don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

On February 23, 2004, I presented an essay at this site entitled “The Ten Characters Most Influential In How I Turned Out, So Far." The same essay also appeared in the 67th edition of the Ardell Wellness Report, a newsletter I have published on a quarterly basis since 1984. The article was a big hit in the sense that it generated more feedback than any other in recent months. While it was well received and many visitors described how it motivated them to create their own list of influential characters in how they turned out, many objected to a line in the essay about Mother Teresa. 

Here is what I wrote that either annoyed or puzzled many site visitors and newsletter subscribers: “My final, tenth choice is very special--a composite selection. This nominee had much more influence upon who I am and how I evolved than all the others--combined. Yet, unlike the others whom I respect and honor, the influence of the tenth selection was distinctly negative, or inspirational in the reverse mode. This composite selection includes an assortment of religious figures who, by virtue of appalling sermons, lectures, appearances and writings, solidified and deepened my disdain for supernaturalism, faith, revelations, orthodoxy and piety. I am, in a strange fashion, deeply indebted to the following, all of who belong in a personal anti-hero hall of shame. Thanks Bishop Fulton Sheen, Billy Graham, Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, Mother Teresa, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.”

Nobody complained about my negative perspective on Bishop Fulton Sheen, Billy Graham, Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson but “How could you utter an unkind remark about the saintly Mother Teresa,?” most wanted to know. MT’s name, it seems, is more or less synonymous with selfless dedication in the service of humanity. Well, I’m glad they asked. As Richard Nixon might intone, “Let me say this about that.” 

If you are a regular visitor to this site, you know I have little use for or belief in such silliness as saints, angels, devils or other religious creations designed to entertain (or shock and awe, motivate, frighten and/or control) the masses. I personally care not in the slightest if the Roman Catholic Church wants to declare Mother Teresa (MT) or anyone else (Mel Gibson, Anthony Scalia or maybe Rush Limbaugh, for examples) a saint. “Go for it,” I say. However, a lack of interest in the outcome (saint or no saint) does not mean the TOPIC of sainthood, or the CHARACTERS considered for such a thing, are of no interest.

On the contrary, I find the saint business fascinating, particularly in the case of the Albanian nun revered by Catholics and others for service to the afflicted and downtrodden. Furthermore, I do not believe it inappropriate (blasphemous, illegal or immoral, in other words) for a curious outsider to look critically into such matters. In fact, an independent assessment of MT's work might be of value to anyone who prefers reason, science and free inquiry to uncritical acceptance of popular images. I have been reading about MT for years, and not just the materials from the adoring popular press. That is why I developed a view that was less than positive; that's why MT made my list of negative influentials.

One person who has studied MT extensively is Christopher Hitchens. Christopher Hitchens is "Critic at Large" for Vanity Fair, writes the Minority Report column for The Nation and is a frequent guest on current affairs programs on radio and TV. He has written numerous books, including Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies, Why Orwell Matters, The Trial of Henry Kissinger and Letters to a Young Contrarian. Hitchens considers MT “a fanatic, a fundamentalist and a fraud.”

Putting aside the rush to judgment (it used to take the church five years just to start the process of "beatification" and the candidate had to have been dead at least five years—the current Pope has eliminated many safeguards that had been in place to reduce the chances the bad characters would be rushed into sainthood) and the fact that this Pope is really big on producing saints (Hitchens says he has created more “instant saints than all his predecessors combined as far back as the 16th century”), here are highlights of Hitchens case against MT as saint material. 

• MT was ultra-reactionary and fundamentalist even in orthodox Catholic terms. In 1996, she worked to create a ban on divorce and remarriage as part of Ireland’s state constitution (her side narrowly lost).
  
  
• MT was a friend of poverty, not a friend of the poor. She considered suffering a gift from God, noting that “the suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering.” Hitchens notes that MT “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.”
  
  
• MT 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), praising the Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha and accepting funds from Charles Keating of Lincoln Savings and Loan fame.”
  
  
• MT did not use the millions she collected to make improvements to the rundown, primitive hospice in Calcutta that was “rudimentary, unscientific and miles behind any modern conception of what medical science is supposed to do.” This impoverished image of the facility was key to MT’s fund-raising, but monies collected for this purpose were used instead to discourage birth control, abortion and sex education in undeveloped countries and to open 500 convents in 120 countries. However, when she got sick, MT preferred to be treated in modern clinics in California. 
   
• MT is used by the Religious Right and fundamentalist Protestants as a poster girl for the right-to-life wing in America. She was used as the example of Christian idealism and family values, of all things, by Ralph Reed - the front man of the Pat Robertson forces. That's a symptom of a wider problem Hitchens called "reverse ecumenicism," an opportunist alliance between extreme Catholics and extreme Protestants.

What accounts for MT’s saintly image, given such a record that at least should have generated great controversy? Hitchens explains this in terms of post-colonial condescension: “The rich world has a poor conscience, and many people liked to alleviate their own unease by sending money to a woman who seemed like an activist for ‘the poorest of the poor.' People do not like to admit that they have been gulled or conned, so a vested interest in the myth was permitted to arise, and a lazy media never bothered to ask any follow-up questions. Many volunteers who went to Calcutta came back abruptly disillusioned by the stern ideology and poverty-loving practice of the ‘Missionaries of Charity,’ but they had no audience for their story. George Orwell's admonition in his essay on Gandhi—that saints should always be presumed guilty until proved innocent—was drowned in a Niagara of soft-hearted, soft-headed and uninquiring propaganda.” In addition, Hitchens suggests MT was a “great favorite of the faithful and a very good advertisement to attract non-believers or non-Catholics. And she's very useful for the current pope as a weapon against reformists and challengers within the church.”

I am enclosing a few sources where you can do your own review of the alleged dark side of MT, but this summary of the Hitchens literature should give you a sense for the reasons this prospective saint made her way onto my own list of negative influentials. 
 
Be well and enjoy the quest for your own best potentials. Your chances of being beatified or made a saint someday are probably not so good, but don’t let that keep you from looking on the bright side of life. Be well.

Sources:

The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice by Christopher Hitchens. (Verso, 1995).

MSN Slate, “Mommie Dearest: The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.” By Christopher Hitchens. Oct. 20, 2003.

Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 16, Number 4. Christopher Hitchens On Mother Theresa (Interview) by Matt Cherry.

The Mirror, Why Mother Teresa Should Not Be A Saint By Christopher Hitchens. March 21, 2004.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the MENTAL DOMAIN under the skill area of mental health. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell