Mother Teresa

[mikeh]

Certainly the Catholic church has had many failings over the years. This much, cannot be argued.

 

This does not negate the good that is also done. Several months ago, I did some work at a Catholic church in my town. While I was there, they set out a spread of food for the homeless. I gather they do this twice a week, year round.

 

It is the nature of our media that bad things get much more publicity than good things. This is unfortunate. From my own experience, I suspect that for every molesting priest, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of good Catholics out doing good things. The good things don't just make the news.

 

From what I read above, it does sound like Teresa of Calcutta was involved in some actions that I consider wrong. That is unfortunate, but will not cause me to change my judgement of those Catholics that I saw feed the homeless. (No, I do not think you said such a thing, or mikeh either. Just making my own statement.)

 

I don't think that there is any atheist or anti-religious person, if at all rational, who would deny that many religious believers do many very good and morally admirable acts.

 

I suspect that most of these people would continue to be morally good people and look for opportunities to do very good and morally admirable acts even if they lost their religious faith. My experience is that most people are innately good, even tho most people are also imperfect..I'd say 'all' but I only know a tiny fraction of the set of 'all'. However, altho I personally dislike the notion, I am prepared to accept that there are those who do 'good things' only due to the pressure to conform exerted on them by fellow members of a religious belief. Sort of like Fluffy saying that without his belief in god he'd be a murderer....I don't for a moment believe it but maybe there are people for whom that is true.

 

Whether a religious or secular 'organization' is 'good' or worthy of praise is not based on whether that organization does 'some good'.

 

The US and many western nations class Hamas as a terrorist organization. Even giving money to Hamas is a serious criminal offence in many countries....any US citizen doing so would probably face 25 years or so in prison, a term they would be lucky to survive. Yet Hamas wins elections by providing basics of human existence to many thousands of oppressed Palestinians. They provide medical care, housing, food, education to people deprived of access to such necessities by the acts of a country strongly supported by the West.

 

Is Hamas a 'good' organization? Or does their continued and deliberate provocation of Israel, and their advice to residents of the Gaza Strip not to seek shelter from Israeli retaliation (because Hamas calculates that dead Palestinian civilians make for good propaganda) make them a 'bad' organization?

 

Does the fact that many Catholics, and many Catholic clergy, do good things offset the systemic coverup and enabling of the sexual abuse of thousands of children? Does it excuse the treatment of aboriginal children in several countries, or the treatment of unwed mothers and their children, most notably in Ireland? Does it offset the prohibition on the use of contraception, adding to the death count from AIDS in the third world?

 

So MT's knowing infliction of physical suffering (if only in the passive sense of withholding aid that was in her power to give), in the name of the catholic god and the catholic organization, and the zeal with which that organization has co-opted her as an emblem of all that is good in their religion, cannot be offset by the fact that some comfortably-off 1st World church-goers occasionally (or even frequently) hand out a little food to the homeless in their communities.

 

 

Finally, and at the risk of godwinning the thread and thereby automatically losing it, a well-known mid-20th century mega-villain, loved dogs. I don't think that admirable trait made him a good person. The evil he did and the evil done in his name are what we remember. The evil done by the Catholic Church in the two millennia of its existence, and that it continues to do to this day, are what counts for me. What is it that many Xians love to say as a shield for their bigotry? Hate the sin, love the sinner?

 

I admire many religious people: I hate religious organizations.

[billw55]

This is really good, but is not the indirect result of money going to the Vatican Bank. Leaving aside that the latter is a corrupt and opaque financial organisation, I am pretty sure that local Catholic Churches (via their diocese) give money to the Vatican, not vice versa.

Interesting. So, do you think that each and every Catholic church is financially independent of the Vatican - basically, that they operate at a profit? I wonder, but I doubt it. Then again, they are exempt from many/most/all taxes, which must be a big help.

 

The church I mentioned was building a large expansion to their facility. Construction is expensive. Did no money come from the Vatican? I always assumed this was the kind of thing the Vatican did with their money (well, mostly), but maybe I am wrong. What do they actually do with their money?

