Canadian Researchers Demolish The Myth Of Mother Teresa’s Goodness

First exposed as a fraud by Christopher Hitchens, renowned twentieth-century saint Mother Teresa now appears to have been more of a monster. Via EurekAlert!:

The myth of altruism and generosity surrounding Mother Teresa is dispelled in a paper by Serge Larivée and Genevieve Chenard of University of Montreal’s Department of Psychoeducation and Carole Sénéchal of the University of Ottawa. The three researchers collected and analyzed 502 documents on the life and work of Mother Teresa.

At the time of her death, Mother Teresa had opened 517 missions welcoming the poor and sick in more than 100 countries. Two-thirds of the people coming to these missions hoped to a find a doctor to treat them, while the other third lay dying without receiving appropriate care.  [There was] a significant lack of hygiene, even unfit conditions, as well as a shortage of actual care, inadequate food, and no painkillers. The problem is not a lack of money—the Foundation created by Mother Teresa has raised hundreds of millions of dollars—but rather a particular conception of suffering and death: “There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering,” was her reply to criticism.

Mother Teresa was generous with her prayers but rather miserly with her foundation’s millions when it came to humanity’s suffering. During numerous floods in India or following the explosion of a pesticide plant in Bhopal, she offered numerous prayers and medallions of the Virgin Mary but no direct or monetary aid. On the other hand, she had no qualms about accepting the Legion of Honour and a grant from the Duvalier dictatorship in Haiti. Millions of dollars were transferred to the MCO’s various bank accounts, but most of the accounts were kept secret, Larivée says.

Despite these disturbing facts, how did Mother Teresa succeed in building an image of holiness and infinite goodness? According to the three researchers, her meeting in London in 1968 with the BBC’s Malcom Muggeridge, an anti-abortion journalist who shared her right-wing Catholic values, was crucial. Muggeridge decided to promote Teresa, who consequently discovered the power of mass media. In 1969, he made a eulogistic film of the missionary, promoting her by attributing to her the “first photographic miracle,” when it should have been attributed to the new film stock being marketed by Kodak. Afterwards, Mother Teresa travelled throughout the world and received numerous awards, including the Nobel Peace Prize.

, , , ,

  • http://twitter.com/DrinkyMcGee Daniel Cecil

    This is, point for point, exactly what Christopher Hitchens wrote.

    • https://sites.google.com/site/themattprather Matt Prather

      Maybe the good brother Sloan could have quoted (and possibly even bolded) this sentence:

      Like the journalist and author Christopher Hitchens, who is amply quoted in their analysis, the researchers conclude that her hallowed image—which does not stand up to analysis of the facts—was constructed, and that her beatification was orchestrated by an effective media relations campaign.

      As far as the content of the article (and not to reply specifically to you Dan Cecil), I’d say that one of the first adult lessons about one’s religion is that the stories (“myths”) don’t always completely hold up under scrutiny. Another of the first such lessons is that people are always out to nit-pick (“pick gnat s*** out of pepper”) for inconsistencies.

      I say the way to judge a person of religion is in how each adherent lives their life — much as God judges. So, regarding all those Catholics out there, whom I cannot see or judge, I wouldn’t try to make them feel bad if Mother Teresa doesn’t live up to the image / hype.

      I’d make Mother Teresa feel bad. Or I’d make Christopher Hitchens or Serge Larivée and Genevieve Chenard feel bad if their so-called myth debunking doesn’t carry its own water. But as far as the people who believe in Catholicism go, I wouldn’t try to bash them over the heads with this. It’s pretty milquetoast compared to The Inquisition and to the current conspiracy investigations on the Vatican.

      * * *

      Bonus historical / philosophical text summary:

      1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_of_the_Sun
      2: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/campanella/#Cala

      * * *

      Bonus pic, related:
      http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/people-y-u-no-live-in-peace.jpg

      • http://twitter.com/DrinkyMcGee Daniel Cecil

        I saw that quote. I was merely surprised that there was nothing new in this at all. Reread Hitchens, ya’ll. Same stuff. Better writer.

        • emperorreagan

          Or it presents the same information without being written by an insufferable prick like Hitchens.

          • http://rizzn.com Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins

            That was his charm.

          • http://rizzn.com Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins

            That was his charm.

        • emperorreagan

          Or it presents the same information without being written by an insufferable prick like Hitchens.

