The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice

Rating:
Summary: A fascinating deconstruction of a 20th century icon
Review: "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice," by Christopher Hitchens, is one of the most audacious books I have ever read. The book is a merciless of expose of Mother Teresa, the Roman Catholic nun who has been internationally hailed for her work with the poor. But Hitchens claims that there is a dark side to this seemingly saintly figure, whom he calls "a religious fundamentalist, a political operative, a primitive sermonizer and an accomplice of worldly powers." With his grimly intelligent prose, Hitchens does a good job of supporting this assessment.

Hitchens looks at Teresa's involvement with such unsavory figures as the corrupt Duvalier regime of Haiti. He analyzes the international "cult" of Teresa, and considers the political alliances she formed. He also takes a critical look at the hospices operated by her order, noting that the "point" of these institutions "is not the honest relief of suffering but the promulgation of a cult based on death and suffering and subjection." Hitchens also considers Teresa's role as an international tool of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

Perhaps the most damning section of the book is the sordid tale of Teresa's involvement with Charles Keating, who was convicted in the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1990s. This part of the book includes a photocopy of a remarkable letter signed by Teresa on behalf of Keating.

Hitchens' remarkable book reminds us that no public figure should be considered so "saintly" as to be above scrutiny. He also reminds us that it is often useful to analyze the political and ideological motives behind certain "charitable" enterprises. "The Missionary Position" is a well-written and thought-provoking analysis of the shadowy intersections of politics, religious dogma, and popular culture.

Rating:
Summary: An incredible read.....
Review: As someone who was brought up Catholic, I was taught (with little/no proof) that Mother Teresa was almost a perfect human being. I also thought Calcutta was a total slum.....guess I was wrong on both accounts. I'm a member of the media myself, and I know how stories can get blown out of proportion, and the Mother Teresa Myth certainly has.

A great and informative read.

Rating:
Summary: WOW !
Review: this is one bokk that will not back down from telling it like it is!

Rating:
Summary: Criticism where it's due...
Review: Christopher Hitchens does a remarkable job with a sensitive subject. Mother Teresa is widely revered by those who have only seen the outer veneer of her work and judging by some of the comments seen here, she is seen as something of a 'Sacred Cow' who is completely beyond criticism.

However, Hitchens makes it clear that her methods and philosophies were NOT always beyond question and he is right to raise these points. Those who think it's simply an attack on the Catholic Church are over-sensitive: like it or not, the Church DOES have questions to answer about its work with poor communities, not just in India but also in South America and other places. These places are overcrowded for a reason: simply providing charity will not solve the root of the problem.

Rating:
Summary: I don't believe it!
Review: Disgraceful book! I don't reccoment it to anyone! Who is this aweful writer??

Rating:
Summary: Terrible! Dito...
Review: This is sort of book we have come to expect from this author - poorly researched, bereft of footnotes or bibliography, sneering, opposed to reason and aimed at pseudo intellectuals, especially those who believe that atheism inevitably leads to careful thought. In order to begin to understand mother Teresa you must possess some minimal knowledge of the doctrines of the Catholic Faith. Hitchens does not. Here are just a few of his clangers. 1. p88 he believes that conscientious Christians believe that it is not for them to forgive others! 2. p51 he believes that the Catholic Church is opposed to the Natural Method as taught in Humanae Vitae (i.e hasn't even read Humanae Vitae), and appears unaware of the distinction between artificial contraception and the natural method. 3. In the introduction of his book he opposes reason with 'knowing' - interesting to see how this statement equates what he believes to be rationalism wih emotionalism - making him opposed to the reason he unconvincingly affects to admire. 4. He completely misrepresents John 12.8 (see p. 28-29 The Missionary Position).Almsdeeds are a condition of access to heaven. 5. A simple point of logic - apparently for Hitchens a woman who in having an abortion doesn's believe that she is killing someone, isn't! How such solipsism can be equated to reasoning remains to be seen (see p.57).

