Mother Theresa vs Christopher Hitchens

[Wissing]

It has been stated [1] that, according to Christopher Hitchens, Mother Theresa was wrong for not approving of birth control as a means of helping poor civilizations in 3rd world countries. (Rookiebatman, please correct me if that paraphrase is wrong). Hitchens thinks that Mother Theresa was neglecting root-level solutions in favor of fixing symptoms.

Is Hitchens correct in his assessment of Mother Theresa?



[1]ref:Are Christians Closed-Minded?

[rookiebatman]

I have found the specific clip I saw on Youtube where Hitchens makes these claims:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6yk7vqcsSg

I think it might help to have some clarification on exactly what the question up for debate is. If your question is, "would access to birth control reduce poverty," that's something you could debate with people far more knowledgeable on the subject than me. But if your question is, "did Mother Theresa neglect root-level solutions in favor of fixing symptoms," I don't even think Mother Theresa herself would've denied that. I already posted a quote in the other thread where she said, "The world gains much from their suffering." From what I've read, it seems like the common consensus is that she made it a point to maintain the symptoms, so that they could keep right on suffering for Jesus.

Here's a blog post with very pointed commentary on the subject, which gives a hybridized opinion of her based not only on Hitchens' book, but also a book which posthumously published private writings of Mother Theresa herself.

So, again, if we're talking about the socio-economic effects of birth control on poverty, I'm under-qualified. But if we're talking about the charge that Mother Theresa didn't make any serious effort to end suffering, I'm not even sure at this point that anyone's disagreeing.

[Wissing]

In the above video, Hitchens makes several claims. Here are a few of them. Any of these may be debated:

1. That Theresa said poverty is a gift from God.
2. That Theresa said disease and poverty were necessary for the formation of good character.
3. That Theresa opposed the only thing known to cure poverty.
4. That the only known cure to poverty is (as in Bangladesh, Baza, and Bolivia) to give women power over their rate of reproduction, and come back to that village in 10 years' time, everything will be better, right away.
5. If you don't do it (#4), people die all the time right away.
6. That Theresa waged her entire life making sure that (#4) didn't happen.

I'll start us off. I cannot find Claim #1 anywhere else on the internet, except in sources referring also back to Hitchens. I looked here [1] for instance, and found nothing grouped with other quotes by Theresa. Could you please provide the context of this quote? The blog post you provided [2] does not provide a source for its quote of Theresa in the following exerpt, so I cannot analyze it in proper context.

By all accounts, Mother Teresa was obsessed with suffering. She believed that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus, and is quoted as saying, "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

However, I do think there is a biblical background for the poor accepting their lot, as well as the rich [3][4], and that Mother Theresa probably has a much better resume than Christopher Hitchens when it comes to understanding the poor - so, if she did say this, I would expect that there's more to it than this quote is giving her, and that she is better qualified to make that statement than Hitchens, myself, or you are to judge her for it.

I cannot find any other sources to back up claim #2 either. Please oblige.

The rest of the claims kind of go together, so let's look at the core premise: claim #4. I would like evidence that this is in fact the only known cure to poverty, and that it is a root level cure in the first place. You say you're not qualified to discuss it - if that's the case, then debate this instead: how is Hitchens qualified to discuss it?



[1] https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/auth ... eresa.html
[2] http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta ... y-fai.html
[3] Ecclesiastes 3:22
[4] Ecclesiastes 5:19

[rookiebatman]

Could you please provide the context of this quote? The blog post you provided [2] does not provide a source for its quote of Theresa in the following exerpt, so I cannot analyze it in proper context.

I traced the quote back as far as I could, and it does appear to originate in Hitchens' book. He cites a press conference she held when she was establishing a Missionaries of Charity mission in the Anacostia slum area of Washington D.C. The full context he provides is this:

"Mother Teresa, what do you hope to accomplish here?"
"The joy of loving and being loved."
"That takes a lot of money, doesn't it?"
"It takes a lot of sacrifice."
"Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?"
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

Now, since I can't find any independent corroboration of this exchange, I will point out that one of the major foundations of Hitchens' criticism is that Mother Teresa is "a saint of the media," that her status as a champion of the poor and oppressed is really just the function of incredible PR, emphasizing the positive and eliminating the negative. So, I think the only thing we can do to come to at least a reasonable understanding of whether Hitchens might be onto something is to inquire whether independent sources corroborate his overall picture of who she was (even if there isn't specific corroboration of individual quotes).

