Mother Theresa a fraud?

[LeftFootRightFoot]

So I was watching an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit tv series, and in it they said that Mother Theresa (not her real name, nor is she an actual mother) is a catholic fundamentalist fraud. They also said that her agenda wasn't to cure the sick or feed the poor, it was to spread catholic BS about suffering to get closer to jesus.

For those of you who haven't seen the episode, this is a link with a nice summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa#Controversy_and_critics

What do you guys think about the whole situation, is she truly a horrible woman unworthy of (rushed) sainthood?

[Miller]

So I was watching an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit tv series, and in it they said that Mother Theresa (not her real name, nor is she an actual mother) is a catholic fundamentalist fraud. They also said that her agenda wasn't to cure the sick or feed the poor, it was to spread catholic BS about suffering to get closer to jesus.

For those of you who haven't seen the episode, this is a link with a nice summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa#Controversy_and_critics

What do you guys think about the whole situation, is she truly a horrible woman unworthy of (rushed) sainthood?

Sounds about right to me. I seem to recall reading that she also accepted substantial donations from Charles Keating, and refused to return it after it came to light that the money had been stolen.

I'm curious what Penn and Teller had to say about Gandhi and the Dalai Lama, though. I've heard lots of criticism about the dubious sainthood of Mother Theresa, but I have seen anyone go after those other two guys. Well, unless you count Elton John (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=94877).

[Bryan Ekers]

I don't know that "fraud" is accurate, since I doubt she ever lied about her goals. She just didn't accomplish anything of any lasting value (putting aside the idea of saving eternal souls) and almost certainly made the situation a lot worse.

[Bryan Ekers]

I don't know that "fraud" is accurate, since I doubt she ever lied about her goals.

Hmm, after doing some additional reading' if Hitchens is right, my qualifier is incorrect and she did lie about her goals.

Anyway, she can't help but be highly regarded among cultures who unfortunately believe that suffering is noble in and of itself.

[Stranger On A Train]

Sounds about right to me. I seem to recall reading that she also accepted substantial donations from Charles Keating, and refused to return it after it came to light that the money had been stolen.Dude, accepting (stolen) money from Keating was one of her lesser transgressions of ethical behavior. She courted (metaphoically speaking, of course) dictators and despots. From supporting Indira Ghandi's suspension of civil liberties in India to hobnobbing with Trujillo in DR, Teresa never met an open purse she didn't like. One could argue that, despite of the source of the funds, she was doing so out of the desire to ultimately do good with those monies, but in fact the majority of funds were either stockpiled in Swiss banks or funnelled to the Vatican, while the people under her care were encouraged to endure their suffering in pursuit of her idea of Christian worship. She's quoted as saying "I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." Her real mission was proselytizing, and that isn't, IMHO, a charitable or benevolent intent, particularly given her lack of genuine charity.

The Sisters of her Order weren't treated much better, receiving the bare minimum of necessities to live and substandard medical treatment. Teresa herself, on the other hand, received prime treatment (often pro bono) in her ailing years. While she can't be accused of living lavishly, she certainly received better care than those whom she was nominally supporting.

Christopher Hitchins (The Missionary Position) and Dr. Aroup Chatterjee (Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict) have both written on the numerous ways that Mother Teresa's Order and Missionaries of Charity operations differed from the (oft-self-promoted) public image of her as a benevolent matron caring for the ill and indigent. (It should be noted that Hitchins is a professional agitator and self-described "contrarian" whose default position on any issue of interest is to undermine authority.) There are many other critics, but because of her influence both within the Catholic Church and with world leaders past and present, her public image predominates, and she is on route to canonization and sainthood, despite not actually having performed any definable miracles. (Okay, that's a little weak to non-Christians and those of us who don't place much credence in any alleged supernatural events, but still...she needs to pass out a few loaves and fishes, or do some slight of hand, or something before she can legitimately be considered a saint, non?)

