Talk:Missionaries of Charity

Neutrality Disputed

This article contains a one-sided point of view. It provides no positives of the charity. I suggest that some positives be added, and critisms further investigated/ Trevor 13:56, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

No title given

None of the claims in this part of the article are actually backed up with anything but heresay. They don't belong in an encyclopedia.

The following has been added: Note: Former sections headed Criticism and Misuse of funds have been suppressed. Is there any doubt as to the accuracy of this prefatory note? Any complaint about the accuracy of 'suppressed' in this instance? Wetman 00:06, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How can it be called "suppressed", when, according to the edit history, the text in question was added then later deleted (presumably because it is currently back in the Mother Teresa article) by the same person (Alexandros, aka Aplank)? Harris7 03:50, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wetman: Even if it was legitimate information that was removed and not placed elsewhere, you should not have put the notice in the article. Such a notice would be appropriate on the talk page. Even if someone were to remove the death counts from the Holocaust article, it would not be right to put a notice:

"Note: Former information in this article has been suppressed".

Instead, you should replace them with the original text, found in the history. Then, you can perhaps put a watch on the article and protect from further vandalism. If you are not sure that you should put the sections back, you don't have to. What you should do, however, is keep the professional portrait of Wikipedia intact. Such a notice appears to show that Wikipedians have no control over its contact, which is ironic, given you have the complete right to modify all of it. Superm401 00:01, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nearly only negatives claims in this article. Should be titled "Criticism against blabla". But has a pure criticist article a place in Wikipedia? gbog 14:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Appalling

I can't believe this article, which seems to consist mostly of unattributed and unproven claims, most of which are incredible and beyond belief.

Claims are made that the Missionaries of Charity were observed (and supposedly audited) doing things that amount it is claimed to fraud, ten years ago in the USA and United Kingdom. So where are the charges from the appropriate authorities? Where is the official investigation which should have ensued? The lack of both seems a clear indication that these charges are malicious and bogus.

The allegations headlined "torture" lower down, are even more incredible and seem to me to be libelous, and based on the sole "testimony" and guesswork of one supposed (hindu) priest ten years ago. Why is this given any room at all? Once again if this "charge " was known to the Indian authorities ten years ago, where is the action, where the prosecutions? How come Mother Teresa was given a State funeral with thousands lining the streets to mourn the passing of this "torturer"? Quite obviously this is just another malicious slur.

That the MoC diverted donations to the Vatican bank is well-documented and backed up by many reputable sources, including the Stern research. I have, however, removed the sentence "Under the laws regulating charities in most countries, this would amount to fraud and/or theft." I would like to see a specific citation here - which laws are being violated?

As for the torture, the single case of severe abuse that has been acknowledged by the Homes does not merit inclusion at this point, but should be included if other cases surface. For future reference, this is the revision which includes the information.--Eloquence*

---

This article is unbalanced and one-sided. silsor 04:23, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, both unbalanced and one-sided ;-). Of course it is. This article was basically created out of the Mother Teresa page and used to deposit some of the criticisms that are not directly addressed at MT. In order to make it more balanced, more information should be added about the organization itself.--Eloquence*

One-sidedness

I'm going to try to make it a bit less biased. I'll look in the history for useful text that has been removed then, if there's nothing, I'll find some myself. Superm401 23:53, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's one-sided, but I think the solution is to add more positive information about the Missionaries of Charity, not rem ove all the criticisms. I reverted some text that was copied from the article on Mother Theresa, because it wasn't really related to the Missionaries of Charity and I didn't see a need to duplicate it. Pfalstad 18:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Purpose

The purpose of an Encyclopedia is to present facts, not speculation, opinion or "spin", either positive or negative. gangic 16:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page did not show what I was interested in. I have a friend who has been a Missionary of Charity for 4 years. I think it is a cult. I just got an email from her mom - I've gotten periodic mass email updates since she left - and her mom said it was going to be the last update because her daughter needs to live a "Hidden life in Christ." Why? I don't get it. Seriously. I wish this article said something about that.