So, for that purpose I will add another quote not given by Hitchens (from Wikiquote, but with a proper citation):

"We are misunderstood, we are misrepresented, we are misreported. We are not nurses, we are not doctors, we are not teachers, we are not social workers. We are religious, we are religious, we are religious."
As quoted in Angelo Devananda, Daily Prayers with Mother Teresa (Fount, 1987), p. 91

And also, from An address at the National Prayer Breakfast, February 3, 1994:

"We are not social workers. We may be doing social work in the eyes of some people, but we must be contemplatives in the heart of the world."

"One day I met a lady who was dying of cancer in a most terrible condition. And I told her, I say, 'You know, this terrible pain is only the kiss of Jesus--a sign that you have come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss you.' And she joined her hands together and said, 'Mother Teresa, please tell Jesus to stop kissing me.'"

http://www.ewtn.com/New_library/breakfast.htm

To me, those statements seem very consistent with Hitchens' accounts. I doubt anyone would claim that EWTN was making that up to cast aspersions of Mother Teresa's character.

But there's more; researchers from the University of Montreal looked at nearly 300 documents about her life, and came to a not-very-flattering portrait of who she was. The full article is worth reading, but the most important parts are this:

These included 'her rather dubious way of caring for the sick, her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce.'
At the time of her death, Mother Teresa had opened 517 missions welcoming the poor and sick in more than 100 countries.
But these missions have been described as 'homes for the dying' by doctors visiting several of these establishments in Calcutta.
Doctors observed a significant lack of hygiene, even unfit conditions, as well as a shortage of actual care, inadequate food, and no painkillers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... cious.html

So, while that's not making a case in favor of Hitchens, that does at least make a very strong independent case against Mother Teresa. It doesn't exactly match statements 1,2 and 6 word for word, but it does provide an overall picture that is very similar to the general thrust of his claims.

Also worth considering, on an appearance on Hardball debating with Bill Donohue (also available on YouTube), Hitchens does make a good point about the veracity of his book. If all the claims and quotations he made are inaccurate, untrue, or fabricated, why hasn't the Catholic Church sued him for libel? Might it be because they know he could back up his claims with evidence?

However, I do think there is a biblical background for the poor accepting their lot, as well as the rich [3][4], and that Mother Theresa probably has a much better resume than Christopher Hitchens when it comes to understanding the poor - so, if she did say this, I would expect that there's more to it than this quote is giving her, and that she is better qualified to make that statement than Hitchens, myself, or you are to judge her for it.

If Mother Teresa has a better understanding of the poor than you, me and Hitchens combined, but is doing nothing to relieve their physical suffering (which seems evident from the independent sources I quoted, and her constant denial of being a social worker) despite all the money donated to her organization, then she's still wrong, whether Hitchens is right or not.

The rest of the claims kind of go together, so let's look at the core premise: claim #4. I would like evidence that this is in fact the only known cure to poverty, and that it is a root level cure in the first place.

Like I said, I'm no expert, but a quick Google search turned up a lot of other sources who seem to agree with Hitchens. Judge for yourself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/0 ... 72575.html
http://www.peerreviewedbymyneurons.com/ ... e-poverty/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... l_can.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/opini ... .html?_r=0
The Slate article even pointedly says, "There aren’t any simple solutions to poverty. But of the tools we have, making effective birth control cheap and easily available for low-income women is pretty much a no-brainer."

There are probably more, that was just from the first page of one search term.

You say you're not qualified to discuss it - if that's the case, then debate this instead: how is Hitchens qualified to discuss it?

I couldn't say, other than that he appears to be a very smart guy, and it looks like the independent evidence is supporting him.

