# The case against Mother Theresa **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2010, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194 "2010-02-23T23:47:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2010, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/1 "2010-02-23T23:47:36Z")
There’s a boring discussion going on about Cheney in the Pit, but one post stood out to me: > [@Former VP Cheney hospitalized, resting comfortably.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-vp-cheney-hospitalized-resting-comfortably/530071/62): > > […]Heck, Mother-Freakin’-Theresa has her share of Haters here![…] I won’t post any responses from that thread, because they’re not helpful in GD, but I’ve heard some anecdotes that put her in a less than saintly light - unless your definition of saintlyhood is something like “people are closer to god if they suffer more” - so I’m wondering if anyone wants to step up for or against the case that Ms Theresa did more good than bad in the world? With some cites, please. I’m ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2010, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/2 "2010-02-23T23:52:19Z")
It’s not a question of her doing more bad than good in the world. The question is typically whether or not she should have been beatified (and eventually, she’ll be sainted), given the fact that she was sort of a bitch. Now, I’m not Catholic, so I’ve got no dog in this fight, but I’ve got to say – I wouldn’t saint her. She thought it would be a good idea to have people suffer, without telling them her reasoning or telling them she could make the suffering stop, to make them closer to god. It requires a lot more than that, as in not doing that at all to begin with, to warrant sainthood in my book (in fairness, I don’t have a book, more a pamphlet, but “in my pamphlet” just doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it?). The case isn’t so much _against Mother Teresa_ as it is _against Catholicism calling her a saint_. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/3 "2010-02-24T00:04:03Z")
Here are a few complaints I’ve heard: - She was against birth control (in a country that could use a little birth control). - She pushed for death-bed conversions. - She was a money-making machine for the Catholic church. - She had a conservative political slant. Some people will belabor those points (and others) to criticize MT. I disagree with some of her stances but I firmly believe she put others before herself and tried to do as much good as she could. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/4 "2010-02-24T00:05:58Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > The case isn’t so much _against Mother Teresa_ as it is _against Catholicism calling her a saint_. Is there a chance that Catholicism means the word “saint” differently than you do? I mean, don’t get me wrong. I surely appreciate the time and effort it must have taken to craft your pamphlet. But perhaps your pamphlet isn’t the only game in town when it comes to sainthood? From bitter experience here, this thread is going to soon be filled with hateful diatribes directed against Mother Teresa. And most all of them will share in common their explicit or implicit desire to be the ones that define what kinds of acts are good in this world. Some will even deny that here’s a next world to be considered. But all will inveigh against Mother Teresa and the Church for lauding her. What I can’t figure out is – why do you care? If Catolics wish to say that to embrace suffering, to endure it, to offer it up for the sake of the souls in Purgatory, is of benefit to souls, and you don’t believe in souls, or don’t accept that version of souls… why do you care? “Oh, but she led others into error, and made them suffer!” At gunpoint, did she? ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/5 "2010-02-24T00:11:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If Catolics wish to say that to embrace suffering, to endure it, to offer it up for the sake of the souls in Purgatory, is of benefit to souls, and you don’t believe in souls, or don’t accept that version of souls… why do you care? > > “Oh, but she led others into error, and made them suffer!” > > At gunpoint, did she? This may seem unfair to people who think they know what happens in the afterlife, but consider this a reminder that the debate stipulates arguing “[for or against the case that] Ms Theresa did more good than bad _in the world_” Also: if the worst you can say about MT is that she didn’t deserve sainthood, than fine, but neither do I. It’s not interesting to me. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/6 "2010-02-24T00:12:31Z")
Wikipedia is a little help. It would appear that Christopher Hitchens was the instigator. [The Missionary Position.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position_(book)) This article is either poorly written, or Mr. Hitchens didn’t make much of a case. IMHO. Could well be the former. