims like the absolutely baseless story of her slum school for 5000 children have brought enormous international publicity to her institutions. And enormous donations!

Read the full story.

[Desi]

Mother Theresa was against abortion on religious grounds, that is a fact.
That she collected millions is a fact (the author put in parenthesis that some say "billions"), that is patent nonsense that should not be in the article.

Some of the other stuff as to who gave and why is plain conjecture and appears ludicrous to me.

Regarding pain killers being not given to those in pain in the ashrams - is that a lie. I have read same thing elsewhere.

While I also disagree with some of the positions of Mother Teresa which she took on some religous grounds, I would not denounce her in the manner done by the author, but then I have not deeply studied the details of Mother teresa's ashram activities and how they functioned.

[indigoyogi]

Mother Theresa was against abortion on religious grounds, that is a fact.
That she collected millions is a fact (the author put in parenthesis that some say "billions"), that is patent nonsense that should not be in the article.

Some of the other stuff as to who gave and why is plain conjecture and appears ludicrous to me.

Regarding pain killers being not given to those in pain in the ashrams - is that a lie. I have read same thing elsewhere.

While I also disagree with some of the positions of Mother Teresa which she took on some religous grounds, I would not denounce her in the manner done by the author, but then I have not deeply studied the details of Mother teresa's ashram activities and how they functioned.

I don't have issues with her stand on abortion. I respect her for her convictions. What I don't understand is the gap between what she preached and practiced. She didn't want to be treated in the hospital she built and several other hospitals in India which will only be glad to treat her and instead chose one of the best US hospital to get treated. Was her love for Jesus alone that informed her love for the poor and is that why she could justify taking stolen money from people like Charles Keating? She asked for clemency for Charles Keating who was serving prison sentence for his role in savings and loan scandal. Was 'ends justify the means', the reason for her embrace of not so nice people(dictators et al) and her open praise of poverty while at the same time asking for more and more money while not spending all of that in Calcutta after showing Calcutta in all its ugliness..?

[Desi]

I don't have issues with her stand on abortion. I respect her for her convictions. What I don't understand is the gap between what she preached and practiced. She didn't want to be treated in the hospital she built and several other hospitals in India which will only be glad to treat her and instead chose one of the best US hospital to get treated.

I prefer to read both sides of the story and not one.

From what I read, in 1992 she was in Tijuana when she fell sick. It would seem to me that California would be the logical choice for being treated which would be a hospital that is just an hour of driving distance.

In 1996, she was treated at Woodlands Nursing home in Kolkatta.

And then in November and December 1996, she was in Birla heart research center in Kolkatta, where she underwent surgery.

What is being criticized here? Her treatment in San Deigo? or is there something else that I am missing?

Please provide some information.

Was her love for Jesus alone that informed her love for the poor and is that why she could justify taking stolen money from people like Charles Keating?

Did she know when the donation was made to the organization that the money was from a person who will be convicted in future of fraud?

She asked for clemency for Charles Keating who was serving prison sentence for his role in savings and loan scandal.

I think this was stupidity on her part without thinking of far reaching implications and perhaps was incapable of thinking in that detail. I think that she was probably engrossed in that Keating helped the poor and so we should forgive him.

Was 'ends justify the means', the reason for her embrace of not so nice people(dictators et al) and her open praise of poverty while at the same time asking for more and more money while not spending all of that in Calcutta after showing Calcutta in all its ugliness..

Should she make political statements by rejecting donations from dictators for the poor? If she did, then we would hear that she is engaging in politics. BTW, I am curious which dictator did she embrace? Can you provide some information other than any quotes from Hitchens?

As to not sepnding all the money in Kolkatta, I applaud her for that. It is good that she took her charity work globally and repeated the Kolkatta models elsewhere. I seriously doubt that she would get the all those donations if she was limited to just Kolkatta.

BTW, can you please point to me an advertizement where she is showing Calcutta in its ugliness to solicit money?

[indigoyogi]

I prefer to read both sides of the story and not one.

From what I read, in 1992 she was in Tijuana when she fell sick. It would seem to me that California would be the logical choice for being treated which would be a hospital that is just an hour of driving distance.

In 1996, she was treated at Woodlands Nursing home in Kolkatta.

And then in November and December 1996, she was in Birla heart research center in Kolkatta, where she underwent surgery.

What is being criticized here? Her treatment in San Deigo? or is there something else that I am missing?

Please provide some information.

Did she know when the donation was made to the organization that the money was from a person who will be convicted in future of fraud?