[barmar]

What difference does it make if an organization proclaims someone a saint or that someone else has infallible knowledge of occult supernatural will? Either idea is a duping of a trusting group of people. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven, "Reproach's got nutthin' to do with it".

I'm not a Catholic, so maybe I'm totally misinformed, but I just found these requirements for sainthood:

• Two verifiable postmortem miracles
  
• Evidence of having led an exemplary life of goodness and virtue worthy of imitation, having died a heroic death (martyrdom), or having undergone a major conversion of heart where a previous immoral life is abandoned and replaced by one of outstanding holiness
  

"an exemplary life" is where my "above reproach" ideal comes from. They don't have to be perfect -- they're just human, and have failings and lapses (and in the "conversion" case, they probably committed many sins before it) -- but they should be among the best of the best at the time they died.

 

All the disclosures about MT seem to argue against her having led "an exemplary life of goodness and virtue". Maybe she was well-intentioned, but was it exemplary?

[Winstonm]

I'm not a Catholic, so maybe I'm totally misinformed, but I just found these requirements for sainthood:

• Two verifiable postmortem miracles
  
• Evidence of having led an exemplary life of goodness and virtue worthy of imitation, having died a heroic death (martyrdom), or having undergone a major conversion of heart where a previous immoral life is abandoned and replaced by one of outstanding holiness
  

"an exemplary life" is where my "above reproach" ideal comes from. They don't have to be perfect -- they're just human, and have failings and lapses (and in the "conversion" case, they probably committed many sins before it) -- but they should be among the best of the best at the time they died.

 

All the disclosures about MT seem to argue against her having led "an exemplary life of goodness and virtue". Maybe she was well-intentioned, but was it exemplary?

 

All I'm saying is you have to be incredibly naïve to believe in miracles, and thus the ones who promote the idea that miracles occur or a person can be infallible in matters of faith cannot be above reproach themselves.

[ArtK78]

All I'm saying is you have to be incredibly naïve to believe in miracles, and thus the ones who promote the idea that miracles occur or a person can be infallible in matters of faith cannot be above reproach themselves.

There are 12 basic tenets of the faith of Christianity. Most of them involve miracles of one sort or another. So, you might as well be saying that you have to be incredibly naive to be a Christian (oh, I guess that is what you are saying).

[mikeh]

Interesting. So, do you think that each and every Catholic church is financially independent of the Vatican - basically, that they operate at a profit? I wonder, but I doubt it. Then again, they are exempt from many/most/all taxes, which must be a big help.

 

The church I mentioned was building a large expansion to their facility. Construction is expensive. Did no money come from the Vatican? I always assumed this was the kind of thing the Vatican did with their money (well, mostly), but maybe I am wrong. What do they actually do with their money?

I am astounded that in this day and age anyone can ask this question without at least a cursory google search. Input the term 'Vatican finance scandal' and amongst the first hits are stories from 2013 about a priest arrested for trying to smuggle 20 million euros into Switzerland. The suggestion was that this was money from organized crime, and was from the Vatican Bank.

 

Indeed, if you start to type in the term 'Vatican finances', you don't get to finish before google offers you the term 'Vatican finance scandal' in multiple iterations!

 

My first memory of hearing about the Vatican bank was in connection with the never-solved case of a Vatican bank employee found hanging from a bridge in Rome.

 

There is even some suggestion that the last pope's resignation may have been occasioned by an internal coup relating to potentially damaging bank information, tho I stress that I've never seen nor heard of any substance to this. Then again, the main problem with the bank is its utter impenetrability and lack of disclosure, which may in itself generate such rumours.

 

Suffice it to say that there is clear evidence that whatever else the church does with 'its money', it also aids and abets some of the worst criminals in the world.

 

No surprise there, of course. The church has ever since its foundation made bargains with the current devils, be they power-hungry kings or emperors or corrupt politicians. The problem is that the church, as an organization, is more concerned with its expansion and acquisition/preservation of worldly power and wealth than it is with solving pressing problems. I know that is not how many members of the faith see it, but history makes it clear, including current history.