Even granted that iconic and celebrated heros never live up to their public image in their private lives, Mother Teresa certainly isn't the benevolent and selfless angel of mercy she is generally considered to be. Her campaign for beautification and sainthood (going back a couple of decades before her death) was as crass as anything you'll find in politics, and her lack of genuine compassion for the people her order cared for says little to her virtues as a moral human being.

Stranger

[SkeptiJess]

I've got no beef with Mother Theresa's critics. However, this: ...Mother Theresa (not her real name, nor is she an actual mother) is a bit disingenuous. She was a nun, most of whom do take different names upon taking their vows. She wasn't keeping her birth name a secret or anything. And, while she wasn't a mother, she certainly was a Mother -- the head of an order of nuns. So, while she may very well have been a hypocritical fraud, neither of these two things is proof of that.

[Miller]

Dude, accepting (stolen) money from Keating was one of her lesser transgressions of ethical behavior.

All of which were covered in the Wiki link in the OP. I didn't see mention of the Keating thing, so I figured I'd add that in, too.

[Palooka]

I'm curious what Penn and Teller had to say about Gandhi and the Dalai Lama, though. I've heard lots of criticism about the dubious sainthood of Mother Theresa, but I have seen anyone go after those other two guys. Well, unless you count Elton John (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=94877).It's been a while since I saw the episode, but the gist of it is that Gandhi wrote some pretty racist things (“Don’t confuse the Indian with the negro.") and the Lama is looking more to reclaim his throne than he's concerned about the welfare of the Tibetan people.

[BrainGlutton]

Hmm, after doing some additional reading' if Hitchens is right, my qualifier is incorrect and she did lie about her goals.

Here's (http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/) one thing Hitchens wrote:

During the deliberations over the Second Vatican Council, under the stewardship of Pope John XXIII, MT was to the fore in opposing all suggestions of reform. What was needed, she maintained, was more work and more faith, not doctrinal revision. Her position was ultra-reactionary and fundamentalist even in orthodox Catholic terms. Believers are indeed enjoined to abhor and eschew abortion, but they are not required to affirm that abortion is "the greatest destroyer of peace," as MT fantastically asserted to a dumbfounded audience when receiving the Nobel Peace Prize*. Believers are likewise enjoined to abhor and eschew divorce, but they are not required to insist that a ban on divorce and remarriage be a part of the state constitution, as MT demanded in a referendum in Ireland (which her side narrowly lost) in 1996. Later in that same year, she told Ladies Home Journal that she was pleased by the divorce of her friend Princess Diana, because the marriage had so obviously been an unhappy one …

This returns us to the medieval corruption of the church, which sold indulgences to the rich while preaching hellfire and continence to the poor. MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?

Dunno if that makes her a fraud, but it does, if true, make her a monster.

[PBear42]

Stranger: ... she is on route to canonization and sainthood, despite not actually having performed any definable miracles. (Okay, that's a little weak to non-Christians and those of us who don't place much credence in any alleged supernatural events, but still...she needs to pass out a few loaves and fishes, or do some slight of hand, or something before she can legitimately be considered a saint, non?Actually, the answer is non. Thomas More, for example, was sainted in 1935, and I'm pretty sure that was without miracles. Since 1983, it has been official policy (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1410133,00.html) that martys need not have attested miracles. And there was a movement afoot, discussed on that page, to dispense with the requirement altogether. Whether the movement survived JPII's demise is more than I know.

[RickJay]

It's been a while since I saw the episode, but the gist of it is that Gandhi wrote some pretty racist things (“Don’t confuse the Indian with the negro.") and the Lama is looking more to reclaim his throne than he's concerned about the welfare of the Tibetan people.
It's possible Gandhi said some racist things, but I don't see how this equates him to Mother Teresa.

A writer I enjoy, Bill James, once said "Abraham Lincoln wasn't a great American because he was nice to his mother." The problem with Mother Teresa wasn't that she had some faults, it was that she actually hurt people; she exploited people's charity, left helpless people to die in agony for what amounted to her own spiritual satisfaction, and espoused causes that hurt poor people. On top of that, she was a hypocrite (buddy-buddy with divorcee Princess Diana while telling battered women they would roast in hell if they got divorces, etc) but she was plenty bad without the hypocrisy.

