The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice

Elizabeth Bennet, upon learning the true natures of Darcy and Wickham, muses: "one has got all the goodness, the other all the appearance of it." It is a moment of clarity. A moment when one of literature's more famous "bubble reputations" is burst asunder and the young miss Bennet sees the bounder Wickham for what he truly is. And if it is satisfying, in fiction, to have a bubble burst and the stench of true character to come wafting off the page, then when the book in question deals with a real person, it is even better than that. When Diana Spencer was killed the media were so obsessed with her cult of personality (or, perhaps, just her cult if you want to look at it that way) that Agnes Bojaxhiu, when she checked-out a few days later, received the briefest of mentions in the press. I complained to anyone who would listen. That Diana gets fawned over whilst the "blessed Teresa of Calcutta" - an old gal who, if nothing else, knew what a day's work was, gets a miserly couple of inches on page six was thought a disgrace by your humble servant. I did not bother to detail Mother Teresa's good work and use it in my argument that she was more worthy than Diana because the whole planet knows what good work this woman did. She needs no introduction. Her name is enough: Mother Teresa. Oh, yes, she gave her life to caring for the suffering and the poor. That Mother Teresa. Interesting, then, to read the following: "The rich world likes and wishes to believe that someone, somewhere, is doing something for the Third World. For this reason, it does not inquire too closely into the motives and practices of anyone who fulfils, however vicariously, this mandate." One can almost smell the coming expulsion of puss from the pricked bubble. Hers, it seems, was a cult of personality that would have embarrassed Stalin. Mother Teresa told a man riddled with cancer and racked with pain that he was suffering as Christ suffered on the cross, so Jesus must be kissing him. (An offer of cancer drugs or pain-killers was not forthcoming from the wrinkled one, and the terminal patient was left with nothing to ask for other than for Jesus to stop kissing him.) This was the Mother Teresa approach. Suffering is good; pain is good; poverty is good. Her missions across the globe may have been sat on millions of dollars of donation money, but this was never reason enough to pay for a resident doctor or buy carpets. The way to salvation (which was the same for elderly, cancer-stricken men and women and hungry, orphaned babies) was through suffering in all its forms. Many things are taken for granted, which doesn't mean just that we assume they will always be around or be true, but taken for granted in that we don't bother to question them in the first place. Who questions that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? That the sun does no such thing doesn't matter - we all know it's "true". We read declarations on our packaged food which tell us the products contain genuine colours, flavours and chemical preservatives; so, if the establishment can swindle us into eating chemicals - and make us think we are doing the exact opposite - why not have a look at the reputation of the most venerated female the planet has known and see if there is any justification for the gushing and fawning? The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in theory and practice, does just that. The diminutive walnut-with-legs was a fanatic; a religious zealot who would happily advance the misery of those unlucky enough to fall into her clutches in the name of organised superstition. It was never the poor she loved, it was poverty she adored. Of this we can be sure, her words confirm it. "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." Is this the mind of a kindly, generous old lady, motivated by, and dedicated to, easing suffering among the wretched of the earth? I think not. The enforced misery for the powerless, the money from the worst dictators - Duvalier and Hoxha, to name but two - the private jets and expensive clinics when she was ill, all show that there were two Mother Teresas: The pathetic humble and hunched nun, and the vicious, nasty money-grabber, playing the world stage and offering the touch of one of her talons to a slobbering politician eager for an image boost. If you are the conservative type, the type whose thinking is restricted by pride and predjudice, who trembles at the idea of challenging a long and firmly held belief lest you may actually learn something, I would suggest you avoid this book.