I think this was stupidity on her part without thinking of far reaching implications and perhaps was incapable of thinking in that detail. I think that she was probably engrossed in that Keating helped the poor and so we should forgive him.

Should she make political statements by rejecting donations from dictators for the poor? If she did, then we would hear that she is engaging in politics. BTW, I am curious which dictator did she embrace? Can you provide some information other than any quotes from Hitchens?

As to not sepnding all the money in Kolkatta, I applaud her for that. It is good that she took her charity work globally and repeated the Kolkatta models elsewhere. I seriously doubt that she would get the all those donations if she was limited to just Kolkatta.

BTW, can you please point to me an advertizement where she is showing Calcutta in its ugliness to solicit money?

Much of what I read is from Christopher and Stephen and lots of articles in the web especially by people from Calcutta. And one common theme that emerges from people that are both Indian and others is that her MOC, although does some good work, is over-hyped and carefully cultivated, and they don't do service proportionate to the money they receive contrasting with some other Christian organizations that do a lot more in terms of charity. That she did alleviate some suffering is not challenged. What was presented in that article is the way how Calcutta is presented to the west to collect donations from good-hearted people only to further the cause of MOC. She seemed to like the poverty than the poor as that would bring people closer to God. I can understand why she thought so. What I don't understand is why people think that is okay? Will we give similar pass for other such leaders only based on what their intent is; where the intent is only to further their cause and there could be some consequential benefit to society? Is her image a cultivated one by media or the media not asking the hard questions about some of the criticism about the way these homes are run in Calcutta.

That she used Calcutta to sell the MOC is known to everyone (including Christopher Hickens). I even read as part of my secular education (in 80s) how she presented the sorry picture of Calcutta to get help from the west. If you receive money by painting a country/place bad, you only hope that you bring meaningful change to that place. It doesn't seem to be the case. Very little has been done considering the exposure of Calcutta and I feel it only was to serve their missionary purpose. It so happens that other Christian organization and Ramakrishna mutt do a lot more service in Calcutta than MOC notwithstanding the difference in money they generate.

I can understand that she was a missionary first; but then, shouldn't people treat her as one? Is the lack of coverage in media coming from sources that include rationalists, secularists and even some Christians due to the awe?

[stup123]

We had a chapter on her as part of curriculum and were raised to rever her.. in two different classes I guess..once in Telugu and once in English
Until she took a stand and went to Delhi to and did a sit in asking for reservations for Christians,I hardly remember reading much about her except all the good things by all noteworthy people

Later on one of my Kolkata trips I went and visited Nirmal Hruday bhavans and it seemed charity was the last thing on the mind there.It was religion parading in ever aspect..but still I had huge regard for her as thats her personal choice

The farcical manner in which sainthood was bestowed on her reinforced the fact that Kolkata/India was chosen for the huge population base and MT is a carefully cultivated imageto be above anybody's question

[Desi]

Much of what I read is from Christopher and Stephen and lots of articles in the web especially by people from Calcutta. And one common theme that emerges from people that are both Indian and others is that her MOC, although does some good work, is over-hyped and carefully cultivated, and they don't do service proportionate to the money they receive contrasting with some other Christian organizations that do a lot more in terms of charity. That she did alleviate some suffering is not challenged. What was presented in that article is the way how Calcutta is presented to the west to collect donations from good-hearted people only to further the cause of MOC. She seemed to like the poverty than the poor as that would bring people closer to God. I can understand why she thought so. What I don't understand is why people think that is okay? Will we give similar pass for other such leaders only based on what their intent is; where the intent is only to further their cause and there could be some consequential benefit to society? Is her image a cultivated one by media or the media not asking the hard questions about some of the criticism about the way these homes are run in Calcutta.

That she used Calcutta to sell the MOC is known to everyone (including Christopher Hickens). I even read as part of my secular education (in 80s) how she presented the sorry picture of Calcutta to get help from the west. If you receive money by painting a country/place bad, you only hope that you bring meaningful change to that place. It doesn't seem to be the case. Very little has been done considering the exposure of Calcutta and I feel it only was to serve their missionary purpose. It so happens that other Christian organization and Ramakrishna mutt do a lot more service in Calcutta than MOC notwithstanding the difference in money they generate.

I can understand that she was a missionary first; but then, shouldn't people treat her as one? Is the lack of coverage in media coming from sources that include rationalists, secularists and even some Christians due to the awe?

I presume you do not have answers to the questions I posed.

Have you visited their website to see if what you claim is true (ie solicitation based on Calcutta)?

[indigoyogi]

I presume you do not have answers to the questions I posed.

Have you visited their website to see if what you claim is true (ie solicitation based on Calcutta)?