My friend described her day once to me. She wakes up before 5am. She has 2 outfits. Every day she wears one and washes the other and hangs it to dry. She prays a lot. Helps the poor and homeless a lot. She has a nap in the afternoon, an hour of personal/community time at night, and goes to bed around 9pm. She doesn't read newspapers, watch TV, use the phone or the internet or anything else like that. Once a month she writes a letter to her parents. That is her only outbound communication. After 2 years, her mother wrote everyone requesting we limit letters to her to 2 per year or so - stick to major events like births, deaths, and weddings. She is going to take vows in Washington, D.C. after 5 years in the order, after which she will be a Junior Sister I believe. She takes final vows after 10 years in the order. At the 10 year mark, she receives 3 weeks of vacation. After she takes her final vows, she can no longer hug anyone except for children.

She moves often. She's lived in New York, San Francisco, and New Mexico (so far as I know). The idea is that she should have no attachments to anyone other than god, so she should not form relationships with other people or nuns. Typically nuns will be paired up to keep an eye on one another she said. A normal number of nuns to have in a convent she said was around 8. She relies entirely on donations and if she ever runs out of donations, she would have to beg.

That is all I know about where my friend is. It would be helpful if this article included information like that about the order. OrangeClouds115 08:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Hmm where do you see cult there? Everything that you write there has been standard practice for monastics for over a 1000 years. One of the branches of MC is contemplative. If she were a contemplative Cistercian or Cathusian, she would not only be enclosed in cloister but would have her own hermit cell. This practice is not confined to the catholic faith either. Most of the orthodox and even buddhists hjave monastics who are shut away from the world. Actually having no real financial responsibilities and the leisure of most of the day to spend in contemplation of god is very appealing to many people. Williamb 09:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This quote worries me the most: "This page did not show what I was interested in."

The job of WikiPedia is not to appeal to the specific interest of a reader. It is to supply unbiased facts. Also, you seem rather puzzled as to the "cult-like" behavior, which actually from your own descriptions fits well within the boundaries of monasticism (q.v.). Monasticism is quite often very alien to the mindset of the average middle-class first-world citizen -- it certainly goes directly against the traditional idea of capitalist work ethic, but it has been effective as a venue for charitable works for thousands of years in multiple religions.

Also, just because the friend you mention does things you would not choose to does not make her decision to join the MC inherently wrong. Personal agendas are perhaps the worst reason to ask for a change to an encyclopedia - there should never be a slant to information presented as factual, and even though WikiPedia is a volunteer organization, there is a distinct responsibility to transmit as impartially as possible (see NPOV). There is distinct danger in slanting encyclopedia articles in any direction; not only is it misleading and questionably moral, but it may lead directly to legal issues such as slander or libel (see John Seigenthaler Sr.).

Whatever opinion I have on Mother Teresa or the Missionaries of Charity has no bearing on how this article should be portrayed, except for an insistence on following WikiPedia's NPOV policy. Both the Criticisms and Responses to Criticisms are full of statements that have no place in an encyclopedia ("Those criticising Theresa do so from the comfort of their Western opulence without serving the world's poor with nearly the selflessness that characterized her life." is a particularly egregious offender.)

WikiPedia is no place for pro OR anti-MC propaganda, or propaganda of any sort. "Just the facts, ma'am." That is all WikiPedia can be ... or should be.

Cheers! Miwa 06:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's a cult. The reason it seems like normal monasticism is that monasticism is the template for what we call cults; the only difference is that it's Christian so for some bizarre reason people therefore think it's okay. Isolation, enormous peer pressure, indoctrination by constantly reading the same "holy" text over and over again, constant repetition and contemplation, arbitrary and silly rules, self-mortificatory practices; these are pure cult control techniques. The only difference between a religion and a cult is success.

(the author above needs to sign his/her name)

As we've seen in the case of Anna Nicole - mothers and daughters don't always agree. Nor do they quote each other correctly. The Missionaries of Charity are not asked to live a life 'hidden with Christ'. Mother Teresa's calling was simply to serve the poorest of the poor. I've read every book written about her and she did not recruit members nor did she draw them into seclusion. In fact, she barely spoke. There was too much work to be done.