[Wissing]

In the following, I have included excerpts from a book written mostly by Mother Teresa, but with quotes by others as well [1]. If you see only a page number and not a reference, it comes from this book. I've included mostly her own words, because I do not think she disputes most of the claims made against her in the studies you've presented, but I do believe those studies provide a dangerously cursory examination of her missions, her motives, and the context within which she operated. This attests to the fact that studies we find on the internet must be examined with utmost scrutiny, and perhaps even disregarded entirely. The same can be said for journalists like Hitchens, who, upon further review, may have a few critics of their own [2]. Having taken a more thorough look at Mother Teresa's life in her own words, I don't think "seems pretty smart" and "no lawsuit against them for libel" are quite sufficient in determining the credibility of a source. I would encourage you to take an in-depth look into Mother Teresa's life, because, though I disagree with her on a few theological points, I think her life can be an inspiration to us all. This is a perfect example of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (John 7:37-39), and I really wish you'd take another look at your parents' faith, because these living waters are available to all who wish to drink of them. Faith in Christ is a choice, and it's something you can just up-and-do (Mark 2:13-14). We have to start somewhere. If you'd like to talk further about this, I'd be glad to spend some time with you. Until then, here's what I found about Mother Teresa.

Teresa believed that poverty is a wonderful gift. She was willing to undergo poverty herself, which improves her credibility on the matter. It's one thing for me to say "let the poor accept their lot" - before I could say that, I'd have to prove that I myself could accept their lot. But for her to say it is absolutely fine, and can teach us something about what poverty is, and how to deal with it rightly.

A volunteer priest who one helped the sisters in Calcutta said of the poor: "They are the ones who have nothing to prove or to protect - no posing, no posturing before people or before God. When all you've got is all you've got, all that's left is to be yourself and you can only receive. And that, in a sense, is why the poor are blessed, because they know what really matters.

pp xxxi

To serve the poor... a certain losing of self is essential. Mother Teresa explains the necessity of poverty in her life as the condition of the work.* "How can you truly know the poor unless you live like them?" she asks. "If they complain about the food, we can say that we eat the same. The more we have the less we can give. Poverty is a wonderful gift because it gives us freedom - it means we have fewer obstacles to God."

pp xxxi

Without our suffering our work would just be social work**

pp xxxiii

What's the use of grumbling? If you accept suffering and offer it to God, that gives you joy. Suffering is a great gift of God; those who accept it willingly, those who love deeply, those who offer themselves know its value.***

pp xxxiii


Compare that to the lot of the affluent. If anything, it's us who should be dissatisfied with our lot. We must take solace in the fact that we have an immense responsibility to manage our wealth humanely and effectively, for God has given us much. (Matthew 25:14-30)

The greatest disease in the West today is not TB or leprosy; it is being unwanted, unloved, and uncared for. We can cure physical diseases with medicine, but the only cure for loneliness, despair, and hopelessness is love. There are many in the world who are dying for a piece of bread but there are many more dying for a little love. The poverty in the West is a different kind of poverty - it is not only a poverty of loneliness but also of spirituality. There's a hunger for love, as there is a hunger for God.

pp 79


As for the claims that Mother Teresa's charities did not offer practical help: that was not her goal in the first place. Nor should it have been. I have experienced this first hand, and I have heard it time and time again from authors writing about their personal experiences with poverty alleviation. Practical needs are surface-level only, and must not be the main purpose of a charity organization. They just aren't self-sustaining. If we make an impoverished society dependent on foreign aid by pumping in all their needs for them (be it food, medicine, or even birth control), we are making them completely dependent on us. We are robbing them of their ability to stand on their own two feet, of their dignity, of their very humanity.

Love is not patronizing and charity isn't about pity, it is about love. Charity and love are the same - with charity you have love, so don't just give money but reach out your hand instead. When I was in London, I went to see the homeless people where our sisters have a soup kitchen. One man, who was living in a cardboard box, held my hand and said, "It's been a long time since I felt the warmth of a human hand."

pp 85

Mary, one of our volunteers...
"I've found that practical help can actually put people down unless it's done with love. No one wants to have things done for them, or be done to.... it's best to try not to get too busy with giving out the food and clearing up the plates but to try to make a point of talking to somebody while you're there, or sitting down beside somebody....

pp 85-86

... also from Mary...
"A group of us went to Albania a while ago, and visited the sisters there. We heard about a home for handicapped children and so went to see them - but it was just a disaster. Apparently, the place had been given loads and loads of aid, but every time this happened, the people in the area came and ransacked it because they also needed things. Also, what struck me was that a lot of stuff was being flown in and there warehouses packed full of aid - but it wasn't getting to people.

