Yamin Mohammad Munshi
Mary Teresa Bojaxhiu was an Albanian-Indian Catholic nun and founder of the Missionaries of Charity. Born in Skopje, then part of the Ottoman Empire, she was raised in a devoutly Catholic family. At the age of 18, she moved to Ireland to join the Sisters of Loreto and later to India, where she lived most of her life and carried out her missionary work.
While she is widely revered for her compassion and service, a deeper inspection into her life and work reveals various criticisms that challenge the perception of her as a universally benevolent figure.
One of the most prominent criticisms comes from the conditions observed in the homes run by her organization, the Missionaries of Charity. Critics, including writers and journalists like Christopher Hitchens and Dr. Aroup Chatterjee, have pointed out that many of the facilities provided inadequate medical care and support. Hitchens, in his book *The Missionary Position*, alleged that while Mother Teresa solicited vast sums of money to help the impoverished, the funds were not effectively utilized for improving the care standards in her homes. He argued that rather than providing patients with proper medical treatment, the focus was on making them comfortable while emphasizing their suffering as a path to spirituality. This raises ethical questions about the approach to healthcare and the standard of care provided to the most vulnerable populations.
Furthermore, Mother Teresa’s views on suffering have sparked intense debate. She famously stated that suffering was a gift from God, which resonated with many, especially in the context of the religious faith she espoused. However, her belief that suffering could lead to spiritual growth has been criticized as detrimental. Critics argue that this perspective might undermine the urgency to alleviate suffering through tangible means, fostering a form of fatalism that discourages action. This philosophical stance has led to accusations that her organization prioritised spiritual salvation over practical remedies for physical ailments. Another criticism against Mother Teresa is her stance on issues such as abortion and contraception. She has been criticized for her conservative views on reproductive rights, which some argue are harmful to women’s health and autonomy. Critics question the validity of her charitable work if it is based on promoting regressive and restrictive social policies that ultimately harm marginalized populations.
In 1993, Donald McGuire (American priest and now a convicted child molester) was temporarily suspended after being accused of inappropriate behaviour with a 16 year old boy and sent on a course of psychiatric treatment. This might have ended his ministry had not his powerful supporters intervened. Hardon seems to have been convinced of his innocence of the more serious allegations (though he accepted that McGuire’s admitted conduct — such as sharing pornography and showers with the boy — had been “highly imprudent”) and reassured him that his work with Mother Teresa’s order could continue. Hitherto there has been no suggestion that Mother Teresa herself knew of the suspicions about McGuire. But a letter in her name — and very probably written by her — has now emerged. In it, she acknowledges the “grave” nature of the child-abuse scandal and stresses “how careful we must be to guard the purity and reputation of that priesthood”. The letter goes on to assert Mother Teresa’s own “confidence and trust in Fr. McGuire” and states that she wishes to see “his vital ministry resume as soon as possible.” And indeed his ministry — and abuse of children — resumed soon afterwards. Mother Teresa’s influence, of course, was considerable if not in itself decisive
The letter perhaps reveals little more than naivety on Mother Teresa’s part: she had been persuaded by Hardon, who had himself been duped by the plausible and manipulative Fr McGuire, that he deserved a second chance. But it also demonstrates how lightly serious allegations of child abuse were still being treated by the Catholic authorities as recently as the mid 1990s, especially when the alleged abuser was prominent and theologically sound. Teresa herself, to judge by her words, seems to have been much less concerned about the need to protect children from paedophile clergy than with preserving the “purity and reputation” of the church and the priesthood. Scarcely the stuff of which saints are (or should be) made.
Other than this, critiques regarding the funding and management of her organization, the Missionaries of Charity, have emerged over the years, particularly focusing on the financial accountability and transparency.
At the heart of the controversy is the significant amount of donations that pour into Mother Teresa’s organization from various global donors. The Missionaries of Charity reportedly raised millions of dollars, prompting questions about the allocation and use of these funds. Critics have argued that a substantial portion of the donations did not translate into improved living conditions or adequate medical care for those in need. In some instances, there have been allegations that funds were not fully utilized for direct aid but were instead diverted to maintain the organization’s operational infrastructure and promote its religious ideology. Also, Mother Teresa received significant financial support from various high-profile figures, including politicians, business magnates, and even controversial organizations. The most notable among these was Charles Keating, a financier embroiled in a major banking scandal in the 1980s. His donations raised eyebrows when it was revealed that he had provided substantial funding to her missions while facing allegations of fraud.
One prominent critic, Christopher Hitchens, raised serious questions about the financial practices of the Missionaries of Charity in his book “The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice.” Hitchens accused Mother Teresa of accepting money from dubious sources, including dictators and corporations with questionable ethical practices. He argued that these donations were not just moral compromises but indicative of a broader issue with the financial transparency of the organization. Hitchens suggested that rather than confronting the systemic issues of poverty and injustice, the Missionaries of Charity took a more reactive approach, focusing on individual suffering while neglecting the root causes.
Author is a Student of History from Kashmir University. He can be mailed at munshiyamin5@gmail.com
Comments are closed.