The rest of this tract then accuses her of guilt by association and the fact that her hospices aren't hospitals!! What is wrong with accepting money from undesirable people and using it to do good? Does Hitchens deny the undeniable link between increased use of contraceptives and abortion? What is the supposed crime in accepting money from those who know you are a Christian missionary in order to do the work of a Christian missionary? The simple reason behind this ludicrous and ill informed attack is an unease over Mother Teresa's message. In attacking that message, the author has ended up attacking not only the Catholic faith, but also reason and truth.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting expose
Review: This book is an expose seeking to attack the Mother Teresa myth. The writer does this by looking at the way that Mother Teresa acquired her reputation and then discusses what he sees as shortcomings in her ministry.

Mother Teresa is very much the creation of Malcom Muggeridge. Muggeride passed away some time ago but he was a committed Christian. He was responsible for the first stories which brought her world attention. The author describes a range of incidents which suggests that Muggeride was so in awe of her that he occasionally took leave of his senses. One example is that a photographer took photos of the place in which Mother Teresa cared for the sick. There was a failure of the lighting equipment but despite that the photo's still came out. Muggeride was of the view that this showed that Mother Teresa exuded a divine light. The author of this book spoke to the cameraman involved in the incident and it seems that after the lighting failure he simply used fast film.

There are however two major criticisms of Mother Teresa's. The first is that she was willing to be involved with people of low reputation to get money. The book describes a number of relationships but one of the most chilling is her support of some of the previous leaders of Haiti. She has also taken donations from serious criminals. In return for the acceptance of money Mother Teresa has spoken out in support such people.

The other criticism is that her places set aside for the poor and dying are run dreadfully. Money is diverted away from the provision of medical services to build churches and to fund anti-abortion campaigns. The lack of available money means that the nuns in her hospices re-use infected bandages, don't provide basic medicine and the staff are badly trained. This means that people who due to their poverty are forced into her hospices receive a level of treatment that can lead to their death.

The book is easy to read although the style is a little high drama in parts. Still it is an interesting expose of someone who has become a public figure and thus open to such criticism.

Rating:
Summary: My review is based on personal experience...
Review: I first read a portion of this book in the Washington Post a number of years ago. As I'd worked closely with Mother Teresa in Calcutta for a bit over two years, I was amused by it and bought several copies which I then gave to those I knew who painted halos on her. Now I admit to some mixed feelings (more on that later) but the book's strength is still formidable.

While working in an office that provided Mother with much of her food, a Scottish pharmacologist who'd been volunteering in the Home for Dying Destitutes visited. She proclaimed that the people she was taking care of there "don't need to die!" She asserted that most of the sisters caring for the destitute weren't very bright, and that there are means of keeping the destitute alive of which the Missionaries of Charity would not partake. After that, and after picking up a small child who died in my arms at the mother house not far from my residence, my eyes were more opened to that saint of Calcutta.

Incidentally, the child who died was the product of one of the "natural family planning" sessions the MC sisters held for Muslim women in Calcutta. That degree of naivete, as if the sisters who lived among them understood so pathetically little about Islam as to teach Muslim women of that means of birth control--in one of the most crowded square miles on planet earth--was enough to make one question Mother Teresa even if other things, many of which Hitchens points out, were not.

As for the intellectual level of the sisters, it's important to note that what I describe is typical in much of the Third World. As an Indian friend said, most of the sisters, if they had not become nuns, would have been stuck in their Indian village, in a prearranged marriage. Their entry into the sisterhood freed them and, in some cases, allows them to "see the world." I'm not saying that in a derisive way; were I in their shoes, I may do the same.

And there was one sister whose intelligence and sensitivity did impress me. She shared with me one day that she was concerned about children being adopted into families in, say, Denmark, which had negative population growth at the time. She wondered what would happen when the fad wore off of the obvious adoptions--brown children among the more pale Danes--and what social problems might come about as a consequence. As I'm not familiar with any Scandanavians, I don't know what may be happening there today.