pp 86-87


As for the reportedly poor hygiene of some of her establishments - frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if there was poor hygiene, considering the locals would often build the place themselves. Empowering people sometimes costs you professionalism. Especially when those people are destitute. But this isn't about injecting a pre-fab, clean-cut solution into a destitute place. It's about working with the locals, empowering them to build something for themselves - even if it's not perfect. For instance, take a look at Gandhiji Prem Nivas, in Titagarh, Calcutta:

Today, leprosy patients can have a life, knowing that they can get help and be cured. It is no longer necessary to disappear and hide if one has leprosy, and this means the whole family can now live together without fear of infection.... Prem Nivas was built by the leprosy patients themselves and is a place where they can both live and work. When we first were given the land to develop a center in 1974, it was a railway dump yard. We began by building simple thatched huts and slowly it turned into something quite beautiful.... We have 1400 leprosy cases under regular treatment per month and 38,000 have registered here since 1958. Many of them have been released from treatment; but those people we are now looking after are going to live for another twenty to thirty years.... We are very self-sufficient - we grow our own vegetables and whenever we have a surplus we offer it to the other homes....

pp 117-119

And yes, homes for the dying is correct. Professional medical treatment had already been offered to most of Mother Teresa's patients - they had already been to see whatever professionals might exist in their region, to no avail. She was fully aware that her homes were "homes for the dying" - it doesn't take a study by a Western university to tell us that. The core of her mission (aside from all the practical side-effects that end up happening anyway) was to love people, to show them the human dignity that God has given them.

What we are saying is, 'Let others work on the problems that have put this man in this condition, but let us help him to die in peace and dignity now.' In many cases, we offer more short-term care than they do and simply say: This man or woman is in need - what can we do to help them? If political changes will alleviate this situation in the future then we welcome them, but we don't have the time or energy, or often the ability, to do much about it. God, in His wisdom, puts it all together. He knows that no one person can cover the whole situation so he inspires certain people to work in certain areas and others to work in others.

pp 128

[1]"A Simple Path" / Mother Teresa. Compiled by Lucinda Vardey - 1st ed. c.1995
*Omer Tanghe. For the Least of My Brothers: The Spirituality of Mother Teresa & Catherine Doherty (New York: Alba, 1989)
**Mother Teresa, from M. Muggeride. Something Beautiful for God pp.67-68
***Mother Teresa, from Edward Le Joly. We Do It for Jesus: Mother Teresa and Her Missionaries of Charity (Queens Village, NY: Oxford University Press, 1977).
[2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-o ... 24776.html

[rookiebatman]

As for the claims that Mother Teresa's charities did not offer practical help: that was not her goal in the first place. Nor should it have been.

When people are dying and professional medical treatment could save them, it should not be their goal to do so?

As for the reportedly poor hygiene of some of her establishments - frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if there was poor hygiene, considering the locals would often build the place themselves. Empowering people sometimes costs you professionalism. Especially when those people are destitute. But this isn't about injecting a pre-fab, clean-cut solution into a destitute place. It's about working with the locals, empowering them to build something for themselves - even if it's not perfect.

So what was Mother Teresa and her organization doing with the millions of dollars donated to her organization, if not spending it on the establishments that were supposed to be what the organization was all about?

And yes, homes for the dying is correct. Professional medical treatment had already been offered to most of Mother Teresa's patients - they had already been to see whatever professionals might exist in their region, to no avail.

Do you have any evidence for this? I'm not gonna be able to accept that as an assumption without any support. One writer on Patheos had this to say:

Teresa’s free clinics provided care that was at best rudimentary and haphazard and at worst unsanitary and dangerous, despite the enormous amounts of donations she received. Multiple volunteers at Teresa’s clinics, such as Mary Loudon and Susan Shields, have testified to the inadequate care provided to the dying. Despite routinely receiving millions of dollars in donations, Teresa deliberately kept her clinics barren and austere, lacking all but the most rudimentary and haphazard care.
Volunteers such as Loudon, and Western doctors such as Robin Fox of the Lancet, wrote with shock of what they found in Teresa’s clinics. No tests were performed to determine the patients’ ailments. No modern medical equipment was available. Even people dying of cancer, suffering terrible agony, were given no painkillers other than aspirin. Needles were rinsed and reused, without proper sterilization. No one was ever sent to the hospital, even people in clear need of emergency surgery or other treatment.
Again, it is important to note that these conditions were not the unavoidable result of triage. Teresa’s organization routinely received multimillion-dollar donations which were squirreled away in bank accounts, while volunteers were told to beg donors for more money and plead extreme poverty and desperate need. The money she received could easily have built half a dozen fully equipped modern hospitals and clinics, but was never used for that purpose. No, this negligent and rudimentary care was deliberate – about which, see the next point. However, despite her praise for poverty, Teresa hypocritically sought out the most advanced care possible in the Western world when she herself was in need of it.