 

BTW, anyone who seriously thinks the Church has 'good' at its heart should take a tour of the Vatican. It is crammed with incredible works of art and other antiquities. Our guide told us, for example, that the Vatican owns a very high percentage of all works created out of a form of pink marble.....the biggest is a giant bathtub created for one of the Roman Emperors. The value of these works must be in the many hundreds of millions, probably billions (altho if all were marketed at one time I suspect it might lead to the collapse of the market, they have so much loot), and surely this could and should be put to proper use, if only by transmuting it into income earning investments, the income to be used for good works. Seeing an organization that extolls the virtues of poverty hoarding these assets is a sickening experience, and serves to highlight the hypocrisy of the organization.

[Vampyr]

Interesting. So, do you think that each and every Catholic church is financially independent of the Vatican - basically, that they operate at a profit? I wonder, but I doubt it. Then again, they are exempt from many/most/all taxes, which must be a big help.

 

The church I mentioned was building a large expansion to their facility. Construction is expensive. Did no money come from the Vatican? I always assumed this was the kind of thing the Vatican did with their money (well, mostly), but maybe I am wrong. What do they actually do with their money?

 

The Catholic Church's finances are very secretive, but according to this article (from The Economist) it is the churches that give money to the Vatican. Probably not every local church is independent; the diocese would share out some money.

 

As to what the Vatican do with their money... well, I doubt that they touch the capital. They maintain a very large number of clergy, other staff, Swiss Guards, etc as well as over 100 foreign diplomatic missions.

[billw55]

Yes mikeh, I have heard of a couple of scandals. What I meant was, what do they do with most of their money? 20 million euros is surely a drop in their well.

 

And if the entire structure really is for nothing more than enriching the cardinals? Well, perhaps Francis is working on that. His publicity at least, gives the impression of greater sincerity regarding wealth and poverty than some of his predecessors. Will it ultimately change anything? Probably not. But we can hope.

[mikeh]

Yes mikeh, I have heard of a couple of scandals. What I meant was, what do they do with most of their money? 20 million euros is surely a drop in their well.

 

And if the entire structure really is for nothing more than enriching the cardinals? Well, perhaps Francis is working on that. His publicity at least, gives the impression of greater sincerity regarding wealth and poverty than some of his predecessors. Will it ultimately change anything? Probably not. But we can hope.

Maintaining the Vatican is undoubtedly expensive, including, as it does, not only many (old) buildings, but roads, utilities, public spaces, a paramilitary Swiss Guard, and many bureaucrats. I expect, but do not know, that funding is doled out to various off-site organizations, and maybe dioceses. Although, on that point, my understanding is that those US dioceses that made settlements in child abuse cases had to come up with their own money, and the palaces built by some bishops and archbishops have been funded by their parishoners....google the bishop of bling for maybe the most notorious case.

 

I suspect there is an element of being a miser in the habits, and I wouldn't blame any organization for being paranoid about losing its money. Even if the church were what most of its followers seem to think it is, a force for good, it wouldn't be in keeping with that mission to spend all of its money and not lay aside funds for the future.

 

Btw, I agree that 20MM euros is probably a drop in the bucket, but do you for a moment think that this was an isolated transaction? That the police happened to catch the guy the first and only time he tried it? Once a week would be 1 billion a year, as one example, and this was just a single individual, as far as being a bank employee/official was concerned.

 

If they are laundering mob money, what are they doing with their own? We have no idea.

 

By the way, many years ago I learned of a situation in which a priest had died. Now, priests aren't sworn to poverty, but they don't get huge salaries either. So it was surprising to learn of the Italian villa he owned, in addition to the properties he owned in Canada, and the substantial net worth of the estate. I don't doubt that most priests and lesser clergy are far from wealthy, but I'd really be interested in learning the net worth of the typical bishop or higher, especially in NA or Western Europe, or South America. And where they have their money stashed.