Gandhi, whatever his other faults, did something very good for many, many people by helping to achive Indian independence (a very good thing) with substantially less violence and bloodshed than likely would have happened had independence be achieved in some other fashion (also a very good thing.) Lots of people can be unfairly demonized this way; Martin Luther King Jr. was a womanizer. Thomas Jefferson owned a few slaves. Winston Churchill was a drunk and a terrible military strategist. They're all still way in the positive on the balance sheet. The world was better off for having them.

[JRDelirious]

Actually, the answer is non. Thomas More, for example, was sainted in 1935, and I'm pretty sure that was without miracles. Since 1983, it has been official policy (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1410133,00.html) that martys need not have attested miracles. And there was a movement afoot, discussed on that page, to dispense with the requirement altogether. Whether the movement survived JPII's demise is more than I know.

However, in the particular case the question asked addresses, the requirement does apply: as of today, the exemption remains for martyrs. Non-martyrs like MT or JP2 are still required to have "attested miracles" attributed to their veneration. What has been done with MT and JP2 is waive the 5-year waiting period. Either JP2, or Paul VI in his last years, did come up with a concept of "Martyr of Charity", for servants of God who are killed "in the line of duty", though not directly for the defense of the faith (e.g. Max Kolbe), but MT would still not quite meet the criteria.

JP2 was quite sanguine about canonizations, he seemingly wanted to have "examples" to be held up to every possible population segment and about every possible challenge to faith; I once read he did more canonizations in his term than in the rest of the 20th century leading to him -- I don't know how accurate that claim may be. It lent itself to uncomfortable situations such as the rush to veneration of Mother T., the canonization of Juan Diego whose historicity had come into question, that of Opus Dei founder Josemaría Escrivá, and the controversy over (still-uncanonized) Edith Stein.

Stranger, the two "miracles" are required after the purported saint has departed this world.

[Bill Door]

Stranger, the two "miracles" are required after the purported saint has departed this world.

I remember when there was a determined effort to canonize the first native born American saint, Elizabeth Ann Seton. The joke I heard at the time is that the traditional miracles were still required, but that one of them could be a card trick.

[Lissa]

Stranger, the two "miracles" are required after the purported saint has departed this world.

Anybody know what the standard for declaring something a "miracle" is? Does someone's claim that they prayed to Mother Theresa and were healed of an ailment qualify?

[saoirse]

Her campaign for beautification and sainthood ...

Stranger


campaign for beatification: Mother Theresa
campaign for beautification: Lady Bird Johnson.

[Eve]

We've had three or four threads on that ghastly woman in the past, but as you're not a member you can't do a search.

How was Bl. Mother Teresa evil? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=318375&highlight=mother+Theresa)

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=135649&highlight=mother+Theresa] Good, bad or indifferent?

Another "Worst" Thread: 20th-Century Woman? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=319152&highlight=mother+Teresa)

[Guinastasia]

Anybody know what the standard for declaring something a "miracle" is? Does someone's claim that they prayed to Mother Theresa and were healed of an ailment qualify?


Depends. The church is extremely conservative and skeptical when declaring actual miracles.

I liked Sharon Osbourne's description-"Ugly little cunt in sandles."

[ianzin]

/ or do some slight of hand / Her campaign for beautification and sainthood That would be 'sleight' and 'beatification' respectively.

As you were.

[JRDelirious]

Anybody know what the standard for declaring something a "miracle" is? Does someone's claim that they prayed to Mother Theresa and were healed of an ailment qualify?

Well, just claiming it would not be enough: an investigation would have to be conducted to substantiate the claim (Is there evidence the patient really was as critically/terminally/incurably ill? That s/he's really healed? Is there no reasonable medical explanation? etc.), and the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints can be quite the bunch of Doubting Thomases when they put their minds to it. But yes, virtually all the "miracles" in modern canonization are healings (I mean, just how often does anyone have to make the Sun move backward these days?).