Of course, you can say that this source is biased and also has no sources cited, that's fair. But that was only on short notice. The main point I'm trying to establish is that your claim that Mother Teresa's establishments were where patients went only after more professional medical care had failed them is by no means uncontested. I can't find the article again right now, but I remember one from my previous research, where a doctor who had volunteered in one of those facilities explicitly stated that many of the patients could indeed have been kept alive if proper medical care had been practiced. I'll do a little more Googling and see if I can find the actual quote, but I am quite sure that's the basic thrust of what it said. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

[Molly]

When people are dying and professional medical treatment could save them, it should not be their goal to do so?

Her goal wasn't to heal people - just to get them to christ.

So what was Mother Teresa and her organization doing with the millions of dollars donated to her organization, if not spending it on the establishments that were supposed to be what the organization was all about?

Making more convents/nunneries all around the world to spread the word of god. And line vatican coffers. And pay for her fancy medical treatments at expensive Californian clinics. etc

And yes, homes for the dying is correct. Professional medical treatment had already been offered to most of Mother Teresa's patients - they had already been to see whatever professionals might exist in their region, to no avail.

Do you have any evidence for this? I'm not gonna be able to accept that as an assumption without any support. One writer on Patheos had this to say:

Teresa’s free clinics provided care that was at best rudimentary and haphazard and at worst unsanitary and dangerous, despite the enormous amounts of donations she received. Multiple volunteers at Teresa’s clinics, such as Mary Loudon and Susan Shields, have testified to the inadequate care provided to the dying. Despite routinely receiving millions of dollars in donations, Teresa deliberately kept her clinics barren and austere, lacking all but the most rudimentary and haphazard care.
Volunteers such as Loudon, and Western doctors such as Robin Fox of the Lancet, wrote with shock of what they found in Teresa’s clinics. No tests were performed to determine the patients’ ailments. No modern medical equipment was available. Even people dying of cancer, suffering terrible agony, were given no painkillers other than aspirin. Needles were rinsed and reused, without proper sterilization. No one was ever sent to the hospital, even people in clear need of emergency surgery or other treatment.
Again, it is important to note that these conditions were not the unavoidable result of triage. Teresa’s organization routinely received multimillion-dollar donations which were squirreled away in bank accounts, while volunteers were told to beg donors for more money and plead extreme poverty and desperate need. The money she received could easily have built half a dozen fully equipped modern hospitals and clinics, but was never used for that purpose. No, this negligent and rudimentary care was deliberate – about which, see the next point. However, despite her praise for poverty, Teresa hypocritically sought out the most advanced care possible in the Western world when she herself was in need of it.

Of course, you can say that this source is biased and also has no sources cited, that's fair. But that was only on short notice. The main point I'm trying to establish is that your claim that Mother Teresa's establishments were where patients went only after more professional medical care had failed them is by no means uncontested. I can't find the article again right now, but I remember one from my previous research, where a doctor who had volunteered in one of those facilities explicitly stated that many of the patients could indeed have been kept alive if proper medical care had been practiced. I'll do a little more Googling and see if I can find the actual quote, but I am quite sure that's the basic thrust of what it said. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I've heard stories of a kid with a broken arm going to the one of Mother Teresa's "facilities" for help. He could have easily survived if he had gone to a doctor's office. Instead he died of an infection.

Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict was written by Dr. Aroup Chatterjee - a native of Calcutta wo witnessed a great deal of this. His book provides extensive documentation which shows without a doubt how evil that woman was.

Lancet Article about the quality of care in her main facility.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3694917590

additional reference:http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca/udem- ... saint.html most of this quotes Teresa's Vatican published official bibliography.