 

As for the new pope, the adulation heaped on him by western media seems a bit over the top. Yes, he preaches more poverty for individual leaders within the church, tho it remains to be seen how much that catches on. But on matters of doctrine, he is as conservative as they come. He believes, for example, in exorcism...which means he believes, literally, that there are demons amongst us that can possess the mind and body of humans, and can be cast out by proper ritual. I mean...really? Yes...unfortunately, really.

 

And has he done anything to address the role of gays in the church, or the rights of women to be wholly (not holy) equal to men? He's made some vague comments about more tolerance, but tolerance is not acceptance...it is a softer discrimination than an outright condemnation, but it isn't acceptance. Btw, I am not good at embedding links, but on the exorcism issue, google Pope Francis and exorcism and it will take you right to the evidence: I am not making this stuff up :D

[Vampyr]

See above where I found a reference that churches pay the Vatican and that the latter maintain over 100 foreign diplomatic missions, which obviously cost millions each every year.

[billw55]

About the exorcism thing. It is interesting you call this out. Yes, I think it is weird too. But, is it inherently any stranger than believing that a virgin conceived a child, that a man walked on water, or turned water into wine, or died and came back to life, or that all people live on after death? It certainly sounds stranger to us, because we are embedded in a judeo christian society, where the latter beliefs are well entrenched. But strictly objectively - is really any weirder?

[onoway]

The thing I find confusing is that supposedly people went to see what she was doing and it was pretty much only after she died that all this stuff came out. There were often photo ops of MT with various people and some of them were supposedly after taking a tour of some of her hospices....why didn't anyone say anything at the time? Supposedly security people check out these places before any of the hotshot bigwigs wander through on their publicity tours..again, how come nobody ever said anything about handicapped kids tied to beds and people screaming in pain with no relief? All the people who went to her, why did they go to her or take their family members there?

 

It's not that I am an advocate for her, like most people I accepted what information was put out there, but it always makes me wonder where all these people were when she was still alive. Perhaps then something positive could have been done about the situation rather than only after the fact when really all that can be done is diminish the faith that somewhere somebody is a good person doing good things.

[mikeh]

About the exorcism thing. It is interesting you call this out. Yes, I think it is weird too. But, is it inherently any stranger than believing that a virgin conceived a child, that a man walked on water, or turned water into wine, or died and came back to life, or that all people live on after death? It certainly sounds stranger to us, because we are embedded in a judeo christian society, where the latter beliefs are well entrenched. But strictly objectively - is really any weirder?

I think it is 'weirder' because we have an ability to compartmentalize and, indeed, to hold in our minds mutually contradictory beliefs, and my own take on that is that it is easier to do this when the beliefs can be separated in some fashion.

 

A belief that 2000 years ago an invisible but omnipotent entity inseminated a young woman with a divine embryo that became the son of god and died for our sins (say what? How did his dying do anything for anybody???), and that this happened precisely once in all of human existence (well, the greeks thought that their gods could literally f**k humans and that such unions could be fertile, so maybe this wasn't unique after all), hardly intrudes upon our daily lives.

 

it is entirely possible to hold that sort of belief and still, for example, accept that mental illness is usually, if not always, caused by or gives rise to chemical imbalances within the brain and that treating these imbalances, perhaps combined with psychotherapy, can lead to improvement or control of the mental illness (accepting that psychotropic medication and our understanding of brain chemistry issues is incomplete but improving).

 

However, exorcism isn't about a possibly unique event in the distant past, whether that event be resurrection or insemination or turning water into wine, etc. Exorcism is the at least partial rejection of modern medicine and a recourse to entirely discredited notions of demonic possession and the ability of praying (preying?) priests, by ritualistic means, to cast out these demons.

 

It is not only a rejection of science and the scientific method, it is also the promotion of irrationality, and the taking advantage of the ignorance and gullibility of the victims and relatives of the victims.

