However, there is evidence – from Hitchens and other sources – that Mother Teresa’s nuns allowed some patients to die who, given the right treatment, could have been cured of their ailments. Some needed antibiotics for fairly unremarkable infections. And they were often young.

I worked for the Brothers of Charity (same organisation but active monks instead of nuns) back in 2006, in the Calcuttan orphanage for disabled boys. Over the course of the week it became clear that very good work was being done for these boys and that, without the orphanage, they would be in dire straits indeed.

Yet one of the boys was heavily bandaged, and when I asked why, I was informed that another child had “set him on fire with matches.” In British childcare, this would be seen as disgraceful. How could they let the young boys get hold of matches and leave them unattended for so long that one of them managed to set another on fire? I was also told that, when one of the brothers lightly smacked a young boy (who had severe learning difficulties), that that was pretty much how things happened there and that I was not to question it. Again, in a British orphanage this sort of “discipline” would be unthinkable.

It is patronising and naive to assume that Calcutta – because of its endemic poverty – should not expect better standards of care from people attempting to solve these sorts of problems. Standards for health and childcare must be universal. It must not be forgotten that there are available funds, too – millions of dollars a year are donated to the religious order.

I think that unquestioning high regard for a charitable organisation which supposedly serves the poorest of the poor, while allowing them to die or suffer unnecessary pain, is a very dangerous thing indeed.

The poor of Calcutta deserve to live free from the constraints of poverty. Where Mother Teresa’s order contributes towards the alleviation of their suffering, I commend it. Where it glorifies it due to a belief not shared by all, I denounce it. There are other charities based in Calcutta which I believe do more. Some of them, needless to say, are Catholic.

The failings of the Indian healtcare system cannot be laid at Mother Theresa’s door. Johann Hari and Christopher Hitchens are welcome to work for more hospitals and better healthcare for the poor.

The reason Hari finds her ‘disgusting’ is perhaps because he objects to the very idea that a good death is the most important achievement (to the extent that grace can be ‘achieved’) in a persons life. That is understandable for someone who does not believe in the Four Last Things but even if he cannot bring himself to respect such a work at least the care offered to those who would otherwise be left to die in the streets and back alleys of Calcutta should be a sufficient reason to refrain from such abuse, especially about someone who is dead!

Hari would claim that she did not do it as well as she might have done.

The house for the dying in Calcutta offers no medical care beyond basic painkillers for those with a range of illnesses, some of them treatable.

Would it not be better to use the millions of dollars donated to the Sisters of Charity to create and fund a working hospital?

At the moment the dying are taken off the streets and given love and attention, by all accounts, but very little hope of survival.

It is worth reading Christopher Hitchens’ book, ‘The Missionary Position’, if you want to understand the criticisms levelled at Mother Teresa more fully. The media hype surrounding her is less than objective.

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrisy
___________________

On what grounds does Hari accuse St. Theresa of Calcutta of hypocrisy?

Did she claim to help the sick and the dying and not do it?

NO. She served others selflessly for decades, sacrificing herself daily in a way not usually associated with Hari, Dawkins, and Hitchens.

Was she hypocritical in her attempts at conversion?

NO. She openly professed the Catholic faith and sought to save the souls of the dying, the final and greatest of her charitable acts to those under her care. I myself have heard a recording of her speaking openly in Rome about giving the dying ‘the ticket to St.Peter’ i.e Holy Baptism.

Does her ‘dark night of the soul’ mean that (as Hitchens argues) she didn’t really believe in God?

NO. Such experiences are common in saints, they are evidence of great faith. A faith that continues despite no sensible consolation.

Thus on what grounds does Hari accuse her of hypocrisy?

_________________________

Perhaps I may offer another definition:

Calumny

1. A false statement maliciously made to injure another’s reputation.
2. The utterance of maliciously false statements; slander.

The tenth precept of Mother Theresa’s Sisters of Charity is “Accept contempt, being forgotten and disregarded”. Her reputation doesn’t need my help. Ironically, all these snide attacks are probably gaining her great merit in the eyes of God and His Church.