It is a brave man who takes on the job of examining Mother Teresa's reputation with a critical eye. As Hitchens himself acknowledges in his foreword: "Who would be so base as to pick on a wizened, shrivelled old lady, well stricken in years, who has consecrated her entire life to the needy and the destitute?" I was brought up Catholic and sometime during my teenage years in the 1970's, Mother Teresa visited my convent school. Not unnaturally, given the environment, she was revered. Hitchens' argument in this brief, polemical book, is that there is a distance between the image of Mother Teresa and the realities. I think at times he goes too far, and makes points which cannot be sustained on the basis of the available evidence. For example, he mentions that Mother Teresa had said she could not work for the rich "which might lead the unwary to conclude that no contributions are solicited from them". The rich would be my first port of call for the purposes of fund-raising and I don't see the acceptance of donations from the wealthy as equivalent to 'working' for them. Nonetheless, Mother Teresa did become involved at some level or another with some despicable people; writing to the judge requesting clemency for an American fraudster yet failing to reply to the prosecutor's letter requesting the return of over $1m in donations derived from embezzled funds; appearing alongside Baby Doc Duvalier's wife, and with Mengistu in Ethiopia at a time when he was using starvation as an instrument to suppress dissent. It is hard to know whether these actions were the result of political naiveté or something more sinister and there is insufficient evidence in the book to decide one way or the other. The more serious point relates more to the dichotomy between her aims of caring for the destitute and ill, and the practice of that mission. Hitchens provides accounts of volunteers, nuns and doctors who were deeply concerned by the medical care provided by the 'Homes for the Dying' in various countries. A volunteer medic describes how a 15 year old boy with a relatively simple ailment was not sent for treatment, sadly, it seems not a 'one-off'. Even worse, is the failure to provide adequate palliative medication even though the funds were clearly there to pay for it. Mother Teresa tells a man in agony with end stage cancer that he is "suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." The unfortunate patient can only respond 'Then please tell him to stop kissing me'. Hitchens quotes one sister who left the order after nine years "for the same reason that she joined it - a love of her fellow humans". The acceptance of extreme suffering in others is contrasted with Mother Teresa's use of expensive medical facilities for her own healthcare needs. Hitchens is particularly exercised by Mother Teresa's strict attitude to abortion and contraception. I share his view that having seen abandoned children and grinding poverty in the daily work of her order, the hardline refusal to even contemplate that contraception might improve the position of the poorest is hard to reconcile. That said, I am not sure what he expected from a Catholic nun. Although I don't agree with everything Hitchens has to say, it wouldn't be fair to characterise the book as a 'hatchet job'. He blames the media for creating the idea of the 'living saint'. In particular, he provides an analysis of Malcolm Muggeridge's involvement in developing Mother Teresa's saintly reputation with his film 'Something Beautiful for God' in 1969. Muggeridge comes across as a fool, seeking a miracle ('divine light' courtesy of a new type of film from Kodak!), and unable to see through the contradictions, for example, emphasising her work with the destitute yet failing to question properly why she thought it appropriate to spend money he gave her on a chalice for a new noviciate. Hitchens notes that Mother Teresa never asserted that donations were directed in their entirety to alleviating poverty but he does question what donors thought. That is a fair point - I know my old school believed it was raising funds to be used for the benefit of the poor. We were told that Mother Teresa and her sisters lived lives of extreme poverty so as not to divert resources away from looking after the most unfortunate. I am sure we were not alone. And I am left wondering where all the money went and whether it really did any good.

The first time I became aware of the existence of Mother Theresa was as a child when I was watching a children’s magazine television programme called ‘Blue Peter’. They were reporting on her work and I remember my own mother telling me what an amazing person she was, how she gave up all her time to look after orphans in one of the poorest countries and cities in the world and that she was the ‘kindest’ woman who had ever lived. As a child, of course, I believed every word and I think that even today, years after her death, and a few months after she was made a saint by Pope Francis, I would predict that most people would still feel the same. Unless they had read this fascinating book, which is a result of investigations made by Hitchens into the works and words of Mother Theresa rather than her works and words by reputation. Written in the mid-nineties just a couple of years before her death, Christopher Hitchens provides compelling evidence that shows that this woman was no saint, either by definition or by description. This notion of sainthood come from a television documentary made several years earlier by Malcolm Muggeridge whose sycophantic and lavish toadying did much to define the way in which most people in the world would come to see her. He described a miracle he witnessed (performing a miracle is a key feature of being made a saint) where his cameraman was filming in a very dark room of the orphanage and they believed that it would be wasted film. When the film came to be processed, the picture was bathed in ‘soft light’. Another reason why so many in the world worships this woman is because Calcutta was generally thought to be ‘hell on earth’, a place of darkness, illness, death and misery and this was a perception espoused by Muggeridge. Yet as Hitchens shows, this was definitely not the case. As this slim volume progresses, Hitchens shows just how unsaintly this woman was. This was a woman who was happy to be photographed with some unscrupulous characters. Obviously, the Catholic doctrine was central to her life and yet she was happy to accept money from and be photographed with dictators, fraudsters and blasphemers. An example was John Roger, leader of a cult named ‘The Movement of Spiritual Awareness’ who often described himself of being ‘higher than Jesus Christ’. She was also very happy to accept a donation of over a million dollars from Charles Keating, who was later indicted on some of the most serious fraud charges in American history. During his trial, she wrote to the court pleading for clemency and when the assistant district attorney wrote back listing Keating’s crimes and suggesting that the Christian thing to do would be to return the donated money back to its rightful owners, he received no reply. The money was also never returned. Hitchens goes on to cast doubt even on the opinions that there is still, despite all this, something morally impressive about someone who devotes their life to charity. He argues that Mother Theresa’s work was never done for its own sake but rather to 'propagandize one highly subjective view of human nature and need so that she might one day be counted as the beatific founder of a new order and discipline within the Church itself'. He argues that her work was never designed to relieve suffering but instead was aimed at the 'promulgation of a cult based on death and suffering and subjection'. In other words, Catholicism. Yet, whilst depriving hospital care to her most sick residents, she herself received care in some of the best hospitals in the world when she suffered from heart problems. So, while, this book is now over twenty years old, the recent entry into Sainthood of Mother Theresa makes it extremely relevant and one that people should read if they haven’t already. It will leave you asking questions for sure but for me one is left believing the words of Hitchens when he asserts that she was, 'a religious fundamentalist, a political operative, a primitive sermonizer and an accomplice of worldly, secular powers. Her mission has always been of this kind. The irony is that she has never been able to induce anyone to believe her. It is past that time that she was duly honoured and taken at her word.'