Should the lack of information in their website be proof they don't make this? I had read in my school text books 20+years back regarding MT asking for help for Calcutta from westerners and I am seeing others (westerners and calcuttans) making similar claims about MT based on the information in the web. Do you have this strict proof requirement only because she is not a Hindu? Shouldn't you wonder why westerners would oppose a person like her? My original feeling growing up was that she and MOC did yeoman service to the poor(which I don't dispute fully) but it appears that there are many organizations which do a lot more than them without much of reward (including some of the Protestant christian organizations in Calcutta ) and looks like MOC spends more time on propagation and using money to harvest souls for Jesus than anything else. I don't blame them.. I am only blaming the media.


http://depts.washington.edu/engl/ewp/eg/05.KlontzC.html
http://www.meteorbooks.com/index.html

Regarding your questions:
She didn't treat people with proper medical care although she seeked it when it came to her. Regardless of whether it was in US/India (I concede, I can't find the time line of her treatment in US, although it appears that she did use Mayo clinic more than once - no proof again). This is hypocrisy when you love poverty more than the poor. Shouldn't it be applicable to people you serve and you? May be not.

I can't understand that you give free pass to her appeal for clemency. Obviously someone would have told her that this is not a good idea. Don't you think so?

Why is Hitchens not a worthy source for you? Do you think he is not credible? Anoup Chatterjee who wrote the book(text of which is in the second link in this post) is the second official hostile witness in MT's beatification(the other one was Hitchens) and lot of information I have provided regarding the extent/attitude of MOC's services in Calcutta is breathtaking and is in Anoup's book.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Mother_Teresa/

In 1981, Teresa flew to Haiti to accept the Legion d'Honneur from the right-wing dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier, who, after his ouster, was found to have stolen millions of dollars from the impoverished country. There she said that the Duvaliers "loved their poor," and that "their love was reciprocated."

In 1987 Teresa visited Albania and visited the grave of the former Communist dictator Enver Hoxha. Critics said her actions compromised her perceived moral authority through unwise and controversial political associations; however, her supporters defended such associations, saying she had to deal with political realities of the time in order to lobby for her causes. By the time of her death, the Missionaries of Charity had houses in most Communist countries.

In the above two instances (if they are indeed true), it does appear that MT was more concerned about her missionary activities than really the sufferings of the poor as long as it brought people to Jesus.. Her biggest motive was to bring people to Jesus. On a certain level, I can understand how she could have really believed that poverty will help these people have rich after life by coming to Jesus..

[boca]

Is the lack of coverage in media coming from sources that include rationalists, secularists and even some Christians due to the awe?

Perhaps, it is the awe factor.

One thing to note is that Lancet had published an article by Robin Fox, an editor, back in 1994. The said doctor didn't have good things to say. Seeing the not-so-medically-correct handling of patients, he stated ""Such systematic approaches are alien to the ethos of the home. 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 a Doctor Jack Preger, who used to work with the Mother. He gave up realizing "hands-on medicine and religious devotion are not compatible" (from his site -> http://www.jackpreger.com/). He is still around, almost 80, running his free clinics, in Calcutta. But I guess he lacks the awe factor and not many may know about his services.

I have once seen the Mother. It was at the Chennai Airport, perhaps when she was in her late 60s. Though in my mind, I had this vision of a frail person, she walked briskly that the folks following her had to almost run behind her. She seemed to be an energetic person. She looked pretty simple.

Choosing to suffer to make God happy? Hmmm...have to think about that, or should one?

Though I would tend to like her as a human, I don't know much about her organization to comment on her work. I remember reading this article in Time, a while back.

Mother Teresa's Crisis of Faith -> http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html

It is an interesting read, to help understand what were the conflicts in her mind. Haven't read the book (Come Be My Light) referenced in that article yet.

[Desi]

Until she took a stand and went to Delhi to and did a sit in asking for reservations for Christians,I hardly remember reading much about her except all the good things by all noteworthy people

I will ask you the same thing (substantiation of your charge), I asked member Indigoyogi - Could you please substantiate this, that she did a sit in asking for reservations?

Later on one of my Kolkata trips I went and visited Nirmal Hruday bhavans and it seemed charity was the last thing on the mind there.It was religion parading in ever aspect..but still I had huge regard for her as thats her personal choice

This is a new one for me. Never heard it before regarding the bhavans of Teresa.

The farcical manner in which sainthood was bestowed on her reinforced the fact that Kolkata/India was chosen for the huge population base and MT is a carefully cultivated imageto be above anybody's question

Isn't every sainthood farcical?