Currently, it's one miracle for beatification (unless a martyr, then no miracle necessary); and one for canonization. Before, it was two (or more, in some cases) to make Beatus and two more for Saint (with one credited for martyrs).

One of the things JP2 did early in his term to streamline the canonization process was to remove old adversarial elements in the process (the so-called "devil's advocate") so now it's more a question of presenting to the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints sufficient documentary evidence to convince them.

A Pope, in the exercise of his powers, can leapfrog the process and canonize on the basis that the evidence for sainthood satisfies him (e.g. St. Philomena); but this is an extraordinarily rare occurence in modern times, and obviously would be specially risky with people about whom more stuff may yet be dug up. Benny would have to be bold beyond expectation to pull that one on Teresa. It's even likely her proponents would rather get a hearing of her case, as an opportunity to "set the record straight" on friendly ground and get the nod of approval of the institution.

[Johanna]

When I was in Catholic school, a priest said there was no St. Philomena. It just means 'beloved' in Greek, someone found that word on a tombstone — 'beloved" is a pretty common adjective on tombstones, then as now—and took it for a personal name. Voilà, now there's a woman named Philomena where there hadn't been one before.

[Excalibre]

So how much independent evidence is there for the charges her critics have leveled? Because I'm familiar with this stuff - mostly from discussions around here - and while it's interesting, I admit to some doubts. In fact, it's hard for me to believe anyone could be as much of a monster as Mother Teresa apparently is. Are all these things stuff that has been drawn from independent sources?

[BMalion]

What is Father Guido Sarducci's take on all this?

[catsix]

LeftFootRightFoot said:
What do you guys think about the whole situation, is she truly a horrible woman unworthy of (rushed) sainthood?

I think she could've done the poor people of Kolkata a lot better had she been handing out condoms and instructions on how to use them rather than preaching about birth control being a sin.

It's my opinion that if there is a hell, she is in it.

[Polycarp]

There's some nasty evidence that, if valid, would put her squarely in the middle of the Pantheon of Religious Hypocrites. I personally am not 100% convinced of the validity of that evidence, though I'm growing more and more skeptical about MT.

However, there are some points that really deserve being made here that anyone voicing an opinion about MT and her teachings should really take into account:

1. Catholicism (and religion generally) has always had a sense that "poverty" voluntarily embraced is a spiritual positive, a setting aside of the perishable Things of This World to pursue the imperishable Eternal Verities. Elimination of luxuries and even selective abstention from necessities is claimed to help spiritual growth and character building. That does not mean or suggest excusing the leaving of people in unchosen and dire poverty. What it does have to do with what's going on here is that any MT teachings regarding poverty have to be regarded, not as the hypocritical BS of someone living in a million-dollar house with yachts, but as the expression of orthodox Catholic doctrine by someone who is, on a charitable view, the leader of a religious order devoted to "positive poverty" on the Franciscan model and the combatting of "negative poverty" of the soul- and body-degrading kind. Now, whether she was herself personally hypocritical in that is a different question. But draw that distinction carefully and judge her, not on the terms of an affluent televangelist, but whether she herself lived out the Catholic teachings and the distinction between "espouse poverty for yourself for spiritual growith" and "give help to the poor, who cannot help themselves" embodied in it.

2. Likewise, she was, as Hitchens notes (see Brian Ekers and Brain Glutton's posts above) a very conservative Catholic, even by their own standings. But remember that it's a part of Catholic theology that abortion is a truly major evil, like serial premeditated infanticide might be to some of the rest of us, and that birth control in the normal understanding of it is a sinful act, divorcing the sex act from its divine purpose as procreative. Again, you are welcome to judge and condemn her for her extremism, but take into account that she was in fact a sincere and devout Catholic who subjected her own views to the teachings of Mother Church. That I personally don't agree with a lot of Catholic teaching on these subjects does not mean that I cannot grasp the good intent which they bring to teachings that are seen by many non-Catholics as hateful abuse of couples and women.