She was a humble nun who walked out into the streets of Calcutta and began helping the poor alone. Soon other sisters asked if they could join her and she tried to discourage them but they insisted. It's been that way ever since. Volunteers come and they are asked, 'are you sure you want to do this'? They don't have time for recruiting or brain washing. No time for a sales pitch. In fact, very little conversation goes on at all. They work hard from sun up to sun down.

I don't think you get the urgency of their work. There isn't time to convince anyone to stay who doesn't truly want to be there. The people they care for are dying, homeless, suffering from aids or other life threatening illnesses and the children in their orphanages are malnourished, ill and have been abandoned or worse.

You shouldn't be asking why would your friend stay...with children dying you should wonder...why aren't we all booking the first flight out to help save them.

Raye Howard 05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I was struck by the one-sidedness of the article. Although the article gave some links to some official websites of the Missionaries of Charity, almost half of the citations are drawn from the work of Christopher Hitchens whose works always present religion in negative light. His basic thesis is well known: 'religion is that religion poisons everything.' Also, there's no single direct citation from Mother Teresa's writing herself despite abundant availability of her writings and especially her letters.

How could claims attributed to 'The Lancet' and 'the British Medical Journal' rely on Christopher Hitchens' work as citation! The thorough academic thing to do is to cite these journals themselves, at least 'as cited in the works of Christopher Hitchens' but this was not the case.

Yemi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.21.63.25 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms section

This seems to have been deleted in its entirety, perhaps without others noticing, so I've reverted it. I have no view about it but since this was a major part of this page just to delete it all seems unreasonable. If it's inaccurate or POV etc. it should be edited, not completely deleted. Ben Finn 12:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I joined the MCs when I was younger and much of what is stated above by the friend is true. Even though it does seem like a cult, know that your friend is being cared for, and she can leave at any time. There is an enormous effort put into discerning one's vocation in the MCs, and despite its seemingly anti-world view, she is connected constantly in prayer and service.

No evidence is presented here to back up the statements made. Negative press is not proof. Please consider removing this section. Raye Howard 04:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of criticism section

I've updated the above section to try and make it more NPOV. There is another section which I feel is not NPOV specificially:

Such criticisms as the auspiciously poor condition of health care may stem from cultural misunderstanding. Among some in India there is a conception of karma - the idea that people deserve their pain on the basis of the previous life, and there is no need to help them. The Misionaries of Charity on the other hand strive to help these "poorest of the poor" - people who otherwise die alone on the streets. The Sisters bring not only basic medical treatment, but much more importantly love and care. Opponents for critics of Theresa argue that such critics do so from the comfort of their Western opulence without serving the world's poor with nearly the selflessness that characterized her life.

I've brought this up on the India project board as follows... My understanding of the Indan conception of Karma and Indians in general suggest this is a very unfair characterisation to say that some Indians feel that people deserve their pain on the basis of their previous life so there is no need to help them. Perhaps there are a few Indians who think like this but my understanding is that generally speaking, if anything for most Indians who believe in karma this would mean they should help people in pain not ignore them. Nil Einne 14:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

However I also have a few under misgivings about this section. Specifically a large part of the criticism of Mother Teresa has not come from India but from people in the Western world as this text suggests it self. So how much relevance the Indian conception of Karma has to these criticism of Mother Teresa is arguable. Also, whether love and care is more important then basic medical treatment is arguable, and whether the Missionaries are providing love and care is also arguable. Finally, I fail to see how saying that the quality of medical care provided by the Missionaries is insufficient has anything to do with karma. Indeed it appears the opposite since what is being said is she was not really doing much, there was a lot more she could have done. Perhaps the only relevant issue from the disputed text is whether it was better to provide 'love and care' (and missionary work) or whether it is better to provide better better quality medical care without so much of this 'love and care'... Nil Einne 14:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup to both observations of Nil Einne. --Gurubrahma 16:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with no real knowledge on this subject, after reading this page I was left wondering where all the money had really gone and why the medical facilties at the Mission were so basic (bearing in mind the money donated). If these questions can be addressed in this section it would hopefully bring the article out of dispute.SOPHIA 16:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOVing edits

I made these edits to make it NPOV. I beleive the neutrality tag should be removed.

