I think the Catholic Church saw good PR in what they could claim she was.

They reference him in article apparently.

But I think they approached it more academically. More hard numbers and statistics.

which makes one wonder.

I'm not sure about the hard numbers and statistics bit as I can't find an actual source for this paper. Have you been able to locate one?

My objection would be that Hitchens is clearly not an unbiased source or reference.

Too bad it will be in French. Hopefully it will be translated somewhere.

He is a valid source on Mother Theresa.

Here's the Wiki (although there's some formatting problems with the page which shows discontinuity in the text in the reviews section - no biggie).

The Missionary Position

I have not read this, but I have heard Hitchens speak of Mother Theresa many times. She was not a very nice person, apparently. Others have echoed Hitchens' opinion. Sorry, no sources.



I am inclined to believe Hitchens had her characterized properly.

While he may have been a journalist, he was one of the most highly biased journalists in recent history, imo. His personal beliefs and agenda deeply colored his reporting and I would consider him more of a "pundit" or talking head, fwiw.

While I think he may have revealed some things that both the vatican and the press ignore about her, I by no means see his take as definitive. His overt hatred of religion does not make him a fully reliable source, imo.

What happened to the money the Mother Theresa raised? What kind of things did the money fund? That's what Hitchens revealed. Straight reportage.

These things are objectively discernible. That is what Hitchens did. One can make the ad hominem about Hitchens' character -- he was actually a pretty nice guy -- or one can fact check his claims. One of those does not advance the dialog, and one of them does.

It very much looks like Mother Theresa does not deserve her all pure reputation. Hitchens' reportage has apparently held up to scrutiny. At least, I haven't heard any refutations that didn't argue from an ad hominem.

But this is not a topic on which I am so well versed. There may be other explanations I have not seen. I confess. Mother Theresa just isn't big on my radar. I have only heard what Hitchens says about it and the many ad hominem responses which do not address that Hitchens might actually have basically got it right.

I'm just saying that I would never accept Hitchens as an unbiased source on a matter such as this.

Although some of what she did (or didn't do) is questionable, there is no doubt that she did establish facilities (many) where people could get off the street and live at least somewhat more safely and comfortably.

I don't know if Hitchens was a nice guy or not, but he was no friend to religious people or the catholic church. His wife seemed to like him a great deal.

There have been a few articles posted here that clearly dispute his conclusions and paint a whole different picture, and they don't use ad hominen attacks against him at all. I would find them, but I don't feel like it. You could probably search the group and locate them pretty easily.

Although others have jumped on my here for saying this, and I am at a loss as to why, I suspect the truth about her lies somewhere in the middle, as it often does when two entirely different pictures are being painted from rather extreme POV's.

I note that you are taking some heat here. Keep on keeping on, my friend.

Hitchens often wrote in a polemical style. But when he toured the US after the publishing of God is not Great (certainly a straight polemic) he deliberately focussed his tour through the Bible Belt. He had discussions and debates at many of his stops. They are available on line. He was always respectful and generous throughout the tour. Portraying him any other way would be doing him an injustice.

People confuse his writing style with the person, who was rather nice and polite. It's the same thing with PZ Myers, certainly a fire-breathing Blogger, but nevertheless still Minnesota nice in person.

We all do these type of things. I can breath fire like anybody here online. But I reserve that methodology for select topics, and I always try to do so with respect. So too, Hitchens, I think.

Plus, he was probably the best at dirty limericks I have ever heard.

Stay the course, my good friend.

do with religion. He appeared drunk and was very snarky, but I also found him somewhat captivating in his ability to make a very sharp point.

You are always civil and listen to others. I respect that a great deal, as you know, and always enjoy talking with you.

Could you share you favorite Hitchens dirty limerick?

He was interviewed by them in 2007. They released an uncut version of the interview where he goes on with several limericks, some quite naughty.

This uncut episode is behind a pay wall, but it only costs a couple of dollars to get it. It is worth it, IMHO, even just for the limericks.

I'll PM you a couple of them, but I'll have to cue up the interview and scribble them down.