The situation, though, also has its ironies. I know many a feminist who is impressed to no end with Mother Teresa, an allegedly strong woman. As I knew Mother, I guarantee to the feminists that such a label turns Mother over in her grave. Indeed, while some reviewers have commented on the MC sisters in the U.S., their commitment to AIDS patients, etc., I see most of the sisters as sheep, little girls despite their ages, following their leader, whoever she may be, with a girl's unquestioning attitude. That's not feminist, despite illusions to the contrary.

Mind you, I'm not in any way opposed to taking care of the poor. I'm as far from a Reaganite as one can imagine. But I had--and still have--close friends who are nuns in other orders in India who do far more for "human development" than the MCs do. Are they proclaimed saints? Not in this world they're not. But I don't blame Mother for that. Rather, I blame the media who are anxious to sell papers by finding one individual, a sort of Horatio Alger in reverse, who stands out. Thusly Saint Mother Teresa was born through the likes of Malcolm Muggeridge whom Hitchens covers mercilessly in his text.

As I have reflected for a number of years on my experience in Calcutta and the rest of India (MC sisters telling lepers in colonies to be fruitful and multiply per Catholic teachings, thereby ensuring another generation of lepers) I've concluded that my biggest objection to the MC regime is that Mother Teresa unwittingly prevented change. Politicians, including Reagan, loved her as she said, "write a check and help the poor, the dying, and help these kids to be adopted." It never occurred to her that there must be something wrong with a system which enabled countless people to die miserably. And that extended to us in the "developed" world. How many people do you know who feel secure in having their Mother Teresa holy cards, maybe writing a check, but they'll still act and vote to perpetuate systems in which so, so many people die destitute.

Oh, the reason I have some mixed feelings toward the MC sisters now is that I'm still acquainted with some American nuns. Many of them are close friends, and women for whom I have a great deal of respect and love. But many too are living more comfortably than I am, e.g., having their community pay for their homes for which they then pay substantially less rent than I would pay. At least Mother Teresa and her sisters DID live and work among the poor.

Anyway, I still recommend the book. It puts much of the media hype, especially the tourists who'd visited Calcutta for two days, visited Mother Teresa, then returned to write news stories about how wonderful she is, into perspective with some of the things Mother REALLY did.

Rating:
Summary: Destined for the trash heap
Review: How's this for stupidity: Christopher Hitchens attacks Mother Teresa! In attacking Mother Teresa, probably the greatest saint we had in our presence during the late 20th century, Hitchens quite clearly has an agenda. This book is, well, so stupid that it is hard to know where to begin to attack it. Basically, Hitchens argues that Mother Teresa was a sanctimonious phony more interested in the accolades of her piety than in actually helping the downtrodden of Calcutta. OK, Hitchens, then explain why Mother Teresa labored in nearly 30 years of obscurity before finding notoriety as the 1979 Nobel winner. You would think that a phony would, after 30 years of being ignored, move on, right? A litte bit of a hole in your argument, Mr. Hitchens, don't you think? Hitchens also criticizes Mother Teresa for focusing on the individual victims of poverty, and not doing enough to prevent poverty in general. So, all you doctors out there taking care of individual AIDS patients, according to Hitchens you are doing no good because you are not working on eliminating AIDS in general. Moreover, the attcaks on Mother Teresa's practices of faith could only be appreciated by a spoiled pseudo-intellectual with no understanding of the meaning of self-sacrifice. At Mother Teresa's funeral, Hitchens was interviewed by network television, which graciously prevented him from making a fool of himself by cutting him off when he started attacking Mother Teresa. Apparently, this act of generosity by his network hosts went unappreciated by Hitchens, who insists on hawking this unworthy book.

Rating:
Summary: Anti-Catholic Hate
Review: This absurd attack on Mother Teresa rests on obvious McCarthyite tactics: Mother Teresa has contacts with criminals (Keating) and right-wing dictators (Marcos), so she must be a bit of a criminal and a dictator too. One could just as easily argue that Mother Teresa has contacts with pro-abortion politicians (Clinton) and Communist dictators (Castro)---all of which is true--and, so, she must be a pro-abortion Communist. Ludicrous, of course, but in the anti-Catholic atmosphere of the Left, such hate is pure gold.