[Wissing]

[Replying to post 6 by rookiebatman]

You require evidence for this statement: "yes, homes for the dying is correct. Professional medical treatment had already been offered to most of Mother Teresa's patients - they had already been to see whatever professionals might exist in their region, to no avail."

I don't know that that is the case in every situation, but that's what a hospice does. It's a home for the dying, and advertised as such. Some clarification is needed on the difference between a hospice and a clinic. Now, I don't have a comprehensive understanding of Mother Teresa's mission, but from what I've read, it seems to me that her main focus was on hospices. Curing ills simply was not the goal of her organization. To criticize her for not curing illnesses would not be a critique on Mother Teresa, but on the entire concept of "hospice". Hospices aren't about curing illnesses; instead, they "enable the terminally ill to continue as vital, functioning participants in life, and to maintain their identity and capacity to contribute as full human beings" [1].

... hospice care.... was designed for people with a very limited prognosis... and encompassed psychological, spiritual, and medical problems

According to Dr. Robert Buckingham, patients at the New Haven hospice taught him the meaning of life. "I realized that through the eyes of the dying one can realize the significant issues of living".[2]

It's understandable that medical experts would criticize the very idea of a hospice - it's not what they're used to. Buckingham describes the growth of hospices in the US in his book [2] - an example is as follows:

The early days of the New Haven hospice were very taxing to the staff. We suffered many setbacks and defeats. Educating the medical community was the most difficult task of all, and it still is.

Medical experts are taught to focus on a cure, not on terminal care [1]. This results in a too-pragmatic approach, that abandons the humanity of patients who are actually dying. People don't want to die in a laboratory. According to Buckingham, "the greatest fear of those who are terminally ill is not death and pain, but the fear of being left alone and dying without anyone by their side.... Emotional support is an essential aspect of hospice care." [3]

However, hospices are legitimate, supported even by the National Cancer Institute [3]. Yes, there is such place as a "home for the dying", even in the West. This is, by definition, a place for people who do not intend to find a cure for their ailment. To say that Mother Teresa was wrong for starting hospices instead of hospitals would be like saying Hitchens is wrong for being a journalist instead of a doctor. Everyone has a different role to play. We can't all be doctors.

In my opinion, Hitchens' fault did not lie with his career choice, but with the fact that his criticisms did not reflect a genuine care for the very poor he purported to defend. Were he more engaged in the day-to-day lives of the poor, he might have been better informed as to the real causes of poverty. It's just not as simple as "give them birth control". It's like the Queen saying "let them eat cake". Easy for him to say. I'm not saying birth control doesn't have a part to play, but there are deeper problems, and we absolutely should not be listening to people's "solutions" to poverty unless they have some real experience to back it up. Mother Teresa did have that experience. I know she was human, and she probably made some mistakes - but you and I cannot possibly judge her for it, and neither can Hitchens or Adam Lee (who is really not an independent source because he also referred back to Hitchens).

RB, it may be that you have experience serving the poor, as did Mother Teresa. I would love to hear about it, because I value experience very much. I'd rather hear your first-hand testimony that your internet sources. I can't ask Adam Lee about his experiences, but I can ask you, and gain a more thorough understanding of their context, and how I might try similar things in my own life. Googling things is not going to give us a good enough understanding (even if you read both sides of the issue [5][6]). We really need first-hand experience.

By the way, one book that helped me find a good starting place, from whence I later gained experience, is called "When Helping Hurts"[4]. This book shows how important a God-centered approach is - and that mere pragmatism simply does not work (actually, it makes things worse).

How about you? I still have much to learn. What experiences do you have with poverty alleviation? And please - don't feel rushed. You don't have to do this on short notice. I probably won't check back for at least a week - maybe more, because I have plans next weekend.



[1]Dr. Robert W. Buckingham. "The Handbook of Hospice Care". 1996. p51
[2]Buckingham, p17
[3]Buckingham, p31
[4]S. Corbett, B. Fikkert. "When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor and YOurself". 2009, 2014.
[5] J. Martin. "In Defense of Mother Teresa". The New York Review. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... er-teresa/
[6] W. Doino Jr. "Mother Teresa and Her Critics". First Things. http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusiv ... er-critics

[rookiebatman]

To criticize her for not curing illnesses would not be a critique on Mother Teresa, but on the entire concept of "hospice". Hospices aren't about curing illnesses; instead, they "enable the terminally ill to continue as vital, functioning participants in life, and to maintain their identity and capacity to contribute as full human beings" [1].