Re: Hitchens tippling. He was a Johnny Walker drinker. And yes, he pretty much drank at any and all occasions. I wouldn't call him a drunkard because he certainly managed to function quite well. He was a prolific author, and a long time journalist in the field. He more than once put his life in grave danger to cover stories in quite dangerous places. So, although he drank quite a bit, I would not call him a drunkard.

But he likely had been drinking before that interview you saw I would imagine.

One of my favorite Hitchens quips was one he said on CNN (IIRC) just after Jerry Falwell's death: "If they had given him an enema he could have been buried in a matchbox."

really happened.

And the information tends to be extreme at both ends, which makes it even harder.

I'm going to remain skeptical and tend to believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

and looking down..

Why not that Mother Teresa was mostly a woman who did not like to help the poor so much as watch them suffer and raised vast sums that were not put to use for medical aid. But she wasn't as vile as some make her out to be.
Just because it isn't one extreme end, doesn't make it the middle.
Or do you really think she was a saint?

in their assessment.

I don't agree with your assessment, but I think there were issues that the press did not cover and the vatican ignored.

What's wrong with taking a position that she was somewhere in the middle of how she is portrayed by either side?



(P.S. I don't really believe in saints)

'read, read, read again, and then pray..'

Makes no difference to me.

just because the truth isn't all the way to either extreme, that doesn't mean that it is at an equal distance from both. Always taking a position exactly in the middle and refusing to make rational judgements about evidence is just intellectual cowardice, and leads nowhere.

This isn't a research study, this is a group with an axe to grind. What else is new? Who are these people, anyways?

If Mother Teresa has access to all this money and didn't spend it, where are her luxury homes, high-end automobiles, extended posh vacations, boyfriends stashed in apartments, junkets to Las Vegas? She is hardly a model of the corrupt church official, unlike some of the popes.

I am not surprised that those that hate religion try to tear her down, as they hate to see examples of religious people actually performing charity and helping the poor. Many of the specific criticisms of her are about the way she handled her business, not that she was not dedicated to helping the poor. I've known many clergy through the years that were not effective managers, but that is also not their training or background. Did she make the right medical decisions? Maybe not, but nobody else was making any decisions at all.

Hitchens made his trade as contrarian and reveled in that role, and it made him famous. What could make him more famous than taking on one of the most revered religious figures of the late 20th century? I think this was simply careerism on his part, a carefully calculated ploy to stir controversy and make himself more famous and marketable in the process.

ho have there?

I am unable to answer this question.

What is the point you are trying to make?

have real data to back up their claims.

Interesting that some who put so much value on rational thinking and data will accept this without being able to actually analyze it.

As for Hitchens, it would have been one thing to criticize her or try and lift a veil of what he saw as misrepresented fact, but he was brutal towards her. It does make one question the motive.

Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses
first published on January 15, 2013

Search here Sciences Religieuses for "Larivee." You can buy access to the article for $20. But, frankly, I'm gonna spend my money on another book I want instead

and strawmen. The article is not about Hitchens, but Canadian academic researchers that have found her help to the poor to be a fraud.
The reverence believers have given her seems to be misplaced.

Please point them out.

"If Mother Teresa has access to all this money and didn't spend it, where are her luxury homes, high-end automobiles, extended posh vacations, boyfriends stashed in apartments, junkets to Las Vegas? She is hardly a model of the corrupt church official, unlike some of the popes. "

You argue a point not in question.

Nobody said she is spending it on luxury for herself, just that it is not going to treatment for the patients. Preferring that they suffer to get closer to God. I have no idea where the money went. It just didn't go for medicine.

but that is beside the point.

You also assume that she had money she refused to spend on patients.

Where is the proof of this?

but I doubt you will accept any evidence of wrong doing on the part of some one you clearly idolize.

I posted the article. You can do with it what you will.

the unproven link here is this:

The concept that Mother Teresa raised money that was not used in attempts to relieve the plight of the poor.

From the accounts of neutral parties who visited her "hospitals," the money clearly wasn't going to her patients.

And yet she herself got the best Western medical treatment.

What a saint.

And where is there any proof they were neutral?

as to the best Western medical treatment, here is a comment in the thread following Hitchen's original attack on her in Slate in 2003:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html

LMAO

Though with only a first name, there was enough detail into it to make it a credible account.