During her lifetime, Mother Teresa was as close to canonization as it was possible to get without actually being dead. The front cover of Time magazine called her a "Living Saint". A cult of holiness surrounded her and in the eyes of the media and many politicians she could do no wrong. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and awarded numerous honors in the countries she visited. The facts however didn't match the illusion and public perception and Christopher Hitchens had the courage to say so. He exposes her revolting attitude towards the dying, namely that they were there to die and to suffer; in that way they became closer to Christ. Care, compassion and alievement of pain were practically non-existent in her `clinics'. Standard clinical procedures and medical diagnosis was also spurned because they were materialistic. Provenance was to be preferred at all times. Hitchens also shows deceit was practiced as a matter of course towards those of other religions who were secretly baptized without their knowledge by sisters who were supposed to be caring for them. Then there is her fawning over politicians, including some of the worst despots of the latter twentieth century. The Duvalier's of Haiti and Hoxha of her native Albania were amongst the most notoriously repressive regimes, yet as Hitchens documents, this living saint was there giving them her blessing. If she could preach her message against abortion and her present advocacy of unlimited population growth at the same time, so much the better. Not so much reducing the suffering in the world as adding to it would appear to be Mother Teresa's legacy. There is also the little matter of money and as Hitchens points out, there is rather a lot of it, that was handed over in the name of charity or humanitarian support. Very little of this ever went to benefit the poor for whom it was intended. Rather it disappeared into unaudited bank accounts. One account in the Bronx had over $50 million dollars, yet Mother Teresa was on record as saying she wouldn't accept altruism. She was quite happy to accept money from fraudsters such as Charles Keating, but ignored a letter from the man investigating Keating's massive thefts requesting its return. It might also be asked where the money came from which allowed Teresa to fly around the world often at short notice. As far as I know, the world's commercial airlines have never operated a policy of free seats to the religious. Hitchens' book does not set out to be a hatchet job but he has not surprisingly received a fair amount of criticism for writing it. However there has never been any convincing explanations put forward by Teresa's apologists to any of Hitchen's criticisms, yet there has been much silence since he former living saint was hoisted to a higher plane following beatification in 2003. For those who are determined to see Mother Teresa as the embodiment of religious holiness nothing will convince them of anything untoward. However, if you do have doubts about the abuse of religious power and the ways in which all manner of lies are justified on the back of adherence to religious dogma, this book will provide a most illuminating window into a highly corrupt world.