But as I understand it, the phrase "terminally ill" refers to people who are beyond the scope of even sophisticated medical treatment. If, then, there were people going to Mother Teresa who were not beyond the scope of higher-quality medical care, then it's not the concept of hospice that I'm challenging. If people were coming to her shelters who could have been kept alive with better medical treatment, then I would consider there to be two strong possibilities to explain why they were there:
1) They were under the impression that she was offering medical care, which would carry with it the implication that she was deceiving people, giving them this idea so that she could ambush them with this purely-spiritual ministration that almost psychotically reveled in their suffering, or
2) Though they could've been helped by better medical care, they couldn't afford it (that does not at all qualify them as "terminally ill"), at which point, Mother Teresa could've used all the truckloads of cash that were being donated to her charity to give them the medical care they couldn't otherwise afford, and thereby prolong their lives.
With either of those two options, she just doesn't come off looking very saintly. Can you suggest a third?

It's understandable that medical experts would criticize the very idea of a hospice - it's not what they're used to.

There's a difference between criticizing the idea of a hospice (which I agree can have legitimate purpose) and saying, "some of these people could have been kept alive with proper medical treatment."

In my opinion, Hitchens' fault did not lie with his career choice, but with the fact that his criticisms did not reflect a genuine care for the very poor he purported to defend. Were he more engaged in the day-to-day lives of the poor, he might have been better informed as to the real causes of poverty. It's just not as simple as "give them birth control". It's like the Queen saying "let them eat cake". Easy for him to say. I'm not saying birth control doesn't have a part to play, but there are deeper problems, and we absolutely should not be listening to people's "solutions" to poverty unless they have some real experience to back it up. Mother Teresa did have that experience. I know she was human, and she probably made some mistakes - but you and I cannot possibly judge her for it, and neither can Hitchens or Adam Lee (who is really not an independent source because he also referred back to Hitchens).

This seems like just an appeal to authority. You know who has even more experience with poverty than Mother Teresa? That homeless guy standing on the street corner. Do you think we should ask him how to end poverty? It doesn't matter how much experience Mother Teresa had with poverty; in her own words, she denied being a social worker. To a more implicit extent, her statements and philosophies indicated that she had no interest in ending poverty or finding a solution for it. So, let's compare the two positions...
Christopher Hitchens (no direct experience with poverty): "Here's one way that a lot of people agree can reduce poverty."
Mother Teresa (a lifetime of direct experience with poverty): "Poverty's great!"
(And lest you claim that's hyperbole, refer back to the quote, "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." While we did trace that quote back to Hitchens without independent verification, the spirit behind it was very much confirmed through a variety of independent sources.) Which of those two positions do you think is more helpful to the goal of ending or reducing poverty?

RB, it may be that you have experience serving the poor, as did Mother Teresa. I would love to hear about it, because I value experience very much. I'd rather hear your first-hand testimony that your internet sources. I can't ask Adam Lee about his experiences, but I can ask you, and gain a more thorough understanding of their context, and how I might try similar things in my own life. Googling things is not going to give us a good enough understanding (even if you read both sides of the issue [5][6]). We really need first-hand experience.

Do we really need firsthand experience to know that reducing poverty is good, or that letting people die who could've been saved by proper medical treatment is bad? Again, this isn't an argument about which person's methods are better. This is about one person who's making suggestions to actually help, and one who's watching them die while preaching at them. There is no comparison.

By the way, one book that helped me find a good starting place, from whence I later gained experience, is called "When Helping Hurts"[4]. This book shows how important a God-centered approach is - and that mere pragmatism simply does not work (actually, it makes things worse).

Back when I was religious, I was a strong proponent of the "two-handed" approach. Physical/practical help from one hand, spiritual/religious help from the other. I agree that mere pragmatism has its limitations, but how much more so mere spiritualism? It reminds me of a classic Peanuts strip, which in term reminds me that the Bible specifically preaches against only helping people with their spiritual needs while ignoring the physical.