And certainly no one could make up details. (Like what you're accusing others of doing - no, your "source" would never do that.)

So I guess you're right, that anonymous comment on a web page is far more reliable than three university professors who have put their professional reputations on the line for this.

Give us some examples of her "actually performing charity and helping the poor"

If "nobody else was making any decisions at all" then why didn't she use some of the millions she collected to pay competent, qualified people to make those decisions? You know - doctors, nurses, people like that.

It seems that she preferred to feel good about helping people to suffer rather than helping them to escape it. No doubt she consoled herself that they would be happier in Heaven. Pathetic.

Still waiting for that.

She won a Nobel Peace Prize for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

Oh yeah...Huff Post and their gaggle of hacks, always way behind the times and desperate for column inches, and to look like journalists. Hitchens had her nailed as a fraud a long time ago.

but that's what i've been calling her for years. it's patently obvious.

And why would a review of existing literature not qualify as an "academic study"?

in Ed or Psych issues, but assessment of charities, at a remove of thousands of miles and about two decades, may lie outside beyond their training and experience, nor is there any immediate reason to think they have any special abilities as historians

It might be an interesting paper. I've explained elsewhere to to get a copy. ou can get a copy, if you like, and read it and tell us what you think they've added to the existing literature on the woman. But I'm not seeing anything in this thread that suggests my time would be rewarded by reading it

How do you go among terribly impoverished people and tell them not to use birth control? All that does is add to the misery. Not a fan.

from time to time when she's been in the news.

She went to India to good and did real well.

after an early life spent in a full Catholic education ...

I have been free of religion for 40 years running ...

However ...

Even if the major points were true (and the jury is still out on this, I believe) .... the mean-spirited nature of those introducing this report is disheartening ...

I mean, even in my own long term atheism, I find the ugly vitriol by those who support this story quite unbecoming a reasonable person ...

Who the FUCK would want to be a member of your party?

You're a vile embarrassment to atheism

Who the FUCK would want to support the truth when they can be a shameless apologist?

Oh, and btw...nothing can be an "embarrassment" to atheism (except, perhaps you). Reality stands on its own.

Lovely ...

I coiuld never associate with such a vicious personality ....

that would say things like:

"Who the FUCK would want to be a member of your party?", instead of "who would want to associate with that?"

Or:

"You're a vile embarrassment to atheism", instead of "what you said doesn't reflect well on atheism"

And then upbraid other people for "ugly vitriol" or being "mean spirited".

Yeah, definitely stay away from that....person.

nobody should point it out?

Are you for real?

I'm speaking of how some atheists can be mean ass people ...

Facts are facts ... insults are insults ... nobody is confusing one for the other ..

If you look at history, mean ass people have often been the only ones who have been able to get something done.

So rather than engaging in ad homs, why not address the facts?

My OP has exactly one sentence written by me, the last one questioning her sainthood.
I find your hateful diatribe against me an ugly embarrassment.
And what "party" do you refer?

like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering...

She said this and people doubt she withheld pain medication. I don't doubt she did that and more. I don't think it's possible to be to brutal in criticism of her or her methods of "helping" the poor. She wasn't a doctor and should have had several on staff. And she could have provided actual housing instead of shacks or tents with hundreds of people inside. It was more like she was running death camps rather than centers for poor people to get help.

Who the fuck constantly talks about enjoying suffering except a fucking sociopath.

Religious people like her are fucking scary.

On edit: I personally think she spent time around the poor and in horrible areas not because she was some sort of helpful saint, but because she got off on it.

I'm not religious.
But I'm not so willing to just snap up everything Christopher Hitchens says just because he says it.
I also won't just buy the line from The Vatican either.
And NO that doesn't mean the truth is somewhere in the middle either.

The answer is 'we don't know the truth' because we weren't there.
If you want a CHANCE to know the truth then you're gonna have to talk to the actual people (and/or their relatives) who Mother Teresa came in contact with.
You're gonna have to talk to those Untouchables to even have a CHANCE at the truth.

Just because I may agree with some things somebody says doesn't mean I leave my brain on cruise control to parrot everything else that person says.
You may agree with Hitchens on one subject but he ain't infallible. He has an agenda. He has a bias.
And he might not even be telling the truth!
Controversy sells & just saying 'she got a little snappy at times' doesn't sell books.