  • http://www.zoboprepublic.wordpress.com/ zobop republic

    How the Hell does the world gain from suffering? She may be considered a saint but she was still a begger. [Begged for donations in order to help the needy]. I’d called that Irony.

    • https://sites.google.com/site/themattprather Matt Prather

      “The essence of suffering is desire.”

      If you suffered more than you ever suffered before, and came through it to happiness again, you would probably value life more than you ever had before.

      You might even start to look at “beggars” more individually than categorically.

      I always try cue people in to this fact: money is created when one man with empty pockets pledges debt to another man with empty pockets. Thus the money creator has fantastic power and fantastic responsibility. The debtor’s responsbility is relatively easy prove in court, yet the modern money creators (debt-holders) should not be above reproach or investigation for fraud or fraudulent inducement either.

      If you do not understand what I am trying to say, feel free to ask me for more information.

      • http://www.zoboprepublic.wordpress.com/ zobop republic

        I think I got it. Thanks!

      • maus

        Your explanation of the quote may apply to some people, especially if they’ve never suffered before, but to someone that has lived a life filled with suffering, happiness comes with a side of doubt – hence the expression “ignorance is bliss.”

  • LordGorgon

    Hold on… This same thing was on Penn & Teller Bullshit like 5 years ago.

    • echar

      It was hardly new information then.

      • LordGorgon

        Very true, but, why is everyone shocked every time this gets brought up

        • echar

          I am not shocked at all. No one is perfect.

  • http://spiritnewsdaily.com/ Donovan Moore

    Penn and Teller exposed the same years ago as well. She was a horrible human being. This is the world we now live in. The horrible are elevated to sainthood and the good are simply ignored.

  • http://spiritnewsdaily.com/ Donovan Moore

    Penn and Teller exposed the same years ago as well. She was a horrible human being. This is the world we now live in. The horrible are elevated to sainthood and the good are simply ignored.

    • godozo

      No good deed goes unpunished,
      No evil deed goes unrewarded.

      Would not surprise me to find
      that the people who raised Mother Theresa up
      and supported her “mission” did so PRECISELY
      because the way that she treated the poor

      (“let them die, their suffering will sanctify them”)
      was the way they’ve always wanted to treat us -
      only without the sanctification of suffering…
      and because their introduction of the term “Karma”
      didn’t turn out the way that they wanted it to turn out.

  • Guest

    Like all cathol’ick’ clegy and many lay she did not support bitrth control thereby sentencing millions if not billions (mostly women to lives of misery.

  • http://skadhitheravernerblog.wordpress.com/ Skadhi_the_Raverner

    Nothing new and itself the claims are dubious, at least Mother Teresa did more to help the poor than did Hitchens, Penn and Teller.

    Course she wasn’t a saint, but who is? FWIW she died at the time of Princess Diana in the UK, and older people remember that Diana coverage drowned out that of Mother Teresa’s funeral.

    This is only being resurfaced because the Church is back in the spotlight again because of the election of a new pope.

  • http://skadhitheravernerblog.wordpress.com/ Skadhi_the_Raverner

    Nothing new and itself the claims are dubious, at least Mother Teresa did more to help the poor than did Hitchens, Penn and Teller.

    Course she wasn’t a saint, but who is? FWIW she died at the time of Princess Diana in the UK, and older people remember that Diana coverage drowned out that of Mother Teresa’s funeral.

    This is only being resurfaced because the Church is back in the spotlight again because of the election of a new pope.

    • http://www.facebook.com/chuckt1981 Charles Thomas

      She didn’t do anything to help the poor, unless you meant to say “she helped the poor to suffer.” You should probably think about doing some research on this topic if you really care to know. She caused suffering to occur, so she could “be close to God.” That’s sick! By the way, she is a saint. That’s kind of the point.

    • http://www.facebook.com/chuckt1981 Charles Thomas

      She didn’t do anything to help the poor, unless you meant to say “she helped the poor to suffer.” You should probably think about doing some research on this topic if you really care to know. She caused suffering to occur, so she could “be close to God.” That’s sick! By the way, she is a saint. That’s kind of the point.

      • http://skadhitheravernerblog.wordpress.com/ Skadhi_the_Raverner

        Don’t be ridiclous, if you were dying in India who would you most like to meet, Mother Teresa or Christopher Hitchens? Please, for you’re own sake,think how silly this sounds, “She didn’t do anything to help the poor”, indeed.