 

For a 'world leader' in this day and age to profess a belief in this sort of magic mumbo-jumbo is incredibly dangerous. Humanity has a lot of problems, that will only become worse as population densities increase, and climate change takes greater and greater hold.

 

I don't think it to be an exaggeration to argue that the best and maybe the only hope of preserving a world remotely as hospitable to humans and most other non-microbial life as is the current world is science. I know: this will cue the idiots who point out that science is or can be 'bad'. They are idiots because science is about understanding. Technology is about how science is applied, and it is technology, not science, that can have deleterious effects.

 

Science, properly applied, can lead to behavioural changes (more solar energy, less fossil fuels) and to technological changes (means of carbon recapture, cheaper and more efficient solar power, etc).

 

But implementation of science in the form of useful technology will require political will, and thus popular support. Promotion of non-scientific views of reality constitute a barrier to progress and are, coming from a supposedly educated, intelligent individual, a form of crime against humanity, imo.

[mike777]

Some of these objections to MT seem to be the fact that she is a Catholic, a Catholic Nun whose entire life was based on God, Jesus and the supernatural first and the immortal soul, not nature.

 

The big main points are valid points to discuss and to be critical.

[Winstonm]

I find it intriguing that the promoters of supply-side, aka "voodoo economics" also accept "voodoo" as a valid explanation for other events.

[barmar]

All I'm saying is you have to be incredibly naïve to believe in miracles, and thus the ones who promote the idea that miracles occur or a person can be infallible in matters of faith cannot be above reproach themselves.

I'm mostly ignoring the "miracles" part of sainthood. I'm hoping that when they look around for candidates for sainthood, they build the short list based on people of great virtue. Then they whittle it down by waiting for miracles.

 

By proposing MT as a potential saint, the church is essentially endorsing the way she lived her life, saying that she was a wonderful person. This is akin to someone claiming that Nixon was one of our best Presidents.

[kenberg]

The thing I find confusing is that supposedly people went to see what she was doing and it was pretty much only after she died that all this stuff came out. There were often photo ops of MT with various people and some of them were supposedly after taking a tour of some of her hospices....why didn't anyone say anything at the time? Supposedly security people check out these places before any of the hotshot bigwigs wander through on their publicity tours..again, how come nobody ever said anything about handicapped kids tied to beds and people screaming in pain with no relief? All the people who went to her, why did they go to her or take their family members there?

 

It's not that I am an advocate for her, like most people I accepted what information was put out there, but it always makes me wonder where all these people were when she was still alive. Perhaps then something positive could have been done about the situation rather than only after the fact when really all that can be done is diminish the faith that somewhere somebody is a good person doing good things.

 

This has occurred to me as well. In particular, she was given the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course so was Henry Kissinger. And Barak Obama. But still.

I wonder if any of the people on that awards committee have commented on whether they believe they were somehow duped, or if they stand by their decision, or just what they think. I suppose many are dead now.

 

I suppose that most people are not as good as their admirers claim, nor as bad as they are portrayed by their detractors. And India, back fifty years or so ago, was not an easy place to live. Or so I understood from various fellow grad students I knew who were looking for any option to not go back. But it does sound like her failings were on quite a scale. I don't plan to verify the details.

[Vampyr]

The thing I find confusing is that supposedly people went to see what she was doing and it was pretty much only after she died that all this stuff came out. There were often photo ops of MT with various people and some of them were supposedly after taking a tour of some of her hospices....why didn't anyone say anything at the time? Supposedly security people check out these places before any of the hotshot bigwigs wander through on their publicity tours..again, how come nobody ever said anything about handicapped kids tied to beds and people screaming in pain with no relief? All the people who went to her, why did they go to her or take their family members there?

 

It's not that I am an advocate for her, like most people I accepted what information was put out there, but it always makes me wonder where all these people were when she was still alive. Perhaps then something positive could have been done about the situation rather than only after the fact when really all that can be done is diminish the faith that somewhere somebody is a good person doing good things.