I damn sure don't trust everything that comes out of the Catholic Church for obvious reasons.
They have been proven not to tell the truth & proven to keep secrets & cover up things.
They have their own agenda & their own bias.

The 2 statements NO HUMAN BEING likes to make are the following:
1.) I was wrong.
2.) I don't know.

All we know is that some Albanian girl named Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu became a nun in the Catholic Church, renamed herself Teresa, went to India, lived among the poorest & sickest, organized homes & shelters for them so they could be inside instead of on the street.

She may have gotten disillusioned, she may not have.
She may have gone there with grander intentions beyond just shelters, she may not have.
She may have become disgusted with her own Catholic Church & continued this mission for reasons BEYOND them, she may not have.
She may have been in it for the glory, she may not have.
We don't know that for sure. All we can do is speculate.

HOWEVER.

Everybody criticizing Teresa ain't even THOUGHT of spending time with the thrown-away people of the world.
We DO know that she at least provided shelter for them.
She did SOMETHING at least.

If you got problems with Teresa's work, then do one better & go there yourself.
Start up your OWN mission & champion the discarded people of the world.
Show Teresa that you can do better than her.
Don't wait for someone else. Get off your ass & do something if you think you can do it better.

I'm of the opinion that Teresa did noble work just by offering to spend time with these people.
She offered shelter & gave of her time. Fuck that useless crap called money.
She never had no kids, she never got married, & she ain't rich.
She spent her entire life trying to improve or at least comfort the lives of suffering thrown-away people.
She damn sure inspired others to follow in her footsteps.

Disagree with her religious motivations all you want. That's fine.
But look at the end result.

You know WHY Christianity spreads so much? (Besides the spreading by force anyway)
It's because people see Christian folks actually putting work in to help people.
You want more atheists? Then start helping the downtrodden so they'll follow your footsteps.

I couldn't give a damn about the Catholic Church & I couldn't give a damn about Christopher Hitchens.
I don't care if you're Wiccan, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, or even Satanist.
All I care about is are you putting time & effort in to help people in this world?
Are you doing more than just running your mouth & typing some text on a keyboard?
Everybody likes to yak but who's gonna go down into the nitty-gritty?

I don't buy into this thing about Saints & all that but if anybody deserves that title it would be Teresa.
At least she actually DID something.
John Lucas

I got a chuckle imagining Hitchens in the streets of Calcutta with the untouchables.

Welcome to the religion group.

Hitchens always looked sour & disgusted with everything everytime I saw him.
Always had this unhappy pissed off look on his face. Negative for negative's sake.
I like that he criticizes the problems with religion but sometimes to me it's like he's demonizing everybody who works under a religious order REGARDLESS of the merit of the actual things they do for people.
Criticize the religion but credit the deeds done by the people at least.

I separate the belief system from the work done.
Because frankly everybody believes in some type of bullshit or another.
The religion of country for instance AKA Nationalism.

Take Michael Jackson for instance.
He was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, right?
There's some problems with the Jehovah's Witnesses among people unaffiliated with that belief system.
BUT he built hospital beds inside his Neverland Ranch theater to entertain & comfort terminally ill bedridden kids.
The world's biggest entertainer took all of that fortune gained from his musical fame & spent it for the sake of ill dying children.
He gave them free concerts in his theater dancing for them on his home stage, letting them watch cartoons, & merely spending quality time with them which is the greatest gift of all.
He did it quietly without fanfare.

So who cares about the religion he was raised under?
What actual works & deeds did he do? What was the spirit behind those works & deeds?

If a group of self-professed Satanists wearing circle pentagram necklaces walk through town & take starving homeless people off the street giving them meals & shelter just because, then who cares about their 'Satanism'?
That would mean the Satanists were doing a better job than the self-professed Christians wearing cross necklaces who would walk right past them.
We can disagree with their belief system all we want but we CANNOT discount the actual deeds done.

As a Black man, even if the Ku Klux Klan was walking around but they helped Black drug addicts get clean from drugs for the sake of helping them, then I would credit their deeds even if I discredit their belief system.
Unlikely scenario of course but that's my stance on separating professed beliefs from produced actions.

