Josh Abraham | Contributor
Featured image courtesy of Charis Tsevis/Flickr
One of the hardest questions to answer when examining the life and work of Mother Teresa is a moral one. People ranging from Bollywood actors like Salman Khan, to more serious offenders like Pablo Escobar, and even terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah all share the similarity of often using their charity work as an excuse, or in response to the laws they have broken. Where along this spectrum does Mother Teresa lie?
With no shortage of followers, and only the most radical critics like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh achieving any fame, the blue and white saree is a revered sight in most public circles, well-protected by an avalanche of favourable media coverage and public opinion. Does her reputation hold up when examined in the light of certain facts that are usually ignored? And should these facts affect our judgement of her?
Perhaps the part of her work that is most easily criticized is her stance on abortion and contraception. Few would recommend propagating these anti-abortion myths to the uneducated poor of the overpopulated cities of India. In fact, one of the solutions to the poverty here would perhaps be to teach the opposite. However, being a global icon, Mother Teresa’s strict views on a lot of similar matters—many of which affect a woman’s right to choose her own life—had an impact in many parts of the world. One example is Ireland, where she advocated for keeping a ban on divorce. Another is her shocking speech upon receiving her Nobel Prize, in which she labels abortion as the greatest threat to peace in the world. Her campaign of misinformation did the world as much good as the Pope telling people in Africa that condoms could make AIDS worse.
Given her potential as a force for change in the world, Mother Teresa must be judged as any other political figure would. The question then arises on how would we judge any political figure who not only endorses the Catholic church’s patriarchal views on the rights of women, but also endorses several dubious figures accused of robbing the poor she dedicated her life to? On a visit to Haiti, Mother Teresa committed what would be suicide to any other charity when she became a close friend to former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier, calling him a friend of the poor. The same man had gained a reputation of brutality and whose wealth and sizeable donation to her was acquired by extorting his own people.
Now that the facts have been stated, it’s time to postulate whether the good done by Mother Teresa makes up for the bad. Few charities have thrived after the scandals associated with Mother Teresa’s organization; from child trafficking to mismanagement of funds, its advent to the Missionaries of Charity has been riddled with controversy. The quality of care given is shoddy to say the least. Susan Shields, a former worker with the Missionaries of Charity, claims that despite the affluence of the organization, only a fraction of it was used on medical expertise to help alleviate suffering. Mother Teresa herself claimed suffering to be Christ-like, claiming the “poor [must] accept their lot.” Even children rescued by her organization have not been spared the shoddy and incompetent service she provided. According to Donal Macintyre, an investigative journalist, “For the most part, the care the children received was inept, unprofessional and, in some cases, rough and dangerous.” While this could be somewhat excused (if we were to be generous) due to a lack of resources or funds (which she had plenty of), there can be no excuse for the child trafficking scandal, in which a child was sold to a Belgian couple for 100,000 rupees.
There is no doubt that the Missionaries of Charity does offer relief to those who only find corruption in government services. Does this, however, exempt them from the scrutiny we apply to other similar influential organizations or people? If no, then why not? Answering these questions might reveal why the Catholic church requires miracles to bestow sainthood on people.