 

Perhaps because she was lionised by the mass media. This article has a link to the interview of a volunteer. And contains a line which broke my heart:

 

Some qualitative improvements however have been made in the order's practices, such as letting orphans play with toys.

[barmar]

This has occurred to me as well. In particular, she was given the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course so was Henry Kissinger. And Barak Obama. But still.

I wonder if any of the people on that awards committee have commented on whether they believe they were somehow duped, or if they stand by their decision, or just what they think. I suppose many are dead now.

It seems like there was lots of propaganda about her spread by the church during her life. And everyone believed it, perhaps because they so much wanted to believe it. There's always a desire to believe that there are people who are like what she was portrayed as. And she wasn't the kind of self-aggrandizing celebrity that the media delights in taking down a peg.

[Vampyr]

It seems like there was lots of propaganda about her spread by the church during her life. And everyone believed it, perhaps because they so much wanted to believe it. There's always a desire to believe that there are people who are like what she was portrayed as. And she wasn't the kind of self-aggrandizing celebrity that the media delights in taking down a peg.

 

Also I remember that one big thing was that she had free ambulances or the poor, which turns out to be untrue (but the many ambulances that were donated to her naturally led to that conclusion).

[mike777]

I don't know the facts around the ambulances. I expect she would sell them and most goods and convert them to cash.

She would not be able to use, drive or maintain modern stuff like that.

 

Keep in mind the Charity was 1950 and she was an Albanian Catholic Nun in a Hindu/Muslim country where they were killing each other. She was asked to step down in 1990 in her 80's.

[Vampyr]

I don't know the facts around the ambulances. I expect she would sell them and most goods and convert them to cash.

She would not be able to use, drive or maintain modern stuff like that.

 

Of course she could have run an ambulance service. Apparently the ambulances were refitted and used as taxis for the nuns.

[mike777]

Vamp you expect her to be able to run an ambulance service and to have access to painkillers in your previous posts.

 

I don't know all the facts about the ambulances but clearly she did not have the access or ability for either. I don't see you provide any convincing evidence that she could. Clearly the fact you believe this stuff colors your opinion of her.

 

Just saying "of course she could" is not evidence. In fact the only evidence you quote is that the cars were used as a taxi service for the nuns to be driven around part time in. This is evidence they could not be used as an ambulance service at best they could be refitted and used as a taxi service by others to make money.

 

 

She could not drive or maintain them as an ambulance service.

 

btw2 just where the heck where all of these nuns going in the taxi? Now that sounds like a story!

[Vampyr]

Vamp you expect her to be able to run an ambulance service and to have access to painkillers in your previous posts.

 

I don't know all the facts about the ambulances but clearly she did not have the access or ability for either. I don't see you provide any convincing evidence that she could. Clearly the fact you believe this stuff colors your opinion of her.

 

Just saying "of course she could" is not evidence. In fact the only evidence you quote is that the cars were used as a taxi service for the nuns to be driven around part time in. This is evidence they could not be used as an ambulance service at best they could be refitted and used as a taxi service by others to make money.

 

 

She could not drive or maintain them as an ambulance service.

 

btw2 just where the heck where all of these nuns going in the taxi? Now that sounds like a story!

 

777, why are your contributions so rarely valuable?

 

I am quite certain that ambulance providers in Calcutta, whether free or paid-for, operate on a tiny fraction of the resources MT had available.

 

Anyway, I remember the ambulances being a big part of the hype, they impressed me at the time.

[nige1]

1910 27 Aug. Baptized Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu in Skopje Macedonia. Her mother Dranafile invited the city's poor to dine with the family, counseling her daughter "never eat a single mouthful unless you are sharing it with others." When asked who the guests were, Drana replied "Some of them are our relations, but all of them are our people."

1919. Her father died. Nikollë was a politician, businessman, and philanthropist.

1928. Joined Sisters of Dublin at Loreto Abbey in Rathfarnham, Ireland.

1929. Novitiate in Darjeeling. learnt Bengali and taught at the St. Teresa's School.

1931 May. First profession of vows, taking the name Mary Teresa (after Saint Thérèse of Lisieux). Afterwards she learnt Hindi and taught Geography and History to the poor at Saint Mary's High School for Girls, Calcutta.