That's one reason why I'm not religious.
Too many people talking a good game but nobody wants to get in the trenches actually DOING anything for anybody.
I'm so desperate for good actions in this world that I'll take them from any person from any walk of life.

Hookers to help elderly invalids? I'm all for it.
Crips putting down the guns to help orphaned children? I'm all for it.
Eating Championship contestants to help feed the homeless? I'm all for it.

'Cause at the end of the day I know talk is cheap but actions say everything.
Talk includes professed belief systems. Watch what a person DOES over what a person SAYS & you will know that person.
Didn't someone once say you'll know them by their fruits?
John Lucas

Last edited Sat Mar 9, 2013, 05:25 PM - Edit history (1)

And I don't know what any of us here have done to relieve or even see the desperate suffering of old, sick, malnourished, dying, poverty stricken people. It is really noble to stand far off and throw rocks at someone who just may have done something for those people. If that makes you all feel good, go for it.

I have never been to Calcutta and have not seen first hand her work. I have been to Bombay (Mumbai) and worked with the poorest of the poor there who try to get by by picking through the trash pile of that city. They live without anything-- on the trash! Their children hardly every make it beyond twelve years of age.
The only hope they have--scant as it is--comes though a few Christians who have decided to live with them and offer what they could do ease the pain of the broken and dying. Hutchens, who may have never seen what Mother Teresa has done or been on Mumbai's refuse, is entitled to his opinion. But until he or his followers are offered a bit of bread by the wretched of the earth, I will ignore them and kneel at the feet listen to those who have.

You put the work in & you seen much of what Teresa seen firsthand.
I'll say it stronger than you did.
SCREW Christopher Hitchens' opinion!

All he did was run his yak mouth.
'Ignore them' is right.
In stories like these the only opinions I'm interested in hearing from are the people who dealt with Teresa & her organizations DIRECTLY.
I don't dig those 3rd hand, 9th hand sources.

Before she came there was no shelters at ALL & these people were abandoned by their own.
At least now we HAVE a damn shelter & SOME kind of aid.
If Teresa got a little burned out & snippy sometimes, who gives a damn?
That means she needs help changing that society, a society that treats its own in such a poor way.
And she stuck it through until doggone near the end of her life.
She wanted to step down because of her failing health feeling that it would be a hindrance to the organizations she put together & her sisters asked for her to stay on.

We've been disappointed by institutions, no doubt & it's easy to become all-cynical about everything.
But sometimes just sometimes there ARE people who do good in this world & there's no twist or punchline to it.
I'm of the belief that Mother Teresa is one of these people.

And oh about that saying she said that suffering brings you closer to Jesus...
Well I damn sure know that personal suffering brings out compassion for others.
You had to become weak to sympathize & empathize with the weakness of others.
Isn't that the whole problem we had with Mitt Romney?
Ivory Tower rich boy who couldn't empathize with anyone not rich since he was born into wealth & prestige?
A little bit of severe suffering may have made him a whole new man.

Whether Jesus was real or myth, we can at least agree that the Legend of Jesus (like the Legend of Zelda, haha) was about helping the unfortunate.
You don't do that unless you got compassion so I might just have to agree with Teresa on that one.
John Lucas

problem is that he is not the writer of this report. Three Canadian academics are. They do seem to largely verify what Hitchens wrote. But this is about facts uncovered about MT in this report, NOT the Hitchen's book. That tghey both found the same things only points to the verisimilitude of the claims.
Opinions about Hitchens are irrelevant.

his book was one source of many. Attacking Hitchens is sidestepping the info about MT in the study.

When you don't have the facts on your side, attack the messenger. (that is figuratively, not you personally cb)
And here people aren't even attacking the real messenger, the academics, but obfuscating with impugning Hitchens.

but, whatever one thinks of him, he is a lightning rod.

The article I linked to gives some more information about this particular study, but it remains unclear to me what data they actually used.

Bottom line for me, I guess, is this is a lot like the god question. We are unlikely to ever know the real truth, so what's the point of taking a hard stand?

"Bottom line for me, I guess, is this is a lot like the god question. We are unlikely to ever know the real truth"
Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?