The article may seem one-sided, and the "criticisms" section most definitely does need editing for brevity. However, keep in mind that in some cases, an encyclopedic presentation of the facts will be one-sided because the facts are one sided. I beleive this is one of those cases. If the evidence suggests that money given for charity was instead sent to the Vatican, that should be what is presented. Doing so is not non-neutral, nor is it POV. I beleive the neutraity tag currently gives the (false) impression that what is within the article is false or politically motivated; I don't think that is the case. I am inclined to remove the "response to criticisms" section; it has a POV tint, is not very well written, and there is little to no actual material to work with (in other words, additional editing is unlikely to ever improve the arguments of the section).Lastly, the point has been made that the article includes very few positive things about the charity. We should consider whether there indeed exist additional positive aspects of the charity. --AK7 09:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Just the facts is impossible

Any reporting done on a iconic figure like Mother Teresa is bound to upset some people, while please others. Thats why I wrote the "reposonse to criticism", to satisfy the "contributors" who kept deleting the criticism section. It was later added to by a pro-Mother Teresa contributor making arguments about karma and different cultures, which I though went to far into being a POV. I think the article as it is now is well balanced, both sides have their say.

For those who like to argue the cliche "we just want the facts" forget that facts are always given in a GOOD encylcopedia with some interpretation. A good encylcopedia isnt simply a listing of factoids. The way the facts are interpreted in the "criticism" section leads logically to a dismal view of MT. Thus those who do not hold this view of MT will want to question the interpretation given in the article. Hence the need for a "response" section.

Facts

Facts are possible in every case. Noting the criticisms and balancing them with description is enough. Giving the criticism is not a definition of what this group is, nor is this page supposed to be about Mother Theresa herself. The criticism section must be distilled into its essential ideas, which I think would only take a paragraph or two. This is just a matter of structure.

"In one case of a patient who died of tuberculosis, Louden reported being told by an American doctor working at Kalighat that the patient might have lived if she had received some hospital treatment." When I was working in Calcutta patients were always taken to a hospital when it was needed. Usually when severely wounded and destitute patients were found they had to be taken to a hospital. Unfortunately the state hospitals in India are nightmarish places, but volunteer doctors always checked on them, ensuring their safety and good care.

However that is my experience, not necessarily fact. With over a hundred homes around the world there are going to be different experiences. That is why this article must be restricted to fact. It is a fact that these criticisms exist but is not for an encyclopedic entry to judge or take sides, only to note its existence. scazza 18:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In the criticisms section: "Patients were left with nothing to do and nowhere to go." I have deleted this since it is unclear. I do not understand where the patients are supposed to go. Does Louden mean recreational space? I've tried to limit her comments to the most specific.

Also, this article is from 1992, so is it still relevant? I think we may want to use more recent criticisms of the organisation, considering that it has only existed for 55 years, so 13 years is a significant amount of time for development.

This further shows the need for citations. The reader must know when and where this was said so that they have all the facts at hand for them to make a fully informed opinion. scazza 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Separate criticisms article

The criticisms section of the Mother Theresa article is well organised but too long. I suggest that a new, separate criticisms article is made, summarised in both of these articles with a reference to the main article. scazza 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Facts possible in every case??

Clearly people can select out the facts that suit the argument they are trying to make. That is why a Wikipedia article such as this should have both points of view presented. Otherwise, people will just keep deleting the "facts" they dont like.

This is why Wikipedia is excellent on technical and scientific topics, but complete trash on political, religion and social topics.

orphanages

Please send me information about Mother Teresa's orphanages and how to contact someone from the Missionaries of Charity. Thank you. Mary Rogers gsaintgeorge@aol.com

There are 3 orphanages which one can volunteer in in Kolkata, daya dan (For disabled children), shisu bhavan & shisu bhavan howra. The M.C's dont have e-mail accounts so the best way to get in touch is to go to Kolkata and go to mother house on a mon / wed / fri @ 3pm for registration as a volunteer and a brief orientation talk. Also in relation to this article, It does appear very one sided so i hope people dont mind if i edit it a bit. I was volunteer co-ordinator there for a year so i know some of the info provided here is either untrue or biased.