[Wissing]

According to the link you provided from yourlogicalfallacyis.com, ("appeals to authority"), it is not "reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence."

I am not appealing to Teresa's authority - I am appealing to her depth of knowledge in dealing with the root causes of poverty. I have put considerable effort into finding evidence showing her expertise on the matter, above. If you hope to dismiss that evidence, then, according to your own citation, the onus is on you to demonstrate your own level of understanding, and/or (preferably and) your own empirical evidence (this could take the shape of personal experience, as I requested previously).

Furthermore, there is no context for the quote that the world gains much from the suffering of the poor. By your own admission, this was traced back to Hitchens without independent verification. This means that there is no recorded context for the statement, and that assertion cannot be built upon. "Poverty's great" is not what Mother Teresa stood for, and that is an inappropriate interpretation of the quote.

If we want to even approximate the context, we might look to other statements Teresa made publicly. For instance, her speech at the National Prayer Breakfast of 1994 [1]. In it, she compared the lives of comfortable westerners (in a retirement home) to the poor she saw every day. Of the poor, she said, "I am so used to seeing the smiles on our people - even the dying ones smile." Of the comfortable people, she said, "They are hurt because they are forgotten. And see, this neglect to love brings spiritual poverty." (Please refer to the source to see the full context - it's approximately paragraphs 14-17).

If Teresa said the world is helped by the suffering of the poor, she was most likely saying that you and I can learn from it. The suffering of the poor is a blessing to the world: not that their suffering is good. Not that they should suffer more. Not that we should encourage suffering - but that they suffer regardless, and given that they will suffer, that suffering is not in vain. If their suffering were not a blessing to others, it would be in vain, and what a loss that would be! But, as it is, we who do not suffer physically can learn from those who do.

Do you not think that we can learn from the poor? That, though they are physically deprived, you and I are not just as deprived in some other way? Do you have no pain, no loneliness, no despondency?

I do. I grew up thinking life was just... easy. I reduced the solutions to poverty to a lack of tangible necessities: food, water, shelter. The poor are hungry? Give them something to eat [2]. The answer was so obvious that it confounded me as to why no one had solved it yet. I convinced myself that nobody else in the world thought as I did. That all that was needed to end poverty was for the wealthy to just give their excess to the poor. I went years thinking this way. I made it my dream to become wealthy so that I could set myself apart as a shining example of one who gave generously, denying the status quo [3]. It never occurred to me to take part in those trivial, lesser needs of my neighbors [4] - the people in my immediate surroundings. Those tasks paled in comparison to the great needs of humanity. After all, when peoople in Africa are starving, why does it matter if your neighbor has a leaky faucet? A single rotten floor board? A couple of minor roof leaks? And why does it matter whether I call my Mom and Dad once a week? Siblings? Grandparents? This was my thinking for many years.

At one point in my life, and not for any noble reasons other than social acceptance, I started going to the mountains to help the needy. They didn't seem that needy to me. I was constantly frustraded - there's not enough need here. Why am I wasting my time, and others' money, when there are starving people in Africa? Shouldn't we who have money be helping the ones in the most dire situation? It got to the point where I was managing as much as $60k per year doing home repair projects that I didn't even think worthy of my time. (And, to answer your point about Teresa's millions of dollars - if you think "millions" are a lot of money, try managing hundreds of charities in 25 different nations).

It took years and years of experience for me to realize that practical needs are not the root of the problem. I never would have noticed, or even cared to notice the underlying spiritual problems in western society had I not gained this experience. I could not have understood this by reading about it - for I did read about it, and remained unconvinced for a long time.

My point is this: experience matters. Problems are far more complicated than they seemed when I merely read about them. I'm not saying we shouldn't research - I'm saying that if I want to make an impact, if I truly care about the needs of others, if I want to live for something, and with passion, and with a purpose - experience is absolutely necessary.

And, as a matter of fact, my experience has led me to the belief that the only way I can have any impact on the world around me (or even my neighborhood) is if God dwells inside me [5]. It is not Man who achieves progress, for Man has not the humility, wherewithal, or power to do so alone. Instead, it is God in Man that achieves progress.

[1] Mother Teresa's anti-abortion speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/mtspeech.html
[2] Matthew 25:34-40
[3] Luke 18:22-25
[4] Matthew 19:19
[5] John 14:15-17