[Sarahfeena]

There's some nasty evidence that, if valid, would put her squarely in the middle of the Pantheon of Religious Hypocrites. I personally am not 100% convinced of the validity of that evidence, though I'm growing more and more skeptical about MT.

However, there are some points that really deserve being made here that anyone voicing an opinion about MT and her teachings should really take into account:

1. Catholicism (and religion generally) has always had a sense that "poverty" voluntarily embraced is a spiritual positive, a setting aside of the perishable Things of This World to pursue the imperishable Eternal Verities. Elimination of luxuries and even selective abstention from necessities is claimed to help spiritual growth and character building. That does not mean or suggest excusing the leaving of people in unchosen and dire poverty. What it does have to do with what's going on here is that any MT teachings regarding poverty have to be regarded, not as the hypocritical BS of someone living in a million-dollar house with yachts, but as the expression of orthodox Catholic doctrine by someone who is, on a charitable view, the leader of a religious order devoted to "positive poverty" on the Franciscan model and the combatting of "negative poverty" of the soul- and body-degrading kind. Now, whether she was herself personally hypocritical in that is a different question. But draw that distinction carefully and judge her, not on the terms of an affluent televangelist, but whether she herself lived out the Catholic teachings and the distinction between "espouse poverty for yourself for spiritual growith" and "give help to the poor, who cannot help themselves" embodied in it.

2. Likewise, she was, as Hitchens notes (see Brian Ekers and Brain Glutton's posts above) a very conservative Catholic, even by their own standings. But remember that it's a part of Catholic theology that abortion is a truly major evil, like serial premeditated infanticide might be to some of the rest of us, and that birth control in the normal understanding of it is a sinful act, divorcing the sex act from its divine purpose as procreative. Again, you are welcome to judge and condemn her for her extremism, but take into account that she was in fact a sincere and devout Catholic who subjected her own views to the teachings of Mother Church. That I personally don't agree with a lot of Catholic teaching on these subjects does not mean that I cannot grasp the good intent which they bring to teachings that are seen by many non-Catholics as hateful abuse of couples and women. Thanks, Polycarp, for these points. I think that a lot of what MT had to say about the "beauty of suffering" is a little bit misunderstood due to either being taken out of context, or because people do not understand Catholic theology on this. I can't speak to how skilled she was as a money manager, but it could be that her personal mission was different than what people seem to expect that it should have been. It is a well-established tradition in Catholicism for missionaries to live & work among the poor, helping at a grass-roots level, which it seems was more her mindset than running some giant relief organization. There is a lack of sophistication on her part that I think people are not getting.

In regards to your second point, you are right that blaming MT personally for the teachings of the Catholic Church seems rather pointless. She didn't invent these teachings, but believed them and carried out her work according to them. Certainly, abortion is something that a strict Catholic would never compromise on, and there are many more Catholics than one might think who feel the same way about birth control. If she genuinely believes that the use of birth control is endangering the soul, then she could never encourage it, even if its use may relieve suffering here on earth. This may sound illogical to people (especially those who don't believe in a soul), but it is a deep-seated belief among many, many people.

[JRDelirious]

When I was in Catholic school, a priest said there was no St. Philomena. It just means 'beloved' in Greek, someone found that word on a tombstone — 'beloved" is a pretty common adjective on tombstones, then as now—and took it for a personal name. Voilà, now there's a woman named Philomena where there hadn't been one before.
Oh, but that's the thing -- a Pope did canonize a Saint "Philomena", that it turns out probably wasn't even the person they thought she was to begin with. And there are fervent devotees even to this day. See this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=350389) for series of posts by Bricker and myself (plus quotes from Cecil) on the Philomena issue.


As to Mother T, JP2's fast-track method took her through to Beatification during his Papacy (2003), even though there were people who raised questions about the circumstances of the specific healing; she's pending one more "miracle" to be eligible for canonization, and after those earlier issues the Congregation is likely to make sure they have a good one lined up for the next go-around.

The possibility of theological politics cannot be completely laid aside in the fast-tracking: Firstly, the administration under JP2 would have very much welcomed elevating someone who was high-visibility in the contemporary media age, linked to the developing world, and "Old School" doctrinally; secondly, she was the founder of Religious Order that was actually expanding, which you can hardly find in the Church these days.