        Clearly, Mother Teresa did far more for others – the needy – than her detractors. And it isn’t worshipping a media celebrity, or denying she had flaws, to point out that there’s are people who’ll attack anything and anyone connected with something they dislike.

  • http://skadhitheravernerblog.wordpress.com/ Skadhi_the_Raverner

    Somewhere along the line is biased towards first world liberalism, and against Catholicism.

    “According to the three researchers, her meeting in London in 1968 with the BBC’s Malcom Muggeridge, an anti-abortion journalist who shared her right-wing Catholic values, was crucial. Muggeridge decided to promote Teresa, who consequently discovered the power of mass media.”

    Notice the bit about Muggeridge being an ‘anti-abortion journalist’ as though he writes on nothing else. This shows the authors bias in favour of one side of a single political issue. To people with such a bias, a media-friendly face for their ideological opponents will indeed be undesirable so they will try to undermine their reputation by pointing out a few flaws, and ignoring the vast amount of good they did. yea well, no one’s perfect but credit is due where credit is due.

    Also the Church is not ‘right wing’ by 20th C standards, it is only considered so because the left has been subverted . In Venezuela Chavez married Catholic values to socialism and this is pretty much the mainstream catholic position nowadays, who do you prefer, Hugo Chavez or the kind of pro-choice, urban liberal people who look down on rednecks for being poor and uneducated?

    • http://www.facebook.com/chuckt1981 Charles Thomas

      The reason they mentioned he was “anti-abortion” is that was the whole reason he met with and glorify this wicked woman was that they agreed politically You’re way overthinking this. Also, before you endorse Hugo Chavez, you should probably look into who he really is. I suspect you’d be less impressed with him if you did.

    • http://www.facebook.com/chuckt1981 Charles Thomas

      The reason they mentioned he was “anti-abortion” is that was the whole reason he met with and glorify this wicked woman was that they agreed politically You’re way overthinking this. Also, before you endorse Hugo Chavez, you should probably look into who he really is. I suspect you’d be less impressed with him if you did.

      • http://skadhitheravernerblog.wordpress.com/ Skadhi_the_Raverner

        Why is she a wicked woman?

        Saying someone has flaws, doesn’t justify denying there was anything positive about them. Course she wasn’t ‘wicked’.

        As for Chavez, sure he was,’t perfect. He was a multiculturalist and he used anti-white rhetoric whereas I’m a ‘borderline WN’ case. But what did he do, really? He reduced poverty and invested in basic health care and education. For the sake of argument, supposing Britain had a leader like Chavez. He might use anti-white language when he takes from the richest whites, but the less affluent whites wold benefit more than under the present system.

        Chavez pushed land reform. We need land reform up in Scotland. He said everyone has a right to housing and food. Even in the UK we have people on the streets, and old people who freeze in the winter because they don’t have fuel. No one cares. Meanwhile human rights types sit on their armchairs and worry about the ‘human rights; of people like murderers and rapists in prisons.So if Chavez ruffled the feathers of a few human rights watchdogs as he supported those genuinely in need, that has to be good – especially when we know who’s behind ‘em and what they’re really after.

      • http://skadhitheravernerblog.wordpress.com/ Skadhi_the_Raverner

        Why is she a wicked woman?

        Saying someone has flaws, doesn’t justify denying there was anything positive about them. Course she wasn’t ‘wicked’.

        As for Chavez, sure he was,’t perfect. He was a multiculturalist and he used anti-white rhetoric whereas I’m a ‘borderline WN’ case. But what did he do, really? He reduced poverty and invested in basic health care and education. For the sake of argument, supposing Britain had a leader like Chavez. He might use anti-white language when he takes from the richest whites, but the less affluent whites wold benefit more than under the present system.

        Chavez pushed land reform. We need land reform up in Scotland. He said everyone has a right to housing and food. Even in the UK we have people on the streets, and old people who freeze in the winter because they don’t have fuel. No one cares. Meanwhile human rights types sit on their armchairs and worry about the ‘human rights; of people like murderers and rapists in prisons.So if Chavez ruffled the feathers of a few human rights watchdogs as he supported those genuinely in need, that has to be good – especially when we know who’s behind ‘em and what they’re really after.