1937 May 14. Final solemn vows at Loreto convent school in Entally, Calcutta, where she taught.

1944. Appointed headmistress.

1946. September 10. Received her "the call within the call" while travelling by train from Calcutta to the Loreto convent in Darjeeling for her annual retreat. "I was to leave the convent and help the poor while living among them." Obtained Bishop's permission.

1948. 6 months basic medical training in the Holy Family Hospital Patna, adopted Indian citizenship, and replaced her traditional Loreto habit with a white cotton sari decorated with a blue border. She started a school in Motijhil (Calcutta), tending to the needs of the destitute and starving.

1949. 12 young women joined her in creating a new religious community, helping the "poorest among the poor".

1950. October 9. Permitted to start the diocesan congregation that would become the Missionaries of Charity "to care for the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone."

1952. Opened the Kalighat Home for the Dying, a free hospice for the poor, converted from an abandoned Hindu temple. Patients received medical attention and were afforded the opportunity to die according to their religious rituals: Muslims were read the Quran, Hindus received water from the Ganges, and Catholics received the Last Rites. She said "A beautiful death is for people who lived like animals to die like angels - loved and wanted." She opened the Shanti Nagar (City of Peace) home for those with leprosy, supplying medication, bandages, and food. The congregation soon began to attract both recruits and charitable donations, and by the 1960s had opened hospices, orphanages and leper houses all over India.

1963. Founded the Missionaries of Charity Brothers.

1965. Pope Paul VI bestowed the Decree of Praise upon the Missionaries of Charity. Opened first house outside India opened in Venezuela with five sisters.

1976. Founded contemplative branch of the Sisters. Founded Lay Missionaries of Charity with Catholics and non-Catholics as Co-Workers

1979. Noble Peace Prize.

1982. India's highest civilian award, the Bharat Ratna. At the siege of Beirut, she brokered a cease-fire between the Israeli army and Palestinian guerrillas. Accompanied by Red Cross workers, she traveled through the war zone to rescue 37 children trapped in a devastated front line hospital.

1984. Founded Missionaries of Charity Fathers with Fr. Joseph Langford to combine the vocational aims of the Missionaries of Charity with the resources of the ministerial priesthood.

1988. Armenia: Earthquake victims. Ethiopia: famine. Chernobyl: radiation.

1989. Pacemaker after a 2nd heart-attack.

1991. Pneumonia in Mexico.

1992. Official biography by Navin Chawla, an Indian civil servant.

1997. September 5. Died, aged 87, from heart, lung and kidney problems. In its front page tribute, the Indian fortnightly Frontline dismissed most criticisms of her as "patently false" and said that they had "made no impact on the public perception of her work, especially in Calcutta". The obituary praised her selfless caring, energy and bravery but criticized her public campaign against abortion and her claim to be non-political. At her death, Missionaries of Charity had more than 4,000 sisters running orphanages, AIDS hospices and charity centres worldwide -- caring for refugees, the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless, and victims of floods, epidemics, and famine.

2002. Vatican recognized as a miracle the healing of a tumor in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, after the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa's picture -- a claim disputed by Monica's husband and doctor.

2003. Her letters published revealing 50-year long crisis of faith. (She had asked that her letters not be published). After requesting and considering criticism by Hitchins and others, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints ratified Mother Teresa's beatification.

Mother Teresa shared the controversial views of her religion on abortion, contraception, and divorce. She was politically naive. She had no accountancy training and only 6 months medical training. But she was courageous, hard-working, frugal, and kind-hearted. Also, her caring, organizing and managing skills helped the poor. Finally, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee judged her to be OK.

 

IMO she was a good person. To become a saint, however, she may now have to work the kind of miracles that BBF devil's advocates seem to expect her to have performed during her life-time. :)