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/7 "2010-02-24T00:12:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Is there a chance that Catholicism means the word “saint” differently than you do? Yeah, sure. > [@Bricker](#): > > I mean, don’t get me wrong. I surely appreciate the time and effort it must have taken to craft your pamphlet. But perhaps your pamphlet isn’t the only game in town when it comes to sainthood? Hey, my pamphlet isn’t actually crafted yet. It’s more in the design stages… but some day, some day, it’ll be a pamphlet to behold! > [@Bricker](#): > > From bitter experience here, this thread is going to soon be filled with hateful diatribes directed against Mother Teresa. And most all of them will share in common their explicit or implicit desire to be the ones that define what kinds of acts are good in this world. Some will even deny that here’s a next world to be considered. But all will inveigh against Mother Teresa and the Church for lauding her. Yeah, I was being snarky in my post. But it wasn’t a diatribe against Mother Theresa, it was just my opinion. > [@Bricker](#): > > What I can’t figure out is – why do you care? I don’t – I don’t have a dog in that fight. > [@Bricker](#): > > If Catolics wish to say that to embrace suffering, to endure it, to offer it up for the sake of the souls in Purgatory, is of benefit to souls, and you don’t believe in souls, or don’t accept that version of souls… why do you care? > > “Oh, but she led others into error, and made them suffer!” > > At gunpoint, did she? I care, because I’m a humanitarian. Anyone who has the capability to ease suffering and actively avoids doing it, or puts forth an agenda which allows it to continue or encourages it to continue (the latter being my understand of what she did) is doing a great injustice. But, like I said, if it were up to me – it’s not – I wouldn’t saint her. Also, if it were up to me – again, it’s not – the church would hand out lots of free condoms. Lots and lots of 'em. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/8 "2010-02-24T00:12:59Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > - unless your definition of saintlyhood is something like “people are closer to god if they suffer more” - so I’m wondering if anyone wants to step up for or against the case that Ms Theresa did more good than bad in the world? > > With some cites, please. I’m ignorant. I’m guessing you’re already aware of [Christopher Hitchens’ criticism of Mother Teresa](http://www.slate.com/id/2090083)? He goes into more details about her in his book than that Slate article. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/9 "2010-02-24T00:19:56Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > I’m guessing you’re already aware of [Christopher Hitchens’ criticism of Mother Teresa](http://www.slate.com/id/2090083)? > > He goes into more details about her in his book than that Slate article. I wasn’t aware of that, but I’m not surprised that Hitchens was not a fan. Also thanks to **John Mace** for pointing out the same. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/10 "2010-02-24T00:43:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What I can’t figure out is – why do you care? > > If Catolics wish to say that to embrace suffering, to endure it, to offer it up for the sake of the souls in Purgatory, is of benefit to souls, and you don’t believe in souls, or don’t accept that version of souls… why do you care? Because your brand of superstition, and the fact that people buy into is _actively increasing the amount of suffering in the world_. It is making the world a worse place to be than it otherwise would have been. When the Catholic Church proclaims condoms to be sinful (and also [lies](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids) about their effectiveness) the result is that more people will die unpleasant deaths. More people will be born into extreme crushing poverty. I know that the prospect of eternal bliss in heaven can cause you to overlook these minor details because they are part of God’s plan, but for those of us not blessed with the ability to believe that God sacrificed himself to himself in order to save us from himself, and that the church is literally (not figuratively) serving the blood of Jesus every week, it’s really not that appealing at all. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/11 "2010-02-24T00:49:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > At gunpoint, did she? Certainly not at gunpoint, but it has to be borne in mind that most of the recipients of her charity were sick and helpless. If she chose not to give them painkillers, for example, because **she** believed that enduring physical suffering was good for the soul, they didn’t have a lot of alternatives. I do believe that Mother Theresa herself was sincerely persuaded that she was helping people in the best way possible. Nevertheless, I think she has to be held responsible for the choices that she made, both positive and negative. Yes, she was personally and honestly convinced that poor and sick people needed spiritual benefits more than painkillers or physical comfort, that conversion to Christianity was the ultimate spiritual benefit, and that the Church as a whole was entitled to the lion’s share of the ample donations she received, even at the expense of privations for her Sisters and the people they were ministering to. But how far was she entitled to impose those convictions on others? [A former member of her organization has written:](http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html) > [@](#): > > Three of Mother Teresa’s teachings that are fundamental to her religious congregation are all the more dangerous because they are believed so sincerely by her sisters. Most basic is the belief that as long as a sister obeys she is doing God’s will. Another is the belief that the sisters have leverage over God by choosing to suffer. Their suffering makes God very happy. He then dispenses more graces to humanity. The third is the belief that any attachment to human beings, even the poor being served, supposedly interferes with love of God and must be vigilantly avoided or immediately uprooted. […] > > Although there are relatively few tempted to join Mother Teresa’s congregation of sisters, there are many who generously