I fail to see why people have either given this book 5 stars, or just the 1 star. It doesn't really deserve either. The main complaint about the book is that it is very short; I read it straight through in less than five hours. Hence there is no real in-depth analysis of the woman's work, both the good and the bad. Any really interesting episodes, like when Mother Theresa wrote a letter in defense of Charles Keating, and the reply by the assistant DA, is not really explored in any great detail. The real problem with Mother Theresa is that she preached a (Catholic) theology that is quickly proving to be bankrupt. As the writer is (or was, as he is now dead) not a theologian his views are rather limited. People who gave the book 5 stars probably hate all "religious" people, while those who gave it 1 star probably give too much respect to a woman who preached some very bizarre (and often hypocritical) ideas which she often did not practise herself. As there is no heaven (or hell) then neither now has to put up with each's other's company. They have both returned to where they came from: dust. "For dust you are and to dust you will return." (Genesis 3:19) I think everyone can agree on that. I hope there will be better books about this woman.

This was a distressing read but I couldn't put it down. As far as I'm aware Mother Teresa has been beatified but not yet canonised (made a saint). I am not religious and find the idea of human beings making other human beings saints laughable and absurd. But that aside Christopher Hitchens has amassed so much evidence regarding her 'treatment and care' of the sick and dying, all of it verifiable and from external witnesses who saw this standard of care for themselves, truly shocking. Especially as MT herself flew out to costly clinics for treatment of her own health issues. Can we begin to imagine the furore if a fraction of this happened in an NHS hospital? It wasn't as if money wasn't available. Millions of pounds were donated by wealthy individuals and by governments - sometimes corrupt governments. Where did the money go? In any other circumstance there would have been a thorough investigation. Perhaps there has ....... How can the Vatican proceed with this canonisation?? As I said at the beginning I myself am not a churchgoer but it would seem to be a hugely damaging step for the Church's credibility if it continues with the process. I would also have thought the Catholic Church itself would like a few more answers and more than one decidedly dubious "miracle" to create a saint. Hitch has done a brilliant job putting this well written and well researched book together. Let us hope it was to good purpose.

This sort of book, which offers an alternative interpretation of the life of Mother Teresa, will always divide opinion, and some have clearly started reading it intending to be offended by this analysis of a human woman with numerous skeletons in the closet, who is nevertheless being fast-tracked to sainthood in spite of her many flaws. Hitchens' approach may seem irreverent - to some degree he probably meant it to be as he was well-known for his antitheistic stance, but this book is still well-researched and offers a negative appraisal that needs to be recognised of a woman who accepted money and hospitality from some truly horrific people, and who appeared less interested in alleviating the suffering of the poorest citizens she claimed to represent than she was in ensuring that they didn't have access to abortions. Regardless of what you think of the subject, or the writer, I would suggest reading this book with an open mind in order to understand the way in which Mother Teresa's reputation is largely a master-stroke of PR.

As an aethiest, I always felt there were aspects of church behaviour that were still beneficial to the world. In particular, acts of charity, including running schools, hospitals and hospices always seemed to me to be a situation where the good outweighed the bad; you might have had religion forced upon you, but at least you'd been educated and fed right? And a name that rode high in that balance of accepting necessary evils was that of Mother Teresa. In fact, I believed that whilst churches and their leaders were morally bankrupt exploiters of the poor and the weak, she was somehow above that. Short as it is, this book is going to be a tough read for many; if I as an aethiest found my view challenged by it, imagine how hard it is to accept if you actually believe that Mother Teresa was actually some sort of embodiment of God. But because of this it is an essential read for both believers and non-believers; it's amazing how we have all been manipulated by this seemingly innocent individual. It is a short book, and to be honest, I didn't enjoy the writing style. I also had issues with the title at the outset, feeling it to be unesseserily crass, but by the end, if that's what worries you, you really need to have a long hard think. But above all, it is essential; an exposé of an individual who has painted themself as saintly, whilst supporting murderous regimes. Who has promoted themself as humanitarian, whilst denying the poorest in the world, basic pain management and the ability to control their own destinies so that she and her ilk can maintain their positions as saviours, whilst doing nothing of the sort.

Hitchens at his best. Clear, precise, a pleasure to read. We miss him but we've still got his past works.

This should be compulsory reading for everyone!! I always disliked the woman, and now I have read this wonderful expose` I know the reasons why! Hitchens always nails it!

While the topic of the book is Mother Teresa, Hitchens delivers masterfully a more general criticism on religions. How they use their moto of love and of "helping the poorest of the poor" to support dictators and frauds and suppress peoples' demand for justice in this life. Τhe author does not shy away from expressing his opinion in a blunt way. Criticizing such a well accepted public figure as Mother Teresa is not a simple task, yet Hitchens had the courage to point out flaws in her actions and works. Highly recommended for audience who does not blindly believe in untouchable personalities.