Criticism section

I'm not sure how to do it, but the section would do better if it explained the criticism of how the group operates rather than the arguement that they somehow launder money to the Catholic church or something. This can be included, but its seriously misleading to bring criticisms without first explaining the basis of how the group operates. Lastly, the section seriously needs citations. 74.137.230.39 02:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from using words like 'cult'. If, we say something here that discourages people from donating to this organization their orphanages and homes for the dying could be directly affected. The internet is a powerful tool. Please use your voice for good not evil.

[[User:Raye Howard|] 04:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article

The section lacks sources. Please re-add when sources are provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

==Criticisms==

Some critics alleged that Mother Teresa and her followers accepted donations specifically earmarked for the sick and the poor, but that the funds were used for other purposes, particularly evangelism. Some of these complaints amount to accusations of fraud.

The Missionaries of Charity do not disclose either the sources of their funds or details of how they are spent. A 1998 article in the popular German Stern weekly quoted a witness account according to which the order received about US$50 million a year in donations on its New York account alone. Other journalists have given estimates of US$100 million a year for its global operations. Critics have argued that these sums far exceed the modest needs of the order.

Critics have also alleged that much of the money donated to the order is transferred to the Istituto per le Opere Religiose (colloquially known as the Vatican Bank) in Rome, where it is used by the Catholic Church for its general purposes, or is transferred to non-Christian countries for evangelical purposes.

WP: criticism suggests an actual "criticism" section is discouraged. The WP guideline specifically states this, and encourages, instead, the integration of such material into the main article. As an encyclopedia, it makes more sense to address counter-points/criticisms in the body of the article, where a specific topic is discussed (i.e. The order raised a lot of money...but some say it wasn't distributed as intended). If you think there is info missing, add it to the article. That doesn't require a separate section, and having a separate section makes the counter-points disjointed. This very issue came up in the article on Mother Teresa, with a couple of editors determined to have a criticisms section that was basically a MT-bashing section. It took away from the quality of the entire article. It was agreed by the majority of editors to remove it, integrate any SOURCED and relevant material into the main article, and it wa soon given GA status. As mentioned above, proper sources are required. Any sentence that begins "Critics have also alleged" is not going to cut it. --Anietor 03:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Stupid excuse to get rid of criticism. If you want to change it then integrate it yourself. Don't delete. I know it is hard to get around the myth of mother Theresa, but wikipedia is supposed to be objective.--77.248.90.202 01:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not a stupid excuse it's the rules of the website. And calling it the "myth of Mother Teresa" only shows your bias. I believe it would be productive to have criticism within the article but the previous section was unnecessary, irrelevant and unsourced.74.137.230.39 20:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Regina Mundi Scandal

I really think there ought to be something about the Regina Mundi scandal in the late 90s. There were a lot of power plays going on in the background in order for Mother to make the decision to stop sending future superiors to college there after having done it for decades. (Maybe it should be in the controversies section?)

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, read An Unquenchable Thirst--specifically the chapter entitled "Bullies" and a few before it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:779A:FC0:6088:D264:B3CE:9C11 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we distinguish use of sources?

@JzG: Please explain to me why tabloid sources are not acceptable even when they clearly document what they claim. Are you saying that the matter of Princess Diana's closeness to Mother Teresa is not worthy of note, when she testifies to the profound impact Mother Teresa had on her life? Jzsj (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Tabloid sources are poor quality. Some (e.g. the Mail, the Sun) are deprecated and should not be used at all. It's pretty much axiomatic that if you can't find a non-tabloid source, the content is probably trivia. Guy (help!) 20:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggested Update- FCRA licence of Mother Teresa's missionaries of charity not renewed following adverse inputs

Came across this page while reading about the FCRA updates in India in which the MoC have lost their license to accept foreign funds in India. This may be of interest to other readers and I request the admins to update the same. Should they deem fit. References below.

Thanks.

Foreign funds and the Missionaries of Charity (The Hindu)

FCRA licence of Mother Teresa's missionaries of charity not renewed following adverse inputs (Economic Times)

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.149.85 (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• It’s already in the article. DeCausa (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)