have supported her work because they do not realize how her twisted premises strangle efforts to alleviate misery. Unaware that most of the donations sit unused in her bank accounts, they too are deceived into thinking they are helping the poor. […] > > The donations rolled in and were deposited in the bank, but they had no effect on our ascetic lives and very little effect on the lives of the poor we were trying to help. We lived a simple life, bare of all superfluities. We had three sets of clothes, which we mended until the material was too rotten to patch anymore. We washed our own clothes by hand. The never-ending piles of sheets and towels from our night shelter for the homeless we washed by hand, too. Our bathing was accomplished with only one bucket of water. Dental and medical checkups were seen as an unnecessary luxury. > > Mother was very concerned that we preserve our spirit of poverty. Spending money would destroy that poverty. She seemed obsessed with using only the simplest of means for our work. Was this in the best interests of the people we were trying to help, or were we in fact using them as a tool to advance our own “sanctity?” ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/12 "2010-02-24T01:17:42Z")
She glorified suffering, rather than trying to alleviate it . . . except her own suffering, of course. And very early in the AIDS crisis, she was asked whether she thought AIDS was God’s punishment for homosexuals. She replied: “Yes, that sounds like something God would do.” Bitch. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/13 "2010-02-24T01:28:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Here are a few complaints I’ve heard: > > - She was against birth control (in a country that could use a little birth control). Hardly remarkable, among Catholics. > [@](#): > > - She pushed for death-bed conversions. Well, of course. No chance after they die. > [@](#): > > - She was a money-making machine for the Catholic church. And this is a bad thing? If she inspired people to donate money (of which she kept very little for herself), doesn’t that reflect well on her? > [@](#): > > - She had a conservative political slant. She dedicated her life to helping the poor. If that’s conservative, then conservative is good. **panache** , can we have a cite for that AIDS quote? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/14 "2010-02-24T02:06:18Z")
Here in Peru, MT’s nuns work among the destitute sick is remarkable. As to the “money-making” thing, it’s a bad joke. Getting donations for hospitals is hardly that. ---
**Author:** ![code\_grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@code\_grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/code_grey)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/15 "2010-02-24T03:07:11Z")
perhaps a logical conclusion would be “she had no impact, good or bad, on the world”? A lot of people were dying in the usual deathbed suffering before she showed up. So she set up a facility where they could die with about the same level of suffering but with some minimal accommodations. And she and her colleagues converted some of them from one religion to the other shortly before they died. As far as the world is concerned, what’s the difference? If her critics think that these dying people should have been given morphine instead of preaching, what stopped them (indeed, what is stopping them now) from setting up similar institution nearby that would do just that? MT’s outfit seems to have been pretty cheap per patient, so I am guessing that the “secular humanist’s home of the dying” wouldn’t cost much either. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/16 "2010-02-24T03:43:20Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > She dedicated her life to helping the poor. If that’s conservative, then conservative is good. The charge is I think best summarised by this Hitchens quote (from the Slate article): > [@](#): > > 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. I don’t know whether or not this is correct. However, if it is, it does seem to me that alleviating poverty is much more worthy than providing some minimal relief to those in poverty while vociferously advocating policies likely to further poverty. I haven’t seen much if anything by way of denial that her efforts were as Hitchens says. What she did might well have been with behaviour that Catholics favour, such that they might wish to bestow certain titles meaningful to them upon her. I don’t know about that. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/17 "2010-02-24T04:15:51Z")
[Mother Teresa Sent To Hell In Wacky Afterlife Mix-Up](http://www.theonion.com/content/news/mother_teresa_sent_to_hell_in) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/18 "2010-02-24T04:23:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Is there a chance that Catholicism means the word “saint” differently than you do? Out of curiosity, what is the Catholic standard for sainthood? Or more particularly, what did Mother Theresa do that merits sainthood, by the standards of the Catholic church? ---