Christopher Hitchens（2011年11月15日没）ジャーナリスト・書評家・批評家・ノンフィクション作家であり、雄弁な話し方と卓越した語彙力と歴史的・哲学的・科学的知見を駆使して、あらゆる形のTotalitarianism＝全体主義を完膚なきまでに批判し続けた稀有な人間である。彼にはいかなる社会的・政治的タブーが通用しなかった。その「標的」はテレサのみならず、キッシンジャー、クリントン、ローマ法王、英国王室等、多くの宗教的指導者等多岐に渡った。 彼の方針は一貫しており、常に事実のみを追求し、偽善やプロパガンダに一切の容赦をしなかった。批判には一切の遠慮はなく、ただ知性の誠実さを基盤においた論調を保つ人物だった。そして調査能力はジャーナリストであったため、抜かりがない。 特に、巷間善人と崇められている人間に対する批判では卓越した洞察力を発揮した。本書はその中でも重要な一冊である。なぜならテレサについて書かれた他の書物は彼女がいかに善人であったかを述べるプロパガンダ本のみだからである。 以下、少し長くなるがHitchensの指摘を幾つか書く： ・テレサはハイチの独裁者デュバリエと癒着し、大金を受け取っていた。 ・テレサは金融詐欺（Savings and Loan事件）で多くの一般市民から２．５億ドル以上を搾取した詐欺師チャールズ・キーティングから献金を受け、彼が逮捕された時に判事のランス・イトー（ＯＪシンプソンの裁判で判事を務めた）宛てに陳情書を送った。 ・それを知ったＬＡのポール・ターリー地方検事はテレサに返信を書き、「キリストならば、自分が受け取ったお金が他者から盗まれたものと知りながら受け取るでしょうか？即座に持ち主に返却するでしょう。あなたもそうしなさい。」と返信した。もちろん、それに対するテレサからの返信はなかった。本書にはこのやり取りが原文で掲載されている。 ・テレサはカルカッタで自信が病気に罹った時はキーティングの専用ジェットで先進国で治療を受けていた。その陰では軽度の腎臓疾患を持つ１５歳の少年が鎮痛剤程度しか与えられずどんどん衰弱していった。他にもHome of the dyingでは幾多の子供たちが落とさなくて済む命を落として死んでいった・・ ・テレサは貧困者の味方ではなく、貧困そのものの味方であった。弱者・病弱者・貧困者を助けるという名目で世界中の人々から寄付金を集め、実際は治癒や医療行為はロクに施さずに衰弱死させ、上辺だけの美名手にし、修道院を増やすことにしか興味がなかった。これもボランティア看護師や医師により多数の証言がある。 ・ノーベル平和賞を受賞した際、テレサはこうも言った。「避妊は世界平和の敵である」 貧困と病理からカルカッタを救うはずの人間が、貧困を助長するような発言をしたのである。女性に、出産に関する選択権を与えれば貧困は解決する。これはインドのケララ州、日本、欧州各国、米国等多数の地域で実証済。テレサは一生涯を通じて、これに反対し続け、自己売名と自己聖女化に執心した極悪人である。 総じて、Hitchensの趣旨は「テレサは"Vulgar crook and a fraud"＝悪辣な泥棒かつ詐欺師であり、貧困克服や貧困者救済に興味などなく、修道院の増加と寄付金集め、カトリックの布教宣伝と自己聖女化のみであった。これは極悪人そのものである。バチカンもまた、テレサを大いに利用した。 最後に、本書は日本語訳は愚か、他国語にもあまり訳されていない。 その裏にはカトリック教会その他からの圧力があると思うのは私だけではあるまい。おそらく人々は自らが善人と信じて疑わない人物が批判されるのは、事実であっても受け入れたくないのだろう。 実際、日本社会ではバチカン批判をする内容の書物・マンガがいくつか圧力によって出版停止にされた経緯がある。 俗に偉人とされている人間について深く調べてみると、実はとんでもない極悪人であるケースが少なくないという現実を知ることもできる。 英語が読める者ならば是非手に取って欲しい名著。激しくおすすめ。 骨のある出版社には和訳版を出してほしい。

excelente livro. Nos mostra um outro lado da Madre Teresa