[Excalibre]

Thanks, Polycarp, for these points. I think that a lot of what MT had to say about the "beauty of suffering" is a little bit misunderstood due to either being taken out of context, or because people do not understand Catholic theology on this. I can't speak to how skilled she was as a money manager, but it could be that her personal mission was different than what people seem to expect that it should have been. It is a well-established tradition in Catholicism for missionaries to live & work among the poor, helping at a grass-roots level, which it seems was more her mindset than running some giant relief organization. There is a lack of sophistication on her part that I think people are not getting.
If her mission was building lavish convents and claiming the money was for relieving poverty, then yes, she was fulfilling it. My limited understanding of Catholic teaching is that bearing false witness is still a sin. Supporting dictators with blood on their hands frankly seems unlikely to shorten your stay in purgatory either.

The point is not that she should have somehow personally headed an international charitable organization that could fight poverty efficiently - the point is that when given money to relieve poverty, she should have done so, especially when she was so lucky to have so much. She had the opportunity to actually do something about people's misery, but she apparently did not do so - even though she claimed she did. She didn't even take the small step of using her organization's vast wealth to hire a few medical personal to separate the truly dying from those who only became Dying Destitutes once they were in her claws. She didn't do much to ease their passing. Nor did she buy any of the cheap medications that could be used to relieve their suffering. Her mission was apparently a very ugly one.


In regards to your second point, you are right that blaming MT personally for the teachings of the Catholic Church seems rather pointless. She didn't invent these teachings, but believed them and carried out her work according to them. Certainly, abortion is something that a strict Catholic would never compromise on, and there are many more Catholics than one might think who feel the same way about birth control. If she genuinely believes that the use of birth control is endangering the soul, then she could never encourage it, even if its use may relieve suffering here on earth. This may sound illogical to people (especially those who don't believe in a soul), but it is a deep-seated belief among many, many people.
The best thing that can be said about her, then, is that she was a blind fanatic, willing to sacrifice other people to her religious beliefs and apparently feeling no compunctions about it. Given that she apparently didn't only not provide such services (something you'll find at Catholic hospitals in the United States as well) but, according to what has been posted in this thread, actively campaigned to prevent the government from providing it, she was clearly working to the detriment of Indians.

The irony of it is that such an action can hardly be imagined to be "Christian" in any sense - there's nothing in the Bible that enjoins believers to go out and stop their neighbors from sinning. You can believe the dogmas of the Catholic Church whole-heartedly, but that doesn't make it Christian behavior to dedicate your life to stopping others from sinning - or even having the opportunity to do so. Such a thing can't be remotely justified by Scripture - especially from someone who claims to be working to relieve suffering. Delivering self-satisfied speeches about how nasty other people's sins are might be regrettably common among "Christians", but that doesn't make it behavior that is valid under the teachings of Scripture.

I frankly don't think it's a good idea to defend this woman on the basis of Catholic doctrine. That casts the Catholic church in a very bad light.

[Sarahfeena]

I would not argue with what you say, Excalibre, because I don't know that much about MT. I will say that I was not aware she was such a power broker...I was just seeing her as one of the many, many, Catholic religious who live among the poor, feed, and clothe them, and do not exactly have a lot of political clout (even within the Church). If she was more involved politically, as you say, then I think her actions do become much more problematic.

[spazattak]

It's possible Gandhi said some racist things, but I don't see how this equates him to Mother Teresa.

A writer I enjoy, Bill James, once said "Abraham Lincoln wasn't a great American because he was nice to his mother." The problem with Mother Teresa wasn't that she had some faults, it was that she actually hurt people; she exploited people's charity, left helpless people to die in agony for what amounted to her own spiritual satisfaction, and espoused causes that hurt poor people. On top of that, she was a hypocrite (buddy-buddy with divorcee Princess Diana while telling battered women they would roast in hell if they got divorces, etc) but she was plenty bad without the hypocrisy.