**Author:** ![Malleus\_Incus\_Stapes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malleus_incus_stapes/32/3293_2.png) [@Malleus\_Incus\_Stapes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malleus_Incus_Stapes)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/19 "2010-02-24T04:34:02Z")
It sounds to me like the critisms of Mother Teresa could pretty much be said of the Catholic Church in general. That is to say, it’s not specifically MT that they have a problem with. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194/20 "2010-02-24T04:38:06Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Out of curiosity, what is the Catholic standard for sainthood? **Since** you asked… 😃 [Everything you ever wanted to know about beatification and canonization in the Catholic Church](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm). > [@](#): > > The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments. […] > > Before dealing with the actual procedure in causes of beatification and canonization, it is proper to define these terms precisely and briefly in view of the preceding considerations. > > Canonization, generally speaking, is a decree regarding the public ecclesiastical veneration of an individual. Such veneration, however, may be permissive or preceptive, may be universal or local. If the decree contains a precept, and is universal in the sense that it binds the whole Church, it is a decree of canonization; if it only permits such worship, or if it binds under precept, but not with regard to the whole Church, it is a decree of beatification. […] > > To sum up, beatification, in the present discipline, differs from canonization in this: that the former implies (1) a locally restricted, not a universal, permission to venerate, which is (2) a mere permission, and no precept; while canonization implies a universal precept. Got that? Note that [Mother Theresa has already been beatified, in 2003](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/10/19/pope.mother.teresa/index.html). How come? Because she met the following criteria (from first link): > [@](#): > > In order to secure beatification (the most important and difficult step in the process of canonization) the regular procedure is as follows: > > 1. Choosing of a vice-postulator by the postulator-general of the cause, to promote all the judicial inquiries necessary in places outside of Rome. Such inquiries are instituted by the local episcopal authority. > > 2. The preparation of the inquiries (_processus_) all of which are carried on by the ordinary episcopal authority. They are of three kinds: (a) Informative inquiries regard the reputation for sanctity and miracles of the servants of God, not only in general, but also in particular instances; there may be several such inquiries if the witnesses to be examined belong to different dioceses. (b) Processes _de non cultu_ are instituted to prove that the decrees of Urban VIII regarding the prohibition of public worship of servants of God before their beatification have been obeyed; they are generally conducted by the bishop of the place where the relics of the servant of God are preserved. (c) Other inquiries are known as _Processiculi diligentiarum_ and have for their object the writings attributed to the person whose beatification is in question; they vary in number according to the dioceses where such writings are found, or are thought likely to be found, and may not be judicially executed before an “Instruction” is obtained from the promotor of the Faith by the postulator-general and by him sent to the bishop in question. > > 3. The results of all these inquiries are sent to Rome, to the Congregation of Rites, in charge of a messenger (_portitor_) chosen by the judges, or by some other secure way, in case a rescript of the congregation dispenses from the obligation of sending a messenger. > > 4. They are opened, translated if necessary into Italian, a public copy is made, and a cardinal is deputed by the pope as relator or _ponens_ of the cause, for all which steps rescripts of the congregation, confirmed by the pope, must be obtained. > > 5. The writings of the servant of God are next revised by theologians appointed by the cardinal relator himself, authorized to so act by a special rescript. Meantime, the advocate and the procurator of the cause, chosen by the postulator-general, have prepared all the documents that concern the introduction of the cause (_positio super introductione causae_). These consist of (a) a summary of the informative processes, (b) an information, (c) answers to the observations or difficulties of the promotor of the Faith sent by him to the Postulator. > > 6. This collection of documents (\*positio) is printed and distributed to the cardinals of the Congregation of Rites forty days before the date assigned for their discussion. > > 7. If nothing contrary to faith and morals is found in the writings of the servant of God, a decree is published, authorizing further action (_quod in causâ procedi possit ad ulteriora_), i.e., the discussion of the matter (_dubium_) of appointment or non-appointment of a commission for the introduction of the cause. > > 8. At the time fixed by the Congregation of Rites an ordinary meeting (_congregatio_) is held in which this appointment is debated by the cardinals of the aforesaid congregation and its officials, but without the vote or participation of the consultors, though this privilege is always granted them by rescript. Shall I go on? There are 20 steps in all for beatification, and then comes the separate process of canonization. 😉 But to cut to the chase (you’re welcome), [the prospective saint needs](http://people.howstuffworks.com/question6191.htm), first, official confirmation of heroic virtue and conformity to Catholic principles, which makes them technically _venerable_. Then there must be official recognition of the candidate’s having performed a posthumous miracle, which entitles them to _beatification_. Then if it’s officially recognized that you performed a second posthumous miracle, that qualifies you for _canonization_, and now you’re **Saint Miller**. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-mother-theresa/530194.md?page=2)