Gandhi, whatever his other faults, did something very good for many, many people by helping to achive Indian independence (a very good thing) with substantially less violence and bloodshed than likely would have happened had independence be achieved in some other fashion (also a very good thing.) Lots of people can be unfairly demonized this way; Martin Luther King Jr. was a womanizer. Thomas Jefferson owned a few slaves. Winston Churchill was a drunk and a terrible military strategist. They're all still way in the positive on the balance sheet. The world was better off for having them.

This particular episode was about heroes/idols. Their main point was that everyone has faults, and no one deserves to be worshipped. They should all be treated as people and historically studied as such, not propped up as these ideal people to follow in their footsteps.

[Excalibre]

I would not argue with what you say, Excalibre, because I don't know that much about MT. I will say that I was not aware she was such a power broker...I was just seeing her as one of the many, many, Catholic religious who live among the poor, feed, and clothe them, and do not exactly have a lot of political clout (even within the Church). If she was more involved politically, as you say, then I think her actions do become much more problematic.
I only know about the stuff that has been raised in this thread and the linked threads. I know these are issues that were largely pointed out by her critics, but at the same time I haven't heard any evidence that they were false.

My point is that I'm no expert on the matter - so take what I say with a grain of salt. But what I've heard about her practices doesn't make her sound very good.

[Eve]

One of my pet peeves (I have many pet peeves, I take them to the vet regularly) is that so many people still use "Mother Teresa" as a synonym for all that is good. Saying "you're not exactly a Mother Teresa" is the highest of compliments, as far as I'm concerned.

[mobo85]

So I was watching an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit tv series, and in it they said that Mother Theresa (not her real name, nor is she an actual mother) is a catholic fundamentalist fraud.

Did this air again? I don't get Showtime, but I'm glad they didn't cave in to the hyper-conservative Catholic League's requests. (I think the only problem they had with the show was that they called her "Mother fucking Teresa." But for some reason, the head of the league didn't mind being called "William fucking Donohue" on the exact same show.)

[RickJay]

This particular episode was about heroes/idols. Their main point was that everyone has faults, and no one deserves to be worshipped. They should all be treated as people and historically studied as such, not propped up as these ideal people to follow in their footsteps.
But in all fairness, what the heck is that supposed to mean, anyway? I have never heard anyone say that people should try to live their lives just like Mohandas Gandhi; if anything, it'd be impossible for most folks to exhibit the sort of personal self-discipline he did at times.

what I HAVE heard is people say that

1. Gandhi did great things, which is true, and

2. That Gandhi's specific philosophy of passive resistance is a good thing to follow, which is also true.

I am sure some knob out there someone has said "Gandhi was perfect and we should all try to be like him" but if Bullshit! is just about picking on the dumbest people they can find (and unfortunately it often is, especially after the first season) then what's the point?

Let's be honest; Penn & Teller's purpose was to rag on religious people, not dispel any myths. I'm all for attacking religion, but it's possible for someone to do great things for humanity and still be a Hindu.

[rjung]

It's been a while since I saw the episode, but the gist of it is that Gandhi wrote some pretty racist things (“Don’t confuse the Indian with the negro.") and the Lama is looking more to reclaim his throne than he's concerned about the welfare of the Tibetan people.
Yeah, and I thought that episode as a whole was one of their weaker ones. It's not so much that Mother Teresa/Ghandi/the Dali Lama are "frauds" as much as "they're not the perfect sinless folks people think they are" -- well, duh.

Then again, I think the latest season of P&T: Bullshit! has been spottier than their previous stuff. I can't believe they spent an entire episode on the red-tape infighting over the WTC Memorial...

[Apos]

Hitchens rightly pointed out that while we don't know specifically the full extent of what her charity took in, we at least know that it was more than enough to build and run a full scale hospital or two in Culcutta. Job centers, schools, food distribution centers plus food: with the amount of money she had, it would have been cake. But somehow none of that stuff ever got done, just lots of patting the sick and dying on the back, praising them for being such good examples, and giving them a cot to die on.